¹ Richard J. Evans, for example, wrote that “a careful and subtle historian … suggests plausibly that Hitler and Goebbels wanted to avoid disturbing Berlin's female population at a time when the Propaganda Minister had just called on them to mobilise for ‘total war.’” Evans, Richard J., “Wives Against the Nazis,” The Sunday Telegraph, 11 17, 1996Google Scholar. Gruner does not impinge on this plausibility or that found by Bessel, Richard in Bessel, Richard, “Snatched from the Jaws,” Times Literary Supplement, 05 16, 1997Google Scholar. See also Stoltzfus, Nathan, “Rosenstrasse,” in Confront! Resistance in Nazi Germany, ed. Michalczyk, John (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 163–89; 180, note 2Google Scholar; and Moeller, Felix, “Der Protest in der Rosenstrasse. Eine Woche in Berlin des Jahres 1943,” in Rosenstrasse. Ein Film von Margarethe von Trotta, ed. Wydra, Thilo (Berlin: Nicolai, 2003), 25–60.Google Scholar

² Gruner, Wolf, “The Factory Action and the Events at the Rosenstrasse in Berlin: Facts and Fictions about 27 February 1943—Sixty Years Later,” Central European History 36 (2003): 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Gruner, Wolf, “Die Fabrik-Aktion und die Ereignisse in der Berliner Rosenstrasse,” Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung (2003): 137–77.Google Scholar

⁴ Gruner, , “The Factory Action,” 179, note 2Google Scholar. Stoltzfus, Nathan, “Third Reich History as if the People Mattered,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 26 (2000): 672–84.Google Scholar

⁵ Gruner, , “The Factory Action,” 206Google Scholar. Haabe, Christian, “Wunder und Wahrheit,” Der Spiegel, 12 2, 2002, 56Google Scholar; Kellerhoif, Sven Felix, “Getan haben wir gar nichts,” Berliner Morgenpost, 02 3, 2003Google Scholar. Gruner properly makes some adjustments in the English translation of his original article, although his sense of having found final “proof” for his viewpoint remains the same. On Gruner's claims of “proof,” see Moeller, , “Der Protest in der Rosenstrasse,” 50.Google Scholar

⁶ Benz, Wolfgang, “Kitsch as Kitsch can,” Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, 09 20, 2003Google Scholar. In response to Benz, , I wrote “Die Wahrheit jenseits der Akten,” Die Zeit, 10 30, 2003Google Scholar. The editor of Die Zeit identified the debate as a “Historikerstreit” and my book, Resistance of the Heart (New York: Norton, 1996)Google Scholar as the “standard work on Rosenstrasse.” Even in 2003, at the time he was making sweeping, controversial pronouncements on Rosenstrasse in newspapers, Benz ignored it in his scholarship. He brings up the incarceration and liberation at Rosenstrasse without mentioning the protest, and glossily identifies those released as “the privileged” (partners in “Mischehe” and Geltungsjuden). Although about two-thirds of intermarried Jews lived in “privileged” intermarriages, the large majority of the approximately two thousand incarcerated at Rosenstrasse were from nonprivileged intermarriages. Privileged intermarried Jews, unlike those unprivileged, did not wear the Star of David and in this way were similar to the Mischlinge who were not Geltungsjuden, nor identified in Benz's category of “privileged.” These distinctions are critical for understanding not just the arrest and liberation at Rosenstrasse but also the development and ultimate end of the history of intermarried Jews and their children. Benz, Wolfgang, “Juden im Untergrund und Ihrer Hilfe,” in Überleben im Dritten Reich. Juden im Untergrund und ihre HelferGoogle Scholar, ed. idem (Munich: Beck, 2003), 14.

⁷ H. G. Adler, citing T11, references Heydrich's anxiety following protests on behalf of certain Jews who had been deported in violation of Gestapo directives. The Gestapo must strive to avoid “these kinds of complaints under all circumstances,” Heydrich wrote. Adler, H. G., Der verwaltete Mensch. Studien zur Deportation der Juden aus Deutschland (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1974), 195.Google Scholar

⁸ Gruner, Wolf, “Ein Historikerstreit? Die Internierung der Juden aus Mischehen in der Rosenstrasse 1943,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 1 (2004: 5–22, 21, 15)Google Scholar. Gruner says Wienken “intervened” at the RSHA, suggesting an anticipated thesis that church influence rescued intermarried Jews. I have cited this source and briefly considered this possibility; see, for example, “Third Reich History,” 673Google Scholar; Gellately, Robert and Stoltzfus, Nathan, eds., “The Limits of Policy”: Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 119–20; 140, note 7; 143, note 39.Google Scholar

⁹ Eichmann told two prelates visiting him in his office “at the end of 1942” that he would “radically resolve” the question of German Mischlinge—suggesting the “full” Jews of the “Mischehe question” would be solved first; Statement of Adolf Kurtz, June 28, 1961, Israel Police Document 144.

¹⁰ “Entwurf einer Eingabe des deutschen Episkopats (Berlin, 22./23. 08 1943)Google Scholar,” verfasst von Margarete Sommer, in Volk, Ludwig, ed., Akten deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche 1933–1945, vol. 6: 1943–1945 (Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald-Verlag, 1985), 217Google Scholar. See Leugers, Antonia, “Widerstand oder pastorale Fürsorge katholischer Frauen im Dritten Reich? Das Beispiel Dr. Margarete Sommer (1893–1965),” in Frauen unter dem Patriarchat der Kirchen. Katholikinnen und Protestantinnen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, ed. von Olenhusen, Irmtraud Götz et al. , (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 161–88, 176–78.Google Scholar

¹¹ Gruner, Wolf, “Die Reichhauptstadt und die Verfolgung der Berliner Juden 1933–1945,” in Jüdische Geschichte in Berlin: Essays und Studien, ed. Rürup, Reinhard (Berlin: Edition Hentrich, 1995), 252; 266, note 253; 255; 266.Google Scholar

¹² Gruner, Wolf to History News Network, George Mason University, 11 10, 2003Google Scholar, online at http://hnn.us/comments/22959.html, accessed June 29, 2005.

¹³ Gruner, Wolf, Der Geschlossene Arbeitseinsatz deutscher Juden. Der Zwangsarbeit ab Element der Verfolgung 1938–1943 (Berlin: Metropol, 1997), 316 ffGoogle Scholar. In his 2002 article, the Frankfort an der Oder order is the only one Gruner appends (omitted in the English translation), although he had already quoted it paragraph for paragraph in his text; Gruner, , “Die Fabrik-Aktion,” 176–77Google Scholar. Gruner says this document is abridged (gekürzt) in Jochheim, Gernot, Frauenprotest in der Rosenstrasse 1943. “Gebt uns unsere Männer wieder” (Berlin: Hentrich & Hentrich 2001)Google Scholar, although Jochheim includes every word of the document Gruner does. Gruner, , “Die Fabrik-Aktion,” 176, n. 204.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Directives cited in Adler, , Der verwaltete Mensch, 199–200.Google Scholar

¹⁵ “Die Zusammenfassung der Juden in den Betrieben hat unauffällig … zu erfolgen … Es dürfen aber auf keinen Fall Übergriffe … erfolgen, insbesondere nicht in der Öffentlichkeit oder im Betreib selbst. Freches Benehmen von Juden, die in noch bestehender Mischehe leben ist dadurch zu ahnden, dass diese in Schutzhaft genommen und Anträge auf Unterbringung in einem Konzentrationslager gestellt werden. Es kann hierbei sehr grosszügig verfahren werden, jedoch muss der Eindruck vermieden werden, dass bei dieser Aktion das Mischeheproblem gleichzeitig grundlegend bereinigt werden soll.”

¹⁶ Stoltzfus, , “Third Reich History,” 674–75.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Report of Goering, December 28, 1938, Nuremberg Document PS-69.

¹⁸ “Die Lage der ‘Mischlinge’ in Deutschland, Mitte März 1943,” a four-page unpublished report from Berlin in mid-March 1943 by Dr. Gerhard Lehfeld. A copy from the late Robert A. Graham, S.J. is in my archives.

¹⁹ Aachen, Germany, author's interviews with Leopold Gutterer, August 17–18, 1986.

²⁰ “Hitlers Rede vor der ausserordentlichen Session des Reichstags am 15. September 1935,” in Die Reden Hitlers am Parteitag der Freiheit 1935 (Munich: F. Eher Nachfolger, 1935), 66Google Scholar, cited in my questions to Gruner, , “Third Reich History,” 675.Google Scholar

²¹ Am 9. April 1942, RSHA order, IV B 4 a I–190/40–19, cited in Landesarchiv Berlin B, Rep. 057–01, Nr. 405, Anklageschrift in der Strafsache gegen Fritz Woehrn und 11 weitere Angeschuldigte, 80.

²² Loesener, Bernhard, “Das Reichsministerium des Innern und die Judengesetzgebung,” Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 9 (1961): 262–313, 302.Google Scholar

²³ Gruner's summary of his article's “main points” on H-Holocaust's Discussion Logs, November 23, 2003 www.h-net.org/~holoweb; Benz, , “Kitsch as Kitsch can.”Google Scholar Goebbels had just prevailed in changing Hitler's mind on the matter of “total war” against objections from Armed Forces Chief of Staff Wilhelm Keitel, Hitler's personal secretary Martin Bormann, and Reich Chancery Chief Hans Lammers. In any case, as Ian Kershaw writes, “Hitler invariably sided with his Gauleiter (or better, with the strongest Gauleiter) … The mighty Himmler encountered the same problem in his dealings with the Gauleiter after he had been made Reich Minister of the Interior in 1943,” Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation (London and Baltimore: E. Arnold, 1985), 83–84.Google Scholar

²⁴ Gruner, , “The Factory Action,” 198.Google Scholar

²³ Summary of reports of Jews summoned to the Jewish Labor Office in Stoltzfus, Resistance of the Heart, 212–13.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., 218 ff.; Leichsenring, Jana, Frauen und Widerstand (Münster: List, 2003), 136 ff., identifies five children incarcerated at Rosenstrasse.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gruner, Wolf, “Ein Historikerstreit?,” 5–22, 15.Google Scholar

²⁸ Gruner, like others, has not seen all the release certificates. My archives contains one dated March 16 and another dated March 13; Entlassungsschein von Moses Ebert, geb. 25.10.1881 Sombor, wohnhaft Berlin, Neue Winterfeldtstrasse 43, der am 16. März 1943 aus dem Sammellager Rosenstrasse 2–4 entlassen; Walter Baron, geb. 19.3.1884, Moselstr. 10, am 13.343 aus dem Sammellager Auguststr. 17 entlassen. Meyer, Beate, “Jüdische Mischlinge.” Rassenpolitik und Verfolgungserfahrung 1933–1945 (Hamburg: Dölling and Galitz, 1999), 52 (concerning the Wannsee Conference), 56 (concerning Rosenstrasse), 58 (in Hamburg, the Gestapo apparently wanted to pull intermarried gradually [schrittweise] into the deportations), 462 ffGoogle Scholar. Although Meyer identifies the regime's anxiety about social unrest and points out that it considered intermarried Jews “provocative” and tried to avoid drawing attention to the intermarried problem, she does not integrate this important regime concern into her overall analysis of the regime's politics on intermarried Jews (or on Mischlinge, either).

²⁹ Decree of 5. November 1942—IV C 2 Allg. Nr. 42 415 gez. Mueller, in Landesarchiv Berlin B, Rep. 057–01, Nr. 405, Anklageschrift in der Strafsache gegen Fritz Woehrn et al., 147.

³⁰ Judenreferat head Walter Stock used only “Final Roundup” and variations to identify the arrest in Berlin beginning February 27. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep 058 vol. 464 kt. 646, 1PK LS 3/52, Strafsache gegen Walter Stock, Stock deposition, August 13, 1951. The personal file of Siegfried Meyer, a Jew from the Ruhrgebiet arrested in the course of the Final Roundup; Düsseldorf, Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf, Siegfried Meyer Personal File, Gestapo, No. 34890, refers to the massive arrest action as the “Action of February 27 for the de-Judaization of the Reich Territory.” Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Gestapo to Reich Security Main Office, Berlin, dated March 18, 1943, in Meyer's personal file.

³¹ Gruner, , “Die Fabrik-Aktion,” 137–77; 148, 152, note 71Google Scholar, writes that “Schlussaktion” or “Judenschlussaktion” are “obviously neologisms from the Gestapo documents.” Gruner does not speculate on how inventing this term would have served the self interest of Stock.

³² Neumann, Franz, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism (New York: Octagon Books, 1963), 98.Google Scholar

³³ “Meanwhile, what happened sixty years ago has become a regular feature in the print media, the subject of documentary films, and discussion topics on the Internet. The message here is clear: If more people had behaved like the protesters, many deaths might have been prevented during World War II,” Gruner, , “The Factory Action,” 180, 184Google Scholar. The regime did have ample opportunity to learn from its “Euthanasia” program that dividing families by victimizing one member led to rumors and unrest that threatened the regime's effort to conduct mass murder in secret.

³⁴ Order of the Frankfurt/Oder Gestapo of February 24, 1943 contained in the order of the Landrat in Calau of February 25, 1943 to regional police administrators, Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv, Potsdam, Rep. 41 Amtsbezirk Großräschen Nr. 272, 84–85. Gruner has relayed only page 84.1 am deeply grateful to Antonia Leugers for helping me in the arduous task of procuring this document. Leugers has edited a collection of essays by historians who agree that the Gestapo did intend to deport intermarried Jews incarcerated at Rosenstrasse: Leugers, Antonia, ed., Berlin Rosenstrasse 2–4: Protest in der NS-Diktatur. Neue Forschungen zum Frauenprotest in der Rosenstrasse 1943 (Annweiler: Plöger, 2005).Google Scholar

³⁵ U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives, Washington, D.C., Orders of the Reichskommissar for the Eastern Occupied Territories concerning the “treatment of Jewish Mischehe,” Riga, October 7, 1941; Adler, , Der verwaltete Mensch, 283, 84.Google Scholar

³⁶ Gruner, , “The Factory Action,” 204Google Scholar. Gruner also assigns a “special status” to the twenty-five men deported to Auschwitz from Rosenstrasse, taking for granted they arrived there as “Protective Custody cases.” Yet they obtained this “special status” after they were taken in at Auschwitz. Jewish Museum Berlin, Dok. 87/1/Nr. 3: Report of Günther Rosenthal (1904 Ratibor-Berlin 1974). Thanks to Beate Meyer for making this available and to Joachim Neander for interpretation. See also Neander, Joachim, “Die Auschwitz-Rückkehrer vom 21. März 1943,” in Berlin Rosenstrasse 2–4, ed. Leugers.Google Scholar

³⁷ Bessel, Richard, “Snatched from the Jaws.”Google Scholar