The Thyssen Art Macabre

Following the publication of our book, a major rewriting of the family and corporate history was initiated, co-sponsored by the Thyssen corporation (via Fritz Thyssen Foundation) and the Thyssen family (represented by Georg Thyssen-Bornemisza). Now Broadview TV was announcing that their film (see this Scanned Document) would feature ‘August, Fritz and Heini Thyssen’, making no mention of either Heini’s father Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, a key figure of the story whose role we have researched and reported extensively, or Fritz’s wife Amelie, who was a committed Nazi, yet regained ownership and control of the corporation after Fritz’s death in Argentina (not in Germany) in 1951, while never publicly recanting her political beliefs.

Instead, Broadview TV announced that their emphasis would be on ‘Fritz Thyssen’s TRAGIC embroilment with the Third Reich’ as well as ‘the patron of the arts Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza’.

For a brief moment we paused to think what Heinrich and Heini Thyssen, who had spent most of their lives aggressively denying their Germanness, would think about being turned back into ‘Germans’ posthumously! And hadn’t Fritz and Amelie always insisted they were stateless? In my opinion as a German it is wrong for the German public to be asked to accept this family back into their national consciousness as one of their own, without being given the chance of seeing an unbiased picture of BOTH their achievements AND their failings.

We are not in any way denying the Thyssens’ achievements. They created a vast industrial empire, thousands of jobs and careers as well as wealth for the German nation and beyond. To be more precise, August and his brother Josef did those things, as well as their workers, foremen and managers. But Fritz (& Amelie) and Heinrich Thyssen were big cogs, very big cogs indeed in the process that brought Adolf Hitler to power.  As such, the Thyssens’ ‘embroilment’ with the Nazis was NOT, I repeat NOT tragic for the Thyssens. The Thyssens were not victims. They were perpetrators. They supported the Nazis because they wished to eradicate Communism and Socialism and ensure their own profits and lifestyles.

The actual tragedy was the one that befell the people of Europe and of the wider world who died in their millions or survived to live on with their haunting memories. More often than not they were offered no support to come to terms with their experiences, while the Thyssens were allowed back into the position of role models. Now they’re reintroduced into the German media and, in our opinion, instead of owning up fully to their historic role, commission sanitised reports which airbrush inconvenient truths out of the public picture. This is evident in recent publications where embarrassing facts were circumvented or ignored.

We decided to contact Mr Dehnhardt to try and find out what kind of course he was planning to take with his documentary. Having written to him early in February we heard nothing. So we wrote to the Head of ARD, Mr Peter Boudgoust. He wrote back a very nice letter, saying he had passed our concerns on to the commissioning editors, in this case Christiane Hinz at WDR in Cologne. But we heard nothing from Mrs Hinz, even when emailing and phoning her.

Finally, after another letter to Mr Boudgoust, Mrs Hinz replied. She suggested our worries were ‘unfounded’, that the ‘POSSIBLE film about the Thyssens’ was still ‘ONLY AT A PROJECT STAGE’, that ‘all relevant historical points’ would be researched and that ‘if any questions arose that only [we] could answer’ they would ‘of course’ contact us. No apology was made for her previous silence.

Now finally – after 4.5 months – Mr Dehnhardt too has chosen to communicate with us, though rather pointedly, he has addressed his reply (see enclosed) to David only, not to myself, his German kinswoman, although our letter came from both of us. Once again, like Mrs Hinz before him, Mr Dehnhardt points out that ‘all relevant themes, including those from the time of the Third Reich’ will be dealt with, but adds ‘you have no right to expect for the interpretations derived from your research to be given an automatic platform in our programme’.  He also bemoans our sceptical approach, stating that it is ‘devoid of any reality’, particularly in view of the fact we ‘know nothing about the concept, form and content of [his] film’. Meanwhile, however, he still fails to communicate any of the concept, form and content in the professional manner that we would expect.

The word ‘interpretation’, of course, is a very interesting choice in this context, as it carries all the connotations of ‘spin’. The fact is that if you leave Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza and Amelie Thyssen out of the picture, you refuse to deal with real historical issues, namely those of managing German companies throughout the war from a Swiss safehaven, including the use of slave labour, international Nazi banking, the Rechnitz Massacre, the Thyssens’ post-war protection from Allied retribution, etc, etc, etc. These are straightforward facts; not ‘interpretations’.

Mr Dehnhardt has been criticised in the past for producing a documentary in which the views were said to have been over-emotional and unbalanced. Kultura Online Magazin found that his film on the battle of Stalingrad did not give a voice to the Russian side and only described the results but not the reasons for the historic developments in question. When confronted with this criticism, Mr Dehnhardt replied: ‘I think the individual [German] soldier also has the right to be a victim, especially in the context of Stalingrad. My film shows that he was only a small cog in a big machine’.

Here Mr Dehnhadt is right. But this statement begs the question as to how he will deal with the ‘big cogs’ when it comes to his documentary on the Thyssens. Will he still have the likes of his father (or my father and uncles for that matter) in mind or will he now bow to the power and influence of the cosmopolitan ‘big cogs’? Will he tell the German public the tale of Fritz Thyssen suffering in a concentration camp, although we established he was under comfortable, protective custody while his brother Heinrich continued to supply the Nazis with coal, submarines and aerial torpedoes from the safety of Switzerland? And will he tell people what an art expert Heini Thyssen was when we showed that Heini Thyssen himself told us his father had bought the collection simply in order to transfer money out of Germany and Thyssen art has been used and abused as a convenient veneer behind which to hide a guilty past ever since?

We shall have to wait and see. But after our experiences of looking into all things Thyssen for over fourteen years, we remain sceptical, particularly since Mr Dehnhardt makes several films on different subjects every year. In this short space of time he could not possibly have enough insight into a vast topic such as Thyssen to offer anything but a simplified view. A view that is in danger of misrepresenting the past in a way that will once again allow the Thyssen big cogs to indulge their privileges while shunning their historic responsibilities.

We really hope to be proved wrong, because for the last seventy plus years the German public has been misinformed regarding Thyssen. We believe that while they may not like the image of the Thyssens that we have revealed, it is up to them, not to what might prove to be a Thyssen-influenced media company, to decide.

COMMENTS:

eldeadpixel writes: Thanks for this good article. I wonder if that documentary will be shown here in Spain… Keep us up to date!

‘People who are less interested in historically substantiated studies with traceable references and who would rather form their opinions based on sex-and-crime journalism might be entertained by Litchfield, David: The Thyssen Art Macabre, London 2006 (German edition: Die Thyssen-Dynastie, Die Wahrheit hinter dem Mythos, Oberhausen 2008).’

I feel such a statement says more about Rasch than it does about me, and I appreciate the publicity it has afforded my book, including the increase in visits to this website, particularly from the Ruhr district. However, a recent critical review awarded Rasch’s book on Amazon by a reader in Munich might have been unlikely to have imbued him with a similar spirit of generosity:

‘Unfortunately, the title of this book is somewhat misleading, as of the 214 letters only 4 are by Heinrich Thyssen’s hand. It also does not limit the scope of its contents to the years 1919-1926 but includes furthermore a considerable amount of historical material on the history of the Thyssen family and its industries which has been written by Professor Manfred Rasch who is listed as editor of the book. As Professor Rasch is also the head of the archives at ThyssenKrupp, it makes it difficult to accept the impartiality of his views. The style of the book is academic and thus requires an overwhelming interest in the subject matter, as much is being taken up with supportive material in the form of bibliography, sources, commentaries etc.

One also gets the impression that this book, despite its size and the obvious complexity of the research, was in fact created in some haste, as on far too many occasions it sidesteps various historical issues by announcing that scientific research is still ongoing. But what I find even more surprising is the way Prof. Rasch deals with other authors, some of whom have published considerable research about the subject, for instance the Briton David R L Litchfield (‘The Thyssen Art Macabre’, in German: ‘Die Thyssen-Dynastie’), whose description of the murder of 180 Hungarian slave labourers during a party organised at Rechnitz Castle by Margit Thyssen-Bornemisza caused a big stir a few years ago. Prof. Rasch suggests that his readers should view Litchfield’s book as mere entertainment: just an alarming error of judgement or a worrying example of professional jealousy?

This is particularly disturbing in the light of the anti-Semitism in the Thyssen family (see letters dated 9.9.1919, 21.7.1923 and 30.7.1923) which the book presents to the interested public. All in all, however, this is a fascinating read which contains much material of interest to both amateur and professional historians’.

One certainly gets the impression that the corporation may now be trying somewhat too hard to paper over the cracks in their historiography. You may no longer be able to see the cracks but you can certainly see where they have been, which only serves to draw attention to the papering.

I was also particularly interested in the impression that ThyssenKrupp is now giving of having archives that are open to the public. This was certainly not the case when we were researching our book. In fact quite the opposite. However, Rasch still seems determined to believe that, having been denied access to his archives, we chose to create our book without documentary evidence. This is of course totally and completely inaccurate and an opinion that appears to have been based on his wishful thinking.

Apart from the fact that our book is most certainly based on fully documented evidence, Rasch, who is obviously holding me responsible for the cracks in his professional credibility, would perhaps have been better advised not to talk of ‘entertainment’ in connection with a family that was responsible for the financing and use of slave labour, in particular (but not exclusively) in the context of the Rechnitz massacre (which Rasch chooses to ignore, apart from providing a link to an Austrian website).

To assist Manfred Rasch with future editions of his book, I include in this post excerpts of documents confirming the Thyssens’ war-time financing of their SS-occupied castle in Rechnitz, documents which I can only assume he overlooked in his haste to publish his book. They concern meetings of Heinrich and his son Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza (‘Heini’) with their managers Heinrich Lübke and Wilhelm Roelen on 22 August 1941 in Flims, on 9 November 1941 in Zurich and on 2 February 1944 in Davos and include details of the RM 400,000 loan from August Thyssen Bank Berlin to Rechnitz, yearly contributions of RM 30,000 for Margit Batthyany and RM 18,000 for the upkeep of the castle, as well as a notification that Thyssengas (then Thyssensche Gas- und Wasserwerke) was generally ‘looking after’ Rechnitz.

Scanned Document
Scanned Document-1
Scanned Document-2

(all excerpts of documents in this post are from the archives of David R L Litchfield and are to be reproduced with his permission only).

‘Adel verpflichtet. So sagt das Sprichwort. Aber wozu verpflichtet Adel?

Der Brite David Litchfield bekam durch seine Bekanntschaft zu ‘Heini’ Thyssen Einblicke in die Unterlagen der Familie Thyssen.

Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza wurde 1921 als Sohn des gleichnamigen Vaters geboren. Sein Onkel Fritz hatte Anfang der dreissiger Jahre eine unrühmliche Rolle bei der Machtergreifung Hitlers gespielt und die Gunst der Stunde genutzt, um sich und seine Familie kräftig zu bereichern. Der “Führer” belohnte den Grossindustriellen mit einem Sitz im Reichstag. Schon 1934 kam es zu Spannungen zwischen Thyssen und Hitler, 1939 gar zum Bruch. Trotz seiner Flucht wurden die Nazis seiner habhaft und verschleppten ihn ins KZ. Hermann Göring hielt indes seine schützende Hand über Fritz Thyssen.

Gleichwohl machte die Familie Thyssen glänzende Geschäfte im Krieg. ‘Heini’ Thyssen, ein gut aussehender Jüngling, erlebte erste Liebschaften und rettete sich in die Schweiz. In den Alpen verlebte er den Krieg.

Untrennbar mit dem Namen Thyssen verbunden ist ein Massaker in Rechnitz. Kurz vor dem Einmarsch der Roten Armee veranstaltete Gräfin Batthyany, eine geborene Thyssen, eine Sause auf ihrem Schloss mit hochrangigen Nazis und SS-Offizieren. Die betrunkenen Anwesenden machten sich einen Spass daraus, etwa 200 Juden abzuschlachten. Muss erwähnt werden, dass die adeligen Gastgeber für dieses Verbrechen nie juristisch belangt wurden?

‘Heini’ Thyssen folgte seinem Vater als Chef des Hauses. Mit seinen Geschwistern lieferte er sich einen heftigen Erbstreit um die Macht. Es folgten Jahre als Playboy: Geld, Macht, Liebe.

Das Buch ist gut geschrieben. Dort, wo Aussagen der Familienmitglieder nicht durch Quellen belegt sind, hinterfragt Litchfield diese Aussagen. Er beleuchtet das Treiben einer Familie, in der Geld alles ist.

Wozu Adel verpflichtet, weiss ich nach der Lektüre des Buches immer noch nicht, aber das Treiben der Familie Thyssen erinnert an etwas anderes: Geschichte verpflichtet. Nämlich zur Verantwortung.’

(Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft, Magazin 1/2010, Rezensionen, s. 29/30, Dr Norbert Korfmacher, ‘Eine Unternehmensgeschichte: Die Thyssen-Dynastie’).

http://www.deutsch-israelische-gesellschaft.de/
http://www.bamby.de/mylife.htm

EM: Do you think that Carmen Cervera and the Spanish State will come to an agreement for the Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection to remain in Spain?

DL: I hope not. The Spanish state does not need her pictures. And Carmen Cervera should not be asking the Spanish state for any payment. The Spanish state cannot afford it and the Madrid museum already loses money every year. So why pay more money to a wealthy Thyssen in order to lose even more money for the state? For the life of me I cannot think of a reason why Spain wants Carmen Thyssen’s third-rate pictures, when it already has too many first-rate pictures in other museums.

EM: What are the main difficulties faced by Tita to reach a satisfactory agreement?

DL: The main problems are her greed and Spain’s bad financial situation. She is trying to repeat the deal that her husband Heini made nearly 20 years ago. But she does not have his skill or knowledge. You did a terrible deal with Heini Thyssen. Even some of your own experts expressed scepticism about the wisdom of Spain buying his collection in 1993, for instance Eduard Castellet, President of the Fundacion Miro. So why would you want to do another, even more terrible deal?

EM: She says that she has offers from some museums in the USA and Europe. Can this be true?

DL: No, I don’t think that’s true. If she did, why would she not name them and say what they are offering her?

EM: She says she has as much money as people think…..Is it true?

DL: Her worth is never going to be what she says it is. I’m not sure she would even know herself. If she can claim that her pictures are worth €700 million, then of course she can claim to be a billionairess. But I believe that all of that is totally and completely exaggerated. Anyway, what does it matter how much money she has? She is taking money from Spain, not giving it.

EM: Is the Thyssen Collection overrated? Tita says it is worth €700 million.

DL: The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection (i.e. Heini’s collection sold to Spain in 1993) is worthless, because it cannot be sold and requires constant taxpayers’ support to be housed and exhibited. As far as the Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection is concerned, as Carmen Cervera never says exactly what her collection comprises (240 pictures? 900 pictures? 3000 pictures?), it is impossible to value it. Therefore, what she is saying about its value is of no consequence. It is interesting, for instance, that the Spanish state seems to be insuring 655 of her pictures, when officially she is only exhibiting 240 at the Madrid museum:

http://vlex.com/vid/prestadas-coleccion-thyssen-bornemisza-15449009

EM: Can the negotiations affect the dispute between Tita and Borja and visa versa?

DL: Negotiations for what? She never says what she is negotiating. She constantly changes the number and nature of the pictures she wants Spain to rent from her. In Malaga, she is talking about a catalogue of 200 pictures, which only the conservative mayor has ever seen (not even the left-wing opposition in the town council has had the honour). The deal in Sant Feliu de Guixols is even more obscure, and yet she is talking about a ‘Thyssen museum network’ between the three locations. In the meantime, I calculate that Spain has already spent a total of around €100 milllion (!) to build facilities in Madrid, Malaga and Sant Feliu de Guixols to house parts of the Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. If she is negotiating about pictures which are part of her son Borja Thyssen’s inheritance rights, then obviously he could challenge any deal.

EM: Do you think that being such a populist politician, Prime Minister Zapatero has a real interest in the collection with such a financial crisis as we currently have in Spain?

DL: I don’t understand why anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, would want to pay for pictures, some of which the Spanish state has already rejected before and others which were purchased from money previously paid to the Thyssens by the Spanish tax payer. It would be a bit like paying for the same thing twice!

EM: Tita said that the topic of her private collection is independent of the negotiations on the future of the Thyssen Museum. Do you think this is true?

DL: Carmen Cervera’s pictures housed in the Madrid museum since 2004 were not part of the original agreement with Heini, for which Spain paid $350 million in 1993 (according to my figures it was actually closer to $600 million if you include the real estate, architectural costs, insurance, lawyers fees, administration, etc,. etc.). Heini Thyssen did, however, manage to get a foot in the door for his wife by signing a separate agreement to loan an additional 70 pictures to the Madrid museum which remained in the ownership of him and Tita. This seems to be the basis of what she is trying to negotiate for Madrid now. This leads to an interesting point, which is that very few Spanish people (if any) have ever seen the original agreement. I have seen it, which is why I know that Spain made such a terrible deal.

I believe, that as a Spanish tax payer, you have the right to demand concrete information about all of this. At the moment, it is still all shrouded in a veil of smoke and mirrors. I can think of no reason why anyone would even consider acquiring her pictures, unless they are being paid some form of commission for doing so. On a personal level, I would also like to say that in my eyes, Carmen Cervera’s vulgarity and lack of taste actually damages Spain’s cultural image internationally. One more thing, which is very important: neither Tita nor Borja can do anything to affect the status of the original paintings bought by Spain from Heini Thyssen. Some reports make it sound like she could take Heini Thyssen’s pictures out of the Madrid museum as well. She cannot!

Congratulations on your latest literary output, but I am confused. When we came to see you in November 1998, you told me that the letters between August Thyssen and his son Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza were Baron Heini Thyssen’s private property.

You also told us: ‘We are not a service organisation for the Thyssen family. We are the archive of a company or companies, and have nothing to do with the Thyssen-Bornemisza family.’ Were you lying or has something changed? So: Who owns the copyright to your book and/or to the letters? All very mysterious!

I am certainly looking forward to receiving a copy of the book, not so much because of what it will contain, but what it doesn’t. Fortunately, as we also have copies of all the letters, which were given to us by Heini Thyssen, we can fill in any gaps you might inadvertently have left. We hope nobody has been tempted to forge any additions, as you once accused us of doing.

I have to say that I find the fact that you, and presumably ‘the organisation’, are choosing to do such a book, while ThyssenKrupp is the subject of ‘independent’ academic research, deeply suspicious. Why do I get the feeling that it is all part of the re-writing of corporate and family history in response to the publication of our book ‘Die Thyssen-Dynastie. Die Wahrheit hinter dem Mythos’ (assoVerlag Oberhausen, 2008)?

End of February 2010: David Litchfield to Alexander Batthyany (unpublished by forum):
Bitte entschuldigen Sie die Verspätung meiner Antwort, aber ich musste erst noch ein Buch fertig schreiben, welches sich wiederum mit einer eminenten Familie beschäftigt, die ihre faschistische Vergangenheit verleugnet – diesmal eine englische Familie.

Was die deutschsprachige Bevölkerung angeht, so ist es meine Ueberzeugung, dass das einzige was ‘selbstverständlich’ ist, bzw. wobei keine Gefahr des ‘Missverstehens’ besteht, die Tatsache ist, dass viele Deutsche und Oesterreicher weiterhin glauben, dass es den Juden recht geschah und dass keinerlei Reue gezeigt wird, sondern im Gegenteil die Gelegenheit – falls gegeben – willkommen geheissen würde, das Gleiche morgen wieder zu verbrechen. Dies ist leider meine Sicht, die ich aus persönlicher Erfahrung gewinnen musste. Uebrigens wurde sie auch von Margit Batthyany’s Bruder Heini Thyssen mit mir geteilt.

Ich denke, es ist auch bemerkenswert, dass Sie die Thyssen Familie nicht erwähnen, deren Giftbecher Ihre Familie gern in Empfang nahm, wofür die Einwohner von Rechnitz bis heute bezahlen müssen.

Während ich akzeptiere, dass Sie persönlich das Massaker bedauern, die Opfer beklagen und mit ihren Familien trauern, so vermittelte mir Sacha Batthyany andererseits mündlich – im Gegensatz zu seinen gedruckten Aeusserungen – den Eindruck, dass Sie wohl die Ausnahme und nicht die Norm innerhalb des Batthyany Clans darstellen.

Sollte Ihnen daran gelegen sein, die Position Ihrer Familie in direkterer Weise aufzustellen, warum probieren Sie nicht, einen diesbezüglichen Beitrag auf www.batthyany.at freizuschalten, der Ihre Sympathie für die Opfer und Ihr Bedauern ob des Rechnitzer Massakers widerspiegelt, und eine Einladung an andere Mitglieder Ihrer Familie enthält, diese Haltung öffentlich zu unterstützen?

An Ihrer Stelle würde ich allerdings bei dieser Aktion lieber nicht die Luft anhalten. Wie Sie vielleicht wissen, enthält die Batthyany Webseite bisher keine einzige selbständige Information zum Thema Rechnitz.

Mid-February 2010: Alexander Batthyany to David Litchfield on ‘Das Magazin’ forum:
Manche Dinge sollten so selbstverständlich sein, dass sie zu erwähnen nicht mehr notwendig sein müsste. Aber da man das Selbstverständliche dann eben doch noch ausformulieren muss: Ich bedauere die 180 Opfer des Massakers ebenso wie ihre Angehörigen und Nachkommen.

Möglicherweise war mein Schreiben missverständlich formuliert, und wenn dem so sein sollte, will ich das gerne korrigieren: ich wollte primär zum Ausdruck bringen, dass Fragen der Schuld (der eigenen wie der innerhalb einer Familie) als existentielle Fragen individuell zu beantworten sind. Da ich ein Mitglied dieser Familie bin und einige der Beitragenden hier den Eindruck äusserten, dies sei eine Stellungnahme “für die Familie” wollte ich daher auf diesen einen Punkt gesondert hinweisen.

Ich beschäftige mich bereits lange genug mit diesem Thema – daher habe ich als gegeben vorausgesetzt, was ohnedies keine Frage mehr sein sollte: das Bedauern, bzw. die Sympathie mit den Ermordeten. Aus eben diesem Grund schrieb ich ja auch von Schuld und Verantwortung.

Mid-February 2010: David Litchfield to Alexander Batthyany on ‘Das Magazin’ forum:
Ich habe Ihren Beitrag immer wieder durchgelesen, kann aber leider nirgends einen Ausdruck Ihrer Sympathie für die 180 jüdischen Menschen entdecken, die in dieser Nacht getötet wurden; oder Ihres Bedauerns ob der grausamen Tat.
Ihre einzige Sorge scheint dem Ruf Ihrer Familie zu gelten.
Ich schliesse meine Beweisführung ab.

End Jan./Beg. Feb. 2010: Alexander Batthyany on ‘Das Magazin’ forum:
Das ist ein hervorragender Artikel, von dem ich viel gelernt habe. Was mir allerdings nicht eingeht, und was mir auch unter rein pragmatischen Gesichtspunkten kaum haltbar erscheint, ist die in manchen Kommentaren anklingende Meinung, dieser Artikel sei “für die Familie” geschrieben worden. Scheinbar gehen jene, die dies annehmen, davon aus, dass die Familie (oder auch nur irgendeine andere Familie) eine geschlossene Gruppe darstelle, die einen der ihren losschickt, um für sie zu sprechen oder zu schreiben.

Das liest sich als Idee vielleicht gut, ist aber kaum praktikabel: und das kann sich wohl jeder vor Augen führen, der den Versuch unternehmen wird, für seine eigene Familie zu sprechen oder einen Artikel zu veröffentlichen; und das Scheitern dieses Versuchs wird dann hoffentlich zeigen, wie unwahrscheinlich es ist, dass dies in einer doch recht grossen Familie wie der unserigen geschehen soll. Im Übrigen halte ich dies – neben der wie gesagt fehlenden Umsetzbarkeit eines solchen Unterfangens – auch für eine bedenkliche Modellierung der Familie als “Sippe”, die geschlossen für die Meinung und Reflexionen eines Einzelnen einstehe und umgekehrt. Bedenklich ist dies deswegen, weil das ein Bild ist, das üblicherweise nicht zuletzt eben jene zeichneten, über deren Verbrechen wir hier diskutieren und für deren Ideologie vermutlich keiner der hier Diskutierenden nur die geringste Sympathie empfindet. Darin dürften sich – über alle anderen Meinungsunterschiede hinweg – alle hier Diskutierenden in Konsens befinden.

Was ich eigentlich sagen will – und was meiner Lesart zufolge auch Sacha Batthyány nicht anders sieht und in einem in meinen Augen sehr gelungenen Text zum Ausdruck bringt: Am Ende steht jeder, der in seiner Verwandtschaft einen solchen “Fall” zu beklagen hat, alleine damit da: Hier konkret mit der Frage, was genau in dieser Nacht geschah und der nicht minder bohrenden Frage, was in den Jahren danach war, in denen die Beteiligten, inkl. Margit B., hoffentlich einmal ausgenüchtert genug gewesen sind, um über diese Nacht in Rechnitz nachzudenken. Auch alleine bleibt man mit der entscheidenden Frage, wie man selbst mit Schuld im eigenen Umfeld umgeht. Und man findet auch nicht allzu schnell eine Antwort darauf, und vermutlich wird auch diese Antwort immer nur Stückwerk bleiben. Schon daher – und auch, weil hoffentlich die historischen Recherchen über das Massaker von Rechnitz weitergehen werden – kann es keine “allgemeine Stellungnahme” geben – weder eine abschliessende, noch eine allgemeine. Bleiben wird allerdings das Problem der Schuld und des Umgangs mit Verantwortung. Auch das sollte die Vermutung, es handle sich bei dieser oder anderen Stellungnahmen um quasi in Auftrag gegebene Pressemitteilungen im Namen der Familie, oder für die Familie, relativieren. Die Familie besteht, wie jede andere Gruppe auch, aus Individuen; und Fragen der Schuld, Verantwortung und des Umgangs damit sind grundlegend und eigentlich individuelle Fragen. Das ist hier der Fall wie in allen anderen existentiellen Bereichen des Lebens ebenfalls.

Das scheint mir auch in dem Text von Sacha Batthyány zum Ausdruck zu kommen, zumindest so, wie ich ihn lese.

Our english translation of the article with our comments:
http://www.davidrllitchfield.com/2009/12/the-batthyany-conspiracy-all-innocent-on-the-eastern-front/

The original article by Sacha Batthyany, published on 11.12.2009:
http://dasmagazin.ch/index.php/ein-schreckliches-geheimnis/

As the excrement of corruption, greed, chat TV, celebrity-obsessed society and ‘dollar art’, as reflected in Hola, now covers whatever was once great about Spain and the true brilliance that undoubtedly still exists – and can even, occasionally, be seen through gaps in the scum – it becomes difficult not to believe that this is what the majority of Spanish people want or are prepared to accept.

They seem quite happy to have paid $600,000,000 for half of a second rate art ‘collection’ and spend yet further millions every year in subsidies, while this ugly recipient of their generosity demands yet more money.

So if, as it appears, their dreams really are now represented by Carmen Thyssen’s gross reality and overpriced art, then one can only accept the fact that she appears to be doing a very fine job.

Poor Spain!

http://www.abc.es/20100219/cultura-arte/carmen-thyssen-presenta-monet-201002191916.html