6. THE QUESTION OF MEMORIALS FOR THE INVISIBLE JEWS
Marie Smith Solbakken, Alexandre Dessingue and Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe
In 2008 the Memory Studies programme at the University of Stavanger, in co-operation with
a researcher at the Maihaugen Museum and Lillehammer University College, took the
initiative to register all known Second World War graves and memorials in Gudbrandsdal and
Lillehammer in the central inland region of southern Norway. The registration was completed
in July 2009 after having visited all the cemeteries and all known memorials in the area, and
after having spent considerable time sorting through the War Grave Archives at the National
Archives: British, German and Soviet archival sources. The registered material includes both
all the war dead named on local memorials or tombstones and those only registered in
archival or literary sources. Most of those not named on memorials are the Soviet war dead.
Looking through the material it was soon evident that a number of war dead who either have
died locally or had some connection to the local area were not named on either the local
memorials of tombstones. Even though a number of Jews had either lived in the area, died as
part of war action locally or had been arrested and sent to the holocaust from the local area,
none of their names could be found on any local memorials or tombstones.
Our research question is how the presence and fate of the Jews is acknowledged and discussed
in historical works, how they are remembered by people locally, or what might be labelled as
in oral history, and lastly the issue of acknowledgment in memorials and tombstones.
Theoretically our analysis is based upon the works of the French philosopher Paul Ricæur
(1913 – 2005) and his work on symbolism and interpretation1
and standard historical
methodology combined with field registrations on all the sites of memorials and cemeteries,
both locally and at the Jewish cemetery in Oslo.
The study is focused upon how memories are forgotten, handled in the span of time and in a
way reconstructed through time. In a study from Sola in the vicinity of Stavanger, we have
discussed several cases of memory connected to a military cemetery. The case of the Jewish
war dead provides further material to the discussion of not only memory, but also to a part of
history that is not visible in local cemeteries or memorials. The study of memory, or of
memories, need not simply lead to remember, but also to reflect on, as Paul Ricoeur argues:
"In contrast to a memory that just repeats, we find a memory that creates".2
Holocaust and the inland region
Kristian Ottosen (1921 – 2006), himself a concentration camp inmate, is the writer of a
number of historical works on concentration camps, one of them about the deportation of the
Jews from Norway. His book contains information on the 770 Jews who were deported, of
whom only 26 survived the war3
. Even though clearly and extensively researched, Ottosen’s
work lacks references to literary and archival sources and is not very accurate in the use of
1
Ricæur Paul,Eksistens og hermeneutikk, Oslo:Aschehoug,1999 and Venema, Henry Isaac Identifying
selfhood:imagination and hermeneutics in the thought of Paul Ricoeur, Albany: State University of New York,
2000
2
Paul Ricoeur. La mémoire, l’histoire et l’oubli. Ed. Du Seuil, Paris, 2000, page 31.
3
Ottosen, I slik en natt – Deportasjonen av jøder fra Norge, Aschoug, Oslo, 2008
oral sources. Still Ottosen gives a wealth of information that seems to correspond very well
with historical works by historians.
A study by Tore Pryser, Professor of history, discusses the holocaust and the inland region4
.
Pryser addresses a number of questions, such as the number of Jews arrested and sent to the
holocaust, who arrested them, what was known about their fate, the consequences for those
who participated in rounding them up, police action leading to the arrest of the Jews and the
attitude of the local population towards the Jews. Pryser concludes that about 30 Jews from
the inland region, 10 from the local area, died in the holocaust. He further concludes that the
attitude of many was that Jews were a separate alien group to the local population and that the
action taken against them was forgotten. Thus the fate of the local Jews was largely ignored
by the local population and there seems to have been an unwillingness to acknowledge and
discuss their fate after the war.
The Jews can be divided into those who settled locally and those who were stateless and
refugees. The first group consists of the Karpol family at Hundorp in Sør Fron5
. The Karpol
family came from Lithuania to Sør Fron as refugees from the pogroms of Eastern Europe at
the end of the 1890s. Both the parents died after the war, but three grown up children, Klara
(born 1899), Samuel (born 1901) and Esther (born 1903), died in the holocaust. The family
had settled as small scale farmers at Hundorp. They were seemingly successful as farmers and
active locally. At the large memorial stone erected in Kvam in memory of the war dead from
the Gudbrandsdal valley neither the sister Klara, the brother Samuel nor the sister Esther are
mentioned6
. Neither are they named on memorials at the Hundorp cemetery. However, they
are all listed at the memorial of the victims of the holocaust at the Jewish cemetery in Oslo.
Speaking to a local representative of the Norwegian State Church in Gudbrandsdal, we have
been told that the issue of acknowledging the Karpol family on the war memorial in Kvam
has been discussed, but that the response has been negative7
.
The other Jews that were arrested locally and later died in the holocaust were all refugees
from either Oslo or from other countries. Martin Meszansky (born 1904)8
and Herman
Mesner (born 1911)9
from Oslo were arrested in Sør Fron at the end of October 194210
. A
refugee from the Netherlands, Benjamin Leonard Ornstein (born 1868) 11
, was arrested at
Nermo hotell in Øyer, most likely at the beginning of October12
. One stateless Jewish
refugee, Karoline Trebitsch (born 1880 in Austria)13
, was arrested on 26th
of November 1942
in Lillehammer together with Mrs. Stepahine Hirsch (born 1875)14
from Lillehammer and
they were both sent to Auschwitz. The stateless Jew named Martha Leopold from Germany15
was arrested in Lillehammer16
, as was Julia Elias (born 1866)17
. Her son Ludvig Elias (born
4
Pryser Tore in Johansen Per Ole (editor) På siden av rettsoppgjøret, Oslo: Unipub Forlag, 2006, page 93 - 129
5
The fate of the Karpol family is also described in Ottosen 2008: 347 – 362 (Pryser has published a number of
other articles on the subject, however the latest and most comprehensive study is the one quoted)
6
Field work notes Kvam and Hundorp the 11th of april 2009
7
Oral information Arne Sørbakken 7th
of November 2008
8
Ottosen 2008:352
9
Ottosen 2008:352
10
Pryser 2006:96
11
Ottosen 2008:353
12
Smestad Anita in Fåberg Historielag, Krig og okkupasjon 1940-1945 Fåberg Historielags årbok 1981, Fåberg:
Fåberg Historielag, 1981: 179
13
Ottosen 2008:359
14
Ottosen 2008:344
15
Ottosen 2008:340
16
Pryser 2006:102
1891 in Germany) was arrested in Vinstra in the fall of 1942 and sent to Auschwitz. The
mother later died at a local hospital, most likely due to the difficult situation and treatment she
suffered during the time of her arrest18
. None of the Jewish victims of the holocaust are listed
in local war memorials, which only contain names of local Norwegian residents that died
during the war.
Other Jewish war dead
As part of the study, we visited the Jewish cemetery in Oslo19
. The cemetery has one
memorial for those who died in the concentration camps, as well as individual graves and
tombstones for those who are buried at the cemetery. One of the tombstones belongs to a
Jewish war dead, Max Ivar Gittelsen (born 1906), who died during the fighting in Dovre in
the north of Gudbrandsdal on the 16th
of April 1940. At Dombås to the north of Gudbrandsdal
a large memorial stone has been erected listing all Norwegian soldiers that died during the
fighting at Dovre. Gittelsen is not named on the memorial. The explanation is possibly that he
participated as a civilian helper to the Norwegian units and not as a unformed soldier.
Another Jew who died fighting as a soldier was the pilot and former medical student, Norman
Morris Riung (born 1919 in Quebec in Canada), of a Swedish born father and a mother from
Oslo20
. His father was at the time of his death listed as living in Follebu in Gausdal
municipality and his estate was confiscated by the authorities as he was a Jew21
. Norman
Morris Riung himself died on the 4th
of July 1944 in an air crash involving an American plane
above the northern part of France. Riung is not listed on any local memorials.
An unknown Austrian refugee and volunteer to the Norwegian forces died during the fighting
at Segalstad bru in Gausdal22
. Most likely he was either a political refugee or a Jewish
refugee. The Austrian refugee is not named or mentioned on any local memorials, as they
only list Norwegian war dead.
Among the Soviet war dead prisoners of war (976 listed war dead in the area of study), there
are most likely additional Jewish war dead. However, in order to survive, the soldiers most
likely made their names sound Russian, Polish, Belorussian, Ukrainian or used standard Baltic
names. In retrospect it is impossible to tell if any of the Soviet war dead were of Jewish
ancestry23
.
Historical methodology
The Prussian historian Leopold van Ranke emphasizes that historians should write history as
it really happened, or in German words “wie es eigentlich gewesen”24
. In the words of the
17
Pryser 2006:102
18
Letter to the Norwegian Army High Command by the Lillehammer lawyer Eilif Moe dated 14th
of June 1951
(Krigsgravtjenestens Arkiv archival box 52)
19
Field work notes the 29th of April 2009
20
Christensen Chr. A., Våre Falne, Oslo: Den Norske Stat, 1949, page 715
21
Pryser 2066:103
22
Fåberg Historielag, 1981
23
Jørstadmoen Military Camp (Undated) , Stalag 303 Avskrift av gravliste, Undated listing from the German
Prisoner of War Camp provided by visiting Russian relatives of one of those that died in the camp.
24
Ranke, L, Geschichte der romanischen und germanischer Völker von 1494 bis 1514, Berlin, 1824, Ranke, L.
The Theory and Practice of History, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1973 and Day Mark The Philosophy of History,
London: Continum International Publishing Group 2008
historian Mark Day: “The historian should be responsible to the sources, not embelling with
detail that could not possibly be known”25
. In our case we are not only dealing with the past,
but also with monuments, memorials and tombstones engaged in the transfer of meaning and
presence. In other words we are writing about the present not only from the point of view of
the memorials and their symbolic meaning, but also from the point of view of their emotional
impact and what they represent for those living today. Even more so, we are pointing to the
future or what is ahead of us.
The British philosopher of history Roger Collingwood argues that all history is the history of
thought26
. Another historian, Mark Day, rejects that suggestion, but argues that all historical
evidence is derived from thought27
. The argument might seem abstract and theoretical to
many, but still it emphasizes that evidence is not given meaning unless we use our thought
process. Still, physical existence and historical occasions exist independent of thought.
Graveyards, tombstones and memorials are on the one hand just a number of stones and
perhaps wooden constructions; on the other hand they are also evidence of our past. The latter
requires the physical objects to be given meaning. The past after all influences us, our
collective understanding and, through historical interpretation, our identity and understanding
of our culture.
Writing a history based on archival sources is using standard historical methodology to try to
interpret sources, criticize the validity of those sources and relate them to other kinds of
historical knowledge and even to other fields of science. In the case of The Second World
War and later wars it is even possible to use oral sources. Such sources will, of course, have to
be scrutinized and understood from a critical perspective. Both those that at one time have
produced written sources and oral sources might be understood from the perspective of their
context and in many cases whatever interest they might have for a certain way of
understanding and presentation. Sometimes, of course, both oral sources and written sources
might include grossly misleading and even false information. The work of the historian is
naturally to be critical of his sources and sometimes to face the fact that what first started as a
lie, after some time might be part of the identity of the individual. In some cases this happens
to such an extent that the person will no longer be able to distinguish between fantasies, lies
or just distorted memories of what happened. Still the myth that exists will in a way be true to
its existence as a myth. Thus even the existence of distorted historical understanding is
interesting as a phenomenon to which the historian, and all of us, will have to relate. The
most important thing is then to understand how understanding is established and created and
not necessarily to illuminate what is defined as objective valid historical truth. We
acknowledge the importance of good painstakingly researched historical work as the
foundation of historical interpretation, but emphasize memory, symbolism and interpretation28
as important dimensions, not only of the past, but also of the present and the future.
In the words of the British historian Ian Kershaw: “debate and controversy are the very
essence of historical study, the prerequisite for progress in historical research”29
. We believe
that he is right when he states that interpretations are framed “by the inevitable merging of
three dimensions, - a political-philosophical, a political- ideological, and a moral dimension –
25
Day 2008:7
26
Collingwood R. G. The Idea of History. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1994
27
Day 2008:126-129
28
Ricæur 1999 and Venema, 2000
29
Kershaw Samuel D. The Nazi Dictatorship, London: Hodder Arnold 1990:1
which are inseparable both from the historian’s subject matter and from the historian’s daily
role and task in studying and writing”30
. Kershaw writes of the problems and perspectives of
the interpretation of the Nazi dictatorship. The interpretation and perspectives of war graves
and memorials presents another highly emotional and political challenge for the historian.
Historical works focusing upon memorials and tombstones mean writing about important
symbols of the nation, local communities, families, military units and individuals. The
question of what they represent, and who should be included, will remain highly emotional
and sometimes of great political controversy.
Knowledge about the past and knowledge about how the past is interpreted, transmitted and
used for political purposes, just to name one example, is of extreme importance for society as
a whole. Researchers within arts, social sciences and humanities have always in one way or
another dealt with the issue of memory; yet the last decade has seen a dramatic increase in
interest in them. Humanities speak about the memory turn, and our work is clearly a part of
this new area of research called Memory Studies. Its clearest reflection was the creation in
2008 of the international interdisciplinary review of Memory Studies.
Issues of memory are on the agenda of most countries. The UK and France are working
through their colonial past, Eastern European countries struggle with the legacy of
Communism, Germany is dealing with both its Nazi and its Communist past, and the
Scandinavian countries, too, are reassessing and debating their history. A couple of examples
among many are the Swedish debate on sterilisation and racial research, and the debates
among Norwegian and Finnish historians on their countries’ perception of their own role in
World War II. Our work, and this article, are a part of this global reflection dedicated to
Memory Studies.
Memorials and tombstones of the dead
The Swedish professor Anders Gustavsson writes about tombstones as symbols for emotions,
thoughts and ideas in our own time31
. The symbolic and emotional importance of memorials
might have been different in the past. That must have particularly been the case at the time of
the burial, putting up the tombstones and memorials. The archeologist Howard Williams
writes about memorials “constructing social memories by creating links between the past, the
present and the future”32
. War memorials and war graves can serve to promote memories of
the war, the individual soldier, military units and battles in certain ways. Even if the invading
forces won the battles in April 1940, they no longer exist in any local cemeteries or with any
war memorials. Thus from the point of view of symbolism one could argue that in death the
British and Norwegian forces are the ones who remain visible on the battle fields.
What might be phrased as our “cultural landscape” tells stories both of the past and the
present33
. Memorials might be said to represent interpretations of the past and to bewitch the
future34
. How we relate to and emphasize the cultural memorials of the past in the present has
30
Kershaw 1990:2
31
Gustavsson Anders (2003) Gravstenar i Norge och Sverige som symboler för känslor, tankar och idéer i vår
egen tid, Oslo:Novus forlag, 2003
32
Williams Howard, Death and Memory in Early Medival Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006:145
33
Selberg Torunn and Gilje Nils (2007) Kulturelle landskap, sted, fortelling og materiell kultur,
Bergen:Fagbokforlaget, 2007
34
Frykman Jonas and Ehn Billy, Minnesmärken, Stockholm:Carlssons, 2007
varied considerably through time. The dead and their importance in the present are in a way
communicated by how we relate to their memorials and tombstones. At the same time we
relate to the memorials as attempts made in the past of communicating both with us in the
present and the future ahead of us. In some cases such attempts are so offensive that a nation
might choose to move or to destroy memorials. That was what happened with many of the
memorials built by the Nazis after The Second World War, and that was what happened
recently to memorials from the Franco area in Spain, the memorials of the communist area in
the east, and so on. On the other hand, new memorials arise as a revision and sometimes
critique of what has been done in the past. Spain, the Baltic countries and Finland are
examples of the latter35
.
Conclusions
According to the British historian Mark Day “the only way to bring history to life is to bring
the past into the present”36
. His argument is very much the same as Collingwood; “….it
should be a living past, a past which, because it was thought and not a mere natural event, can
be re-enacted in the present and in that re-enactment known as past”37
. Tombstones and
monuments are both about the past, the present and the future. In a way all those memorials,
and the history they relate, are about the past interaction with what will be in the future.
Philosophers of history, such as Roger Collingwood38
, Benedetto Croce39
and Hayden
White40
, use the picture of “the living” and “the dead” in their writings. Using such pictures
might strengthen the awareness that war graves and memorials, and for that matter history, is
as much about us and those living than the dead and the past.
For some nations the past is difficult to identify with, as it represents values and structures
that are different and often opposing to those of today. Nazi Germany is the most obvious
example and all the people coming from other nations that fought with and allied themselves
with the values of that ideology are other examples. Still there are other more conflicting
values embedded in most nations, such as nationalism, military symbolism and anti-Semitism.
One case or two of Jews not mentioned on memorials is possible to explain, but the
systematic invisibility of all Jews has a rather different taste. It simply points to the tendencies
of small societies to reject, ignore and perhaps even fail to accept outsiders as part of their
communities. For the future it is necessary to make visible those the past made invisible.
We simply cannot let the past rule how the future should understand the war and the holocaust
as seemingly a matter not concerning the inland region of Norway. Even more so, we have to
relate to anti-Semitism in order to avoid similar racism and attitudes ruling in the future.
That at least should be our communication with the future. If society chooses to let the Jewish
war dead remain invisible, that means that society decides not to care for those who are not
traditionally not a part of it. Thus immigrants, refugees, and those living among us who are
not integrated, and even those who are just different, will face a situation where their
difference from the rest of society might be a real hazard.
35
Frykman and Ehn 2007
36
Day 2008:124
37
Collingwood 1994:158
38
Collingwood 1994
39
Croce Benedetto, On history, New York:Harcourt, 1921
40
White Hayden, Metahistory, Baltimore:Johs Hopkins Press 1973 and White Hayden, The value of narrativity
in the representation of reality, in Critical Inquiry, 7/1, 1980:5-27
Even though the consequences of the holocaust are acknowledged in historical works, we also
need to relate to the holocaust in local communities and to acknowledge the presence on
memorials symbolizing the victims of the war. The opposite means denial of the holocaust
locally, and thus society choosing to be part of the all too common denial of the holocaust41
.
41
Cohen Stanley, States of Denial:Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge:Polity and Weiss-Wendt
Anton and Larsen Bård, Folkemordfornektelse: Akademisk uredelighet og politisk agenda, in Etter Lemkin
Tidsskrift for Studier av Folkemord og Politisk Massevold, nr 1, 2009, page 68 -83