Oskar Schindler, page 72
The committee argued that even if it accepted Wurzel’s claim about the ownership of the machines as late as 1942, the fact remained that Jews were working in Emalia where the machines were located. Their work there allowed them to remain in the Kraków ghetto and avoid being expelled to a concentration camp. So if Wurzel was correct, and had refused to sign the papers transferring ownership of the machines to Schindler, his refusal “would have endangered the Jews that worked there under the protection of Mr. Schindler.” And if you projected this situation forward to the last year of the war, when Oskar transferred “1,200” Jews to Brünnlitz and survival, then Wurzel’s decision to transfer ownership of the machines kept these Jews “from the hell of Groß Rosen and Auschwitz.” Moreover, what was the value of such property in light of ongoing Nazi Aryanization policies at the time? The “most valuable possession at that time was a work permit and bread and nothing more.”91
The December 10 letter then asked about the nature of Wurzel and Schindler’s relationship from 1939 to 1942. According to the committee’s investigation, Wurzel claimed that his relations with Schindler were quite good until he left for Hungary in 1942. Certainly a Jew about to flee to Hungary would not have caused an uproar about property, particularly as Schindler knew all about his plans to flee. Moreover, was it possible for a man who was so kind and helpful to so many Jews during the war to be so “cruel and German like all Germans” towards only two Jews? To the “1,200” people he saved, the letter concluded, Oskar Schindler “was their rescuer from the moment that he happened on their path. . . . [It was] a singular and special occurrence and this [was] the attitude of all the survivors from all over the world.” The committee had ample testimony to document Oskar’s “deeds and actions” and thought it imperative that the people and the state of Israel honor this “man who gave his protection to the Jews in 1939, stayed with them for 51/2 years and risked his life for them; fed them; worried about them; and did for them more than any other man, and in the end saved them because of these actions.”92
What is so interesting about this letter is that, unlike Schindler’s April 1955 letter, it did not attack either Wiener or Wurzel and left open the possibility that some or all of their charges were true. There are really three issues here—whether Oskar Schindler stole Jewish property, abused Jews, and treated the bulk of the Jews he encountered with dignity for five and a half years and ultimately saved more than 1,000 of them from certain death. This was, of course, the crux of the whole Schindler controversy— the balance between Schindler’s mistreatment of a few Jews and his kindness towards hundreds of others. From the perspective of the Schindler committee, it was hard to imagine a man who was so kind to his Jewish workers and risked life and limb for years to save them to have abused other Jews. Schindler was, of course, quite capable of abusing Jews and he even admitted this after the war. Moreover, he walked a fine line between the need to appear as a staunch Nazi in the eyes of Göth and the other Nazis he had to deal with every day and also be a good Samaritan to his Jewish workers. More than likely he did physically harm Julius and Shlomo Wiener and did take over their property as a trustee. Nazi law in this regard was simply a legalistic cover for theft and in that regard Oskar Schindler stole the Wieners’ property. The question of Schindler’s relationship and problems with Natan Wurzel is more complex and has been discussed in depth elsewhere in this study. Oskar’s decision to acquire Emalia from the Polish trade court was really no different from what he did with the Wieners’ property. It simply meant dealing with less German bureaucracy.
So the ultimate question unconsciously raised by some of Israel’s most prominent Schindler Jews in their letter to Dr. Kubovy was whether Schindler’s seizure of Jewish property and possible abuse of the Wieners and Natan Wurzel was morally counterbalanced by what he later did with the property to help a much larger group of Jews. Unfortunately, the Schindler committee seemed to discount the worst charges against their “savior” by arguing that the same person who was so kind to so many certainly could not have been so horrible to just three Jews. This argument is weak. The Oskar Schindler of 1939 or even 1942 was not the same man in the later months and years of the war. Oskar Schindler came to Poland on the coattails of the Wehrmacht in the fall of 1939 to avoid military service and make his fortune. If it meant humiliating and slapping a few Jews around while he took over their property, then it is quite possible he did this.
But why did he treat the Wieners so shabbily while being so kind at this time to Abraham Bankier and Itzhak Stern? Schindler was the ultimate opportunist who saw the Wieners as a nuisance standing in the way of his acquisition of their business. On the other hand, an opportunistic Schindler treated men such as Itzhak Stern, Abraham Bankier, and even Natan Wurzel with greater respect because he needed their advice or expertise to help run Emalia. In other words, his initial relationship with these Jews was simply business, though in time he developed a genuine affection for Bankier and Stern. On the other hand, he became quite uncomfortable with Wurzel’s aggressive efforts to undercut Bankier, whom Oskar genuinely cared for and trusted. But the committee seriously erred when it claimed that Oskar and Wurzel had a rosy relationship until 1942. By this time, Wurzel was already living in a ghetto and efforts to make him sign away the machines, which he did in 1941, not 1942, to Oskar had more to deal with legal niceties than any legitimate claim that Wurzel might have had on the machines. In other words, in the context of German Aryaniza-tion policies at the time, Wurzel had no other choice but to sign them over, which makes one wonder whether he needed to be beaten to do this. On the other hand, Wurzel also seemed to be a bit of a manipulator and very feisty, so it is possible that he went too far in his aggressiveness towards Schindler and Czurda. And even after Czurda had him beaten, Wurzel somehow knew how to make political gain out of the beating. So although many of the most prominent Schindler Jews held out the prospect that Oskar Schindler might have abused two Jews and stolen their property, his deeds throughout the rest of the war to help more than “1,200” other Jews tended to diminish the significance of his earlier “sins.”
Needless to say, the letter to Dr. Kubovy did little to still the controversy surrounding Oskar’s possible nomination as a Righteous Gentile. At the time, there were no specific guidelines for nominating and choosing a Righteous Gentile. The refusal of two Israeli Holocaust survivors, one of them a Schindler Jew, to rescind their accusations of theft and abuse ran counter to the spirit of the Righteous Among the Nations award. Beyond this, Israel was in the throes of the Adolf Eichmann trial at the time and it was essential for the credibility of Yad Vashem and the Righteous Among the Nations awards that the first group of Gentiles selected for this award be of sterling character and reputation when it came to the matter of saving Jews during the Holocaust.93
The relationship of the Eichmann trial to the Schindler controversy was important. Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust, had fled to Argentina after the war and had been kidnapped by Mossad, Israel’s General Security Service, in May 1960 and brought to Israel, where he was put on trial the following spring for various crimes against the Jewish people. His capture and trial consumed Israel for the next two years. Dr. Landau was the presiding judge at the trial and Dr. Moshe Bej-ski testified against Eichmann. He was found guilty on December 15, 1961, and sentenced to death. Eichmann appealed the sentence, which the Israeli Supreme Court turned down on May 29, 1962. Two days later, he was hanged.94
The Eichmann trial prompted many Schindler Jews in Israel to make comparisons between Eichmann and Schindler. On December 11, 1961, an article appeared in the London Daily Mail that contrasted the actions of the two men during the Holocaust. Most of the article, which was based on interviews with Schindler Jews, concentrated on Schindler’s story. It ended with a statement that several Schindler Jews had prepared as part of their efforts to convince Yad Vashem to recognize Oskar for his efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust:
We cannot forget the sorrow of Egypt, we cannot forget Haman [ancient Persian official who plotted to kill Jews but was stopped by Esther and hanged], we cannot forget Hitler. But we also cannot forget the just among the unjust; remember Oskar Schindler.95
In light of such feelings, it is not surprising that some of the most prominent Schindler Jews in Israel continued to push for such recognition for Oskar. Compared to Adolf Eichmann, Schindler was a saint, an “angel of mercy.” Dr. Mordecai Paldiel, the head of the Righteous Gentile Department at Yad Vashem, told me that many Schindler Jews were aware of Oskar’s earlier wartime transgressions, but thought he had atoned for his earlier conduct when he saved more than a thousand Jews at the end of the war. But Oskar’s nomination caused some problems within the twelve-member Yad Vashem Directorate. Dr. Bejski, who became head of the new Designation of the Righteous Commission in 1970, told me that Dr. Moshe Landau, the first head of the committee and the Israeli Supreme Court justice who presided at Eichmann’s trial, opposed Schindler’s selection, along with several other committee members. Dr. Landau thought that the committee should select only the most outstanding humanitarians for this first round of the award who would then become models for future nominees. On the other hand, Justice Landau did not accept Wurzel and Wiener’s accusations against Schindler. The discussion surrounding Oskar’s nomination was heated and contentious. According to Dr. Paldiel, there was some concern that one or two committee members might resign if Schindler was selected. Those who opposed his nomination argued that he was a German and a Nazi Party member who partied with and befriended other Nazis. His supporters pointed to the large body of testimony in support of his nomination and the fact that he had directly saved the lives of almost 1,100 Jews during the last year of the war. In the end, a majority of the Yad Vashem Directorate voted to allow Oskar Schindler to plant a tree along the Avenue of the Righteous along with others in the first group of Righteous Gentile recipients. Emilie Schindler was never seriously considered for the award at that time.96 The controversy did not end here, though, but continued until the end of 1963.
In the meantime, the principal Schindler Jews in Israel informed Oskar of his selection and told him that the planting of his carob tree along the Avenue of the Righteous at Yad Vashem would take place on May 1, 1962. This date coincided with Yom ha-Sho’ah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. Oskar must have been thrilled when he learned that he had been named a Righteous Gentile, though it was difficult to get him to commit to specific arrival and departure times. Dr. Bejski wrote him in mid-April suggesting that he arrive on April 27 and depart on May 8. Itzhak Stern had kept Oskar abreast of the developments in Israel and in turn had told Dr. Bejski about Oskar’s good fortune in acquiring the stone and cement factory in Hochstadt am Main. This was probably why Oskar delayed telling Bejski when he would arrive in Israel. Dr. Bejski informed Oskar that the World Jewish Congress would help coordinate his visit and that his participation in the tree planting ceremony was “already assured.” But Dr. Bejski also pressed Oskar for his arrival and departure dates because the Schindler Jews in Israel wanted “to prepare the press” for his arrival and make final plans for a reception in his honor and a meeting with Israel’s Schindler Jews.97
And prepare they did. Oskar’s arrival at the Lydda Airport near Tel Aviv airport was tumultuous. Dr. Bejski told me that word of Oskar’s arrival had spread like wildfire among Israel’s Schindler Jewish community once the Israeli-Polish newspaper Noviny I Kurier had announced the date and time of his arrival. It was April 28, 1962, Oskar’s birthday. Much to the surprise of the police, three hundred Schindler Jews and their families had gathered on the observation deck of the airport terminal to wait for Oskar’s arrival. As Oskar came down the steps of the plane, the crowd began to shout “Oskar, Oskar!” Dr. Bejski, who as a judge had a special permit to go to the steps of the plane, then escorted Oskar into the terminal, where the crowd of Schindler Jews pushed forward to touch him and shake his hand. Tears were streaming down their faces. More than twenty reporters and TV crews from abroad were also there and news of his arrival quickly spread abroad. As Oskar moved towards the crowd, he exclaimed, “I recognize all of my Jews.” The crowd now encircled him as many of his beloved Jews tried to hug him or touch him. He later told one reporter:
I was born in Czechoslovakia and I had many Jewish friends. As the years were passing I realized that there were only two ways: either totally unite with the Jews and together with them risk your life or forget them and thus contribute to their extermination. Many opponents of the Nazi regime were not strong-willed and did not have the strength to maintain their opposition until the end and that is why so few Germans helped the Jews.98
Afterwards, a long caravan of cars and buses escorted Oskar to his hotel, the Spalier, in Tel Aviv.
The crowd followed Oskar into the hotel lobby, where many of his Schindlerjuden begged for a few minutes alone with the man who had “saved their lives.” According to a Deutsche Presse Agentur (German Press Agency) account of the arrival, “an extensive visitor program awaited him over the next few days, including the tree planting on the Avenue of the Righteous.” But Oskar now decided that he wanted to forgo certain aspects of his official visit so that he could, as he told another reporter, “be together” with his friends. He went on to say that “to do justice to all of them,” he would have to stay there “half a year instead of just two weeks.” When he was finally able to break away from the adoring crowd in the lobby, he went up to his hotel room, which “looked like a flower shop.” Oskar Schindler had come home. Or had he?99
Unfortunately, the joy of Oskar’s arrival in Israel soon dissipated when the Yad Vashem Directorate decided not to let him plant his tree along with the eleven other new Righteous Gentiles. After Oskar’s arrival, the Yad Vashem Directorate learned that there was the possibility that Julius Wiener, angry about Schindler’s selection, might either disrupt the tree planting ceremony or continue to make a public issue of it. So the committee decided it would be unwise to allow Oskar to take part in the ceremony. Instead, they decided to hold a separate tree planting ceremony for him on May 8. On May 2, the Jerusalem Post reported that Oskar “was taken ill” and did not take part in the tree planting ceremony at Yad Vashem with the other honorees. Perhaps it helped that another newly named Righteous Gentile, Jan Rijtsema, was also unable to attend this gathering.100
The decision infuriated many Schindlerjuden. Jakob Sternberg, one of Oskar’s closest friends in Israel, wrote a letter to the editor of Ha’aretz, one of the country’s leading newspapers, and said that the Israeli government had not treated Schindler fairly. Government officials had time to welcome Frank Sinatra, Sternberg noted, but not the man who had saved the Jews.101 Oskar’s quiet tree-planting ceremony took place on May 8 before a small gathering of friends and supporters. Perhaps the sting of Yad Vashem’s decision not to include him in the official ceremony six days earlier was assuaged by a wonderful banquet held for him by his Schindler Jews in Tel Aviv on May 2. Three to four hundred Schindler Jews and their families attended. On the podium with Oskar were Dr. Bejski, Itzhak Stern, and three or four other prominent Schindler Jews. During the banquet, it was decided to let people in the audience stand up and say a few words to honor Oskar. According to Dr. Bejski, what followed “was something very great.” As survivor after survivor stood up and began to give his testimony, Dr. Bejski realized it was important to take down what each one was saying because he had never heard many of these stories before. Using napkins and other scraps of paper, Dr. Bejski began to take down everything that was said that night. Afterwards, he went home and typed his notes. Two years later, when Leopold Page called him about the possibility of an MGM film on Schindler, Dr. Bejski told him about the banquet testimony and Page asked him to send the material to him. Dr. Bejski asked someone in the Israeli embassy in Washington to translate his notes into English, which were then sent to Page in California. This transcript provided Page with some of the survivor testimony he needed to help promote the film in its early planning stage.102
Dr. Bejski gave me a copy of the English translation of his forty-two-page transcript of the banquet testimonials. It began with a lengthy introduction by Jakob Sternberg, who asked the group to pay silent homage to the Jews who died in the Holocaust. He then went on to discuss the highlights of Schindler’s efforts to save his Jews, and contrasted life under Amon Göth in Płaszów with that under Schindler in Brünnlitz. As most of the Jews at the banquet were only with Schindler in Brünnlitz, Sternberg talked about what happened there. He considered the “Herr Director’s” efforts to save the Jews on the Golleschau transport to be “the peak of Schindler’s humanitarian accomplishments.” He went on to talk about Oskar’s decision to permit Rabbi Levertov bury the Golleschau dead in a nearby cemetery and then told stories about Schindler’s efforts to help individual prisoners maintain their human dignity. He ended by addressing Oskar: “Be thou blessed in thy arrival to and thy departure from Israel. We shall never forget you!”103
Dr. Leon Salpeter, a pharmacist in Tel Aviv, spoke next. He talked about the evolving Schindler legend in Płaszów and credited Abraham Bankier with putting him on “Schindler’s List.” According to Salpeter, when Oskar asked Bankier about him, Bankier told him that he was a “good accountant.” Oskar responded: “Salpeter is more of a Zionist than an accountant, but enter his name on the list anyway.” Salpeter was the first survivor at the banquet to bring up Emilie’s name, who, he said, “was no less conscientious than her husband” in helping Jews. In fact, Dr. Salpeter told the group, the motto of both Schindlers in Brünnlitz was “Let not the Jews starve.” From Salpeter’s perspective, Oskar was a “messenger of God,” particularly when it came to his efforts to save the Jews on the Golleschau transport. No ordinary man was capable of such deeds. Salpeter added, “Only a messenger of God takes upon himself such as mission of rescuing Jews in that time.”104
