I have used two types of sources, under very different conditions: I read and analyzed a great number of testimonies as well as several other documents in order to do entirely original historical work in piecing together the history of Dora. Drawing upon other works, I sought out elements enabling me to situate this history in the political, military, and economic context of the time.
The Testimonies
The testimonies used are almost exclusively those of former Dora prisoners. They come first of all from the archives assembled by the historical commission of the association of former prisoners from Dora-Ellrich, headed by Lucien Fayman and Georges Soubirous. The collection was enriched with subsequent inquiries and exchanges of correspondence that I had with various people. Certain documents were photocopied for me by Pierre Goasguen from his personal archives. All texts not in the public domain are indicated in the notes section by the acronym AADE, meaning “Archives de l’Amicale Dora-Ellrich” [the Dora-Ellrich Former Prisoners’ Association Archive]. They may have been taken from other such organizations, such as the former prisoners’ association of our Belgian friends. The testimonies are presented in three forms: published works; continuous accounts, whether published in bulletins or in typescript or manuscript form; and elements of information contained in letters, answers to questionnaires, or interviews. The distinction between these three forms is often rather unclear.
Some of the published works concern accounts written upon their author’s return, printed under the conditions of the time, often at the author’s expense. Others on the contrary are recent works, written by former prisoners now in retirement. The difference, however, is not clear-cut: the recent works are often based upon older texts, personal diaries, abandoned sketches, and so on, whereas the older works have been republished. I expected to discover significant differences between the accounts written upon their author’s return and the recent works. But this turned out to be the case only in terms of the tone of the commentaries accompanying the account, more passionate in the 1940s, more sober today—but that is also true of newspaper articles and filmed news. In terms of lived experience the difference is no longer appreciable.
On this note I would like to emphasize the high quality of the texts I have quoted. However dramatic the account, there are rarely exaggerated formulations. Indeed, the witnesses generally remain somewhat short of actual reality. The fact that I was placed in similar conditions myself—at certain moments at any rate—gives me the authority to authenticate the testimonies to which I refer, which often tally in unforeseen ways.
I have used my fellow prisoners’ texts to retrace the history of the camp and to illustrate its various episodes. But for this very reason I left out everything that reflects the personal experience of each person—his beliefs and doubts, hopes and fears, revolts and projects. I hope readers of this book will subsequently turn to these accounts to discover the unity of each of the individuals involved.
This also holds for those texts that have not been published and deserve to be. Distribution, generally speaking, has not extended beyond the circle of friends and family, and I am grateful to all those who enabled me to have access to these documents. A look at the notes accompanying the text reveals the importance of many of these testimonies.
I also found a great deal of substance in the answers to questionnaires and in personal letters. Many people lacking the practice or the temper to launch into carefully considered accounts responded relevantly to particular points. I have endeavored not to overlook more modest contributions. That enabled me to appreciate, for instance, the importance of certain events that remained, more than others, in collective memory. As will be noted in the index of names, in the course of my work I met other prisoners, witnesses, or companions of witnesses by the hundreds.
Virtually all the documents I have used are in French and come from France, Belgium, or the Netherlands (Van Dijk and Groeneveld). I have used them without distinction, for my purpose was not to speak particularly about the French at Dora. Through the European Committee I obtained access to two particularly interesting Czech testimonies. And my personal relations with Milan Filipcic enabled me to see that there was no discrepancy between our experience and that of the Slovenians.
For political reasons, no cross-checking was available as regards the Poles and above all the Russians. I have mentioned them in this book as well as I have been able, but I was unable to have them speak for themselves—a considerable lacuna.
One last remark regarding the testimonies. When writing about a concentration camp, one comes up against the objection that the author is in some respects speaking from the point of view of the survivors. This was already the case for the soldiers of the First World War. I am not sure in either case that the remark is well-founded, insofar as the extreme cases are recognized for their full importance—which is large indeed—and this I have endeavored to do. And it is true that all the situations were not permanently extreme. But no one was sheltered from a twist of fate.
Documentation on the Context
The great difficulty with regard to Dora and the other Mittelbau camps was to sort out the relationship between the various German authorities who held our fate in their hands. It was no easy task: there were the SS as well as Kammler himself; there were the Wehrmacht artillerymen, like Dornberger; there were von Braun and the team of scientists and engineers from Peenemünde; there were Speer and his technocrats, such as Sawatzki. It was Michael Neufeld, thanks to his fundamental work The Rocket and the Reich, who enabled me to get a firm grasp on these questions.
With regard to Dora and Mittelwerk, I am much indebted to three authors: the Polish prisoner Wincenty Hein, who prepared the case with the Americans for the 1947 trial; the German historian Manfred Bornemann, who situated our adventure in the history and geography of the region; and my friend Joachim Neander, who critically examined the available sources on how Mittelbau functioned and how the evacuation process was carried out. I refer to the classic works on the deportation, with which I was already familiar. I was careful not to go into overly great depth in the study of Buchenwald. But a total dissociation of the two camps was not conceivable.