The workshop on 25 September 2025 focused on the recovery of survivors of Nazi persecution who received medical treatment in various European countries and different contexts after the Holocaust. It was organised by Dr. Victoria Van Orden Martínez (Lund University & NORAH, Sweden), Dr. Kata Bohus (UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø) and PD Dr. Friederike Kind-Kovács (Hannah-Arendt-Institute, Dresden), in cooperation with the National Historical Museums and the Swedish Holocaust Museum in Stockholm. Funding was provided by the COST Action 22159: ‘National, International and Transnational Histories of Healthcare, 1850-2000’ (EuroHealthHist). The workshop brought together academics from Sweden, Norway, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the USA, Italy, and Germany, both in person at the Swedish Holocaust Museum in Stockholm and online via Zoom, to discuss current research findings and possible research approaches to the topic.

The workshop was designed as an academic experiment. Based on primary sources, it explored the physical, psychological, and social rehabilitation of the survivors, as well as the long-term repercussions of trauma. In four panels, researchers presented case studies on Holocaust survivors from various European countries and contexts and their experiences with rehabilitation, opening up an interdisciplinary exchange. The first panel, chaired by Britta Geschwind (Lund University, Sweden), dealt with the mental rehabilitation of survivors. András Szécsényi (Hungarian State Security Archives, Budapest) presented two diary entries from 1945 and 1994 as primary sources, highlighting Sweden’s central role in the rehabilitation of patients. Friederike Kind-Kovács presented a letter from a Hungarian female adult survivor to a child survivor, touching on the issue of victim solidarity in survivors’ mental health struggles. Kata Bohus used a diary entry from 1945 to explain that the medical understanding of rehabilitation often did not correspond to the actual experiences of the patients. In addition, Britta Geschwind & Victoria Martínez presented two sources that showed the differences in the treatment of survivors in different institutions. A letter from 1949, presented by Gábor Csikós (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest), illustrated how patients used the language of an objective outsider to explain their trauma-related symptoms to the medical professionals who treated them. The ensuing discussion made it clear that mental and social recovery were closely linked. Community support and creative activities helped patients to process their experiences, but were also encouraged by medical staff as part of the rehabilitation process. At the same time, it became apparent that social and behavioural expectations towards survivors, a lack of knowledge among professionals about the mental health consequences of the Holocaust trauma and uncertainties on the part of all those involved regarding the appropriate language to describe these issues presented serious challenges.

Victoria Martínez chaired the second panel, which focused on the physical rehabilitation of patients. Vendula Hingarová Vlková (Charles University, Prague) shared an oral testimony from a patient who emphasised the importance of family contact and letters for healing. Aisling Shalvey (Trinity College, Dublin) presented the medical clearance file of a young male patient and highlighted the different perceptions of physical recovery by the Allied administration and those affected. The images and narratives of Kateřina Horáčková (University of Pardubice, Czech Republic) illustrated the need for insights into the physical effects of the Holocaust, including nutrition and everyday experiences of the survivors to provide them with appropriate medical care in the long-term. Tiarra Alanna Maznick (HEFNU, US) offered a new perspective on the definitional problems of the terms “healthy” and “sick” with interviews of two women who had survived experimental sterilisation in Auschwitz. Matylda Jonas-Kowalik (Uppsala University/Swedish Holocaust Museum, Sweden) used a letter to illustrate how survivors struggled to return to normal life with few choices or contacts in Sweden. This was followed by a case presented and discussed by Paul Weindling (Oxford Brookes University, UK) of a survivor who had been sterilized as a child by the Germans and later spoke about his experiences and the impact these had on his life. Kata Bohus used postwar personal correspondence from a survivor  to show that from the patients’ perspective, physical and social rehabilitation are linked, and women’s perceptions of their bodily changes in rehabilitation were tied to notions of femininity. The discussion made it clear that many health problems were attributable to experiences in the concentration camps. Medical measures in Sweden could have a retraumatising effect and were often politicised. The treatment of children in particular illustrated the link between state welfare, social integration and bureaucratic categorisation.

The third panel, chaired by Kata Bohus, explored the topic of social rehabilitation. Materials from Vendula Hingarová Vlková illustrated the problems that arose in the bureaucratic management of survivors by focusing on the role of  nationality and citizenship. A letter from a young survivor to a Hungarian aid organization in Sweden, presented by Friederike Kind-Kovács, highlighted the agency of child survivors in locating survivors of their families in the postwar period. Chiara Renzo (Fondazione CDEC Milan, Italy) presented, through drawings of child survivors in the DP camp of Santa Maria del Bagno in Italy, how new notions of home, belonging and family are represented in these sources, attesting to their centrality in the recovery process. Victoria Martínez added, using survivor testimonies from different periods, that work was seen as an important means of social rehabilitation by survivors and rehabilitation agencies alike. Tiarra Alanna Maznick highlighted the role of children in social rehabilitation through the example of sterilised survivors who took on roles in their extended families as additional parents. Another letter dated 1945, presented by Matylda Jonas-Kowalik, showed the ambivalence of the survivors: gratitude for being saved, but at the same time the dissatisfaction they felt towards the restrictions on their movement and activities in rehabilitation. The discussion emphasised that normality, belonging and the opportunity for active self-determination were crucial for social rehabilitation. Family structures, motherhood and social roles were rebuilt and redefined in order to gain control over school, work and return. At the same time, it became apparent that there was tension between gratitude and dissatisfaction, as geographical and social restrictions limited survivors’opportunities, but active self-advocacy and agency served as a means of coping with and solving stressful situations.

In the final panel, workshop participants, led by Friederike Kind-Kovács, discussed the variety of long-term consequences of the Holocaust for survivors. Josh Coleman (Council of Contemporary Families, Utah) showed in his contribution how Jewish identities in various parts of the world became affected by and entangled with those of the survivors, functioning both as defense mechanisms and as connections. Stella Frei (University of Hamburg, Germany) made it clear that individual healing and collective processes were closely linked to international politics. The testimony of Rudolf Morgenstern, presented by Aisling Shalvey, illustrated how age and social status influenced the experiences and postwar life trajectories of survivors. Kateřina Horáčková presented a study on the long-term and cross-generational effects of persecution on the identities and integration of Czech and Slovak minorities in the post-war period. Paul Weindling discussed survivors’ postwar claims for reparations, highlighting the discrepancies between the amounts received and the prominence of certain survivor groups, such as Mengele’s subjects for twin experiments, in the public history of the Holocaust. Gábor Csikós concluded the final panel with a letter of a patient in a mental health institution in Hungary that illustrated a case of failed resocialisation of Holocaust survivors in postwar societies. The discussion emphasised that narratives of rehabilitation often suggest a ‘happy ending,’ while in reality healing remained individual and rarely succeeded completely. At the same time, reference was made to the continuing effects of intergenerational trauma, collective vulnerability, and the lack of adequate medical and psychological support. Finally, the question arose as to whether the knowledge gained at the time was actually adequate to do justice to the experiences of the survivors.

The workshop highlighted that the rehabilitation of Holocaust survivors was a complex process with closely linked physical, psychological and social dimensions. The sources and case studies showed that healing was not solely a medical task, but depended heavily on peer support, social participation and creative as well as individual coping strategies. At the same time, the challenges for patients and medical staff became apparent, including a lack of knowledge, social expectations and politicised aid measures. In particular, the perspective of the survivors themselves opened up new insights into individual and collective experiences of trauma, recovery and social integration. Overall, the workshop underscored the importance of understanding the post-war history of Holocaust survivors in all its complexity, taking into account the close connections between physical, psychological and social rehabilitation.