Barry the dog, part IV: reconciling the behavior

From the verdict of the first Treblinka trial (quoted from Mattogno/Graf Treblinka):

On his patrols through the upper and the lower camp, Franz was accustomed to having Barry with him most of the time. He always delighted in setting the dog on the prisoners who had drawn his attention in some way, with the words ‘man, catch the dog!’ […] Barry always bit the targeted person indiscriminately. Since he was the size of a calf and the height of his shoulders – in contrast to smaller dogs – reached the buttocks and the abdomen of an average person, he frequently bit into the buttocks, into the abdomen, and several times into the genital area of male prisoners, which he even partially bit off in many cases. […] When, during the absence of the defendant Franz, Barry was not under his influence, he was not recognizable as the same dog. One could pet him and even tease him without him doing anything to anyone.

As to the question of whether Barry was one time a vicious beast but another time a good-tempered and playful house pet, the Jury Court has heard under oath the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Research in Seewiesen/Oberbayern, the internationally known researcher Professor Dr. L. In his persuasive expert report, Professor Dr. L. has stated, among other things, the following:

From the photographs of Barry shown to him by the Jury Court, he notes that this was not a purebred St. Bernard but a mixed-breed dog, which clearly predominantly manifested the traits of a St. Bernard. Mixed-breed dogs are much more sensitive than purebred animals. If they have become attached to a master and have entered into a so-called dog-master bond, they would virtually foresee what intentions their master has; for a dog is ‘the reflection of the subconscious of its master,’ and that is especially true of mixed-breed dogs. […] After the convincing exposition of Professor Dr. L., there therefore exists no logical contradiction between the findings that Barry on the one hand was dangerous when he was incited to attack Jews by Franz, and that on the other hand, during the absence of Franz, […] he was indolent, good-tempered, and harmless on the camp property.”

The odd behavior of Barry at Treblinka – man eating beast when Kurt Franz was present, friendly otherwise – required explanation by an expert witness. I won’t contest that explanation here; rather, I’ll just point out that this pattern of behavior contradicts the picture of Barry as described by the Sobibor witnesses. At Sobibor, Barry was a general menace, and attacked in association with several different men. At Treblinka, he attacked only because of his strong bond with his master Kurt Franz, and was otherwise friendly. Why the change? And how could he have formed such a tight bond with Kurt Franz immediately after his transfer?

It’s also worth mentioning that Kurt Franz defended his dog’s reputation:

Der Angeklagte Franz machte zu seinem Hund Barry folgende Angaben:

Es sei eine infame Lüge, wenn behauptet werde, er habe Barry mehrfach auf Juden gehetzt, Barry habe diese Juden gebissen, darunter auch in die Genitalien, und die so Gebissenen seien anschliessend im Lazarett erschossen worden. Barry habe im Gegenteil keinem Juden etwas zuleide getan. Er sei gutmütig und spielerisch veranlagt gewesen.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s