Talk:Ilse Koch

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awoodenxula.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nickname
"Buchenwälder Schlampe" does indeed translate as "Buchenwald Bitch/slut" but it seems to appear only in non-German texts (at least on Google), raising the suspicion that it is simply a translation back into German of the liberal and alliterative translation of Hexe to Bitch rather than Witch. I propose that the phrase "Buchenwälder Schlampe" be quarantined to the talk page unless someone can find evidence of its use in German. Fine to leave "bitch" in English (or Polish if that's an accurate translation of what she was called by Polish inmates. Coughinink 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As to her nick-name, I'm absolutely sure that the correct term was "The Bitch of Buchenwald", not the "Witch of Buchenwald". At least the Polish inmates report the "Suka z Buchenwaldu" name. Halibutt 15:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

If I may add, I wonder if "Bitch of Buchenwald" is even accurate, because "Schlampe" does *not* mean "bitch", it means "whore" or "slut". I saw another woman Nazi named the "Bitch of xyz" in another article on Wikipedia. Is this even necessary to include? After all, the people in the camp didn't speak english. I'm tempted to just edit this out since it doesn't add much to the article. Dailycyclist 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Dailycyclist


 * Okay, discussing this today with people who lived during the time - and lampshade discussion aside, her nickname in America is certainly "The Bitch of Buchenwald". Is it an incorrect translation - yes, that's what Americans do best (laugh, it's a joke) - but Ilse is certainly known as such in America. Why isn't this relevant, part of the page or at least noted? We have this line; She is also called in English "The Beast of Buchenwald". Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how she 'is' known in America, especially among the generation that lived in those times. To totally leave this out of the article seems, not right, not true to the "story" (per se). Then again as an aside I think there should be a section devoted to the "myth" (quoted because it's obviously in dispute) about the skin. Not much, no need to convince people either way - but at least have something along the lines of "it was reported" or "it was believed" and then debunk it. We do this in other articles, why not just present both sides here? I think if people hear this rumor, and then come here they deserve to hear the rumor and then to see it debunked, in page, and not pushed to another website (which may not last as long as Wikipedia - pages move, domains disappear, people go out of business). Are we not trying to catalog this information? The word "lamp" does not even appear until sources and links - why not address the legends in the article? Again - to at least put them to rest. I don't think the normal reader is just going to navigate to the talk page as I have. Furthermore we get so hung up on bias, or trying not to be, we forget that she was actually convicted - it's not like we are trying to libel an innocent woman who didn't work in Buchenwald. JoeHenzi (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like she was both. Reliable sources state both the "Beast" and the "Bitch" of Buchenwald, and if you want you to you can add the citation I give above as one of many to copyedit the sentence to include both. If you don't, I will. Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as far as the Bitch of Buchenwald. I'll get to the lampshade stuff, but it must be noted that every reliable source I've seen says that it was never proven. Of course, this certainly does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned here, as it is a very well-knowm allegation. Doc   talk  01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The english article still is different to the german one. The english variant reads "bitch", which we know means more whore than anything, but the german word "Hexe" more translates to witch. It also makes sense if you know "Grimm's Märchen" that she would rather act ill against people, than conduct adultery as the term "bitch" would imply. Perhaps the polish terms differ, but in german Hexe = witch 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Previously Under "Nickname" - not nickname material (archival talk)
It was never proofed that she had possessed lampshades from human skin or that the family dinner table was decorated with shrunken human heads. She was not convicted for those things. She was only convicted for his sadism against prinsoners. --217.247.10.83 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How in the hell is this academic? Human lampshades, please. Give me a break. Im not a Nazi but THAT is just stupid.
 * Where does the article claim that? Well, the "shrunken head" dinner table decoration might be a silly claim as well.
 * There were pictures taken of the lampshades, I've seen them. I think the book was the 14 most evil people in history or something like that.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.81.93.202 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there any proof that the pictures are really taken from items related to Koch? There is an enormous amount of forgery in some books. Lampshades and other items potentially made from human corpses were not testified by persons involved in official examinations during the trials. --78.51.96.254 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Koch did not walk out of the camp as you claim, but was arrested with her husband in 1943 for imbezzlement, this indeed ended her tenure there.


 * Indeed, Ilse Koch was arrested in 1943. She was found not guilty by an SS court, while her husband Karl-Otto Koch was found guilty, imprisoned and shot/ executed by the SS for various crimes in 1945. --78.51.96.254 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Motivations?
What frustrates me about articles like this is that we never really gain any insight into the minds of these "monsters." Why was Ilsa so sadistic when other people are revulsed by her actions? Was it her upbringing, her mental state or some other reason? Surely some psychological research was undertaken if she lived into the 1960s.

I mean, I am aware of Stanley Milgram's work but has there been a look at individual Nazis to understand why certain individuals were so fanatical that they wanted to genocide a whole race? It would help our understanding to prevent this type of thing happening again.


 * Good point. In my opinion, Ilse Koch was not a monster, but a person who's moral standards were corrupted massively by her environment. Looking for advancement and social acceptance, she accepted more and more of the ideology around her. On the other hand, most of the crimes the National Socialist movement committed, were regarded as necessary from a "scientific point of view", exactly as proposed by the Rockefeller Foundation and other important organizations. See e.g. "Developed and funded various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz". --78.51.96.254 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of discussion on this topic on Wikipedia if you look into Nazi ideology, scientific racism, the Völkisch movement of the 19th and 20th centuries and the political and psychological aftermath of Germany's World War I loss and subsequent humiliation in the Treaty of Versailles. Also, if you look at the entries on the Nuremberg Trials, you can find references to psychological profiles that were done on the defendants. But since there are literally hundreds of entries for individuals involved with the Third Reich, this information is not reprinted on the page of every one of them.


 * There was also A LOT of literature (some of it best-selling books) in the early 1960s reflecting on the mentality of people living under totalitarian regimes and an examination of how ordinary people could allow such atrocities to take place. Most of the attention was focused on Germany but it also touched on the Soviet Union. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Photograph Content
Are we sure that the photograph is really of "Collection of prisoners' tattoos "? These definitely appear to be anatomical samples but most of them look more like organs of some sort than skin samples; the one at center-left appears to be a kidney, the one at top-center appears to be a heart. The others may be possibly be a lung, liver, intestines, etc. I really don't see anything that appears to be a skin sample with a tatoo on it. A similar photograph in one of the articles linked at the article's end simply states "human remains" with a purported lampshade with human skin (no tatoos). Is there a reliable caption we can reference? - JoeConsumer 05/09/06


 * I is certain of a thing, it is that the photograph is a true photograph taken the day of the release of the camp It is my father-in-law who took this photograph, it was this day there there. It does not make any propaganda and forever published this series of photographs which was in a drawer (it is me which found that very useful for Wikipédia). It made bets 16th Belgian battalion of Fusiliers between on March 13 and on May 7, 1945. The American army had prohibited the catch of photograph. But anyway made him a series of photographs. My father-in-law is still in life and me claims that it is many tatoo human. But its memories and its health are not any more exellent. Afflicted this text is translated into English with tools automatic  --Luc Viatour 09:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If these samples are really tatoos, how do we know that they are related to Ilse Koch? As the US Army in a lot of cases killed most of the Camp personel at the very time of liberation, important witnesses were lost and it is hard to say who's samples this might have been. --78.51.96.254 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Like much - most - all - of the Nazi atrocities, when original material ever is tested it turns out to be more legend than fact. The US general who commuted her life sentence to 4 years stated that there was never any lampshade or other evidence every even mentioned at any trial. Her second trial was demanded by political pressure, not evidence. She probably was not a nice lady though -


 * The court apparently concluded that the lampshade in question was goat skin, and that an overzealous / sensationalist reporter started the story that it was made from human skin. Media hype has been around for as long as the media have. There is no need to exaggerate or diminish the scale of what happened; the truth will suffice.
 * Occam's Razor clearly applies here. The simplest explanation is that the lamp was simply there to illuminate the collection on display.
 * Zuiram 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"the truth will suffice" - I don't think we should go that far. If we only use the truth, well the story about Ilse will either be very short or very sympathetic. Even mentioning her husband ( hung by the Nazis for corruption ) might show that the Nazis wouldn't stand for maltreatment of prisoners,etc. We are backed into a corner - anyway to just delete the whole article?( someone might read it 100 years from now and wonder how off the beam we were)159.105.80.63 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The story of Ilse Koch was an important tool for re-education purposes, partially used for propaganda projects related to "collective guilt theory". Therefore it is really hard to say which of the accusations are realistic and which might be mere propaganda or sick phantasy. Most likely, Ilse Koch was quite criminal, but most of the sadistic and perverted actions she was accused of should be seen as slander. The article shows how historically well documented criminal persons are used for political and re-educational purposes, using real crimes and a lot of phantasy for building an image of a supernatural monster. --78.51.96.254 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay... you're answering a post from six years ago. No problem - but I don't see anything in the article about a "supernatural monster". This is not a forum for discussing the article, but improvements are always welcome. Cheers :> Doc   talk  11:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Proof.
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/buchen/Ilsekoch.htm

http://www.justiceatdachau.com/bio.htm

--Homer slips. 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great sites!--Nikki Fagin 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shame on the people who employ shoddy scholarship and repeat unverified stories. Please read the Straight Dope's excellent research on the topic of "lampshades". (Also, you might want to use your critical thinking skills and not just believe every tall tale automatically - why would someone who hates Jews want a lampshade made of the skin of a person they find despicable and "defile" their house with it?) Just because someone writes something, doesn't make it true, and unlike the Holocaust itself, there's not one shred of solid evidence for this bizarre claim.

Human-skin lampshade
The memoria´s museum had one on display in 1980. It was not made of patches of skin, as one might expect, but it was woven of narrow stripes of what looked like white, untattooed skin. If this was a fake, it was a good one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I beg to differ. In the early 1970's I worked declassifying WWII in the national records center of the National Archives in the US. There we came up the Koch file which included lampshades and other items that appeared to be made of human body parts. I am not a forensic specialist, but I saw what I saw and touched what I touched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric111 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. There is a documentary on the "Nazi Hunters" made in 2010 where footage of the lampshades and tattoos are shown. I don't agree with the statement that because we have may no evidence TODAY, that Koch could not have done this evil deed. The sentence with "urban legend" in it should be stricken IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an absolute lie and pure revisionism to suggest that human-skin lamp shades are an "urban legend," and did not occur. Archives of video evidence taken by the liberators both discuss and show such proof. For instance, the footage by Norman Krasna (viewable at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b3_1283888983) shows just such lamps. Clearly Wikipedia does not take facts as seriously as opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.122.144 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that the human-skin lamp shades are a propaganda lie. Otherwise they'd still be presented for verification. They were an invention by the American psychological warwafare department. --41.17.144.179 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To what end? The war was already over by the time all of these details came out, how would it serve the US to fabricate such things?124.169.15.72 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Somewhat hysterical that some of you are attempting to state that this was an urban legend or unsubstantiated here-say by submitting your own here-say/original research/opinion as proof to the contrary. She was brought to trial TWICE in which both times dozens of witnesses made the same claims. Although she was not convicted of this in either court, this does not mean that she didn't do it - it just means the charge was dropped due to lack of evidence which by 1950-51 you would not expect any of the grisley items to still be around (whether they existed or not). Whether it was fabricated lies or not, she was still tried for these crimes and thus it's important factual history. I think the article is pretty evenhanded about the claims and her ultimate acquital of those crimes. Ckruschke (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Manskin lampshades probably did exist at one time, it seems. There might not have been very many, but it's probably safe to say at least one or two manskin lampshades were made. Who the unlucky person(s) was (were) that provided the skin, we'll probably never know. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, those lampshades could just as easily have been goat skin. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any modern forensic tests have done on the lampshades nowadays? Or all of them were lost in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdgzfallen (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If the lamp shades were in the National Archives, we only have to go there and find them and have them tested. I doubt they would be destroyed. 2601:181:8301:4510:98B6:290A:3912:880D (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether those items were really evidence of atrocities involving human body parts or not, is immaterial as far as this entry goes as at the time of her trials they were presented as real evidence. (However, I have read that those items were acquired from a nearby university to be used for propaganda purposes. I also don't hear or read much in the mainstream media about these things anymore, which leads me to believe that their origins were unsubstantiated, and folks have decided to let it drop. The story of their origins in itself would be an interesting topic.  If they were not the evidence they were purported to be, the who, what, when, where and why would be fascinating to know.  If genuine, one would think they would be prominently displayed in a Holocaust museum somewhere as evidence.  Also, DNA extractions could possibly be done to hopefully inform family members of the fate of their loved ones.  If they were deemed to be "safe" for the viewing by general audiences in newsreels presented to millions of people at theaters, and later on in television documentaries, there should be no squeamishness or concerns of impropriety about presenting them as a display for the public. Very strange.)2603:9000:CF0A:5F00:E0CE:1464:5D72:4320 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

letter to her son?
The German version of this article on de.wikipedia claims her only son, Artwin, committed suicide at a very young age. So how did she write a letter to him before she took her own life in 1967? --67.149.150.252 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Artwin was her legitimate son. The son she wrote to in 1967 was fathered by an unknown while she was in custody. Valetude (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Horrible Woman?"
Although this woman was clearly horrible, Wikipedia has to remain impartial! The very first sentence in this article surely can't contain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.172.176 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ilse Koch has not been a guard in a concentration camp and not chief overseer (Oberaufseherin) in Buchenwald. In the 2 family-photo-albums (National Archives and Records Service, Washington) there is not 1 picture of her in uniform. ( Photo Gallery, DVD, “The Bitch of Buchenwald” (artsmagic.com); fpp.co.uk/docs/controversies/humanskin;  and National Archives, Washington (photographs relating to the Third German Reich-Publication number M1137).

It was neither Ilse Koch who ordered to build an indoor sports arena, but this decision was made by the SS-administration in Berlin.

She was not at all a prominent nazi, only member of the NSDAP since 1932 as many other Germans.

An SS-investigation resulted in death penalty for her husband (who was executed by the SS a week before the arrival of the American army), but Ilse Koch was acquitted.

During her trial at Dachau by an American court, there were a lot of survivor accounts accusing her of abuse of prisoners and sadistic behavior, but these accusations were not taken seriously, what made the Military American Governor General Lucius D. Clay do feel that she was unjustly sentenced and commuted her sentence to four years. “The most serious charges were based on hearsay and not on factual evidence…There was no convincing evidence.” (Lucius D. Clay, An American Life, Jean Edward Smith, 1990) (Decision in Germany, 1950, p. 254). “We tried Ilse Koch (…) It turned out actually that it was goat skin. But at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for her to have gotten a fair trial” (1976 Interview with George C. Marshall Foundation, Virginia)

The “New York Herald Tribune” sent Germany-correspondent, Edwin C. Hartrich, to investigate and explore the court acts. He looks into thousands of pages and comments finally: “The Ilse-Koch-case is a first-hand model of war propaganda which could not been kept under control. The Americans (…) became victims of their own black propaganda, and after tried it to authenticate it in court. Denson and his colleagues tried desperately to proof this ‘facts’, which could not be proved at all.”

During the trial the Prosecutor, Lt. Colonel William D. Denson, could not introduce the notorious lampshade(s), gloves and photo-albums, made of tattooed human skin, although the National Archives mentioned September 28, 1973 : “…In the process of reviewing the records of the United States Army Judge Advocate General for the years 1939-1948, we have found (…) two photo albums which apparently figured in the prosecution’s case in FRG Box 1089 in this record group”. The Prosecutor apparently was having the albums, which were proof of the innocence of Ilse Koch, and for that reason was hidden them. During the cross-examination the defense-lawyer Emmanuel Lewis asked the Prosecution to introduce at least one ‘corpus delicti’ as evidence, and the Prosecutor answered: “There is nothing more that we would like to do, but unfortunately the people who have these items in their custody, went home and it is impossible to find out where this evidence is in this moment”. (Der Spiegel, 7/1950)

Ilse Koch was again sentenced to life-imprisonment on January 15, 1951 by a German court, for “one count of incitement to murder, one of incitement to attempted murder, five of incitement to severe physical mistreatment of prisoners, and two of physical mistreatment”. “The court found no proof that anyone at Buchenwald had been murdered for his tattooed skin (…)”

Ilse Koch was mother of Karl Koch’s 3 children, Artwin, Gisela and Gudrun and give birth in Dachau-prison to Uwe. The father of Uwe might have been the American interrogator Josef Kirschbaum. (Innocent at Dachau, Joseph Halow, 1992, p. 248). Artwin committed suicide. “The odium against his parents and the shame of his mother’s trial had overwhelmed him (Die Hexe von Buchenwald, Smith Arthur lee). Gudrun died a few months after birth. The whereabouts of Gisela and Uwe are not known. (siegfriedverbeke@hotmail.com) 9/12/2009.

Ugh ! The first paragraph is worser than Ilse ever was conceptually apprehended !
After the trial was remitted under worldwide media attention, survivor accounts of her resulted in other authors describing her abuse of prisoners as "sadistic"; a shadow image as "concentration camp murderess" transfixed itself to post-war German society.

My biggest problem with wiki articles is that they almost always completely fail to "invite" the reader to continue reading. The above is the worst example I've found yet. I read these discussion pages and people besiege the most inane minutae, but completely ignore the most basic fundamentals of lexigraphical adeptitude.

Jonny Quick (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick


 * Well, since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it always needs improvement from editors who actually care about the articles. Please feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tried?
'She was one of the first prominent Nazis to be tried by the US military.'

I think you mean trialed but I am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonHogervorst (talk • contribs) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's actually correct, see http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/try (under number 4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.64.214 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course "tried" is correct. "Trial" is a noun. Someone is tried at his trial. Varlaam (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

revert - inappropriate for english-language page
Better English language speculations than authoritative source?Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * VerifiabilityCitations to non-English sources are allowed. Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ilse Koch as wife of Karl Otto Koch
the article states "...Through some friends in the SA and SS, she met Karl Otto Koch in 1934, marrying him two years later..." i went on page with information about Karl Otto Koch and found great differences in dates and where both were - it seems to me that Ilse and Otto Karl were separated, when Karl Otto Koch was transferred from Buchenwald: "...On August 1, 1937, he was given command of the new concentration camp at Buchenwald. He remained at Buchenwald until September 1941, when he was transferred to the Majdanek concentration camp for POWs. That was largely due to an investigation based on allegations of his improper conduct at Buchenwald, which included corruption, fraud, embezzlement, drunkenness, sexual offences and a murder. Koch commanded the Majdanek camp for only one year; he was relieved from his duties after 86 Soviet POWs escaped from the camp in August 1942. Koch was charged with criminal negligence and transferred to Berlin, where he worked at the SS Personalhauptamt and as a liaison between the SS and the German Post-Office..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Otto_Koch "...In 1936 she began working as a guard and secretary at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin, which her fiancé commanded, and was married the same year. In 1937 she came to Buchenwald when her husband was made Commandant.[9] In 1940, she built an indoor sports arena, which cost over 250,000 reichsmarks (approximately $62,500), most of which had been seized from the inmates. In 1941 Karl Otto Koch was transferred to Lublin, where he helped establish the Majdanek concentration and extermination camp. Ilse Koch remained at Buchenwald until 24 August 1943, when she and her husband were arrested on the orders of Josias von Waldeck-Pyrmont, SS and Police Leader for Weimar, who had supervisory authority over Buchenwald. The charges against the Kochs comprised private enrichment, embezzlement, and the murder of prisoners to prevent them giving testimony.[10] Ilse Koch was imprisoned until 1944 when she was acquitted for lack of evidence, but her husband was found guilty and sentenced to death by an SS court in Munich, and was executed by shooting in Buchenwald in April 1945. She went to live with her surviving family in the town of Ludwigsburg, where she was arrested by U.S. authorities on 30 June 1945..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Koch this discrepancy tells me that either husband and wife divorced OR that another man who came instead of Karl Otto Koch was left in history under the name of original husband, which is a fraud that needs to be corrected on Wikipedia and other archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.161.27 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions "Karl and Ilse Koch had two sons, including one who committed suicide after the war." However on Karl's page it is stated that on "May 25, 1936 Koch married Ilse Koch née Margarete Ilse Köhler, with whom he had a son and two daughters." Both is hardly possible. Is there somebody able to rectify this?Mregelsberger (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

doubt about Ilse Koch remaining wife of Karl Otto Koch after 1941
the article states "...Through some friends in the SA and SS, she met Karl Otto Koch in 1934, marrying him two years later..." i went on page with information about Karl Otto Koch and found great differences in dates and where both were - it seems to me that Ilse and Otto Karl were separated, when Karl Otto Koch was transferred from Buchenwald: "...On August 1, 1937, he was given command of the new concentration camp at Buchenwald. He remained at Buchenwald until September 1941, when he was transferred to the Majdanek concentration camp for POWs. That was largely due to an investigation based on allegations of his improper conduct at Buchenwald, which included corruption, fraud, embezzlement, drunkenness, sexual offences and a murder. Koch commanded the Majdanek camp for only one year; he was relieved from his duties after 86 Soviet POWs escaped from the camp in August 1942. Koch was charged with criminal negligence and transferred to Berlin, where he worked at the SS Personalhauptamt and as a liaison between the SS and the German Post-Office..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Otto_Koch "...In 1936 she began working as a guard and secretary at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin, which her fiancé commanded, and was married the same year. In 1937 she came to Buchenwald when her husband was made Commandant.[9] In 1940, she built an indoor sports arena, which cost over 250,000 reichsmarks (approximately $62,500), most of which had been seized from the inmates. In 1941 Karl Otto Koch was transferred to Lublin, where he helped establish the Majdanek concentration and extermination camp. Ilse Koch remained at Buchenwald until 24 August 1943, when she and her husband were arrested on the orders of Josias von Waldeck-Pyrmont, SS and Police Leader for Weimar, who had supervisory authority over Buchenwald. The charges against the Kochs comprised private enrichment, embezzlement, and the murder of prisoners to prevent them giving testimony.[10] Ilse Koch was imprisoned until 1944 when she was acquitted for lack of evidence, but her husband was found guilty and sentenced to death by an SS court in Munich, and was executed by shooting in Buchenwald in April 1945. She went to live with her surviving family in the town of Ludwigsburg, where she was arrested by U.S. authorities on 30 June 1945..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Koch this discrepancy tells me that either husband and wife divorced OR that another man who came instead of Karl Otto Koch was left in history under the name of original husband, which is a fraud that needs to be corrected on Wikipedia and other archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inna Maria Swann (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like conflicting information and I'm not sure which is right since the info on both pages are referenced. Your statement to the definitive that one set of information is true over the other seems to be only your WP:OR/WP:POV. Not sure what to do... If you can prove one source/page is correct while another is not, please provide that info. Ckruschke (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The sons
I started looking at this:

"Another son, conceived in her prison cell at Dachau by an unknown father, was born in the Aichach prison near Dachau, where she was sent to serve her life sentence, and was immediately taken from her. At the age of 19, he learned that Koch was his mother and began visiting her regularly at Aichach. They had a good relationship and Koch wrote poetry for him.

Which doesn't really make sense -- she committed suicide about (the dates in the article aren't precise) 20 years after the son would have been born.

Then I noticed that this talk page discusses some earlier weird references to the son.

Googling around a bit (how I got interested in this person to begin with), she's apparently an utterly fascinating character. A mystery wrapped in an enigma, and all that. Apparently multiple affairs, the husband may have been gay, the father of at least one son seems to have been Jewish...

All I'm saying is, this seems to be a very notable person, and there seems to be a lot of fascinating material that could be added here. I'm not going to attempt it because I don't have the expertise in the subject matter. But it would be great if we could find someone who did.

Djcheburashka (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Family" section says Karl and Ilse Koch had two sons, one of whom was born after the war. Wartime footage of her living in luxury outside the camp shows her with two children.  Were these both her children? Arrivisto (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

At War
I removed the internal link, since it mistakenly lead to the EP "At War" by a Brazilian death metal band, not the page of the American band At War, which currently has no English wikipedia entry. 12:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

War crimes?
As of now, the section on "War crimes" does not display or touch any war crime at all. If anybody cares for this article, I really hope they can/will supply proper information and referrence on this particular subject. RhinoMind (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments

 * Note 5's source is not available anymore.
 * The chapter title War crimes should be replaced with an more appropriate one, e.g. Wife of a concentration camp commander or Crimes.
 * Note 14's source is available only as an abstract. The whole article is accessible only by subscription.
 * I was unable to find citations about Ilse Koch or her son Uwe in any of the 16 pages of trivia questions from Note 18's source.
 * This is the correct link to the Note 19's source.
 * From citation in Note 20 should be removed "page=3".
 * Note 19's source may replace the citation needed tag at the end of Death chapter.
 * Carlotm (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Different truths in different articles
This article paints a completely different picture compared to Lampshades_made_from_human_skin. Incidentally, that article seems to mysteriously have longer quotes and sources not found in this article. I can only assume that one of these two articles have been carefully crafted to present a certain agenda. A clever man might think that it's the one with removed sources and shortened quotes but I wouldn't dare to draw such conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2002:4E44:2B65:CA2:4306:433B:1353 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal implications
The contributor who handled a purported human-skin-lampshade would have contaminated the evidence with his own DNA. Nonetheless it would certainly be presently possible to determine whether the object was human skin or most likely, ordinary animal skin parchment, used as writing material then recycled to provide a lampshade. It would be possible to determine the individual who originally owned the skin. About five years ago I searched the Internet and discovered that such animal-parchment-covered lampshades continue to be manufactured.

The 'human-skin-lampshade' would be primary evidence of murder and as such ought to be handed to police for modernforensic testing. If the lampshade (if it still exists!) is tested and found to be merely ordinary parchment (sheep/goatsetc.) then it would be evidence that, as usual, people have falsely smeared the Germans - falsely accusing someone of a crime, which is itself a crime. Has the evidence been destroyed? That would also be a criminal offense.

The most likely possibility is that the lampshades, like the 'shrunken heads' are as intentionally fraudulent as the numerous other props and fake photographs that smeared the Germans during and after WW2 and WW1. Recall that WW1 was restarted at the end of 1916 and early 1917 and soldiers were recruited to prevent the barbarous Germans from eating Belgian babies and raping nuns (WW1 was the 'war to prevent cannibalism'). Telling Lies about the Germans is a sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.231 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Josef Kirschbaum, father of Uwe Koch
Josef Kirschbaum is known for his statement to his client named Einstein: "How can we bring this pig to the gallows for murdering your brother if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into this courtroom!" Moreover he aught to have been disbarred because of his scandalous relationship with the accused Ilse Koch. Can we imagine any other case where such conduct would be allowed today? Also, the 2,400 Jewish attendees at the Nuremberg trials should have refused to take part in the trials. Instead, they immorally acted as biased prosecutors in their own case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.231 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Buchenwal deaths
The American twelfth Army report, 'Buchenwald: A preliminary Report', established that most of the people who died under the Germans were killed by the communists within the camp - they decided who would receive food. Images of the inmates at the time of their liberation presented them as fit and healthy. As I understand it, when the liberated the camp, the Russians killed more Germans there than had died under the German rule. Note that the liberators found a thousand Hungarian Jewish children playing happily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.231 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of the t4 program?
Was Ilse Koch a patient in the T4 program since she was psychotic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.192.91 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture addition
OK to add this information?


 * The Discovery Channel video One Of The Most Evil Women In History - Ilse Koch (23 minutes) portrays Ilse Koch's Nazi life of crime. Vwanweb (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to add in a Propaganda section. 2601:181:8301:4510:98B6:290A:3912:880D (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo of internal organs (?)
What is the relevance, here, of a photo depicting preserved human organs removed from prisoners during medical experiments conducted in Buchenwald concentration camp ? Ilse Koch is associated with the collecting of tattooed skins, not of internal organs or nazi human experimentation ? BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

She was involved in the evil things that were going on,

In Hitler's Shadow: Post-War Germany & the Girls of the BDM https://books.google.com/books?id=ecOIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT270&lpg=PT270&dq=internal+organs++++Ilse+Koch+Buchenwald+concentration+camp&source=bl&ots=Ku7W-kK5o5&sig=ACfU3U0FAUph9_63Lid6FFWBeEwCgQyIEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKupaf9YzkAhWJjlkKHfSmDBMQ6AEwEHoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=internal%20organs%20%20%20%20Ilse%20Koch%20Buchenwald%20concentration%20camp&f=false

Maybe we reword the picture to? Collection of prisoners' internal organs, human experimentation happened under  Ilse Koch at Buchenwald .Jack90s15 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

family sources need updating
Two sources of her sone Uwe are provided, but both are tagged as unrealiable (although one is more 'questionable' thatn unrealiable). Why keep the second of the two up (since April 2016)? Can a quicck Google search on her prison-conceived son yield reputable results? NotPeterParker (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Veracity of this wiki entry on Ilse Koch
Hi All,

I'm very frustrated by the wealth of disinformation that this entry contains - that she had a position as a guard at Sachsenhausen, that she followed Karl to Majdanek, that she had four children, that she herself was engaged in experiments, that she was prosecuted by Kunzig (who was actually assistant prosecutor) rather than William Denson, the list goes on and on. I wish I was more conversant with adding/editing content here. I've fixed the biggest howling errors quickly, but not sure they will stick. If anyone is interested, my new book on Ilse Koch will be published by Harvard Press this month. It is based on ten years of archival research and interviews with her daughter, etc. I hope it will help to set the record straight, because the information on this Wiki page is so horribly wrong (though in some cases understandably so, as it quotes sources that themselves are wrong). https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674249189 Tomazjardim (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, spent a day re-writing... Tomazjardim (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Accusations
Were they for real (proven as such) or were they false? It appears a lot of storytelling was in the accusations against here. Kind of a mass-hysteria in the later 1940s that made people believe the most absurd stories. But should that form our historiography. 105.0.7.63 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The answer is complicated; it is beyond dispute that articles made of human skin were produced at buchenwald, as many were found in the pathology department upon liberation. So there's nothing particularly "absurd" about the allegations; the complicated part is whether or not Ilse Koch bore some responsibility for this. This is a much more complicated question, and the evidence seems to suggest that most allegations were apocryphal, and based on rumors, in the absence of clear indications of who indeed was responsible. Some prisoners concluded, for instance, that commandant Karl Koch must have been producing such articles for his wife… Moosejah (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)