Did Carl have a Protectorate? Who was Waldemar Ballerstedt?

Dear Grandkids,

Every good story has an exciting plot twist, a mystery to be solved, or a sharp and unexpected left turn. This story is no different.

When Irmgard died in January, 1944, Carl’s protection was suddenly gone. He was no longer in a protected mixed marriage; now he was simply “the Jew, Carl Israel Heumann.” At that point, one would expect that Carl would be deported “to the East” where, in all likelihood, he would be killed. But Carl was not summoned, and he was not deported. Instead, he lived alone in his home for another full year. By this time, his two sons had been summoned to work camps and his daughter was living with relatives. 

There had been almost 3,000 Jews living in Chemnitz before the war, but by the end of the war, there were fewer than 25. Carl did die at the end of the war, but it wasn’t at the hands of the Nazis; instead, it was as a result of the direct hit of an Allied bomb that was part of a carpet-bombing strike on March 5, 1945.

So why wasn’t Carl taken?

This question is one that both intrigues and haunts me. I asked my dad numerous times what his theory was. His answers usually centered on Carl’s positive personal attributes. He was cooperative; he was apolitical; he knew the law and abided by it; he was, you know, just a really good guy. Seriously, Dad? The Nazis didn’t allow a full (unprotected) Jew to survive because he was a good guy, because he had a nice art collection of the “right kind of art,” or even because he earned an Iron Cross in The Great War.

So why wasn’t Carl taken? This post postulates a theory. Listen up.

Here are my dad’s words:

In November 1942, the Nazis ordered my father to do physical labor, called Erdarbeiten” (“digging-in-soil work”). The only tool my father had ever held in his hand was a sharpened pencil, and now, suddenly, he was being forced to dig with a shovel from daybreak to nightfall.

As you might remember, it was decided at the Wannsee Conference that Jewish men who were not “evacuated to the east” (deported and killed) would be used for construction, military digging work, or other projects requiring hard physical labor.

There are two existing records of my father’s experience with hard physical labor -- you pick!

Version one: Mother wrote to her mother, Adele, that Carl was required to do hard physical work “in a howling storm and rain,” but that Carl accepted this fate without argument or resistance. I personally remember, though, that Vati was physically exhausted from doing work for which he was completely unfit. He said that he and two other people were the only “gentlemen” in the group, a doctor and a lawyer in mixed marriages, like him. The rest, he said, were either “real Jews” or unemployed Aryan men.

“Real Jews”? As opposed to the privileged kind? Wow. I’m gonna have to chalk this up to ignorance. Or to generational changes in attitudes. Or something…!

Version two: Waldemar Ballerstedt was the head of the Chemnitz Museum when Carl served on the Board of Directors of the Chemnitz Kunsthütte (art society). Before the war, in the very early 30s, the two were both friends and professional cohorts. Around 1934, Ballerstedt became the head of Chemnitz Cultural Office and District Cultural Warden for the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and was tasked directly by Hitler to rid Chemnitz of “degenerate art,” a task he undertook boldly and enthusiastically. Make no mistake; Ballerstedt was a full-fledged Nazi. His involvement, in fact, helped create the Nazi strategy for seizing degenerate art.

In late 1957, after ten years as a prisoner in a Russian gulag, and just before an important auction in Stuttgart, in which many works in Carl’s art collection were to be sold, Rainer received a long rambling letter from Ballerstedt. In it, Ballerstedt lamented that he couldn’t attend the auction and that he always held “great admiration for your dear father… with his gifted hands, eyes, and heart.” He gushed about his apparent close friendship with Carl and insisted that he had been instrumental in keeping Carl alive at the end of the war.

“One day,” Ballerstedt wrote, in regard to Carl’s Erdarbeiten, “I got a horror-stricken call from City Construction Supervisor Otto, who belonged to my confidential circle of cohorts, saying he had to do work at the South Arena, and Konsul Heumann was one of the people under his direction. Otto said he sent Konsul Heumann home immediately, believing that action would get my (Ballerstedt’s) approval. Otto asked me to cover his butt, just in case, which I did, with my thanks to him. I assumed full responsibility for what he had done, although I knew that I was already being considered a suspicious subject…”

Waldemar Ballerstedt

In the letter, Ballerstedt presents himself as someone who had the greatest respect for my father and his collection, and claims that he did all kinds of things for my father, none of which can be proven now. He had been a Nazi Party member since 1931 and was prominently in charge of the Museum under Nazi rule. In the letter to Rainer, full of obeisance to Rainer and to Father, he portrays himself as a protector of several Jews. He supposedly rescued Carl’s art collection from the Nazis, protected my father and other Jews in many ways, and even gave details of how, before Christmas 1944, he arranged a hiding place for Father in a small cottage he had in the deep forest -- endangering thereby his own life.

All this may be true, but I don’t know. I have sometimes wondered if my father did have a prominent Nazi protector who would help him in order to secure for himself someone who could act as “Witness for the Defense” after the war. It is possible that Ballerstedt was that protector. On the other hand, none of his claims can be proven now, so I have to leave this possibility open -- for now.

My curiosity about Waldemar Ballerstedt’s role in Carl’s life prompted me to do some digging in early 2015. Who was this man?

A few things are certain: 1.) He worked with Carl in the early 1930s and they had a congenial relationship centered around their mutual appreciation of “good German art.”  2.) Ballerstedt was a high-ranking Nazi; Carl was a full Jew, in a “privileged, protected” marriage until Irmgard’s death in January, 1944, then unprotected and vulnerable. 3.) Ten years after the war ended, Ballerstedt insisted that he had been Carl’s secret protectorate, keeping him out of Nazi clutches in 1944 and early 1945.

I set out to research who this man was and what role he played in Carl’s life. My research led me to Ballerstedt’s grandson, Michael Luts who, coincidentally, lives in Arizona. Ballerstedt's daughter, Waltraud ("Trudy"), born in 1929, is Michael's mother. His father was an American GI named Douglas Luts. According to Michael, Katchen, his grandmother and Waldemar’s second wife, told him "in about 1971 or 1972" that Waldemar protected some Jews in Chemnitz and that "some Jews even testified at his trial" before he was put in a Soviet prison from 1945 to 1955. Interesting! Michael sent me a photo of his grandfather with a group of other men, taken sometime in the 30s.

I told my father about the call and sent him the photo, asking if he by any chance sees Carl. He replied, “No, I don't. Why should I? What is this photo? It has the "golden-Parteiabzeichen-wearer" Ballerstedt prominently in front!  They all look like Nazis to me, with Parteiabzeichen,” the round Nazi party emblem on the lapels; the ones who joined the party very early, like in 1930,  before Hitler assumed power, had a golden edge around it . Those were people you avoided by a mile in Nazi Germany, because they were typically deeply convinced Nazis and had jobs to match their ideology!  Ballerstedt was one of them. That he would have protected my father out of  the goodness of his heart, not expecting art as his eventual reward, is just inconceivable to me!  Ballerstedt was classified by the Russians as one of the "Hauptverbrecher"  ("pricipal criminals") of Nazi times and was held captive for 10 years. I would want nothing whatsoever to do with his family!  Similarly, I avoid contact with the nephew of a man who was in charge of "nazifying",(that is "de-Jewing")  German businesses in Chemnitz.  Of course, the nephew now says his uncle had always been "against the Nazis" all along.  They all claim that nowadays!

Why are you getting all this irrelevant family story?

Love, Dad”

To which I answered, “To me, it comes down to this: love and peace are stronger than hate and war. 
The war ended 70 years ago, Dad. Two generations have passed since Ballerstedt and Carl lived during the same horrific time - and both were victimized, though in quite different ways, by that war. Perhaps the politics of that time mandate that the grandchildren of those involved should not be speaking to one another, but that would just propagate the hate for yet another generation. What good could come from that?

Personally, I find it fascinating that your father was never taken and I would like to find out why. Ballerstedt seems to be a significant piece of that puzzle. There WERE Nazis who helped Jews, and it seems that there's a good chance that he was one of them. Michael Luts specifically remembers his grandmother telling him, in '71 when he was in 7th grade, that Ballerstedt went to prison for being a war criminal and that Jews from Chemnitz testified in his behalf at his trial. That is consistent with what Ballerstedt wrote to Rainer.

As I mentioned to you over Thanksgiving, even people today in Germany do not talk about their grandparents if they were involved in the war, as Nazis or even "just" as drafted German soldiers. It is simply not spoken about, 70 years later - and HUGE pieces of verbal personal histories are being lost. Isn't it possible that it's a good thing that the grandchildren of two men who liked and respected one another, but happened to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum during WWII, come together to find some commonality?

Love, Carol

Dad’s reply was short: “Carol - I accept, but cannot agree with your criticism.

I left Germany specifically because I thought that sooner or later the Germans would again find another excuse to persecute people "different" from them. It was Jews in 1945, it is "Muslims" today, very obviously and openly.  Rainer left for Switzerland for the same reason.

If we forget, they will persecute Jews again.  Yes, they "don't talk" about it.

D.”

Isn’t it ironic that my father left Germany because he thought that sooner or later the Germans would again find another excuse to persecute people "different" from them… and that he came to America where, in 2016, a man who wanted to do just that became president? I don’t think my dad would have survived the Trump presidency (hell, he barely survived a month of it!), and I’m so glad he didn’t have to watch what happened under that bigot.

The long, rambling letter that Ballerstedt wrote to my uncle Rainer just before the major auction in Stuttgart in 1957, insisting that he was Carl’s protectorate, didn’t convince my father, nor did it convince Rainer… but I just don’t know! I think there’s a chance that Ballerstedt was Carl’s protectorate. I’ve questioned whether I should include the letter (Dad’s translation, anyway) here. It’s long and somewhat convoluted, but I’ve highlighted some of the more pertinent parts (for me, anyway).

What do YOU think?

It seems that Ballerstedt’s letter was prompted by his desire (but inability) to attend the auction in Stuttgart that would essentially sell off most of the art from Carl’s art collection. He speaks affectionately of Carl here: “great admiration…” “your dear father…” gifted hands, eyes, heart…” “admired the way he would cut and order glue…” “conversations between us, held dear…”

“…a mentor like Carl Heumann…”  “brim over with what’s in one’s heart…” “in his kind-heartedness…”

Ballerstedt pretty much tells his life story to Rainer. Dad would say he was “buttering Rainer up.” I refrain from the same judgement, at this point. He starts off by implying that politics were never important to him; only art was important, and Carl’s significance was substantial, “not only as an art collector, but as a human being.” He remembers the day – his birthday - when he met Carl at an art exhibit in 1930. He mentions that Carl himself dedicated the exhibit catalog to Ballerstedt.

Then we hear about Walter Hoffman. Hoffman was the Heumann’s pastor and good friend. As you might recall, he confirmed Thomas in the Protestant church years before. So these three men – a Nazi, a full Jew, and a pastor -- were friends, well into the 1930s? Hmmmmm…. not sure how credible that is!

Then Ballerstedt alludes to a mandate to kick Carl off the art council board, adding “I simply could not bring myself to boot your father out the door in the infamous year of 1936.” Remember that it was Ballerstedt’s job as a Nazi to rid Chemnitz of “degenerate art” and, one would presume, of Jews – even if they collected “good, wholesome German art.” Another hmmmmmm… maybe Dad was right!

Then Ballerstedt claims that Carl “quit on his own volition” because not doing so would endanger the museum and Ballerstedt personally.And then he insists that he was “so outraged” when Carl submitted said resignation that he could “hardly see him.” Why do I doubt this?!

Ballerstedt then insists that personal contact with Carl didn’t cease upon his resignation, but “continued almost to the bitter end,” meeting at auction houses, among other places. Did Carl go to auction houses late in the war?

And, of course, Ballerstedt mentions the incident that Irmgard refers to – the Erdarbeit, insisting that he was responsible for “sending Carl home,” and that he did so at professional risk to himself.

And then Ballerstedt essentially says that, through his cunning actions, he saved Carl’s collection from ending up in the hands of the Reich. Later, he risked scrutiny (and worse?) when he insisted on fair credit to Carl’s collection when some art from his collection was on display. IF all this is true, I think it speaks to the possibility that Ballerstedt could have, indeed, been Carl’s protectorate.

Ballerstedt then refers to going for walks with Carl “after black-out” at the end of the war and of secretly welcoming him into the museum where employees could be trusted not to turn either of them in. I’m dubious of this because, from everything I’ve heard, no one could trust anyone – especially at that point in the war!

Ballerstedt mentions that it was on one of their walks that they discussed a hiding place for Carl, “just in case.” We will never know if this actually happened – but unlike my father, I think there’s a possibility that it did!

Ballerstedt mentions someone else for whom he arranged hiding and adds that he had convinced a previous household helper of Carl’s to put Carl (“a nameless man, referred by Ballerstedt) up in her apartment, if needed.

Ballerstedt ends with “ That’s enough, because otherwise some people may get the impression that I want to brag about things that in reality have only been a prayer of simple altruism, as well as of a true Christian and German mindset.”

If all this is true, Ballerstedt is a true hero and a kind-hearted human being who was willing to risk much for his friend, Carl Heumann, and we owe him great gratitude and thanks.

If all this is NOT true, and Ballerstedt was fabricating this long, sordid tale for Rainer, well… what a fucking asshole!

(Do not swear like Omi did, dear grandchildren!)

 

In the PS, Ballerstedt continues to pile it on. He insists that Carl wouldn’t have ended up on a transport because “he would have immediately contacted me himself if he had felt threatened by any danger.” Would Carl have gone into hiding? There’s no way to know.

In this letter to the Stuttgart auction house, Ballerstedt again claims that he was “fortunate to have been instrumental at the time to protect the entire Heumann collection from usurpation by certain parties.

Again, if true, Ballerstedt is my hero. If false, what a con man.

What do YOU think?