It seems wrong to me that Furchner was allowed to hide her face like that, and I think I know why it annoys me, too. You were right to use Judy Meisel's testimony as a way of evoking the extent of the evil done at Stutthof, because, in the way of these things, one young girl's suffering is easier to grasp than that of millions. But it's quite striking how much of her story comes down to that thing that anyone who has ever been a fifteen-year old girl remembers all too well: the consciousness of being looked at and evaluated by others. Judy's blonde hair and blue eyes mean she can sometimes pass as a non-Jew. And when she's naked and about to be murdered, her would-be murderer evaluates her as "too young" (and, one has to wonder, also perhaps too blonde and blue-eyed?) to die. There is the story of the sadistic heavy-set woman enjoying the spectacle of the terrified new arrivals, and the horrifying spectacle of the electrocuted bodies left hanging on fences, not given the decency of concealment even in death. I'm sure that Judy was never able to un-see any of those things, including her last sight of her own mother — naked and about to die. So, on one side of the balance we have all those images. And on the other? Whatever it is that allowed Furchner to conceal her face in court, even to the extent of having her features pixilated in the coverage of the case. The metaphor here — about what some people clearly still think is better off left hidden — speaks for itself.
Absolutely should people such as Irmgard be tried. They may too old for punishment to mean much at this point. We need to stick with our commitment to keep this information alive, to make it difficult for such people, and those who would repeat them, to rest easy and believe that justice will never catch up to them.
The gigantic elephant in the room is the fact that too many of the senior figures escaped justice (See your book Hunting Evil) or received ludicrously lenient punishment. For this woman to claim she had no knowledge of what was going on is preposterous.
Secretary of genocide
It seems wrong to me that Furchner was allowed to hide her face like that, and I think I know why it annoys me, too. You were right to use Judy Meisel's testimony as a way of evoking the extent of the evil done at Stutthof, because, in the way of these things, one young girl's suffering is easier to grasp than that of millions. But it's quite striking how much of her story comes down to that thing that anyone who has ever been a fifteen-year old girl remembers all too well: the consciousness of being looked at and evaluated by others. Judy's blonde hair and blue eyes mean she can sometimes pass as a non-Jew. And when she's naked and about to be murdered, her would-be murderer evaluates her as "too young" (and, one has to wonder, also perhaps too blonde and blue-eyed?) to die. There is the story of the sadistic heavy-set woman enjoying the spectacle of the terrified new arrivals, and the horrifying spectacle of the electrocuted bodies left hanging on fences, not given the decency of concealment even in death. I'm sure that Judy was never able to un-see any of those things, including her last sight of her own mother — naked and about to die. So, on one side of the balance we have all those images. And on the other? Whatever it is that allowed Furchner to conceal her face in court, even to the extent of having her features pixilated in the coverage of the case. The metaphor here — about what some people clearly still think is better off left hidden — speaks for itself.
Absolutely should people such as Irmgard be tried. They may too old for punishment to mean much at this point. We need to stick with our commitment to keep this information alive, to make it difficult for such people, and those who would repeat them, to rest easy and believe that justice will never catch up to them.
The gigantic elephant in the room is the fact that too many of the senior figures escaped justice (See your book Hunting Evil) or received ludicrously lenient punishment. For this woman to claim she had no knowledge of what was going on is preposterous.