Auschwitz After Memory by tom kirby

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Auschwitz After Memory THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Tom Kirby B.A. (Hons.) The University of Sheffield School of Architecture MArch Dissertation November 2009 Tutor: Peter Blundell Jones

Contents: Acknowledgements ......................................................................... 1 Abstract Introduction Prologue

The Auschwitz Death Camp I. II. III.

.................................... 6

A Brief History of the Camp Attempt to Conceal The Number of Victims

Dissertation

I. II. III. IV.

Auschwitz After Memory.............................................. 58

Memorial and Remembrance ................................... 14

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

The Difficulty of Remembering Survivor Witness Memory and Remembrance Reinterpreting Memorials Collective Memory Conflict in Remembrance Becoming a Place of Memory

Preservation and Authenticity .................................... 30

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

The Paradox of Preservation Preserving Buildings Built to Disappear A Responsibility to Preserve Forever The Cost of Preservation Preservation and Restoration Authenticity, Identity and Change Consultation and Deliberation

Auschwitz Now .......................................................... 44 The Relevance of Visitor Numbers Visiting Auschwitz Auschwitz’ Multiple Roles Auschwitz as a Deterrent to Genocide

Bibliography ..................................................................................... 62 Picture References Appendices A. Images of Auschwitz-Birkenau ...................................... 67 B. Interview with Head of the Preservation Department ... 84 C. ‘Questionnaire’ Replies ............................................................ 94

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to all those who have supported me in the course of preparing this dissertation; particularly to my supervisor Professor Peter Blundell Jones and also to my field assistant, Alice Eaton, and proof-reader, Laura Nadel. I would also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Jolanta Banaś, Head of Preservation at Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, for donating her time to the project.

Abstract Auschwitz-Birkenau is a former Nazi concentration-death camp and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In January 2009 Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote to European leaders seeking assistance to fund the preservation of Auschwitz’ decaying buildings. Before accepting that further preservation is the correct option we must first examine the implications that preservation has upon these buildings; buildings that were used as a tool in the murder of 1.1 million innocent men, women and children. This debate is required now; the number of Holocaust survivors is becoming fewer as each year passes, the question of Auschwitz’ future needs to be addressed before it is too late to consult the individuals who have firsthand experience of the concentration camp. In 50 years’ time, we will only have memory of memories; now one can no longer experience Auschwitz-Birkenau as a concentration camp, only as a museum and a memorial. ‘Auschwitz After Memory’ investigates the appropriateness of the architectural preservation of Auschwitz’ buildings with respect to the psychological topic of memory and remembrance and the philosophical question of identity and change. This study does not explore the technical details of preserving historical structures; rather, it is an exploration of the relationship between architecture, memory, identity and preservation at Auschwitz and intends to instigate debate about its future.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Introduction

‘Forever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity’1

Between 1940 and 1945 1.1 million people2 were murdered under the Nazi regime in the AuschwitzBirkenau concentration camp. Unique in its scale and extreme in its barbarity, Auschwitz has become a symbol for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. In 1947 the Polish Government turned Auschwitz into a museum to honour its victims, declaring would be “forever preserved as a memorial to the martyrdom of the Polish nation and other peoples.”3

Exploring the future of the former concentration camp is an important contemporary issue; in addition to the dwindling number of survivors, Auschwitz faces a cash crisis.6 Since 1947 the Polish Government has provided almost all of the funding for the conservation that keeps Auschwitz open7 but there is now a €120m8 deficit in the funds needed to preserve the crumbling buildings. As well as solving the financial and technological issues facing Auschwitz, a discussion about the meticulous preservation of buildings that were used as a tool to murder over a million innocent men, women and children is required; one needs to ask not only how Auschwitz can be preserved but also why it should be preserved.

In 2007, over 1.2 million people visited Auschwitz-Birkenau,4 more than in any previous year; clearly the draw of Auschwitz is not diminishing. However, as The Final Solution, Die Endlösung, was proposed to provide an ultimate end to the ‘Jewish question†’, the majority of the buildings erected by the Nazis to facilitate this slaughter were temporary and were not built to last. Many are therefore now in poor condition and in constant need of preservation if they are to be kept standing. Analogous to the powers of a doctor, building conservationists can extend life but not infinitely. At some point these buildings will have to be recreated or allowed to be lost to the elements.

The Holocaust is dying; time and nature are not only corroding the physical evidence of the crimes but also the human memory of it.5 As each year passes not only do fewer fragments of the original buildings exist but also fewer fragments of human memory; the last of the survivors are now passing away, taking with them the final direct links to these buildings and the Holocaust.

One should consider how the significance of these buildings would change in an age without the people who experienced them. Auschwitz is an UNESCO World Heritage Site, and its historical significance has been immortalized through memoirs, books and films, but for how long will the shell of the buildings serve as an appropriate reminder of the violent atrocities that occurred within? What will the one hundred and fifty five buildings of Auschwitz-Birkenau mean to society over the next 50 years; how can these physical structures - bricks, mortar, chimneys and stables - carry meaning and history? 6

1 2 3 4 5

Auschwitz Memorial Plaque The Nizkor Project. Operation Reinhard: Treblinka Deportations. http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/reinhard/reinhard-faq-13. html [accessed 12th February 2009] Ray, L. J. 2007. Globalisation and Everyday Life. Routledge pg 98 Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial; Attendance: en.auschwitz.org.pl [accessed 15th April 2009] Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38p. 70.

7 † 8

Berg, R. 2009 Cash crisis threat to Auschwitz. BBC News (online) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ europe/7800397.stm [accessed 12th February 2009] Ibid. N.B. it was not only Jews that were murdered in Nazi concentration camps; Polish Catholics, homosexuals, intellectuals, soviet prisoners-of-war and many other groups were also persecuted Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Auschwitz Report 2008. (available online) http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=49

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

Research Context There is a large field of academic research documenting the history and operation of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. However there is little critical analysis of Auschwitz in the modern era or that addresses the issues surrounding its future and preservation. After initiating this study I discovered that discussion over the future of Auschwitz is just beginning to surface, but the debate so far has been very limited. Each side is polarized in their view, adamantly stating, whilst providing little justification to support their argument, that either it must be preserved forever or that it must be left without any preservation. The objective of this dissertation is to analyse and evaluate the subject openly and comprehensively, bringing together aspects of the debate from various fields, giving detailed explanations and viewpoints. ‘Auschwitz After Memory’ is an investigation into the appropriateness of the architectural preservation of Auschwitz’ buildings with respect to the psychological topic of memory and remembrance and the philosophical question of identity and change. This study does not explore in detail the technical aspects of preserving historical structures; rather, it is intended to provide a reasoned view on the future of Auschwitz having considered the issues surrounding its architecture, memory, identity and preservation. It aims to provoke such debate in others so that a consensus based on informed opinions can be reached. As the Auschwitz memorial plaque seeks to remind us, the legacy of Auschwitz affects all humanity and therefore it is important that we all engage in the discussion about, and thus shape, its future. I am conscious that an in-depth understanding of the history of Auschwitz will assist readers in considering the arguments explored within this dissertation. I have therefore prepared a prologue which is intended as a companion to the dissertation for those who would benefit from familiarising themselves, or re-familiarising themselves with the camp’s history.

Research Methodology

I spent three days at the Auschwitz-Birkenau site in June 2009. This included in-depth discussions with official museum guide Margaret Jankowiak who provided an insight into Auschwitz not only in terms of tourism and a typical visitor’s experience, but also from the perspective of a a guide and local Oświęcim resident. I also conducted, via a translator, a formal interview with Jolanta Banaś, Head of Auschwitz’ Preservation Department. Although she appeared unwilling to deviate from museum policy or offer a personal perspective on the authenticity of preservation and the future of Auschwitz, this was an invaluable opportunity to learn of the museum’s approach. I also spent time investigating the exhibitions, photographing and exploring the camp.

My intention from the outset was to interview Auschwitz survivors and visitors to ascertain their views on the future of Auschwitz and their reaction to the psychological and philosophical arguments about remembrance, preservation and identity. The survivors’ views would clearly be important, as would those of people who felt strongly enough to visit Auschwitz or consent to be interviewed about

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

it. From two small groups of participants (around 5-8 people) I wanted to discover where each person drew boundaries in acceptable use of the site and what their priorities were regarding preservation and evidence. I planned to use this data to support or counter other propositions, referencing theoretical ideas with real people’s opinions and experiences. It was my intention to interview each participant in person to promote a dynamic conversation or debate and propose ideas about preservation or remembrance.

I was uncomfortable with approaching visitors at the Auschwitz site since I did not want to risk intruding on their visit. I did make contact with many people in the UK who have visited the former concentration camp. In order to gain access to Auschwitz survivors I contacted Tom Jackson of the Holocaust Education Trust; to contact the survivors for academic purposes I needed to provide a copy of the questions I would ask and have a written endorsement of my dissertation from the director of Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. A chicken-and-egg scenario ensued as I could not predetermine, thus provide the museum with, the outcome or stance of the dissertation since that would develop following the interview process. Despite much effort, the support of my department and weeks of exchanging emails with the museum authorities, ultimately I received no confirmation of approval and so was unable to conduct the interviews. In the mean time however, I had sent the proposed interview questions to a few contacts to gauge suitability. To my surprise, this document spread virally over the internet and I started to receive replies from survivors and interested parties across the world. This in itself was fascinating; clearly the question of Auschwitz’ future struck a chord with people. They were keen to share their views and thought their own contacts would be interested in the issue. Unfortunately however the interview transcript was not in a suitable questionnaire format as it had never been intended to be used in such manner, and this impinged upon the depth of the respondents’ replies [refer to Appendix C]. Consequently, I have included less original research in this dissertation than originally intended. This is something that I would address if the study were expanded.

The secondary data I have used to conduct this study is wide-ranging, drawn from both academic work and popular media. I compared a range of books from detailed historic works – such as Auschwitz 1270 to Present - to tourist guidebooks and paperbacks. Online research included BBC news articles as well as official Auschwitz State Museum Annual Reports. Films I have watched to put the Holocaust in context have varied from Alain Resnais’ seminal ‘Night and Fog’ and Claude Lanzmann’s epic documentary ‘Shoah!’ to Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster ‘Schindler’s List’. The media and data resources relevant to this subject are diverse because the legacy of Auschwitz and the Holocaust affects every level of society; work of relevance and value has been done in every sphere.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Prologue: The Auschwitz Death Camp Auschwitz is the German name for Oświęcim, a Polish town dating from the 12th century AD. Oświęcim sits at the confluence the Wisła (Vistula) and the Soła. It has historically benefitted from the proximity of trade routes that crossed these rivers,9 thus becoming a relatively prosperous town, and one that was contested between Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and the Reich throughout the Renaissance period.10 Auschwitz has a rich past spanning 900 years, but this study, like most people, will be concerned with a very short and violent episode of its history, and the subsequent fallout from it. “When people ask me where I’m from I say ‘Oświęcim,’ they say ‘Where?’ So I say ‘Auschwitz’. They look shocked and then say that it must be awful. I say that it’s actually a very nice town with a long history and should be known despite of the genocide that occurred here.” Margaret Jankowiak, Auschwitz State Museum Guide and lifelong Oświęcim resident. Auschwitz owes its notoriety not only to the scale of the slaughter - 1,100,000 people were murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau compared with 700,000 killed at Treblinka,11 the next most deadly extermination camp - but also its unique existence as a combined concentration and extermination camp. Whilst some prisoners were gassed within hours of arriving, others were interned for several years, forced to work as slave labour in the IG Farben chemical works or any other of Auschwitz’ industrial sub-camps. The Holocaust transformed Auschwitz from an ordinary town to the archetypal Nazi camp.

I. A Brief History of the Camp

Auschwitz I, the Stammlager, was originally constructed as barracks for the Austrian army and after the First World War was adopted by the Polish army. Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, Oświęcim was annexed to Reich Germany as part of East Upper Silesia.12 Considered as being on German soil, the barracks were chosen in April 1940 as suitable for conversion into the Nazis’ seventh concentration camp.13 Initially, Auschwitz I housed Polish political prisoners, but over time Soviet Prisoners of War, Jews, homosexuals and other groups joined them; the camp’s population peaked at around 30,000 inmates.14 Life in the camp was bleak. Prisoners were woken at 4.30 am (5.30 am in winter) and given a brown liquid for breakfast. After roll call they exited the Stammlager, and whilst accompanied by music from 9 10 11

12 13 14

Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press p.28 Ibid. The Nizkor Project. Operation Reinhard: Treblinka Deportations. http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/reinhard/reinhard-faq-13.html [accessed 12th February 2009] Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p.17. Ibid. Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press p.254

the camp’s orchestra they marched through the main gate, under the sign ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ (work makes you free), a darkly cynical reference to the fact that the prisoners were being worked to death. Prisoners laboured on construction sites, quarries or in the chemical plant for backbreaking ten-hour shifts before returning to the camp for roll call and lights out. Lunch was a watery soup of poor nutritional value, the evening meal was a bread roll;15 the prisoners were constantly hungry. Each prisoner was reduced to a body, “a body that has been exploited to the utmost: with a number tattooed on it to save dog tags, with just enough sleep at night to work during the day, and just enough time to eat. And just enough food so it will not die wastefully.”16 The camp was commanded by Rudolf Höss, but it was whilst he was away that the first experiments into mass murder were undertaken at Auschwitz. SS guards gathered 900 Soviet POWs and confined them into the basement of Block XI, the punishment block. The doors and windows were sealed and pellets of Zyklon B, a toxic pesticide, were introduced. The prisoners could not escape the poisonous gas; their attempts to scratch through the reinforced doors, walls and ceilings were futile. Eventually the screaming subsided and every man lay dead, piled in pools of congealed blood, vomit and excrement. The experiment was a success.

Despite this innovation, Auschwitz was still primarily a work camp; deaths occurred mainly through starvation, disease and savage beatings by the SS guards and the Kapos (privileged prisoners, mainly Reich Germans, convicted criminals, who had authority over the lower prisoners). In 1941, Heinrich Himmler selected a flat piece of ground two kilometres from the Stammlager as the site on which to build a new camp. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, would house 200,000 slave workers and the extermination facilities that could enable the Nazis to achieve a final solution to their so-called ‘Jewish problem’. The scale of this new camp was unprecedented: 174 wooden barracks - prefabricated wooden stables with bunks for 744 prisoners to sleep on17 - stood row after row in regimented order, surrounded by electrified-barbwire fences and SS guard towers. If conditions were bad for inmates in Auschwitz, Birkenau was even worse. Architects and officials played their part in designing this man-made Hades: if not deliberately callous, the design for facilities and accommodation was negligent and frequently lethal:18 Former inmate Gisella Perl described the conditions as horrific: “There was one latrine for thirty to thirty-two thousand women and we were permitted to use it only at certain hours of the day. We stood in line to get into this tiny building, knee-deep in human excrement. As we all suffered from dysentery, we could rarely wait until our turn came, and soiled our ragged clothes, which never came off our bodies, thus adding to the horror of our existence.”19

Initially the gas chambers at Auschwitz were converted farm cottages; known as The Little White

15 16 17 18 19

Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p.35. Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press p.267 Ibid. p.263 Ibid. p.272 Ibid. p.268

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

House and The Little Red House, thousands of children and elderly people were murdered in these off-site buildings. In the spring of 1943 the scale of the systematic extermination increased,20 the SS completed the purpose-built gas chambers and industrial scale incineration facilities; they also “constructed a railway line that fed directly into the centre of the camp.”21 The four crematoria totalled forty-six ovens; the camp now had the capacity to incinerate thousands of bodies each day.22 Even the design of these buildings – clearly specific for genocide - was of a covert nature; euphemisms such as ‘disinfection room’ were used to avoid cataloguing the slaughter. The intention of the design could not be hidden: the specification called for showerheads yet no plumbing to connect them to.

In the summer of 1944, the extermination of the Jewish population reached its height; the ghettos were liquidated and increasing numbers of Jews - up to 10,000 a day via an arduous train journey in cattle cars - arrived at Auschwitz II. On arrival the SS doctors sorted them into those who could work, young, fit men and women - and those who were of no use as forced labour - children, the elderly and the infirm. The latter, who accounted for roughly 85% of arrivals during the summer of 1944, were sent straight to the gas chambers and executed.23 Life for those not immediately killed was scarcely better; being selected to work didn’t mean salvation from the gas chambers but a delay in execution. One day it was your friend’s turn, your wife’s turn, your parent’s turn; the next day it may be yours. The daily violence was extreme: “their treatment is barbarous. The German guards torture them, beating them with the butt-ends of their rifles or whips, and stabbing them with bayonets.”24 Despite their disadvantage some prisoners did attempt to fight back against the Nazis; the October 1944 uprising by Sonderkommandos destroyed Crematorium IV. Putting the ovens out of action reduced the Nazis’ incineration capacity and so slowed the killing process; however this sole act of resistance cost the lives of 425 Sonderkommando prisoners.25

II. Attempt to Conceal Auschwitz

Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler described the liquidation of the Jews, Romani, Sinti and other ‘inferior’ races as “an unwritten and never to be written page in our history”.26 By the end of 1944 it became apparent that Germany was losing the war, this was the catalyst not only for a final drive to murder the concentration camp inmates but also for the attempts by the SS to remove the evidence of their crimes. The meticulous records were burned; photographs, hair and belongings destroyed; 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lachendro, J. German places of extermination in Poland. Parma Press Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 71. Ibid. Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p. 109. Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press pg 262 Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, pg 121 Wollaston, I. A War Against Memory? Nativizing the Holocaust In Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Pg 502

Opposite: RAF reconnaissance photograph showing Auschwitz and sub-camps in operation

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

the gas chambers and crematoria were dynamited. “Nothing remained of the extermination facilities except heaps of broken bricks, slabs of concrete, pieces of twisted metal, and, of course, the endless piles of shoes, suitcases, flatware, and bales of human hair.”27 The German attempts to destroy all evidence of the extermination were callously futile, their crimes were already known: Allied planes had photographed Auschwitz-Birkenau whilst on a reconnaissance mission of the IG Farben chemical plant. In fact, Allied military intelligence was aware of the existence of the concentration camp from 1941, but bombing it was not considered of strategic importance to the war effort. Knowledge of the extermination had also reached the public domain; the BBC reported about Auschwitz from autumn 1943.28 In June 1944 information from the Vrba-Wetzler report, the account of two escaped prisoners, was broadcast by news agencies on both side of the Atlantic, detailing the German crimes. The ineffectiveness of any Nazi cover up was confirmed in October 1944 when the British and American governments publicised official information regarding the genocide and warned that the perpetrators of mass murder would be punished.29 The SS fled the camp in January 1945, forcing the remaining prisoners on a ’death march’ deeper into the Reich. Reacting to the swiftness of the Soviet advance westwards the Nazis failed to conceal their crimes as they had planned; the camp was abandoned but not erased.30 On the 27th January 1945, Soviet soldiers from the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau.31 A few thousand of the prisoners too weak to be marched out by the SS were found still alive alongside the 837,000 women’s coats and dresses, 44,000 pairs of shoes, 7.7 tonnes of human hair32 and the remaining barracks; they stood to bear witness to the crimes the Nazis committed during the Holocaust. Survivors of the camp were fortunate to still be breathing but their lives were shattered; many of them had lost their entire families, their homes, their possessions, their identities and their health.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

as a weakness in the credibility of Auschwitz’ accorded history. Holocaust deniers refer to this as ‘the Auschwitz lie,’ controversially debating whether the gas chambers were ever used or even real. However, the real significance of Piper’s revision is that the proportion of Jewish victims at Auschwitz was approximately 90% of the total dead, not the 25% originally estimated.35 The social and ethnic make up of the victims has been very important to cultures following the Holocaust: Jewish losses stood at 5.9 million of their pre-war European population of 8.9 million; 5.6 million of 35.1 million Polish citizens (including 3.1 million Jewish Poles) were killed;36 250,000 of the 1,075,000 Roma were killed;37 3.3 million Soviet POWs, 200,000 disabled people, 12,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses and 10,000 homosexuals also lay dead. Entire segments of these societies were lost: 67% of the European Jewish population was dissolved, and 23% of the Roma gypsies were killed; clearly these cultures have been massively affected by the Shoah (Hebrew), or the Porajmos (Romani). It has been suggested that whilst the Germans lost the war they won the Holocaust; before the Second World War the Jewish population of Europe was 8.9 million, today it is only 1.5 million. The pre-war Jewish population of Poland was 3,300,000. It is now just 3,500.38 Around a quarter of all the Jews killed in the Second World War were killed at Auschwitz. 39

III. The Number of Victims

No one will ever know the exact number of people killed at Auschwitz. Initial Soviet estimations were based upon incineration capacity and estimated that the number dead was up to four million.33 After capture, Rudolf Höss estimated 3 million dead; of those, 2.5 million were gassed and 500,000 killed by disease or starvation.34 In May 1990, Franciszek Piper, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum’s senior historian, released the findings of a 10 year study: the total number of Auschwitz’ victims stood at just over 1 million, not the previously accepted 4 million. The changing estimate of victims has been seen 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 71. Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p. 116. Lachendro, J. German places of extermination in Poland. Parma Press Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, pg 3 Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p. 35. Ibid. p. 128 Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p. 133. Ibid.

35 36 37 38 39

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38, p. 78. Project Inposterum. Poland World War II Casualties (in Thousands) http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/poland_ WWII_casualties.htm [accessed 7th July 2009] The Special Master, appointed by Chief Judge Korman, 2000. In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL. http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/685455.pdf [accessed June 3rd 2009] The Special Master, appointed by Chief Judge Korman, 2000. In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL. http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/685455.pdf [accessed June 3rd 2009] Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin, p. 133.

BIRKENAU

AUSCHWITZ I

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

1. Memorial and Remembrance Concentration camps were not intended to be remembered, but through failing to destroy Auschwitz, the Nazis also failed to keep this chapter of their history unwritten. The plaques at AuschwitzBirkenau declare: “Forever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity.” In order for humanity to realise this lasting warning we must be able to remember what actually occurred there. Advancing this remembrance is seen as the raison d’être of Auschwitz, but is preservation of the buildings and site a successful way to achieve this? To answer the question ‘how long should Auschwitz stand?’ we must first understand how remembrance is formed and what role the physical structure of Auschwitz has in shaping it.

I. The Difficulty of Remembering

Even if they are still standing, the buildings of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp stopped existing in the present and passed into history on the 27th January 1945. Just as “[a] footprint is a silent witness to a past presence of a human”40, Auschwitz’ buildings are only a symbol of the past presence of the concentration camp. An imprint upon the ground refers to the life that left it and so becomes a representation of it; one’s mind juxtaposes the footprint and the being it stands for in a temporal and positional instance that no longer exists. The remnants of Auschwitz’ buildings are now just symbols flickering at past events, their existence attempts to deceive us into mistaking these fragments of history as history itself.

The Holocaust dilemma embodied by Auschwitz is the conflict between accepting what has happened, enabling society to move forward, and bearing the responsibility to inform and educate future generations in order to prevent any reoccurrence of such atrocities. Arthur Danto noted that “we erect monuments so that we shall always remember and we build memorials so that we should never forget.”41 The memorialisation of Auschwitz instantly set a political and psychological agenda to its physical and mental preservation: we must not forget these buildings and structures; we must not allow them to decay and disappear. So strong is this manifesto that reminding the world of the Holocaust is still symbolized by the slogans ‘Never Again!’ and ‘Never Forget!’42 Supposedly through not forgetting the Holocaust we aim to prevent future genocide, however Isabel Wollaston’s essay ‘A War Against Memory? Nativizing the Holocaust’ suggests that phrases such as ‘Never Again!’ and ‘Never Forget!’ have proliferated because they are vague and the remembrance of the Holocaust is unresolved, the slogans do not specify: who should remember; how they should remember; or even what they should remember, 40

41 42

Ernst van Alphen. Touching Death. In Webster Goodwin, S, and Bronfen, E. (eds). 1993. Death and Representation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press p.32. Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.3. Wollaston, I. A War Against Memory? Nativizing the Holocaust. In Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan.

just that we must not forget. The litany of these slogans conceals other realities and mythologizes the Holocaust, reducing the opportunity to engage with the subject.43 Thus, in terms of Auschwitz’ buildings, whilst the accepted view is that we must not allow them to be eroded by nature and time, there is no proposition for why we should remember, nor do the memorialised buildings give suggestion to how we could remember.

II. Survivor Witness

That there are Holocaust survivors, eyewitnesses, who have retold their accounts of the slaughter, is another failure of the Nazis. Perhaps survivors feel that if the Nazis wanted to hide and expunge this period, then through preserving and exhibiting it, the victims of the persecution have defeated the perpetrators.

“For many people, the underlying purpose of memory - to bear witness - was the raison d’être during the horrors of the camps.”44

However, the Holocaust generation is dying out; the individuals who personally experienced the genocide are passing and with them, memory of the Holocaust is also becoming extinct.45 Many survivors are saddened to accept this, as “forgetting the extermination is part of the extermination itself.”46 Concentration camp survivors are unique. Being interned in a concentration camp awaiting certain starvation or execution is as close a living person can come to death, and they are the closest we can come to those who were exterminated. A terminally ill patient explained the mentality of those who know they will be dead shortly: “there is a wall between us and the living.”47 When former Auschwitz prisoner and acclaimed Holocaust writer Primo Levi committed suicide in 1987, fellow Holocaust survivor and writer Elie Wiesel stated: “Primo Levi died at Auschwitz forty years earlier.”48

In his 1963 semi-autobiographic piece The Long Voyage, concentration camp survivor Jorge Semprún explored the authenticity of Holocaust remembrance once the last survivor has died: “When there will no longer be any real memory of this, only the memory of memories related by those who will never know (as one knows the acidity of a lemon, the feel of wool, the softness of a shoulder) what all this really was.”49

43 44 45 46 47

Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.20 Kraft, R. N. 2002. Memory Perceived: Recalling the Holocaust. Westport: Praeger Publishers. p.165 Gubar, S. 2003. Poetry after Auschwitz : remembering what one never knew. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p 1 Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p 1. Webster Goodwin, S and Bronfen, E (eds). 1993. Death and Representation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press p.vii. Gambetta, D. 2005. Primo Levi’s last Moments. Boston Review (Online) http://bostonreview.net/BR24.3/gambetta.html#Anchor-48213[accessed 7th July 2009] Jan van Pelt, R. Cash Crisis Threat to Auschwitz BBC News (Online) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm [accessed 12 April 2009]

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

This correlates with an underlying viewpoint that the Holocaust is a closed or forbidden memory.50 However, all memories are closed; each memory is unique, both personal and temporal. Semprún is correct that one cannot know exactly the citric bite of a lemon without tasting it, just as a blind man cannot comprehend colour without seeing, nonetheless the purpose of remembrance and memorial is not to relive an experience, but to commemorate and respect it

In 1958, a team of Polish architects and sculptors proposed a scheme for the International Monument competition. Their proposal was that the Birkenau gate would remain closed as no one could pass through it, as the victims did, ever again; a 60x1000m granite walkway would transverses the decaying site diagonally. The design “made no suggestion that there was some way in which the living could trace the steps of the victims, understand their experiences or share their memory.”51 The project was never realised since, although an excellent analysis of the inability of others to share the fate of the victims, it failed to accommodate the survivors’ need for more than just a detached aerial view. It is argued that although the scheme was unbuildable in the 1950s, in the near future, when there are no remaining survivors, it will be the appropriate way to remember52. A later proposal, an underground museum beneath Auschwitz-Birkenau by Robert Jan van Pelt, has also been described as emphasising the unbridgeable chasm between those who have died and those who are alive: “we cannot experience the fate of the victims; at best, we can bear witness to their suffering.”53 In 1949 Theodore Adorno declared that “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.”54 The reference to poetry can be expanded to mean all arts and representation; they are seemingly inappropriate in the context of genocide. This decree set the tone for the way the Holocaust was first retold. In Poetry After Auschwitz: Remembering What One Never Knew, Susan Gubar argues that initially only first-hand evidence was acceptable, generalisations and interpretations were not; to begin with the Holocaust could only be told through interviews, diaries, documentaries and investigations, it could not be portrayed in film, fiction or art by those who had only interpreted others’ original evidence. The survivors had been powerless in the camps but by taking ownership of the memories and remembrance they could regain some small element of control over their previous victimisation.

Site-plan for the unbuilt 1958 scheme, the granite walkway is highlighted against a negative base. Drawing Copyright: Jan van Pelt and Dwork

However, by doing this survivors are asking us to perform an impossible task once they are gone; how can we remember, we were not there. If the Holocaust and Auschwitz are to be an immortalised warning, then the survivors need to facilitate our remembrance through allowing reinterpretation, including of the site and buildings. Gubar warns that if memory is interred with the eyewitnesses, a repetition of the slaughter could be allowed to occur. Professor Jan van Pelt has asserted that the time for reinterpreting Auschwitz will come once the last 50 51 52 53 54

Gubar, S. 2003. Poetry after Auschwitz : remembering what one never knew. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p 1 Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press p. 375 Ibid. Ibid. Gubar, S. 2003. Poetry after Auschwitz : remembering what one never knew. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. p 4

A proposed subterranean museum, also at Birkenau, the barracks are reconstructed as skylights. Drawing Copyright: Jan van Pelt and Backewich

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

survivor is dead. However in my view it is imperative that the reinterpretation is initiated now whilst there are still survivors to be involved with the process. Thus, as the last of the eyewitnesses die they will do so in the comfort of knowing that the history of the Holocaust will be kept alive through those who never lived it.

III. Memory and Remembrance

In Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Frederick C. Bartlett discusses how through repeated recall there is a tendency for departure from source material towards ‘social conventionalisation’. Details can be lost through omission or elaborated through interpretation; aspects can be blended together or condensed. Memories cannot be transferred; they are unique to the individual who experienced them. However, memories can be related and then interpreted to create new memories of memories, remembrance.55 “Memory is in the past however remembrance is always in the present.”56

Eventually through the process of repeated recall, remembrance stabilizes. Everyone remembers differently, but translations always become consistent, shaped by collective customs; memory is never formed in isolation.57 One is initially surprised and amused to observe the transitions that occur during Bartlett’s experiments, for example, the ‘erroneous’ transformation of a mulak into a kitten. When asked to draw what they had seen, lines of ink on paper, the participants applied a hazy empirical remembrance of an image, however this remembrance is strongly shaped by the iconography society uses to symbolize what each thought the lines of ink represented. The initial drawing is a symbol and it becomes another symbol, it is always just a representation or icon, neither the mulak nor the cat ever exists.

IV. Reinterpreting Memorials

Memorials should be flexible enough to allow future generations to reinterpret the significance of what they recall. “No memorial is ever-lasting: each is shaped and understood in the context of its time and place, its meaning contingent on evolving political realities.”58 Monuments and memorials are typically a polished death mask, a portrait frozen in time and unresponsive to contemporary issues.59 But memorials should be fluid, like memory. No story is ever recalled the same way twice, and every narrative evolves over time – memorials should be built with the capacity to change and new meanings to be inserted. In contrast to attempting to embalm Auschwitz, accepting natural flux from 55 56 57 58 59

Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press p.309 Ellis, M. H. The Next Fifty Years: Remembering the Holocaust and the Future of Jewish Life at the Dawn of the 21st Century. In Roth, J. K. + Maxwell, E. 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan p.267 Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.2. Ibid. p.154 Ibid. p.12

Repeated Recall Experiment, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Frederick C. Bartlett (1932). The original drawing is of an Egyptian mulak.

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

the outset will instigate a progression in meaning that is not divisive or schismatic. Societies erecting monuments must embody their contemporary meanings but accept that later generations will visit in new circumstances, and so enfranchise these future generations with the opportunity to reinterpret and re-evaluate not only the history we are recording but also the way in which it is being recorded. In future political and social circumstances it will be for the next societies to “find their own significance in this past.”60

V. Collective Memory

A common motive of survivors in externalizing their memories is a desire to pass something on to the next generation, despite the pain that sharing can involve.61 Isabel Wollaston considers that this process has created a surplus of ‘memory,’62 in the form of individual memoirs and documentaries, without anyone knowing what to do with it collectively. In an ocean of memoirs, an individual survivor’s tale may be lost; if a collective memory is not developed an unbridgeable chasm may form between those who experienced the Holocaust and those who did not. A society must form a collective memory to pass on as generations step away from an event, relating them to their collective past. Like a religious tradition, collective memory informs and shapes education and development; collective history does not rely on upon remembering specific events or dates but develops its own vocabulary and creates a framework that remains unchanged.63 The memorials and concentration camp monuments built now may become an integral part of this shared vocabulary or framework that shapes a collected memory of the Holocaust for future generations to interpret. One concern is that if Auschwitz is open to recall and reinterpretation, the resultant remembrance could become something equally removed from the Holocaust as the conventionalised cat is from the mulak. The vast majority of what one considers ‘history’ is derived through repeated recall, very few of us read ‘original’ source documents or examine ancient artefacts, past events are constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted. However, the rewriting of history is never normally set in such an emotion-laden theatre of evil and horror.64 Our current popular memory of Auschwitz is linked to the physical place. In remembering, we are fixated on the death camp and gas chambers, the workings of mass slaughter. This has in fact desensitized us to the tragedy of the Holocaust. By focussing on the site and preservation it only the buildings, orphaned belongings and camp detritus that we are concerned with. Where the victims are acknowledged it is by their absence: armless sleeves; headless caps; and footless shoes.65 In this, we are not 60 61 62

63 64 65

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press p.154. Kraft, R. N. 2002. Memory Perceived: Recalling the Holocaust. Westport: Praeger Publishers Wollaston, I. A War Against Memory? Nativizing the Holocaust In Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press p.295 Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies pg18 Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.132

Opposite: Victims of Bergen-Belsen, constant exposure to graphic images desensitizes us to the Holocaust.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

remembering their lives, just their moment of death. James Young argues that this is the underlying heartbreak of the present Auschwitz memorialisation: “That the victims of the Holocaust should be primarily known by the image of their death is the greatest tragedy. These lives and the relationships between them are lost to the memory of ruins alone.”66 We should concentrate our efforts on celebrating and commemorating the skills, relationships, bravery and honour that each of these people achieved in their lives before the camp and extermination. It is the responsibility of bodies such as Auschwitz State Museum and the International Auschwitz Council (IAC), to ensure that the individual human stories are not lost to overwhelming statistics and dates that are so authoritative and easy to display.67 In 1993, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum staff presented a project designed to resolve the lack of recognition of Auschwitz’ individual victims. They proposed to fill the Central Sauna with hundreds of glass slabs etched with the names of the deceased; this idea was rejected, as it would “obliterate a unique architectural record.”68 It is clear that the focus on architectural preservation comes at a cost.

VI. Conflict in Remembrance

Superficially, Auschwitz is one symbol, a monolithic icon, but its meaning traverses many groups and is not uniform.69 The memorialisation of Auschwitz has been in contention for over fifty years. As Auschwitz holds such cultural and historical significance a coherent strategy for the site that satisfies the many groups concerned has proved elusive. In 1984, Carmelite nuns moved into a convent on the perimeter of the camp exposing an underlying religious tension at Auschwitz. This event escalated and unsettled differences between Auschwitz’ various grieving factions; during the saga attempts at progress only highlighted the division. For Jewish leaders, the Carmelite’s cross did not symbolise the redemption of the 2 million dead Poles, but the root cause of this persecution. The cross stood for the bigotry and pressure to convert that stoked the religious and racial hatred that culminated in genocide 2,000 years after its inception.70 The Polish nation saw the Catholic Church and their national identity as one and the same; thus, the Jewish resentment of the church riled them, the church was situated on Polish ground and had the right to stay, whereas the vast majority of the Jews were visitors, guests in their country. There is a fundamental tension at Auschwitz, the necessity to create a singular memorial or narrative at the site where the victims came from diverse backgrounds. Jewish “respect for their martyrs 66 67

68 69 70

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.133 Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Auschwitz Report 2008. (available online) http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=49 Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press p.374 Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.11 Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.148

Opposite: The building occupied by the Carmelite nuns overlooking Auschwitz I

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

demands that these defiled, profane grounds of the death camp remain untouched, un-consecrated by institutional prayer”.71 In contrast, Christians make shrines to their fallen - at roadside accidents, sites of execution and cenotaphs - their martyrdom is celebrated and they have striven to keep these places of martyrdom holy.72 Similarly, there is a difficulty with the commemoration of the homosexual victims of the Holocaust; some conservative religious groups - including many Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics - see homosexuality as sinful. During the 60th anniversary of liberation, homosexuals were the only victims not to be commemorated and gay-rights leaders the only victim group not to be invited.73 Clearly the rainbow flag would not be a universally welcome addition to the memorials at Auschwitz. It is saddening that this inability for harmonious co-existence has mirrored the actual cause of the atrocity: intolerance - intolerance towards people who are physically, mentally, sexually, racially or religiously different to ones self. The Nazis were bigots, but by being unable to coexist, these groups are proving that such bigotry is still rife and that some lessons of the Holocaust have still not been learnt. The difficulty of dealing with the many conflicting requirements and parties is exemplified in the failed 1958 international competition for a memorial at Auschwitz-Birkenau; over 400 proposals were entered but none were accepted. Eventually it was decided that creating an appropriate memorial was beyond the means of a single person, and so a committee of architects, artists and sculptors were selected to work together on the design.74 Though strongly abstracted the final design depicts a huddle of people, just before completion it was noticed that some of these were much smaller than the others, they were clearly children and as the child victims couldn’t have been Soviet POWs or Polish political prisoners they were hastily removed.

VII. Becoming a Place of Memory

Auschwitz’ history did not end with its liberation; though the camp’s physical structure has remained frozen in 1945, a narrative of preservation has run into the 21st Century. On 2nd July 1947 the Polish sejm, the lower parliament, decreed that the “the grounds of the former Nazi concentration camp in Oświęcim together with all the buildings and equipment located there shall be preserved for all time as a Monument to the Martyrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations.”75 The Polish state’s will to preserve Auschwitz’ ruins turned this site into a place of memory.76 In 1979 the UNESCO World Herit71 72 73

74 75

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.148 Ibid. Kitlinski, Tomek. 2005. Gays Excluded From Auschwitz Commemoration. Sodomy Laws (online) http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/poland/plnews001.htm [accessed 21st April 2009] Milton, S. 1991. In Fitting Memory: The Art and Politics of Holocaust Memorials. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Pg 130 Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Change to the Auschwitz Entry on the UNESCO World heritage List. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=8 [accessed 4th April 2009] Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.120.

Opposite: The International Monument at Birkenau

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

age Committee added “the Auschwitz Concentration Camp” to its list of World Heritage Sites and the committee ruled that no further objects of this nature would ever be listed. Auschwitz was the first and last death camp that will ever be designated a World Heritage Site. This ruling has further highlighted and elevated Auschwitz’ uniqueness, cultural value and isolation. The survival and subsequent preservation of the physical fabric of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp has no doubt contributed to it becoming so widely known as the symbol of the Holocaust.

Auschwitz’ fate, and its subsequent memorialisation and remembrance can be compared with destroyed Nazi camps such as Bełżec and Bergen-Belsen. In 1942 the Nazis completely dismantled, and so erased, the Bełżec extermination camp; consequently it is almost completely forgotten outside of Poland despite being the execution site for 500,000 Jews.77 That only three people survived Bełżec death camp may also contribute to its obscurity; Auschwitz-Birkenau had many thousands of survivors to bear witness and thus keep its memory alive.78 Immediately after liberation, the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was razed to control a typhus epidemic and lice infestations. Every building was burnt to the ground and nothing remained of the camp. The original memorialisation of Bergen-Belsen, commissioned by the British in 1945, was unsatisfactory; it made no connection to the topography of the original camp. In 2007 a proposal that radically redesigned the memorial was completed, it was based upon 1944 Royal Air Force photographs of the original camp and focuses upon three key tasks: commemorating the victims; researching and documenting the crimes committed there; and cultivating deeper knowledge and understanding of the Holocaust.79 The new design centres on the Documentation Building, an exposed concrete structure that sits in dense woodland - planted by the SS to hide the evidence of mass graves - just outside the former camp; the top of the building cantilevers a few meters into the original boundary,80 emphasising that whilst the building is not encroaching upon the site it is in connection with it. The Documentation Building is part of the historical context of BergenBelsen and the landscaped walk structures the topographical and spatial context. The design of the building is simple and elegant; it aims to open up the site and history, making the invisible legible to visitors. As the original camp had been destroyed and the existing Bergen-Belsen memorial gave no connection to the past, the architects and authorities had a carte blanche with which to create a fresh, intelligent memorial that reinterprets the memorialisation and preservation of the Nazi death camps.

77 78 79 80

Hilberg, R. 1961. The Destruction of the European Jews, London, W.H. Allen , p.244 Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.2 Bergen-Belsen Memorial. Redesign. (online) www.bergenbelsen.de/en/neugstaltung/ [accessed 6th September] Ibid.

Opposite: External shots of The Documentation Building at Bergen-Belsen by KSP Engel and Zimmermann Architects

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Conclusion After analysing Auschwitzâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role in remembrance and memorial I do not consider that there is enough evidence to justify continued preservation of the site. The initial move to preserve the camp ensured that survivors had the opportunity to return to their camp to instigate remembrance; but now other former Nazi camps, unhindered by the determination to preserve the camp, are moving to the next stage of commemoration through reinterpretation and rebuilding.

I see merit in the argument that since the intolerances that fuelled the Holocaust have not been expunged, Auschwitz should be embalmed as a raw, unresolved reminder of the outcome of bigotry. However, we must not mistake the remaining fragments of Auschwitz as the concentration camp itself, the camp no longer exists. Collective memory does not rely on specific objects, such as Auschwitz, but is much more fundamental; allowing Auschwitz to decay will liberate a deeper exploration of the Holocaust. We can share neither the experience nor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust , and the treatment of the camp needs to reflect this. The remembrance of Auschwitz cannot be preserved: remembrance is fluid. Currently the camp is artificially static and cannot be part of the remembrance process. Memorials must be flexible to ensure that successive generations can find their own significance in the past. The rigid preservation of Auschwitz prevents this evolution.

Opposite: The exposed concrete gives a calm permanence to the gallery. The displays are crisply designed but sparse.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

2. Preservation and Authenticity The material evidence of the Holocaust is just as fragile, finite and easily corroded as the human memory of the event. All buildings are created from the earth and some day they will return to it. Whilst standing, they must constantly stave off gravity, erosion and decay. Over a long enough timescale this is a battle no structure can win: “subsequent generations will seek memory only in the rubble of the past.”81 To determine the future of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we must ask what the reasons are for preservation of the former-concentration camp; we must also consider methods of effectively ensuring the future of Auschwitz’ physical fabric and how this affects its identity and authenticity.

I. The Paradox of Preservation

That Auschwitz can be exhibited to bear evidence of the Nazis’ crimes is one of the reasons that so many feel it should be preserved, but to determine its future we must consider the fundamental question of whether the camp should actually be maintained or reconstructed at all. Opinion is entirely polarised over preservationist intervention at the former concentration camp.82 Some argue that it should be left to fall into ruins whilst others are dedicated to ensuring that it stands forever as a memorial to the “martyrdom of the Polish nation and other peoples.”83 Those in charge of Auschwitz’ future - the International Auschwitz Council (IAC) and the museum authorities - must try to find an impossible solution that pleases all parties. No compromise is feasible;84 indecision led to the authorities attempting to maintain the status quo, leaving the more fundamental question of AuschwitzBirkenau unresolved. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, Chairman of the International Auschwitz Council and Auschwitz Survivor, is one of the many who are adamant that the camp must be preserved in perpetuity:

“Auschwitz-Birkenau is like a continuous sting of remorse that torments humanity, especially Europe. It is a sting of remorse for every person who is indifferent to the suffering of others. Auschwitz-Birkenau must forever remain an unhealed, burning wound, which wakes people up from moral lethargy and forces them to take responsibility for the fate of our world. 85” 81 82

83 84 85

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.133 Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Preservation Work at the Birkenau Site. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=8 [accessed 4th April 2009] Ray, L. J. 2007. Globalisation and Everyday Life. Routledge pg 98 Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p. 138. Bartoszewski, W. Cash Crisis Threat to Auschwitz: BBC news (online) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm [accessed 12 April 2009]

Jolanta Banaś agrees that Auschwitz should be preserved forever. As a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a completely unique example, she feels that Auschwitz would never be allowed to fall into ruins.86However, she proposes that allowing the site to decay is a decision that the International Auschwitz Council alone can make.87

Much of the original Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp has already been lost; what is present today has been artificially embalmed since liberation in 1945 and some parts are recreations, built from the rubble fleeing SS troops left behind. The temporal nature of the building fabric and truth of authenticity have been lost; perhaps the desire to preserve Auschwitz for future generations has been taken too literally so far.

When The Long Voyage author Jorge Semprún imagined the fate of Buchenwald, the concentration camp he was interned in, he envisaged a camp overgrown and destroyed by nature.88 Even the buildings of a highly organized regime will ultimately be defeated by natural forces as they are eroded by the elements, decay over time and are overcome by vegetation. Professor Jonathon Webber, a founding member of the International Auschwitz Council,89 agrees with the concept of allowing the monuments to decay, emphasising that ruins are amongst the most powerful form of memorial, as they bear “silent witness to a destroyed world.”90

II. Preserving Buildings Built To Disappear

Building preservation is not a novel field, the Parthenon survives in Athens 2,500 years after construction; however the Parthenon was built to stand for millennia and is still proving extremely difficult to protect from the ravages of time. “Unlike most monuments in the world, Auschwitz was never intended to last,”91 says Bohdan Rymmarwiki of The Warsaw Culture Ministry. “The Germans built the camp with the intention of exterminating an entire race and then destroying the evidence of this deed. Everything was poorly made - the barracks, the crematoriums, the paper used for documents. It is difficult to preserve something that was made to vanish”92 According to Banaś, Poland’s climate is also a major problem. Exposure to the cold wet weather and strong winds quickly destroys the substandard wooden barracks at Birkenau; the buildings are poorly engineered, with thin walls, weak foundations and a design that has wooden elements in contact with ground water.93 86 87 88

89 90

91 92 93

Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B) Ibid. Jan van Pelt, R. Cash Crisis Threat to Auschwitz: BBC News (online) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm [accessed 12 April 2009] Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, prologue Swiebocka, Teresa, ed. 2007. Auschwitz: A History in Photographs. Warsaw: Indiana University Press, p.291 Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p.80. Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p.138. Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B)

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

“The dynamited remains of the gas chambers at Birkenau reveal not only the Germans’ crimes but also their attempts to conceal them.”94 The image of the blown up crematoria is too iconic to be allowed to fully collapse and too valuable as evidence to be repaired. Instead, it is artificially suspended in purgatory, appearing as a frozen moment; the concrete slab is poised precariously on top of collapsed walls, bricks and rubble litter the ground. The scene appears as if the Nazi dynamite had exploded just seconds earlier; one feels as though the air should still be thick with dust and sediment, your ears simultaneously ringing and deaf. To a keen eye, however, the thick steel supports that maintain this ‘edge of collapse’ image are visible.

III. A Responsibility to Preserve Forever

Institutions such as the Auschwitz State Museum are custodians of objects; in this role preservation is the principal responsibility.95 The cornerstone of preservation is maintaining objects for the maximum length of time: “if not indefinitely, then at least for as long as possible.”96 Museums also have a duty to increase open access to cultural relics. However, they act predominantly as storehouses with only a small percentage of their collection on public display at any one time.97 In between periods of exhibition, items are returned to controlled storage, making future display possible.98 By permanently exhibiting historic artefacts, such as the buildings, in their original position - exposed to the weather – one can ask if Auschwitz State Museum is fulfilling its custodial responsibility of preservation. Is it standing by the declaration that “Forever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity”? Without stringent preservation, the only remnants of Auschwitz in 60 years’ time may be the name and translated memory.99 Preservation specialist Banaś admits that they do not know how much longer the building will last,100 and preservationists must accept that eventually there is no more that can be done. The difficulty at Auschwitz is increased due to the state of the site: “How one goes about preserving ruins, which by their nature grow more ruinous every day?”101 Traditional preservation concentrates on a small number of the most significant artefacts; preserving this pivotal evidence for as long as possible allows the surplus material to decay naturally without the event being wiped from history. That is not the approach currently taken at Auschwitz. According to Witold Smerk, the former head of conservation, the museum faces a massive preser94 95 96 97 98

99 100 101

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.132. Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p. 134. Ibid. p. 136. Ibid. p. 134. Ibid. Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38.p. 80. Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B) Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.153.

Opposite: The ruins of Crematorium II

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

vation task; not only does “everything needs constant maintenance and restoration,”102 but also the sheer volume of historic building materials, documents and personal effects continues to swamp their efforts. “The brick buildings, the wooden barracks, the barbed-wire-fence posts, the shoes, the suitcases, the prison uniforms, the metal artefacts. We have twenty cubic meters of spoons, forks and other metal articles. We are trying to preserve everything we can, but we can only do so much. The problem is that nothing lasts forever.”103 Technologically, the physical structures - bricks, mortar, chimneys and prefabricated barracks - are not paragons of architecture; benign, they are just converted horse stables, crematoria and ill-plumbed shower blocks. It is their history that carries their meaning. It is a history of the most mechanical, industrialized mass-murder the world has known; a history in which these very buildings played a key part. Admittedly these fragments are a unique record of the architecture of extermination, but the authority of this record and clarity of spirit is being diluted and blurred through preservation and reconstruction. It is important that we do not mistake these fragments of history as history itself, something that by preserving them we invite others to do.104

If the important artefacts are to stand and bear witness for future generations, collections need to be edited down and preserved in specialist conditions. The remaining articles should be allowed to fade away. At Auschwitz there is a sense of duty towards the preservation of every object collected in the museum, it may be difficult to accept that not only are some items past preserving but also that there is a hierarchy of value of what should be preserved.

IV. The Cost of Preservation

The museum needs €120m to support the preservation efforts long term. Auschwitz is an UNESCO World Heritage Site but receives no funding from UNESCO or any other large multinational agency; clearly Auschwitz-Birkenau is important to every nation of the world but for too long funding has been shouldered largely by Poland alone. The pressure on funding is increased as Poland has honourably vowed that Auschwitz should be free to access and so has never charged an entrance fee or looked to aggressively make money from visitors. Respondents in my study stated that funding is an international responsibility105; additionally it was suggested that donations should pass through international bodies such as UNESCO, ensuring that no specific interest group could claim ownership. In February 2009, Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, wrote to European leaders asking them to contribute 102 103 104 105

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p.70. Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p.70.. Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.120 Replies to interview transcripts (Appendix C)

Opposite: Indicative of the widespread damage. The Polish climate has corroded the reinforcement bars of this concrete post.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

to the creation of this €120m fund.106 Envisaged as a one-off endowment, the fund would be invested securely, with the €4-5m annual interest yield used to finance the Auschwitz’ conservation.107British Prime Minister Gordon Brown responded to Tusk’s letter by visiting Auschwitz Birkenau and, whilst not committing to an exact amount or date, pledging that the British government would donate money to further preservation at Auschwitz. In an actively neutral tone, he announced: “We will join with other countries in supporting the maintenance and retention of the memorial at Auschwitz.”108 One must ask if spending millions on preservation is the best use of this funding, which could alternatively finance a massive education program or new building such as an education centre, a documentation centre, a Holocaust Studies Institute or a new museum that sat just outside of the camps’ boundaries.

V. Preservation and Restoration

The issue of preservation was raised as early as 1948; Kazimierz Koźniewski, a reporter for a weekly newsmagazine wrote about the dilapidation of the former concentration camp:

“The Birkenau barracks have for the most part been dismantled and put to other uses. The few remaining ones are in the same state as when they were abandoned in January 1945—dirty, with bloodstains and crushed insects on the walls. Over the last three years, they have sunken into the ground and are rotting and collapsing. They are still fearsome and recall bygone times. However, this will soon end. Either the wind and rain will wash them away, or special conservation will protect them while vanquishing the spectre of the [Nazi] system. These opposites cannot be reconciled.”109

By the 1960’s most of the buildings, guard towers and fences at Auschwitz had rusted, decayed and completely collapsed.110 Due to those post-war years of neglect only eight of the 300 wooden barracks remain today.111 Former inmate Ernest Wolfgang Michel first returned to Auschwitz on 1st July 1983: “I had not known what to expect, but I was amazed at how much the camp had deteriorated. The barracks we had lived in were totally disintegrating. The exhibits, the hair, the combs, the suitcases, the artificial legs were all in just total disrepair. That convinced me that something had to

106

107

108

109

110 111

Stratton, Allegra. 2009. UK promises to help fund upkeep of Auschwitz. The Guardian (online) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/28/gordon-brown-auschwitz-poland [accessed 26th June 2009] Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. The Future of the Memory of Auschwitz Is in the Hands of Europe. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=595&Itemid=8 [accessed 15th April 2009] Stratton, Allegra. 2009. UK promises to help fund upkeep of Auschwitz. The Guardian (online) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/28/gordon-brown-auschwitz-poland [accessed 26th June 2009] Kazimierz Koźniewski, “Drażliwy temat”, Przekrój nr 179, 12-18 IX 1948 r. From Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Preservation Work at the Birkenau Site. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=8 [accessed 4th April 2009] Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38.p. 78. Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Auschwitz Report 2008. (available online) http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=49

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

be done, because that place was just falling apart. That is when I knew something had to be done to save Auschwitz.”112 Five years later Ronald Lauder visited Auschwitz: “You could see the place deteriorating before your very eyes – the shoes, the suitcases, the wooden barracks.”113 He predicted that in a few more years Auschwitz would be gone forever and realized that something had to be done to save it. Lauder set up a team of specialists from the preservation department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art; they needed £23m to fund the preservation and decided to approach the twenty-three countries that had citizens deported to Auschwitz,114 they received the full amount but from just 11 countries.115 Following Lauder’s intervention, cash and expertise were pumped into preserving Auschwitz, but this raised issues over the procedure for preservation. “Before the mid-twentieth century, preservation referred to collecting. The very act of acquiring materials and placing them in an institution constituted preservation. When individual items received physical treatment, that was considered restoration.”116 Since the mid-twentieth century, the boundary between the fields of preservation and restoration have been debated and blurred. As deputy director of Auschwitz, Krystyna Olesky said that the museum could not deliberate over the distinctions between restoration, renovation and reconstruction: “there are countless decisions that have to be made every day… …you cannot have a meeting of intellectuals every time something has to be done. We simply don’t have the time.”117

However, Detlef Hoffman, a German professor of art history, thinks it would have been prudent to consider such implications: “some participants at the [1993 ‘The Future of Auschwitz: Should the Relicts be Preserved?] conference found it ironic that while we were sitting there discussing what should be done to preserve the site, the museum has gone ahead with many restoration projects, some of which may irreparably damage the integrity of the site”.118 One of the negatively received restoration projects was the reconstruction of the wooden barracks using historic materials discovered on the site.119 The original barracks sat straight onto the ground, exposing the wood to water absorption and rapid decay, however the reconstructions used brick foundations, increasing each building’s lifespan by many times. A reconstruction followed the original design would have survived just five years, but the restorations were clearly historically inaccurate.120 112 113 114 115

116 117 118 119

120

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 77. Ibid. Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 73. Leibovich-Dar, Sara. A fading Memory. Haaretz (online) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=24 3085&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y [accessed June 26th 2009] Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p. 134 Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p.78 Ibid. Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B) Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 79

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

Author James Young suggests that fakes and recreations could turn Auschwitz into a theme park.121 That view may be rather alarmist, but, if a preserved Auschwitz serves as some sort of evidence that refutes the claims made by Holocaust deniers, then could its authority be hampered by the constant alterations brought by preservation and restoration? Certainly the “Fake” gas chamber at Auschwitz I gave Holocaust Deniers headline-grabbing ammunition, but the museum accepts that it is a “recreation,” justifying its rebuilding because the Germans dismantled the original to hide their crimes.

When asked if she though the addition of these new elements affects visitors perception of authenticity, Jolanta Banaś admitted that it could influence individuals’ perceptions. She added that the museum tries to implement things in a way to reduce the impact upon the site’s authenticity; for example, when new elements or restoration projects are undertaken, they are done so in a way that makes it clear what is original and what is not.122 Whilst visiting Birkenau one realises that this intention is not always carried out; the steel columns supporting the ruins of Crematoria II are indeed a noticeable modern intervention, however, what is also noticeable the attempt to conceal them; the steels are painted a shadowy black and broken bricks are piled purposely over their footings.

The concentration camp buildings only exist in the conscience of those who actually experienced persecution there; they only exist as phenomena – interactions with people. Preserving the remains of these buildings and reversing the decay they have experienced confuses not only their authenticity but also their place in history, by removing the buildings from their temporal and spatial context, they are reduced to just a reminder of a building. One may feel that the reconstructions add very little to the narrative of the extermination; that Auschwitz can be remembered without the buildings as visual aides. However, Jean-Claude Pressac, author of 1989 tome Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers - the book which gave irrefutable proof of the deliberate extermination at AuschwitzBirkenau - disagrees that recreated buildings have a negative impact, rather he urges that Crematorium III should be reconstructed as a powerful aide to remembrance: “I want people to experience exactly what it meant to enter the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”... “I want them to walk down the stairs into the chamber, to stand before the ovens and see that this was insane and criminal. I want it to slap you in the face. You can’t create a memory, but you can create an experience as powerful as memory.”123

VI. Authenticity: Identity and Change

The accuracy and impact of these additions, alterations and recreations is only a small part of a bigger question of authenticity: the paradox of preservation and restoration. Can identity survive change? As long ago as the first century AD, Greek historian Plutarch queried authenticity and change: 121 122 123

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.142 Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B) Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38.p. 78.

Opposite: The steel columns and beams that maintain the ruins in this purgatory are visible

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [after he had slain the Minotaur,] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.124

ground twice in this century. “So it isn’t the original building?” I had asked my Japanese guide. “But yes, of course it is,” he insisted, rather surprised at my question. “But it’s burnt down?” “Yes.” “Twice.”

If all of the elements of the original were replaced piece by piece would it still be the Ship of Theseus? If all the old, replaced, pieces were then used to build a new ship, which ship would be the Ship of Theseus?

The works of Aristotle and other classical philosophers form the foundations upon which Western civilisation has been built. In Aristotle’s treatise Metaphysics, physical constituents are considered to be only one of four definitions or ‘causes’ of an object. The Material Cause is what an object is formed from; using a statue as an example, the material cause might be marble. The Formal Cause is the ideas or principles that shaped its creation; the pattern or blueprint, idea or image of the sculpture. The Efficient Cause is how an object is made; in this example it is not only the sculptor’s actions, but also the knowledge of sculpting. The Final Cause is the sake for which it is made; the creation of a statue could be for the commemoration of a hero.125 In order for two objects to be the same their definitions must be identical; therefore, the restored ship is no longer the Ship of Theseus. Although it is still built to the same design (Formal Cause), constructed in the same way (Efficient Cause) and still has the same function (Final Cause), it is made of different planks of timber (Material Cause). However, if during the original voyage a single rotten plank were to be replaced, one would still have to concede that the object has changed and so it would be a different ship. It follows that any tiny change in any property of an object would mean that the whole object as an entity is destroyed. After replacing a single rotten splinter, Aristotle’s principles say that it is a different ship, and yet our pragmatic sentiment would say that it is still the same ship. The Ship of Theseus paradox plays upon this tension between the ontological universe and our own reality, one’s experiences and sentimentality. In contrast to the Western focus upon perfection and originality, some Eastern cultures have an expressive acceptance of material impermanence; a concept author Douglas Adams initially found difficult to accept:

“I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn’t weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the

124

125

Plutarch, 75 A.C.E. Thesus. Translated by John Dryden. http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/theseus.html [accessed 5th August 2009] Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2008. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ [accessed 5th August 2009]

“Many times.” “And rebuilt.” “Of course. It is an important and historic building.” “With completely new materials.” “But of course. It was burnt down.” “So how can it be the same building?” “It is always the same building.” I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.”126 A similar example of this attitude regards the Japanese Shrine at Ise; the temple is deliberately disassembled every 20 years and rebuilt using the original construction techniques as part of a cycle that dates back over 1,200 years.127 This embodies the Japanese philosophy of wabi-sabi. Wabi-sabi “nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect.”128 In certain instances Western culture also accepts the concept of constant flux and impermanence: humans are subject to change. Cells die and new ones grow; over time the body absorbs atoms and molecules to replace those that are excreted or shed.129 A 70-year-old person may contain none of the particles with which they were born, but we consider that an elderly person has been the same individual throughout their life. 126 127 128 129

Adams, D. Carwardice, M. 1992. Last Chance to See. Pan Books p. 141 Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580867/ise_shrine.html[accessed 4th August 2009] Powell, Richard R. 2005. Wabi Sabi Simple. Avon, MA: Adams Media. p. ix Wade, N. 2005. Your Body is Younger than you Think. The New York Times (online) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?ex=1280635200&en=65bd5e6cef9fec79&ei=5088&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss [accessed 6th August 2009]

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

If Auschwitz’ authenticity is analyzed from an Aristotelian perspective, then the buildings standing presently are definitely not the buildings of Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp. Through restoration and recreation not only has the Material Cause changed but also the building’s purpose, or Final Cause, which is now to exhibit past inhumanity rather than to practice inhumanity, or, as James Young phrased it: “extermination and these buildings were once one and the same, now they are irreversibly disconnected.”130

Whilst considering the wabi-sabi worldview, maintaining the original materials of Auschwitz seems inconsequential to its significance. This could justify Auschwitz being totally rebuilt or recreated from the original drawings. However, one must remember that the Shrine at Ise and human bodies are designed to incorporate the impermanence of materials, therefore change does not affect their identity. Auschwitz-Birkenau was designed to be temporary, by even maintaining the buildings we have gone against their essence; by reconstructing in a more rugged, weather-resistant manner the buildings’ spirit has been further violated. Preservation of a temporary object invalidates its impermanence. Ideally, to maintain their identity the buildings should not have been preserved but replaced with new barracks prefabricated to the same specification, using the same mentality of cheapness and temporariness and with the same disregard to the people who would die in them; only the Nazis could execute this callousness.

VII. Consultation and Deliberation

Former museum director Jerzy Wróblewski believes the museum’s collection of hair is the most irrefutable evidence of the Holocaust: “Certainly, we will have photographs and eyewitness testimonies, but the hair will remain the ultimate proof of what happened here.”131 Whilst the human hair is the among the most emotive symbols of the genocide it is also the most divisive; not only is the public exhibition of these human remains debated in terms of privacy and respect but because in its current display it is rapidly disintegrating. The hair was previously cleaned using naphtha and is now turning into dust. Wróblewski personally believes the hair should be removed from display and preserved in controlled storage as lasting evidence. The display would be replaced with a high-resolution panoramic photograph.132 The hair is very quickly approaching a critical point in its decay, beyond which no preservation will be possible. Unlike with the buildings of Auschwitz-Birkenau, if the hair was removed, replaced or buried there would be a massive public outcry, igniting a debate over preservation, identity and authenticity. Wróblewski considers that a “long process of deliberation”133 would be necessary before any decision could be made with the hair: “Before we do anything we must gather the opinions of lots of people – philosophers, intellectuals, humanists, religious leaders- to determine 130 131 132 133

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.119. Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 80. Ibid. Ibid.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

what would be the best thing to do.”134 If neither the experts nor public would accept the hair being ‘recreated’ or invasively altered without dispute; why should we allow the buildings, which are equally unique, temporal and significant as evidence, be irreparably changed without a public test case?

Conclusion

The viewpoints of the preservationists and the non-interventionists are directly opposing and so neither side will be able to achieve either a unanimous backing or promote a consensus; it is likely therefore that the un-ratified preservation will continue. But when determining Auschwitz’ future, the route of preservation should not be accepted as already decided; a public exploration of the impact of conservation upon Auschwitz’ identity and authenticity is required. There is indisputably a legitimate argument for preservation. The intention of the Polish government was that this building should stand forever and it is every museum’s responsibility that the artefacts in its collection are preserved for long-term existence. By preserving Auschwitz we are exposing not only the Nazis’ failure to conceal their crimes but we are also sending a message that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated, the technological difficulties that the preservation of temporary structures presents are therefore a justified hardship. However, the question over the cost and effort of preservation is about what is the most appropriate focus for the legacy of Auschwitz. Would the best use of resources be in preserving the past or investing in the future? Through investment in new resources Auschwitz could be pivotal in preventing a repetition of the extermination. However, the implications of restoration and preservation can be just as damaging to an object as neglect. Through preservation and change in purpose, Auschwitz is losing its identity; continued intervention risks reducing the camp to a replica.

134

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 80.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

3. Auschwitz Now In order to judge what Auschwitz’ future should be we must question the camp’s current relationship with society. We must consider if the huge number of visitors Auschwitz attracts is justification for its continued preservation, and ask what impact does Auschwitz-Birkenau actually have on visitors? If Auschwitz is meant to be a warning to humanity, we must examine how effective a deterrent Auschwitz is to genocide and how its preservation contributes towards preventing future extermination.

I. The Relevance of Visitor Numbers

More than 1.1 million people visited Auschwitz in 2008; 700,000 of them were school or university aged.135 Jolanta Banaś believes that “The number of tourists, or people who come here to see the place, is the proof or evidence that the place needs to be preserved, to be kept for some long time.”136

However, the numbers of visitors cannot be directly correlated with cultural value. By way of example, in 1989 the number of British visitors was amongst the lowest of any European country.137 Jonathon Webber commented that this was due to Britain’s lack of involvement with the Holocaust. However, in 2008 109,600 British citizens visited the former concentration camp, second only to Poland in the most populous nationality. This rise may be in part from a greater knowledge or interest in Auschwitz or it may be more due to the increase in popularity of Poland as a tourist destination after the fall of the Berlin wall and communism in Poland in 1989. But this is clear evidence that visitor numbers alone cannot be the judge of Auschwitz’ cultural value, nor justification of a blanket preservation policy.

II. Visiting Auschwitz

When visiting the camp now, one enters via the former prisoners’ reception building in Auschwitz I. This building appears to have been completely remodelled internally and shows no evidence of its previous incarnation. It contains all of the facilities you would expect to find in a museum: offices, a restaurant, a snack kiosk, toilets, guide booking facilities, general information desks and a cloakroom. You wind through, past crowds of confused tourists, and exit into an area dominated by a large lawn, flanked on the left by workshop buildings and on the far right by the fence to the main camp. The path curves towards the barrack blocks, and at once, Auschwitz’ most famous image is upon you: the gate bearing ‘Arbeit macht frei’. Unlike in the postcards, the gateway is crowded with tourists and one is hit not by a flood of sorrow but the uncomfortable feeling of voyeurism. 135

136 137

Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Auschwitz Report 2008. (available online) http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=49 Interview with Jolanta Banaś (Appendix B) Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.11

Opposite: Crowds of visitors surround the gates at Auschwitz I

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

“One’s first visit to Auschwitz can cause a shock, not because of the horror they convey but because of the unexpected beauty.”138 Walking through the gate you arrive in the Stammlager; 22 two-storey brick barracks - topped with semi-hipped roofs of clay tiles - sit in neat rows, set back evenly from the poplar-lined avenue. The warming European summer-sun casts dappled light upon the car-less streets and litter-less pavements. It appears a pleasant and healthy place, the quiet footsteps and occasional rustle of passing families gives the site a soothing calm; momentarily, the experience is similar to walking between handsome suburban housing blocks. These robust buildings have weathered well, and apart from the additional storeys added by the Nazis, there is little evidence to show that the exteriors have changed at all in the last 80 years. The confusion is short lived; double-layer barbed-wire fences surround the camp. They are no longer electrified and with over 13km of fences for to the museum tend to, much of the wire is corroded, un-tensioned and hangs untidily. The decayed wooden signs displaying a skull-and-crossbones above stencilled German lettering are another of the few indicators that so much time has passed between Auschwitz and its disturbing past. The museum has cut openings in the fences, creating thoroughfares where there were boundaries previously. These interventions increase the efficiency of exploring a site where movement was formerly restricted, but confuses one’s understanding of the original camp layout, diminishes the feeling of restriction and invalidates the authenticity of the site.

Walls in some rooms are enlivened where original messages and illustrations are visible, these interactions between the prisoners and the buildings are amongst the most insightful relics at the camp. Inside Block XI, the punishment block, there are no gallery-type exhibitions but in places the past inhabitants have left their own inscriptions in the building’s fabric. The inside face of the fortified doors – doors to cells where prisoners spent weeks starving to death as a punishment - have been heavily clawed with human fingernails attempting to scratch through 2 inches of wood and iron. There is no more poignant a reminder of the futility of resistance and the horror of the inmates’ existence than this. The grubby floors and walls in the lightless corridors of the block are dirty and chipped by the passage of thousands of visitors, creating a truly menacing atmosphere. However, , in the punishment room the museum has removed successive layers of bricks to give a cut-away-view of the suffocating interior of the punishment cells. This alteration impacts upon the feeling of authenticity as its execution is almost cartoon-ish, but also because one starts again questioning what is original and what is recreation. Crematoria I is considered amongst the most poignant exhibits in Auschwitz; however, knowing that it is a reconstruction reduces its impact. In another exhibit an intricately cast scale-model of Crematoria II displays each room in operation. By replicating every stage of the extermination process with figurines the model shows the human occupation and is more evocative and educational than the fullscale reconstruction of Crematoria I. A model’s recreation is secondary to the story it portrays. The bustle of Auschwitz I contrasts sharply with the peace and vastness of Birkenau, a free shuttle 138

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.120.

Opposite: A decayed sign warns of the electrified barbed-wire fence, a rare example of the passage of time at Auschwitz I

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

bus is provided to ferry visitors the two kilometres between the sites, yet only a small proportion find it; presumably most people are content to visit the famous gates and museum at the stammlager. The encounter with Birkenau is even more disconcerting than that with the main camp. Single storey brick and wooden barracks, slightly decayed and aged in an amiable way, sit upon a fine green baize of cut grass. When one looks up, the relaxed demeanour of quaint buildings beside the tidy lawn is contrasted against the massive scale and repetition of the overall site, creating an eerie expanse. The mown lawn, more suitable for an evergreen paradise garden - where the perpetual verdant growth symbolises life’s triumph over death - is sprinkled with patches of delicate wild flowers.

The grass was not always here. When the site was operational, the ground was well-trodden, bare earth. The starving inmates would have eaten any vegetation. The grass does not know it should not be there: “[it is] the indifferent onward growth of nature.”139 Ernst van Alphen feels that nature has not only overgrown but also betrayed this site: “the trees are guilty, they witnessed it but refuse to testify, they are guilty not only of their unwillingness to testify, but because they efface the traces left by the violence.”140 By bearing flowers season after season, and by growing year after year, nature betrays the site twice, beautifying an ugly landscape of genocide and demonstrating the march of time: “Time produces forgetting just as nature overgrows the place of action.”141 Similar to Flanders’s poppy-strewn fields, Birkenau is becoming picturesque and park like, this fits unnaturally with its past and the emotional connections one has preconceived: “It is peaceful here but unfitting.”142 Perhaps the neat lawn that one now finds at Auschwitz is a reaction to the 1992 description by Jonathon Webber of Auschwitz as being “overgrown and covered with weeds and untended grass.”143 He proposed that activists envisage their duty of remembering the Holocaust as “beating down those long grasses.”144 Whilst one is inside Birkenau’s empty wooden barracks, Pferdestallbarcken (horse-stable-huts), the flimsiness of construction is revealed, as is the reduction of architecture to the purpose of housing bodies for sleep. But without the 744 starving prisoners crammed into bunks designed for a dozen horses, it is difficult for a visitor to feel the sense of overcrowding or the depravity of accommodation they are infamous for. One cannot understand the insanitary nature of the latrines - the smell, the queues, the disease and faeces covering the place - now that they are pristine. Now the buildings have been detached from their occupants and function they have lost a lot of their meaning. The physical structures carry very little significance alone; it is through interactions with people – occupation – that they are given life and meaning. 139 140

Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.2 Ernst van Alphen. Touching Death. In Webster Goodwin, S, and Bronfen, E. (eds). 1993. Death and Representation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, p 33. 141 Ibid. p 34. 142 Ibid. 143 Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.2 144 Ibid. Opposite: Inside a wooden barrack devoid of inhabitation Overleaf: Panorama from the Man Gate at Birkenau

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

Visitors planning a trip to Auschwitz need to be reminded that it is not a concentration camp now, it is not as harrowing as the images of the Holocaust they have seen; boisterous tourists interrupt the poignancy of the site. It is difficult to imagine the horror of the Death Wall when a man wearing sandals is lining his family against it to snap a memento of their holiday in Poland. Throngs of visitors from across the world flock to see the former concentration camp, some generating complaints that they lack respect for the site: drinking alcohol; wearing insubstantial clothing; chatting inappropriately; posing for photographs in an offensive manner; and allowing their children to disturb the quiet. A major problem caused by disrespectful tourist is that of graffiti; not only does it look very unsightly but from a preservation perspective the prisoners’ inscriptions are defaced and devalued by contemporary vandalism. People are so offended by the graffiti because Auschwitz is not just a museum, however it occurs because people don’t treat the camp with the respect they would a grave. As discussed in the next section, these cross-purposes will always jar. It was once suggested that a dress and behaviour code should be enforced at Auschwitz, stopping it from becoming just another tourist site.145 However, it was felt that this would only serve to exclude people, in violation of the principle that Auschwitz should be open to everyone. The tourists, with their playing children, should be tolerated and accommodated as they mean no harm, and for them the camp presents daily realities around which their existing lives are negotiated.146 Wróblewski admits that the impact of Auschwitz is diminishing over time: “The era of the concentration camps is history. Fifty years from now, it will seem like Verdun or Waterloo.”147 When all memory of the Holocaust is extinct, in a time long after the concentration camp actually existed, this site and its preserved buildings will still be standing, but they will be just another antiquated landmark that tourists visit: this cannot be an acceptable resolution at Auschwitz.

III. Auschwitz’s Multiple Roles

Auschwitz is no longer a Nazi camp, in certain respects it is a museum: an institution dedicated to the acquisition, display and interpretation of cultural, historic and educational objects. It has the necessary exhibitions, guides, postcards and books.148 Each year survivors return to Auschwitz to reflect upon the genocide or to pay remembrance to their fallen relatives, friends and comrades; how can a museum cater for these pilgrims?149 One must consider that this place is not only a museum -although the cremated remains were dumped in piles, not scattered ceremonially, and it has never been conse145 146 147 148 149

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. London: Yale University Press, p.153. Ibid., p.142 Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38. p. 80. Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.5 Ibid. p.6

Opposite: Children playing happily amongst the polar-lined avenues of Auschwitz I

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

crated - Auschwitz is a cemetery; this land contains the ashes of over a million dead.150 For this reason, remembrance should be respectfully observed and disturbance of the earth minimised; is further development, construction or excavation appropriate on a site that is one of the largest mass graves in the world?

During the summer Auschwitz is also a place of mass tourism.151 The swell in visitor numbers disturbs the austere atmosphere of the camp and requires the addition of extra amenities such as car parking, bins, access ramps, signs and other clutter. In order to accommodate tourist facilities and a museum Auschwitz’ integrity and originality is being compromised. Finding precedents to compare the Auschwitz operation with is difficult. It is not just a museum but it is also a memorial, a cemetery, a place of education, an archive, a gathering place and hallowed ground.152 153 It was not just a concentration camp but a death camp as well. The victims of the extermination at Auschwitz were Jews, Poles, Soviets, Roma, Sinti, homosexuals, and the disabled. There is no single category that Auschwitz fits into; it is complicated with multiple strands of existence and multiple groups affected by it.

IV. Auschwitz as a Deterrent to Genocide

The intention of Jews, Poles and other victims of the Holocaust to use Auschwitz to prevent the future genocide of any people, in any location, injects some meaning and positive value into the otherwise pointless murder of millions of innocent people. Through remembrance, Auschwitz-Birkenau stands as a reminder that no matter how civilised or advanced the world is, humans can still perpetrate crimes against humanity. It is a warning to the international community that in the face of genocide, inaction and indifference cannot be tolerated. Auschwitz has been long-standing proof of the need for organisations such as the UN to enforce fundamental human rights at an international level. Nonetheless, by preserving the camp are we ensuring that atrocities such as genocide will occur ‘Never Again’? More recent history, for example, the war crimes committed in Rwanda and Kosovo, tells us that the answer is no.

Conclusion

I do not think that it is appropriate that the site, containing the ashes of thousands of victims, is part of a museum. It should be a cemetery and memorial, and the other functions of Auschwitz should move outside of the camp’s boundaries. Auschwitz has to define its own mode of multi-faceted existence; a design and consultation project for a new building at Auschwitz would instigate debate and give a platform for the process of productive co-operation and integration. Whilst visiting Auschwitz I found the most evocative evidence of the Holocaust was not any of the 150 151 152 153

Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p.8 Ibid. p.4 Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications. Vol. LXQX 38 p.78. Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p.138.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

buildings, but the collection of orphaned little shoes, toys and baby clothes. The reminder of the tiny children murdered by the Nazis. The Holocaust was a human tragedy, it is the stories of the people, not the buildings or objects, which are important. These stories do not rely on the preservation of the entire camp to be retold. I think that if you visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau alone, on a bitterly cold morning it could be incredibly moving, but this is because you allow yourself to forget the 60 years that are separating your experience and Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Allowing the buildings to decay into ruins would give visitors a more accurate experience, we cannot visit a Nazi death camp in 1945 but we can visit the former-Nazi camp in 2009, the treatment of the buildings should reflect this. The preservation of Auschwitz is in my view overshadows more recent genocides. The more Auschwitz is preserved, the longer ago the extermination seems; embalming the camp and expunging decay - the visible evidence of time – fractures our temporal link to Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp and so is distancing modern Europe from the true barbarity of the Nazis’ ethnic cleansing.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

4. Auschwitz After Memory In terms of memory and materials, Auschwitz is not the same today as it was 50 years ago. We have looked at how remembrance and materiality are temporal; Auschwitz was a concentration camp but today it is a memorial, a museum, a cemetery and a place of education. Currently Auschwitz is in abeyance; it must not be forgotten and it cannot be remembered. In specifically trying to answer questions about Auschwitz’ current and future roles with society one creates yet more questions, Jonathon Webber conceded that, in his opinion, “there can be no final solution for what should be done today at Auschwitz.”154

The Case for Continued Preservation

The history of Auschwitz-Birkenau is truly unique and of great important to international heritage; if Auschwitz is left to decay, society will lose an irreplaceable record of man’s inhumanity to man. The Nazis attempted to hide Auschwitz and their crimes from the world; through parading the camp’s husk in public we are sending a continuous reminder to the world that we cannot, and will not, turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity ever again. With the enormous number of victims and the impact it has had upon the 20th Century and civilization in general, it is essential that Auschwitz’ future is not determined in the absence of considered debate. Preservation may leave lots of questions unanswered but leaving Auschwitz to be consumed by nature could be seen as just an easy option in order to resolve the camp’s future before the survivors’ time runs out.

Auschwitz-Birkenau is a Polish state museum; a museum’s responsibility is to preserve artefacts for future use. As well as restoring the buildings, key historic material should be removed from the site and stored in conditions that will ensure its long-term future. The failure of a satisfactory outcome from the international competition highlights that survivors and museum authorities were opposed to radically ‘reinterpreting’ Auschwitz or allowing it to fade away. The intention of the Polish sejm that commissioned this museum was that Auschwitz would stand forever as a warming to humanity; that the camp is still here today is because of the intervention of this previous generation. Through continuing to visit and pay remembrance we are thanking them for their determination. Future generations may resent any decision our generation makes that allows Auschwitz to be irreversibly eroded by time and nature. Additionally, the intolerance that fuelled the Holocaust has still not been overcome; leaving Auschwitz raw and unresolved reflects that these problems have not passed into history.

The Case for Natural Decay and Erosion

The remembering of the Holocaust has become ritualised and basic; through the blanket preservation of Auschwitz we are reinforcing this litany by neither debating what exactly should be remembered 154

Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1): p.138.

nor considering alternative modes for remembrance. Auschwitz survivors are in a unique position; they have memory of the concentration camp. Once they are gone we will be left with only a memory of memories and a series of embalmed buildings anachronistic to our era. We must create a new collective memory, this is not dependant on specific objects or images. It is more fundamental; it is a shaping force, a tradition. The preservation of Auschwitz is inconsequential to the direction of this tradition; conversely the opening of Auschwitz to reinterpretation will ensure that meaningful remembrance can continue even after the survivors are gone. The rigid preservation of the buildings so far has restricted the opportunity for an evolution of remembrance between generations. The memorials we produce to recall the Holocaust and the history of Auschwitz need to be flexible, allowing future generations to find their own significance in this past.

It is feasible to preserve the Parthenon - a tough, stone monument - however many of the buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau are poorly constructed from weak materials and exposed to adverse weather; attempts for the long-term preservation of these buildings appears futile. Through preservation and restoration the original ethos or identity of objects can be separated from the object itself, at Auschwitz the authenticity of many elements has already been lost. Visiting the camp in the summer is a bizarre experience, one is surrounded by tourists and bathed in sunshine: it is difficult to imagine the true horror. If the buildings stood only as ruins it would be easier to relate to this lost world and the previous history of the site. I feel that in its current format, the reuse of buildings as exhibition space trivialises the blocks of Auschwitz I and neglects Birkenau. It is important that people learn about the Holocaust at Auschwitz, but it is not essential that the museum, or any of Auschwitz’ other functions, operate within the former concentration camp. European governments have vowed support Poland in keeping the history of the Holocaust alive through Auschwitz, this is certainly a positive step; however, my opinion is that the funding could be used in a more progressive, positive manner. I would propose that the funds – instead of being used to fight the decay of the buildings - should be used to create a new building that sits outside the camps, between the untended grounds and decaying buildings of the Stammlager and Birkenau. Auschwitz-Birkenau is a German millstone around the neck of Oświęcim, however this is an opportunity for a reciprocal relationship that benefits both the town and the former-camp. An architectural strategy that resolves the tension of remembrance could promote development and the reinterpretation of the significance of ‘Auschwitz’ and Oświęcim in the 21st Century. The educational and cultural value of Auschwitz-Birkenau would be greatly improved, but primarily it would be a more fitting memorial to those who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis. Auschwitz reminds us all that inaction will not be tolerated in the face of genocide, but it is through the remembrance rather than the preservation that this is achieved.

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

Conclusion Certainly there are valid arguments both for and against leaving the camp to decay. The paradox of Auschwitzâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preservation is that both sides cannot be satisfied and no compromise is feasible. Until the debate is resolved preservation is likely to continue as once the camp is lost, it is gone forever. The museum needs to consider more astutely the differences between collection, preservation and restoration and the implications upon authenticity, identity and historical accuracy that each has. The primary outcome of this study is that determining the future of Auschwitz after memory deserves a widespread public debate and it is imperative that this debate occurs shortly, before it is too late to consult those who have real memory of this place. Nature is erasing both the physical artefacts and the first hand memories of the genocide. Just as the endangered population of survivors, guards and liberators have a finite lifespan, so too do the buildings, belongings, bodies and collections of hair; articles that are already decaying and decomposing. The argument, or request, for the survivors to actively condemn the buildings to be overcome by nature ultimately comes down to control. The survivors were powerless in the camp but now it is they, the former prisoners, who will have the final word, the power to determine the future of Auschwitz. So far they have determined that the camp shall be preserved forever. In trying, or even desiring, to preserve Auschwitz indefinitely we are entering a futile contest against the Nazis, nature, authenticity and memory. It will be a contest in which the survivors will ultimately become powerless once again as preservation is a fight that we can only lose. Eventually the buildings will be gone. If we attempt to preserve or restore Auschwitz the authenticity of the site will be lost anyway; we will only be preserving a replica of Auschwitz. Soon no real memory of Auschwitz will exist, no longer will anyone who really knows this horror return to the camp. Therefore the option that I support, the only option that really empowers the remaining survivors to have the final say, is to let time, nature and decay erode the site - to abandon Auschwitz. The history of Auschwitz is a history that was witnessed by thousands of survivors, it is a history that will be passed from generation to generation and turned from memory to remembrance, from isolated stories to a collected history; once the buildings and human memory have been eroded by time, it this remembrance that will be the perpetual cry of despair and warning to humanity. It is through remembrance, not preservation, that Auschwitz will form an ever-lasting testament to the genocide: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Her memories Will become monuments Will cast shadowsâ&#x20AC;?155

155

Michelson, J. Under-Readings: An Introduction to the Poetry of Irena Klepfisz In Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide Palgrave Macmillan p.791

This scene of decay and new life should be allowed to colonise every corner of Auschwitz

Bibliography

Articles

Adams, D. Carwardice, M. 1992. Last Chance to See. Pan Books Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.

Cloonan, Michele V. 2007. The Paradox of Preservation. Library Trends 56 (1):133-147.

Cambridge University Press

Gubar, S. 2003. Poetry after Auschwitz : remembering what one never knew. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Gutman, Yisrael and Berenbaum, Michael eds. 1994. Anatomy of the Auschwitz death camp.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hilberg, R. 1961. The Destruction of the European Jews, London, W.H. Allen Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press Kraft, R. N. 2002. Memory Perceived: Recalling the Holocaust. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Lachendro, J. German places of extermination in Poland. Parma Press Milton, Sybil. 1991. In Fitting Memory : the art and politics of Holocaust memorials.

Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide.

Powell, Richard R. 2005. Wabi Sabi Simple. Avon, MA: Adams Media Ray, L. J. 2007. Globalisation and Everyday Life. Routledge Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future:

Steinbacher, Sybille. 2005. Auschwitz, A History. Translated by S. Whiteside. London: Penguin Swiebocka, Teresa, ed. 2007. Auschwitz: A History in Photographs. Warsaw: Indiana University Press. Webber, Jonathan. 1992. The Future of Auschwitz. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies Webster Goodwin, S. and Bronfen, E. 1993. Death and Representation.

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Young, James E. 1993. The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning.

London: Yale University Press.

Ellis, M. H. The Next Fifty Years: Remembering the Holocaust and the Future of

Jewish Life at the Dawn of the 21st Century. From Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan

Ernst van Alphen. Touching Death. In Webster Goodwin, S, and Bronfen, E. (eds). 1993.

Death and Representation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press

Michelson, J. Under-Readings: An Introduction to the Poetry of Irena Klepfisz

From Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.) 2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan

Ryback, Timothy W. 1993. Evidence of Evil. The New Yorker. New York. Condé Nast Publications.

Vol. LXQX Issue 38. p.68-81

Wollaston, I. ‘A War Against Memory? Nativizing the Holocaust’ In Roth, J. K. and Maxwell, E. (eds.)

2001. Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan

Films and Documentaries Lanzmann, Claude. 1985. Shoah. New Yorker Films

Rees, Laurence. 2005. Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’. BBC Resnais, Alain. 1955. Night and Fog. Argos Films Spielberg, Steven. 1994. Schindler’s List. Universal Pictures

Web Articles Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial

en.auschwitz.org.pl [accessed 15th April 2009]

Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Auschwitz Report 2008. (online)

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=620&Itemid=49 [accessed 25th Juky 2009]

Bartoszewski, W. Cash Crisis Threat to Auschwitz: BBC News (online)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm [accessed 12th April 2009]

Berg, R. 2009 Cash crisis threat to Auschwitz. BBC News (online)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7800397.stm [accessed 12th February 2009]

Bergen-Belsen Memorial. Redesign.

http://bergenbelsen.de/en/neugstaltung/ [accessed 6th September]

Encarta (online)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580867/ise_shrine.html [accessed 4th August 2009]

Gambetta, D. 2005. Primo Levi’s last Moments. Boston Review. (online)

http://bostonreview.net/BR24.3/gambetta.html#Anchor-48213 [accessed 7th July 2009]

Jan van Pelt, R. Cash Crisis Threat to Auschwitz: BBC News (online)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm [accessed 12 April 2009]

Kitlinski, Tomek. 2005. Gays Excluded From Auschwitz Commemoration. Sodomy Laws

(online) http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/poland/plnews001.htm [accessed 21st April 2009]

Koźniewski, Kazimierz. 1948. Drażliwy Temat. Przekrój

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=8 [accessed 23rd June 2009]

Leibovich-Dar, Sara. A fading Memory. Haaretz (online)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=243085&contrassID=2&subCo ntrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y [accessed June 26th 2009] The Nizkor Project. Operation Reinhard: Treblinka Deportations. http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/reinhard/reinhard-faq-13.html [accessed 12th February 2009]

Plutarch, 75 A.C.E. Thesus. Translated by John Dryden

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/theseus.html [accessed 5th August 2009]

Project Inposterum. Poland World War II Casualties (in Thousands)

http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/poland_WWII_casualties.htm [accessed 7th July 2009]

The Special Master, appointed by Chief Judge Korman, 2000. In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM

ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL. http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/685455.pdf [accessed June 3rd 2009]

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2008. Aristotle’s Metaphysics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

(online) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/28/gordon-brown-auschwitz-poland [accessed 26th June 2009]

[accessed 5th August 2009]

Stratton, Allegra. 2009. UK promises to help fund upkeep of Auschwitz. The Guardian Wade, N. 2005. Your Body is Younger than you Think. The New York Times (online)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?ex=1280635200&en=65bd5e6 cef9fec79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [accessed 6th August 2009

Picture References Cover Image: Original artwork based on a Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Archive photo

graph. It shows the burning of bodies in the open, it was taken illegally by a Sonderkommando in the camp.

Page 8:

An aerial image taken on June 26 1944. The image was souced from http:// www1.yadvashem.org/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/air_photographs03.html

Page 10-11: Satellite image of Auschwitz and Birkenau in context. The image was souced from http://

maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=auschwitz&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Page 17:

Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press. P 377 (top image)

Page 17:

Jan van Pelt, R. and Dwork, D. 1996. Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. London. Yale University Press. P 375 (lower image)

Page 19

Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Page 21:

Dead prisoners at Bergen-Belsen. Image sourced from: http://www.scrapbook pages.com/bergenbelsen/OldPhotos/EmaciatedBodies.jpg

Page 27-28: The Documentation Centre at Bergen-Belsen. Images licensed from:

“Stiftung niedersächsische Gedenkstätten / Gedenkstätte Bergen-Belsen“

All other images are the original property of the author.

Appendix A: Images of Auschwitz-Birkenau Page 68:

Modern vandalism of a barrack in Birkenau

Page 69:

Security guard carrying alcohol confiscated from a visitor

Page 70:

Prisoner’s kitchen

Page 72:

Barbed-wire fence detail

Page 73:

Plaque at Auschwitz-Birkenau

Page 74:

Sun-dappled avenues at Auschwitz I

Page 75:

Door at Birkenau showing decay

Page 76:

Exterior of barracks at Auschwitz I showing the expansions undertaken by the Nazis

Page 77:

Overgrown pond at Birkenau

Page 78:

Poplar lined streets of Auschwitz I

Page 79:

Openings cut into barbed-wire fences

Page 80:

Difficulty of disabled access for an infirm camp survivor

Page 81:

Typical view of Birkenau’s main gate and railway lines

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Appendix B: Interview with Head of Preservation

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

Jolanta Banas Interview 29.07.09 Jolanta Banas:

“Co mogę Ci pomóc?”

Tom Kirby:

“Shall I introduce by saying what my project is? I’m from the School of Architecture; my Master’s thesis (dissertation) is to look at Auschwitz as a physical aspect and the future of it over the next however many, 10 years or 100 years. And how, as we were speaking before, conservation is like being a doctor, you can extend life but not forever.”

Translator:

TL: TK

TL: TK: TL: JB:

TL:

TK:

“What can I help you with?”

“I rozpocznie się poprzez wprowadzenie w projekcie? ...”

“The other reason this is quite relevant is because the number of survivors is getting fewer and fewer every year. How is Auschwitz-Birkenau as relevant to people who didn’t experience it first hand? You can now only experience memories of memories, you cannot experience Auschwitz as a concentration camp because you weren’t there and it isn’t now the same situation. Is it becoming more of a tourist attraction for visitors rather than a place of memorial?” “Innym powodem, dlaczego jest to istotne …”

“My first question is: do you feel Auschwitz needs to be preserved for future generations?” “Pierwsze pytanie brzmi: ...”

“Oczywiście, jeśli nie myślałem, że ...”

“Obviously if I didn’t think like that I wouldn’t be here as a conservationist!”

“Professor Jan van Pelt, who is one of the world authorities on the history of Auschwitz, feels that it should be left to nature to overcome and the buildings shouldn’t be maintained… weather and time should be allowed erode it”.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

TL:

“Profesor Jan van Pelt …”

TL:

“Jak ważne czy myślisz, że opinia ta jest?”

TK: JB:

TL:

JB:

TL: JB: TL: JB:

TL: TK: TL:

TK:

“How valid do you feel that this opinion is?” (laughter) “Moja zdaniem nie ma znaczenia ...”

“I don’t think that my opinion is relevant, in fact, because this is something that cannot be discussed because there are some institutions that decide about this place. For example the International Council of Auschwitz, you have to remember that Auschwitz is a UNESCO world heritage list and a monument of history. So in fact we cannot discuss of this.” “Nie sądzę, mam prawo do decydowania o tym …”

“So, I don’t think I have the right to decide about this, that is for other people, we are to just do the work and not decide about its effects.” “Liczbę turystów, którzy przyjeżdżają tu jest dowód …”

“The number of tourists, or people who come here to see the place, is the proof or evidence that the place needs to be preserved, to be kept for some long time.” “Trzeba pamiętać, że obóz koncentracyjny, że istniała tu …”

“You have to remember that the concentration camp that existed here was the biggest death camp/concentration camp that we can think of. It was not only, for example, a work camp, you have to remember that …” “that it is both an extermination and concentration camp.”

“yes, yes, and it is in fact unique in the bad sense, but it is.”

“How do you feel about, the idea of, going back to the ‘memory of memories’, do you think that preservation and keeping buildings how they were in

TL: JB:

TL:

TK: TL:

TK:

TL: JB:

TL:

TK:

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

1945 allows people, like all of us (indicating JB, TL, TK, AE) who never experienced it, to form a memory or idea of it that can in any way approach the experiences of people who actually were here in 1941, ‘42, ’43 etc” “Jak myślisz o pomysł …”

“Myślę, że to jedyny sposób na doświadczenie, które …”

“I think that this is the only way to experience that because, we cannot, as you said experience the feeling of being here at the camp, concentration camp. This is the only way, to experience to be in the place where those people worked, died and this is the only way to experience it.”

“What about through books? Erm, survivors’ memoirs, books and films. From reading people’s personal accounts and the stories that they tell is that more of an evocative and educational way of understanding the experience than …” “…than being here and coming here?!”

“…than being here. One of the things, yesterday, that our guide said to us was that she wished more people had done research about the place before they come. Which I think is perhaps leading to the fact that you can learn more through reading and research, watching films and documentaries than through being here.” “Jest czyta książkę lub ogląda film lepszy niż odwiedzenie tego miejsca? …” “Myślę, że to pytanie powinno być skierowane do …”

“I think that this question should be addressed to the educational department because they educate people. There is an international centre for education and they deal with such topics and so if you have more questions concerning this kind, you should ask them, because Jolanta is conservator, so she only deals with preserving the objects and cannot tell you which is best in fact.” “Ok, so how long is the maximum timescale of being able to preserve the

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

TL: TK: TL: JB:

TL:

JB: TL: JB: TL:

TK: JB:

original building structures? How long do you believe the brick barracks and the entrance gates at Birkenau, how long is the maximum time that a brick building can survive?” “Are you asking about one building? Approximately how long does it take to preserve one building or the whole of the site?” “If it was the size of the main gate at Birkenau, which should be preserved forever, how long is the maximum time span that it could be kept for?” “Jak długo można murowanych budynków, takich jak …”

“Nie możemy być pewni. Nie można odpowiedzieć na pytanie 100%, ponieważ … “

“I cannot be sure. You cannot answer the question 100% because it depends upon each building, about the state of preservation, and how it is somehow going to be acting in the future. The whole structure of the building. So you cannot be sure, you cannot say.” “Nie można powiedzieć, że muzeum będzie…” “You cannot say that, for example, that the museum is going to exist for another 50 or 60 years. You cannot say that because we don’t have such knowledge to …” “Porównaj budynków tutaj w Aushwitz …”

“You can’t, for example, compare the buildings here in Aushwitz which are brick buildings usually and the wooden barracks in Birkenau. They were technologically different, and constructed, and you cannot compare them, you don’t know.”

“Because the new wooden barracks at birkenau are completely new, they are reconstructions, and a lot of the…” “…nie są one zrekonstruowany z nowych materiałów …”

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

TL:

“But they are not reconstructed as if from nothing.”

TL:

“They are reconstructed from the parts of the barracks which were found in the area, on the site.”

JB:

TL: TK: TL: JB:

TL: JB:

TL: TK: TL: JB: TL:

“Są wykonane z części baraków …”

“Elementy historyczne.”

“Historical elements. So they are historical elements that are put together for the reconstruction.” “Lets say, for example, the roofs on the brick barracks that have been replaced, what is the new roof material?” “Jeśli dach jest wymieniona na murowanych baraków …” “Gdy mamy oryginalnego materiału, użyjemy tej …”

“If we have some material, old materials, historical materials somewhere is some storehouses then we of course use that. If we don’t have, we…” “Tak samo jest w przypadku większości obiektów zabytkowych.”

“We have to find something else to use. That is the case with most historical objects.” “What is the biggest challenge that you face in the conservation of the building elements, is it the weather or the actual materials for the construction?”

“Co to jest najtrudniejsza część ochrony? …” “Drewnianych baraków w Birkenau są zbudowane z materiałów, które …”

“If for example we think of birkenau and the wooden barracks you have to take into consideration that the weather is not good for the barracks. And the

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

JB: TL

TK: TL: JB:

TL:

TK: JB:

TL:

TK:

TL: JB:

other thing, for example, very thin walls, foundations that were built in such a way, technologically bad, and …” “…warunki wód gruntowych.”

“…and the conditions connected with the water in the soil. Everything makes that very difficult to preserve such buildings and to make them stay longer, yes, maintained, yes?”

“Yes, I understand. You know the crematoria at Birkenau where they have fallen down and there are steels? Are the steels something they have put in to stabilise the structure or are they part of the original material?” “W upadł crematorium …”

“Które ze stali? Może podstawy pala ...”

“If you mean the steel as in piles, then yes.”

“Erm, the steel as in where the roof… is …” (draws picture to explain) “Nie jest to oryginalny, to aby uniknąć upadku.”

“It is not original; it was placed there to avoid falling, later.”

“How do you feel that the addition of these new elements affects the authenticity? And, do you feel the authenticity affects your experience? If things are not real, if things are new does it affect visitors if they don’t know? … If you do kn… I know for I can see (the steel beam in the drawing) but if for a normal visitor, who cannot see (the reinforcement) do you think it affects their experience that there are additional elements?” “Jak się czujesz, że dodanie tych nowych elementów wpływa na autentyczność? …” “Może to wpływ każdej osoby widzenia …”

TL:

JB:

TL:

JB:

TL: TK: JB:

TL:

TK:

TL: JB:

TL:

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

“Ok, of course it can influence the view of each person who comes to see, the feeling of authenticity, as you said, but we try to implement the new things so that it could be really not noticeable. Maybe your saw in one of the barracks in one of the, I cannot tell you which part of birkenau it was, but maybe you saw the big construction as a wall which supported the original wall and it is implemented in such a way that each person could see that it is not original, so it would be clear it is not original.”

JB:

“The general conservation concept is to implement the new things, even if you, for example, fill in the paper creases in some documents in such a way that everybody can see that something new was put in the paper or any other object, that it was not original, for example, some part of it.”

JB:

“Ogólnej koncepcji ochrony jest wdrożenie nowych …”

“Tak więc nikt nie niszczy rzeczy historyczne …”

“It is so not anyone damages this historical object, and it determines the way that we deal with it.” “Two of the problems which … just to end, because I know that you’re busy.”

TL: JB:

TL:

TL: JB:

TL: TK:

“Dwie minuty!” (laughter)

TL:

“Two of the problems which I see is that people… you know graffiti? When people draw? The actual lack of respect that some of the visitors have for things, is that a problem that is increasing or is that a problem that has always been here?”

TL:

“Two minutes!”

“Czy graffiti duży problem i to jest coraz gorzej? …” “Dowody daty graffiti z 1950 …”

“As we can see, the first graffiti appears in the 50’s…”

JB:

TL: JB:

“Robimy wszystko co w naszej mocy, aby nie dopuścić do pogorszenia się problem…” “We try to do our best not to let the problem increase…” “Ale jest wiele osób odwiedzających ...”

“But of course it is a big problem because people who come here to visit the place can enter a lot of buildings…” “To jest wyzwanie dla nas…”

“It is a kind of challenge for us…”

“To zajmie nam czas do jej kontrolowania …”

“We try to control it somehow, but so many visitors it is really difficult. It will take time before we can control it.” “Is the graffiti, the contemporary graffiti, removed now or is it tried to be prevented and left in, or is it removed back to a level it was in 1945?” “Czy to graffiti oryginał lub zostanie usunięty? …”

“Budynków, w których graffiti to jest bardzo mało prac konserwatorskich …” “Right now in the buildings where the graffiti is there is very little conservation work being carried out, but we don’t think that when we have some conservation programme for the exact building in which the graffiti is we will leave it.” “Chcemy pokazać, oryginalne budynki, obiekty historyczne …”

“They want to show original buildings, historical buildings and not the buildings that changed, for example, by graffiti. “Musisz sprawdzić, czy graffiti jest oryginalna …”

TL: TK: TL:

TK: AE:

TK: TL:

TK: TL: JB:

TL:

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

“You of course have to research and you have to check whether the graffiti was placed in the layers that were covered some time ago but were not original, the layers. Then we of course can remove it from there.”

“If you want to keep the buildings as they were in 1945, with disabled access and wheel chairs, how is that going to change the conservation and the aesthetic of the place if their has to be ramps?” “I do not understand what you mean.” “Oh, sorry. For disabled access…” “For people in wheel-chairs.”

“…So people in wheel chairs.” “Ahh yes, wheel chairs.”

“So if all of the buildings have a ramp up to them…”

“I know what you mean, a ramp, ok so if we preserve the whole area will that be possible for the...” “Well, is disabled access something that is going to happen here, so to allow wheel chair users into the building.” “Czy budynków być zmieniane dla niepełnosprawnych?”

“Planujemy wprowadzenie nowej wystawy w całym museum …”

“So generally we plan to introduce the new exhibition in the whole museum and the whole exhibition is going to be placed in the ground floors so this is one problem, because we take down the exhibition from the first floor to the ground floor. Something that would make easier the access.”

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

JB:

“Rampy byłyby negatywne dla historycznej autentyczności…”

TK:

“yeah.”

TL:

TK: TL:

“we can’t, for example, place each of the ramps, sometimes … you call it ramp, yeah?” “yeah ok, ramp … into each of the building because it somehow changes the whole… landscape … how to say it…” “Aesthetic?”

“Yes, aesthetic yes, of it but we think some things probably the future there will be some things that will be moveable … but I don’t know … a kind of removable and goes in place when someone wants to enter it.”

END OF INTERVIEW

Appendix C: Replies to Interview Transcript

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

100

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

101

102

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

103

104

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

105

106

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

107

108

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Q1: Are you a Holocaust survivor, or are you related to anyone who was persecuted in the Holocaust? No.

Q6: Bearing in mind genocides occurring subsequent to World Ware II, such as Rwanda and Kosovo, how successful a deterrent to future inhumanity is the preservation of Auschwitz?

Q2: Have you visited the former concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau? Yes, in November 2006. Q3: Do you feel that visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau site is as poignant or relevant to people who didn’t experience the Holocaust? Absolutely. It’s a place of historical interest regardless of how long ago “events” happened there. People still visit the Tower of London to learn about what happened there. It’s not a memorial but it’s a place of interest and you learn about history even though you may not know anyone who was there at the time. Q4: Survivors have relayed their experiences of the Holocaust through books, memoirs, films and other media. Do you think that these forms of communication are more evocative and educational to people who didn’t experience the Holocaust in comparison with visiting the Auschwitz site? I think the two should go hand-in-hand. Not everyone is able to visit the site and so rely of other sources of information. Books, memoirs, films and other media are critical in trying to understand what happened but actually visiting the site gives you more of a perspective instead of just having facts and figures. Being able to see the rooms of shoes, suitcases and hair have more of an impact that just reading about it. Seeing the ruins of Birkenau from the guard post helps you to realise the size of the camp and the scale of what happened there.

I doubt there will ever be a deterrent for events such as this because of the way humanity is, but we can’t let this be the only reason for preserving Auschwitz. As long as we can teach others about what happened and to be more accepting and tolerant of others then it should remain. We can’t reach everyone throughout the world but the more people who are aware of these events then hopefully more likely it is that they won’t be repeated in the future.

Professor Robert Jan van Pelt (a world authority on the history of Auschwitz and the defence’s expert witness in David Irving’s failed libel case) feels that the former concentration camp should be left for nature to destroy; no building should be maintained… weather and time should be allowed erode Auschwitz.

Q7: Do you support van Pelt’s opinion or would it be a mistake to let Auschwitz be irreparably damaged through lack of preservation? I think this would be disrespectful to the people who died and to the people who want to learn about what happened there.

One could suggest that the buildings of Auschwitz only really exist in the consciousness of the survivors and guards who experienced the extermination first hand. Q5: a: Considering this view, do you think that it is important that the buildings of Auschwitz are preserved and stand to ‘bear witness’ of the Holocaust for future generations?

Q8: If the buildings are preserved to be as they were in 1945 and are not allowed to age, do you agree that this could obstruct future generations from contextualizing the Holocaust and so hinder their attempts to form an understanding and experience of Auschwitz? Again, I think being able to actually visit the site puts a lot of statistics into perspective. They need to be preserved so that people can get an insight into how it must have been during WWII.

Again, absolutely. In my opinion, letting it all go to ruin would be disrespectful to the people who died there. How would people learn from what happened without it? As I said previously, people need to be able to visit the site to put everything into perspective. It’s a teaching memorial. b: How long should it be preserved for?

The wooden barracks at Birkenau and the crematorium at Auschwitz I are not original. Both are reconstructions, albeit built using materials found on site and the original construction drawings.

Forever. It should be a protected national memorial. c: Do you feel that it would be important for your children or grandchildren to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau? If I had children I think it would be important for them to be able to visit sites such as this as well as others of historical importance to be able to learn from the past.

Q9: In your view, does this type of recreation, indeed preservation in general, dilute the authenticity and integrity of the former concentration camp? Not at all, as long as people are able to see how it might have been it all adds to the understanding of the events.

d: Long-term preservation work at the museum requires £160m, who should be responsible for paying? There should be a worldwide contribution by all countries who can afford to give. Even if each country involved in WWII contributed something towards it based on their national GDP then it would be something at least.

Q10: If Auschwitz was preserved exactly how it was found on liberation (and were not home to the museum and exhibits etc), how do you feel that would change its value as: a: a memorial

Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, Chairman of the International Auschwitz Council and Auschwitz Survivor, is adamant that the camp must be preserved in perpetuity:

I’m not sure people would visit the site as much if there was only a memorial there. The majority of people would probably only visit once a year to commemorate the liberation. Others would only visit to pay their respects to the people who died there, i.e. laying flowers on the site and then leaving.

“Auschwitz-Birkenau is like a continuous sting of remorse that torments humanity, especially Europe. It is a sting of remorse for every person who is indifferent to the suffering of others.

b: an educational centre

Auschwitz-Birkenau must forever remain an unhealed, burning wound, which wakes people up from moral lethargy and forces them to take responsibility for the fate of our world.”

I think this is probably the most important part of the site staying open to visitors. I’ve already stated above why – putting things into perspective, etc. Also, do people currently pay for visiting? I can’t

109

110

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

remember whether there was an entrance fee or not. But surely as an educational centre you should pay to be able to visit? This money should then, obviously, go towards the restoration of the site. c: a cemetery As said in (a) I think people would only visit to pay respects rather than learning anything more than what they’re read in books. How often does the average person visit a cemetery? I think perhaps that, as sad as it might sound, people who don’t have a direct connection with the site would need additional motivation to visit. They would need to get something more out of going rather than just paying respects. d: a historic record?

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Q13: Would moving the museum out of Auschwitz’s grounds be power of remembrance? Not really, as long as you could still do both – visit the museum and then go to the site and put into perspective what you’ve just seen/learned. I don’t think it should be an option of one or the other. I like the idea of an educational centre with the controlled environments for the artefacts. As long as these are preserved properly then that’s what matters. But the whole point of keeping the original site open is to be able to see for yourself the environment so if this isn’t possible then perhaps the museum will lose some of its appeal.

The Nazis wanted the Holocaust to remain an ‘unwritten chapter’ of their history, however they failed to expunge it and now many survivors and historic items stand to bear witness to the genocide.

I think this is also important because what would happen to the current exhibits if there were no museum? Would they just be locked away in a room or would they be donated to another museum who would then need to make room for the display? These items are a record of the people who died. Q14: Do you think that it is more important that the historic items that ‘bear witness’ to the Holocaust (human hair, suitcases, crematorium ovens etc) are exhibited for us to see now, or that they are preserved for future generations to see? The different roles that Auschwitz-Birkenau performs makes it complicated to decide what is the best solution to any given problem; alterations that enable a well functioning museum may be opposed to the use of the site as a historic record; whilst keeping objects designed to be temporary (e.g. wooden barracks) out in the open may be historically accurate but it also causes them to decay more rapidly.

Q11: Suppose Auschwitz were remodeled to provide disabled access throughout the site of Auschwitz I (for example, ramps and walkways). Do you consider universal access to be an acceptable pay-off for altering the original architecture? I don’t recall there being many obstacles in Auschwitz I that would need disabled access apart from ramp access into some of the buildings although I may be wrong. However, I think that the more people who are able to visit the site the better so the more disabled access available the better. As long as you can still get a sense of what it was like during the operation of the camp then I think it’s acceptable.

Alternatively, one could suggest that the various roles of Auschwitz should be differentiated. For example: Auschwitz as an educational centre: a new purpose built museum and visitor’s centre could sit between the main camps and link to Auschwitz I and II via pedestrianised rail lines. Auschwitz as a memorial: The uninhabited camps have public access for people to pay their respects to those who were murdered by the Nazis; an atmosphere of quiet reflection is maintained. Auschwitz as a cemetery: The earth of the camps is treated as a burial site, no excavation is permitted and visitors walk over boards laid upon the ground. Auschwitz as a historic record: Materials that bear witness to the Holocaust and other important historic items at risk of decay are stored indefinitely in controlled environments in a state-of-the-art preservation department at the new museum.

Q12: Do you think that the current roles undertaken at the Auschwitz site should be allowed to separate in order to achieve optimal conditions for each? I think this proposal is very good. If the site still performs all of these roles then I don’t see a problem with separating them for optimal conditions.

Absolutely. They are evidence and should be preserved as best as possible.

Q15: If the most significant historic materials are removed to be preserved in controlled environments and the museum / education centre is relocated outside the fence, would it then be appropriate to allow Auschwitz-Birkenau camps to ‘age gracefully’, that is, to be overcome by nature? Perhaps to a certain extent. Not everything would need preservation, such as the inside of the buildings at Auschwitz I, so you could still wander around and see the buildings from the outside. But I don’t think that it should all be swallowed up by nature. I understand that it’s expensive to preserve it as it is but there should be some sort of compromise. It shouldn’t become just a blot on the landscape with a museum attached. People should still be able to learn from being there rather than it just be another museum which could be anywhere rather than actually on (near) the site.

111

112

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Q1: Are you a Holocaust survivor, or are you related to anyone who was persecuted in the Holocaust?

Here you go Tom. Hope this is not too late and is useful for you: 1: No 2: Yes 3: Yes. 4. I think they are both important in different ways. The secondary evidence of personal experiences gives detail and context to what happened. The primary evidence of the remaining Auschwitz-Birkenau site gives visitors a vision of the scale of the operation with a look at what the conditions where actually like. The impact of this vision is greater because depending on the time of year when you visit the local climate has extremes of cold and heat. 5a Yes. B Indefinately for the next few generations at least. Naturally it will lose relevance over distant generations but while it is still remembered by survivors and their next few generations of family I think it is important to preserve it as much as possible to allow those people to visit as pilgrimages that the guide when we were there said a lot of people do. C Yes. d: Charity (as it is currently) with German (and poss other European countries invited to contribute) government funding. 6: Probably not that much as genocide is generally race / religion motivated and will happen anyway. Should be more about remembering what happened. 7 and 8: If the buildings where allowed to erode naturally I think it would be more difficult to contextualise as they would be ruins and unrecognisable from the actual conditions prisoners endured at the time. Like when visiting a ruined castle in england it is difficult to imagine how spaces were used and who used them. 9: No. Still gives an illustration. 10a: Increase. b:decrease c: increase d: increase 11: Yes. As long as the added infrastructure was obviously different to the existing – and obviously minimal. 12. I don!t think it would be harmful. 13. The immediacy of learning what went on there whilst looking out the window at THE gas chamber and then walking into it is very powerful. 14: They should be exhibited now because their relevance will only diminish. 15. Still I think the sites and buildings should be preserved for the forseeable future (ie 3 or 4 generations at least). Lee Wittingham!

No. Q2: Have you visited the former concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau? Yes. Q3: Do you feel that visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau site is as poignant or relevant to people who didn’t experience the Holocaust? Yes. Q4: Survivors have relayed their experiences of the Holocaust through books, memoirs, films and other media. Do you think that these forms of communication are more evocative and educational to people who didn’t experience the Holocaust in comparison with visiting the Auschwitz site? I think that a visit is a very important and usually emotional experience, but it would be great for anyone to get some preparation before that. Books, memoirs, films and everything else can get you more knowledge, so that reading and feeling the original site would be deeper and far more intense. It’s now harder and harder to meet a survivor there, but the whole experience should be a combination of many forms with the final in visiting the site. One could suggest that the buildings of Auschwitz only really exist in the consciousness of the survivors and guards who experienced the extermination first hand. Q5: a: Considering this view, do you think that it is important that the buildings of Auschwitz are preserved and stand to ‘bear witness’ of the Holocaust for future generations? Yes. b: How long should it be preserved for? As long as it is possible. c: Do you feel that it would be important for your children or grandchildren to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau? Yes. d: Long-term preservation work at the museum requires £160m, who should be responsible for paying? Auschwitz in recent years has become a far more global symbol of persecution and genocide than long time ago and it reached far beyond its historical context. Of course one can say that Germany should be responsible, but because of the universal education

113

114

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

aspect and because of the fact that the post-war European or cross-Atlantic order in a way found its fundament in the tragedy of Auschwitz, because there are countries who base part of their educational programs on the visit at the original site, I think that countries not only from Europe should find for the best possible solution to upkeep and preserve the site. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, Chairman of the International Auschwitz Council and Auschwitz Survivor, is adamant that the camp must be preserved in perpetuity: “Auschwitz-Birkenau is like a continuous sting of remorse that torments humanity, especially Europe. It is a sting of remorse for every person who is indifferent to the suffering of others. Auschwitz-Birkenau must forever remain an unhealed, burning wound, which wakes people up from moral lethargy and forces them to take responsibility for the fate of our world.” Q6: Bearing in mind genocides occurring subsequent to World Ware II, such as Rwanda and Kosovo, how successful a deterrent to future inhumanity is the preservation of Auschwitz? One can say that we did not learn nothing at all and there is some true in it. We still prefer to be passive and keep saying that this all is happening somewhere far, far away. We still believe that we cannot do something like that- they can. I think that a visit in Auschwitz should be a part of some wider program of education that could link the past and the present – to build responsibility in us on different levels – from the very private one to a global stand. Professor Robert Jan van Pelt (a world authority on the history of Auschwitz and the defence’s expert witness in David Irving’s failed libel case) feels that the former concentration camp should be left for nature to destroy; no building should be maintained… weather and time should be allowed erode Auschwitz. Q7: Do you support van Pelt’s opinion or would it be a mistake to let Auschwitz be irreparably damaged through lack of preservation? It would be a mistake. Auschwitz is not only a symbolic place for the Holocaust and persecution against Poles, Gypsies, Soviet POWs and people of other nationality. It is also a historical material prove. It is a document of humanity. A sad one, but still a document. We don’t want gothic churches to be left to nature, we keep ancient documents in the Museums, we build archive, we visit Louvre. Auschwitz is a part of the huge puzzle of human history. Leaving part of this legacy behind because it is sad and reminds of evil is far to easy solution. Q8: If the buildings are preserved to be as they were in 1945 and are not allowed to age, do you agree that this could obstruct future generations from contextualizing the Holocaust and so hinder their attempts to form an understanding and experience of Auschwitz? No.

The wooden barracks at Birkenau and the crematorium at Auschwitz I are not original. Both are reconstructions, albeit built using materials found on site and the original construction drawings.

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP

Q9: In your view, does this type of recreation, indeed preservation in general, dilute the authenticity and integrity of the former concentration camp? Wooden barracks at Birkenau are not reconstructed. All wooden barracks survived the war but not all of them survived between the liberation and foundation of the Museum in 1947. The gas chamber is not exactly a recreation. The gas chamber was changed into the airride shelter when Germans moved extermination action to Birkenau. They build some extra wall and one more entrance. Because of that they did not destroy the building before evacuation as the rest of machinery of extermination. The walls were removed after the war when the survivors created the Museum. It was a part of the historical process that is hard to call recreation. I do not think that it dilutes the authenticity. Noone built a copy of the gas chamber – just removed some changes that had been done in the very same building. Q10: If Auschwitz was preserved exactly how it was found on liberation (and were not home to the museum and exhibits etc), how do you feel that would change its value as: a: a memorial b: an educational centre c: a cemetery d: a historic record? I don’t like the “would” history. It was preserved as it was. The different roles that Auschwitz-Birkenau performs makes it complicated to decide what is the best solution to any given problem; alterations that enable a well functioning museum may be opposed to the use of the site as a historic record; whilst keeping objects designed to be temporary (e.g. wooden barracks) out in the open may be historically accurate but it also causes them to decay more rapidly. Q11: Suppose Auschwitz were remodeled to provide disabled access throughout the site of Auschwitz I (for example, ramps and walkways). Do you consider universal access to be an acceptable pay-off for altering the original architecture? There are several ways to adjust the place for disabled people. The new exhibition which is now being planned at the Memorial will probably have a whole section dedicated to blind people. The main part of the exhibition will be only on first floors to make it more accessible for disabled, but there will be no outside architectural changes and the interiors will not be changed as well. There are technical possibilities to use other entrances to the buildings to install some things for disabled people but it will never mean making any damage to the original structure. This is against the preservation policy of the Memorial. Alternatively, one could suggest that the various roles of Auschwitz should be differentiated. For example: Auschwitz as an educational centre: a new purpose built museum and visitor’s centre could sit between the main camps and link to Auschwitz I and II via pedestrianised rail lines.

115

116

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

(The visitors’ centre will be located in the future at the bus depot near Auschwitz I to remove it from historical buildings where it is now. The educational center will be located in the so-called “Old theatre” building on the other side of the camp fence.) Auschwitz as a memorial: The uninhabited camps have public access for people to pay their respects to those who were murdered by the Nazis; an atmosphere of quiet reflection is maintained. Auschwitz as a cemetery: The earth of the camps is treated as a burial site, no excavation is permitted and visitors walk over boards laid upon the ground. (It would change the authentic architecture of the whole site. It is used in the main sauna exhibition, but certainly no changes will be applied outside) Auschwitz as a historic record: Materials that bear witness to the Holocaust and other important historic items at risk of decay are stored indefinitely in controlled environments in a state-of-the-art preservation department at the new museum.

THE

MArch Football Migrated (159) Migrated/Important Migrated/sent-mail Misc FUTUREPriority OF THE NAZI Studio 8 University 4 more!

Q13: Would moving the museum out of Auschwitz’s grounds be power of remembrance? Moving the staff and offices of the Memorial would be possibly an interesting option. Moving the exhibition does not make any sense since it is an integral part of the place that allows people to understand far more from the original and authentic site. A visit at the site after watching some exhibition in a Museum outside would be very long and would interrupt the narration and educational process. There are no exhibitions in Birkenau. The Nazis wanted the Holocaust to remain an ‘unwritten chapter’ of their history, however they failed to expunge it and now many survivors and historic items stand to bear witness to the genocide. Q14: Do you think that it is more important that the historic items that ‘bear witness’ to the Holocaust (human hair, suitcases, crematorium ovens etc) are exhibited for us to see now, or that they are preserved for future generations to see? Q15: If the most significant historic materials are removed to be preserved in controlled environments and the museum / education centre is relocated outside the fence, would it then be appropriate to allow Auschwitz-Birkenau camps to ‘age gracefully’, that is, to be overcome by nature? No.

Pete

DEATHC.CAMP Peter Chen

Contacts Tasks Chat Search, add or invite T Kirby Invisible You are invisible. Go visible ara06tjc PJ Wild DC Cook G Ozyigit JWJ Wilcox NJ Lunt Cristina Cerulli David Bannister march-fc Nadel, Laura Options

Q12: Do you think that the current roles undertaken at the Auschwitz site should be allowed to separate in order to achieve optimal conditions for each?

Found your questionnaire on the Auschwitz Facebook Page, and promised to fill it out for you; please see below my signature for the completed survey form. I hope this helps your research!

Add Contact

117

Managing Editor World War II Database http://ww2db.com ================ In 50 years' time, we will only have second hand memories of the Holocaust. Even now when visiting, one does not (and of course cannot) experience Auschwitz as a concentration camp, but as a museum and a memorial. It will be difficult for future generations to steward Auschwitz without a framework built in hand with those who survived it. The future of Auschwitz needs to be addressed before itís too late to consult those individuals that survived the Holocaust and experienced life in Auschwitz first hand. In this context, I am exploring proposals for the future of Auschwitz and your insight and ideas would greatly assist me with this. I would greatly appreciate your involvement with this project; feel free to provide any additional comments and to leave out any questions that you do not wish to answer. Q1: Are you a Holocaust survivor, or are you related to anyone who was persecuted in the Holocaust? [I am not a Holocaust survivor and I am not related to anyone who was persecuted in the Holocaust.] Q2: Have you visited the former concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau? [No, I have not yet visited Auschwitz-Birkenau.] Q3: Do you feel that visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau site is as poignant or relevant to people who didnít experience the Holocaust? [As a student of WW2, thus one who studies how the Holocaust affected the course of human history, personally I would very much like to visit the former concentration camp. Physically being there would very much trigger feeling and understanding that I believe I would not otherwise experience just from reading about Auschwitiz in a book or seeing photos of the camp. I imagine that at least some others would benefit by physically being there in similar ways.] Q4: Survivors have relayed their experiences of the Holocaust through books, memoirs, films and other media. Do you think that these forms of communication are more evocative and educational to people who didnít experience the Holocaust in comparison with visiting the Auschwitz site? One could suggest that the buildings of Auschwitz only really exist in the consciousness of the survivors and guards who experienced the extermination first hand. [Media about the Holocaust and the buildings of Auschwitz should work hand-in-hand to educate the next generations about the Holocaust. The buildings do not replace the knowledge found in media, and the same vice versa.] Q5: a: Considering this view, do you think that it is important that the buildings of Auschwitz are preserved and stand to ëbear witnessí of the Holocaust for future generations? [Yes.] b: How long should it be preserved for? [Indefinitely.] c: Do you feel that it would be important for your children or grandchildren to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau? [If they share my interest in history, I would like them to see the former concentration camp as much as I would like to one day visit.] d: Long-term preservation work at the museum requires £160m, who should be responsible for paying?

https://mail.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/#inbox/124560968f62daf3

Page 1

general, dilute the authenticity and integrity of the former concentration camp?

118

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

University of Sheffield Mail - Auschwitz Survey - ara07tk@sheffield.ac.uk

[Individual, corporate, and government donors could be sought out to raise funding for the project.] Q6: Bearing in mind genocides occurring subsequent to World Ware II, such as Rwanda and Kosovo, how successful a deterrent to future inhumanity is the preservation of Auschwitz? [A single human life alone is far beyond any monetary value. "Long-term preservation work at the museum requires £160m" according to the previous question, but if this project will be able to turn back one racially-driven extremist to "light", so to speak, then can we not say that it was worth every pound spent on the preservation?] Q7: Professor Robert Jan van Pelt (a world authority on the history of Auschwitz and the defence's expert witness in David Irving's failed libel case) feels that the former concentration camp should be left for nature to destroy; no building should be maintainedÖ weather and time should be allowed erode Auschwitz. Do you support van Peltís opinion or would it be a mistake to let Auschwitz be irreparably damaged through lack of preservation? [No, I do not. I believe that, given enough interest, we should seek to gather enough funding to preserve the site of the former concentration camp.] Q8: If the buildings are preserved to be as they were in 1945 and are not allowed to age, do you agree that this could obstruct future generations from contextualizing the Holocaust and so hinder their attempts to form an understanding and experience of Auschwitz? [No. I believe that, at worst, the preservation of the buildings exactly as they were in 1945 would still perform slightly better than the experience provided in media such as photograph and text; more likely, the preservation would education much more effectively. I do not see why the preservation would obstruct learning in any form.] Q9: The wooden barracks at Birkenau and the crematorium at Auschwitz I are not original. Both are reconstructions, albeit built using materials found on site and the original construction drawings. In your view, does this type of recreation, indeed preservation in general, dilute the authenticity and integrity of the former concentration camp? [The purpose of the preservation is to provide a physical location where visitors will be able to see and feel the topic at hand. It would be ideal had we still have the original wooden barracks, the crematorium, etc., but since we do not, having re-creations of these buildings still do not take away the fact that horrific things took place in the locations where the re-creations stand today, and the re-creations help with motivating the visitors to learn more about the history and to do more to prevent it from repeating.] Q10: If Auschwitz was preserved exactly how it was found on liberation (and were not home to the museum and exhibits etc), how do you feel that would change its value as: a: a memorial [No change] b: an educational centre [No change]

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH 19/10/2009 11:56

[The purpose of the preservation is to provide a physical location where visitors will be able to see and feel the topic at hand. It would be ideal had we still have the original wooden barracks, the crematorium, etc., but since we do not, having re-creations of these CAMP buildings still do not take away the fact that horrific things took place in the locations where the re-creations stand today, and the re-creations help with motivating the visitors to learn more about the history and to do more to prevent it from repeating.]

119

Q10: If Auschwitz was preserved exactly how it was found on liberation (and were not home to the museum and exhibits etc), how do you feel that would change its value as: a: a memorial [No change] b: an educational centre [No change] c: a cemetery [No change] d: a historic record? [Speaking in the most strict sense, preserving it as discovered in 1945 would make it a better historic record from the perspective of re-creating the environment for visitors of today. Converting one or more of the buildings or constructing new buildings for museum purposes would certainly take away certain aspects of it. But there could be an acceptable middle-ground, of course, where the two goals could happily co-exist.] Q11: The different roles that Auschwitz-Birkenau performs makes it complicated to decide what is the best solution to any given problem; alterations that enable a well functioning museum may be opposed to the use of the site as a historic record; whilst keeping objects designed to be temporary (e.g. wooden barracks) out in the open may be historically accurate but it also causes them to decay more rapidly. Suppose Auschwitz were remodeled to provide disabled access throughout the site of Auschwitz I (for example, ramps and walkways). Do you consider universal access to be an acceptable pay-off for altering the original architecture? University of Sheffield Mail - Auschwitz Survey - ara07tk@sheffield.ac.uk [Yes, certainly an acceptable pay-off. Although such renovations https://mail.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/#inbox/124560968f62daf3

would change the architecture of the buildings, providing universal access would allow more people to visit, which after all would be the main purposes of preserving the former concentration camp to begin with.] Q12: Alternatively, one could suggest that the various roles of Auschwitz should be differentiated. For example: Auschwitz as an educational centre: a new purpose built museum and visitorís centre could sit between the main camps and link to Auschwitz I and II via pedestrianised rail lines. Auschwitz as a memorial: The uninhabited camps have public access for people to pay their respects to those who were murdered by the Nazis; an atmosphere of quiet reflection is maintained. Auschwitz as a cemetery: The earth of the camps is treated as a burial site, no excavation is permitted and visitors walk over boards laid upon the ground. Auschwitz as a historic record: Materials that bear witness to the Holocaust and other important historic items at risk of decay are stored indefinitely in controlled environments in a state-of-the-art preservation department at the new museum. Do you think that the current roles undertaken at the Auschwitz site should be allowed to separate in order to achieve optimal conditions for each? [I do not have an opinion on this question at this time.]

19/10/200

University of Sheffield Mail - Auschwitz Survey - ara07tk@sheffield.ac.uk

120

19/10/2009 11:56

AUSCHWITZ AFTER MEMORY

[Yes, certainly an acceptable pay-off. Although such renovations would change the architecture of the buildings, providing universal access would allow more people to visit, which after all would be the main purposes of preserving the former concentration camp to begin with.]

THE FUTURE OF THE NAZI DEATH CAMP Auschwitz Interview September 2009.docx

121 01/10/2009 12:53

Q12: Alternatively, one could suggest that the various roles of Auschwitz should be differentiated. For example:

!!"#$%&'()*+,(-./'-&*0-1(-23-.*4556

Auschwitz as an educational centre: a new purpose built museum and visitorís centre could sit between the main camps and link to Auschwitz I and II via pedestrianised rail lines.

"!#$!%&$!'()*+,!#!-#./0)1.!./2304/!5)&$!/60!786&&9!&5!:)86(/08/2)0!#/!/60!;4(<0).(/+!&5!76055(093= :.!>#)/!&5!$+!3(..0)/#/(&4,!"!#$!(4<0./(?#/(4?!:2.86@(/A!#43!(/.!52/2)0!&<0)!/60!40B/!CD!+0#).=

Auschwitz as a memorial: The uninhabited camps have public access for people to pay their respects to those who were murdered by the Nazis; an atmosphere of quiet reflection is maintained.

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

Auschwitz as a cemetery: The earth of the camps is treated as a burial site, no excavation is permitted and visitors walk over boards laid upon the ground. Auschwitz as a historic record: Materials that bear witness to the Holocaust and other important historic items at risk of decay are stored indefinitely in controlled environments in a state-of-the-art preservation department at the new museum.

!"#,3-*#52",'?,/#!#(.#'?@12)-"<#@)2@2*(1*#72)#,3'#79,9)'#27#A9*530-,B#("6#&29)#-"*-<3,#("6#-6'(* 02916#<)'(,1&#(**-*,#.'#0-,3#,3-*:

Do you think that the current roles undertaken at the Auschwitz site should be allowed to separate in order to achieve optimal conditions for each?

"!@&293!?)0#/9+!#>>)08(#/0!+&2)!(4<&9<0$04/!@(/6!/6(.!>)&E08/F!5009!5)00!/&!>)&<(30!#4+!#33(/(&4#9 8&$$04/.! #43! /&! 90#<0! &2/! #4+! G20./(&4.! /6#/! +&2! 3&! 4&/! @(.6! /&! #4.@0)=! H&2! 8#4! 8&4/#8/! $0 3()08/9+!#/!ara07tk@shef.ac.uk

[I do not have an opinion on this question at this time.] Q13: Would moving the museum out of Auschwitzís grounds be power of remembrance? [The museum itself need not be on actual Auschwitz grounds, but this should not take away the need (or, the wish?) to preserve the buildings at Auschwitz.]

789*:)0!+&2!#!I&9&8#2./!.2)<(<&),!&)!#)0!+&2!)09#/03!/&!#4+&40!@6&!@#.!>0).082/03!(4 /60!I&9&8#2./J

Q14:

The Nazis wanted the Holocaust to remain an "unwritten chapter" of their history, however they failed to expunge it and now many survivors and historic items stand to bear witness to the genocide.

749*I#<0!+&2!<(.(/03!/60!5&)$0)!8&4804/)#/(&4!8#$>!:2.86@(/AKL()M04#2J

Do you think that it is more important that the historic items that "bear witness" to the Holocaust (human hair, suitcases, crematorium ovens etc) are exhibited for us to see now, or that they are preserved for future generations to see?

7<9*N&!+&2!5009!/6#/!<(.(/(4?!/60!:2.86@(/AKL()M04#2!.(/0!(.!#.!>&(?4#4/!&)!)090<#4/!/&!>0&>90!@6& 3(341/!0B>0)(0480!/60!I&9&8#2./J

[Can there be no solution that can achieve both? Perhaps part of the materials on display, while others preserved for the long run? Could some items to reproduced for display purposes? How do museums around the world today achieve this seemingly contradictory set of goals? Could we learn from the other museums' experiences?]

=-#

7>9*72)<(<&).!6#<0!)09#+03!/60()!0B>0)(0480.!&5!/60!I&9&8#2./!/6)&2?6!*&&M.,!$0$&()., 5(9$.!#43!&/60)!$03(#=!N&!+&2!/6(4M!/6#/!/60.0!5&)$.!&5!8&$$24(8#/(&4!#)0!$&)0!0<&8#/(<0!#43

0328#/(&4#9!/&!>0&>90!@6&!3(341/!0B>0)(0480!/60!I&9&8#2./!(4!8&$>#)(.&4!@(/6!<(.(/(4?!/60 :2.86@(/A!.(/0J

[No, I do not believe so. Allowing visitors to physically being in and near the buildings, original or re-creation, has its benefits in terms of understanding and feeling the history that took place at that location.]

+?2*,;(*#".-*@*+*&;"AB,?(*C,;&*%;&*(;*$;21D.-*(%-2 O40! 8&293! .2??0./! /6#/! /60! *2(93(4?.! &5! :2.86@(/A! &49+! )0#99+! 0B(./! (4! /60!8&4.8(&2.40..!&5!/60 .2)<(<&).!#43!?2#)3.!@6&!0B>0)(04803!/60!0B/0)$(4#/(&4!5()./!6#43=

Forward

=;"*;,AE*,--B*(;*$;,#'B-.*(%-*,"23-.*;F*1-;1A-*&%;*/'#'(*G.D/-#H*.-A'$#H*$%".$%-#*D,B %'#(;.'$DA*#'(-#*(;*C,;&*(%D(*2;#(*1-;1A-*&;"AB*B'#DG.--*I*D,B*(%-*%;A;$D"#(*'#*D3;"(*2;#( 1-;1A-J* https://mail.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/?ui=2&ik=23206d184a&view=att&th=1240fdf920a70fc4&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw

« Back to Inbox