University of Birmingham Department of Theology and Religion BA Philosophy, Religion and Ethics 09 24094 Dissertation
A Gendered Analysis of Prisoner-Physicians in KL Auschwitz, with a focus on Dr Gisella Perl
SRN: 1424498 Word Count: 12,000
2 1424498
University of Birmingham
School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion Dissertation cover sheet
To be included with all assignments submitted for assessment
Dissertation 09 24094 Dissertation (underline the
dissertation you are 09 28285 LH 6000-word Dissertation submitting)
Level H
Student ID (SRN) 1424498
Actual 12,000
Word Count
REMINDERS
1. By submitting this assignment you are declaring that it is not plagiarised, that it is all your own work, and that all quotations from, allusions to, and paraphrasing of the work of others have been appropriately cited and referenced. Refer to the School Handbook or speak to the School Plagiarism Officer if you have any questions concerning plagiarism.
2. It is your responsibility to ensure that you upload the correct version of your dissertation to the correct assignment section on Canvas.
3. A penalty of 5 marks will be imposed for each working day the assignment is late, until a grade of 0 is reached.
4. There is no leeway concerning word limits for the assignment. One mark will be deducted if your essay exceeds the word limit and a further mark for every 100 words that you are in excess e.g. 1 word over the limit will result in a 1 mark penalty, 101 words over is a 2 mark penalty etc. The word count includes all references, but excludes the title, bibliography, and this coversheet.
5. Do not give your name on the assignment.
6. TWO hard copies should be submitted to the PTR Taught Programmes Office (ERI 2045) and ONE copy should be submitted electronically via the relevant Dissertation module section on Canvas by 11:59am on the published deadline.
3 1424498
Table of Contents
Introduction 4-5
Chapter 1: Contextualisation and Methodology 6-17
Chapter 2: Case Study of Dr Gisella Perl 18-36
Conclusion 37-40
Appendices 41-44
Bibliography 45-56
4 1424498
Introduction
In this dissertation I aim to explore the various feminist approaches to studying the Holocaust, with a particular focus on Dr Gisella Perl (1948), a Jewish woman who served as a prisoner-physician in
Auschwitz, between 1944 and 1945. The role of women and gender emerged as a unique area of analysis in Holocaust Studies during the eighties, when academics began to highlight the lack of female voices within Holocaust literature. The first conference on this topic was organised by feminist scholar, Joan Ringelheim, in 1983 (Katz and Ringelheim, 1983), after she observed that female
Holocaust survivor narratives had been widely neglected (1984). Academics therefore, began listening to, and analysing women’s stories, - consequently, ‘women and the Holocaust’ developed into a burgeoning field of scholarly enquiry, later becoming part of mainstream Holocaust Studies. For example, the most recent Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (Hayes and Roth, 2010), contains a chapter dedicated to female experiences (Weitzman, 2010:1-18). Feminist academics have offered valuable insights into the distinctive challenges women faced, and into the ways in which survivor experiences and memories can, at least to some extent, be informed and shaped by gender. As Pine pertinently states, ‘[t]he lens of gender provides a useful tool for interpreting the behaviour…of
Holocaust victims’ (2015:54). I anticipate that this dissertation will contribute to this growing debate on the extent to which gender impacted on survivor experiences and literature.
In Chapter 1, the developments in the study of women and the Holocaust will be examined. I will begin by discussing the ‘first’ and ‘second-wave’ approaches to this area of enquiry, to demonstrate how, and why this discourse has developed. I will then explore the contemporary literature within this field, in order to understand the current approaches to studying gender and the Holocaust.
Subsequently, the role of medical care and hospitals in Auschwitz will be outlined, to highlight the context prisoner-doctors such as Gisella Perl (1948) were working in.
In Chapter 2, these developments within the feminist study of the Holocaust, will be applied to the case study of gynaecologist, Gisella Perl (1948), a woman ‘employed’ by the SS as a prisoner- 5 1424498
physician. By studying the primary material relating to Perl, issues concerning privilege, collaboration and the unimaginable challenges prisoner-doctors dealt with, will be analysed through the framework of a gendered study. There is a paucity of literature surrounding the experiences of prisoners like Perl and within this restricted scholarship, there is very limited discourse concerning the relationship between gender and prisoner-physicians. By combining these parallel areas, I hope that this dissertation provides an insightful and to some extent, unique, gendered study of Auschwitz prisoner- functionaries.
6 1424498
Chapter 1: Contextualisation and Methodology
First and Second-Wave Approaches to Studying Women and the Holocaust
It is worth noting that throughout this chapter, I will mention particular ‘waves’ of study, referring to the different approaches to studying women and the Holocaust which have occurred since the 1980s.
The first-wave of study within this field occurred throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when feminist Holocaust scholars were primarily concerned with women’s experiences of incarceration.
They explored both the distinctive biological vulnerabilities women faced, such as pregnancy and amenorrhea, and the survival skills women adopted during the Holocaust, such as creating ‘surrogate families’ (Ofer and Weitzman, 1998:11) and being resourceful (Goldenberg, 1996:78-93; Heinemann,
1996, Ringelheim, 1984; Milton, 1993:213-249). Academics focussed on these features to demonstrate ‘the significance of a specifically female experience of the Holocaust’ (Heinemann,
1996:13). In the introduction to Ofer and Weitzman’s edited collection, Women in the Holocaust
(1998), they describe the first-wave perspective, propounded by feminist academic, Karay (1998:285-
309):
‘Although many men stopped washing and shaving…women continued to pay attention to
personal hygiene; they kept their…hair clean, mended their clothing, and maintained…a
feminine appearance’ (Ofer and Weitzman, 1998:11).
This way of understanding women’s experiences is subject to criticism because of its essentialist framework (Bos, 2003:27). Gender essentialist approaches endorse the idea ‘that men and women have inherent, unique and natural attributes that [distinguish] their…genders’ (Jakubowski, 2015). By claiming that women have these distinct survival skills, scholars are not only suggesting that resourcefulness and cleanliness are ‘essential’ features of womanhood, they are also assuming that 7 1424498
these skills were exclusive to women, and that male behaviour in the camps was the antithesis of this.
This analysis of gendered behaviour seems to be overly reliant on assumptions regarding how an archetypal woman or man should behave, without considering the complex nature of gender identity.
Alternatively, second-wave scholar Raphael (2003) advocates the notion that female attributes are not exclusive to women, however, when males demonstrate typically ‘female’ traits such as care or cleanliness, they are exercising a feminine quality. Although Raphael rejects the idea of an ‘essence of womanhood’ (2003:10), she claims that there are ‘female’ attributes, which both men and women demonstrate (2003:10). To illustrate this, Raphael cites the actions of Janusz Korczak, a male Jewish paediatrician who behaved in a caring, motherly way towards orphans in the Warsaw ghetto
(2003:10). For Raphael, Korczak’s behaviour proves that ‘maternal presence is…not limited to biological mothers’ (2003:123). She argues that motherhood is feminine, however, both genders are capable of acting in motherly ways (2003:10). Raphael’s approach is progressive because she does not assume female qualities are limited to women, nor is she asserting that women are ‘better at caring, than men’ (Raphael, 2003:10). However, her ideas are still problematic, as she supports the notion that there is something essentially female about certain qualities, an idea contested by many contemporary scholars.
Ringelheim’s paper ‘A Reconsideration of Research: Women and the Holocaust’ (1985:741-761) provided a powerful bridging voice between the initial wave of study and the second-wave approach, which gained prominence throughout the scholarship in the late 1990s. In this paper, Ringelheim evaluated her previous research, arguing that she had inadvertently ‘valorize[d] [sic] [the] oppression’
(1985:756) women were subjected to during the Holocaust, by exclusively focussing on female strengths. Horowitz later explored this notion and stated that initially academics ‘[draw] attention to
“happy endings”’ (1998:371) which therefore produced ‘a feeling of optimism in face of a destruction’ (1998:371). Put simply, first-wave scholarship placed excessive emphasis on examples of female friendships, care and cleanliness, without putting these women’s experiences into the broader, darker situation they were in (Horowitz, 1998:371). As Bos states, first-wave academics made 8 1424498
universal assumptions regarding ‘female’ attributes, which ‘glorified women in general instead of cataloguing the historical experience of individual women’ (2003:27).
Ofer and Weitzman’s edited collection (1998) can also be placed in the second-wave of study, as they include papers written by male scholars (Blatman, 1998:68-84; Unger, 1998:123-142); a rare occurrence at that time. Equally, they also include papers by academics who were Holocaust survivors themselves (Bondy, 1998:310-326; Karay, 1998:285-309). By 1998 there was scope for incorporating a diverse range of voices into this burgeoning discourse, rather than simply ‘introducing’ female voices as Rittner and Roth did in Different Voices: Women and the Holocaust (1993). However, there was still much progress to be made after the publication of Ofer and Weitzman’s book, for in their introduction they make a point of defending their decision to conduct a gendered analysis of the
Holocaust (1998:12-16). This certainly would not be the case now, given that this approach has become a well-established field in Holocaust Studies.
Ultimately, second-wave scholars began to be more inclusive, and also avoided making general assumptions regarding all women’s experiences. They therefore created a more holistic approach to studying gender by incorporating many different voices into the debate, including male narratives
(Horowitz 1998:375; Horowitz, 2000:176). For a compelling comparative study of male and female
‘gender-related experiences at Auschwitz’ (Pine, 2015:38), see Pine’s paper (2015:37-61). Pine discusses topics which have been mostly ignored throughout this field. For example, she refers to
Jewish women who tried ‘to uphold religious traditions’ (2015:50), and also mentions those ‘women whose behaviour [contradicted]…perceived gender…expectations’ (2015:51).
Clearly this area of study has developed considerably since the 1980s, due to shifts in feminist theory, and changes in our understandings of gender. Current scholarship seeks to provide a sensitive and nuanced gendered analysis, that neither generalises the Holocaust experiences of men or women, nor assumes too much about gender roles or behaviour. However, it is important to mention that the 9 1424498
different ‘waves’ of study I have outlined are not mutually exclusive, as first-wave views are still evident in some contemporary literature in this field (Goldenberg, 2010:161-179).
Contemporary Approaches to Studying Women and the Holocaust
I will be applying theories propounded by contemporary scholars (Waxman, 2006; Hedgepeth and
Saidel, 2010; Bos, 2003:23-50; Halbmayr, 2010:29-44) when examining Perl’s testimony (1948), in order to explore the gendered nature of her experiences. Therefore, I will now outline some of these approaches to studying gender and the Holocaust.
Waxman
In Waxman’s book Writing the Holocaust: Identity, Testimony, Representation (2006), she advocates the notion of gendered testimony, maintaining that memoirs are ‘constructed’ (2006:150) by the survivor (2006:150-151). She states that ‘writing a testimony involves the rediscovering of an identity’ (2006:151), and therefore, the survivors’ recollection of those memories are inevitably influenced by a multitude of factors (2006:122-151). Waxman acknowledges that survivor testimonies
‘come from the careful representation of experience, or the perceived ‘appropriateness’ of experiences for publication’ (2006:128). She argues that to understand this, scholars must consider ‘gender differences in the narration of experience’ (2006:128).
Bos
Bos’ approach is similar to Waxman’s position. In an article on gender differences in survivor narratives (2003:23-50), Bos expresses her incredulity that these testimonies are usually regarded as
‘trustworthy historical sources’ (2003:29). She argues that there has been ‘no discussion of how
Holocaust narratives…relate to reality’ (2003:29), and because of this, scholars have denied the
‘confusing, multi-faceted’ (2003:30) nature of these narratives. Bos develops these ideas by proposing that gender socialisation affects the writing of testimonies (2003:34-37).
The construction of testimony is evidently an important aspect of these contemporary approaches. As first-wave scholars demonstrated, there is evidence to suggest that female and males faced some different challenges and vulnerabilities during the Holocaust (Heinemann, 1986). The simple fact that 10 1424498
the camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau were segregated by gender is indicative of these differences.
However, it is indisputable that people were targeted by the Nazis not because of their gender, but rather, because of their ethnicity (Waxman, 2006:125). This idea was vehemently expressed by writer,
Cynthia Ozick, in a powerful response letter to Ringelheim’s study. Ozick criticised Ringelheim for reducing Jewishness down to a mere aspect of an individual’s experience (Ringelheim, 1998:349).
Ozick claimed:
‘The Holocaust happened to victims who were not seen as men, women, or children, but as
Jews’ (Ringelheim, 1998:349).
Ozick’s letter serves as an important reminder that although gender-specific skills may have contributed to someone’s survival, the significant aspect of an individual’s experience was their
Jewishness, and both Jewish men and women faced irreparable suffering in Auschwitz. Ultimately, individuals only survived due to ‘the indispensable ingredient of luck’ (Rubenstein, 1995:156). It is anticipated that this dissertation will provide a more nuanced and multifaceted understanding of gender, by shifting the focus from these practical gender differences, and engaging in an exploration of the ways female survivors construct their testimonies.
Halbmayr
Another contemporary approach within the gender and the Holocaust field is offered by Halbmayr
(2010:29-44), who propounds the original notion of ‘sexualised violence’ (2010:29-30), which she defines in the following way:
‘[V]iolence…committed via sexuality’ (2010:29-30)
‘[V]iolent acts can be understood as sexualized [sic] if they are directed at the most intimate
part of a person’ (2010:30).
Halbmayr argues that this can be seen in different forms, from severe cases such as rape, to the less extreme such as ‘humiliation and degradation’ (2010:30) via sexuality. An example of the latter form 11 1424498
was the ‘[f]orced nudity’ (2010:33) during camp induction, this is remembered as particularly degrading by many female survivors (2010:33-34). For example, in the Holocaust survivor Irene
Zisblatt’s oral testimony she discusses the shock and reluctance that ensued when the women were ordered to take their clothes off in front of SS men (1996: Segment 17, 18.36-19.35). Zisblatt recalls the perverse details of this event, whilst visibly upset, she states:
‘They told us to drop our clothes…they took the people in front of me and they were
examining them and they were putting their hands up their privates’ (1996: Segment 17,
20.06-26-30).
Women such as Zisblatt convey a sense of utter humiliation when recounting events such as these.
Halbmayr argues that sexualised violence like this, can be regarded ‘as a manifestation of power and…claim to ownership…of men over women’ (Halbmayr, 2010:32).
However, I do not wish to make any generalisations, for Zisblatt is only one woman and therefore, her recollections cannot be used to argue that all female victims felt especially vulnerable during camp induction. It is important to remember that gendered issues were an area of interest in Holocaust
Studies when Zisblatt recorded her testimony in the 1990s (1996). Although the answers Zisblatt gave to her interviewer’s questions may not have been directly influenced by this, certainly the general themes of discussion would have been determined by the prominent topics in the field at the time.
This idea is especially evident in Olga Lengyel’s oral testimony conducted in 1998. During a break in discussion, the interviewer directly asks Lengyel ‘when you were in Birkenau did you ever know any women who were pregnant?’ (1998: Segment 29, 19.16-19.21). It therefore, seems reasonable to presume that Zisblatt may have, to some extent, been concerned with the context in which she was speaking (Waxman, 2006:128-129). She would have been aware that her interviewer was interested in female vulnerabilities, and may have thus, felt compelled to mention her camp induction. In comparison to Zisblatt and Lengyel’s testimonies, Auschwitz survivor Seweryna Szmaglewska was very dismissive of ‘gendered vulnerabilities’ in the Holocaust. Importantly, Szmaglewska’s 12 1424498
testimony, Smoke Over Birkenau (1947) was written in 1945; decades before gender became a significant area of enquiry in Holocaust Studies.
Arguably, Halbmayr’s work and Holocaust Studies in general, has been influenced by the wider field of Genocide Studies (Waxman, 2015:108). After all, many books concerning sexual violence were published in Genocide Studies after the 1994 Rwandan genocide (Nowrojee, 1996). As Skjelsbaek states ‘in the 1990s there was more focus on war-time sexual violence than ever before’ (2001:211).
Halbmayr even recognises this herself, asserting that ‘[m]uch has been done to uncover…and document acts of sexualized [sic] violence’ (2010:30).
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Halbmayr’s approach (2010:29-44) is not unique because it is informed by women’s experiences of sexual violence, for this was widely-recognised as a female vulnerability throughout the first-wave of literature (Heinemann, 1986:27-33; Goldenberg, 1996:81-
85). The notion of humiliation during camp induction has also been extensively discussed by scholars
(Pine, 2008:133). However, Halbmayr’s approach is distinctive because of the way she labels these experiences. By coining the phrase ‘sexualized [sic] violence’ (2010:29), Halbmayr is adopting an inclusive framework, and recognising the multiplicity of ways this could be manifested (2010:30-31).
Therefore, this theory can be used to identify gendered experiences of sexual abuse without restricting this to the most ‘extreme cases’ (Halbmayr, 2010:31) such as rape (Halbmayr, 2010:31). Halbmayr acknowledges that we must ‘identify the many forms…it can take’ (2010:31).
However, although Halbmayr’s approach is valuable in terms of studying women in the Holocaust, she fails to mention any forms of sexualised violence which males were subjected to. Arguably, men were affected by this to some degree, however perhaps not in the same way, or to the same extent, as women. A key example of the sexualised violence experienced by Jewish men was the Nazis regular checking of a man’s sexual organs, to verify if they were circumcised (Jewish Virtual Library, 2017).
This form of assault was actually acknowledged in earlier literature by Horowitz. She states that ‘Nazi brutality took the form of attacks on male biology’ (1998:375). Horowitz proceeds to discuss 13 1424498
circumcision, and notes that this ‘made Jewish men easily identifiable and…vulnerable’ (1998:375).
A man’s Jewishness was marked by his flesh, and all boundaries of modesty and dignity were violated when this this aspect of his identity was ‘tested’. Such public humiliation seems to fit with
Halbmayr’s theory (2010:29-44). After all, this was an embarrassing, ‘unavoidable experience’
(Halbmayr, 2010:33), and an ‘infringement on intimate space’ (Halbmayr, 2010:30) which many male
Jews endured during the early stages of the war. Therefore, perhaps women were more vulnerable to sexualised violence whilst in the camps, however, many men experienced a form of racial sexualised violence prior to their imprisonment.
The Role of Camp Hospitals in Auschwitz
Having outlined the extensive literature in the gender and the Holocaust discourse, I am now going to explore the role of hospitals and prisoner-doctors within Auschwitz. Hospitals are usually regarded as places of care; safe establishments where people are treated, cured, or assisted with health issues.
However, when considering medical care in Auschwitz, all ideas concerning a typical hospital must be abandoned, as what was previously ‘normal’, was no longer relevant.
Although the concept of a hospital within a death camp seems incongruous, hospital blocks played a pivotal role in Auschwitz from the beginning of its operation. The first infirmary was established in the Auschwitz main camp in June 1940 and it was used to treat ‘the first transport of Polish political prisoners’ (Strzelecka, 2008:7) who arrived at Auschwitz on the 14th of June 1940 (Auschwitz-
Birkenau State Museum, 2016a). Likewise, when Auschwitz-Birkenau started operating on the 1st of
March 1942 (Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 2016b), ‘different areas were designated as prisoner hospitals’ (Strzelecka, 2008:8). The first one ‘opened in May 1942’ (Strzelecka, 2008:8). It was not until mid-1942 that qualified males were ‘employed officially’ (Strzelecka, 2000:297) as prisoner- doctors (Halpin, 2011:3.52-6.14; Strzelecka, 2000:297), and women were not allowed to work in these roles until 1943 (Strzelecka, 2000:297).
14 1424498
Conditions in hospital blocks varied depending on the location and time. Academic Strzelecka argues that the hospitals had two important stages (2000:294). Between 1940 and 1941, hospitals were used for ‘exterminating prisoners’ (Strzelecka, 2000:294), and little medical care was provided. Therefore, the majority of patients died in these hospital blocks throughout these years, either from exhaustion, or because they were picked ‘to die…by lethal injection…or in the gas chambers’ (Strzelecka,
2000:295). However, in late 1942 (Strzelecka, 2000:297), hospitals began to function ‘to make prisoners fit to return to work’ (Strzelecka, 2000:294), and therefore, ‘treatment was…given to those…who showed some potential for [recovery]’ (Strzelecka, 2000:297). Prisoner-doctors were able to obtain a limited amount of medical resources in order to help patients who were not in serious conditions when they arrived (Strzelecka, 2000:297). Thus, although hospitals were places where many died, for some lucky patients, these blocks ‘represented survival’ (Auschwitz-Birkenau State
Museum, 2016c). However, for those with critical health issues, hospitals simply worsened their suffering (Strzelecka, 2000:297). Evidently, the equipment available to the medical staff depended on the motivations of the Nazis at the time. Similarly, the patients in the women’s camp at Auschwitz-
Birkenau were thought to be in worse conditions than those in other hospital blocks, as they did not even have access to running water (Strzelecka, 2008:11).
Furthermore, hospital conditions also varied depending on the individual’s prisoner category, with non-Jewish prisoner-doctors working in more favourable conditions compared to Jewish inmates. For example, Wladislaw Dering was a non-Jewish inmate-physician, and he claims that after wearing blue and white prisoner clothing when initially imprisoned, he was subsequently ‘ordered to wear a distinctive medical uniform’ (Hills and Williams, 1965:63). Yet, in Perl’s memoir, despite her status as an expert gynaecologist, she only refers to being given rags of clothing to wear (1948:33;45-46).
Perl also mentions the complete lack of medical supplies available to her (1948:71) and renders hospitals a ‘ghastly Nazi joke’ (1948:70).
Moreover, staying in hospitals did have advantages, as it was a place where clandestine activities could occur. As noted by Nazi medicine expert, Robert Lifton, in these blocks, ‘more than anywhere 15 1424498
else in the camp, prisoners could be hidden…numbers could be switched’ (1986:186). Such exchanges are testified to by survivors, for example, Zisblatt recounts the time a nurse helped her and her sister by forging the papers that she had to fill out after lethally injecting each ‘patient’ (1996:
Segment 23, 25.04-25.45). Zisblatt states that the nurse gave them non-lethal injections, however, in the ‘official’ forms she claimed that the fatal drug was administered. Zisblatt recalls being given ‘a different number…name and…barrack so the two of us survived this experiment…with [the nurses]…help’ (1996: Segment 23, 26.50-27.04). A similar example of resistance in a hospital is testified to by Olga Lengyel (1995), a prisoner-nurse working in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Lengyel’s role in an infirmary enabled her to become involved in the resistance movement (Lengyel, 1995:79-89).
Among other acts of resistance, Lengyel was able to smuggle ‘letters and parcels’ (Lengyel, 1995:80) to patients who were also engaged in this movement. Thus, hospitals were places where fortunate prisoners could subvert the Auschwitz system; through actively resisting (Lengyel, 1995) and by avoiding systematic killing processes (Zisblatt, 1996).
However, I do not wish to diminish the terror medical staff and patients endured in Auschwitz hospitals. Although they were safe havens for some, they were also the site of regular selections
(Lifton, 1986:222; Strzelecka, 2000:295) and roll calls (Lifton, 1986:222) for patients. As Lifton rightly states ‘[o]ne cannot over emphasize [sic] the sea of death in which prisoner-doctors lived’
(1986:222). Therefore, it would erroneous to assert that hospitals were ‘safe’ environments for most inmates. Unfortunately, for the average Jewish prisoner with no contacts, they were inexorably linked with death (Strzelecka, 2000:299).
Case Study: Gisella Perl
Whilst writing a literature review for this dissertation, I identified that academics primarily focussed on studying Nazi doctors, as opposed to considering prisoner-physicians (Mullins, 2016:5). This group of prisoners may not have been widely studied simply because of the scarcity of information relating to them (Halpin, 2011:0.26-0.38), and also because they are a difficult group to categorise.
After all, the term ‘prisoner-functionary’, blurs the boundaries between victim and perpetrator (Levi, 16 1424498
1988:22-51), and therefore, it becomes unclear as to where their narratives should be placed within wider Holocaust Studies.
Due to the scope and length of this dissertation, I am going to exclusively study the testimony of
Gisella Perl (1948). Initially, I intended to explore the experiences of multiple prisoner-physicians, however, as my research evolved, I discovered that there was sufficient primary and secondary material on Gisella Perl (1948). Therefore, I made the methodological decision to undertake a detailed study of this prisoner-functionary. I deliberately selected Perl as, to an extent, her experiences represent the numerous privileges these doctors had, and equally, the various challenges they faced.
After all, as a Jewish woman, Perl worked in, and survived the most extreme conditions in Auschwitz.
This dissertation clearly does not represent a complete account of the lives of prisoner-doctors, and it is not a comprehensive analysis of the gendered issues this category of Auschwitz inmates experienced. However, I hope that it provides a useful framework for a gendered study of prisoner- functionaries and could therefore, be used as the basis for future research.
Furthermore, I have chosen Perl’s testimony because this was written very soon after the events occurred (1948). Therefore, due to the rawness of this primary material (1948), Perl’s retelling of her story may be more accurate compared to other Holocaust narratives. As Raphael states ‘memory can dim…as time passes’ (2003:14). Perl’s memoir is not coloured by time in the same way testimonies written by other female prisoner-physicians such as Hadassah Rosensaft, would be. Rosensaft’s memoir (Rosensaft, 2004; Rosensaft, 2009) was not published until 2004. It should be noted, however, that there were other female prisoner-doctors writing around the same time as Perl. For example, Lucie Adelsberger’s memoir (1995) was printed in German shortly after the war. Likewise,
Olga Lengyel’s book was released in English in 1947 (1947), and she ‘was the first survivor to have her testimony published in English’ (Waxman, 2010:124). Therefore, it would be misleading to assert that Perl’s memoir (1948) is unique because of its early publication.
17 1424498
However, there has been little attention devoted to Perl’s experiences, compared to women such as
Lengyel (1995), and Adelsberger (1995). Their memoirs are easily obtainable, and have been translated into English by multiple publishers, and under different titles (Lengyel, 1947; Lengyel,
1995). In contrast, Perl’s testimony is hard to access, as it is out of print and only available in four libraries in the UK. Significantly, a film was made about Perl’s life entitled Out of the Ashes (IMDb,
2003), suggesting that there is some interest in her experiences, however, there is little scholarly attention surrounding this woman. Although Perl is cited in various books (Ben-Sefer, 2010:163;
Brown, 2013:22; Flaschka, 2010:83-84; Patterson, 1999:17; Pine, 2015:54; Waxman, 2010:124;
Weindling, 2015:205), she tends to be mentioned fleetingly and used only as a typical example of a prisoner-doctor, instead of being considered in-detail, as a significant figure in her own right. Thus, I aim to explore Perl’s life in Auschwitz in greater depth, through a gendered analysis.
I have also intentionally selected the area of medicine this prisoner-doctor specialised in. Perl was a gynaecologist and therefore she witnessed, and was involved in experiments and violence which specifically targeted gender, and also tackled with issues relating to women’s biology. Thus, I believe that it will be valuable to explore theoretical ideas concerning ‘sexualised violence’ (Halbmayr,
2010:29-30) and gendered testimonies (Waxman, 2006; Bos, 2003:23-50) in relation to her Holocaust narrative. Likewise, Perl was an eminent gynaecologist when she was imprisoned. Due to her respected professional status, there is scope for a compelling discussion regarding the power dynamics between SS doctors and prisoner-physicians and an exploration of the Auschwitz hierarchy in general. Finally, given that the focus of this dissertation is the role of prisoner-doctors in
Auschwitz, it seemed fitting to explore Perl as she was not incarcerated until 1944. As previously discussed, by this time, female prisoners were asked about their professions (Strzelecka, 2000:297) and there was a well-established hospital system in Auschwitz (Strzelecka, 2000:297-299). It is, therefore, because of these salient factors, that I decided to study Perl’s story through a gendered analysis. I will now apply the contemporary feminist theories to her testimony (1948), in order to explore the gendered nature of her experiences, and the ways she wrestled with issues synonymous with her job. 18 1424498
Chapter 2: Case Study of Dr Gisella Perl
Gisella Perl was a Hungarian Jew ‘working as a gynaecologist’ (Simkin, 2016) in Sighetu Marmatiei
(Perl, 1948:13) when she was deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau in the spring of 1944 (Perl, 1948:26).
During her incarceration, Perl worked as a prisoner-doctor in Auschwitz-Birkenau, until she was sent to Hamburg in January 1945 (Perl, 1948:143), and then to Bergen-Belsen a few months later (Perl,
1948:168), where she was finally liberated in April 1945 (Perl, 1948:168). I use the word ‘liberated’ here lightly, for as historian Cesarani rightly points out: ‘‘[l]iberation’…suggests a joyful release that was hardly typical of what survivors felt’ (2016:762). After her liberation, Perl discovered that tragically, her son and husband had died during the war (Reamey, 2009). Therefore, although she was no longer imprisoned, Perl clearly faced a different set of hardships after the Holocaust. Perl’s memoir, I was a Doctor in Auschwitz (1948) tells the story of her time in these camps, and the struggles that she and her fellow inmates faced. Most notably, Perl is remembered for her clandestine abortions in Auschwitz (Perl, 1948:81; Brozan, 1982; Norman, 2016).
Throughout this chapter I am going to study Perl’s memoir (1948) with reference to contemporary feminist theories within the women and the Holocaust field. I will be focussing exclusively on Perl’s experiences in Auschwitz, and I will also mention testimonies given by numerous other female survivors (Lengyel, 1995; Steinberg, 1999; Zisblatt, 1996). Firstly, I am going to consider Perl’s position in the Auschwitz hierarchy (Brown, 2013; Pentlin, 1999:25-42), and explore this in relation to gender. Throughout the discussion of gender, I will be referring to the ideas contended by Waxman
(2006; 2015:107-120), Cesarani (2016), Shik (2009:221-246) and Bos (2003:33-39). I will then deliberate over the issues Perl faced surrounding the Hippocratic Oath (Ben-Sefer, 2010:156-173).
Subsequently, I will discuss Halbmayr’s notion of ‘sexualised violence’ (2010:29-44) by considering
Perl’s experiences dealing with various members of the SS (Posner and Ware, 2000; Brown, 2004).
Finally, the complexities surrounding the historical reliability of Perl’s recollections of Auschwitz
(Vida, 2016:529-541; Weckel, 2005:538-566) will be explored.
19 1424498
Privilege
Before analysing Perl’s experiences in relation to gender, it is important to appreciate her status in
Auschwitz. Perl was a leading gynaecologist before her incarceration, and within a few months of her imprisonment, she became a prisoner-functionary, after the SS asked qualified doctors to make themselves known (Perl, 1948:16). Perl therefore, almost immediately found herself in an elevated position in the Auschwitz hierarchy, as one of the ‘five doctors and four nurses’ (Perl, 1948:89) working in a hospital block, in one of the women’s camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau. See Appendix A for additional information on Perl’s location.
Perl frequently refers to situations which non-functionary inmates would never have experienced. For example, she discusses the time she was ordered to examine an SS woman for a possible pregnancy
(1948:118). This woman subsequently ‘organised’ a sack of potatoes for Perl (1948:118), food items like these were the most sought after in Auschwitz. Likewise, Perl writes about the fact that as a doctor she generally managed to obtain more food than other prisoners (1948:92). Thus, Perl can be regarded as ‘privileged’, in comparison to those who did not hold prisoner-functionary positions.
In his book on Holocaust ethics, Brown discusses what he constitutes as a privileged inmate (2013).
He maintains that ‘“[p]rivileged” Jews include those in the Nazi-controlled camps….who held positions that gave them access to material and other benefits beyond those available to other Jews’
(2013:6). He also argues that privileged prisoners were those in a position of authority (2013:11-12).
In accordance with Brown’s framework, Perl can be regarded as a privileged Jewish inmate. For not only did she have access to vital medical materials which aided her survival, she was also able to exercise a degree of authority compared to her fellow inmates.
Privilege is also discussed by Pentlin (1999:25-42), who explores the way Holocaust survivors write about this aspect of their experience. She claims that post-Holocaust ‘irrational guilt’ (1999:29) may affect how individuals choose to portray privilege in their testimony (1999:26;29). Pentlin argues that those who held privileged positions, might begin to feel regretful and accountable for their actions, 20 1424498
‘when they attempt to integrate their experiences in the Holocaust with the value structures by which they now judge themselves’ (1999:29). Significantly, although Perl mentions the guilt she felt when aborting babies (1948:82), she does not frame her Holocaust experience in terms of privilege, and never explicitly refers to being in a high position compared to others. However, this is mentioned implicitly, for example, the fact that Perl refers to the extra food she obtained (1948:92), suggests she knew she was ‘lucky’ compared to many other Jews. Arguably, Perl may not have mentioned her privilege because of Pentlin’s notion of guilt (1999:29). After all, as I shall explore in the following paragraph, as a doctor, Perl was not ignorant or naïve; she knew that some patients had to die for others to live (1948:72). Indeed, she would have realised that the additional supplies she acquired
(1948:118), would ultimately mean that others would go without these materials essential for prolonged survival. Therefore, perhaps she did not overtly mention her privilege because she felt ashamed and guilty (Pentlin, 1999:29). However, as Perl’s memoir was published in the immediate post-war era (1948), it is reasonable to argue that she simply would not have thought to identify herself as a relatively ‘privileged prisoner’, as this notion developed later within Holocaust discourse, a subject which did not exist when she was writing. Therefore, Perl was not necessarily deliberately attempting to hide or deny her privileged status.
Furthermore, it is perhaps a result of Perl’s privilege and skill that she conveys a sense of decisiveness concerning who lived and died, which is absent in Olga Lengyel’s testimony (1995) who worked as a nurse and medical assistant in Auschwitz, rather than as a qualified doctor. In her memoir, Perl is very clear about the fact that some people had to die for others to live, stating ‘there was only one law in
Auschwitz…the law of self-preservation’ (1948:75-76). This survival of the fittest attitude is especially apparent in Perl’s approach to medical care within the camp. For example, she writes brutally of those who had the potential to survive, and those whose illness had the bleakest of prognoses: ‘typhoid, malaria and insanity were to be cured by the flames of the crematory’ (1948:72).
As Lifton rightly notes, prisoner-doctors faced ‘constant moral and medical question[s]’ (1986:223).
21 1424498
Perl’s ability to make critical decisions concerning life and death is most evident in her self-professed role as an abortionist. In a particularly harrowing passage, Perl writes of observing many pregnant women being abused and then killed by SS guards (1948:80). Having observed such abject violence, she quickly realised that pregnant women could only be saved if their pregnancies went undiscovered.
Therefore, Perl decided to dedicate her existence to helping women, by using her gynaecological skills to deliver clandestine abortions:
‘[G]radually the horror turned into revolt and this…shook me out of my lethargy and gave me
a new incentive to live. I had to remain alive. It was up to me to save all the pregnant women’
(1948:81).
As a Jewish doctor assisting Jewish patients, Perl would have worked in the most extreme and abhorrent conditions compared to any other category of prisoner. Perhaps non-Jewish prisoner- physicians did not have to adopt such a brutal mindset, as their patients would not have been subject to the same repugnant policies as Perl’s were. If the women Perl assisted were identified as pregnant, they ‘were automatically sent to the gas chambers’ (Ben-Sefer, 2010:162). As Kubica notes, ‘Jewish children were killed without being entered into the records….until…October 1944’ (2010:11).
However, the situation was different for non-Jewish expectant mothers, whose children stopped being murdered in June 1943 (Kubica, 2000:268). Therefore, these non-Jewish new-borns ‘were returned to their mothers after birth’ (Kubica, 2000:268).
An Ethic of Care as a Prisoner-Doctor
Before discussing an ethic of care in Perl’s memoir (1948), it is worth noting that Perl makes it clear that she exclusively worked alongside female colleagues in her hospital block (1948:87-96), and given that she was in the women’s camp, she would have usually assisted female patients. However, it is possible that in other hospital blocks in the Auschwitz main camp and in Auschwitz-Birkenau, male prisoner-doctors worked alongside women and aided female patients. For example, the prisoner- physician, Wladislaw Dering testifies to his experimentation on female inmates in Block 10, the 22 1424498
experimental block in the Auschwitz main camp (Hills and Williams, 1965:67-70). Likewise, Dering also refers to his interactions with female prisoner-doctor, Alina Brewda (Hills and Williams,
1965:67-70). Nevertheless, throughout this chapter, I am presuming that for the majority of the time,
Perl assisted female patients.
Feminist scholars may define Perl’s actions as ‘gender-specific’ because an ethic of care towards women is evident throughout her memoir. After all, Perl attests to aiding multiple pregnant women
(1948:81), and also frequently refers to the sense of solidarity she shared with her fellow colleagues
(1948:87-96). In this context, the phrase ‘an ethic of care’, refers to the idea that women in the
Holocaust were driven by principles of care and compassion, I am not referring to the moral theory,
‘Ethics of Care’ (Sander-Staudt, Date Unknown).
Many first and second-wave feminist Holocaust academics contended that experiences of friendship and care-giving were exclusive to women’s experiences, or at least that such experiences were more likely to feature in women’s narratives compared to in men’s (Goldenberg, 1986:86-88). For example,
Ofer and Weitzman argue that ‘the formation of surrogate families and “camp sister” relationships for mutual aid’ (1998:11) is a ‘gender-specific coping [skill]’ (1998:11). This statement is symptomatic of the essentialist approach discussed in Chapter 1. While it is important for Perl’s actions to be remembered as brave and admirable, it would be very easy to categorise Perl’s experiences as ‘heroic’ and gendered, without considering that her responses to suffering came from a position of privilege.
As a skilled gynaecologist, Perl had the opportunity to help women in ways that others did not. For example, Perl discusses various times in which her role as doctor enabled her to conceal patients:
‘[t]he hospital…gave me an opportunity to hide the pregnant women’ (1948:71). Furthermore, it would simply be misleading to claim that Perl cared for everybody. Clearly there were some patients that she considered as beyond help, and therefore, not worth expending her time and valuable medical resources on.
23 1424498
Similarly, some feminist scholars argue that female prisoners cared for each-other regardless of differing backgrounds, interests, or professions. For example, Goldenberg maintains that women’s
Holocaust memoirs ‘emphasize [sic] [their] strong concern for one another as well as their dependency on one another’ (1998:327). She uses the example of a female survivor named Judith who testifies to having ‘formed partnerships with other prisoners’ (1998:334) whilst incarcerated.
Goldenberg eventually concludes that ‘virtually all women…formed surrogate families’ (1998:337); she does not qualify these statements by claiming that women looked after each other depending on whether they were from similar backgrounds, a view propounded by the eminent Auschwitz survivor,
Kitty Hart-Moxon (2007). Hart-Moxon argues that prisoners looked after those in their group, but caregiving did not extend further than this. She expresses this in interviews (Harding, 2012) and in her memoir, Return to Auschwitz (2007), when she laconically states: ‘[m]embers of a group helped each other and defied the rest. Outside the family there had to be bribery; within there was love and mutual help’ (2007:82).
The complex nature of camp relationships is clear when considering Perl’s statement concerning the bond she formed with her colleagues:
‘Those evenings at the hospital are the only bearable memory...We were nine
friends…of the same cultural and social background, with the same interests…[and]
ideals’ (1948:92-93).
This affectionate extract indicates that friendship was important to Perl, however, it also suggests that she maintained a sense of solidarity with the women she shared fundamental commonalities with. The way Perl discusses these friends implies that she had an inner circle, and that the women who were similar to her were the ones she primarily cared for. Perl goes on to state: ‘we knew what we were living for and we helped one another in our common fight’ (1948:93). Although she refers to women outside of this ‘circle’, she does not mention others in such an in-depth, caring way. Therefore, it is difficult to know how Perl acted towards those who did not share this ‘common fight’ (1948:93), and 24 1424498
indeed, how she treated the majority of patients under her care. Thus, while it is plausible to claim that
Perl was nurturing and caring towards some patients and colleagues, Hart-Moxon’s assertion regarding the exclusive nature of solidarity and caregiving (2007:82) certainly seems applicable here.
Likewise, it is worth considering that Perl’s memoir was written directly after the war (1948), during a time when people would have wanted to re-establish a sense of self, and equally, a sense of normality. Thus, Perl may have felt that it was important to discuss the less painful aspects of her incarceration, such as the care and nurture she demonstrated towards other women (Waxman,
2006:128;150-151), as opposed to having to address ‘the events [which]…remained too painful…to record’ (Raphael, 2003:14). This is perhaps why themes of hope and friendship are prevalent throughout Perl’s testimony, for example she dedicates an entire chapter to her eight colleagues
(1948:87-96), and also refers to the care she gave to patients (1948:54). As Waxman maintains, those women who, unlike Perl, deviated from such ‘traditional…female behaviour’ (2006:125), and did not nurture others whilst incarcerated, ‘are precisely the ones who are least likely to record their testimonies’ (Waxman, 2006:126).
However, these ideas can be contested. For example, when discussing sexual abuse during the
Holocaust, Cesarani states:
‘Early reports by survivors tended to be…frank about sexual relationships and abuse. As time
passed, however, this facet of Jewish life under the Nazis became veiled in silence’ (2016:
xxxviii).
Similar ideas were proposed by Waxman in a later publication. Waxman asserts that immediately after the war, ‘many of the most candid discussions of…sexual abuse…were published’ (2015:114).
She considers that this is perhaps ‘because survivors were not yet affected by the culture of “blaming the victim”’ (2015:114), a notion propounded by Holocaust academic, Shik (Waxman, 2015:114). 25 1424498
Shik maintains that in early Holocaust narratives, ‘the horrors appear in a far more blatant…manner than in later writings’ (2009:224).
These observations could be applicable to Perl’s experiences. After all, Perl’s memoir was published in the immediate post-war era, therefore, it predated the notion of Holocaust taboos (Cesarani, 2016: xxxviii), and came before the publication of hundreds of similar testimonies. There simply were no
‘pre-existing narratives’ (Waxman, 2006:150) to influence Perl’s narrative. Therefore, her testimony may not have been affected by ‘gendered expectations’ (Waxman, 2006:150), or indeed, the stigma and shame attached to humiliating experiences (Shik, 2009:224), to the same extent as later testimonies may have been. Perhaps Perl did not intend to create a sense of normality in her memoir, and instead simply sought to honestly discuss her Holocaust experiences, as she had nothing left to lose. After all, as discussed further on, in addition to themes of bonding and relationships in her memoir, Perl also writes about the sordid situations she frequently found herself in as a prisoner- doctor.
It could also be argued that female survivor memoirs like Perl’s (1948) are affected by Bos’ more general notion of gendered memory and experience (2003:33-39). Bos claims that Holocaust narratives differ depending on gender, not because friendships or caregiving are inherently gender- specific (2003:34), but because ‘men and women experience, remember and recount events differently’ (2003:33). Bos argues that these differences are ‘caused by [gender] socialization [sic]’
(2003:34). Gender socialisation is that idea that ‘gender…[is] a product of social construction’
(Hlalele and Brexa, 2015:80) and therefore, ‘our preconceived notion of what it is to be a man or a woman is…reinforced through our interactions with society. As a result, societal norms help determine behaviours that seem appropriate and desirable for men and women’ (Hlalele and Brexa,
2015:80).
Bos’ notion of socialisation can be used to make generalisations regarding gendered behaviour before, and during the war (Bos, 2003:36). For example, she argues that women have been taught ‘to value 26 1424498
relationships and interdependence…therefore, they tend to remember friendships…more fondly’
(2003:36). This notion is convincing, after all, although there may have been exceptions to these norms, generally women would have been socialised differently to men during the pre-war period
(Bos, 2003:36). For example, at this time, the societal norm for women was to be ‘responsible for [the family]…the home and the children’ (Ofer and Weitzman, 1998:3).
Bos’ ideas (2003:35-36) can be applied to the ethic of care which prevails throughout Perl’s narrative
(1948), and other female prisoner-doctor memoirs, including Lengyel’s, who also refers to caregiving
(1995:113). In one extract, Lengyel writes of the care a fellow nurse delivered to patients when she knew they were about to die:
‘This…heroine, with her cool courage, had spared her unfortunate companions the usual
torturing anxieties’ (1995:76).
Note Lengyel’s use of emotive and affectionate language, for example, she uses the word
‘companion’ instead of ‘patient’ (Bos, 2003:32). The fact that Lengyel felt this instance was worth mentioning suggests that caregiving was an important feature of her experience, and not just in terms of the care she gave to others, but also in terms of the compassion her colleagues demonstrated. Bos’ theory (2003:29-39) exposes the fact that male and female prisoner-doctors may have equally cared for their patients, however, because ‘their memory of the events is gendered’ (Bos, 2003:35), female- doctors like Lengyel and Perl, prioritise memories of nurture and solidarity more so than male inmate- physicians (Bos, 2003:36).
Thus, it seems that it would be specious to assert that Perl acted as a medical heroine who was driven by a female instinct to care for others. For clearly, a whole range of factors influenced Perl’s experiences in Auschwitz, and her recollections of these experiences.
27 1424498
The Hippocratic Oath
At the beginning of her memoir, Perl refers to her ‘unsuccessful attempt at suicide’ (1948:16) soon after she arrived at Auschwitz. Perhaps Perl managed to survive after this, in part, due to the duty she felt towards pregnant women. After all, this experience seemed to govern Perl’s time there; giving her an ultimate purpose which aided her throughout her incarceration (1948:81).
Issues regarding maternity and childbirth were a central feature of Perl’s experiences, because a woman’s reproductive ability caused them to be especially vulnerable in Auschwitz. As Halbmayr writes, a woman’s ‘central significance for the construction and preservation of the ethnic-national group’ (2010:31) meant that she was ‘the target of sexual violence’ (2010:31). Therefore, the impossible ethical dilemma of whether to kill a baby to preserve a mother’s life was a challenge Perl and her colleagues faced daily. Perl would secretly assist pregnant inmates who had been ‘admitted to the…[hospital] on such pretexts as pneumonia’ (Weindling, 2015:175).
Arguably then, Perl had to wrestle with issues surrounding the Hippocratic Oath in ways that doctors working in the male camp did not. Physicians must swear by this oath to demonstrate that they will conform to a medical code of ethics and the driving component is ‘never do harm to anyone’
(Saunders, 2003). However, because of the Nazi policies regarding pregnant women, Perl faced horrendous choices, and ended up ‘acting in direct contradiction of the Hippocratic Oath’ (Ben-Sefer,
2010:163). Perl writes about delivering children during the latest stages of pregnancy (1948:81-82), when there may have been detrimental health risks to the mother (Ben-Sefer, 2010:157). As noted by
Ben-Sefer, these abortions could have easily ‘cause[d] …permanent damage that later disrupted…a woman’s fertility’ (2010:157). Expectant mothers were harmed to varying degrees, and clearly, their children were harmed too. However, because pregnancy in Auschwitz was quite literally ‘a death- sentence for women’ (Weitzman, 2012:54), as a skilled gynaecologist, the onus was on Perl to reach a decision as to what action to take. Perl had to quickly decide whether to entirely disregard her commitment to the oath, or whether to adopt an alternate understanding of it (Ben-Sefer, 2010:163), and use her role as a doctor to save the pregnant woman. 28 1424498
It is important to be aware that Perl’s decision affected not only herself and the mother, but also those around her. The danger pregnant women and indeed, those near her were in, is attested to by the
Holocaust survivor Lillian Steinberg (1999). In her oral testimony, Steinberg recalls witnessing a woman in her barrack give birth:
‘This woman was in high labour and she was screaming and if…an SS person would have
walked into the barrack they would have taken us all…and sent us to the chambers’ (1999:
Segment 101:10.31-10.46).
Steinberg’s story is a pertinent example of the great risks involved in aiding pregnant women.
However, as with Zisblatt’s testimony (1996), Steinberg’s recollection is merely one piece of historical evidence. Therefore, it should be regarded with circumspection, and it cannot be used to prove a Nazi policy against pregnant women. Although first-hand testimonies are central to this dissertation, these primary sources are problematic, and therefore, they should not be regarded as entirely factual, or be used to make general and conclusive assertions regarding all women’s
Holocaust experiences. Among many other factors, the timing of Steinberg’s testimony could seriously affect the reliability of her account, as this oral testimony was recorded in 1999, over half a century after the events.
Furthermore, as well as performing clandestine abortions, Perl also writes about carrying out another one of Mengele’s orders regarding pregnancies. After months of sending pregnant women straight to their deaths, Perl writes that Mengele ordered for these women to remain alive, however, only if their pregnancy was aborted, or if their newborn was immediately sent to the crematorium (Perl, 1948:84).
As stated by Kubica, ‘Jewish women had a chance of surviving only if they reported…their…infant had died’ (2008:11). Perl claims to have been given the dreadful task of taking these children ‘to the crematory’ (1948:84). The deeply sad nature of Perl’s experience is conveyed in one of the most poignant passages in her memoir, when she simply states: ‘[n]o one will ever know what it meant to 29 1424498
me to destroy these babies’ (1948:82). It therefore, appears that Perl experienced a distinctive kind of trauma which resulted from her critical decision-making role when it came to the life or death of a child.
However, there were other circumstances ‘in which prisoner doctors felt it necessary to participate in killing [patients]’ (Lifton, 1986:223). For example, Lifton discusses the killing of mentally ill patients who ‘caused [too much]…disturbance’ (1986:224) in the hospitals. Nevertheless, it can be argued that aborting children was unique. Delivering clandestine abortions was an incredibly urgent issue, for there was clearly a limited timeframe before a woman’s pregnancy became conspicuous. Similarly, the risks involved in interfering with a woman’s pregnancy were far greater than those involved in killing mentally ill inmates. After all, by hiding pregnant women, Perl was directly contravening Nazi regulations which prohibited pregnancy. There were also greater risks in Perl’s circumstance simply because of the lack of hygiene and the inevitable pressure involved in the need to abort quickly and secretly. Thus, it seems that Perl’s struggle with the Hippocratic Oath was, in some sense gendered, as medical staff working with male patients would not have dealt with such dreadful dilemmas regarding mothers and infants.
Sexualised Violence and Complicity as a Prisoner-Doctor
I am now going to explore Perl’s experience in relation to Halbmayr’s notion of sexualised violence
(2010:29-44), as some of the acts Perl witnessed as a doctor can be characterised as this form of violence (Halbmayr, 2010:29-30).
As stated in Chapter 1, sexualised violence is ‘violence committed via sexuality’ (Halbmayr, 2010:29-
30). Arguably, abortions can be regarded as sexualised violence because this was an unnecessary act
‘directed at the most intimate part of’ (Halbmayr, 2010:30) Jewish women’s bodies. This idea is expressed by Ben-Sefer, who distinguishes between forced and secret abortions (2010:162). The former were abortions ordered by SS doctors like Mengele, and the latter were those ‘aimed at saving the lives of mothers’ (Ben-Sefer, 2010:162). Ben-Sefer classifies forced abortions as sexual abuse 30 1424498
because they ‘interfered with a woman’s right to control her own body and sex life’ (2010:157). Nazi pregnancy regulations were a fundamental part of Perl’s role as a doctor, and she writes of delivering both forced and clandestine abortions (1948:81-82;119-120).
This form of sexualised violence is associated with a significant problem all prisoner-doctors faced: the issue of complicity. Although Perl frequently tried to hide pregnant women and help her patients, ultimately, she was powerless in the face of the Nazi’s prohibition of pregnancies. It seems that the prisoner-functionary system was designed to force inmates to comply with Nazi regulations, and impeded Jewish prisoner-doctors like Perl from exercising moral agency. A ‘moral agent’ is a person capable of ‘taking control of events’ (Blackburn, 2008:9) and performing actions in line with normative standards of right and wrong. However, because Perl and her colleagues worked in an environment where the prospect of death was imminent, all previously held moral standards had to be abandoned. Thus, although it is easy to negatively judge Perl’s involvement with SS doctors, and her breaching of the Hippocratic Oath, the sordid situations she endured can never be fully understood by those of us who did not experience Auschwitz (Ben-Sefer, 2010:163). Clearly, Perl lacked control over the events she was involved in and in such desperate circumstances, it would have been impossible not to comply, and therefore, not be in some way complicit in Nazi operations.
This is an issue which Brown discusses, he maintains that often, prisoner-functionaries engaged in
‘“moral compromise[s]”’ (2013:22), and uses Perl as an example of this (2013:22). Perl was constantly challenged with ‘irresolvable ethical dilemmas’ (Brown, 2013:170). After all, she had to follow Mengele’s repugnant orders, however, as Brown notes, by doing this, Perl was able to help, and save some of her patients (2013:22). This idea was famously expressed by Holocaust survivor,
Primo Levi in ‘The Grey Zone’ (1988:22-51). Levi used this phrase to categorise those who acted as functionaries in the camp. He argued that it was far more complex than ‘“we” inside and enemy outside’ (1988:23), because in Auschwitz, ‘“we” lost its limits’ (1988:23). Brown and Levi’s observations highlight the ambiguities involved in working as a prisoner-functionary in Auschwitz, it was not as ‘sharply defined’ (Levi, 1988:23) as perpetrator versus victim, and Perl’s experience 31 1424498
represents this. After all, by killing newborn infants, Perl could be regarded as a perpetrator, or at least someone complicit in Nazi operations. However, she was also clearly a victim of the Holocaust.
Although Perl was in a privileged and authoritative position compared to others, ultimately this status was trivial in comparison to the overriding dominance exercised by the Nazi officials. Perl most frequently refers to SS doctor, Josef Mengele (Perl, 1948:16;71-72;111). At the beginning of her memoir, she recalls physicians being called out of line by him. She was then chosen as ‘the camp gynaecologist’ (1948:16).
Therefore, it seems that Mengele respected Perl to an extent because she was selected to work in an important position within the camp hospital. Weindling discusses Mengele in his book on Nazi medical experiments (2015) and significantly, Perl’s interaction with him is noted. Weindling states that ‘Mengele occasionally showed outbursts of anger and horrific cruelty’ (2015:205), and
‘survivors…like…Perl testify to his calculated viciousness’ (2015:205). Similar ideas are mentioned by Posner and Ware, who refer to Perl’s memoir to attest to Mengele’s ‘psychopathic personality’
(2000:47). Indeed, Perl discusses the frequent abuse she and her colleagues faced from Mengele, who would come and ‘visit’ their block at the end of each day:
‘[S]taff [were] beaten cruelly…if the walls were not freshly white-washed…The sick could
rot in their skins, but the walls had to be whitewashed’ (1948:71).
Clearly, Perl’s authority and privilege derived from her professional status, however, this increased her vulnerability. As Vansuch notes, Mengele ‘relished the power he held over…prisoners’ (2011: iii) and Perl was no exception to this. In fact, it appears that due to the degree of responsibility Perl had, she was constantly watched by Mengele, in a way that others would not have been. As Lifton asserts, prisoner-physicians regularly faced ‘[t]hreats and pressures from SS doctors’ (1986:222-223). It therefore, seems that a degree of complicity was required from Perl if she had any chance of helping her patients (Brown, 2013:22). 32 1424498
However, occasionally Perl’s association with Mengele worked in her favour. In one chapter, Perl describes the time Mengele arrived for one of his regular ‘visits’ (1948:120-121), and started violently shouting at the medical staff (1948:122). To get Mengele’s aggression to cease, Perl ‘conceived a desperate plan’ (1948:122), and showed him a ‘jar containing a fetus’ (1948:122) which he had earlier asked her to remove from a patient (1948:119-120). Having managed to remove ‘the fetus in one piece’ (1948:120), Perl knew that Mengele would appreciate seeing this specimen. Perl states that after being shown the jar, Mengele calmed down and even displayed a ‘satisfied smile’ (1948:122) at her skilful work. It appears that because Mengele was interested in gynaecology, he almost considered
Perl a ‘colleague’, and she was therefore, able to influence his mood in a way that benefitted her, and her fellow prisoner-doctors. Ultimately though, Mengele would never have forgotten Perl’s
Jewishness, her womanhood, and her status as an Untermensch (someone ‘considered racially or socially inferior’ (Oxford Dictionary, 2017)). Yet, in a small way, Perl managed to override the power and aggression of this SS doctor.
Another form of sexualised violence (Halbmayr, 2010:29-44) evident in Perl’s memoir is demonstrated in her particularly disturbing encounters with the SS guard, Irma Grese. Perl writes that whilst performing an operation on a patient’s breast wound, Grese came into the block and observed the procedure:
‘Greze [sic] was enjoying the sight of this human suffering…Her cheeks were flushed and her
wide-open eyes had the rigid…look of complete sexual paroxysm’ (1948:62).
Perl claimed that Grese would pick ‘the most beautiful…women and [slash] their breasts open’
(1948:62), so that they would have to be operated on. Grese would go and observe every procedure
(1948:62). In these perverse instances, these women’s bodies were being used as objects of Grese’s pleasure, this was clearly ‘an unauthorized crossing of body boundaries’ (Halbmayr, 2010:30).
Moreover, the fact that Grese deliberately caused these women to have operations shows a 33 1424498
‘demonstration of power and dominance through the…degradation of the other’ (Halbmayr, 2010:30).
Grese’s violence towards women came from a sexual impulse, and a sense of possession over their bodies (Halbmayr, 2010:32). This form of ‘sexual torture’ (Waxman, 2015:109) seems to be a challenge unique to women, and one that as a doctor, Perl had to tolerate. Although Halbmayr defines sexualised violence as ‘exclusively a sign of male dominance’ (2010:32), in this case, a female was violating another woman’s body. Therefore, perhaps sexualised violence within Auschwitz was a sign of the overriding control both male and female Nazis exerted over the prisoners (Halbmayr, 2010:32).
As a doctor, Perl sought to relieve suffering, however, even during their most vulnerable moments, her patients were violated. Grese’s sexual assaults subverted Perl’s attempts to perform effective procedures on these women, demonstrating the ultimate lack of control she had over her patients.
Perl also testifies to the time Grese forced her to perform an abortion on her, and threatened to kill her if she did not do so, or if she were to reveal the incident to another SS member (1948:64-65). Having been asked to do this, Perl was in a dilemma:
‘I knew that it was against the rules for a prisoner to touch a guard…At the same time,
refusing an order was punishable by death’ (1948:63).
Although this may not be categorised as an instance of sexualised violence (Halbmayr, 2010:29-30), this extract indicates that Perl’s skill and privilege as a doctor made her extremely susceptible to manipulation from Nazi officials. The wellbeing of Perl’s patients was jeopardised because of Grese, however, it seems that Perl’s own safety was also compromised.
Analysing the Historical Accuracy of Perl’s Memories and Experiences
The abortion incident just described leads me on to a discussion concerning the historical accuracy of
Perl’s testimony, especially her claims regarding Grese and Mengele. After all, Perl is only one woman, therefore, her assertions can be questioned and challenged. One feature of Perl’s experience which may increase the reliability of her memories is her age, as many prominent Auschwitz 34 1424498
survivors such as Hart-Moxon (2007) and Wiesel (2006) were teenagers whilst incarcerated. In contrast, Perl was an adult and professional doctor during the Holocaust, therefore, she lacked the naivety of youth when entering Auschwitz. The strength and insight which comes with age may have benefited Perl when attempting to accurately recall the events.
Furthermore, the abhorrent experiments conducted by Mengele in Auschwitz have been widely documented (Cefrey, 2001; Kubica, 1994:317-337; Posner and Ware, 2000; Vansuch 2011). Although
Perl would have been writing her memoir a few years after her interactions with Mengele, and therefore, her recollections may not be completely accurate, given her close association with this SS doctor, it seems that her memories of his behaviour can be generally regarded as historically reliable.
Posner and Ware mention that Perl even put herself forward to testify against Mengele in court
(2000:82).
Likewise, throughout Holocaust literature there is a consensus that Mengele acted disgracefully in
Auschwitz; there is cumulative evidence regarding his experiments, given by those who survived them (Posner and Ware, 2000:37), and inmate-doctors like Perl (1948) and Nyiszli (2012), who worked for him. Posner and Ware note that ‘it was Mengele above all others, whom the survivors watching the selections most vividly recall’ (2000:30).
Moreover, Grese was prosecuted in the Belsen trials, and was killed for her Holocaust crimes in
December 1945 (Brown, 2004:93; Smart, 2008). Perl’s claim that she performed an abortion on Grese cannot be corroborated by others as clearly, Perl was the only witness to this clandestine encounter.
However, there is evidence for the other immoral actions Grese performed in Auschwitz,
Ravensbruck and Bergen-Belsen. According to historian Brown, Grese admitted to her war crimes before her trial (2004:81;85), and during the court proceedings, numerous survivors testified against her. For example, prisoner-doctor, Hadassah Rosensaft (2004), ‘was asked to identify Grese as her tormenter’ (Brown, 2004:78).
35 1424498
However, arguably, Perl’s recollection of Grese is problematic because it could be affected by gendered perceptions of how women should behave. After all, ideals of femininity seem to govern
Perl’s memory of Grese. Throughout her testimony, Perl contrasts Grese’s perversity with her physical beauty (1948:61-65):
‘She was one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen. Her body was perfect…and her
blue eyes…the most innocent eyes one can imagine. And yet, Irma Greze [sic] was the
most…cruel…sexual pervert…She was the highest ranking S.S woman in Auschwitz’
(1948:61 my italics).
My italicised words indicate that Perl was unable to believe that a woman of such beauty would be capable of such perverse, sordid actions. As stated by Vida, ‘Grese’s cruelty is…constructed through sexualizing [sic] her beauty and femininity’ (2016:531) in many survivor narratives (Vida, 2016:531).
It seems that Perl felt that for Grese to ‘match’ her physical appearance, she should have behaved in a highly moral, respectable and gentle manner, however, her actions were the antithesis of this. This perception of Grese was not limited to survivor stories, Vida claims that post-Holocaust news articles also ‘paid particular attention to the…physical appearance…of Grese’ (2016:530).
As Brown argues, ‘combined beauty and aggression have seemed to many to be contradictory to their conventional notions of acceptable feminine behaviour’ (2004: xxv). This seems evident in this extract where Perl is comparing Grese’s beauty, and ‘innocent’ exterior to her cruel and corrupted personality. Evidently, Grese’s behaviour entirely transcended gender stereotypes and expectations of femininity. Similarly, the fact that Perl mentions Grese’s elevated position in the SS, also suggests that she would not have expected a woman to exercise such power. These ideas can also be applied to
Lengyel’s recollection of Grese. Lengyel refers to Grese as the Nazi who ‘inspired [her]…to the most violent hatred’ (1995:160), and she makes Grese’s beauty a point of great discussion: ‘[i]t may be strange to repeat it so often, but she was exceptionally beautiful’ (1995:160). After spending almost an entire page describing Grese’s physicality, Lengyel subsequently mentions Grese’s ‘curt’ 36 1424498
(1995:161) orders to the medical staff (1995:161-162). This is just another example of Grese’s beauty being juxtaposed to her hostile, aggressive behaviour. As Hardman states, Holocaust survivors tend to depict SS women ‘using certain constructions of femininity…as their vehicles’ (2000:30).
Furthermore, Weckel contends that SS men and women were ‘[c]learly distinguishable in their outer appearance’ (2005:560), yet they ‘nevertheless committed the same deeds’ (2005:560). However,
Grese’s behaviour challenged preconceived ideas of femininity, as Weckel writes, women like Grese were ‘so wicked that they turned the gender order upside down’ (2005:360). Therefore, even though
Mengele and Grese were probably both equally as ‘evil’, Perl’s recollections of Grese may be more exaggerated, and therefore less accurate, in comparison to her memories of Mengele’s behaviour, simply because Perl was not used to seeing women act so violently.
A Conclusive Note on Perl
Having considered multiple aspects of Perl’s narrative, it seems reasonable to conclude that gender played a role in her Auschwitz experience. However, this is not because of Perl’s ‘gendered survival skills’, rather, it is due to the medical challenges associated with gender and sex that she dealt with.
Equally, Perl’s memories of Auschwitz may be affected by gender, due to the way this can implicitly impact the construction of testimonies (Waxman, 2006:122-151; Bos, 2003:23-50). Importantly, I have discovered that although gender may have influenced Perl’s imprisonment, there were other factors which equally affected her, and enhanced her ability to survive. Most notably, Perl’s privileged status as a prisoner-doctor gave her the opportunity to exercise a small degree of control, and enabled her to obtain extra food and medical supplies (Brown, 2013:6). However, I do not wish to overstate the influence these factors had on Perl’s time in Auschwitz. After all, even if her profession did positively impact Perl, as Brown rightly acknowledges, ‘no matter what…benefits “privileged”
Jews…gained for their cooperation…they experienced immense suffering and were, along with all…Jewish victims, intended to perish’ (2013:5). This must always be remembered when analysing testimonies written by any privileged prisoner.
37 1424498
Conclusion
In this dissertation, the primary aim was to analyse Gisella Perl’s memoir (1948) through ‘[t]he lens of gender’ (Pine, 2015:54). In the first chapter, I outlined the development of scholarship within the
‘women and the Holocaust’ discourse. I highlighted the controversial nature of this topic, and discussed how it was originally met with hostility from both female and male Holocaust academics and survivors, such as Ozick (Ringelheim, 1998:348-349) and Schoenfeld (2001:277-279). Therefore, interested scholars initially had to justify their reasons for studying gender and the Holocaust (Ofer and Weitzman, 1998:12-18). Having criticised the methodology adopted by these academics, I considered the approaches offered by scholars in the second-wave of study. I found that they examined women’s Holocaust experiences more unapologetically and also incorporated various different voices into their discussions of gender (Horowitz, 2000:158-190; Ofer and Weitzman, 1998).
I subsequently explored the more nuanced theories propounded by contemporary feminist Holocaust academics (Ben-Sefer, 2010:156-173 Bos, 2003:23-50; Halbmayr, 2010:29-44; Waxman, 2006).
In Chapter 2, I applied these contemporary feminist approaches to studying gender, to the context of female prisoner-functionaries in Auschwitz by focussing on the case study of Gisella Perl (1948). I can conclude that, as anticipated, I have been able to offer new insights into the complex relationship between hierarchy, privilege and gender in Auschwitz. I have discovered that these two aspects of
Perl’s identity – her gender and her status as a prisoner-doctor – affected not only her experiences, but also Perl’s subsequent memories and recollections of these experiences. I found that Perl’s vulnerabilities and experiences were often a consequence of her elevated position in the Auschwitz hierarchy, and her recollections of such experiences were gendered (Bos, 2003:23-50; Waxman,
2006:122-151).
Having studied the gendered nature of Perl’s narrative (1948), I now appreciate that memoirs written by Holocaust survivors are far more complex than they initially appear (Hogg and Drumbl,
2015:189), due to the plethora of factors that influence the writing of these testimonies. Therefore, 38 1424498
any attempts to homogenise or stereotype women’s Holocaust experiences simply ‘obscure[s] the diversity’ (Waxman, 2006:124) of their narratives. As Waxman rightly states, female survivors are certainly not ‘unproblematic victims’ (2006:125) whose stories should be regarded as entirely accurate, or taken as representing a ‘universal’ female Holocaust experience (Bos, 2010:29-30).
Rather, they are subjects whose narratives pose the same methodological challenges as male testimonies. The historical reliability of female testimonies should therefore, continue to be challenged and critically analysed to the same extent as the Holocaust memoirs written by male survivors.
I believe that this important area of Holocaust Studies will continue to be researched in years to come.
After all, western society is becoming increasingly concerned with this aspect of identity, and male and females are not as restricted by gender stereotypes as they previously were. Likewise, there is no longer a tacit acceptance that gender is a binary concept, with many arguing for the notion of gender fluidity (Lorber, 1994). Clearly, the term ‘gender’ has evolved since Holocaust survivors like Perl were writing, due to feminist academics such as Judith Butler, challenging identity perceptions
(Butler, 2004). It would be inappropriate to apply some of these contemporary ideas to Perl’s memoir
(1948). For example, theories proposing that gender is a fluid concept would be entirely out of context from Perl’s Auschwitz experiences. However, when analysing Holocaust testimonies, it would certainly be useful to acknowledge that men and women can deviate from the traits typically associated with their gender.
It is worth noting that throughout this dissertation, I have interpreted Perl’s experience through a feminist framework, however, other researchers may adopt different methodological frameworks when studying Perl’s memoir. Equally, I appreciate that this may be very different to the way Perl interpreted her imprisonment, for example, she probably did not regard her gender as a dominant aspect of her experience in Auschwitz. Raphael explores similar ideas at the beginning of, The Female
Face of God in Auschwitz: A Jewish Feminist Theology of the Holocaust (2003). When writing about the survivor testimonies she examines throughout the book, Raphael acknowledges that it cannot be 39 1424498
presumed ‘[t]hat these women were...feminists’ (2003:15). She also recognises that many of the
Jewish women who were incarcerated in Auschwitz would have disagreed with the feminist theology she champions (2003:15). Raphael therefore, clearly distinguishes between her own feminist interpretations of Judaism, and the interpretation of Judaism female Holocaust victims would have believed in (2003:14-16). She notes that her reading of women’s testimonies, ‘add[s] another interpretive layer to their witness’ (2003:16). This issue is also discussed by Hardman in her study of
Kitty Hart-Moxon’s Holocaust narratives (2000). Throughout her research, Hardman’s ‘commitment
[was] to explore…how gender…effected [sic] women’s lives before, during and after the Holocaust’
(2000:193). Therefore, she found that her ‘primary concerns’ (2000:193) were different to Hart-
Moxon’s.
Clearly, this dissertation has been grounded in contemporary feminist theories within the women and the Holocaust field. Therefore, like Hardman, gender has been my ‘primary concern’ (Hardman,
2000:193), but I recognise that this was unlikely to be a key concern for Perl. However, I appreciate, as Raphael does, that my feminist understanding of Perl’s testimony is one interpretation of her experiences among many (Raphael, 2003:16), and studying her narrative through this lens has given me significant insight into her life in Auschwitz. This framework has enabled me to approach Perl’s memoir discursively and explore numerous different facets of her imprisonment. Moreover, this gendered study has led me to value the importance of continuing to research and evaluate early memoirs written by women like Perl (1948). After all, as pointed out by Cesarani (2016: xxxviii),
Waxman (2015:114) and Shik (2009:221-246), early Holocaust testimonies were written in a very different context compared to those published later, they were written at a time when, arguably, women were willing to talk about subjects which were later rendered as ‘taboo’. Therefore, Perl’s recollections continue to help challenge current understandings and assumptions regarding women’s behaviour during the Holocaust. Evidently, gender can shape and influence survivor testimonies to different degrees, depending on when and by whom the testimony was written or recorded.
40 1424498
Furthermore, due to the almost exclusive focus on Perl’s narrative (1948), this dissertation is not an exhaustive report on prisoner-doctors or Jewish women in Auschwitz. However, this research serves as a methodological framework for future enquiries into other prisoner-physicians. To test the strength of my conclusions regarding the gendered nature of testimonies and further examine the relationship between gender, ethnicity and hierarchy, I would propose to study memoirs written by female non-
Jewish prisoner-physicians. Equally, I could extend this research by conducting a comparative analysis of non-Jewish male prisoners and Jewish male inmates, to discover the extent to which gender influenced their Holocaust experiences. I would achieve this by applying theories such as
Halbmayr’s sexualised violence (2010:29-44) to their narratives. I do not propose that women’s voices should be supplanted by male voices; female survivor stories should of course continue to be analysed and listened to. However, to quote Haynes, ‘if women have been obscured from scholarly view by being relegated to the background…men have been distorted by being thrust into the foreground’ (2015:167). It is time to reappraise male stories, to observe whether gender also affected their Holocaust experiences.
Above all, Perl’s story has taught me difficult yet invaluable lessons about the consequences of extreme discrimination. Her narrative serves as a vital reminder of the importance of maintaining an inclusive society that rejects prejudice and racism. For this reason, Perl’s testimony should continue to be studied and remembered.
41 1424498
Appendices
Appendix A: Perl’s location in Auschwitz
Throughout her memoir, Perl does not state clearly where she lived in Auschwitz. It is plausible that this is simply because she was not aware of the layout and architectural plans of Auschwitz when she was imprisoned there, or when she was writing about this subsequently in her memoir. However, it seems likely that Perl resided in Auschwitz-Birkenau. After all, ‘from August 1942’ (Auschwitz-
Birkenau State-Museum, 2017d) this is where the women’s camps were situated. Perl states that
‘[d]etachments of male workers came into Camp C almost daily, to clean…and patch up leaking roofs’ (1948:78). Thus, indicating that she lived exclusively with females and that the only interaction with males was when they were assigned to work in her area of the camp. Likewise, Perl frequently refers to working for Dr Josef Mengele (1948:16;71-72;111) and as Weindling notes, ‘[i]n August
1944 [Mengele]…benefitted from a promotion attaining overall responsibility for medicine in…Birkenau’ (2015:157). Similarly, according to Feidman and Berenbaum ‘[i]n November
1943…Mengele became the chief physician of Birkenau’ (2007:387) and at the beginning of Perl’s memoir, she refers to Mengele as the ‘chief physician of the camp’ (1948:16). Perl also mentions her involvement with the SS guard, Irma Grese (1948:61-65). In ‘March 1943… [Grese] was transferred to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp’ (Smart, 2008). Thus, confirming that Perl lived in Birkenau, at least during the initial months of her incarceration.
Furthermore, Perl most frequently refers to ‘Camp C’ (1948:80), and the various blocks there. For example, she talks of Block 7, stating that it was ‘one of the most important places in Camp C’
(1948:77). She also mentions working in Block 19 (1948:133-134) and in the gypsy camp (1948:131), which operated in Birkenau from February 1943 (Auschwitz-Birkenau State-Museum, 2017e). Due to
Perl’s multiple references to certain blocks, it is unclear as to exactly where she lived and worked in
Auschwitz-Birkenau. 42 1424498
On the following pages, I have included two maps of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The black arrow on Map 1 is pointing at section C of the B.II camp, which ‘was used from May 1944 as a transit camp for
Jewish women from Hungary’ (Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 2017f). The key on Map 2 confirms that this section was the location of the Hungarian women’s camp. As Perl was deported to
Auschwitz in the spring of 1944, it seems reasonable to assume that she lived there. However, she may have also lived in the women’s barrack in B.I b, shown by the blue arrow on Map 1. The key, and red arrow on Map 2 indicates that there was a medical barrack in this section, where Perl may have worked. It is also entirely possible that Perl lived in a number of different barracks during her eight months in Auschwitz.
43 1424498
Due to Perl’s many references to Due‘Camp to Perl’sC’, it seems many referencesreasonable toto ‘Campassume C’,that it she seems reasonablelived in this to assumesection; thatB.II she livedsection in C.this Perl may also section; B.II have resided in section C. these women’s barracks
Map 1: A map of Auschwitz-Birkenau taken from the Auschwitz Scrapbook (Scrapbookpages, 2009).
44 1424498
Medical Barracks
Map 2: A map of Auschwitz-Birkenau, showing the location of hospital barracks and the blocks assigned to different nationalities. Taken from the maps section on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) website (USHMM, Date Unknown).
45 1424498
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Adelsberger, L. (1995). Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Story. Translated by: D.E, Lipstadt. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Levi, P. (1988). The Drowned and the Saved. London: Penguin Group.
Lengyel, O. (1947). Five Chimneys: The Story of Auschwitz. New York: Howard Fertig.
Lengyel, O. (1995). Five Chimneys: A Woman Survivors’ True Story of Auschwitz. Chicago:
Academy Chicago Publishers.
Lengyel, O. (1998). Interview 46138-3. Visual History Archive Online. USC Shoah Foundation. Web
Access. 28th August 1998. Available at: http://vhaonline.usc.edu/search. [Accessed: 17th November
2016].
Moxon, K.H. (2007). Return to Auschwitz. Newark: The Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre.
Nyiszli, M. (2012). Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account. Translated by: T, Kremer, R, Seaver.
London: Penguin Classics.
Perl, G. (1948). I Was a Doctor in Auschwitz. New York: International Universities Press.
Rosensaft, H. (2004). Yesterday: My Story. Washington D.C: Holocaust Memorial Museum,
Holocaust Survivors’ Memoirs Project.
Steinberg, L. (1999). Interview 49918-3. Visual History Archive Online. USC Shoah Foundation.
Web Access. 21st July 1999. Available at: http://vhaonline.usc.edu/search. [Accessed: 17th November
2016].
Szmaglewska, S. (1947). Smoke Over Birkenau. Translated by: J, Rynas. New York: Henry Holt &
Co. 46 1424498
Wiesel, E. (2006). Night. Translated by: M. Wiesel. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Zisblatt, I. (1996). Interview 07832-2. Visual History Archive Online. USC Shoah Foundation. Web
Access. 21st October 1995. Available at: http://vhaonline.usc.edu/search. [Accessed: 3rd November
2016].
Secondary Sources
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2016a). Auschwitz Calendar: 1940. Available at: http://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-calendar/year-1940/. [Accessed: 25th February 2017].
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2016b). Auschwitz Calendar: 1942. Available at: http://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/auschwitz-calendar/year-1942. [Accessed: 25th February 2017].
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2016c). Prisoner Doctors. Available at: http://auschwitz.org/en/history/camp-hospitals/prisoner-doctors. [Accessed: 25th February 2017].
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2017d). Mini Dictionary: Women. Available at: http://www.auschwitz.org/en/press/mini-dictionary/#Women. [Accessed: 4th March 2017].
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2017e). Mini Dictionary: BIIe. Available at: http://www.auschwitz.org/en/press/mini-dictionary/#BIIe. [Accessed: 4th March 2017].
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. (2017f). Mini Dictionary: BIIc. Available at: http://www.auschwitz.org/en/press/mini-dictionary/#BIIc. [Accessed: 4th March 2017].
Baer, E, Goldenberg, M, (eds). (2003). Experience and Expression: Women, the Nazis, and the
Holocaust. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Baumel, J, T. (1998). Double Jeopardy: Gender and the Holocaust. London: Vallentine Mitchell.
Ben-Sefer, E. (2010). ‘Forced Sterilization and Abortion as Sexual Abuse’. In: S. Hedgepeth, R.
Saidel (eds). Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women During the Holocaust. Waltham: Brandeis
University Press. 156-173. 47 1424498
Blatman, D. (1998). ‘Women in the Jewish Labor Bund in Interwar Poland’. In: D. Ofer, L.J.
Weitzman (eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 68-84.
Blackburn, D. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition Revised. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, D.P. (2004). The Beautiful Beast: The Life & Crimes of Irma Grese. Second Edition. Ventura:
Golden West Historical Publications.
Brown, A. (2013). Judging “Privileged” Jews: Holocaust Ethics, Representation and the “Grey
Zone”. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Brozan, N. (1982). ‘Out of Death, a Zest for Life’. New York Times 15th November 1982. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/15/style/out-of-death-a-zest-for-life.html [Accessed: 23rd
February 2017].
Bondy, R. (1998). ‘Women in Theresienstadt and the Family Camp at Birkenau’. In: D. Ofer, L.J.
Weitzman (eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 310-326.
Bos, P.R. (2003). ‘Women and the Holocaust: Analysing Gender Difference’. In: E. Baer, M.
Goldenberg (eds). Experience and Expression: Women, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press. 23-50.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
Cefrey, H. (2001). Dr Josef Mengele: The Angel of Death. New York: Rosen Publishing Group.
Cesarani, D. (2016). Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-49. London: Pan Macmillan.
Feidman, N, Berenbaum, M. (2007). ‘Camps’. In M. Berenbaum, F. Skolnik (eds). Encyclopaedia
Judaica: Gale Virtual Reference Library. Volume 18. Second Edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference
USA, Keter Publishing House. 383-390. Available at: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResults
Type=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CCX258 48 1424498
7503885&docType=Topic+overview&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=GVRL&cont entSet=GALE%7CCX2587503885&searchId=R1&userGroupName=nm_p_elportal&inPS=true.
[Accessed: 6th January 2016].
Flaschka, M.J. (2010). ‘“Only Pretty Women Were Raped”: The Effect of Sexual Violence on Gender
Identities in Concentration Camps’. In: S. Hedgepeth, R. Saidel (eds). Sexual Violence Against Jewish
Women During the Holocaust. Waltham: Brandeis University Press. 77-93.
Goldenberg, M. (1996). ‘Lessons Learnt from Gentle Heroism: Women’s Holocaust Narratives’. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Volume 548. 78-93. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/stable/pdf/1048544.pdf?_=1459783005927. [Accessed:
18th October 2016]. JSTOR.
Goldenberg, M. (1998). ‘Memoirs of Auschwitz Survivors: The Burden of Gender’. In: D. Ofer, L.J.
Weitzman (eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 327-339.
Goldenberg, M. (2010). ‘Food Talk: Gendered Responses to Hunger in the Concentration Camps’. In:
E.R. Baer, M. Goldenberg (eds). Experience and Expression: Women, the Nazis and the Holocaust.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 161-179.
Greenspan, H. (1998) On Listening to Holocaust Survivors: Recounting and Life History. Westport:
Praeger.
Halbmayr, B. (2010). ‘Sexualised Violence against Women During Nazi “Racial” Persecution’. In: S.
Hedgepeth, R. Saidel (eds). Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women During the Holocaust. Waltham:
Brandeis University Press. 29-44.
Halpin, R. (2011). Jewish Doctors in Auschwitz. Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’
Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem. [Video]. December 26th. Available at: http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/video-lectures/jewish-doctors-auschwitz. [Accessed: 16th
January 2017]. 49 1424498
Harding, L. (2012). ‘One Woman Shares her Extraordinary Story as a Concentration Camp Survivor’.
Daily Mail Online. 24th January 2012. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-
2087826/Kitty-Hart-Moxon-One-woman-shares-extraordinary-story-concentration-camp- survivor.html. [Accessed: 30th January 2017]
Hardman, A.V. (2000). Gender and the Holocaust: Interpreting the Holocaust Testimonies of Kitty
Hart-Moxon. A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. University of Birmingham.
Hayes, P, Roth, J (eds). (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Available at: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/oso/viewbook/10.1093$002foxfordhb$002f9
780199211869.001.0001$002foxfordhb-9780199211869. [Accessed: 12th November 2016].
Haynes, S.R. (2015). ‘Ordinary Masculinity: Gender Analysis and Holocaust Scholarship’. In: A,
Randall (ed). Genocide and Gender in the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Survey. New York:
Bloomsbury. 165-188
Hedgepeth, S, Saidel, R, (eds). (2010). Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women During the Holocaust.
Waltham: Brandeis University Press.
Heinemann, M. (1986). Gender and Destiny: Women Writers and the Holocaust. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
Hill, M.M, Williams, L.N. (1965). Auschwitz in England. London: The Garden City Press Ltd.
Hlalele, D, Brexa, J. (2015). ‘Challenging the Narrative of Gender Socialisation: Digital Storytelling as an Engaged Methodology for the Empowerment of Girls and Young Women’. Agenda
Empowering Women for Gender Equity. Volume 29. (Number 3). 79-88. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/10130950.2015.1073439?needAc cess=true. [Accessed: 25th February 2017]. 50 1424498
Hogg, N, Drumbl, M. (2015). ‘Women as Perpetrators: Agency and Authority in Genocidal Rwanda’.
In: A, Randall (ed). Genocide and Gender in the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Survey. New
York: Bloomsbury. 189-211.
Horowitz, S. (1998). ‘Women in Holocaust Literature: Engendering Trauma Memory’. In: D. Ofer,
L.J. Weitzman (eds). (1998). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 364-377.
Horowitz, S. (2000). ‘Gender, Genocide, and Jewish Memory’. Proof Texts, Project Muse. Volume
20. (Number 1&2). 158-190. Available at: https://muse-jhu- edu.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/journals/prooftexts/v020/20.1horowitz.pdf. [Accessed: 23rd February 2017].
IMDb. (2003). Out of the Ashes. Joseph Sargent (director). Ardent Productions. Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311210/videoplayer/vi1201602841?ref_=tt_ov_vi. [Accessed: 18th
January 2017].
Jakubowski, K. (2015). ‘No, the Existence of Trans People Doesn’t Validate Gender Essentialism’.
Everyday Feminism. 9th March 2015. Available at: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/trans- people-gender-essentialism/. [Accessed: 18th October 2016].
Jewish Virtual Library. (2017). Hidden Children. Available at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hidden-children-of-the-holocasut. [Accessed: 29th January 2016].
Karay, F. (1998). ‘Women in the Forced-Labour Camps’. In: D. Ofer, L.J. Weitzman (eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 285-309.
Katz, E, Ringelheim, J, (eds). (1983). Proceedings of the Conference on Women Surviving the
Holocaust. New York: Institute for Research in History.
Kubica, H. (1994). ‘The Crimes of Josef Mengele’. In: Y, Gutman, M, Berenbaum (eds). Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp’. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. 317-337. 51 1424498
Kubica, H. (2000). ‘Children and Adolescents in Auschwitz’. In: W. Dlugoborski, F. Piper (eds).
Translated by: W. Brand. Auschwitz 1940-1945. Volume 2. Oswiecim: Auschwitz Birkenau State
Museum. 201-290.
Kubica, H. (2010). Voices of Memory 5: Pregnant Women and Children Born in Auschwitz.
Translated by: W. Brand. Oswiecim: Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum.
Langer, L. (1998). Preempting the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lifton, R.J. (1986). Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic
Book Publishers.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New York: Vail-Ballou Press.
Milton, S. (1993). ‘Women and the Holocaust: The Case of German and German-Jewish Women’. In:
C. Rittner, J. Roth (eds). Different Voices: Women and the Holocaust. St Paul: Paragon House. 213-
249.
Mullins, A. (2016). Dissertation Preparation: Literature Review. University of Birmingham. April
2016. Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/OneDrive/Documents/UoB%20-
%20year%203/Modules/Dissertation/IMPORTANT/Literature%20Review.pdf. [Accessed: 7th
January 2017].
Norman, A. (2016). ‘The Tragic Heroism of Gisella Perl, “The Angel of Auschwitz”’. All That is
Interesting Blog. 8th March 2015. Available at: http://all-that-is-interesting.com/gisella-perl.
[Accessed: 31st October 2016].
Nowrojee, B. (1996). Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and its
Aftermath. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Ofer, D. Weitzman, L.J. (eds). (1998). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ofer, D, Weitzman, L.J. (1998). ‘Introduction’. In: D. Ofer, L.J. Weitzman (eds). Women in the
Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2-23. 52 1424498
Oxford Dictionary. Untermensch. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/untermensch. [Accessed: 5th January 2017].
Patterson, D. (1999). ‘The Moral Dilemma of Motherhood in the Nazi Death Camps’. In: H.J. Cargas
(ed). Problems Unique to the Holocaust. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. 7-24.
Patterson, D, Berger, A, Cargas, S, (eds). (2002). Encyclopaedia of Holocaust Literature. Westport:
Greenwood Publishers.
Pentlin, S.L. (1999). ‘Holocaust Victims of Privilege’. In: H.J. Cargas (ed). Problems Unique to the
Holocaust. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. 25-42.
Pine, L. (2008). ‘Gender and Holocaust Victims: A Reappraisal’. Journal of Jewish Identities.
Volume 1. Part 2. 121-141. Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Lisa%20Pine%252c%20%2527Gender%20and%20Holocaust%20vic tims%20-
%20A%20reappraisal%2527%252c%20Journal%20of%20Jewish%20Identities%201.2%20(2008)%2
52c%20121-41%20(1).pdf. [Accessed: 12th November 2016].
Pine, L. (2015). ‘Gender and the Holocaust: Male and Female Experiences of Auschwitz’. In: A,
Randall (ed). Genocide and Gender in the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Survey. New York:
Bloomsbury. 37-61.
Posner, G, Ware, J. (2000). Mengele: The Complete Story. New York: Cooper Square Press.
Raphael, M. (2003). The Female Face of God in Auschwitz: A Jewish Feminist Theology of the
Holocaust. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Reamey, A.S. (2009). ‘Gisella Perl: Angel and Abortionist in the Auschwitz Death Camp’. The
Holocaust Project. Available at: http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust- history.org/auschwitz/gisella-perl/. [Accessed: 23rd February 2017]. 53 1424498
Ringelheim, J. (1984). ‘The Unethical and the Unspeakable: Women and the Holocaust’. Simon
Wiesenthal Annual. Annual Volume 1. Chapter 4. Available at: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394977. [Accessed: 18th October 2016].
Ringelheim, J. (1985). ‘Women and the Holocaust: A Reconsideration of Research’. Signs. Volume
10. (Number 4). 741-761. Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/doc%20(1).pdf. [Accessed:
18th October 2016].
Ringelheim, J. (1998). ‘The Split Between Gender and the Holocaust’. In: D. Ofer, L.J. Weitzman
(eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 340-350.
Rittner, C, Roth, J (eds). (1993). Different Voices: Women and the Holocaust. St Paul: Paragon
House.
Romney, C. (2014). ‘Jewish Medical Resistance in Block 10, Auschwitz’. In: M.A, Grodin (eds).
Jewish Medical Resistance in the Holocaust. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 185-196.
Rosensaft, M.Z. (2009). ‘Hadassah Rosensaft’ Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical
Encyclopaedia. 1st March 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. Available At: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/rosensaft-hadassah. [Accessed: 23rd January 2017].
Rubenstein, R.L. (1995). ‘Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi’. In: J Pacy, A.P Wertheimer (eds).
Perspectives on the Holocaust: Essays in Honour of Raul Hilberg. Boulder: Westview Press. 145-
165.
Sander-Staudt, M. (Date Unknown). ‘Care Ethics’. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/. [Accessed: 5th November 2016].
Saunders. (2003). ‘Hippocratic Oath’. Miller-Keane Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Medicine,
Nursing and Allied Health. (7th ed). Elsevier. Available at: http://medical- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hiocratic+oath. [Accessed: 31st October 2016].
Schoenfeld, G. (2001). ‘Feminist Approaches to the Holocaust’. Proof Texts, Project Muse. Volume
21. (Number 2). 277-279. Available At: https://muse-jhu- 54 1424498
edu.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/journals/prooftexts/v021/21.2schoenfeld.pdf. [Accessed:12th November
2016].
Shik, N. (2009). ‘Sexual Abuse of Jewish Women in Auschwitz-Birkenau’. In: D, Herzog (eds).
Brutality and Desire: War and Sexuality in Europe’s Twentieth Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave,
Macmillan. 221-246.
Simkin, J. (2016). ‘Gisella Perl’. Spartacus Educational. Available at: http://spartacus- educational.com/Gisella_Perl.htm. [Accessed: 6th January 2017].
Skjelsbaek, I. (2001). ‘Sexual Violence and War: Mapping Out a Complex Relationship’. European
Journal of International Relations. Volume 7. Part 2. 211-237. Available at: http://file.prio.no/publication_files/prio/Skjelsbaek%202013.EJIR.pdf. [Accessed: 12th November
2016].
Smart, V. (2008). ‘Irma Grese: Excerpts from the Belsen Trial and Biography’. Holocaust Education
& Archive Research Team. Available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/grese.html.
[Accessed: 6th January 2017].
Strzelecka, I. (2000). ‘The Hospitals at Auschwitz Concentration Camp’. In: W. Dlugoborski, F. Piper
(eds). Translated by: W. Brand. Auschwitz 1940-1945. Volume 2. Oswiecim: Auschwitz Birkenau
State Museum. 291-346.
Strzelecka, I. (2008). Voices of Memory 3: Medical Crimes the Hospitals in Auschwitz. Translated by:
W. Brand. Oswiecim: Auschwitz Birkenau State Museum.
Unger, M. (1998). ‘The Status and Plight of Women in the Lodz Ghetto’. In: D. Ofer, L.J. Weitzman
(eds). Women in the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 123-142.
Vansuch, B. (2011). Mengele’s Ethics: An Analytical Approach to Understanding Josef Mengele’s
Motives. A Masters Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The 55 1424498
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Georgetown University. Available at: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553409. [Accessed: 25th February 2017].
Vida, B. (2016). ‘Gendering the Holocaust: A Case Study of Irma Grese: Constructing the ‘Evil’ and the ‘Ordinary’ Through Digital Oral Testimonies and Written Trial Testimonies of the Holocaust
Survivors’. Kaleidoscope History. Volume 7. (Number 13). November 2016. 529-541. Available at: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/cikkek-11.%20Bianka%20Vida.pdf. [Accessed: 27th January 2017].
Waxman, Z. (2006). Writing the Holocaust: Identity, Testimony, Representation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Waxman, Z. (2010). ‘Testimony and Silence: Sexual Violence in the Holocaust’. In: S. Gunne, Z.T.
Brigley (eds). Feminism, Literature and Rape Narratives: Violence and Violation. New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis. 117-129.
Waxman, Z. (2015). ‘An Exceptional Genocide? Sexual Violence in the Holocaust’. In: A, Randall
(ed). Genocide and Gender in the Twentieth Century: A Comparative Survey. New York:
Bloomsbury. 107-120.
Weckel, U. (2005). ‘Does Gender Matter? Filmic Representations of the Liberated Nazi
Concentration Camps, 1945-46’. Gender & History. Volume 17. (Number 3). November 2005. 538-
566. Available At: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0953-5233.2005.00396.x/pdf.
[Accessed: 27th January 2017].
Weindling, P. (2015). Victims and Survivors of Nazi Human Experiments: Science and Suffering in the Holocaust. London: Bloomsbury.
Weitzman, L.J. (2012). ‘Women in the Holocaust’. In: The Holocaust and United Nations Outreach
Programme. Discussion Papers Journal. Volume 2.49-62. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/pdf/dpj_II.pdf. [Accessed: 24th February 2017].
Weitzman, L.J. (2010). ‘Women’. In: P. Hayes, J. Roth (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-18. Available at: 56 1424498
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211869.001.
0001/oxfordhb-9780199211869-e-14?print=pdf. [Accessed: 12th November 2016].
Appendix A Maps
Scrapbookpages. (2009). Auschwitz II – Birkenau. Available at: https://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/History/Articles/Birkenau01B.html.
[Accessed: 4th March 2017].
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). (Date Unknown). ‘Auschwitz II (Birkenau)
Camp, Summer 1944’. Auschwitz – Map. Available at: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005189&MediaId=304#. [Accessed: 4th
March 2017].