978-0470639948 Cases Degussa

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Degussa AG: When a Corporation’s Holocaust History Intrudes on the Present

By Al Rosenbloom and Ruth Ann Althaus

Al Rosenbloom is an Associate Professor of Marketing and International Business at

Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois. Ruth Ann Althaus is a Professor of Health

Administration at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

Case Synopsis

Degussa AG is a German-based multinational specialty chemical company headquartered

in Düsseldorf. In 2002, Degussa’s CEO, Utz-Hellmuth Felcht, must present to his Board of

Trustees a routine, but potentially controversial, bid. The bid is to supply an anti-graffiti coating

for a new Holocaust memorial being built in Berlin. Degussa is recognized as a world leader in

making anti-graffiti coatings. However, a former subsidiary of Degussa’s, named Degesch,

supplied the Zyklon B gas that killed Jews and other individuals in the Auschwitz and Majdanek

extermination camps during World War II. The case explores the ethical dilemmas faced by

Felcht and the Degussa Board as they consider this proposal.

Courses and Levels

The case is intended for use in business ethics courses at both the undergraduate and

graduate level. The case also can be used in graduate-level corporate governance and social

responsibility courses.

Case Objectives

To analyze decision making from a deontological and utilitarian ethics perspective

To illustrate the use of stakeholder theory in business ethics

To consider the relevance of a company’s historical legacy to contemporary decision

making

To explore how German corporate history during and after the Holocaust has parallels to

human rights issues in other countries

Research Methods

This case, Degussa AG and the Holocaust Memorial, was developed through secondary

publication research and personal interviews. Personal interviews and correspondence were

conducted with individuals at the Memorial Foundation to the Murdered Jews in Europe in

Berlin (hereafter, “The Memorial Foundation”). The Memorial Foundation oversaw the

development of the Memorial and currently administers the Memorial site, a Visitor Information

Center and an archive. None of the case information is disguised. Neither case co-author has had

any previous relationship with Degussa AG or The Memorial Foundation.

Teaching the Case

This case can generally be taught within a single class period of 50 minutes without role

play. As noted in case discussion question 4, instructors wishing to have students role play

various case relationships must add more time for both in-class and out-of-class preparation.

Similarly, if the case is used in a class which has not previously discussed deontological and

utilitarian ethical perspectives, then an additional 20-45 minutes might be needed in a preceding

class to review these ethical frameworks. The teaching handout, “A Brief Ethics Review,” can be

used to frame lecture and class discussion.

Teaching the case works well in the following, single class format:

I. Introduction (5 minutes)

The instructor may begin by asking students: What do they know about the Holocaust?

Responses will run the gamut from having previously studied the Holocaust in school, to

knowing and/or interviewing survivors of the Holocaust, to having some family connection with

Holocaust events. Following this discussion, the instructor may ask: What was it like to be

Jewish during World War II? The intent here is three fold: (1) to begin the case discussion; (2) to

review case facts; and (3) to remind students of the increased persecution Jews experienced

during the Holocaust.

II. Case discussion questions (45 minutes) – More in-depth case answers appear after this brief

summary.

The instructor may turn next to the case discussion questions. The case works best when

the four questions are asked in order.

Question 1: Who are the case’s stakeholders and what are their claims? (5minutes).

Responses to this question generally proceed rapidly. Instructors may list on the board or

on a writeable overhead each stakeholder as it is proposed. Instructors should make sure that

each stakeholder’s moral claim is presented and discussed. Students may propose some

Question 2: Assess Degussa’s atonement efforts to date (5 minutes).

This question is provocative. Student opinions typically divide between “Degussa has

done enough” and “Degussa still needs to do more.” Instructors may want to review the activities

that Degussa has already undertaken to atone. Once the list of atonement activities is developed,

Question 3: What choices should Felcht present to the Board and how could he support his

choice from either a utilitarian and deontological ethical framework? (20 minutes).

This question is the most challenging for students. Its challenge resides not in developing

the options (bid, bid low, donate, or not bid) but in having students support each recommended

course of action using a utilitarian and/or deontological ethical framework. Instructors may

begin this question by asking students to list all the choices Felcht should present to the Board.

After developing the ethical logic for their assigned choice, teams can report back to the

entire class. When all teams have reported back, students may be asked to reflect on what they

just heard and learned. In addition to comments like it can be “hard,” “challenging” or “difficult”

to apply a particular ethical framework, instructors may want to observe any patterns in the

At this point, some instructors may want students to participate in any of the role plays

outlined in the Teaching Tip under Question 3. Additional class time must be devoted to this

activity. In a 50-minute or hour-and-fifteen minute class, instructors may want to summarize the

The concluding activity for Question 3 might be to poll the class on which choice they,

personally, would recommend to the Board. By holding this question until the end, students are

encouraged not only to think through the various options Felcht and the Board have but also are

Question 4. As a Board member, which option would you choose? (5 minutes)

A simple class poll handles this question most efficiently. By holding this question until

the end, students are encouraged not only to think through the various options Felcht and the

Board have but also are forced to apply the ethical reasoning of question 3 to each choice. If this

Question 5: Parallels to Degussa’s situation in other countries (10 minutes).

Class discussion can be animated with this question. Instructors may want to focus on the

parallels between Degussa’s situation and the pressures companies in other countries feel to

behave in unethical ways. Instructors teaching corporate governance might consider using this

More In-Depth Answers to Case Discussion Questions

1) Who are the stakeholders that Felcht and the Degussa Board must consider in

deciding whether or not to bid on the Memorial project? Describe the claims that each

stakeholder might have in this situation.

Current shareholders

Degussa shareholders have the most obvious and immediate claim. As owners, their primary

Holocaust survivors who lost family members due directly to Zyklon B

The emotional and historical claim of families who had a family member killed by Zyklon B

are immediately evident. These families could be fiercely anti-Degussa. They would strongly

Holocaust survivors in general

Holocaust survivors in general have similar interests to survivors who specifically had family

members killed in Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Since the Holocaust was a

“A” students might further note that society now has a number of “survivor networks” that

act as social, emotional and informational supports for individuals victimized by torture, incest,

The Memorial Foundation board members

The Memorial Foundation board members will want a Memorial that is accurate, dignified,

compelling and, most of all, respectful. Board members would want to protect the Memorial

German citizens

German citizens, collectively, function as a national “social conscience.” Like Felcht, many

German citizens grew-up in post-World War II Germany and slowly may have become aware of

the Holocaust. Other German citizens may already know a lot about the National Socialist (i.e.,

Nazi) period in Germany. They may have lived through, heard about it from family members or

oSome living Germans or their relatives may have collaborated with or sympathized

with the Nazis. They may feel guilty about their past actions and may feel some need to

atone.

oSome Germans may acknowledge the immorality of the Holocaust and Germany’s

central role in it, yet may also express fatigue over the issue. Their position might be

Degussa employees

Degussa employees are representatives of and stakeholders in the company. Regardless of the

Board’s decision, employees are immediately involved in either defending, rationalizing or

Other German corporations

Other German companies have chosen or have had to deal with their historic past vis-à-vis

the Nazis, just as Degussa is struggling with its own involvement. Students could infer, quite

correctly, that German corporations monitor each other’s action in modern day Germany in terms

German Corporate Response

Agree with Degussa’s

Decision

Disagree with

Degussa’s Decision

Bid Correct Normative

Practice. “Degussa did

Principled. “Degussa

is insensitive. Their

Not Bid Repentant. “Our

collective corporate

Hostage. “Degussa is

making it difficult for

Neo-Nazi and other rightwing groups

Neo-Nazis and other rightwing groups, with their extreme racist and anti-Semitic views, would

approve the wartime production of Zyklon B and the Nazi killing of Jews. They would oppose,

Question 1: Additional Teaching Ideas

Faculty wanting to supplement discussion on stakeholder theory might consider the

following:

Teaching Tip: Stakeholder Definition

“Stakeholders are persons or groups with legitimate interests in the procedural and/or

substantive aspects of corporate activity. Stakeholders are identified by their interest in the

Teaching Tip: Stakeholder Theory – A Reading

Edward Freeman’s extensive work on stakeholder theory can be discussed in conjunction

with this question. Jones, Wicks and Freeman’s (2002) article provides a succinct summary of

stakeholder theory, along with challenges to it. Stakeholder theory broadens the framework for

ethical decision making, since it says that “managers have obligations to stakeholders which

Donaldson, T & Preston, L. (1995).The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,

evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65-91.

Teaching Tip –Stakeholder Theory: A Stakeholder Analysis Tool

Achieving consensus on ethical decisions is often difficult. Emotions frequently run high

because ethical positions are based on deep-seated, personal values that often go unexamined.

Faculty wanting to directly encourage an objective, systematic analysis of stakeholder claims and

Linda Applegate, Stakeholder Analysis Tool (Harvard Case # 9-803-171). Boston: Harvard

Business School Publishing.

2) Assess the relevance to the current situation, if any, of Degussa’s efforts to date to

acknowledge and atone for their participation in World War II.

Degussa has already done the following to acknowledge and atone for it wartime actions:

It has hired a respected historian, Peter Hayes, to produce an objective corporate history that

Degussa was one of 16 German companies to form the Foundation for Remembrance,

Many students will conclude that this is sufficient. “A” students will note, however, that

Degussa’s atonement might have begun earlier, with a statement by Walter Roessler, one of the

“A” students also will frame the atonement issue in a larger perspective. They will note that

besides the production of Zyklon B, Degussa committed other immoral acts during the war.

Further, Degussa was an active corporate participant in the Aryanization of businesses. “A”

“A” students further will note that Degussa could, in fact, consider any of the following

additional actions:

Degussa could discount the price of the anti-graffiti coating. Such action would mollify the

charge of twice “profiting” from the Holocaust. Felcht already knows the bid price of his

Degussa could donate the anti-graffiti coating for the Memorial project. Donation could be

the ultimate act of corporate social responsibility and atonement. The very best students

would note, though, that even this action might not get Degussa off the moral “hook” of

Question 2: Additional Teaching Ideas

Faculty wanting to supplement discussion on corporate social responsibility might

consider the following:

Teaching Tip: Corporate Social Responsibility

Discussion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be used to expand the scope of this

Transparency focuses on what corporations do in terms of their employment and social

practices, why they take the actions they do, and how these policies are implemented.

Corporations invoking the concept of accountability attempt to defuse accusation that they stand

outside the jurisdiction of national and international legislative bodies. Rather, accountability

The standards of transparency, accountability and integrity can be applied to Degussa’s

atonement and forgiveness actions.

Reich, S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the issue of compensation: The case of

Ford and Nazi Germany. In Nicosia, F. and Huener, J. (ed.) Business and Industry in Nazi

Germany. New York: Berghahn Books.

actions of individual corporate actors. Other theorists dispute the potential for corporations,

considered the means to an economic end, to have such moral responsibility.

3) What are the various options Felcht might propose to his Board? How might each of

these options be supported using a utilitarian and/or a deontological ethical framework?

Most students will suggest that there are two alternatives: 1) bid and 2) not bid

Better students will see more possibilities: 1) bid, 2) bid low, 3) donate the job, and 4) not bid.

1. BID

Deontological considerations:

oThe Board has a duty to be fair to stockholders.

not to bid.

Utilitarian considerations:

2. BID LOW

Deontological considerations:

expresses Degussa’s concern for justice and fairness.

Utilitarian considerations:

oThe importance of maximizing wealth is somewhat minimized by potential bad publicity,

oThis job represents a very small contribution to Degussa’s total sales and overall

3. DONATE THE JOB

Deontological considerations:

oDegussa has a duty to acknowledge and atone for its past in any way it can. Donating the

Utilitarian considerations:

oPublic relations considerations are overwhelming and any money made on the job would

be offset by negative ‘press’ and its possible effect on the bottom line. Degussa might as

4. DO NOT BID

Deontological considerations:

oDuty compels Degussa to honor the opinion of stakeholders besides stockholders.

Utilitarian considerations:

oPossible PR considerations are overwhelming and any money made on the job would be

Question 3: Additional Teaching Ideas

TEACHING TIP – Suggested Pedagogy

It is useful to have students answer this question individually as an out-of-class assignment.

This approach encourages each student to think through the issues and to be prepared for the

group discussion that follows. In-class group discussion allows students to hear how their peers

‘see’ the issues differently depending on their own culturally-laden values system.

A. Individual written homework assignment.

A.1 Have students list the alternatives that Felcht should present to the board as

possibilities.

A.2 For each alternative suggested, the student should provide the deontological and/or

utilitarian ethics underlying the position for Degussa. Students may find it useful to

consider these as harms or benefits.

A.3 The student should then choose the ‘right’ option for Felcht to suggest to his board

and provide him with a rationale that includes potential impact on each stakeholder

group.

B. Group discussion

In groups as diverse as possible, students should discuss their suggestions for Felcht and

reach consensus on what they would advise Felcht to present to his board. Students should be

admonished to conduct their discussion as professionals, respecting each others’ opinions and

trying to understand them. Group discussion should occur in class so that the instructor can

monitor the quality of discussion and redirect it when necessary. The need to reach consensus

takes the question out of the personal realm and puts it in the more realistic realm of a business

setting in which varied values exist.

TEACHING TIP: Virtue Ethics

Faculty wanting to supplement discussion might consider including another ethics theory:

Utilitarian and deontological theories about ethics judge morality on the basis of a person’s

intended action. Other groups of ethical theories are based on the character of the person acting

rather than on his or her actions. One such is virtue theory, a view that morality is based on the

development of good character traits or virtues with the subsequent result that a “good” person

will perform ethically. This theory depends on the development of a variety of virtues starting

Solomon (1992) claims that honesty is “the first virtue of business life” (p. 210). Instructors may

wish to explore the virtues implied by Felcht’s support for Degussa’s acts of atonement. Are

Q4. If you were a Degussa AG board member and presented with the variety of options,

which option would you choose?

This question’s discussion will mirror arguments outlined in question 3. Most students will

support some version of the “bid” option. Students will present Board member rationales as

combinations of the following arguments:

Our history is an open book. The Board acted responsibly in hiring Peter Hayes to research

Degussa’s corporate history during World War II. The Board will accept his findings. Bidding

should be independent of company history. It’s time to move on.

“Don’t bid” arguments include:

It’s morally wrong. To bid would completely dishonor the memory of any family member

killed in the Holocaust.

Degussa will be seen as a corporation interested only in profits. It runs the risk of not

learning from its past. Yet again it is putting profits before people.

Question 4: Additional Teaching Ideas

TEACHING TIP – Suggested Pedagogy

The “bid” or “no bid” decision that Felcht and the board face provides opportunities for

in-class role play. The first role play revolves around Felcht conducting the board meeting itself,

with one student being Felcht and other students assuming the role of board members. Issues

involved in the role play include how Felcht might begin the meeting, how he can encourage

Q5. How have other companies in other countries, particularly the United States and South

Africa, behaved under pressure, either governmental or societal, to conduct unethical

business? What can be learned from their behavior and their later attempts at atonement?

Both the United States and South Africa have gone through periods when government

pressures and/or dominant social values have pressured business to behave unethically. Two

examples of how dominant social values have influenced business decisions in the United States

South Africa

Apartheid was the strict segregation of the races in South Africa which existed from 1948

until the early 1990s. Apartheid was supported by South African law that classified individuals

The South African comparison can be developed further. South Africa created The Truth

and Reconciliation Commission as a way to acknowledge the injustice of Apartheid , to

United States

In the case of the United States, social and economic mores of the time made enslaving

Blacks acceptable for some Americans. Some contemporary companies, such as Aetna, AIG,

New York Life, Norfolk Southern Railroads, JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan Bank, BostonFleet

Apartheid. (n.d.) Apartheid. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Cox, J. (2002, February 21). Corporations challenged by reparations activists. USA

Today. Retrieved May 5, 2006 from

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

Question 5: Additional Teaching Ideas

Teaching Tip: Institutional Atonement

Atonement is generally thought of as compensation for a wrong. Brooks (2004), in

Atonement and Forgiveness: A New Model for Black Reparations, makes a distinction between a

tort-model and an atonement-model for reparations regarding slavery. His distinction is

In the atonement model, the victim seeks a genuine apology from the perpetrator, first

and foremost, and then calculates the sincerity of the apology by the weight of the

reparations. If the reparations are sufficient, the perpetrator reclaims its moral

Brooks’s insights can be used to further enrich this discussion question. Instructors can ask

students whether Degussa followed an atonement model as outlined by Brooks and whether

Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Gilder Lehrman Center International Conference. Repairing

Epilogue

The Degussa Board of Trustees authorized a bid on the Memorial to the Murdered Jews

in Europe. Degussa used its knowledge of PSS Interservices’ bid price to submit a final bid lower

than € 450,000. Degussa was awarded the contract to coat each of the 2,700 concrete pillars with

Degussa AG, Dusseldorf, regrets the decision of the “Memorial to the

Murdered Jews of Europe” Foundation, but respects it. In its meeting of

The fact is, however, that Degussa had not concluded any agreement with

the Foundation. The contractual partner of the Board of Trustees is the

for surface protection. In addition to its own products, EAG also offers Degussa

products as distributor for Germany.

Degussa is aware of the past of its predecessor companies. Chairman

Prof. Utz-Hellmuth Felcht comments: “Actively working through and coming to

terms with the history of our company is a matter of central concern for us.” This

is why, for example, leading economic historians are presently working

Degussa/en/press/news/details?NewsID=1189

On November 12, 2003, the Memorial Foundation voted to retain Degussa AG as the sole

supplier of the anti-graffiti coating for the Memorial’s pillars. On November 13, 2003, Degussa

issued the following statement:

Prof. Utz-Hellmuth Felcht, Management Board Chairman of Degussa AG,

“I have every respect for the emotions called forth by the discussion of

Degussa’s involvement in the construction of the Memorial, and in view of

our 48,000 employees regard the Foundation’s decision as extremely

positive. Numerous personal conversations and countless letters bear

witness to the degree of concern and consternation with which the

discussion has been followed in the workforce, as Degussa is a company

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews in Europe finally was completed on December 15,

2004. The Memorial was officially dedicated on May 10, 2005.

Supplemental Material

Listed below are additional materials which instructors can use to enhance the case:

NPR Audio File

German Chemical Firms Accepts Museum’s Rebuff:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1487510

PBS Video Programs

Frontline: The Holocaust Memorial: Against All Expectations

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/germans/memorial/wefing.html

Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/learning/index.html

Online photographs of the Berlin Holocaust Memorial

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Berlin2002/JewishMemorial/index.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcharding/59476657/in/set-1286009

A QuickTime video clip of the Memorial

http://29fragiledays.blogspot.com/2005/10/berlin-holocaust-memorial.html

APPENDIX A:

SELECTED EVENTS IN NAZI AND JEWISH HISTORY LEADING UP TO AND

DURING WORLD WAR II

1919 January 5 The German Worker’s Party, the forerunner

of the Nazi Party is founded

September 16 Adolph Hitler joins the German Worker’s

Party

1920 February 24 The German Worker’s Party writes a new

party platform and changes its name to the

Die Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche

Arbeiterpartei (the National Socialist

German Workers’ Party) or Nazis

Summer Hitler comes up with the idea for the Nazi

flag and its symbol

1921 July Hitler becomes chairman of the Nazis

 Chronology is adapted from Fischel (1998) and

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/bltimeline/.

November Hitler is recognized as party fürher

1923 November 9-10 Nazis try to overthrow German government

but fail

November 11 Hitler arrested and sent to prison; writes

Mein Kampf

1924 April 1 Hitler sentenced to five years in prison

December 20 Hitler released from prison

1933 January 30 Hitler becomes chancellor of Germany after

the Nazis receive 33% of a vote in

parliament

March 20 Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp,

is established

March 24 Parliament passes the Enabling Act which

becomes the basis for Hitler’s dictatorship

April 1 One day nationwide boycott against Jewish

businesses

April 7 Quotas are applied to the number of Jewish

students allowed in higher education

July 14 Decree declares the Nazi Party as the sole

political party in Germany

1934 June 30 Hitler orders the murder of some of his

generals in the “Night of the Long Knives”

August 2 The German President dies, giving Hitler

the opportunity to establish a dictatorship

August 3 Hitler assumes the powers of both the

President and the Chancellor of Germany

1935 September 15 The Nuremberg Laws are passed, defining

who is legally a German citizen. It bans all

contact, including marriage, between Jews

and Germans

December 31 All Jewish civil servants are fired from

office

1937 July 16 A concentration camp is established at

Buchenwald

1938 March 13 Germany invades and annexes Austria in

the Anchluss

April 26 In Austria, all Jewish property is

confiscated

June 25 Jewish physicians in Germany are restricted

to treating only Jewish patients

August 26 The Central Office for Jewish Emigration is

set up in Vienna

September 27 Jewish lawyers are banned from practicing

law in Germany

October 5 All Jewish passports must be stamped with

J for Juden on their cover

November 9-10 Jews are killed and Jewish property is

systematically destroyed in Germany and

Austria during Kristallnacht

November 12 In the aftermath of Kristallnacht,

collectively, Jews are fined 1 billion

reichsmarks

November 15 Jewish children are expelled from German

schools

1939 January 1 The Measure of Elimination of Jews from

the German Economy is passed which bans

Jews from working with Germans

September 1 Germany invades Poland

A curfew forbidding Jews to out of doors

after 8PM is passed

September 3 France and Great Britain declare war on

Germany

World War II begins

September 28 Poland is divided between Germany and the

Soviet Union; German troops enter Warsaw

November 12 Jews from Lodz, Poland are deported to

other parts of Poland

November 23 A decree is issued requiring Jews in

German-controlled parts of Poland to wear

a white arm-band with a blue Star of David

1940 April 27 Heinrich Himmler, a high-ranking German

general, gives the order to establish the

Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland

June 22 Germany and France sign an armistice

July 16 Jews are expelled from Alsace and Lorraine

in eastern France

October 22 Jewish businesses are registered throughout

the Netherlands

November 4 All Jewish civil servants are dismissed from

office in the Netherlands

November 15 The Warsaw Ghetto is sealed

1941 January 21-23 A military coup overthrows the government

in Romania; riots against the Jews occur

February 22 First Jews from Amsterdam are sent to

Buchenwald concentration camp

March 1 Heinrich Himmler orders the creation of

Birkenau, a second concentration camp

close to Auschwitz in Poland

July 4 The main synagogue in Riga, Latvia is

burned

July 21 Herman Goering, a high ranking German

official, authorizes Reinhardt Heydrich to

prepare a “total solution” to “the Jewish

question” in Europe

September 3 The first experimental gassing at Auschwitz

occurs with Soviet prisoners

October 23 Deportation of Jews from Luxembourg

begins

November 10 The Nazis finalize their plans for a

concentration camp in Theresiendstadt,

Czechoslovakia

1942 January 20 The Wannsee Conference is held which

aims to coordinate “the final solution” for

the Jews

February 8 The first transport of Jews from Salonika,

Greece is sent to Auschwitz

March 1 Construction of the Sobibor concentration

camp begins in Poland

March 17 Killings begin at the Belzec concentration

camp in Poland

March 26 First transport of Jews ordered by Adolph

Eichmann’s office is sent to Auschwitz

March 28 First transport of Jews from France is sent

to Auschwitz

June 11 Adolph Eichmann’s office orders the

deportation of Jews from the Netherlands,

Belgium and France

July 15 The first transport of Jews from the

Westerbok camp in the Netherlands leaves

for Auschwitz

July 22 Mass deportation of Jews to Treblinka,

Poland, from Warsaw begins

August 13-20 The majority of Jews from Croatia are

deported to Auschwitz

1943 January 18-22 First Warsaw Ghetto uprising

February 26 First transport of gypsies reaches Auschwitz

August 2 The uprising at the Treblinka, Poland,

concentration camp takes place

October 1 German police begin rounding up Danish

Jews for deportation

October 18 Jews from Rome are deported to Auschwitz

1944 May 15 Deportation to Auschwitz begins for

Hungarian Jews

June 6 D-Day. Allied forces land in Normandy.

July 20 Soviet troops liberate Majdanek

concentration camp in Poland

An assassination attempt on Hitler fails

July 28 First death camp march occurs; Thirty-six

thousand prisoners from Warsaw set out on

foot for Kunto, Poland; 1,000 are killed on

the 81-mile march

October 6-7 An uprising occurs at Auschwitz that

destroys one of the gas chambers

November 2 Gassings at Auschwitz end

1945 January 17 Soviet troops liberate Warsaw

“Death march” from Auschwitz begins

January 27 Soviet troops liberate Auschwitz

April 11 American troops liberate Buchenwald

concentration camp

April 15 British troops liberate Bergen-Belsen

concentration camp

April 30 Hitler commits suicide in his bunker in

Berlin

May 7 Germany surrenders

May 8 World War II ends