Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
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
1
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
2
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
3
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.
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
“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
8
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
9
German Corporate Response
Agree with Degussa’s
Decision
Disagree with
Degussa’s Decision
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
10
“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.
11
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
12
“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:
13
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.
14
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:
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
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:
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
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,
26
"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
27
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/.
28
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
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
