Hiding Mengele

Discuss your thoughts on the structure of the book. How did opening with Mengele’s drowning in 1979, and the subsequent burial of his body under a false name affect your reading of the rest of the book? How would your reading have differed if the narrative was in chronological order? Additionally, after finishing the book, did the first two chapters change in tone for you after the details about “uncle Peter” were revealed?

Hiding Mengele is full of agonizing irony. The author points out multiple instances of mere chance—along with the complex political structures and international affairs—that allowed Mengele to escape prosecution for the entirety of his life. For instance, Cecília Gerwetz didn’t go to the police when rumors circulated that Mengele lived in Serra Negra where she vacationed (p. 186). What other instances of this did you notice, and how did you react to these? What emotions, feelings, or thoughts did you experience when learning about this dramatic evasion of accountability?

The world was forever changed by World War II and the events of the Holocaust. What else, other than the history, was left behind? How does Anton demonstrate the origins of language, stereotypes, ideas, etc., that still persist today?

Discuss the inclusion of Mengele’s letters addressed to family and the network of people helping him. What stood out to you about his tone, what was discussed, word choice, and—as Anton puts it—his “supposedly poetic” writing? Why do you think the author included the lengthy excerpt of his letter about his daily life (p. 193), compared to other shorter excerpts?

During the Nuremberg Trials, Robert Jackson stated that “you shouldn’t try a man if you don’t want to see him free, should his guilt remain unproven,”and concluded that the world has no respect for courts created only to condemn (p. 133). Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why? Are there any exceptions?

The German Code of Conduct allowed Ulm and nine of his comrades to receive just three to fifteen years in prison. To Anton, “punishments that seem small in relation to the extent of the crimes committed” (p. 150). The code meant that “those who pulled the trigger [were] mere accomplices . . . while the Nazi leaders were found to be the real culprits” (p. 150). What does this say about worldviews surrounding political leadership and accountability? Has this changed, in your view, since the Nuremberg Trials?

Many Nazis and Nazi leaders were given vastly different sentences. After reading this book, what do you believe accountability should look like for people who participated in, or were complicit in, Mengele’s experiments?

By the time they found Mengele’s body, the media was in a frenzy. Anton describes the exhuming of his body, with scientists showing each piece of him off to the camera as they are pulling bones out of his casket. What does this say anything about the media landscape of the time, and the new ability to document the horrors of the Holocaust? How does that differ or relate to today’s media landscape and the spread of information?

How would the prosecution of Nazis have been different with the technology (DNA testing, better video/photo capabilities, etc.) of today?

How did you react to the Bosserts standing so firm in their stance that Mengele’s role in Auschwitz was exaggerated? Why do you think they never wavered on this? Additionally, discuss your thoughts on Bossert’s escaping conviction and jail time due to the statute of limitations. What might justice have looked like for the Bosserts?

In Mengele’s letters, so much comes down to money. Liselotte also discussed how much money was involved in both the search to find Mengele and his network and family that kept him afloat. What does this tell you about Mengele and his network?

How does Mengele’s background as a scientist figure in his claim that his experiments were simply in the name of research? He and many of his fellow Nazi doctors claimed they were simply scientists and doctors who valued the research far more than the cruelty or the push for eugenics, but Anton provides us with many examples of Mengele’s overt Nazi racism, classism, and clear belief in “Ethnic Hygiene.” Why do you think Mengele and his peers wouldn’t admit their true beliefs and motivations?

In the epilogue, the author poses a question: How could a criminal of this magnitude and his supporters go completely unpunished in Brazil? What answers does Anton’s research give to this question? How would you answer it for yourself?

Were you familiar with Mengele and his crimes before picking up this book? If you were reading about this for the first time, how did you react to the horrors... etc? If you were familiar with this topic, what made you pick up this book?