"Liberators" Without End - and No End to "Liberators" . . . Thoughts on an Ongoing Problem: Who Liberated Dachau, Buchenwald and Other Concentration Camps?

By Ulrich Koch

http:// www.shoa.de

I.

It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, after examining and finally understanding the antagonistic discussions about Paul Parks (ed.note: featured in Stephen Spielberg's documentary The Last Days), who was recognized (ed. note: by the B'nai B'rith) a year ago in Berlin as"Liberator of Dachau," that several of the larger American newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, as well as the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, covered the story as a scandal.

At the same time there is the understandable indignation of those who were the real liberators of Dachau, the first to enter the camp on the 29th of April 1945, liberating the remaining prisoners (ed. note:  surviving WWII veterans protested that Parks was not present on the day of Dachau's liberation).

However, this discussion does not only concern Dachau - it is about who is a "liberator" and who is not.

"Liberator Parks" mentioned above is only one name in a long list of persons assuming this role more or less spectacularly in public.

As an historian and documentary film maker about the events at the end of World War II one encounters them again and again: the obvious contradictions in the account of events of that time and their protagonists.

Immediately after the presentation in 1992 of Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts in World War II by Nina Rosenblum & William Miles on American PBS, a bitter dispute erupted between "facts" and "claims" about which American units where the actual liberators of Buchenwald and Dachau in 1945 and has been going on ever since.

Without verifying the facts through authentic documents such as the After Action Reports, obligatory for all units of the U.S. Army, or by interviewing experts on military history or U.S. Army personnel of the divisions involved in the events, or by further interviewing the liberated concentration camp prisoners, or statements given in "on-the-spot" interviews at Dachau or Buchenwald and - if necessary - making corrections, the producers set off a long period of antagonism replete with personal attacks and finger-pointing.

It was soon made clear that this dispute did not so much involve the circumstances of the liberation and who was involved in it, but what skin color did the liberators have. By coincidence those who vehemently opposed the "black" bias of this documentary were white. To many black Americans the motives were obvious.From these descriptions of the liberation of Dachau and Buchenwald there unavoidably arose a discussion with racist undertones...

I came to this very personal conclusion by avidly following the numerous discussions and arguments, the repeated accusations and controversial opinions and counter-opinions.

All of this was spread through the world wide web and left - especially to those of us born after the war - a rather bad feeling... and quite a bit of confusion.

Even though my own very specific historic research is based on completely different motivation and goals and as I have no interest in being an arbiter of internal American disputes ? I became involved in these matters, the cause of many headaches, almost unintentionally. This is because Concentration camp Buchenwald which was liberated on 11th April by advancing American units, is one of the subjects of my own historical research projects. And it is Buchenwald that remains the recurring point of contention in the "liberators dispute."

Being a member of the immediate post-war generation (born in 1946 in Apolda, a small town in the vicinity of Weimar and Buchenwald in Thuringia) and being of German origin, I could have easily decided to: "Leave the Americans to their quarrel.Soon the veterans will all be gone and the quarrel will be over. Anyway, it is their problem, not mine."

Many of my contemporaries as well as members of the following generation (and surely many Americans of the same age group) also think along these lines. They are either not interested or neutral to these questions, it's "just history" and for most, boring. They probably also agree that with the passing on of the opposing parties, the quarrel will end anyway.

Nevertheless, the "liberators" problem became our problem as well: A dubbed copy of the documentary "Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts In W.W.II" was presented in Germany in 1993 on the state sponsored channel ARD. The accounts and representations concerning specific locations in the film, particularly questionable in the context of Dachau and Buchenwald, were accepted by German historians without protest. The presentation was advertised to uncover heretofore unknown details about the liberation of Dachau and Buchenwald.

After watching the film and checking the research, this advance praise turned into the absolute opposite.

Thus an internal American problem became one here too.

My own research project "The Winners Say Goodbye" concerns itself with combat at war's end in Thuringia and Western Saxony and with the subsequent short period of American occupation.The focus of my research are two divisions of Third U.S. Army - the 6th Armored Division and the 76th Infantry Division.Both divisions were operating in the immediate vicinity of the concentration camp at Buchenwald in April, 1945. My research uncovered some very interesting facts which I present on my web site http://www.koch-athene.de in German and English as part of my project.

Based on official American military documents of Third U.S. Army and its XX Corps, as well as all divisions and units operating in the vicinity of Buchenwald between the 8th and 14th of April 1945, many earlier accounts and claims to have been "liberators" of Buchenwald would have to be revised and/ or abandoned altogether.

That is if the actual liberation is restricted to the first contact between the liberated prisoners and American troops.

An additional fact about Buchenwald that is often overlooked - especially in America where it is not well known - is the peculiar geographic location of the camp. Buchenwald was established in 1937 by the Nazis on a 477 meter hill - the Ettersberg - which dominates the surrounding area. Because of this particular location, Buchenwald could only be accessed by two roads. One from the direction of Weimar comes from the south where it intersects the camp access road west toward Buchenwald. The other road comes from near by Hottelstedt in south-easterly direction.Buchenwald could not be accessed by any other roads. As the records of Buchenwald clearly indicate the camp was liberated on 11th April 1945 from the north east. This is the direction from which the first Americans advanced also according to statements made in 1945 by former prisoners (see among others "Der SS-Staat" by Eugen Kogon [english: The Theory and Practice of Hell: The German Concentration Camps and the System Behind Them, translated from the German by Heinz Norden, New York: Berkley Books, 1980] ).

At that time the road to Weimar was still blocked, Weimar didn't surrender until the 12th of April, 1945, when units of the 80th Infantry Division entered the city without resistance. Only from this moment on could Buchenwald be approached via Weimar. However, who were the Americans coming from the north-east via Hottelstedt - I found the answer in the after action report of Task Force 9 of 6th Armored Division. This Task Force, made up mainly of units from 9th Armored Infantry Battalion, was the task force operating farthest south in the direction of the Saale river during the advance of the "Super Sixers" to the east.The route of Task Force 9 was by chance only a few kilometers from Buchenwald ? and a patrol of TF 9 consisting of Captain Frederick Keffer and three GI's of the 9th AIB,were the first to arrive at Buchenwald or rather ? as Keffer later stated ? stumble over it.

Furthermore, the liberation of a concentration camp near Weimar by 6th Armored Division was reported in the daily war communiqués in all American newspapers on the 12th of April 1945 - not a word about any other divisions or units.

II.

The authors/producers Rosenblum & Miles in their Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts in World War II centered their presentation and statements on the 761st Tank Battalion (African-American). After extensive investigation, I could find no mention of this unit in the vicinity of Buchenwald. I find however, several divisions and units of Third U.S. Army mentioned in the area south of the camp. From these come a number of GI's who today maintain - contrary to the historical record - to have been "the first into Buchenwald".

At this point it seems necessary to state my personal position: Having heretofore noted the 761st Tank as a "colored unit" the"colored aspect" of the "liberator dispute" is again brought to the surface. I would like to take note of an aspect of the discussions that have been going on for several years, the obvious racial overtones in the background.

When Nina Rosenblum who is Jewish & William Miles an Afro-American - well known producers and authors for their documentaries even outside the USA - formulated their "liberators project," they envisioned the rather interesting concept of reporting for the first time how long discriminated against colored U.S. troops had heroically liberated persecuted Jews in Europe during World War II (I refer to discussions to be read on the Internet during the ensuing controversy).

While pursuing this objective, they inevitably came upon the 761st Tank Battalion and its glorious history, which amongother awards, has a Presidential Unit Citation. Rosenblum and Miles found veterans of 761st who were willing to testify as eye witnesses before a camera. Now (and I think that this might have been the crucial point- one that might have jeopardized financing and realization of the project.) Rosenblum and Miles needed a well known and even spectacular location for their story. A location well known in America as a backdrop for their documentary to present to their financial backers. Either that or their preliminary research was of such poor quality that the resulting mistakes were inevitable - but this can only be set right by Rosenblum and Miles ? provided they want to... .

The 761st tank Battalion now became focal point of the project. Seeking to document the premise of black soldiers freeing Jews, the combat history of the 761st offered itself as an almost perfect example. This battalion was unique, not only in its personnel structure for combat units at that time, but also in its military performance. In addition, this battalion actually was involved in the liberation of a concentration camp.

Only, it was neither Buchenwald nor Dachau but Gunskirchen.

While at Dachau, Buchenwald and other concentration camps liberated by different units of the U.S. Army there were only a small number of Jewish prisoners (compared to large numbers of prisoners from Germany and other European countries) approximately 15,000 Hungarian Jews were saved on May 5th 1945 at Gunskirchen near Linz in Austria (Gunskirchen was a sub-camp of the infamous concentration camp Mauthausen). Among the units overrunning Gunskirchen was the 761st Tank Battalion (and units of the 71st Infantry Division). In spite of the high number of Jews saved there, the history of Gunskirchen concentration camp was lost for quite some time and has only been partly researched - it is a rather prominent historical "black hole" in an otherwise relatively complete history

At this point in the discussion there arises a justified question: What would I have done in the place of Rosenblum & Miles if Ihad"discovered" the untold story of Gunskirchen?

Would I not have been jubilant if in addition to the forgotten story of a distinguished "black" battalion I had also discovered an extraordinary rescue in an authentic place?

Absolutely. I would never have allowed such an opportunity to escape.

This makes the behavior of Rosenblum & Miles all the more inexplicable who ? for whatever reasons ? went to Germany in the early 1990s and interviewed their witnesses from 761st Tank Battalion at Buchenwald near Weimar ... or at Dachau.

So the Rosenblum/ Miles team went to Buchenwald and interviewed witnesses from 761st Battalion.In analyzingthe events and places of the interviews, it occurred to me how sterotypical the so called "concentration camp architecture" was during the "Third Reich." The barracks and functional buildings in concentration camp "A," were very much like those incamp "B," "C," etc. (there were at least 2000 main and sub-camps in Hitler's domain.).

How great then the opportunity for confusion, especially after decades have passed and memories grown dim. In addition, in the case of Buchenwald, most of the original buildings have been demolished and the original layout can only be depicted by models or historical photographs. How many opportunities for confusion are there when pictures show barracks that could have been at some other place?

Furthermore, how many GI's visited the newly liberated concentration camps after the war in the course of the general Army education program. Could not some of today's mix-ups result from this as one or the other of the camps were liberated by numerous units?

There is yet another point - incomprehensible to European historians - how many individuals claim to be a "liberator" and call themselves so, simply because at some point in time after the liberation they set foot in one of the camps. They often refer to the "time limits" that have been set by the Chief of Military History, Washington D.C., the U.S. Holocaust Museum at Washington D.C., and other renowned Holocaust institutions, between 24 hours and several days after liberation...
 
 

III.

Naturally, conflict often starts with confusion in remembering and making unfounded claims ? no matter if done innocently or through deliberate glorification of one's own history.

Today many things can not be verified or only with difficulty, especially if they concern camps not so well known as Buchenwald or Dachau.So in many biographies (often only known to the families or a small part of the public) there will appear the honorific "liberator" that must on closer scrutiny be reduced to "visitor after liberation. "Very often I have visited with relatives of deceased GI's via the Internet or face to face, looking at photographs from the war. Coming upon pictures taken at Buchenwald in 1945, I was asked whether the GI could have been one of the "Liberators of Buchenwald? "The result often was a great disillusion when I had to say that the pictures were taken days or even weeks after the liberation and were simply ordinary snapshots commemorating a visit to Buchenwald...

Back to Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts in World War II

In this documentary the 761st Tank Battalion was not only named liberator of Buchenwald but also liberator of Dachau. Similar claims are made by other units of the U.S. Army or even individuals as the Paul Parks case shows.

The claim concerning the 761st Tank Battalion as a liberator of Dachau seems to be completely improbable, as Dachau was situated in the operational theater of Seventh U.S. Army and the 761st was part of Third U.S. ( Buchenwald would at least have been within striking distance for the 761st).There is no indication of 761st being transferred from Third to Seventh Army. There is, however, every indication that 761st as part of Third Army on 5 May, 1945, (after the liberation of Dachau) operating in Austria was part of the force that liberated Gunskirchen. It could have been different if 761st had been a separate, independent unit operating without regard to zones and demarcation lines of armies or corps. Had this been the case, however, it would have been mentioned in prominent place in the military records. Through the broadcast of "Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts In W.W.II" the impeccable record of 761st has acquired a few "black spots"...

Another documentary - The Last Days, presented by Steven Spielberg, 1998 - gave further proof that mistakes such as those in "Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts In W.W.II," 1992 are likely to be perpetuated, especially through inaccurate research.

A German produced documentary on a similar subject being prepared at this very moment will almost certainly prove that German producers are not immune from grievous and falsifying errors. Some time ago I was contacted on the telephone by a rather arrogant member of the production team of this documentary - she had found my web sites while doing research for the project.During our conversation I got the feeling that she was working under a premise similar to that of Rosenblum & Miles. Questioning her on some technical details regarding the necessary military/ historical research they had done, I discovered that they had done nothing of the sort.What will come of this project? I have a rather bad feeling....

In Steven Spielberg's The Last Days, Paul Parks, "liberator of Dachau" was presented along with other witnesses and allowed to talk about "his recollections."

After publication of this film in America there were the same unavoidable protests as years before after the publication of "Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts In WW II".

Those rightly protesting - especially veterans who verifiably took part in the liberation and who would of course know best, seeing their honor damaged - immediately requested that the part of "The Last Days" concerning Parks be reworked and the veracity of Paul Parks' statements be investigated.

In the meantime this Oscar winning film was also presented in Germany.

Paul Parks became known as a "liberator of Dachau" to an world wide public. Along with other veterans he was presented with the non-monetary Raoul-Wallenberg-Award on 22 October, 2000 in Berlin on the recommendation of the local Raoul-Wallenberg-Lodge of B'nai B'rith.

Days before the presentation took place, veterans started a campaign against the award - the campaign has not found its way into the German media with the exception of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

In my opinion the most interesting and most probable facts about the liberation of Dachau on 29 April, 1945 are to be read at the web site of Mr. Albert Panebianco - veteran of 157th Infantry Regiment, 45th Division, Seventh U.S. Army. (http://home.nc.rr.com/alpanebianco/dachau.htm)

In a paper written in 1998, Brigadier General (ret.) Felix L. Sparks recounts the actual events and facts regarding the liberation of Dachau. He commanded as a Lt. Col., the 3rd Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment,the first American unit to arrive at this camp. His account, some details of which today can no longer be verified, diminish the various claims of the 45th and 42nd Divisions which were, to a certain extent, involved in the liberation. [The book SURENDER OF THE DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP 29 APR 45 - THE TRUE ACCOUNT, by John H. Linden was also published 1998 - the liberation of Dachau is described from view of the 42nd Infantry Division in him; see: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/liberation.html ; compare with Archive Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/secret_history/index5.shtml ]

In view of the continuing conflict, another military expert - Lt. Col. (ret.) Hugh F. Foster III - took the trouble in 1989 to reconstruct from original documents the actual operational sequence in connection with the actual locations. However, what is most interesting is what he says at the end of his paper (see: Al Panebianco's web sites):

"...The arguments continue. They are fuelled in the main, by personal animosity. Veterans have called others liars, and have disparaged their character. 'Family names' are at stake.Some have been exposed after years of embellished stories.Even descendents of some veterans have 'taken up the fight' to clear the name of relative long dead. To some it has become an obsession. I find this squabbling among victors be to senseless, and at times comical. To the people who were most affected by the liberation ? the inmates it did not matter what shoulder patch was on the uniform of the first man to arrive at the Jourhaus. It was an American soldier, who with his buddies had come a long way, risking life and limb countless times on the journey. He was there to free them from their Nazi jailers, to return to them freedom ? life ? and that was ALL that mattered then.And it really is all that matters now."

Lt. Col. Foster's position is the only sensible one. Is it really important today to be able to say or maintain to have been "the first" or "among the first" on the spot? Is it not more important just be proud to have been a member of an army that made liberation possible? The only important thing for the prisoners (and they were not all Jews) was that they had survived, thanks to their liberators, to live in freedom and to bare witness to what happened. Do individual memoirs today need to be embellished with "titles" that apply to all of the allies who took part in putting an end to Hitler and his regime?

Many questions are brought to mind to someone of a later generation by these thoughts; one is bewildered that such things happen, even todayÖ

IV.

Working on my own project The Winners Say Goodbye I found many stories about units involved that were recorded in 1945 or immediately thereafter and I have read them very carefully. Furthermore, I have studied extensively a number of after action reports and other documents. I noticed the difference in the quality of the summaries, even those from 1945. For example, units which were involved in the war at an early point ? from 1942/1943 in North Africa and in Italy or from D Day 6th June, 1944 on ? and which took part in action until the end of hostilities in May, 1945, produced high quality detailed reports.

Divisions which joined in the action shortly before the end of the war and whose reports deal with a much shorter period of time very often wrote unnecessarily detailed reports. Comparing the bulk of both variants it is striking that those units which spent a shorter time in theater are bulkier than those of units involved in action for a longer time. Another example: the later a history or memoirs were produced, the more inaccurate, exaggerated and questionable they are. Hearsay and familiar stories told among comrades become imaginary parts of individual experience. Absolutely normal and not very spectacular occurrences became heroics later on in the personal "war stories" of self-serving authors, their family or even the public (often published on the Internet or at their own expense).

Readers of following generations ? among them proud children and grandchildren, not able to verify the stories, become fierce "defenders of the good name of their relatives" (as Lt. Col. Foster points out), when the account is questioned in any way.Then there are those who take these stories at face value, do not question or check them and so form opinions that have nothing to do with reality. Finally there are those who use these fabrications maliciously to spread their fascistic or nationalistic ideas. Using them to prove that events had to be different because this or that author obviously did not report correctly.Usually there will follow "proof" that Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Maidanek, Theresienstadt Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Dachau... etc. are only "machinations of the allies"...

A veteran of 6th Armored Division, severely offended by "Liberators..." (being white he was the subjected to accusations of racism because he insisted on the historical truth that 761st did not operate at Buchenwald.) told me years ago: "What will happen when we are no more and can no longer articulate our protest against falsified facts? Will history be told and presented any way an author wants or how it concurs with his own attempted political goals?" [See Jim Moncrief's home page. "How History Becomes A Lie": http://members.aol.com/jimmonc/history.htm]. Even while the last veterans are still alive this time seems to have come already... and sometimes such misrepresentations are made with the direct help of veterans.

These vets who although they finished their service quite honorably but did not receive a Bronze or Silver Star try to polish their egos. As happened with a former sergeant who in his megalomania portrays himself in his memoirs as if he wereas great commander as George S. Patton and connects his actions at that time with a confused interpretation of events that have nothing to do with actual facts. One more sad story...

In spite of all the above, "oral history" by veterans is eminently important, however, itmust be independently verified.

There is another special problem which stems from the unfamiliarity of many Americans with European - especially German geography, distances and most of all, place names. In the course of the rapid advance many German names where recorded phonetically; many German names are or sound alike, are often identical and often can only be distinguished - even by Germans - by adding the name of the region. How many mistakes and problems arise from this on visits after so many years? Consider what might happen if the names Dachau or Buchenwald are confused with other places or camps - how many more veterans might there be to lay claims?

Even if it can be said that the the events of WWII received wide coverage in the US, it must be pointed out that in some instances, these events were not presented correctly.

Detailed examination today (particularly in connection with the above controversy) shows that their subjective presentation was primarily to serve American war aims. In the German presentation of the facts there are also different interpretations. When the German reports and documents (if available) are the main sources of information, the contents are apt to be subjective. Not all historians made the effort to investigate and use American sources.

Therefore, with few exceptions, there is in Germany today, particularly in the former Soviet controlled areas (although actually having been liberated by the western allies.) quite a need for clarification. In this region, a version of history was written and taught that had to conform with Soviet inspired communist ideology. The role the western allies played at the end of World War II was for decades sketched in very broad terms with very little documentation or not mentioned at all ... or intentionally misinterpreted with a completely different meaning.

In the liberation of Buchenwald for example, the date - 11th April 1945 - was correctly mentioned but with a "politically correct" ideological interpretation, the liberation was declared to be an act of "self-liberation led by a communist resistance group." The 13th of April, 1945, was mentioned as date of the arrival of the US Army (in fact the date of the arrival of the American medical and food relief). The fact that this act of "self-liberation" consisted of the occupation of the abandoned positions given up by the SS in the face of the advancing U.S. Army was not mentioned.

My own examination of the subject shows how urgent and necessary a comprehensive and detailed reexamination of the events will have to take place ? even 56 years after the end of World War II. This does not only apply to investigations in Germany but also in America and other countries. There are documents in archives and other locations heretofore unused. Living witnesses can be consulted and all manner of falsifications exposed. Often these individuals can reveal the "real story" behind the documentation which archivists and historians could never discover. Often "oral history" can recreate the atmosphere of the time and enliven the bare historical facts. At the moment it is still possible...

However, back to "Liberators without End - And No End To Liberators": In an unofficial, internal publication of US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Yankee Engineer, Volume 33, No 6, March 1997 (which after a storm of protest vanished from the web) I found an article titled: "Dr Paul Parks Makes Speech At Black Memorial Ceremony." It was reported that Paul Parks appeared as guest speaker at a Black History ceremony in Boston. The gist of Mr. Parks' remarks were included the account of the ceremony. Quoted in part ...

"One of Dr Parks' experiences during World War II was assisting in the liberation of a concentration camp in Dachau, Germany. 'We learned that about every camp was liberated by black soldiers', he said.'The reason why black soldiers were chosen was because the prisoners would not think it was just a trick on the part of the Germans. They knew that the black soldiers were truly American'..."

V.

Parks was able to sell this nonsense to a credulous audience.

He was in fact preaching new form of racism, doing exactly what he himself had condemned in connection with Black History and the racist politics of the whites. If one follows Parks' rather confused argument it is a small wonder that the real liberators of Dachau were recognized as Americans by the inmates in their white skins. As was the skin of the liberators of Buchenwald or Ohrdruf, where shortly after the liberation, Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton viewed the horrors of the Nazis. Perhaps - and this is not altogether impossible - there may have been some Black Americans in the liberating units ? something that was not unusual in some units of the U.S. Army.

I asked the afore mentioned Lt. Col. (ret.) Hugh F Foster III to send me some facts and background information on Paul Parks. This information contained assertions made by Parks that he took part in the invasion at Omaha Beach in Normandy and that a friend from his unit - a certain Robert Orr - was killed by German machine gun fire and that army graves registration personnel refused burial there because Orr was black. Foster's research showed that Parks' unit did not take part in the landing mission at all and came to France only weeks later. Robert Orr died on March 6th 1944 (three months before D-day) in England and was buried there in a military cemetery. Lt. Col. Foster gave more examples of Parks' "heroism" which disappeared upon closer inspection.

The highpoint, however, is the claim about Dachau and the investigation into the facts: It is correct that Dachau was situated in 7th Army operation theater. At this point it is interesting to cast an eye on the army to which Paul Parks' unit belonged.Parks was a member of E Company, 2nd Battalion, 356th Engineer General Service Regiment (Colored) from 30th September 1943 until 25th June 1945. At the time when Dachau was liberated Parks' regiment was part of 15th Army and was in the process of occupying positions from Mons, Belgium (Headquarters and 1st Battalion) and at Le Havre (Parks' 2nd Battalion). 2nd Battalion had the mission of constructing transient camps on the Atlantic coast for American units which were to be moved after the end of hostilities to the Pacific Theater of Operations.

Considering these facts it is evident that the participation of Parks' unit in the liberation of Dachau is a figment of his imagination. The same applies to another of his arguments in which he holds that for a time he was part of a "black battalion" of 45th Infantry Division ? records of 45th Infantry Division, however, show that such a battalion was never attached. In Boston Globe of 22nd October, 2000, the only traceable war comrade of Paul Parks ? a certain Joseph C. Gettys ? says that Parks' contentions are false.

Gettys remembers that Parks was a construction foreman in this unit.On 13th October, 2000, Mary Haynes ? archivist and historian with U.S. Army Center of Military History, Washington D.C. ? wrote in Boston Globe as follows: "There were no attached or connected black units which can be credited with the liberation of Dachau."

Whatever may yet come to light in the "Paul Parks affair,"it will certainly show that Dr. Parks did not take truth very seriously in calling attention to himself and creating a platform for his muddled messages.

A platform that was sadly given to him by the very people affected by the holocaust.

Not being an American, it can not be my task to speculate or pass judgement on this.

Nevertheless it is a shame that it happened and that this could and most probably will happen again with regard to other persons in other contexts.

To arrive at this conclusion one only has to remember that the debacle Liberators: Fighting On Two Fronts in World War II " in 1992 did not hinder the presentation of The Last Days in 1998 along with - on another level - Parks' appearances.

Every day through haste and inadequate research, journalists spread historic nonsense and sensationalism. In the vast book market many concoctions of questionable content are for sale. On top of this, there are the vast possibilities of the Internet... All this finds consumers and readers.

There is sadly still one more point to make: that in the past, veterans whose reputations have been sullied by false statements did often not react in good time to counter the falsehoods. Furthermore, some unit histories are incomplete or sometimes incorrect, inviting falsifications. The reasons for these errors and their origin is still another story.

One last and detailed example which I encountered during my research on the Internet. On the Douglass Institute of Government web site I found an essay by Executive Director Asa R. Gordon (see also: http://members.aol.com/asargordon/aarl.htm ; click link Holocaust: The Encounter of African-American Liberators and Jewish Survivors at Buchenwald ). At the center of Gordon's essay is his cousin William A. Scott III. Scott of Afro-American origin like Gordon ? was part of a transportation unit of U.S. Army along with his friend Leon Bass. Quotes from Asa R. Gordon:

"On April 10th, 1945 at 5.10 p.m., the Commanding Officer (C.O.) of the 183rd Engineer Combat Battalion, Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Fuller, received a request to "send an additional ten trucks with officer and two NCO..." from Col. Stevenson of the 1123rd Engineer Combat Group. The two non-commissioned officers were the late Sgt. William A. Scott III and his best friend Sgt. Leon Bass.Their duties were intelligence and reconnaissance.The vehicles of the 183rd were to become a part of the convoy to the concentration camp that Sgt. Scott would later photograph being loaded with liberated children and sick inmates of Buchenwald....

"... At 2.30 p.m. on the same day that the order for the reassignment of the 183rd Eng. C. Bn.had been issued, elements of the 9th Armored Infantry Battalion of the 6th Armored Division under the command of the 20th Corps were reported to be "10 Kilometers due north of Weimar". The late Captain Fred Keffer (later to become Dr. Frederick Keffer, head of the Physics Department at the University of Pittsburgh) of Combat Team 9 was ordered to leave a line of attack between HOTTELSTEDT and WEIMAR, Germany and lead a 4-man reconnaissance patrol to investigate a report by refugees on the existence of a nearby German death camp. The patrol encountered the concentration camp at Buchenwald. ...

"... On April 12th, 1945 at 10.30 am Sgt. Scott and Sgt. Bass, along with the convoy of the 1126th Eng. C. Gp. quartering party and several 183rd three-quarter-ton trucks, arrived at Eisenach, Germany approximately 62 miles from the Buchenwald concentration camp. The former Sgt. Bass is now Leon Bass, Ph.D., a retired Philadelphia public school principal who has been lecturing on the Holocaust since 1968.In an interview I conducted with Dr. Bass he told me how they arrived at Eisenach and were setting up their tents in the bivouac area when they were approached by a lieutenant who said, "Come with me."Bass recalls, "We were ordered to proceed to Weimar.I asked the lieutenant, "Sir, where are we going?" And he said, "We're going to a concentration camp. "I didn't know what he was talking about.I had no idea what a concentration camp was all about.But on that day I was to get the shock of my life, you see. Because I was going to walk through the gate of a concentration camp called Buchenwald." "

In his pamphlet "World War II Veteran Remembers The Horror Of The Holocaust", William A. Scott III describes what happened when they arrived at Buchenwald. "We got out of our vehicles and some began to beckon us to follow and see what had been done in that place - they were walking skeletons.The sights were beyond description... I had thought no place could be this bad.I took out my camera and began to take some photos - but that only lasted for a few pictures.As the scenes became more gruesome, I put my camera in it's case and walked in a daze with the survivors, as we viewed all forms of dismemberment of the human body".

Scott describes an incident that occurred after they entered Buchenwald which indicates how early they must have arrived at the concentration camp after it's initial discovery. "An SS trooper had remained until the day of our arrival and survivors had captured him as he tried to flee over a fence.He was taken into a building where two men from my unit followed. They said he was trampled to death by the survivors". ...

At this point it is appropriate to note the following: The above ? abbreviated quote which has been thoroughly documented by Gordon makes sense and is creditable. There remains one point however ? the time of arrival at Buchenwald- this Gordon can not verify. This is why he interviewed two survivors...

Dr. Henry Oster recalled, "I was seventeen, and I was kind of weak.I came out of the barracks and we were confronted by the absence of Germans.And then we saw people we had not seen before. The oddest thing was that they were black.Convoys of black and white soldiers came through. They brought food and, strangely enough, the black soldiers were inherently much more generous with food and clothes than the white soldiers were. This was on April 11th, or the day after. It was the day Roosevelt died."

Survivor Ivar Segalowitz also recalls Roosevelt's death (April 12th 1945) as a critical point in time. He has stated that he was virtually dead, but conscious enough to be aware of both his liberation and of Roosevelt s death.He said, "I knew I had been liberated but I couldn't move. I was stuck in my bunk.My friends told me. I was carried out on a stretcher by a black soldier."

Asa R. Gordon (supported by "Liberators Under Fire") defends theAfro-Americans on a number of web sites. He uses the statements of witnesses to identify Scott's and Bass' date of arrival as the time of death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The American President died on April 12th, 1945, so Gordon thinks the 12th must have been the day Scott and his friend Bass arrived at Buchenwald.

What Gordon does not take into account is that when Roosevelt died at his country seat at Warm Springs, Georgia on the 12th of April between 16.00 and 17.00 hours, EST, in Central-Europe, the 13th of April, 1945 had already begun. The troops in Central-Germany only learned of the President's death late on the 13th or more likely on the 14th which is supported by all the after action reports. The 13th of April, 1945, being the day the first medical aid and food arrived. I am sure that the correct date on which Scott and Bass arrived at Buchenwald was the 14th of April.

In this, Gordon's presentation is in error.

In his lectures, Leon Bass like Paul Parks, reports things that do not correspond with reality. I would like to point out that I have no intention of belittling Scott's and Bass' achievements or experiences but I think (and as an historian I here refer to the questionable "time limit for liberators") that they are not entitled to the 48-hour-period that was established by the Office of the Chief of Military History and the Holocaust Museum in 1993. Therefore they are "helpers or rescuers" and can not be denied their part in the rescue of the survivors. Unlike those GI's who came to Buchenwald in the weeks after the liberation on excursions and who documented their horror and remembrances who where only "visitors". In spite of all these different standards they where all "LIBERATORS". Had the armies of the USA not made such speedy progress in March and April 1945, how many more victims would there have been ? and not only at Buchenwald. At the time Buchenwald was liberated, the Red Army was east of the Oder River, preparing for the assault on Berlin...

A final word on Paul Parks and his receipt of the Raoul Wallenberg Award at Berlin. I spoke with representatives of this (ed. note: B'nai B'rith) Lodge asking them why Parks' story had not been verified beforehand (the controversy concerning Parks' claims had been going on for some time)?

They told me that Dr. Parks had been recommended to them by several Jewish organizations in America and Israel, so they had no reason to doubt. Also it was to be viewed as more of a symbolic award - being an American, he had "something" to do with the liberation of Dachau as did the other awardees (another American, a British and two ex-Soviet soldiers) for the liberation of Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz.

My personal conclusion is that there is much to be done to accurately present history - here in Germany and also in America.

Berlin, Germany, November 2000 -October 2001.

There is a discussion forum where readers can communicate with the author of this article at  http://www.schoah.de/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgihttp://www.schoah.de/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi

© 2001 by Ulrich Koch - all rights reserved Basis translation German-English: Eva A. Kirschbaum, Hilden, Germany;Revision of the translation and translation of the picture sub-texts: William Hansen, Fort Knox, Kentucky.