The Liberation of Bergen-Belsen: How a Lack of Protective Clothing Cost Lives
The horrors of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, liberated by British troops 80 years ago, serve as a stark reminder of the importance of personal protective equipment in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. On April 15, 1945, British personnel entered the camp near Celle in northern Germany, only to find an epidemic of typhus decimating the surviving population.
According to The Conversation, the camp’s inmates had been subjected to unimaginable conditions, including overcrowding, lack of running water, and chronic emaciation, making them highly susceptible to the louse-borne disease. The absence of protective clothing and the use of unwashed garments, into which lice burrowed and deposited their contaminated faeces, further exacerbated the spread of typhus. As The Conversation reports, "clothing can kill" and, in this case, the lack of protective clothing had devastating consequences.
The situation was dire, with thousands of unburied corpses and appallingly overcrowded huts. In a desperate bid for warmth, some inmates removed clothing from corpses, heedless of the danger of contagion, while others feared infection so acutely that they went unclothed rather than risk contamination. Tragically, Anne Frank, who died just weeks before the camp’s liberation, was among those who succumbed to the terror of infection. The Conversation notes that Frank died "in a state of naked terror".
As British medical personnel and troops entered the camp, they were faced with the daunting task of transforming a site of mass death into a place of recovery. However, they were severely hampered by a lack of supplies, including protective clothing. The Conversation reports that "protective clothing was also in desperately short supply" and that staff had to improvise, using newspaper for mackintosh sheeting and commandeering dog bowls for use as bedpans.
The shortage of protective clothing was particularly acute among British medical students drafted into action at Belsen. According to The Conversation, around 100 students sported a motley assemblage of British military and appropriated German Wehrmacht apparel, and were liberally sprayed with DDT, a pesticide later proven to be carcinogenic. Female British Red Cross workers modified their uniforms, ditching regulation skirts, with Margaret Ward writing home to her mother, "I always go about in slacks and battle dress, trousers being a greater protection against the louse!"
The Royal Army Medical Corps, better provisioned than anyone else at Belsen, wore "typhus suits" as they stretchered patients from the huts to the hospital. These outfits, complete with drawstring hoods, gauntlets, and gaiters, but no masks, helped keep contagion at bay, though their alien appearance terrified some patients. The Conversation notes that British authorities "solved" their protective equipment crisis at Belsen by compelling captured German SS personnel to undertake the most dangerous work, often without any protection at all.
The decision to expose German prisoners to a high risk of infection was motivated by a desire for retributive justice, as well as a need for medical expediency. With anti-Nazi feelings running high among allied personnel, few found anything ethically wrong with forcing German prisoners to confront the deadly consequences of their actions. However, the consequences were predictable, with seven British medical students contracting typhus, and 20 SS guards dying of the disease before their trials by the war crimes court could be held.
In the aftermath of the liberation, Belsen’s survivors urgently required garments and footwear. British military personnel ordered German civilians in the environs of the camp to surrender clothing, shoes, and bedding for use by survivors, providing a form of post-war redress. As The Conversation notes, people stripped of so much by the Third Reich would begin life anew in apparel removed from Germans.
The story of Bergen-Belsen serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of personal protective equipment in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. As we reflect on the tragic events that unfolded 80 years ago, we must also acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of those who risked their lives to liberate the camp, and the enduring importance of protecting healthcare workers from harm. This article is based on reporting by The Conversation, which provided in-depth analysis of the historical events.
