.jpg)
Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources
This study will investigate the question “What happened to Raoul Wallenberg?” Focusing on the search for Wallenberg and the events leading up to it. I will be using two major sources for this investigation, both books published well after Wallenberg' s disappearance, provide distinct perspectives and methodologies in the search for truth about his fate.
Source A: The Search for Raoul Wallenberg: The Truth by Sharon Wallenberg (2017)
Sharon Wallenberg, a Swedish-American writer and UN NGO representative, published this book 72 years after Raoul Wallenberg's disappearance. The source focuses on her personal search for answers, documenting political and legal efforts to raise awareness about Wallenbergs case. Sharon draws on letters, official documents and eyewitness testimonies to present a detailed account of the advocacy work undertaken to uncover the truth. The source's value lies in its retrospective and comprehensive approach, offering insight into the international political climate surrounding Wallenberg's disappearance. Sharon's close interactions with influential figures, such as U.S. politicians and international organizations, lend credibility to her narrative, highlighting the widespread concern for Wallenberg's fate. By using a range of materials, the book provides varied perspectives on how different governments and institutions responded, or failed to respond to his case. However, the source is limited by its retrospective nature. Writing decades after the events may reduce the accuracy of the details, as much of the information relies on second hand accounts. Sharon's personal involvement in the search introduces potential bias, as her narrative tends to emphasize her own role and the perspectives of those she worked closely with. Conflicting accounts and alternative views may be underrepresented. Despite these 2limitations, the book remains a valuable resource for understanding the political and advocacy efforts surrounding Wallenberg's disappearance.
Source B: Whatever Happened to Raoul Wallenberg? by Morris Wolff (2012)
Morris Wolff, an American civil rights lawyer, provides a legal perspective on Wallenbergs case in this book. It recounts Wolff's personal efforts to uncover the truth, including his lawsuit against the Soviet Union and attempts to engage international organizations such as Mossad. The book emphasizes the intersection of international law and human rights, showcasing Wolff’s dedication to holding the Soviet Union accountable for Wallenberg's disappearance. This source's value lies in its focus on legal battles, proving a unique angle on the challenges of seeking justice in cases of historical injustice. Wolf’s documentation of his efforts highlights the diplomatic and legal obstacles faced when pursuing accountability for Wallenberg's fate. His detailed accounts of courtroom proceedings and negotiations offer valuable insight into the complexities of addressing unresolved humanitarian cases. Nonetheless, Wolff's active involvement in the events introduces bias, as the book often centres on his legal efforts and portrays them as the most significant path toward justice. Other contributions to the Wallenberg case are less emphasised, which limits the scope of the source. Additionally, the book does not provide definitive answers to Wallenberg's fate, as the legal efforts ultimately failed to resolve the mystery. Despite these shortcomings, Wolff’s work contributes an important legal perspective to the ongoing investigation.
Section B: Investigation
Raoul Wallenberg, born in 1912, was a Swedish diplomat whose courageous actions during World War II saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from deportation to Nazi concentration camps. In Budapest in 1944, Wallenberg issued protective passports and provided refuge in Swedish diplomatic buildings, preventing the deportation of Jewish individuals. However, his efforts came to an abrupt end when soviet forces entered Budapest in January 1945. Arrested by the NKVD on January 17, Wallenbergs fate remains one of the most enduring mysteries of the 20th century. This investigation examines the credibility and implications of four key perspectives on Wallenberg's disappearance: the Soviet account, the Swedish government's response, Sharon Wallenberg's campaign, and Morris Wolf’s legal efforts.
Morris Wolff's account provides a wealth of detailed information that sheds light on the complex web of political manoeuvres, international negotiations, and bureaucratic inefficiencies surrounding Wallenbergs disappearance. Wolff, drawing on his interactions with various witnesses and officials, presents a thorough investigation into Wallenbergs fate. A key argument in his book is the fact that Wallenberg was likely still alive well after his official death was declared by Soviet authorities. Wolf’s investigation reveals critical details, such as the testimony of the Soviet ambassador to Sweden Madame Alexandra Kollontay5 who gave word to Wallenbergs mother in February 1945 that Wallenbergs was in Soviet custody and that there was “no reason to believe that he would not soon be home.”6 This initial optimism was, however, quickly dashed as the Soviets thought of this as a major error since the official lie was “he is not known here.”7 After that the family didn’t hear anything else for two years. Wolff's research included evidence that Wallenbergs fate was entangled with the broader geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union's distrust of his ties to OSS which was later renamed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).8 Wallenbergs role, shown in the interception of cables from the U.S. Secretary of State to Wallenberg, was “to comment on the number of Soviet troops, tanks and artillery of the 18 red army coming into Budapest”.9 This further suggests that Wallenberg was perceived as a potential threat to Soviet interest, which may have led to his prolonged imprisonment. This information helps to set Wallenbergs within a larger context, where political interests were paramount and international diplomacy was often more about strategic alliances than human rights or the search for truth. The most convincing aspect of Wolff's investigation is his detailed analysis of the Soviet Union's contradictory actions and statements. For instance, Wolff highlights the fact that Soviet authorities, after initially acknowledging Wallenberg's capture, later presented inconsistent and false reports about his death. In 1947, Soviet authorities claimed Wallenberg had died in Lubyanka prison,10 a narrative later proven to be fabricated by Judge Barrington Parker, who dismissed the Soviet report as “rubbish”. The details surrounding the Soviet claim of Wallenberg's death, including the supposed cremation of his body and the absence of any authentic witnesses, undermine the Soviet narrative and reinforce Wolff's thesis that the truth about Wallenbergs fate was deliberately obscured by The Soviet regime. Wolff's investigation also includes recent revelations from 2011, when a KGB document surfaced, indicating that Wallenberg was alive as late as 1998.12 Such developments lend further credibility to Wolff's argument that the Soviet government deliberately concealed Wallenbergs fate, perhaps to protect its own political interest.
In contrast Sharon Wallenberg's account is heavily influenced by her interactions with soviet authorities, and her reliance on Soviet sources shapes much of her investigation into her supposedly “relatives” fate. Sharon presents the Soviet government as a key player in the search for Wallenberg, often highlighting their assurances that he was being held in their custody after his disappearance in 1945. For instance, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Dekansovov wrote to the Swedish ambassador in Moscow, Staffan Söderblom, informing him that Wallenberg was in Soviet hands and that he would soon be released.13 This official communication suggested cooperation between the Soviet Union and Sweden, although it failed to provide any concrete evidence or clarity on Wallenbergs condition or whereabouts. Sharon's investigation also includes testimony from Soviet officials who she worked closely with from the foreign ministry who claimed Wallenberg was alive and being treated well in Soviet custody. These officials suggested that Wallenbergs status as a Swedish diplomat and his connections with Hungarian authorities made him a person of interest, yet these testimonies remain to be validated by independent sources. Soviet officials assured Sharon that Wallenberg was treated with “utmost care", a claim that seems inconsistent with the harsh conditions typical of Soviet prisons at the time. When the Soviets changed their narrative saying Raoul Wallenberg was not alive Sharon immediately accepted this and changed her entire campaign to persuade people that Wallenberg was dead.16 While Sharon seems to accept these testimonies, the lack of external verification and the Soviet Union's well documented history of controlling information raise doubts about their reliability. A critical moment in Sharon's narrative is her account of Soviet doctor Alexander Myasnikov, who initially claimed to have treated Wallenberg in a Soviet mental hospital.17 Myasnikov later retracted his statement, admitting that he had confused Wallenberg with another prisoner. This retraction undermines the credibility of the story and highlights the difficulty in relying on Soviet testimonies, as these claims were often unverifiable or inconsistent. One critical moment in Sharon’s investigations was her recounting of Söderbloms interactions with Stalin.18 Söderblom, who became convinced early on that Wallenberg had died, dismissed further inquiries as futile, arguing there was no point in antagonizing the Soviets, and cabled Stockholm early on that Wallenberg was probably killed. Sharon recounts his meeting with Stalin who promised an investigation into the matter but insisted that Wallenberg was probably dead.19 This promise, however proved empty as no new information emerged, further reinforcing Soviet complicity and Sharon saw this as a failure of Swedish diplomacy, with Söderbloms reluctance allowing the Soviets to escape greater scrutiny. Despite these glaring issues, Sharon’s narrative often defends the Soviet position attributing delays and misinformation to miscommunication or bureaucratic inefficiencies rather than deliberate deception. She emphasizes Stalin's personal assurance to Söderblom that the matter would be investigated, framing it as an indication of Soviet Sincerity. However, this portrayal clashes with the reality of Soviet actions, including their refusal to provide Sweden with transparent answers and their pattern of concealing political prisoners. Sharon’s willingness to attribute credibility to Soviet accounts, even when they are contradicted by evidence demonstrates the limitations of her investigation and reflects her emotional investment in the case.
Conclusion
In examining Raoul Wallebergs fate, the contrasting interpretations of Sharon Wallenberg and Morris Wolff reveal the challenges of navigating narratives by political agendas and emotional ties. Sharon's reliance on Soviet sources, shaped by her personal connections and trust in their cooperation, ultimately weakens her credibility. The Soviet Union's documented history of deception and suppression, including contradictions in their testimonies, underscores the limitations of Sharon’s investigation. Her perspective, while driven by hope and diplomatic engagement, reflects a biased reliance on unverifiable claims, which diminishes the objectively required for such an inquiry. Morris Wolff's approach, in contrast, provides a more critical and rigorous analysis. By challenging Soviet narratives and emphasizing the need for impartial 8investigations, Wolff offers a perspective rooted in skepticism and a commitment to uncovering the truth. His reliance on corroborative accounts, combined with his criticism of the international community’s actions, highlights the failings of Sweden, the United States and more in their responses to Wallenberg's disappearance. Wolff's insistence on holding the Soviet Union accountable stands as a compelling call for transparency and justice. The enduring uncertainty surrounding Wallenberg's fate is a stark reminder of the complexities of historical inquiry, particularly in politically charged cases. It underscores the importance of continuous investigation, critical evaluation of sources, and a commitment to truth. Wallenbergs legacy as a humanitarian hero demands that the search for answers remains relentless, not only as a tribute to his courage but also as a lesson in the necessity of international accountability and cooperation in resolving historical injustices.
Section C: Reflection
Reflecting on my investigation into Raoul Wallenberg's fate, I’ve come to appreciate the challenges historians face, particularly in evaluating sources, navigating bias, and interpreting evidence. Determining the reliability of historical accounts is a key difficulty. In my research, I relied on both primary sources, like Sovert testimonies and Swedish government reports, and secondary interpretations from figures such as Morris Wolff and Sharon Wallenberg. These sources often conflicted. For example, Soviet reports of Wallenbergs death, though official, lacked transparency and were riddled with inconsistencies, casting doubt on their credibility. This underlines the importance of questioning even authoritative documents, especially when political motivations may shape their content. Bias is another challenge that emerged throughout my investigation. Morris Wolff's passionate pursuit of justice for Wallenberg likely influenced his perspective, leading him to nightlight successes and potentially overlook subtler aspects of the case. On the other hand Sharon Wallenberg's reliance on Soviet officials seemed rooted in her personal interactions, which introduced an optimistic bias into her account. These contrasting approaches illustrate the need for historians to recognize and address bias, balancing subjective narratives with objective evaluation. Managing the scope of an investigation also proved to be a significant challenge. The sheer volume of material on Wallenbergs disappearance, from Swedish and Soviet accounts to international perspectives, made it difficult to determine what to include. By focusing on the primary conflicting narratives, I was able to conduct a more thorough analysis. This decision reinforced the importance of maintaining a clear and focused scope to avoid being overwhelmed by extra details. In the end this investigation taught me that a historian's task is both complex and simple. While complete objectivity may be unattainable, critically assessing sources, recognising bias and maintaining a clear focus are essential tools for uncovering a more accurate understanding of historical events.
Bibliography
• Smoltsov, A. “Report on Raoul Wallenberg’s Death.” Lubyanka Prison Medical
Records, 1947.
• Svartz, Nonna. Testimony on Raoul Wallenberg. Swedish Government Archive,
1980.
• Anderson, Martin. “The Soviet V ersion of Raoul Wallenberg’s Fate: A Critical
Analysis.” Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013.
• Bierman, John. Righteous Gentile: The Story of Raoul Wallenberg, Missing Hero
of the Holocaust. Penguin Books, 1982.
• Carlberg, Ingrid. Raoul Wallenberg: The Man Who Saved Thousands of
Hungarian Jews from the Holocaust. Maclehose Press, 2015.
• Evans, David. Memoirs of a U.S. Ambassador: The Wallenberg Case. 1999.
• Jarring, Gunnar. “Swedish Efforts in the Wallenberg Investigation.” Swedish
Foreign Policy Review, 1988.
• Leontine Wallenberg, Sharon. The Search for Raoul Wallenberg: The Truth.
Liberty 61 Books, 2017.
• Mrazek, Bob. “House Concurrent Resolution 165: A Call to Action.”
Congressional Record, 1989.
11• Wallenberg, Sharon. “The Personal Quest for Truth: Reflections on Raoul
Wallenberg.” New Y ork Times, 1991.
• Wolff, Morris. “The Legal Battles for Raoul Wallenberg: A Personal Account.”
American Civil Rights Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, 2014.
• Wolff, Morris. “Legal Action in the Pursuit of Raoul Wallenberg: Reflections on a
Personal Journey.” American Civil Rights Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, 2015.
• Wolff, Morris. Whatever Happened to Raoul Wallenberg? Morris Wolf, 2012.
• “Raoul Wallenberg and the Rescue of Jews in Budapest.” Ushmm.org, 2016,
encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/raoul-wallenberg-and-the-rescue-of-jews-in-budapest
. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
• “About Raoul Wallenberg - the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law.” The Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,
2019,
rwi.lu.se/about/about-raoul-wallenberg/#:~:text=According%20to%20Soviet%20sources%20and
,in%20July%201947%20from%20infarction. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
• “Disappearance and Unknown Fate – Wallenberg Legacy, University of
Michigan.” Umich.edu, 2020,
wallenberg.umich.edu/raoul-wallenberg/the-story-of-raoul-wallenberg/disappearance-and-unkno
wn-fate/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
12• Si. “Raoul Wallenberg – World War II Hero | Sweden.se.” Sweden.se, 20 Nov.
2024, sweden.se/life/people/raoul-wallenberg-world-war-ii-hero. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
• Magazine, Smithsonian. “Raoul Wallenberg’s Biographer Uncovers Important
Clues to What Happened in His Final Days.” Smithsonian Magazine, 15 Jan. 2016,
www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/raoul-wallenbergs-biographer-uncovers-impo
rtant-clues-his-final-days-180957837/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
• The. “Raoul Wallenberg | Biography, Death, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica,
20 July 1998, www.britannica.com/biography/Raoul-Wallenberg. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
• Raoul. “Raoul Wallenberg - Biography, Heroism & Disappearance.” HISTORY ,
16 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/topics/holocaust/wallenberg-raoul. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
13
