I just watched the 1961 Twilight Zone Episode, Death's-Head Revisited, about a Nazi SS Officer who returns to Dachau, where he was captain, to revel in nostalgia. It was first aired in November of 1961, just a few months after the Eichmann Trial came to an end. The trial was aired on new programs internationally, lasting from April to August of 1961. Death's-Head Revisited clearly reverberates with the message to "never forget" and with a call for justice and retribution.
Captain Lutze, wandering Dachau alone, is confronted by camp prisoners who he was responsible for torturing and killing, and put on trial by them for his "crimes against humanity." He is found guilty and sentenced to a life of insanity where he must bear the agony (both physical and mental) of the crimes he committed. Though he and others reveal their wish for the past to be put in the past, the ultimate message is that the past needs to be retained and maintained in our memories. Those who died and suffered in the camps cannot leave it behind them and neither should the general public or Captain Lutze, especially.
The opening narration includes a scathing description of Nazis which is echoed again further into the episode in the dialogue between Lutze and Becker, a victim of the camp. Lutze is qualified as "a black-uniformed strutting animal whose function in life was to give pain, and like his colleagues of the time he shared the one affliction most common amongst that breed known as Nazis: he walked the Earth without a heart." There is no room for ambiguity in the characterization of Nazis or the SS here, though we often hear of acts of kindness or compassion in survivor testimony, as in George Gottlieb's testimony from the Shoah Foundation archive, where he talks about the opportunity granted by an SS Officer for he and his brother to go looking for their mother with a bag of food. This media portrayal of the Nazi as the epitome of evil is certainly easier for an American public to understand, especially in terms of support for survivors and retribution.
The witness, through the Eichmann Trial, came into a position of newfound respect and legitimacy. The ultimate witness in Death's-Head Revisited is Becker, the murdered victim who is able to return to speak to the living, Lutze, but also, through the medium of a television show, to the American public. He is the voice of the dead and he speaks eloquently about what has been lost in the camp and what continues to be denied. It seems, then, that the witness takes on a dual role of speaking for himself and for those who cannot speak. The fictionalized witness presented by the media, as is the case of Death's-Head Revisited and other television shows such as the Holocaust miniseries, can allow for "the dead" to "speak." Of course, this creates a problem of voice and a history which Wieviorka discusses at length in regards to historians and the media. There is an anxiety of the witness of being dispossesed of history because it is being told by someone who has not experienced it firsthand and yet speaks of it as if he had. This Twilight Zone episode again brings that issue into discussion.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Comparing Holocaust Testimonies
I have chosen Holocaust survivors Bella Zgnilek and George Gottlieb to analyze and discuss their experiences, and recollection during the time both were in concentration camps. Bella Zgnilek found herself doing various jobs throughout the concentration camp. Bella spoke German and knew how to type in which she believed that her education, and skills were the main the reasons why they kept her alive. In addition, she left to France with seven other women, and has been there ever since. George Gottlieb was originally from Hungary in which he describes an emotional memory of seeing his mother during the concentration camp. Nonetheless, his testimony did not go into great detail about the holocaust.
The reason I have chosen these two testimonies is because I wanted to get a man and a woman’s prospectives on their experiences within the concentration camp. Also, in class we touched on the ideology of memory, and how it changes throughout time. I also analyzed how both of the stories clarity, and accuracy of each story.
Throughout Bella’s testimony she touches the constant hardship of her various tasks throughout the concentration camp. Nonetheless, I believe Bella mainly focused on her “working experience.” She went into concise detail on how showed worked fourteen hours, and was then sent to the next job. Bella did speak about her family, but it was not the main focus. On the other hand, George Gottlieb explains a particular event in his experience within the concentration camp. George’s testimony was very detailed, and spoken with such passion and emotion compared to Bella’s experience. Throughout Bella’s testimony I had noticed that the interviewer (Boder) seem as if he were asking the questions in a forceful way. While in George Gottlieb’s testimony seem not to be as much of a structured testimony. Overall, both testimonies share the pain and anguish of the holocaust. What I find interesting is that both George and Bella are now viewed as “survivors” of the same struggle. Both survivors have place themselves in history.
The reason I have chosen these two testimonies is because I wanted to get a man and a woman’s prospectives on their experiences within the concentration camp. Also, in class we touched on the ideology of memory, and how it changes throughout time. I also analyzed how both of the stories clarity, and accuracy of each story.
Throughout Bella’s testimony she touches the constant hardship of her various tasks throughout the concentration camp. Nonetheless, I believe Bella mainly focused on her “working experience.” She went into concise detail on how showed worked fourteen hours, and was then sent to the next job. Bella did speak about her family, but it was not the main focus. On the other hand, George Gottlieb explains a particular event in his experience within the concentration camp. George’s testimony was very detailed, and spoken with such passion and emotion compared to Bella’s experience. Throughout Bella’s testimony I had noticed that the interviewer (Boder) seem as if he were asking the questions in a forceful way. While in George Gottlieb’s testimony seem not to be as much of a structured testimony. Overall, both testimonies share the pain and anguish of the holocaust. What I find interesting is that both George and Bella are now viewed as “survivors” of the same struggle. Both survivors have place themselves in history.
Nazi Atrocties
For this blog, I watched interviews from the Shoah Foundation, mainly those of Erna Anolik, George Gottlieb, Esther Bem, and James Hayes.
It seems like, with the obvoius exception of the millions of deaths, one of the worst causes of the Holocaust was a crisis of identity for the survivors. As Erna discusses in her interview, the whole process of entering a camp seems designed to strip the people of any identity they had. People were shaved, stripped, and given uniforms. In Esther's interview, she talks about how she had to hide her Jewish background from the Germans. As a result, even after the defeat of Germany, she describes how it took years for her to find her own identity again. While I always thought personal identity was something that could never be taken from you, I have also never been in a camp. If something as sacred as your own identity could be stripped from you, then surviving your ordeal is nothing short of a miracle.
Perhaps equally as bad was the seperation of families. Erna also mentions that she was never given work, but volunteered to make deliveries in the hopes of seeing her parents, which never happened. George descirbes an encounter where he asked a guard if he could try to find his mother. The guard responded with a good, swift kick. About a week later, however, the guard gave him a bag with some food in it and twenty minutes to find his mother. He did, but with what she had been through, he barely recognized her. It was the last time he ever saw her.
As if this wasn't enough to deal with, the conditions they were living in were absolutely horrible, as explained by James and numerous others. The stench was unbearable, the dead and sick were crammed in with the living, there was barely any food, and hygeine was essentially non-existent. They were treated like animals, not humans. How people could survive for monthes, even years, in these conditions is absolutely beyond me.
The atrocities committed by the Nazis are quite possibly the worst the world has seen. An entire race of people was nearly eliminated because they were deemed "inferior." It is absolutely essential that the people of this planet do everything in their power to ensure things like this never happen again. This is why it is absolutely essential that attention be turned to current horrors, like what is going on in Rwanada.
It seems like, with the obvoius exception of the millions of deaths, one of the worst causes of the Holocaust was a crisis of identity for the survivors. As Erna discusses in her interview, the whole process of entering a camp seems designed to strip the people of any identity they had. People were shaved, stripped, and given uniforms. In Esther's interview, she talks about how she had to hide her Jewish background from the Germans. As a result, even after the defeat of Germany, she describes how it took years for her to find her own identity again. While I always thought personal identity was something that could never be taken from you, I have also never been in a camp. If something as sacred as your own identity could be stripped from you, then surviving your ordeal is nothing short of a miracle.
Perhaps equally as bad was the seperation of families. Erna also mentions that she was never given work, but volunteered to make deliveries in the hopes of seeing her parents, which never happened. George descirbes an encounter where he asked a guard if he could try to find his mother. The guard responded with a good, swift kick. About a week later, however, the guard gave him a bag with some food in it and twenty minutes to find his mother. He did, but with what she had been through, he barely recognized her. It was the last time he ever saw her.
As if this wasn't enough to deal with, the conditions they were living in were absolutely horrible, as explained by James and numerous others. The stench was unbearable, the dead and sick were crammed in with the living, there was barely any food, and hygeine was essentially non-existent. They were treated like animals, not humans. How people could survive for monthes, even years, in these conditions is absolutely beyond me.
The atrocities committed by the Nazis are quite possibly the worst the world has seen. An entire race of people was nearly eliminated because they were deemed "inferior." It is absolutely essential that the people of this planet do everything in their power to ensure things like this never happen again. This is why it is absolutely essential that attention be turned to current horrors, like what is going on in Rwanada.
Loss of Identity
A common theme we have seen throughout reading Wieviorka and watching video testimony is the loss of identity victims experienced. Whether they hid under a false name in an unfamiliar place, or whether they suffered in the camps with a number as their name, the identities of victims were buried and destroyed during the Holocaust. Furthering this problem was the general reaction after the war. Though their was a strong initial reaction, after the dust settled, Holocaust survivors went out of the public sphere to an extent. Wieviorka explains how some survivors would tell their children not to talk about their experience with people because they didn't want to hear about it, and they would never view the victim in the same way. Even in Israel it was thought "The less everybody talked about the Holocaust, the better. Thus the great silence was born" (Wieviorka p. 73). Because of these attitudes, survivors formed closed communties in order to honor the memory of their dead and to keep ties with people who had lived through the experience. This means that the memory of the Holocaust was being kept almost entirely in the private sphere of society.
What changed this was the Eichman trial, where Hausner hoped to, "superimpose on a phantom a dimension of reality" (Wieviorka p. 70). What he means is that through testimonies of victims from all walks of life, he hoped to give a real face, or identity, to the idea of a Holocaust survivor. Testimony, whether oral or written, had already been used for this purpose. Earlier Wievorka notes that the reason Wiesel and many others poured out notes right after liberation, was in order to reconstitue their identity. I think that this is the same reason that survivors formed these closed groups when the world was not interested in their story. What the Eichman trial did was give their testimony and experience a public importance and legitimacy of government attention. Also, Wieviorka states that it was the first time since the war that victims felt they were being listened to and heard.
Included on the USC Shoah Foundation's archive of testimony, George Gottlieb and Esther Bem both demonstrate this experience. Gottlieb remembers being able to meet with his mother for twenty minutes while in a camp. When he sees her, he is torn apart by the destruction that the event has had on his mother - she is almost unrecognizable to him. He ends his segment with his mother's last words to him, "Be proud of your heritage. Be proud of your name." His mother, feeling her identity and the identity of Jews in generally being destroyed, begs her son to above all hang on to his identity.
Esther Bem had a different experience. She hid in a town far from her home, under an assumed name. She spoke of how she and others would never tell anyone that they were Jewish. When liberated, she experienced great difficulty in reclaiming her true identity. After denying who you are for a number of years, this is expected. For Jewish people living during the Nazi rule, admitting who you were would give you a death sentence. It is hard for me to imagine the destruction and long lasting effect this would produce.
It seems, though, that through testimony, people are given the chance to reaffirm and, as Wieviorka says, reconstitute their identities. The demand, value, and legitimacy of their testimony was strengthened by the Eichmann trial, and I believe the value on their testimony has generally continued to this day.
What changed this was the Eichman trial, where Hausner hoped to, "superimpose on a phantom a dimension of reality" (Wieviorka p. 70). What he means is that through testimonies of victims from all walks of life, he hoped to give a real face, or identity, to the idea of a Holocaust survivor. Testimony, whether oral or written, had already been used for this purpose. Earlier Wievorka notes that the reason Wiesel and many others poured out notes right after liberation, was in order to reconstitue their identity. I think that this is the same reason that survivors formed these closed groups when the world was not interested in their story. What the Eichman trial did was give their testimony and experience a public importance and legitimacy of government attention. Also, Wieviorka states that it was the first time since the war that victims felt they were being listened to and heard.
Included on the USC Shoah Foundation's archive of testimony, George Gottlieb and Esther Bem both demonstrate this experience. Gottlieb remembers being able to meet with his mother for twenty minutes while in a camp. When he sees her, he is torn apart by the destruction that the event has had on his mother - she is almost unrecognizable to him. He ends his segment with his mother's last words to him, "Be proud of your heritage. Be proud of your name." His mother, feeling her identity and the identity of Jews in generally being destroyed, begs her son to above all hang on to his identity.
Esther Bem had a different experience. She hid in a town far from her home, under an assumed name. She spoke of how she and others would never tell anyone that they were Jewish. When liberated, she experienced great difficulty in reclaiming her true identity. After denying who you are for a number of years, this is expected. For Jewish people living during the Nazi rule, admitting who you were would give you a death sentence. It is hard for me to imagine the destruction and long lasting effect this would produce.
It seems, though, that through testimony, people are given the chance to reaffirm and, as Wieviorka says, reconstitute their identities. The demand, value, and legitimacy of their testimony was strengthened by the Eichmann trial, and I believe the value on their testimony has generally continued to this day.
"First-Hand" Holocaust
Boder/Bella Interview
I just read the interview transcript conducted by D.P. Boder with Bella Zgnilek, who is 22 years old. It seems like the interview took place not long after her liberation and migration to France, though it is unclear how much time passed.
Bella Zgnilek interview
Boder was clearly out to create an archive and to gather not just personal testimony but songs and poetry from within the work camp. He explains this importance to her and she seems to oblige him with the information (though written material he asks her for during the interview is not, in the end, gathered and included in the archive). She clearly has a message that she wants to get out, as she reveals at the end in her message, calling out to "you, my friends" and "us Jews". Throughout the rest of the interview, she sticks to a fairly detached-seeming recollection of narrative facts, without adding in how she felt about the events or people involved. I think maybe this is because of the structure and expectations of the interview. It isn't until the end, when Boder gives her freedom to say what she wants, that she does express her feelings.
I was particularly struck by how difficult it was to fully understand her narrative about what happened to her family and her mother, father, siblings and extended family. Even her narrative about where she went and what happened to her seemed a little fragmented, although it may have just come across that way though the transcript/interview form. For a project seeking to gather and archive information, the limitations are very palpable. Clearly, the questions Boder delineates at various points in the interview are meant to draw out a personal narrative, but the success of delivery and comprehensiveness depends, ultimately, on the person being interviewed and how well the interviewer and interviewee can communicate.
This brings up the question of language, which Wieviorka (The Era of the Witness) explores in her discussion of Wiesel's Night. He clearly tailors what information he presents based on his expected audience (and how he presents the information). Language/code switching seems to have further complicated the process. I got the feeling that in the interview that Bella was giving answers certainly not in her most comfortable/fluent language (and, at the end, she gives her ending remarks, where she reveals more of her feelings, in Polish, which I don't think she uses at all through the rest of the interview). Clearly, language plays a significant role in the way she testified and probably in the way she understood the interview.
The issue of silence was also something I found myself thinking about throughout the interview, especially in places where the transcript noted "Word(s) not clear" or put in "(?)". Information is clearly lost in these blanks. Additionally, both Bella and Boder trail off without finishing some thoughts, leaving parts of the narrative untold, just as Wiesel does in Night with his use of elipses...
Shoah Testimonies
So, I ended up watching all of the testimony clips on the Shoah Foundation website. There were a few specific things that people said that resonated with what I have been thinking about from the readings and then some more general things I wanted to note.
In Hy Abrahm's testimony, he talked about going to hide in the mountains with his family and, he thought, a few other families. For some reason I was very aware of the way he seemed to be referencing an unclear memory by saying "I think" (his facial expression contributed as well), which then became more concrete - and part of the narrative - by its utterance and inclusion into the story.
In Marcia Spies' account, she describes the appreciation she has come to have for the family that took her in and hid her during the war. It is in retrospect that she has come to have this view of what the family had to sacrifice and the kind of people they were/must have been. I wonder if her reflexive views on the family and the stories she chose to tell or remember about them and her experience with them are affected by her perception of their kindness.
George Gottlieb's description of he and his brother's last meeting with thier mother was intensely sad, but at the same time offered an interesting depiction of the Nazi SS Officer that I think we don't often see. The officer first kicked him when he asked to go find his mother, but then later shows a clear gesture of kindness in allowing the boys (though just 20 minutes) to go find their mother. He obviously knew or found out where she was. The SS also gave them a paper bag with good "German" bread, butter, sausage, and a pocketknife to give to their mother in offering. This is a compassionate side of the SS not often told about.
I was interested in the question of language in Romana Farrington's testimony as well as in the collection of testimonies as a whole. All of the testimony presented on this webpage was presented in English, though whether that carries through for all or even most of the Shoah Foundation's archives would warrant more research on my part. Even so, this is presupposing and catering to a certain audience. What testimony and who does this then exclude from the English-speaker's understanding of the Holocaust witness? Additionally, I wonder how much speaking in English, seemingly not the native/first language of any of the witnesses, changed how they remembered and relayed their narratives. Romana Farrington had trouble remembering the word "ax". I'm not sure what that means to her story... but it brought up the question of translation and what can be lost.
Overall I was interested in the question of the editting and selection of testimony shown on the website, a question that Wieviorka brings to the surface with her discussion of the selection of witnesses for the Eichmann trial (73). Is it based on emotional appeal? What the foundation thinks the public should hear? What the foundation thinks the public wants to hear? It made me think about why witnesses are chosen to be the representatives of all others. On the Shoah Foundation website, there were only twelve clips shown, and of these testimonies, only a few minutes each of hours of testimony were provided. Also, I wondered what brought certain stories to mind for certain witnesses. Which stories come readily to their minds? Which narratives are personally deemed most important to them and why? In the context of different interviews, do/would they tell different stories? Moreover, what do and have the foundation's video editors deemed important from the collected testimonies? Why did they choose the clips of stories that they did?
I just read the interview transcript conducted by D.P. Boder with Bella Zgnilek, who is 22 years old. It seems like the interview took place not long after her liberation and migration to France, though it is unclear how much time passed.
Bella Zgnilek interview
Boder was clearly out to create an archive and to gather not just personal testimony but songs and poetry from within the work camp. He explains this importance to her and she seems to oblige him with the information (though written material he asks her for during the interview is not, in the end, gathered and included in the archive). She clearly has a message that she wants to get out, as she reveals at the end in her message, calling out to "you, my friends" and "us Jews". Throughout the rest of the interview, she sticks to a fairly detached-seeming recollection of narrative facts, without adding in how she felt about the events or people involved. I think maybe this is because of the structure and expectations of the interview. It isn't until the end, when Boder gives her freedom to say what she wants, that she does express her feelings.
I was particularly struck by how difficult it was to fully understand her narrative about what happened to her family and her mother, father, siblings and extended family. Even her narrative about where she went and what happened to her seemed a little fragmented, although it may have just come across that way though the transcript/interview form. For a project seeking to gather and archive information, the limitations are very palpable. Clearly, the questions Boder delineates at various points in the interview are meant to draw out a personal narrative, but the success of delivery and comprehensiveness depends, ultimately, on the person being interviewed and how well the interviewer and interviewee can communicate.
This brings up the question of language, which Wieviorka (The Era of the Witness) explores in her discussion of Wiesel's Night. He clearly tailors what information he presents based on his expected audience (and how he presents the information). Language/code switching seems to have further complicated the process. I got the feeling that in the interview that Bella was giving answers certainly not in her most comfortable/fluent language (and, at the end, she gives her ending remarks, where she reveals more of her feelings, in Polish, which I don't think she uses at all through the rest of the interview). Clearly, language plays a significant role in the way she testified and probably in the way she understood the interview.
The issue of silence was also something I found myself thinking about throughout the interview, especially in places where the transcript noted "Word(s) not clear" or put in "(?)". Information is clearly lost in these blanks. Additionally, both Bella and Boder trail off without finishing some thoughts, leaving parts of the narrative untold, just as Wiesel does in Night with his use of elipses...
Shoah Testimonies
So, I ended up watching all of the testimony clips on the Shoah Foundation website. There were a few specific things that people said that resonated with what I have been thinking about from the readings and then some more general things I wanted to note.
In Hy Abrahm's testimony, he talked about going to hide in the mountains with his family and, he thought, a few other families. For some reason I was very aware of the way he seemed to be referencing an unclear memory by saying "I think" (his facial expression contributed as well), which then became more concrete - and part of the narrative - by its utterance and inclusion into the story.
In Marcia Spies' account, she describes the appreciation she has come to have for the family that took her in and hid her during the war. It is in retrospect that she has come to have this view of what the family had to sacrifice and the kind of people they were/must have been. I wonder if her reflexive views on the family and the stories she chose to tell or remember about them and her experience with them are affected by her perception of their kindness.
George Gottlieb's description of he and his brother's last meeting with thier mother was intensely sad, but at the same time offered an interesting depiction of the Nazi SS Officer that I think we don't often see. The officer first kicked him when he asked to go find his mother, but then later shows a clear gesture of kindness in allowing the boys (though just 20 minutes) to go find their mother. He obviously knew or found out where she was. The SS also gave them a paper bag with good "German" bread, butter, sausage, and a pocketknife to give to their mother in offering. This is a compassionate side of the SS not often told about.
I was interested in the question of language in Romana Farrington's testimony as well as in the collection of testimonies as a whole. All of the testimony presented on this webpage was presented in English, though whether that carries through for all or even most of the Shoah Foundation's archives would warrant more research on my part. Even so, this is presupposing and catering to a certain audience. What testimony and who does this then exclude from the English-speaker's understanding of the Holocaust witness? Additionally, I wonder how much speaking in English, seemingly not the native/first language of any of the witnesses, changed how they remembered and relayed their narratives. Romana Farrington had trouble remembering the word "ax". I'm not sure what that means to her story... but it brought up the question of translation and what can be lost.
Overall I was interested in the question of the editting and selection of testimony shown on the website, a question that Wieviorka brings to the surface with her discussion of the selection of witnesses for the Eichmann trial (73). Is it based on emotional appeal? What the foundation thinks the public should hear? What the foundation thinks the public wants to hear? It made me think about why witnesses are chosen to be the representatives of all others. On the Shoah Foundation website, there were only twelve clips shown, and of these testimonies, only a few minutes each of hours of testimony were provided. Also, I wondered what brought certain stories to mind for certain witnesses. Which stories come readily to their minds? Which narratives are personally deemed most important to them and why? In the context of different interviews, do/would they tell different stories? Moreover, what do and have the foundation's video editors deemed important from the collected testimonies? Why did they choose the clips of stories that they did?
More Than Just History
It is more compelling to learn about the Holocaust through first hand accounts of witness testimonials. To me history books have always been dry and boring, readings about the Holocaust were filled with statistics, dates, and general summaries. Reading about the Holocaust from personal accounts of witnesses gives a whole new perspective. I found myself dawn to the witness testimonials. These first hand accounts are more touching, and they bring about feelings of sorrow and fear, almost as if you yourself are reliving their story.
I looked at numerous accounts of Holocaust victims from http://voices.iit.edu/interview.html by just randomly picking names, and watched a few video testimonial clips at http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php.
Its horrible to see the extent the Germans went to during the Holocaust, and to see the fear they instilled in others. They had so much power that their victims had no choice but to listen. In an account from Julian Weinberg, its clearly obvious the control the Germans had. She tells her story of how the SS would break into apartments, and forcefully take people by any means. After victims learned of the intent of the SS, people would willingly travel to the ghettos, in order to avoid inhuman treatment from the SS.
Julian Weinberg talks of how, when the SS broke into apartments, the sick were automatically killed by the SS. If someone was sick they were not spared. In Erna Anolik video testimonial, says that the sick were thrown into the same ditches as the dead. Its horrible to believe that the SS could just eliminate people so easily. Its horrible to see how cold and militantly brutal they were.
I can go on forever about how horrible and sad the testimonials of victims of the Holocaust are, but why hear it from me when you can hear the first hand accounts of the victims. Their stories are touching on a personal basis, but informative in a educational sort of way. I urge everyone to learn about the Holocaust through video testimonials and interviews from the victims.
I looked at numerous accounts of Holocaust victims from http://voices.iit.edu/interview.html by just randomly picking names, and watched a few video testimonial clips at http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php.
Its horrible to see the extent the Germans went to during the Holocaust, and to see the fear they instilled in others. They had so much power that their victims had no choice but to listen. In an account from Julian Weinberg, its clearly obvious the control the Germans had. She tells her story of how the SS would break into apartments, and forcefully take people by any means. After victims learned of the intent of the SS, people would willingly travel to the ghettos, in order to avoid inhuman treatment from the SS.
Julian Weinberg talks of how, when the SS broke into apartments, the sick were automatically killed by the SS. If someone was sick they were not spared. In Erna Anolik video testimonial, says that the sick were thrown into the same ditches as the dead. Its horrible to believe that the SS could just eliminate people so easily. Its horrible to see how cold and militantly brutal they were.
I can go on forever about how horrible and sad the testimonials of victims of the Holocaust are, but why hear it from me when you can hear the first hand accounts of the victims. Their stories are touching on a personal basis, but informative in a educational sort of way. I urge everyone to learn about the Holocaust through video testimonials and interviews from the victims.
The Holocaust and Memory
Listening to these testimonies of survivors from the second World War was both touching and sickening at the same time. It is horrible to hear about the atrocities of war, ecspecially when it happens to innocent and often young people. While watching George Gottlieb's interview, you can tell the strength that he had to have, and the strength other Jewish people had to have during the war.
I was very surprised, however when George asked a guard if there was any possible way he could let his mother know he was alive. In an act of cruelty, the guard just kicked him and told him to “get back in line”. As George, his brother, and other Jewish people were leaving, the guard took 10 out of 100 of them, including him and his brother, with a push cart to the ladies camp. The rest of the Jewish people went directly to work. In an act of kindness, George and his brother were handed a brown paper bag with bread, butter, sausage, and a knife. They were given 20 minutes by the guard to find their mother, and she found them. He is very emotional, even now, and talks about what a beautiful woman his mother was. That was the last time he saw her. George says it was “a tough sight and a tougher memory”. His mothers last words were “Be proud of your heritage, and proud of your name." This part was very touching to me because the guard showed them some kindness, but at the same time, he did not show kindness to the other Jewish people. A common theme seems to be the cruelty of some receiving hope and kindness while others receive the worst treatment possible.
Another touching interview was with Marcia Spies. It was touching because she said that she had to go into hiding. She says it with such conviction probably because some ridiculed her for her decision to not stand with the Jewish People. In her own way, she contributed to the Jewish people by staying alive and telling her story. She talks about the very strict conditions she had to live under in hiding. She was taken in by a family with two college age daughters. The family was nice, a point she stresses, and she slept with the girls. She was given a closet to hide in by the family. “Every time the doorbell rang I would have to go into the closet, and stay there in the closet. Sometimes for hours and hours”. Because of the great risk they were taking, the family restricted visitors to the house as much as possible. The family had a farm outside the city where they lived, where they had vegetables and meat. She stresses that they were just ordinary people, not wealthy, but extremely humanitarian. She says “to risk their lives and their children’s lives to hide a Jewish child… was really incredible”.
Both interviews (George Gottlieb's and Marcia Spies's) can be found at the website: http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php. George Gottlieb is under Camps and Marcia Spies is under Hiding.
I was very surprised, however when George asked a guard if there was any possible way he could let his mother know he was alive. In an act of cruelty, the guard just kicked him and told him to “get back in line”. As George, his brother, and other Jewish people were leaving, the guard took 10 out of 100 of them, including him and his brother, with a push cart to the ladies camp. The rest of the Jewish people went directly to work. In an act of kindness, George and his brother were handed a brown paper bag with bread, butter, sausage, and a knife. They were given 20 minutes by the guard to find their mother, and she found them. He is very emotional, even now, and talks about what a beautiful woman his mother was. That was the last time he saw her. George says it was “a tough sight and a tougher memory”. His mothers last words were “Be proud of your heritage, and proud of your name." This part was very touching to me because the guard showed them some kindness, but at the same time, he did not show kindness to the other Jewish people. A common theme seems to be the cruelty of some receiving hope and kindness while others receive the worst treatment possible.
Another touching interview was with Marcia Spies. It was touching because she said that she had to go into hiding. She says it with such conviction probably because some ridiculed her for her decision to not stand with the Jewish People. In her own way, she contributed to the Jewish people by staying alive and telling her story. She talks about the very strict conditions she had to live under in hiding. She was taken in by a family with two college age daughters. The family was nice, a point she stresses, and she slept with the girls. She was given a closet to hide in by the family. “Every time the doorbell rang I would have to go into the closet, and stay there in the closet. Sometimes for hours and hours”. Because of the great risk they were taking, the family restricted visitors to the house as much as possible. The family had a farm outside the city where they lived, where they had vegetables and meat. She stresses that they were just ordinary people, not wealthy, but extremely humanitarian. She says “to risk their lives and their children’s lives to hide a Jewish child… was really incredible”.
Both interviews (George Gottlieb's and Marcia Spies's) can be found at the website: http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php. George Gottlieb is under Camps and Marcia Spies is under Hiding.
Revenge and Despair
In reading the different testimonies of the survivors as well as watching the videos, there is an obvious and common theme of fear, despair, and desperation. In the testimonies, it seems that this is the dominant view of a number of the Holocaust survivors. However, I did come across one particular testimony that portrayed anger towards the situation at hand. This situation involved a Jewish man by the name of Isaac Wolf. This man became a soldier, fighting for the Russian army, and was looking for 'revenge'. He noted that he had 'nothing to lose' being that the whole of his family had been killed. Isaac states that "...if they did this to my parents, I have nothing to lose". He then goes on to mention how he earned medals because of his fighting abilities. I chose this man because his situation was very interesting to me in that it showed the Jewish people in a different light. Rather than just despair and anguish, this man showed he was indignant and enraged at what had happened to his family and the situation that the Jewish people were in at the time.
The holocaust survivor that I chose from the Shoah Foundation site is named Erna Anolik. In Erna's case, she was taken to the camps and she recounts some of the horrors she'd seen and her experience in trying to see her parents. Erna's disposition throughout the interview seems to be that she is very soft spoken and she seems to be distressed as she relives the pain that she went through, and still to this day, seems to be going through.
The reason I chose to compare these two individuals is because they showed an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, in reading the words of Isaac Wolf, you see a man with anger and ideas of revenge for the loss of his family's life. On the other hand, with Erna Anolik, you see a soft spoken individual with despair, figuratively speaking of course, written all across her face. Erna also mentions in her quiet manner what she went through to try and find her parents, though no ideas of revenge were mentioned. She seemingly knew that her parents were killed and seemed just to accept it, though with sadness.
Its almost a little traumatizing to see how, after all these years, Erna still suffers from the accounts that took place during the Holocaust. It really makes you consider the trauma that these survivors went through and what kind of toll this must take on the human brain. I think its safe to say that most of us have a natural sympathy for those that are hurt and suffering. Also, with most of us, there has to be some sort of thing, whether it be human or not human, animate or inanimate, that we care for in some way, shape, or form, in whatever way we choose to. I think that, even today, soldiers are trained to be in a way 'hard' because of the fact that a person with a weak disposition could not harm and possibly kill other individuals by choice or force. With this thought in mind it still brings to mind thoughts of the mental state of the soldiers exacting terror tactics and the like on the Holocaust survivors.
The holocaust survivor that I chose from the Shoah Foundation site is named Erna Anolik. In Erna's case, she was taken to the camps and she recounts some of the horrors she'd seen and her experience in trying to see her parents. Erna's disposition throughout the interview seems to be that she is very soft spoken and she seems to be distressed as she relives the pain that she went through, and still to this day, seems to be going through.
The reason I chose to compare these two individuals is because they showed an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, in reading the words of Isaac Wolf, you see a man with anger and ideas of revenge for the loss of his family's life. On the other hand, with Erna Anolik, you see a soft spoken individual with despair, figuratively speaking of course, written all across her face. Erna also mentions in her quiet manner what she went through to try and find her parents, though no ideas of revenge were mentioned. She seemingly knew that her parents were killed and seemed just to accept it, though with sadness.
Its almost a little traumatizing to see how, after all these years, Erna still suffers from the accounts that took place during the Holocaust. It really makes you consider the trauma that these survivors went through and what kind of toll this must take on the human brain. I think its safe to say that most of us have a natural sympathy for those that are hurt and suffering. Also, with most of us, there has to be some sort of thing, whether it be human or not human, animate or inanimate, that we care for in some way, shape, or form, in whatever way we choose to. I think that, even today, soldiers are trained to be in a way 'hard' because of the fact that a person with a weak disposition could not harm and possibly kill other individuals by choice or force. With this thought in mind it still brings to mind thoughts of the mental state of the soldiers exacting terror tactics and the like on the Holocaust survivors.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Humanity's Historical Memory Is Multi-Faceted
It is important to take testimony of witnesses from all perspectives living through the Holocaust in order to understand its impact then and now more thoroughly. Direct victims of Nazi persecution based on ethnicity and religion are not the only people who were against terroristic Nazi policies. The Nazi regime forced political opponents into the underground and to assume superficial political ideology in order to survive. Political opposition was sent into the camps as well. The power of the Nazi regime and its entrenchment in government was clearly visible to Germans, and stemming mainly from Hitler 's status as a cult of personality. People saw in him the road to German redemption and were very fond of him. He was a master propogandist. That is why it is necessary to interview Germans on the subject of the Holocaust and Hitler. Were they just spellbound by his presence and propoganda machine? Did they have qualms about his policies? Did they even know what was actually happening around them?
The fatal mistake of history is to look at events from a single angle. How do we expect to ever answer the burning question of "how could this have happened in the 20th century?" when testimony gathering is focused around Jewish survivors? More research should be aimed at uncovering the true feelings of Germans under Hitler. Some supporters may have joined the party under fear or ignorance. But, unlike the victims of Nazi violence who should feel no shame or guilt and feel compelled to make their story heard, members of the Nazi party feeling guilt would probably not confess to their support of Hitler's genocidal policies. Simply put, German Nazi's testimonies are less accessible and forthcoming than victims' testimonies. The main function of survivors' testimonies seems to be self-reconstitution for the survivor and reassurance their particular story does not die with them--it is put into a repository of digitized memory for infinite future generations to access.
The reason I bring this to light is the fact that there was only one testimony from a German witness, Christa M in the links provided. Her father was a Nazi military strategist. She was horrified by the sight of prisoners--whose location of imprisonment was unknown to her; yet her friend called her a "stupid ass" for recalling the story and crying about it and not knowing the SS was emptying Dachau. Her existence throughout the war was extremely sheltered. Her father moved the family to remote locations to avoid the war. She was punished by her own father for "asking the wrong [political] questions" and feeding the cheese she was sent to go get for the family to the starving prisoners. The terror of her encounter is so great that to this day she still has no words for it. The corpse-like condition of the emaciated prisoners is what haunts her memory.
To create the most complete snapshot of the Holocaust for digestion by humanity, all facets of perception need to be recorded in humanity's collective memory. If the goal of the gathering of survivors' testimonials is to ensure this never happens again, it is incomplete because it only tells one side of the story. Obviously the victims of Nazi terror did not know how to combat a genocidal regime or they would have done so. Also, Nazi genocide machinery may not function they same way as other regimes'. It also has failed in genocide prevention as there are genocides occurring still today.
Christa M.'s Testimony: http://www.library.yale.edu/testimonies/excerpts/christam.html
The fatal mistake of history is to look at events from a single angle. How do we expect to ever answer the burning question of "how could this have happened in the 20th century?" when testimony gathering is focused around Jewish survivors? More research should be aimed at uncovering the true feelings of Germans under Hitler. Some supporters may have joined the party under fear or ignorance. But, unlike the victims of Nazi violence who should feel no shame or guilt and feel compelled to make their story heard, members of the Nazi party feeling guilt would probably not confess to their support of Hitler's genocidal policies. Simply put, German Nazi's testimonies are less accessible and forthcoming than victims' testimonies. The main function of survivors' testimonies seems to be self-reconstitution for the survivor and reassurance their particular story does not die with them--it is put into a repository of digitized memory for infinite future generations to access.
The reason I bring this to light is the fact that there was only one testimony from a German witness, Christa M in the links provided. Her father was a Nazi military strategist. She was horrified by the sight of prisoners--whose location of imprisonment was unknown to her; yet her friend called her a "stupid ass" for recalling the story and crying about it and not knowing the SS was emptying Dachau. Her existence throughout the war was extremely sheltered. Her father moved the family to remote locations to avoid the war. She was punished by her own father for "asking the wrong [political] questions" and feeding the cheese she was sent to go get for the family to the starving prisoners. The terror of her encounter is so great that to this day she still has no words for it. The corpse-like condition of the emaciated prisoners is what haunts her memory.
To create the most complete snapshot of the Holocaust for digestion by humanity, all facets of perception need to be recorded in humanity's collective memory. If the goal of the gathering of survivors' testimonials is to ensure this never happens again, it is incomplete because it only tells one side of the story. Obviously the victims of Nazi terror did not know how to combat a genocidal regime or they would have done so. Also, Nazi genocide machinery may not function they same way as other regimes'. It also has failed in genocide prevention as there are genocides occurring still today.
Christa M.'s Testimony: http://www.library.yale.edu/testimonies/excerpts/christam.html
Memories of the Camp
The interviews that I took a look at was Max Feuer, and Samuel Isakovitch. The reason i chose these two men, is because they were at one time, in Buchenwald.
Starting off with Max Feuer, the way he experienced the Holocaust was very different from Samuel. In the beginning Max along with his brothers and mother, tried to emigrate to America, his brothers made it but he did not. He was sent to Sachsenhausen, and worked until he was not able to work anymore. There was one question in the interview that was interesting. "Suppose you were accusing the Nazi's before the American people. What do you say against them?" The response that Max gave was that he wouldn't talk about how horrible the Nazi's were to him or to the people of the camp, but what the Nazi's did to the men of the Nazi party. He didn't understand how these men can kill and not be phased by what they just did.
Also another question that was raised was, Why didn't the prisoners wreck havoc outside of Buchenwald after being liberated? He states that they didn't want to inflict pain physically, but emotionally and psychologically, make them understand the shame of what they allowed to happen within the walls of these camps.
Samuel Isakovitch was a survivor of 4 different camps, his occupation was a coal miner, Rubber factory worker, and stone quarry. He was strong and experienced a lot. He talked about being taking into the camps, and seeing the women and children being separated, and thrown into the fires and getting shot. If someone were to flee they were "Sabotaged". Also if a person was not working to their full potential or clumsy, they were sabotaged, which to them meant being hung.
There was one question that stood out and that was, "What should be done with Germany now?" He answers by saying, "I can't say anything". The damage has already been done and there is nothing that can be done or said to fix it.
The reason I picked these two survivors is because they both experienced something different, and had the same feelings of Germany and the SS. Both of them feel there is nothing that should be done to Germany to get even, one wants them to feel the shame of what they did and the other just doesn't know what to say.
Being an outsider and a person who has only read about the Holocaust in history books, if I had experienced something like that, the pain from surviving and the pain of how a person feels when friends, who weren't jewish, wasn't there, how do you let that pain go? How do you let the pain of surviving and experiencing death leave you? Can a persons memory just completely erase once their testimony is on paper? Is there PTSD? So many questions and feelings that arise, you cannot answer them, because you have to experience it.
Returning to Identity
Esther Bem was a Jew during the time of the Holocaust who managed to avoid being sent to a ghetto or concentration camp by hiding in the house of a non-Jewish family. After being liberated, Esther says, "I could not get back to my own identity." She was so bent on not revealing her Jewish identity during the war that it became customary for her to assume an identity other than her own. Her refugee mentality stayed for a long time after the war and she could not come to terms with herself. This phenomenon is no doubt common with survivors from situations that required them to have fake identities. Feeling shame for being oneself is no doubt a traumatic experience, and Esther shares her situation with a large number of Jews, giving a collective identity to individuals' problems with their sense of self. She had become so used to her classification as a refugee that she didn't know how to behave otherwise.
Esther Bem's interview is located on the Shoah Foundation's website, which can be accessed here: http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php
Holocaust Testimonies
For this entry, I am looking at the testimonies of Lena Kuechler found here: http://voices.iit.edu/frames.asp?path=Interviews/&page=kuech&ext=_t.html and Esther Bem found here: http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php
Lena was a school teacher in Poland who eventually chose to care for some 60 Jewish children displaced by the genocide and war. She cared for the children as her own, and hopes to relocate the entire group, including herself, to Palestine. Esther speaks about liberation and how difficult it was to negotiate her identity following the war. Esther was never in a concentration camp, but spent the war in hiding in Italy. I was unclear as to Lena's situation, but I don't think she was in a concentration camp either.
I chose these two testimonies because I was interested in the experiences of women. I think women have particularly interesting things to say because many of them were able to hide in ways that were impossible for men. I think women can more easily pose as Aryan because they do not bare any physical signs of being Jewish, whereas circumcised men can be easily identified.
Lena was able to remain in public sites because she had false papers declaring her Aryan. As a result, she was able to remain well-informed about about the political climate during the war. Such knowledge made Lena's resistance efforts possible. She knew what was going on and knew how to work around it. I believe that access to knowledge probably aided her in her ability to maintain a strong sense of identity. By aligning herself with her work for the children, she was able to remain proud of being Jewish, though she had to hide it. In contrast, Esther speaks about not even knowing the war was over prior to her liberation. Kept in hiding, she may not have been liberated had villagers not told the Palestinian soldiers where her family was. She talks about her identity being a difficult thing to deal with once she was freed. Kept in seclusion and made to feel terrified and ashamed of who she was, identity dissonance seems a likely outcome.
Given these two different experiences, I can see why identity formation may have been more difficult for some. Lena had an active role in shaping her fate during the war. She had access to outside knowledge and was able to accurately situate herself within a larger context. For her, shifting identities was a daily reality given the nature of her hiding. This is reflected in the multiple languages she uses in her interview. Esther spent the war in a house where it was too dangerous to know what was occurring on the other side of a wall. She had no opportunities for active identity creation and was left only able to fill the role of a victim. Following liberation, these women had two different goals. Lena knew who she was, but needed to continue her efforts to rescue children. Esther had no pressing project following the war and so had a difficult time reevaluating who she was after years of contact with only a small group of people.
Lena was a school teacher in Poland who eventually chose to care for some 60 Jewish children displaced by the genocide and war. She cared for the children as her own, and hopes to relocate the entire group, including herself, to Palestine. Esther speaks about liberation and how difficult it was to negotiate her identity following the war. Esther was never in a concentration camp, but spent the war in hiding in Italy. I was unclear as to Lena's situation, but I don't think she was in a concentration camp either.
I chose these two testimonies because I was interested in the experiences of women. I think women have particularly interesting things to say because many of them were able to hide in ways that were impossible for men. I think women can more easily pose as Aryan because they do not bare any physical signs of being Jewish, whereas circumcised men can be easily identified.
Lena was able to remain in public sites because she had false papers declaring her Aryan. As a result, she was able to remain well-informed about about the political climate during the war. Such knowledge made Lena's resistance efforts possible. She knew what was going on and knew how to work around it. I believe that access to knowledge probably aided her in her ability to maintain a strong sense of identity. By aligning herself with her work for the children, she was able to remain proud of being Jewish, though she had to hide it. In contrast, Esther speaks about not even knowing the war was over prior to her liberation. Kept in hiding, she may not have been liberated had villagers not told the Palestinian soldiers where her family was. She talks about her identity being a difficult thing to deal with once she was freed. Kept in seclusion and made to feel terrified and ashamed of who she was, identity dissonance seems a likely outcome.
Given these two different experiences, I can see why identity formation may have been more difficult for some. Lena had an active role in shaping her fate during the war. She had access to outside knowledge and was able to accurately situate herself within a larger context. For her, shifting identities was a daily reality given the nature of her hiding. This is reflected in the multiple languages she uses in her interview. Esther spent the war in a house where it was too dangerous to know what was occurring on the other side of a wall. She had no opportunities for active identity creation and was left only able to fill the role of a victim. Following liberation, these women had two different goals. Lena knew who she was, but needed to continue her efforts to rescue children. Esther had no pressing project following the war and so had a difficult time reevaluating who she was after years of contact with only a small group of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)