“W HY DID you not unlock the doors？” The presiding judge put the question to one defendant after another. One after the other， they gave the same answer. They couldn’t unlock the doors. Why？ They had been wounded when the bombs hit the priest’s house. Or they had been in shock as a result of the bombardment. Or they had been busy after the bombs hit， with the wounded guard contingent， pulling them out of the rubble， bandaging them， taking care of them. They had not thought about the church， had not seen the fire in the church， had not heard the screams from the church.

　　The judge made the same statement to one defendant after another. The record indicated otherwise. This was deliberately phrased with caution. To say that the record found in the SS archives said otherwise would be wrong. But it was true that it suggested something different. It listed the names of those who had been killed in the priest’s house and those who had been wounded， those who had brought the wounded to a field hospital in a truck， and those who had accompanied the truck in a jeep. It indicated that the women guards had stayed behind to wait out the end of the fires， to prevent any of them from spreading and to prevent any attempts to escape under the cover of the flames. It referred to the death of the prisoners.

　　The fact that the names of the defendants appeared nowhere in the report suggested that the defendants were among the female guards who had remained behind. That these guards had remained behind to prevent attempts at escape indicated that the affair didn’t end with the rescue of the wounded from the priest’s house and the departure of the transport to the field hospital. The guards who remained behind， the report indicated， had allowed the fire to rage in the church and had kept the church doors locked. Among the guards who remained behind， the report indicated， were the defendants.

　　No， said one defendant after the other， that is not the way it was. The report was wrong. That much was evident from the fact that it mentioned the obligation of the guards to prevent the fires from spreading. How could they have carried out that responsibility？ It was ridiculous， as was the other responsibility of preventing attempted escapes under the cover of the fires. Attempted escapes？ By the time they no longer had to worry about their own people and could worry about the others， the prisoners， there was no one left to escape. No， the report completely ignored what they had done and achieved and suffered that night. How could such a false report have been filed？ They didn’t know.

　　Until it was the turn of the plump and vicious defendant. She knew. “Ask that one there！” She pointed at Hanna. “She wrote the report. She’s the guilty one， she did it all， and she wanted to use the report to cover it up and drag us into it.”

　　The judge asked Hanna. But it was his last question. His first was “Why did you not unlock the doors？”

　　“We were . . . we had . . .” Hanna was groping for the answer. “We didn’t have any alternative.”

　　“You had no alternative？”

　　“Some of us were dead， and the others had left. They said they were taking the wounded to the field hospital and would come back， but they knew they weren’t coming back， and so did we. Perhaps they didn’t even go to the hospital， the wounded were not that badly hurt. We would have gone with them， but they said they needed the room for the wounded， and anyway they didn’t . . . they weren’t keen to have so many women along. I don’t know where they went.”

　　“What did you do？”

　　“We didn’t know what to do. It all happened so fast， with the priest’s house burning and the church spire， and the men and the cart were there one minute and gone the next， and suddenly we were alone with the women in the church. They left behind some weapons， but we didn’t know how to use them， and even if we had， what good would it have done， since we were only a handful of women？ How could we have guarded all those women？ A line like that is very long， even if you keep it as tight together as possible， and to guard such a long column， you need far more people than we had.” Hanna paused. “Then the screaming began and got worse and worse. If we had opened the doors and they had all come rushing out . . .”

　　The judge waited a moment. “Were you afraid？ Were you afraid the prisoners would overpower you？”

　　“That they would . . . no， but how could we have restored order？ There would have been chaos， and we had no way to handle that. And if they’d tried to escape . . .”

　　Once again the judge waited， but Hanna didn’t finish the sentence. “Were you afraid that if they escaped， you would be arrested， convicted， shot？”

　　“We couldn’t just let them escape！ We were responsible for them . . . I mean， we had guarded them the whole time， in the camp and on the march， that was the point， that we had to guard them and not let them escape. That’s why we didn’t know what to do. We also had no idea how many of the women would survive the next few days. So many had died already， and the ones who were still alive were so weak . . .”

　　Hanna realized that what she was saying wasn’t doing her case any good. But she couldn’t say anything else. She could only try to say what she was saying better， to describe it better and explain it. But the more she said， the worse it looked for her. Because she was at her wits’ end， she turned to the judge again.

　　“What would you have done？”

　　But this time she knew she would get no answer. She wasn’t expecting one. Nobody was. The judge shook his head silently.

　　Not that it was impossible to imagine the confusion and helplessness Hanna described. The night， the cold， the snow， the fire， the screaming of the women in the church， the sudden departure of the people who had commanded and escorted the female guards—how could the situation have been easy？ But could an acknowledgment that the situation had been hard be any mitigation for what the defendants had done or not done？ As if it had been a car accident on a lonely road on a cold winter night， with injuries and totaled vehicles， and no one knowing what to do？ Or as if it had been a conflict between two equally compelling duties that required action？ That is how one could imagine what Hanna was describing， but nobody was willing to look at it in such terms.

　　“Did you write the report？”

　　“We all discussed what we should write. We didn’t want to hang any of the blame on the ones who had left. But we didn’t want to attract charges that we had done anything wrong either.”

　　“So you’re saying you talked it through together. Who wrote it？”

　　“You！” The other defendant pointed at Hanna.

　　“No， I didn’t write it. Does it matter who did？”

　　A prosecutor suggested that an expert be called to compare the handwriting in the report and the handwriting of the defendant Schmitz.

　　“My handwriting？ You want my handwriting？ . . .”

　　The judge， the prosecutor， and Hanna’s lawyer discussed whether a person’s handwriting retains its character over more than fifteen years and can be identified. Hanna listened and tried several times to say or ask something， and was becoming increasingly alarmed. Then she said， “You don’t have to call an expert. I admit I wrote the report.”

　　"您為什么不把門打開？"

　　審判長一個(gè)接一個(gè)地向每個(gè)被告都提出同樣的問題，每個(gè)被告都給予了同樣的回答：她們無法打開。為什么？有的說，當(dāng)炸彈擊中教士住宅時(shí)，她受傷了。有的說，她被轟炸嚇得呆若木雞。有的說，在轟炸之后，她要照料受傷的警衛(wèi)隊(duì)員和其他受傷的女看守，她把她們從廢墟中救出來，為她們包扎，護(hù)理她們。有的說，她沒有想到教堂，她不在教堂附近，沒有看到教堂著火，也沒聽見從教堂里傳來的呼救聲。

　　審判長一個(gè)接一個(gè)地警告她們：報(bào)告讀上去可全不是這么回事。這是經(jīng)過深思熟慮后的一種謹(jǐn)慎表達(dá)方式。如果說從納粹黨衛(wèi)隊(duì)的檔案里發(fā)現(xiàn)的報(bào)告所記載的是另外一回事；那就錯(cuò)了。但報(bào)告讀上去的確是另一番情形。報(bào)告里指名道姓地提到誰在教土住宅里被炸死了，誰受了傷，誰把傷員用貨車送到了一家野戰(zhàn)醫(yī)院，還有誰乘坐軍用吉普車陪送。報(bào)告提到，女看守們被留了下來，目的是讓她們等候大火燒盡，防止火勢蔓延和阻止囚犯們趁火逃跑。報(bào)告中也提到了囚犯們的死亡。

　　被告?zhèn)兊拿�字不在名單里��，這說明她們屬于留下來的女看守之列。既然把女看守們留下來是為了阻止囚犯們逃跑，這說明從教士住宅搶救傷員并把他們送到野戰(zhàn)醫(yī)院的工作還沒有全部結(jié)束。從報(bào)告中可以看出，那些留守下來的女看守讓教堂里的大火肆意瘋狂地燃燒，并堅(jiān)持不打開教堂的大門。在那些被留下來的女看守中間，正如從報(bào)告中可以看到的那樣，有這幾位被告在內(nèi)。

　　不，根本不是這么回事。被告?zhèn)円粋�(gè)接著一個(gè)地這樣說。他們說那篇報(bào)告是錯(cuò)的。報(bào)告里講，被留下的女看守的任務(wù)是阻止火勢的蔓延，只憑這一點(diǎn)就可以看到那篇報(bào)告的荒謬。她們怎么能來完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。這是胡說八道，而且另外的一項(xiàng)任務(wù)，即阻止囚犯趁火逃跑，同樣也是胡說八道。阻止逃跑？好像她們不必要照料自己人了似的，也好像不能去照料囚犯了似的，好像沒有任何人可以跑掉似的。不！那篇報(bào)告把她們那天晚上的所作所為，她們的功績和所遭受的痛苦，完全顛倒了。怎么會(huì)有這樣一篇如此錯(cuò)誤的報(bào)告？她們也都自稱不知道。

　　輪到那位慢條斯理、尖酸刻毒的被告人時(shí)，她說她知道。"您問她吧！"她用手指著漢娜說："是她寫的那篇報(bào)告，她有罪，只她一人有罪，她在報(bào)告中隱瞞了自己而想把我們扯進(jìn)去。"

　　審判長就此問了漢娜，不過，那是他的最后的問題。他的第一個(gè)問題是："您為什么沒有把門打開？"

　　"我們在……我們要……"漢娜在尋找答案，"我們不知道該怎樣幫助他們才是。"

　　"你們不知道該怎樣幫助他們才是？"

　　"我們當(dāng)中的一些人死掉了，一些人開小差了。他們說，他們要把傷員送往野戰(zhàn)醫(yī)院，然后再返回來。但是他們心里明白他們不會(huì)再回來了，我們對此也十分清楚。也許他們根本就沒去野戰(zhàn)醫(yī)院，傷員們的傷勢并非十分嚴(yán)重。他們還說，傷員需要地方，他們正好沒有什么東西……正好不愿帶著這么多的女人一起走，否則我們也一起走了。我不知道他們?nèi)チ四膬骸?quot;

　　"您都干了什么？"

　　"我們不知道該做什么，一切都發(fā)生得很快。教士住宅起火了，還有教堂的塔頂。男人們，還有小汽車開始時(shí)還都在，隨后他們就離開了。轉(zhuǎn)眼之間只剩下我們和教堂里的女囚。他們給我們留下了一些武器，但是我們不會(huì)用。假使我們會(huì)用它們的話，這對我們幾個(gè)女人來說又能幫上什么忙呢？我們該如何看守住這么多的女囚呢？走起路來長長的一列，就是緊湊一起也夠長的，看守這樣長的隊(duì)伍，需要比我們這幾個(gè)女人多得多的人力。"漢娜稍稍停頓了一下，"然后她們開始喊叫起來，而且越來越嚴(yán)重。如果我們此時(shí)把門打開讓所有的人都跑出來的話

　　審判長等了一會(huì)問："您害怕嗎？您害怕被囚犯們戰(zhàn)勝嗎？"

　　"囚犯會(huì)把我們……不，不會(huì)。但是，我們怎樣才能使她們重新就范呢？那一定會(huì)亂作一團(tuán)的，我們一定對付不了這種局面，而且一旦她們企圖逃跑的話…·"

　　審判長又等了一會(huì)兒，但是，漢娜沒有把那句話說完。"您害怕一旦逃跑的事情發(fā)生，您會(huì)被捕，會(huì)被判決，會(huì)被槍斃嗎？"

　　"我們當(dāng)然不會(huì)輕易地讓她們逃跑的，我們就是干這個(gè)的……我的意思是我們一直都在看守她們，在集中營，在行軍的路上。我們看守她們的意義所在正是不讓她們逃跑。正因?yàn)槿绱耍�我們才不知道如何做是��，我們也不知道有多少囚犯在后來的日子里能活下來。已�?jīng)死了那么多了，剩下這些活著的也已經(jīng)如此虛弱……"

　　漢娜注意到，她所說的事情無助于事，但是她又沒別的可說。她只能盡力而為他說好她所要說的事情，更好地去描述，去解釋。但是她說得越多，事情對她就越糟糕。由于她感到進(jìn)退維谷，就又轉(zhuǎn)向了審判長問道：

　　"要是您的話會(huì)怎么做呢？"

　　但是，這一次她自己也知道她不會(huì)得到回答。她不期待回答，沒有人期望得到一個(gè)回答。審判長默不作聲地?fù)u著頭。

　　不是人們對漢娜所描述的那種不知所措和無助的情形無法想象。那個(gè)夜晚的情景：寒冷，冰雪，大火，教堂里女人的喊叫，那些曾命令她們和陪同她們的人的逃之夭夭。在這樣的情況下，把囚犯放出來該會(huì)是什么樣子呢！但是，認(rèn)為當(dāng)時(shí)這些被告的處境確實(shí)很難就可以相對減輕她們的罪責(zé)嗎？人們就可以對她們的行為不那么感到震驚了嗎？就可以把它看做是在一個(gè)寒冷的冬夜里，在一條人煙稀少的道路上發(fā)生的一場造成人員傷亡的車禍，而認(rèn)為人們在這種情況下本來不知道如何是好？或者，這是不是反映了我們都應(yīng)該擔(dān)負(fù)的兩種責(zé)任之間的矛盾呢？人們可以這樣做，但是人們不愿意去想象漢娜所描述的情景。

　　"報(bào)告是您寫的嗎？"

　　"我們在一起商量了該寫什么，我們不想把責(zé)任都推到那些開小差的人的身上，但是我們也不想把責(zé)任都攬到我們自己身上。"

　　"您說，你們一起商量了。誰執(zhí)的筆呢？"

　　"稱！"另外的那位被告又用手指著漢娜。

　　"不，我沒有寫。誰寫的，這重要嗎？"

　　一位律師建議請一位鑒定專家對報(bào)告的字體和被告人史密蘭女士的字體進(jìn)行比較鑒定。

　　"我的字體？您想要我的字體……"

　　審判長、那位律師還有漢娜的辯護(hù)律師在討論了一個(gè)人的字體超過十五年之后是否還能保持它的同一性，是否還能讓人辨認(rèn)出來。漢娜注意聽著，幾次想插話說什么，或者要問什么，越來越坐立不安。最后她說："您不需要請鑒定專家，我承認(rèn)報(bào)告是我寫的。"