View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
‘Arbeit Macht Frei’: A Re-evaluation of Auschwitz as the Symbol of the Holocaust
Word Count: 4,381
Abstract:
Auschwitz was the biggest, most brutal and nihilistic exponent of the Nazi Holocaust project.
This is one the most fundamental truisms of modern European history, and of global
popular culture. Indeed, Auschwitz has become the symbol of the Holocaust, the physical
embodiment of the nature of the destruction of European Jewry. Despite the gargantuan
levels of research on the topic, this inaccurate and unhelpful truism has persisted and
continues to be promoted by many, perhaps most, historians in the field. It is certainly the
most prominent understanding amongst the wider public. This paper seeks to challenge and
repudiate this cultural and historical inaccuracy through careful yet rigorous analysis and
logical interpretation of empirical evidence. In broad terms, this study seeks to answer two
key questions: ‘Why has Auschwitz become the unchallenged symbol of the Holocaust in
2
popular collective memory and amongst a considerable school of academic thought?’ and
‘Does Auschwitz merit such a title?’ This paper also hopes to answer a much wider and more
deeply penetrating question. ‘Can the Holocaust be represented adequately and accurately
through the prism of one physical place?’ The latter question allows this paper to present
the thesis that the Holocaust cannot be represented in such a manner, whilst the former
questions form the case study through which the thesis is pursued. The paper will be
characterised and informed by a diverse range of secondary literature; demonstrating the
Historiographical debate in this topic and offering credence to the arguments contained
within this work. The bulk of this study however is built upon an array of significant
historical primary documents sourced from across Europe, in English, German and Polish. All
subsequent translations are those of the author.
This study seeks to help develop and promote a more accurate, defensible and logical
understanding of the realities of the Holocaust; an understanding void of the mythologies
that currently plague academic and cultural interpretations of one of the most significant
events in human history.
3
The degradation and extermination of the Jews of Europe is recalled as the pinnacle
of human intolerance and cruelty. The Holocaust is remembered amongst the global
collective memory as the greatest genocide in human history; the archetype for all others to
follow.1 The concentration camps at Auschwitz are represented, and promoted, as the ‘very
capital’ of the entire process.2 Indeed, Auschwitz has become a synonym for the Holocaust,
and all of its many complex facets, both within academia and amongst society more
generally. It has, in effect, monopolised Holocaust remembrance. It is on this issue that this
paper is concerned. Why has Auschwitz become the incontrovertible symbol of the
Holocaust? Does Auschwitz merit such a title? This research paper will seek to answer these
1 The Holocaust was certainly not the first human genocide, but is generally remembered as such in contemporary collective memory. (Add More Here) 2 P. Hayes, Auschwitz, Capital of the Holocaust in ‘Holocaust and Genocide Studies’, Autumn 2003, pp. 331.
4
questions directly and repudiate the idea of Auschwitz as a suitable symbol. In doing so, this
paper also seeks to address the much broader issue of whether the Holocaust can be
adequately or accurately represented through the prism of one physical place, event or
memorial. The latter exploration affords this paper the opportunity to present the thesis
that the Holocaust cannot be represented in such a manner, whilst the former question will
provide the case study through which the thesis will be pursued. In pursuit of this end, this
paper will first explore the Historiography and the significance of the event in popular
culture, so as to establish that Auschwitz is indeed commonly held as the symbolic
manifestation of the Holocaust in its entirety. Following the establishment of this truth, this
paper will offer an explanation as to how and why Auschwitz has assumed such stature. The
latter half of the paper will then analyse and interrogate the legitimacy of Auschwitz
maintaining such historical and contemporary significance before finally addressing the
impossibility of any single entity ever adequately embodying the full trauma and nature of
the event.
Prominence of Auschwitz in Popular and Academic Opinion
It is irrefutable that Auschwitz has come to dominate the popular understanding of
the Holocaust. In an era when information is disseminated and imbibed through sound
bites, snapshots and powerful imagery, it is very significant that Holocaust iconography has
become inextricably linked to the iconography of Auschwitz. Concentration camps, gas
chambers, incineration and Deutsche Reichsbahn trains packed with Jews are all images
evoked from the popular understanding of the Holocaust. These are all images educed from
an understanding of Auschwitz. The infamous Nazi dictum Arbeit Macht Frei is another
prime example of the dominance of Auschwitz imagery on the popular memory of the
5
Holocaust.3 In popular culture too, Auschwitz has been prominent in representations of the
entire event. In cinema, Auschwitz has been a primary setting, one could almost say
character, for some of the most critically acclaimed and popularly received Holocaust films.
Roberto Benigni’s classic La Vita è Bella is a case in point. The Italian film is one of the most
widely viewed and critically acclaimed Holocaust films created having won three Oscars, a
BAFTA and the Grand Prize of the Jury at the Cannes Film Festival.4 Auschwitz also plays a
leading role in the most popular Holocaust literature. The most widely disseminated
Holocaust memoir, Primo Levi’s If this is a Man, focuses on the writer’s experiences in
Auschwitz as does Tadeusz Borowski’s melancholic memoir This Way to the Gas, Ladies and
Gentlemen. Similarly, the use of gas chambers and smoking chimneys in Art Spiegelman’s
graphic novel Maus is further evidence of the emotive nature of these particular images in
the public recognition of the Holocaust.5 A further indication of the prominence of
Auschwitz can be seen in the phenomenon of what John Lennon and Malcolm Foley have
described as “dark tourism”; tourism that involves tourists travelling to sites associated with
death.6 As of 2011, 30 million tourists had visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum,
situated on the territory of the infamous concentration camp.7 It almost goes without saying
that no other concentration camp can match this number. Indeed, most do not even have
museums, as Auschwitz does, to entice tourists.
The dominance of Auschwitz in popular conceptions of the Holocaust is replicated
amongst a considerable school of thought within academia. For some independent
3 Paradoxically, despite being synonymous with the camp, the Arbeit Macht Frei sign did not originate from, or belong exclusively to, Auschwitz. The dictum was first introduced at Dachau Concentration Camp before later being adopted by Rudolf Höss at Auschwitz. 4 Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). 5 A. Spiegelman, The Complete Maus (New York, 1992), pp. 189 -199. 6 J. Lennon, M. Foley, Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster (London, 2006), p. 41. 7 A. Białecka, European Pack for Visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum (Strasbourg, 2010), p. 18.
6
historians, ‘Auschwitz, through its destructive dynamism, was the physical embodiment of
the fundamental values of the Nazi state.’8 R.S. Botwinick similarly argues that, ‘the
demented world of Auschwitz gave full expression to the worst betrayal of humanity found
in the annals of history,’ and that Auschwitz is ‘rightly placed at the centre of the genocide
of European Jewry.’9 Indeed, in the majority of mentionable Holocaust academic literature,
this position is in vogue. Perhaps more significantly, this school of thought is also present
amongst historians with a direct affiliation to prominent Holocaust museums, memorials
and government institutions – all of which are crucial in shaping how the Holocaust is
remembered. Yisrael Gutman, an Auschwitz survivor, is a prime example. He is chairman of
the Scientific Council at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Israel, an advisor to the
Polish government on issues of Holocaust commemoration and representation, and has
published books in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is his
view, and by association that of the organisations he represents and publishes for, that
‘Auschwitz illumines the totality of the Nazi killing machine.’10 This demonstrates that the
pre-eminence of Auschwitz has been promoted through a process both of
institutionalisation at the prominent centres of memory, representation and education, and
through a wide exposure of this particular site in popular culture and conceptions of the
Holocaust.
The Roots of Auschwitz’s Pre-Eminence
Raul Hilberg states that the pre-eminence of Auschwitz is rooted in three of it’s
primary characteristics; (i) Death toll, (ii) the geography, and (iii) the permanent nature of
8 L. Rees, Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution (London, 2005), p. 8. 9 R.S. Botwinick, A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation (London, 1996), p. 197. 10 Y. Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp (Washington D.C., 1994), p. vii.
7
Auschwitz as a camp.11 It is certainly true that these three factors go a long way in
explaining the prominence of Auschwitz, however, Hilberg fails to acknowledge other crucial
factors: namely, (iv) the sheer scale of the Auschwitz operation, (v) the use of gas and
crematoria, and finally (vi) the large number of Auschwitz survivors. This paper will
interrogate all six factors rather than Hilberg’s reductionist three.
In physical terms, Auschwitz was astounding. The camp was originally built as a small
transit camp in former Polish military barracks situated in the small town of Oświęcim in
Upper Silesia, German-occupied Poland. Under the command of Rudolf Höss, it evolved into
the infamous death factory; both a forced labour and extermination camp. It comprised
more than forty-five sub camps and encompassed an area of approximately forty square
kilometres as illustrated in Figure 1.12 This area was one of ‘Auschwitz influence’ rather than
direct control but the magnitude of affected territory is staggering nonetheless. The
enormous dimensions of Auschwitz allowed it to accommodate the largest number of
prisoners, utilise the greatest amount of slave labourers and produce the most significant
economic output. Ultimately the grand scale of Auschwitz also enabled the camp to destroy
more lives than was possible at any other site.
11 R. Hilberg in Ibid., p. 81. 12 S. Krakowski in Y. Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, p. 51.
8
Figure 1 Auschwitz Sub camp System.
Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Online Archive (http://www.ushmm.org).
It has often perplexed historians, though, that the Nazis built Auschwitz in a manner
reflective of a permanent structure as this contributed to the Nazis’ failure to destroy the
camp before the Soviet liberation on 27 January 1945. This was dissimilar to other such
camps which were designed and served as temporary structures. The corollary was that
these camps were much more easily liquidated whilst Auschwitz remained partially intact at
the end of the war.13 Other Nazi extermination camps such as those at Sobibor, Treblinka or
Chelmno were almost wholly dissolved, meaning that early knowledge of these camps was
very limited. It has also meant their historical legacy has been diminished. The failure to
liquidate the camp has thus proved critical in establishing Auschwitz as the centre of
Holocaust education and symbolism. In simple terms, Auschwitz was the only tangible link
that remained of the Holocaust machinery. As noted, the camp still stands today as a
“living” memorial museum to the history of the Holocaust. It was almost inevitable then that 13 J. Caplan, N. Wachsmann, Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany: The New Histories, (London, 2010), p. 88.
9
Auschwitz would become the centre of all historical study on the subject as many of the
available sources came from this camp; the most significant source being the very existence
of Auschwitz after the event at all.
Whilst thousands of Jews, and other minority groups, were used as slave labour,
often until death, at the Monowitz camp (Auschwitz III) or at the various sub-camps, the
centre of the Auschwitz extermination program was Auschwitz-Birkenau (Auschwitz II). The
strategies pursued here have also played a key role in promoting Auschwitz as the symbol of
the Holocaust - specifically, the gas chambers and crematoria. Ninety per cent of all those
who died at Auschwitz did so here as the Nazis gathered together their victims into crowded
shower-rooms where they released Zyklon-B, a deadly acidic gas, into the chamber.14 Rudolf
Höss intimated in his memoirs that this method of extermination was preferred as it was
bloodless and less traumatic for the Schutzstaffel (S.S.) guards in attendance.15 Death by gas
was not a trend only found at Auschwitz, similar deaths occurred at Treblinka, Sobibor or
Chelmno, however, the industrialisation and sheer numbers of victims made Auschwitz
stand alone in this respect. ‘Auschwitz-Birkenau could kill twelve thousand prisoners a day...
[and] could accommodate two thousand victims at one time and kill them in fifteen minutes
or less.’16 It was a very efficient and effective process. The outcome was a staggering death
toll achieved with relative ease.
One of the most hotly debated topics amongst academics is the exact number of
victims at Auschwitz. Early estimations ran from 4 million to as little as 100,000 confirmed
deaths. The Polish Supreme National Tribunal, 1946-48, demonstrated the disparity in
14 G.P. Megargee, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos 1933-1945, (Bloomington, 2009), p.209. 15 R. Hoss, Kommandant in Auschwitz (Munich, 1978), p. 126. [Authors Translation.] 16 R.S. Botwinick, A History of the Holocaust, p. 192.
10
estimations by convicting Rudolf Höss of participation in the murder of 300,000 registered
prisoners and an ‘indeterminate number’ of unregistered prisoners certainly no less than 2.5
million.17 During his testimony at the Nuremburg Trial of Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Rudolf Höss
himself estimated the number around 3 million.18 It is difficult to collect accurate figures
due to, amongst other considerations, the lack of complete documents and the failure of
the Nazi authorities to properly register the majority of prisoners. More recent studies of
the number of victims have focused on the analysis of transport records and figures
alongside the registration documentation. In all, recent research estimates that Auschwitz
was responsible for approximately 1.1 – 1.3 million deaths.19 Of this total, ninety per cent
were Jewish.20 The death toll exacted at Auschwitz meant that almost twenty per cent of all
the victims of the Holocaust died in this single location. It is a death toll which dwarfs the
numbers of fatalities at any other individual site. In fact, had Auschwitz been the only
location involved in the Holocaust, it would still have been the second largest genocide in
human history after the Soviet Holodomor famine in the Ukraine in 1933 which saw more
than 2.4 million deaths, based on a conservative estimate.21 Though unquestionably a
numerical comparison is barbaric and inevitably leads to a hierarchy of victims, it is
nonetheless a useful, if crude, method for establishing the gargantuan scale of Auschwitz.
However, physical size and a huge death toll alone cannot explain why Auschwitz has come
to symbolise this terrible event; the nationality of the victims is also a key factor.
17 Wspoemnienia Rudolfa Hössa komendanta obozu oswiecimskiego (Historical Report of Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Höss) (Warsaw, 1965), p. 27. [Authors Translation] 18 Der Nurnberger Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militargerichtschof, Vol. 11 (Nuremburg, 1947), p. 458. [Authors Translation] 19 G.P. Megargee, USHMM Encyclopaedia, p. 204. 20D.L. Niewyk, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (New York, 2000), p.21. 21 T. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London, 2010), p. 53.
11
Although there were approximately 426,000 prisoners from Hungary,22 victims of
Auschwitz were predominantly from Western European states such as France, Italy, Holland
and Germany.23 The reason for this is principally a chronological one. Despite the prominent
position Auschwitz would hold, it was not until 1943 and the closure of the Action Reinhardt
camps (Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka) that Auschwitz became the extermination camp of
the Third Reich.24 Indeed, Auschwitz was not even functioning as an extermination camp
until 1942 until what Hayes has described as the third phase of the Auschwitz evolutionary
process.25 The corollary is that most of the Polish Jewish population (the largest in Europe)
had been exterminated at various other camps before 1943. The importance of nationality
becomes apparent when one considers the thousands of prisoners that survived Auschwitz.
Documents from the archives of the National Auschwitz Museum suggest that
approximately 7,000 survivors were found by the Red Army on 27 January 1945.26 In this
sense, Auschwitz is just as bespoke in the number of deaths it oversaw, as it was in the
number of victims who survived. The fact that most survivors were of Western-European
descent meant they could publish their memoirs and tell their stories. This was almost
impossible for any Holocaust survivors to do from Eastern-Europe as post-war writers were
hindered by censorship laws behind the Communist ‘Iron Curtain’. In Poland, for example,
censorship was undertaken by the Main Office of Control of the Press, Publications and
Public Performances (GUKPPiW) who required that writer’s adhered rigidly to the tenets of
Socialist Realism. Indeed, censorship during those early years was so rigorous that ‘even
22 Y. Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, p. 89 23 Ibid., pp. 86-89. 24 J. Caplan, Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany, p. 154. 25 P. Hayes, Capital of the Holocaust, p. 331. Hayes described three distinct phases in the Auschwitz evolutionary process: (i) political pacification 1940, (ii) Exploitation of an enslaved labour force 1941, and (iii) Extermination 1942-1945. 26 Polish translation of Soviet report on arrival at Auschwitz. Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, Dpr-Hd/6, p. 89. [Authors Translation.]
12
wedding invitations, business cards and rubber stamps did not escape the office’s control.’27
The consequence was that the early history of the Holocaust was told almost exclusively
through the memoirs of Western-European Jews who had survived Auschwitz, such as
Primo Levi. Another important factor relating to nationality is proposed by Norman Davies.
He asserts that Western histories have been West-centric in their approach and focus.28 The
fact that the majority of Western-European Jews were imprisoned at Auschwitz is perhaps
one reason why this site became the key area of focus for Western historians.
Counterfactually speaking, had Auschwitz been a predominantly East-European experience,
it is dubious that it would have become such a symbol in Western European histories, and
cultures.
Auschwitz as an Unrepresentative Symbol
There is however growing opposition amongst historians against the idea of
Auschwitz as an adequate symbol of the Holocaust, to which this writer subscribes. A
prominent proponent of this idea is Timothy Snyder. He describes Auschwitz as ‘only the
beginning of knowledge, a hint of the true reckoning with the past still to come.’29 Indeed,
using Auschwitz as a representative symbol of the entire Holocaust has a significant number
of flaws. Firstly, the very fact that Auschwitz had such a comparatively large number of
survivors is entirely misrepresentative of an event that had a survival rate of just thirty-three
per cent for the entire European Jewish population.30 On the issue of survival, it is important
to note that the survival of the Auschwitz camp is another unrepresentative anomaly. On
this point, Snyder argues that, ‘the very reasons that we know something about Auschwitz
27 T. Goban-Klas, The Orchestration of the Media: The Politics of Mass Communist Poland and the Aftermath, (Oxford, 1994), p. 63. 28 N. Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945: No Easy Victory (London, 2006), pp. 1-9. 29 T. Snyder, Holocaust: The Ignored Reality in ‘The New York Review of Books’, 16 July 2009. 30 L. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews (London, 1975), p. 403
13
warp our understanding of the Holocaust.’31 In this case, Auschwitz is an exception and so
cannot be representative of the entire reality. Furthermore, it has been noted in this paper
that almost twenty per cent of Holocaust victims died at Auschwitz. This fact is irrefutable,
and for this reason, it is not irrational that Auschwitz has dominated the collective memory
of the event. The corollary, however, is that eighty per cent of victims did not perish at
Auschwitz. Indeed, fully 5 million Jews died at locations other than Auschwitz-Birkenau. This
evidence demonstrates that whilst the death toll at Auschwitz was staggering, it cannot be
considered the centre of the Holocaust, based on a numerical argument, as the very vast
majority of victims did not perish there. Thus, by placing Auschwitz as the pre-eminent
symbol of the Holocaust one risks neglecting the majority of victims. In an event that saw
the murder of fully one third of world Jewry,32 it is abhorrent to omit eighty per cent of that
murdered population.
Similarly, using Auschwitz as an icon also misrepresents the principal victims of the
Holocaust; Polish and Soviet Jews, so called Ostjuden. In all, approximately two thirds of
Holocaust victims were of Polish or Soviet descent, 2.9 million and 1 million victims
respectively.33 300,000 Polish Jews are estimated to have died at Auschwitz.34 That figure
represents just 10 per cent of the total Polish Jewry death toll. The corresponding Soviet
figure is almost negligible. That Auschwitz was primarily a camp for Western-European Jews
is a further example of Auschwitz being misrepresentative. The Holocaust was
predominantly an Eastern-European tragedy with a vast majority of victims coming from
east of Berlin. It is peculiar then, and unhelpful, that the symbol of the Holocaust, the camp
31 T. Snyder, The Ignored Reality. 32 R. Stackelberg, Hitler’s Germany, (London, 1999), p.215 33 T. Snyder, The Ignored Reality. 34 D. Czech, Kalendarz wydarzen Auschwitz w KL Auschwitz (Oswiecim-Brzezinka, 1992), p. 127. [Authors Translation.]
14
described as the ‘capital of the Holocaust’,35 should overlook those who were at the very
centre of the tragedy. This is demonstrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Jewish Death Toll by Country Origin.
Source: R.S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (London, 2001), p. viii.
Through an Auschwitz-centric approach one also dismisses other prominent
locations and camps which were equally ghastly, albeit on a smaller scale. The Nazis
developed camps throughout Europe reaching as far west as Sylt on the Channel Islands (a
slave labour camp) and Drancy, near Paris, (a transit camp) to the most easterly parts of
Europe such as Kaiserwald in Lithuania (a concentration camp), as shown in Figure 3. It is
true that the majority of camps throughout Europe were slave labour or transit camps,
however there were five sites which were responsible for the systematic death of prisoners;
35 P. Hayes, Auschwitz, Capital of the Holocaust, p. 331.
15
Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, which were devoted entirely to extermination, and
Majdanek which, like Auschwitz, functioned as both an extermination camp and a camp for
slave labour. Troublingly, and as a direct result of the monopolisation of the Holocaust by
Auschwitz, many people will have never heard of these locations at which such terrible
atrocities occurred and this again only serves to rob these victims of the same respect with
which Auschwitz victims and survivors are adorned.
Figure 3 Major Nazi Camps Across Europe.
Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Online Archive (http://www.ushmm.org).
Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were designed with the precise intention of murdering Jews in
what was called ‘Action Reinhardt’ which aimed to exterminate the Polish Jewish
population. At these camps, unlike at Auschwitz which had many thousands of survivors at
its end, ‘ninety nine per cent of victims were murdered within hours of their arrival.’36 At
these three camps in a swift campaign against Polish Jewry, approximately 1.5 - 2 million
36 J. Caplan, Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany, p. 152.
16
Jews died and only about 150 prisoners survived.37 On this evidence, the mortality rate per
prisoner arrival was much higher in these camps, which were liquidated in 1943, than at
Auschwitz. F. Pingel has argued the opposite, stating that the ‘proportion of death amongst
Auschwitz prisoners was much higher than in other concentration camps.’38 The evidence
however demonstrates the extent of Pingel’s error. At the Reinhardt camps, the survival
rate was less than 0.01 per cent. The corresponding figure for Auschwitz was approximately
0.7 per cent.39 The intention of these camps was also more morbid than anything
considered at Auschwitz, which evolved into the infamous death factory rather than being
established as such. The Action Reinhardt camps were, from the outset, conceived of as
extermination camps serving little other purpose than this. The intention and outcome of
Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka demonstrates that these camps were much more potent
assassins than Auschwitz.
Additionally, the use of Auschwitz as a symbol leads one to associate victims of the
Holocaust as victims of concentration camps and gas-chambers. The popular conception of
the Holocaust is unquestionably tied up with gas chambers. This is not accurate. The
Holocaust was not solely concerned with the incarceration of Jews into concentration
camps, at least not in the early stages.40 Though historians have failed to provide a definitive
date, it is generally accepted that the Holocaust began with the introduction of the anti-
Semitic Nuremburg Laws in 1935. This act began the official state-sponsored isolation and
persecution of Jewish citizens by the German state and would ultimately lead, following a
37 Ibid., p. 153. 38 F. Pingel, Haftlinge unter S.S. Herrschaft (Hamburg, 1978), p. 230. [Authors Translation.] 39 These calculations are the author’s own and are calculated by dividing the total number of survivors by the estimated death toll for each camp. All figures used for this calculation can be found in this paper. 40 Draft letter from Reich Minister for the occupied Eastern territories to the Reich Commissar for the East in S. Hochstadt, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke, 2004), pp. 116 – 117. This letter, drafted on 25 October 1941, demonstrates the conception of mass-gassings had not been discussed officially until 1941.
17
process of evolution, to the consequent death and desolation of European Jewry. The
example of the Jews of Warsaw, which constituted the largest Jewish population in Europe
second only to New York in global terms,41 is perhaps the most explicit demonstration of the
Holocaust before the exterminationist policies were announced at the Wannsee Conference
in January 1942.42 The Warsaw Jews were first alienated, segregated and isolated from the
Catholic Polish majority in the city through a series of anti-Semitic decrees; most notably the
requirement to wear a Star of David armband and the forbiddance of Jews to walk on the
city’s footpaths.43 Following this legal persecution, the Nazis began a process of
ghettoisation. Jews were forced into ghettos throughout Europe, the largest of which were
in Poland. In Warsaw, the largest of Europe’s ghettos, almost 400,000 Jews were forced into an
area less than 3.5 square kilometres. ‘About 30 percent of Warsaw’s population was concentrated
into about 2.4 percent of the city’s territory.’44 Using Auschwitz as the symbol of the Holocaust
simply ignores these other crucial elements of the event. It is incomplete to overlook the process of
anti-Semitic persecution and ghettoisation.
Likewise, the Holocaust was not solely concerned with gas chambers and crematoria.
In fact, recent research has shown that ‘as many, if not more, Jews were killed by bullets as
by gas.’45 Indeed, according to recent research, less than half of the true number of deaths
of the Holocaust occurred inside Nazi camps.46 Whilst we can attempt to collect and analyse
death totals from gas chambers and concentration camps as noted and documented by the
Nazi regime, it is impossible to accurately gauge the number of Jews who perished in the 41 M. Berenbaum, The Yad Vashem Encyclopaedia of the Ghettos during the Holocaust, (New York, 2009), p. 902. 42 Wannsee Conference Minutes in J. Mendelsohn, The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes. Vol. 11: ‘The Wannsee Protocol and a 1944 Report on Auschwitz by the Office of Strategic Services’ (New York, 1982), pp.18-32 43 Y. Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw 1939-1943 (Brighton, 1982), p. 29. 44 M. Berenbaum, Encyclopaedia of the Ghettos, p. 902. 45 T. Snyder, The Ignored Reality. 46 J. Caplan, Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany, p. 149.
18
ghettos, through casual rifle fire, death marches or through orchestrated food shortages
which were typically undocumented and unsystematic. However, we can be sure that more
than half of European Jews perished by these methods and these victims should not be
disregarded in our remembrance of the Holocaust. For Snyder, ‘the Holocaust was in order:
Operation Reinhardt, Shoah by bullets, Auschwitz.’47
Conclusion
This paper has sought to answer the question: is Auschwitz an adequate
representative symbol of the Holocaust? It is unquestionably true that the site has become
such a symbol, but this paper has refuted the legitimacy of Auschwitz to maintain such a
role. Auschwitz operated on a scale not seen at any other single site throughout Europe. It
was responsible for a fifth of the entire death toll and consumed an area of 40 square
kilometres. It was capable, and guilty, of murder on an industrial scale. The awesome nature
of Auschwitz has not been debated in this paper. Such a debate would be groundless.
However, this paper has proven that Auschwitz is not a suitable symbol of the event in its
entirety. The principal flaw is one of full and complete representation. The difficulty is that
Auschwitz does not, and cannot, represent every aspect of the Holocaust as it was not a
uniform event. The Holocaust is much better described as generalised and localised. Berlin
provided minimal input other than vague aspirations on desired outcomes, rather than
proposals on how these targets could and should be met. The result was a lack of
consistency between camps and regions as S.S. commanders were afforded more and more
autonomy over the means by which results could be achieved. There was thus great
inconsistency between methods used at, and characteristics of, different sites.
47 T. Snyder, The Ignored Reality.
19
The Holocaust, because of its lack of uniformity cannot be represented by any one
symbol or image. Just as Auschwitz fails to accurately represent the Holocaust, so too does
every other aspect of the historical event if used as an individual occurrence. For example, if
one uses Shoah by bullets as a symbol then one neglects the use of the various other means
of murder; if one assigns another camp as an icon then one ignores the most prominent and
largest camp in the Third Reich, if we remember ‘Action Reinhardt’ as a collective symbol
then firstly we ignore the differences between each of the constituent camps, and secondly
fail to recognise any victims other than those of Polish descent. The problem of accurate
representation remains no matter which symbol is chosen. It would be much wiser then,
and historically accurate, to remember the Holocaust not through a single symbol but rather
to consider the event in its entirety and to appreciate the very many complex and shocking
components as a complete picture. This however is equally difficult to achieve. In trying to
remember the Holocaust in its entirety, society risks becoming lost and desensitised due to
the difficulty of interpreting and valuing the required level of detailed information.
Difficulties aside, it is essential to stress the importance of remembering such an event
correctly and representing it accurately. Whilst Auschwitz is a powerful symbol which is
globally recognised, it is wrong to remember only this part of the Holocaust, or for this site
to dominate our understanding of the event. To remember only an element of the event, is
to understand none of it. And in failing to understand the Holocaust, one can easily forget
its lessons.
20
Bibliography
Secondary Sources
1. M. Berenbaum, The Yad Vashem Encyclopaedia of the Ghettos during the Holocaust,
(New York, 2009).
2. A. Białecka, European Pack for Visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum
(Strasbourg, 2010).
3. R.S. Botwinick, A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation (London,
1996).
21
4. J. Caplan, N. Wachsmann, Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany: The New Histories,
(London, 2010).
5. D. Czech, Kalendarz wydarzen w KL Auschwitz [Chronicle of Events in Auschwitz
Concentration Camp](Oswiecim-Brzezinka, 1992).
6. N. Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945: No Easy Victory (London, 2006).
7. L. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews (London, 1975).
8. T. Goban-Klas, The Orchestration of the Media: The Politics of Mass Communist
Poland and the Aftermath, (Oxford, 1994).
9. Y. Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw 1939-1943 (Brighton, 1982).
10. Y. Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp (Washington D.C., 1994).
11. P. Hayes, Auschwitz, Capital of the Holocaust in ‘Holocaust and Genocide Studies’,
Autumn 2003.
12. J. Lennon, M. Foley, Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster (London,
2006).
13. G.P. Megargee, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Encyclopedia of
Camps and Ghettos 1933-1945, (Bloomington, 2009).
14. D.L. Niewyk, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (New York, 2000).
15. F. Pingel, Haftlinge unter S.S. Herrschaft (Hamburg, 1978).
16. L. Rees, Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution (London, 2005).
17. T. Snyder, Holocaust: The Ignored Reality in ‘The New York Review of Books’, 16 July
2009.
18. T. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (London, 2010).
19. R. Stackelberg, Hitler’s Germany, (London, 1999).
20. R.S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (London, 2001).
Internet Sources
21. Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). Last accessed: 7 May 2012.
22. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Online Archive (www.ushmm.org). Last
accessed: 8 May 2012.
Non-Academic Texts and Personal Memoirs
23. T. Borowski, This Way to the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen (London, 1992).
24. R. Höss, Kommandant in Auschwitz (Munich, 1978).
25. P. Levi, If this is a Man (London, 2010).
22
26. A. Spiegelman, The Complete Maus (London, 2003).
Primary Sources – All Translations are those of the author
27. S. Hochstadt, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke, 2004).
28. J. Mendelsohn, The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes. Vol. 11
(New York, 1982).
29. Archives of the State Auschwitz Museum (APMO). Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum
w Oswiecimiu, Dpr-Hd/6.
30. Der Nurnberger Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen
Militargerichtschof, Vol. 11 (Nuremburg, 1947).
31. Supreme National Tribunal of Poland Report on Rudolf Höss. Wspoemnienia Rudolfa
Hössa komendanta obozu oswiecimskiego (Historical Report of Auschwitz Camp
Commander Rudolf Höss) (Warsaw, 1965).
Recommended