In this interview, he reflects on five years of research and discusses what the example of HASAG can teach us about responsibility and individual agency under National Socialism, how digitalisation is transforming historical research, and why communicating history to the wider public plays such a crucial role.
The publication of the digitised Nazi Party membership files generated considerable public interest. What does this response tell us about how people today want to engage with the Nazi era, and what role can historical research play in this?
Martin Clemens Winter: Part of the “hype” was certainly due to the technology involved. After all, it was not that these records had previously been inaccessible. Rather, there was the (misleading) promise that people could research their family history from home, perhaps simply using a smartphone, with just a few clicks and the help of AI.
At the same time, much of the attention focused on the extent to which people’s ancestors had been implicated in Nazism. This shows that the history of National Socialism is far from having been fully told or researched. Historians need to explore and articulate both the potential and the problems associated with these new digital possibilities. Our core expertise – critical source analysis – seems more important than ever, because greater digital availability also requires expertise and contextualisation. And, not least, we need to keep reminding people that the vast majority of historical sources are not available digitally online, but remain on paper in archives.
You have been an Alfred Landecker Lecturer since 2021, with your work focusing on the history of the armaments manufacturer HASAG. What can this particular example teach us about responsibility, participation and individual agency under National Socialism?
MCW: HASAG was the largest armaments manufacturer in Saxony and, with its numerous branch factories, including in occupied Poland, employed tens of thousands of people. More than half of them were forced labourers. A company like this allows us to observe and describe how National Socialism permeated everyday working life and the workplace. This ranged from the ubiquitous propaganda and initiatives designed to foster a sense of community among Germans from the 1930s onwards, to the pervasive exploitation of forced labour, the involvement of ordinary company employees in crimes against Jews and, ultimately, in the Holocaust.
Looking at this company therefore brings together questions of inclusion and exclusion within the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, or “national community” – or, in this case, the Betriebsgemeinschaft, the “workplace community” – as well as different forms of Nazi persecution.
The extent to which individuals retained room for manoeuvre even within HASAG’s notorious factory security force (Werkschutz) is illustrated by the fact that, after the war, several former members stood trial for Nazi crimes – while another was recognised by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations.
Historical research often involves painstaking work with scattered and incomplete sources. How do you turn this material into findings that are relevant and accessible to a wider public?
MCW: For historians, almost every source is fascinating. And we can share that enthusiasm with others. But to do so, we have to explain what exactly interests us about the documents and the subjects we investigate through them. Good scholarly communication means explaining what we can learn from these sources and drawing connections to the present, while also being transparent about contradictory findings, gaps in the evidence and our own unanswered questions. Among an interested public, that usually finds a very receptive audience and generates a great deal of interest.
As a Lecturer, you combine academic research with public engagement, including through the blog “Das HASAG-Puzzle”, podcasts, lectures and collaborations with memorial sites. What changes when research is shared publicly from the outset?
MCW: There was a great deal of interest and engagement right from the start. That confirms the relevance of the subject and is enormously motivating. At the same time, presenting interim findings and openly identifying gaps in the sources or in our knowledge while the research process is still ongoing carries a certain risk. But the well-known principle of the sources’ “right of veto” also reminds us that our findings are ultimately always provisional. For example, while working with the sources at one particular location, one of my students discovered additional former HASAG buildings that I had not previously identified on the blog. That is a great outcome. He then wrote his own post, correcting and expanding on what I had previously published.
When many people know what you are working on, it can be immensely helpful: it creates opportunities for exchange and for building knowledge collectively. Particularly moving, of course, is the contact with survivors of Nazi crimes committed at HASAG, their families and relatives of the victims. Some became aware of my project and got in touch with me. If my research can help them, even in a small way, that is something very special. And their family histories continually bring new perspectives to my own work as well.
Over the past five years, has there been a discovery, encounter or response from the public that has had a lasting impact on how you view your own work?
MCW: There have been many – including some that I cannot discuss here because they involve very personal stories and experiences. One encounter that certainly had a profound impact on me was meeting Estare Weiser, who was born in 1945 in HASAG’s Leipzig concentration camp subcamp, together with her family during her first visit to Leipzig. We have remained in regular contact since the event we held together. Meeting her showed me how the Nazi crimes planned and carried out from Leipzig have shaped families around the world – across generations and to this day.
I would also mention a study trip to Poland. Exploring these places together with the students greatly deepened my understanding of what happened there. That will also be reflected in the book. At the same time, the trip was an important experience for many of the participants and encouraged them to engage more deeply with Nazi crimes. I heard this repeatedly afterwards, and it is very encouraging for both the work itself and this particular format.
More than 80 years after the end of National Socialism, the culture of remembrance is changing: the number of contemporary witnesses is declining, while more and more sources are becoming digitally accessible. How is this changing the work of researchers?
MCW: The passing of the generation of survivors of Nazi crimes, which has been discussed for some time now, represents an enormous loss. Soon there will be historians who have never had the opportunity to meet contemporary witnesses, and that may also change the way they engage with history. At the same time, the children and grandchildren of survivors have many questions of their own – for memorial sites, for example – and they also bring important and moving family histories, as well as personal documents and photographs that can serve as new sources. In my experience, this exchange between experts and people who are personally connected to this history is not diminishing. If anything, it is increasing.
Digitalisation makes many things easier, but it also brings the challenges of critically evaluating sources and selecting relevant material that I mentioned earlier. Users – including historians – are spending less and less time physically present in archives, while the number of enquiries received by archives is increasing.
Of course, it is convenient to be able to work with large numbers of digitised records and, in some cases, avoid time-consuming journeys. But I also fondly remember arriving at a small regional archive, where the friendly director greeted me by saying: “I have some new files for you. They haven’t even been catalogued yet – I’ll put them out for you as well.” That is something you only experience offline.
Your research findings are to be brought together in a book. Beyond the academic community, what do you hope the book will contribute to the ongoing engagement with the Nazi era?
MCW: The involvement of businesses in Nazi rule and their participation in crimes such as forced labour continues to be a subject of discussion, including in the public debate.
Through the example of HASAG, readers will learn how National Socialism shaped not only the company’s management but also the everyday life of its Betriebsgemeinschaft, or “workplace community”. The book will also contribute to the discussion about how “ordinary Germans” behaved at the time – amid pervasive exploitation and, ultimately, mass murder at HASAG factories in occupied Poland.
The company’s own system of camps there, and more broadly the integration of private companies into the German occupation and extermination policies, have received relatively little attention in historical research and are even less well known among the wider public.
Finally, the book will also show the traces that HASAG and the history of its Nazi crimes have left behind to this day.