Love in the time of Auschwitz: romantic love, family bonds, and the formation of friendships as a lifesaving element

ABSTRACT

Deconstructing the notion of love as we know it and understanding the emotional scripts that motivate individuals in a relationship – whether the relationship is romantic, familial, or platonic – stands at the heart of this research. While having loved ones in the same concentration camp held substantial motivation to survive, it also entailed taking substantial risks as a result of the emotional scripts each type of relationship held.

KEYWORDS:

• Friendship
• Auschwitz
• love
• emotional scripts
• survival

‘We have to separate’ were the last words 18-year-old Mel Mermelstein heard from his father, Bernat Mermelstein, only a few days after they arrived at Auschwitz. In May 1944, the Mermelstein family, originally from Mukačevo, Czechoslovakia, arrived to the chaos that was Auschwitz, in which men were immediately separated from women and those who survived the initial selection process were sent to register at the camp. In his testimony, Mel remembers his father’s words of advice, which were meant to prepare him for the selection process and included instructions to stand up straight and tell the officials that he is already 18 and is a good worker. Following his father’s guidance, Mel managed to register at the camp with his brother, Lajos Mermelstein. About three or four days into their stay in Auschwitz, Mel and Lajos decided to look for their father whom they had lost trace of during the registration process.

I found him dejected, sitting on the ground and I tapped him on his shoulder, and he got up on his feet, and, and – as if wanting to shield me and my brother from the visible flames […] he began telling me and my brother that we must not stay together […] This is a place of death. If we are together, I will see your suffering and that’s not going to be good for me, and it wouldn’t be good for you, either, to see my suffering. And so, we have to separate. We’ve got to be in different places here permanently, he says. Don’t look for me. Fight to survive. Don’t even think of your mother or your sisters. Think of yourselves and do everything to survive.¹

That was the last time Mel saw his father and his brother as he was the only survivor of the Mermelstein family. The decree of separation described in Mel’s testimony seems unusual in the Holocaust survivors’ testimony landscape as the more familiar narrative is the one in which family members did not only plea to stay together but also had parents ask their children to keep close and help each other survive. Indeed, one of the anomalies present in some of the testimonies of those who survived is how people went against perceived common sense, especially when it came to parents and their children. The need to separate, to forcefully detach from loved ones, emerged as an attempt to save their lives and for the individual to try to survive. Still, while Mel’s tragic story seems abnormal in the context of surviving the Holocaust, this was the father’s way of making sure his sons did their best to survive. In other words, this was his way of caring for his children and making sure they do their best to survive, thus, showing his children love.

Mel’s father was not alone in this approach. During his stay in Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel was given two opposite pieces of advice. One came from an ‘old’ prisoner who said they were all brothers who shared the suffering of the same fate; the veteran prisoner asked the newcomers to help one another, as it was the only way to survive. The second piece of advice was the exact opposite. A fellow prisoner told Wiesel that he mustn’t forget that he is in a concentration camp, a place in which every person must fight for himself and not think of anyone else – not even his father. According to that prisoner, in the concentration camp, there are no fathers, no brothers, no friends – everyone lives and dies for himself, alone.²

The tension between these opposite approaches to surviving Auschwitz as well as the tension between the way we comprehend loving connections stands at the heart of this study, which seeks to look into how contemporary social structures of loving emotions manifest in times of crisis. As this study unfolds, it will become clear that surviving Auschwitz was not possible without human connections but also that some bonds contained more risk than others. This article will examine three main types of love connections: romantic love, family ties such as the connection between siblings or that of a parent and his or her child, and platonic love as manifests in friendships. The fundamental source of these relationships was love and as History of Emotions scholar Barbara Fredrickson argues:

The largeness of love is evident by the diverse set of psychological phenomena that fit under the umbrella term ‘love’: the preoccupying and strong desire for further connection, the powerful bonds people hold with a select few and the intimacy that grows between them, the commitments to loyalty and faithfulness.³

Characteristics of each type of connection will be examined according to specific cases, which aim to uncover how a certain bond and the commitment it produces may essentially put an individual in life-threatening situations. Moreover, we shall see how romantic love and family ties – which might intuitively suggest stronger survival chances due to the emotional stability they may induce – are in fact more dangerous than bonds of friendship formed at the camp. Based on survivors’ testimonies and a history of emotions theoretical framework, this research aims to unravel the role human connections played in the ability to survive a Nazi concentration and death camp.

Deconstructing love

Evidence of the various types of love connections present in Auschwitz can be found in nearly every testimony of a Holocaust survivor. To understand the essence of each connection, the bravery and sacrifice it sometimes required, one must navigate the theoretical field of history of emotions and examine the way we understand the emotional scripts⁴ experienced not only by those imprisoned in the Nazi death camp but also by the way we, the readers and listeners of testimonies, understand the relationships we are given access to. Observing testimonies of Holocaust survivors through the lens of Robert Kaster’s emotional scripts sheds light on how the subject of the testimony sees himself (or herself) and their perceived value within the context of the described relationship. For example, in German Jews in Love: A History, Christian Bailey recounts the story of the young Fred Löwenberg who in the spring of 1942 fell in love at the sight of a seemingly ‘Aryan’ girl who was actually Jewish. Bailey describes how the girl silently revealed her yellow star to Löwenberg, prompting him to abandon his infatuation due to the severe risks of imprisonment or death.⁵ This scenario encompasses two key emotional scripts: that of the girl and that of Löwenberg, whose testimony Bailey records. The girl’s racial identity, dictated by Nazi racial laws, resulted in her perceived devaluation and made her feel unworthy of courtship due to circumstances beyond her control. Löwenberg, on the other hand, felt shame, as Bailey illustrates, which was evident in his apologetic gesture of lowering his head upon seeing the girl’s yellow star. He chose not to pursue the relationship to avoid the potential devaluation of his own worth and the physical dangers involved. Furthermore, there exists a third perspective – that of the reader. Readers, inevitably subjective, bring their own perceptions of love stories and the associated risks to their interpretation of this narrative.

By definition, love conveys a caring orientation toward another and contains three elements: shared pleasant emotion, mutual care, and biobehavioral synchrony.⁶ Identifying these elements in testimonies of Holocaust survivors requires deep listening to the subtext of almost each and every encounter described. Moreover, it requires us to understand the life-risking context of certain situations as, for example, sharing a piece of bread with a friend while in Auschwitz would most likely hold far more fatal traits than doing so while in hiding. Thus, if we can accept that not only the behavior but also the perception of a certain emotion is dependent on the context of time and place, we must first ask what love is in a place such as Auschwitz. What did it look like? What did it feel like? Who were the participants in loving relationships while in Auschwitz? How did it manifest? Perhaps the most important question in this context is whether we can define such an arbitrary concept in an unstable and unfamiliar place such as Auschwitz. Can love found or shared in a concentration camp be defined according to contemporary standards?

Of course, conducting this type of study does not come without methodological challenges. The cases presented throughout this study are taken from oral testimonies and written ego documents such as autobiographies, in which the survivor tells his or her story in the context of the Holocaust, specifically concerning their stay in Auschwitz. As the reality of Auschwitz rarely allowed the conditions for prisoners to document their day to day, the testimonies in this study were necessarily given in the aftermath of World War II, when survivors of the Holocaust confronted the ordeals they had gone through.⁷ Thus, there is no way of knowing what survivors had in mind whilst in Auschwitz nor the reasoning they attributed to their survival in real-time. Moreover, it is important to note that stories of those who perished are communicated by those who survived and knew them. Thus, there is no way of knowing what the dead would argue had been given the chance. With this in mind, it is important to note that the findings of this study are based on deep observation of the actions demonstrated in testimonies and not solely the explanations provided by survivors, as will be established throughout this study.

A day in the life of an Auschwitz prisoner

To understand the different types of relationships that existed despite the reality of Auschwitz, one must first understand the day to day of those imprisoned in it. Moreover, one must understand the enormous differences in the experiences of prisoners who managed to obtain privileges in comparison to those who did not and how these privileges, or the lack of those, affected relationships between prisoners. As the default conditions of Auschwitz prisoners included a measured portion of food, forced labor, and geographical restrictions, among other restraints, privileges tied to specific roles could allow prisoners to roam the camp, deliver packages, become exposed to improved sanitary conditions such as shower, clothing and medicine, as well as the ability to obtain extra food, which was critical as in Auschwitz, food was equivalent to life. Indeed, inside the territory of a death camp, every criterion of normal life was bound to fail. Auschwitz consisted of gas chambers, selections, and the processions of human beings who marched to their death.⁸

An average day at Auschwitz⁹ started before the break of dawn when prisoners were violently chased outside their barracks.¹⁰ After the morning Appell (roll-call), which included regular torments and beatings, prisoners started their 11-hour work day regardless of the possible extreme weather conditions.¹¹ Long work days ended with the evening Appell; if the Appell went smoothly, Auschwitz prisoners were put under lockdown and were not allowed to leave their barracks, not even to use the latrines.¹² Each block, ideally meant to populate approximately 150 people, populated an average of 200–250 prisoners crowded together.¹³ A night’s sleep was four to five hours at most,¹⁴ and even then, Auschwitz prisoners could not truly find peace as their nights were filled with nightmares. One survivor remarked that he would not wake fellow prisoners from nightmares; he knew that no matter how bad the dream might be, the reality was worse.¹⁵ Alongside the constant violence and harsh conditions, Auschwitz prisoners were in persistent search for food as in Auschwitz, food meant life. The only time of rest during the 11-hour workday was during the midday break for lunch, which offered the only hot meal for the day.¹⁶ The bread served with the evening meal was intended to be eaten in the morning. However, the prevailing hunger did not allow many to divide their portion and save part of it for breakfast and, thus, had to wait and see whether any food would be distributed before the next morning Appell.

Those who managed to survive the first and most difficult period at the camp became familiar with its rules. Prisoners might have established connections or have become ‘old inmates,’ which mostly meant a characterization of hardness and emotional primitivism.¹⁷ The ruthless living conditions took the lives of countless prisoners. Those who were unable to adapt to the camp’s reality and could not ‘organize’ extra rations of food soon shed their weight, and many began to display symptoms that ultimately led to the state, which the prisoners referred to as Muselmann. Despite these conditions, in the evolution of Auschwitz from a relatively simple concentration camp to the deadliest extermination facility in World War II, prisoners managed to create social bonds that were mostly based on trading goods and little on either the kindness of others or friendships. This, of course, depended on the possibilities that prisoners had – in Auschwitz most of them did not have any, which poses questions about the relationship between material benefits and human attachment. Still, sharing a piece of bread, organizing medicine for another person, or even helping a fellow prisoner send a note across the camp, was not only an act of bravery, but it was also a way of showing caring and loving feelings for another.

The network of privileged prisoners was a twofold inner camp ecosystem; one level contained the bond shared between prisoners of the same group, which formed an inner circle type of communication and mutual help. The larger scale of the prisoner network, however, lay in the way prisoners from different circles managed to communicate with each other. In this organized environment, prisoners of the Nazi regime managed to communicate with each other under the SS radar and form a spider-like social network that connected prisoners from various circles across the camp.¹⁸ Once registered at the camp, Auschwitz prisoners were usually assigned to a work detail, which dictated a certain structure to their life at Auschwitz. While the default work assignment was forced labor, special circumstances and unique professions allowed prisoners to occupy other positions throughout the camp such as carpenters, repair shop workers, medical practitioners, kitchen workers, athletes, musicians, and more. The position prisoners managed to obtain determined the privileges they would be entitled to, whether they had relative freedom to roam the camp, and if they had access to food and additional supplies.

Prisoners did everything in their power to avoid forced labor, which offered the worst conditions and entailed an average life expectancy of three to four months.¹⁹ Securing a good position in one of the so-called privileged groups was not an easy task, even if the prisoner came with prior education or experience. Once a prisoner was assigned to a certain workforce, switching to a different type of employment, especially if the desired workforce provided camp privileges, was only possible through having the right connections.²⁰ Indeed, the effectiveness of ‘organisieren’ of any kind depended on teamwork, and stable social units in which relations were personal and friendly were thereby created.²¹ But if the basic requirement for a spot in the prisoner network was the ability to offer something to trade, what could forced laborers, who were at the bottom of the prisoner hierarchy and did not obtain any privileges do? Without a way into the privileged prisoner network, what hope did they have to survive a place such as Auschwitz?

The network of the unprivileged prisoners was much less complex and had little to exchange, which is partly why these prisoners found it hard to engage in the network of those with privileges; another reason is the hardship of engaging with people from other circles as they were often housed in different barracks and had little contact, if any. Those who managed to obtain food and other valuables often had to do so by bargaining with whatever they had including sexual barter, for example.²² Moreover, sharing the little they did have, necessarily decreased the survival chances of the individual. Another option was forming ties with prisoner functionaries. However, personal relationships between prisoner functionaries and ordinary prisoners rarely developed due to the high turnover of forced laborers and the seemingly unlimited power prisoner functionaries possessed.²³ Other than the high velocity of prisoner turnover, major obstacles to the development of a full-blown prisoner social system included sudden changes in the camp functionality, extreme deprivation and terror climaxed by extermination, and the high proportion of criminal prisoners whose participation in wider social groups was controversial.²⁴ These conditions made it impossible for forced laborers to survive, let alone calculate their participation in the prisoner network. Thus, making personal sacrifices for the benefit of another, whether a family member or a friend, was an effort that would mostly be in vain as there was no future for those imprisoned in Auschwitz.

Forming human connections requires trust, and in Auschwitz, trusting another person was a huge challenge. Auschwitz created a situation in which people stole from each other and could only think of how to survive another day; this was every man for himself. Indeed, the reality of Auschwitz was of prisoners living from one selection to another, asking themselves whether they would survive the day or be sent to the gas chambers.²⁵ In that context and depending on whether the prisoner managed to adapt to the reality of the camp, the perception and manifestation of loving relationships completely changed; a father may condemn his children to solitude and a mother may sentence herself and her daughters to death.²⁶ The perceived alternative in both cases was their own deaths, which would not benefit their loved ones nor guarantee their safety. Still, some were able to adapt to the reality of the camp and, thus, prepared for selections not only by arranging themselves but also by warning each other and assisting each other seem as vital as possible, for example, by pinching each other’s cheeks so they would turn rosy.²⁷

Despite their inhumane conditions, prisoners did manage to show kindness to one another. Moreover, they wanted to. Evidence of this type of behavior can be found in testimonies of survivors who shared their portion of food, for example.²⁸ But the sense of comradeship went even deeper, beyond cases of mutual help. Research shows that in the forced labor work details, stronger prisoners supported those who had no strength left, and often carried the bodies of fellow prisoners who had been murdered at work.²⁹ The reality of Auschwitz was ruthless, and the fact that forced laborers who did not have any privileges managed to create social bonds is miraculous, to say the least.

Romantic love in a place of death

The mere notion of romantic love within the limitations of a Nazi concentration camp seems a bit unreal. Except for special circumstances such as the Gypsy Family Camp and the Theresienstadt Family Camp, women were separated from men the moment they arrived at Auschwitz and had lesser chances of surviving the initial selection process compared to men; visibly pregnant women, those with young children, and those who simply did not seem capable of hard labor were immediately sent to the gas chambers.³⁰ Once in Auschwitz, both genders experienced extremely violent day-to-day, and all anyone could think of was how to obtain extra portions of food. The romantic love connections presented in this paper were formed while in Auschwitz and are analyzed as such whereas solid romantic ties created before arrival at Auschwitz can also be viewed as family ties as they carry prior feelings of obligation towards a significant other. While same-sex romantic relationships indeed developed in Auschwitz, these are not as reflected in testimonies as heterosexual romantic relationships,³¹ and thus, this paper will focus on two unexpected love stories of those who did manage to find each other amid the inferno of Auschwitz. These examples were chosen as they represent two extreme cases of dealing with the reality of Auschwitz – one that faces the reality and one that defies it.

Mala Zimetbaum and Edward ‘Edek’ Galinski

This epic love story led to Mala and Edek’s escape, which remained in the hearts of those who knew them and even those who did not as a symbol of courage and strength of spirit. Edek, a Polish political prisoner, arrived at Auschwitz in June 1940 and was enslaved as a mechanic. He was already planning his escape with Wiesław Kielar when he met Mala, who arrived at the camp in September 1942. Mala, a Jewish prisoner, spoke eight languages, which enabled her to obtain a position as a translator for the SS alongside her role as a runner (Läuferin), which granted her roaming privileges across the camp. According to testimonies, Mala and Edek fell in love; Edek wanted Mala to escape with him and Wiesław, which made Wiesław change his mind about the plan.

Escaping as a Polish political prisoner is one thing, but escaping with a Jewish prisoner is a whole other story that entails substantial difficulties. As a Polish escapee, chances are there is someone on the outside who can help – a family member or a friend who can help without taking too much risk. But a Jew escaping Auschwitz would entail much more risk not only for the person escaping but also for those on the outside who assist, if anyone would be willing to take the risk to begin with. Nowhere is safe for a Jew on the run. Still, on 24 June 1944, Mala and Edek escaped. Edek dressed up as an SS officer who would take a prisoner, outside the camp for work – that prisoner was Mala. To execute the plan, Mala stole an exit pass from the SS offices and Edek obtained an SS uniform from Edward Lubitz, a member of the SS who also gave Edek a gun for their escape. Unfortunately, about two weeks later Mala and Edek were caught and brought back to Auschwitz where they were both tortured and executed.³²

Looking into the emotional scripts present in this tragic love story, we can see four perspectives: Edek, Mala, Wiesław, and the perspective of those telling the story, as both Mala and Edek did not survive and, thus, are not able to tell it themselves. From testimonies, it seems that Mala and Edek fell in love and wanted to be together in a safe place. That is how we envision heroic love stories – two individuals taking risks to fulfill their love and be free of judgment and prejudice. In this emotional script, a man would choose the woman he loves over his best friend, which is what happened here when Edek chose to escape with Mala at the expense of Wiesław.

Edek’s reality, however, was a bit more complicated. Yes, he chose the woman he loved over his best friend, but also Mala was at more risk than Wiesław as Mala was Jewish and Wiesław was not. In other words, all three knew that according to the Nazi racial ideology, as a Jew, Mala had lesser value and thus, Wiesław had a bigger chance of surviving Auschwitz had he stayed whereas Mala was doomed. In a way, the love Edek felt for Mala created an obligation to save her life. That way, Edek found himself escaping Auschwitz with a Jew, which put him at more risk than if he had escaped with a Polish friend. Mala’s perspective has even more layers as she not only fell in love and wanted to escape death but also by escaping with Edek, she put his life at risk – not only for escaping but also for helping a Jew escape.

The perspective of Wiesław is unique in this case as he was supposed to escape with Edek. The two friends had a plan and once Edek asked to add Mala to that plan, Wiesław had a chance to logically calculate the risk of not only adding another person to an originally risky plan, but also that person was Jewish. Understanding the additional risk at hand and Mala’s perceived lesser value both inside and outside of Auschwitz, Wiesław decided to withdraw his participation in the plan. Even though this was a unique triangle of relationships, it allows us to better understand the complexities of loving relationships in abnormal circumstances such as the one Auschwitz provided. It enables us to better understand how romantic love posed a greater risk to the individual than platonic love.

Ovadia Baruch and Aliza Baruch

Originally from Thessaloniki, Ovadia arrived at Auschwitz in March 1943 and Aliza arrived a month later, in April 1943. Ovadia was initially employed in forced labor until a friend organized his transfer to the Union factory (arms factory) in Auschwitz III (Buna) where he met Aliza for the first time. Before she was enslaved to the Union factory, Aliza was initially imprisoned in block 10 where she went through medical experiments that had to do with castration. The day they met, Ovadia was caught stealing potatoes for which he was punished by beating. Aliza heard Ovadia’s screams in her native language and asked her superior if she could talk to him as they spoke the same language. Once Ovadia saw Aliza, he knew she would be his wife but didn’t have the courage to say anything since he wasn’t sure either of them would survive. After their release, each of them traveled to Greece where they were finally reunited.³³

The emotional scripts of both Ovadia and Aliza were individually and conjointly complicated. Aliza thought she was barren due to the medical experiments she went through while in block 10, which she had confided in Ovadia only after both were released. Aliza’s emotional script deemed her of lesser value as she perceived herself as ‘damaged’ due to reasons out of her control. But while in Auschwitz Aliza and Ovadia grew their love without sharing it because neither could see a future in which they survive. Ovadia’s emotional script was similar to that of Aliza but for the mere reason of their Jewishness – he did not see a future in which they would be able to survive as they were both of lesser value in the eyes of their captivators.

In a way, Ovadia and Aliza’s love story is the opposite of Edek and Mala’s. Whereas Edek and Mala put everything at risk including their own lives and the lives of those who helped them, Ovadia and Aliza did not even try while at Auschwitz as they had both given in to their reality. Of course, there are many crucial differences such as the fact that Edek was not Jewish and the combined set of privileges both Mala and Edek obtained was beyond reach for an Auschwitz prisoner, let alone a Jewish prisoner.

Posing a discourse on the love created in both stories almost seems redundant, but an important observation about the elements that made both encounters possible should be highlighted: camp privileges and human connections. In the case of Mala and Edek, both obtained camp privileges that enabled them to roam the camp and not only meet each other but also obtain essentials such as the exit pass for example, and both had strong human connections such as the one Edek had with the SS officer who provided assistance and the fact that Mala was a reliable character in the eyes of the Germans. Camp privileges and human connections are also relevant in the case of Ovadia and Aliza, but from a different perspective; Ovadia ended up at the Union factory because he managed to create a human connection, a friend, with someone who had the privilege to decide who would be employed in the factory, while Aliza’s human connections enabled her to gain access to Ovadia once she heard him speak her native language.

Family ties – burden or blessing?

For most prisoners, one of the most traumatic experiences in Auschwitz was the separation from their family and loved ones, which essentially left them alone to either adapt to the camp reality or die. Still, some were (relatively) fortunate enough to survive the initial selection with a family member whether it was a parent, a sibling, or any other relative. Having a family member in Auschwitz had a tremendous effect on the person’s chances of survival. The common belief is that the presence of a family member was a source of comfort as the prisoner wasn’t facing the harsh reality alone and had someone to share food and other survival necessities with. Moreover, the common perception is that the sense of responsibility toward a family member fueled motivation that could lead to survival all by itself. Such was the case of Sally Marco, who arrived at Auschwitz in 1944 along with her sisters; in her post-war testimony, Sally describes the utter desperation that took over her, and how she could hear the barbed wires call her. According to Sally, the only reason she did not give up on life was because of her sisters, who needed her.³⁴

Family members who were at the same camp at the same time, whether together or not, had shared suffering, which could liberate heroic attitudes.³⁵ These prisoners had developed a capacity for risk-taking in order to obtain food and seek help for their loved ones. In these cases, the prisoner’s camp reality was filled with concentrated efforts to gain a glimpse of their loved ones and obtain information regarding their living conditions to try to assist them and lift their spirit in any possible way.³⁶ For Sally, having her sisters with her not only gave her strength but also gave her a sense of purpose. She was needed, and someone she cared for was dependent on her. In that sense, Sally’s emotional script had several layers; she understood the nature of her reality and her own devaluation in the eyes of the Nazi authority, which was out of her control. But her obligation to survive in order to care for her sisters is drawn from a more primal emotional script, that of an older sister who is stronger and wiser and must protect her younger sisters – whether on the playground or while at Auschwitz. If she did not fulfill this duty, what would that do to her self-worth? This is the question that many older siblings faced as they struggled to survive while making sure their younger siblings survived as well.

But there is another side to this story. Much like the history of Mel Mermelstein’s family, presented in the opening of this article, some were burdened by the suffering of their loved ones and were not able to survive because of it. In his research about suicide amongst Auschwitz prisoners, Zdzisław Jan Ryn argues that camp conditions were most difficult for women with children, as mothers worried not only about themselves but also about the fate of their children.³⁷ Similarly, the eldest siblings worried about their younger brothers and sisters, which is why mothers and eldest siblings most often suffered from psychological breakdowns, whilst children and younger siblings were usually in a good frame of mind.³⁸ Children and younger siblings who were cared for experienced Auschwitz differently as they constantly had someone care for their well-being; in other words – they were loved and their physical and emotional needs were attended to the extent that the reality of Auschwitz allowed.

Still, unfortunate occasions in which the sense of duty towards a family member led to the death of prisoners, existed as well. Such was the case of two Norwegian brothers who were assigned to the same block; on their second day in the camp, the older brother (25) felt obligated to help his younger brother (18) who did not understand an order given to him and as a result was violently punished by the block elder. In return, the block elder summoned two ‘colleagues,’ who beat both brothers to death.³⁹ In this case, the risk that comes with the emotional script of an older sibling who must protect his younger sibling led to his death. Furthermore, there were situations in which family ties contained additional risk as loved ones were exposed to violence by the SS as punishment measures intended for a relative in the camp. At the end of the day, everyone at Auschwitz carried a burden with them whether it was loneliness or continuously caring for another, sometimes at one’s own expense.

Friendships can save lives

Research on the psychology of friendship shows that not only do close friendships give meaning to our lives and make us happier, but they also have a powerful influence on physical health and even survival. Moreover, having fewer and lower-quality social relationships is associated with poorer physical health and a greater risk for early mortality.⁴⁰ In the context of the Holocaust, particularly the chosen case of Auschwitz, friendships and their associated social support systems, were health-promoting by influencing both psychological pathways as well as behavioral pathways.⁴¹ Research shows that friendships and social support enhance resiliency to stressors such as trauma, loss, maltreatment, and other developmental adversities.⁴² Thus, while the reality of Auschwitz undoubtedly encouraged depression and general desperation, the sheer existence of friendships, and the possibility of having someone to share with and perhaps even rely on, played a significant role in the individual’s ability to survive.

Moreover, research shows that social structures often shape the nature and intensity of friendship choices.⁴³ Thus, people managed to find common ground and became friends despite the extremely diverse population of prisoners. This is mainly because people yearned for human connection as they were forced into their unfortunate situation and had to find a way to survive. But perhaps the formation of strong human connections was somewhat inevitable as the sheer perception of social support can be even more effective than tangible support.⁴⁴ Looking back to the previously mentioned cross-camp prisoner network (mostly reserved for those with privileges) we can see that while prisoners obtained connections with prisoners outside their circle, it was the inner-circle social bonds that provided a form of emotional stability. Even so, an important note about gender differences must be highlighted; while both genders demonstrated acts of friendship, these manifested in different ways. Of course, each case holds additional complexities such as the workforce the prisoner was assigned to and their perceived value by the SS.

Female prisoners demonstrated a unique approach to the struggle for survival, which was waged with a variety of weapons such as extending help to newly arrived prisoners; pointing out the most dangerous SS men, SS women supervisors, and prisoners assigned to official duties; offering words of encouragement and consolation, or even a smile, which evokes pleasant emotions;⁴⁵ offering an additional slice of bread or a spoonful of soup; telling pleasant lies such as spreading optimistic reports; spreading rumors about the imminent liberation of the camp; concealing the fact of death of loved ones from prisoners to keep their hopes high, strengthen their motivation to survive, and prevent mental breakdown.⁴⁶ Evidence of this behavior can be seen in Liana Millu’s memoir, which attests to the importance of the bonds she shared with fellow female prisoners. On one occasion, Liana’s friend, Lili, was brutally beaten by a female kapo to which Liana reacted in the following manner:

Poor Lili. Her apron was gone. Her dress, so carefully mended, was in shreds. Blood streaked down her swollen face, her shoulders, her legs. She saw me but didn’t say a word when I went over. All I could think to do was touch her arm and murmur, ‘Oh, Lili.’⁴⁷

Liana watched her friend being beaten and only attended to her once left alone. The only thing she could offer her friend was emotional comfort and perhaps physical aid. This is opposed to previous cases presented here in which siblings interfered and were hurt, Liana did not have that obligation and, thus, was safe from harm. Her emotional script was that of a friend, an equal, and not of someone who assumes responsibility for someone else’s life – or better phrased: Liana’s self-value is not connected to her friend’s perceived value.

Male prisoners also demonstrated solidarity and cared for each other. Their affection and connection, however, manifested in different ways compared to women and, according to testimonies, were focused on problem-solving such as obtaining clothes or mentoring newcomers on the ways of the camp. For example, Noah Kliger describes just that in his post-war memoir by telling the story of Miklos, a Hungarian Jew who could not adapt to the reality of Auschwitz.⁴⁸ Kliger took Miklos under his care, organized clothes and food for him, and tried to teach him the ways of the camp. But despite Kliger’s best efforts, Miklos could not adapt to the reality of Auschwitz and, thus, did not survive. Noah Kliger presented an interesting position as he did not have any obligation toward Miklos – they were not relatives nor were they in love. Still, there was something about Miklos that made Kliger take him under his care, but he did not put himself at risk for Miklos. An important methodological comment on the manifestation of support among men and women imprisoned at Auschwitz is that these are told by survivors. Men tell their stories while women tell their own; these are told with the gendered social structures survivors possess, meaning that the mutual support described by one gender might not have been that different than the opposite gender; the difference lies in the way each individual can describe their ordeal in the aftermath.

Prisoners survived through concentrated acts of mutual aid, and over time these many small deeds, like fibers in the shuttle of a clumsy loom, grew into a general fabric of debt and care.⁴⁹ Looking into the stories of Auschwitz survivors who were imprisoned by themselves and had lost trace of their family whether in Auschwitz or for good, we can see how the social bonds that formed between them and fellow prisoners gave individuals the courage to stand up and fight for their lives, even if not in a literal way, but in a psychological manner that contributed to their resilience. We can see evidence of that throughout various testimonies such as those by Primo Levi, who attributes his survival to his friend Lorenzo, not only due to his materialistic aid but also thanks to his actions and kindness;⁵⁰ Waclaw Kolodziejek, who was employed in construction and received better treatment from the kapo in charge after his friend, Lucian Soberaj, had a talk with the prisoner functionary;⁵¹ and Kaz Wolff-Zdzienicki who was briefly employed in the camp infirmary and ‘celebrated’ his 21^st birthday in Birkenau – as a birthday present, another nurse gave him half a loaf of bread, which according to Kaz, was the best birthday present he had ever receive;⁵² Israel Gutmann tells how he was assigned to the Union factory with the help of his friend Vladek. More importantly, Gutmann described how in the arms factory, he met Yehuda Laufer, who became his friend for life;⁵³ and many more.

In the context of the Holocaust, there are various dimensions to the concept of mutual help, and help in general, especially if it was given without expecting something in return but as a mere act of friendship. While human connections were not a guarantee for survival, they provided motivation to stay alive.

Conclusion

German intellectual Friedrich Nietzsche argues that if a person knows the wherefore of their existence, then the manner of it can take care of itself.⁵⁴ This relates to the most important conclusion of this study, which is that the why is linked to the how. As seen throughout this study, while not everyone who shared human connections managed to survive, those who did survive had to have shared human connections with others who helped them in their struggle. Survivors may not necessarily attribute their survival to these connections or encounters, but the fact that they are mentioned as part of the survival ordeal means that they made a difference – whether practical or emotional. As seen throughout this study, emotional scripts dictate our self-worth in connection to others. Romantic love and family ties create obligations toward one another, which at times may put the individual at risk. Moreover, the fear of losing loved ones, which would bring pain and despair, held substantial motivation in the decision to take risks that could cost one’s life.

Edek and Mala were in love; they took risks and, unfortunately, did not survive. Ovadia and Aliza, on the other hand, were close while in the Union factory but only revealed their feelings to each other after liberation. Meaning, they did not have an obligation to a loved one while imprisoned. In both love stories, friends were involved and helped them. In Edek and Mala’s case, Wiesław avoided risk by not pursuing the escape plan but did not tell anyone; a friendly SS officer provided Edek with a weapon and uniforms. The escape plan would not have been possible without these friendships. Ovadia had a friend who saved him from forced labor by adding him to the Union factory work detail. Sally protected her sisters and suffered psychological hardships and the Norwegian man who tried to help his brother ended up dead. This, of course, does not mean that every person who had a loved one in the camp ended up dead – quite the opposite. This does, however, mean that it is safe to assume that those who had loved ones in the camp were at more risk due to the natural obligation they felt for their loved ones.

Those with friendship bonds ‘enjoyed’ both worlds; they did not have obligations that put them at risk and were essentially alone, but they were also in caring relationships with their friends – they helped each other, shared food, organized items for each other, and even assisted with escape plans. At this point, it is also important to remember the hardship in understanding the preconceived notion of friendship, love, and emotional scripts everyone at Auschwitz held prior to their arrival at the notorious camp. Everyone imprisoned at Auschwitz came from a different place and, thus, had a different cultural background and might have even had a different conception of the nature of friendship and love. Deepening the research on the evolution of the social structure of friendships, starting before the creation of the Nazi concentration camps, would benefit both Holocaust research and the understanding of human behavior during adversity.

Indeed, this article displays three main types of love – one that lovers share, an inherent love shared by family members that on occasion could cause anxiety over the loved one’s safety, and one shared between friends. These case studies indicate a trend that is worthy of further research which can potentially provide a glimpse at decision-making related to mutual help and survival in the Holocaust. Each form of love presented throughout this article is, of course, different. But the idea that connects all of these is the true desire of the individual to protect the person(s) they love and make sure they survive. This is why Mel Mermelstein’s father asked his sons to separate, why Edek Galinski added Mala to his escape plan, and why Primo Levi attributes his survival to his friend Lorenzo. Each of these experiences differ from one another but the thread that connects them all is the bond each pair shared – a bond of love and affection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rotem Taitler

Rotem Taitler is a doctoral candidate at the Jewish History Department at Tel Aviv University. Her research focuses on mapping the wide range of sexual and sexualized violence perpetrated and facilitated by the Nazi regime against its persecuted populations including both Jewish women and men as well as non-Jewish women and men in five concentration camps: Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen, and Neuengamme.

Notes

1. Mermelstein, Mel. Interviewed by: Renee Firestone. USA, December 02, 1994. USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 322).

2. Wiesel, Elie. Night. trans. Lily Rodway (New York: Avon, 1969; London: Fontana, 1973), 52, 122.

3. Barbara L. Fredrickson, ‘love’ in Handbook of Emotions. 848.

4. Mostly dealing with shame (Pudor), various structures of emotional scripts can be found in Kaster, Robert A., Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. (Oxford University Press 2005), 28–66.

5. Bailey, Christian. German Jews in Love: A History (Stanford University Press, 2022), 111–112.

6. Barbara L. Fredrickson, ‘love’ in Handbook of Emotions. 850–852

7. Most, but not all, testimonies in this essay were collected in the 1990s in North America and should be viewed in the social context of that time and place; in the context of history of emotions and how the perception of a certain emotion is culturally dependent, it is safe to assume that Holocaust survivors who speak of ‘love’ in North America in the 1990s have a different relationship to ‘love’ or family ties then a Holocaust survivor speaking in Hungary in the 1950s.

8. Langbein, People in Auschwitz, 87.

9. An important note is that Auschwitz evolved immensely over time and grew to contain various sections and functions – each with a very different agenda and possibly different conditions, depending on the workforce. This section is a generalization of the daily routine all Auschwitz prisoners had to obey.

10. Lasik, et al. Auschwitz 1940–1945: central issues in the history of the camp, 2, pp. 65–66.; see also in Levi, Primo. If This is a Man? 69.

11. During morning Appells, prisoners had to line up by block, in rows of 10, and by height – from the shortest to the tallest as described in Lasik, et al. Auschwitz 1940–1945: central issues in the history of the camp, 2, 65–66; see also in Levi, Primo. If This is a Man? 69; As of March 1942, workdays stood at a minimum of 11 hours as described in Lasik, et al. Auschwitz 1940–1945: central issues in the history of the camp, 2, 67; see also in Harshalom, Alive from the Ashes, 110; Former Auschwitz prisoner Avraham Harshalom describes how punitive unit prisoners were employed in back-breaking excavation jobs performed in all weathers. Winter and summer, they worked in their flimsy prisoners’ uniforms, in wooden clogs without socks, frequently with their feet in water in Harshalom, Alive from the Ashes, 108–109; See also in Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell, 77–79.

12. Primo Levi describes the embarrassment and the feeling of degradation prisoners who had to get up in order to relieve themselves every two-to-three hours in Levi, Primo. If This is a Man? 65–67; see also in Lasik, et al. Auschwitz 1940–1945: central issues in the history of the camp, 2, 69.

13. Tuchman, Remember My Stories of Survival and Beyond, 59; see also in Levi, Così Fu Auschwitz, reference according to the Hebrew translation by Alon Altres, 13.

14. Des Pres, The Survivor, 75.

15. One example can be found in Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, a reference according to the Hebrew translation by Haim Izak, 47.

16. Lunch consisted of a single dish – a quart of soup or broth, often very thin and devoid of actual nourishment, as stated in Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell, 78; see also in Levi, Così Fu Auschwitz, reference according to the Hebrew translation by Alon Altres, 15.

17. Kogon, Eugen. Der SS-Staat: Das System der deutschen Konzentrationslager. Frankfurt: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, 1946. As brought in Langbein, People in Auschwitz, 70.

18. Rotem Taitler, The Instinct of Life in Nazi Death Camps: The Case of Auschwitz. 2018. (ProQuest Diss., and Theses).

19. Roth, ‘Holocaust Business: Some Reflections on Arbeit Macht Frei,’ 75.

20. There are many examples of how prisoners with privileges ‘organized’ better employment for their friends – it’s important to state that this type of authority was usually reserved for non-Jewish prisoners; a few include Murray Kenig who was assigned to the prisoner orchestra despite not knowing how to play any instrument, because the conductor, a Czech prisoner, liked him. In Kenig, Murray. Interviewed by: Josh Freed. Canada, January 13, 1982. USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 53607); Kaz Wolff-Zdzienicki became a ‘Professional Road Builder’ in Auschwitz and used his authority to save people from death by arguing their specific skills are needed for work. In Wolff-Zdzienicki, USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 8370).

21. Des Pres, The Survivor, 109.

22. Anna Hájková, “Sexual Barter in Times of Genocide: Negotiating the Sexual Economy of the Theresienstadt Ghetto,” In Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38, no. 3 (2013): 503–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/668607

23. Noah Kliger, a forced laborer in Monowitz (and a boxer with privileges), notes the hardship of making friends in the reality of Auschwitz, knowing that everyone’s time was limited. In his memoir, Kliger writes about the high turnover of prisoners as they were slaughtered, taken to the gas chambers, or died of exhaustion on a daily basis in the 93rd commando, which he was part of. In Kliger, Shteim-Esre Lahmanyot LeAruhat Boker, 46–47; See also in Pawelczynska, Values and Violence in Auschwitz, 46.

24. Luchterhand, “Prisoner Behavior and Social System in the Nazi Concentration Camps,” 253.

25. Gutman, Anashim Veafar, 127.

26. Mrs. Lachs was imprisoned in Auschwitz with her two daughters; this Jewish family was deported from Slovakia in one of the first Slovak transports. In October 1942, after spending some time in Birkenau, the mother led herself along with her two daughters to the barbed wire. A guard asked them what they were doing, and according to a survivor’s testimony, the mother replied: ‘Don’t ask questions. You know where we are going. There is no point in living any longer. To die today or tomorrow… I cannot stand the torment of my daughters… Don’t stop me!’ see in Tytoniak, A. testimony as brought in Ryn, Zdzisław Jan. “Suicide in the Nazi Concentration Camps,” in online Medical Review Auschwitz. Article was found in the following link: https://www.mp.pl/auschwitz/translations/english/170046,suicide-in-the-nazi-concentration-camps.

27. Liana Millu describes preparations for an upcoming selection: ‘“Selection, Lianka,” announced Aergi with an air of resignation, like a dumb beast led off to the slaughter. “Selection, it’s a selection!” cried the skeletal Elenka, and she straightened her kerchief and briskly rubbed her face to bring some color to her ashy cheeks. The women were frantically pulling themselves together, helping each other appear as alert and robust as possible. Aching backs straightened, held stiff by will; eyes brightened; cheeks turned rosy with violent pinching. “Lili, fix yourself up a little,” called Elenka.’ Ibid., 45.

28. In his book The Survivor Des Press brings various testimonies that deal with the conditions of prisoners, one of them is ‘I was glad to share it [a loaf of bread] with my friends on the night shift, but particularly to offer a fair share to Benzi, my friend, who had so often given me part of his bread and soup when my hunger was unappeased by my own meager ration’ in Unsdorfer, S. B. The Yellow Star. (New York and London: Thomas Yoseloff, 1961), 159–160. As brought in Des Press, The Survivor, 137–138.

29. Lasik, et al. Auschwitz 1940–1945: central issues in the history of the camp, 2, 68.

30. Zoë Waxman, Women in the Holocaust: A feminist history, (Oxford University Press 2017), 79–112.

31. There is a growing body of scholarship on queer Holocaust history that explores both the homophobia in the testimonies (see in Cathy Gelbin, Ulrike Janz, Insa Eschebach, and Uta Rautenberg) and the queer relationships and love that did take place (Anna Hájková, William Jones, Florian Zabransky).

32. Naama Shik, “‘Escaping Auschwitz – the story of Mala Zimetbaum’ in Osim Zicaron” (making memory), Yad Vashem Podcast, Jerusalem; January 2022; https://open.spotify.com/episode/5FnHExhXQJrth1U0lDWqkE?si=ef1ce7319d844d7a; see also in Zygmunt Hilfstein, interviewed by Daniel Katz, Australia, June 18, 1995. USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 3357); See also in Raya Kagan, Nashim BeLishkat HaGehenom. Sifriyat Poalim, HaKibbutz HaArtzi HaShomer HaTzair, 1947.

33. Baruch Ovadia, Yad Vashem Archive, 0.3/4818; see also in Aliza Baruch, Yad Vashem Archive, 0.3/5866.

34. Marco, Sally. Interviewed by: Adelle Chabelski. USA, August 22, 1994. USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 71).

35. Pawelczynska, Values and Violence in Auschwitz, 96.

36. Ibid.

37. In his research, Ryn tells the story of Mrs. Lachs who was imprisoned in Auschwitz with her two daughters. In October 1942, after spending some time in Birkenau, the mother led herself along with her two daughters to the barbed wire. A guard asked them what they were doing, and according to a survivor’s testimony, the mother replied: ‘Don’t ask questions. You know where we are going. There is no point in living any longer. To die today or tomorrow… I cannot stand the torment of my daughters… Don’t stop me!’ in Tytoniak, A. testimony as brought in Ryn, Suicide in the Nazi Concentration Camps.

38. Ibid.

39. Eitinger, “Auschwitz – A Psychological Perspective,” 474.

40. Hojjat, Mahzad and Anne Moyer, editors. The Psychology of Friendship (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 233; see also in Barbara L. Fredrickson, ‘love’ in Handbook of Emotions. 848

41. Ibid., 236.

42. Ibid., 249.

43. Albert, Robert S. and Thomas R. Brigante. “The Psychology of Friendship Relations: Social Factors,” The Journal of Social Psychology 56 (1962): 33–47; see also in Gutman, Anashim Veafar, 83.

44. Hojjat and Moyer, editors., The Psychology of Friendship, 252.

45. Barbara L Fredrickson, ‘love’ in Handbook of Emotions. 854–855

46. Strzelecka, “Women,” 408.

47. Millu, Liana. Smoke over Birkenau. trans. from Italian by Lynne Sharon Schwartz. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society c1991, see here, 41.

48. Kliger, Shteim-Esre Lahmanyot LeAruhat Boker, 68–73.

49. Des Pres, The Survivor, 134.

50. Levi, If This is a Man? 142.

51. Kolodziejek, USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 17515).

52. Wolff-Zdzienicki, USC Shoah Foundation (interview code: 8370).

53. Gutman, Anashim Veafar, 203.

54. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. Twilight of the Idols with the Antichrist and Ecce Homo Translated from German by Anthony M. Ludovici. With and introduction by Ray Furness. (London: Published by Wordsworth Editions Limited), 2007, see here, 6.