Auschwitz

Memory is a fragile beast, whether it is the recollections of many or of one. History has shown the world that the greater the event, the greater and more diverse the memory becomes. This is no more evident than with the recollections and influences of the Holocaust and the ruins of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration and Extermination Camp.

Auschwitz is no longer a destination that is solely intriguing to historians and researchers. It has become a place of interest for the average tourist and school groups alike with roughly two million individuals annually entering the infamous gates. What makes a representation of pure evil so popular among tourists? While each individual has their own reason to witness the gravity of such a site, many of the pilgrimages are a direct relation to the battle between collective and individual memory. World War II framed Auschwitz as a symbol for global victimization while various groups have attempted to claim it as their site of suffering alone.

Unlike individual memory, collective memory functions with an anchor to the remembrance. A site of memory is essential for the public to share in communal grief, traditions, beliefs, etc. Auschwitz-Birkenau has evolved into what some call a global symbol for victimized people, likely due to the shared relationship between individuals who have underwent some form of brutality and seek a physical location to attach their pain. Few sites are more capable of holding such atrocious acts as Auschwitz. Regardless of whether all of those individuals who recognize a familiarity in the pain are associated with the original tragedy of the Holocaust, the pain connects them and creates a new communal memory for Auschwitz. Amos Goldberg aptly describes the attachment: “[mnemonics] (museums, memorials, artistic representations, and commemorative practices) are initiated, or carried to fruition, by particular individuals and groups, acting out of various particular motives.” This is especially the case with Auschwitz-Birkenau. The group is no longer strictly Jews or Poles or Catholics; the group now includes anyone who has experienced brutality, and “[in] a world of victims, this is the undisputed capital city.”

At a site where most of the focus and acknowledgement is on the victims, it also allows for recognition of the agents of evil. An Auschwitz survivor, Eva Szepesi (Diamant), was asked what the site meant to her. Her response was telling:

“Auschwitz has two meanings for me: First, the past. It was hell, demons, the devil, fear, anguish, powerlessness! The second is in the present. I actually never wanted to touch the ground of Auschwitz again but, then I had the feeling and the need to return to the place where my mother and younger brother Tamas were murdered. It is now as if I am going to the cemetery, it is good for my soul when I can go there and light a candle and say a prayer for my beloved family. My message for future generations is [that] young people should pay attention and open their eyes as they go throughout the world, self-reflect, do not hate! As I have lived to see what hate can do! Young people should be respectful of one another. When they see injustice, they should fight against them. Don’t look away! Never forget the story!!!!”

For Ms. Szepesi and many other survivors, the site possesses a sacred-like quality. This idea is a foreign concept for those who are not intimately connected with such a location. As Holocaust survivors become fewer, the function of sites, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, take on a new role. It truly becomes a memorial as the physical connection to this aspect of history is quickly reduced. Not only does it stand in memory, but it takes on the new purpose of standing as a symbol of strength through pain. While it shifts to include all victims globally, it still must maintain the tether to its past. It must remain a reminder, according to Vashem, of those whose only choice was “to [rebuild] new families forever under the shadow of those absent; new life stories, forever warped by the wounds; new communities, forever haunted by the loss.”

A site as powerfully emotional as the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial impresses itself into the memory and heritage of those who do not even have a direct connection. Keith Lowe says that, “Auschwitz has become such a globally recognized symbol that it is now stamped upon our collective memory in a way that no other memorial site can rival…this too brings problems, because, unfortunately, alongside status comes envy.” The Jews were not the sole victims at this site of suffering. However, most associate Auschwitz with the Jewish population, thus eliminating the observance of the remaining factions imprisoned and massacred at the site.

A sense of envy over the Jewish recognition has erupted in the past causing some individuals to petition for cultural ownership of the site. Lowe reminds readers that, “[there] have always been plenty of people who can see the moral power of a place like Auschwitz, and who want to acquire some of that power for themselves.” He goes on to say that “[the] first group who tried to claim ownership of Auschwitz after the war were the Polish Communists.” Under the command of the Polish Communists at the site, the Jewish population was eliminated once again with the obliteration of the physical reminders of their memory. Nowhere on the memorial signage were the Jews mentioned nor did the site’s tour guides speak of the Jews or other ethnic groups who suffered there. Lowe reiterates this point saying that, “[tour] guides at the museum also used to speak only of ‘victims’ and ‘people,’ with no mention of their ethnic or religious origins. From the perspective of the Polish Communists, the Jews and the atrocities visited on their population was inconsequential to Polish suffering at the hands of the Nazis. The Polish Catholic Church also made an attempt to grab that power beginning in the 1970s with the establishment of a convent on the grounds. This tug of war for recognition of suffering continued into the 1990s. After much protest, the convent was removed although the Catholic church still stands at Birkenau.

It begs one to ask how many times a group of people have to be dishonored? Surely, they deserve recognition at the site where so many of them were eliminated. However, history has taught us that the past is not black and white. It is gray with a combination of identities who can and adamantly try to lay claim to prominent sites of memory. With ruins, such as those at Auschwitz, where so many different nationalities perished, it is impossible to establish a single cultural representation. In an effort to satisfy the portrayal of them all, Young states that “the blocks at Auschwitz-I were converted into national pavilions, each with an exposition devoted to the national memory of a different country’s citizens at Auschwitz. Here, Belgians, Hungarians, Austrians, Jews, and others from nineteen countries were invited to remember their own. When this effort was made to include the numerous diverse who had suffered, the Jewish community felt diminished. According to Young, the “Jews came to see in this pluralization of memory a splintering of Jewish suffering into so many national martyrdoms.”

Though not currently readily debated, the question still exists as to who can rightfully claim representation at Auschwitz. One must only look to the history to understand the veritable victim and embodiment of the memorial. Though a brutal reminder of humanity’s capacity for evil, the memorial site of Auschwitz-Birkenau is essential to collective and individual memory. No one population is able to claim sole title to the site. However, most agree that the Jewish community reserves a right to claim it as a personal site of memory. In the end, history has taught us that without heeding prior examples, then society is doomed to repeat the atrocities. Though the past edges closer to repeating itself, embracing Auschwitz-Birkenau as an international symbol for all victims will help ensure that the site will not soon be forgotten.

(Edited by Brad Poss)

Location

Metadata