NationStates Jolt Archive

Letting Auchwitz crumble isn't going to erase the history. Thus, I believe it should be preserved.

Not that I disagree with the conclusion you make, but the methodology upon which you construct it is risable.

That's a pity. I still think I am not dehumanizing them. I think I'm offering them a voice by remembering them through Auschwitz.

Who died?

Auschwitz, as a symbol, is genocide. It's not a testament to dead Jews, or dead Roma, dead Poles, or dead Soviet soldiers... or this man, or that woman. It's a testament to the horrors of the Final Solution. To mass death. To systematic, mechanical, dehumanisation.. in both a psychological, and a more 'meaty' fashion.

I'm finding it hard to put exactly into words... I think Auschwitz serves a couple of purposes. I think it makes a political point, and I object to 1.1 million dead being used for advantage. I think it is a barrier to forgiving and forgetting. I think it's artificial - the maintainence of cells, the rebuilding of facilities to create maximum 'impact'. The fact that post-war crews ripped out bunkers, and replaced them with earlier 'extermination' facilities means it's not even a 'real' museum... it's not a crystalisation of a time and place - it's a maximisation of the potential for harm. That makes it untrue - and that hits me all wrong.

It's become a shrine to methods of inhumanity. The bodies are buried, the blood is dry - but the machinery of destruction is kept clinically serene.

Does that say '1.1 million dead'? Or does it say 'Nazis were such bastards, they stood 4 men in this 5-foot-cage overnight, and worked them to death during the day'?

To me - Auschwitz is revenge. And it's fake. And it sends the wrong message. By dwelling on the MEANS of death and deconstruction, it minimises the meaning and the impact.

Who died?

Auschwitz, as a symbol, is genocide. It's not a testament to dead Jews, or dead Roma, dead Poles, or dead Soviet soldiers... or this man, or that woman. It's a testament to the horrors of the Final Solution. To mass death. To systematic, mechanical, dehumanisation.. in both a psychological, and a more 'meaty' fashion.

I'm finding it hard to put exactly into words... I think Auschwitz serves a couple of purposes. I think it makes a political point, and I object to 1.1 million dead being used for advantage. I think it is a barrier to forgiving and forgetting. I think it's artificial - the maintainence of cells, the rebuilding of facilities to create maximum 'impact'. The fact that post-war crews ripped out bunkers, and replaced them with earlier 'extermination' facilities means it's not even a 'real' museum... it's not a crystalisation of a time and place - it's a maximisation of the potential for harm. That makes it untrue - and that hits me all wrong.

It's become a shrine to methods of inhumanity. The bodies are buried, the blood is dry - but the machinery of destruction is kept clinically serene.

Does that say '1.1 million dead'? Or does it say 'Nazis were such bastards, they stood 4 men in this 5-foot-cage overnight, and worked them to death during the day'?

To me - Auschwitz is revenge. And it's fake. And it sends the wrong message. By dwelling on the MEANS of death and deconstruction, it minimises the meaning and the impact.

Hmm, on one had I agree with you on the other hand I disagree with you.

I agree that the maintainence of cells, the rebuilding of facilities is wrong. I agree that it's being used as a monument to the inhumanity of the nazis. On the other hand these things did happen... So It's not really 'fake'. However, after living here in Germany I have also seen some of what the Germans went though at the end of the war. The allies really did bomb the shit out of dresden and berlin! They also payed a heavy price for the war and most of the people who actually did those things are dead now!

We've been maintaining these monuments to inhumanity for 65 years now! I think now it's time for the the rest of the world to start building a forgiving the German people. And to let nature take its course.

I'm not suggesting building a mini mall there. I think we should place a sign there and just allow the place to rot ... and someday - a long time from now - there will be nothing left.

Well it's not our call, is it. It's Poland's. Not all Poles' hands were clean either....too many collaborated. Auschwitz represents a human sickness - it forces all of us to acknowledge the presence of continuing human evil.
Noone said it would stop further genocidal acts.
Noone knows the exact numbers of those who perished there - especially as toward the end of the war, the victims were being marched straight off the trains and into the gas chambers.
The Polish Government is managing it - and whatever errors they may make with over-developing the site, I know that it continues to serve as a fitting memorial to the atrocities that happened there.
By the way, I lean toward the 3 million estimated dead rather than the revised 1.1 million that historical revisionists suggest.

By the way, I lean toward the 3 million estimated dead rather than the revised 1.1 million that historical revisionists suggest.

The four million figure was propogated by the Communist regime to make their achievement sound more significant - that's one of the things I was saying earlier about Auschwitz being used for political gain. The 1.1 million is supposed to be a more realistic (and less political) estimate.

It's funny that you call the people overturning the propoganda numbers, 'revisionists'.

It's funny that you call the people overturning the propoganda numbers, 'revisionists'.
Well, they are revising, so its not inaccurate.

Well it's not our call, is it. It's Poland's. Not all Poles' hands were clean either....too many collaborated.
[...]
The Polish Government is managing it - and whatever errors they may make with over-developing the site, I know that it continues to serve as a fitting memorial to the atrocities that happened there.
[...]

How many, pray tell?

As for the management, it's not like Polish Government keeps it just as some sort of tourist attraction. Imagine what would happen if they announced plans to close it.

Well, they are revising, so its not inaccurate.

But it implies throwing away established knowledge.

Perhaps after looking over a few sites, I might lean away from that figure. Wiki and several other sites estimate a range betwen 1.1.million and 1.5.
However, the Nazis' own testimony that was accepted at the end of the war was in excess of 3 million. Here's Wiki on it (point to you Gand I!):
Death toll

Jews from Carpathian Ruthenia arriving at Auschwitz-Birkenau in May 1944. Crematoria II and III are visible in the background.The exact number of victims at Auschwitz is impossible to fix with certainty. Since the Nazis destroyed a number of records, immediate efforts to count the dead depended on the testimony of witnesses and the defendants on trial at Nuremberg. While under interrogation Rudolf Höß, commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp from 1940 to 1943,[28] said that Adolf Eichmann told him that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million died "naturally".[29] Later he wrote "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities".[30]

Communist Soviet and Polish authorities maintained a figure "between 2.5 and 4 million".[1] The figure "4,000,000" was used on the original Auschwitz memorial plaques. The plaques did not specify the ethnicities of victims.

In 1983 French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Catholic Poles.[citation needed] A larger study started later by Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 960,000 Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma and Sinti (Gypsies).[citation needed] This number has met with "significant, though not complete" agreement among scholars.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

Who died?

Auschwitz, as a symbol, is genocide. It's not a testament to dead Jews, or dead Roma, dead Poles, or dead Soviet soldiers... or this man, or that woman. It's a testament to the horrors of the Final Solution. To mass death. To systematic, mechanical, dehumanisation.. in both a psychological, and a more 'meaty' fashion.

To me it is a testament to those who died within those walls. And thinking that way perhaps makes me a monster in your eyes, but I never knew these people. I wish I did. Through the preservation of Auschwitz, I can know them, be that only in their suffering, but that suffering echoes through time and in understanding that suffering, I and I alone (I don't know about you) can be close to them. To me, they're human, and they lost their lives unjustly.

I'm finding it hard to put exactly into words... I think Auschwitz serves a couple of purposes. I think it makes a political point, and I object to 1.1 million dead being used for advantage. I think it is a barrier to forgiving and forgetting. I think it's artificial - the maintainence of cells, the rebuilding of facilities to create maximum 'impact'. The fact that post-war crews ripped out bunkers, and replaced them with earlier 'extermination' facilities means it's not even a 'real' museum... it's not a crystalisation of a time and place - it's a maximisation of the potential for harm. That makes it untrue - and that hits me all wrong.

That, my friend, is your way of thinking. I am not contesting that.

It's become a shrine to methods of inhumanity. The bodies are buried, the blood is dry - but the machinery of destruction is kept clinically serene.

Does that say '1.1 million dead'? Or does it say 'Nazis were such bastards, they stood 4 men in this 5-foot-cage overnight, and worked them to death during the day'?

It speaks both ways.

To me - Auschwitz is revenge. And it's fake. And it sends the wrong message. By dwelling on the MEANS of death and deconstruction, it minimises the meaning and the impact.

You're, again, looking at it the wrong way, IMO. It is the right way to look at it, from your perspective. It is not, for me, the right way to look at it.

When I read or go to visit memorials, I don't go on about thinking about the means of death (those are bad enough) or deconstruction. That Auschwitz stands doesn't minimize the fact that millions lost their lives on the whim of a crazy man. On the contrary, it atests to the fact that people DID suffer within those walls and the walls of any other concentration camp. It is a witness, it tells us "Yes, it happened. One cannot deny it." It touches people, or at least it touches me which is what, ultimately, matters.

I'm not attempting to make you see things my way. You and I are both clear that to disagree is ok on debate and in life. You think about this subject differently than me.

Auschwitz should be preserved.

But it implies throwing away established knowledge.

Also true :P whether you liked the "knowledge" or not flavors how you view it.

I mean, does it really matter whether he killed 1.1 or 4 million people?

Also true :P whether you liked the "knowledge" or not flavors how you view it.

I mean, does it really matter whether he killed 1.1 or 4 million people?

Well, yes. If the 4 million figure is artificial, and is serving a political end, it means that the damage is being exaggerated in order to milk a little extra sentiment.

I have the same problem with Bush making election speeches from Ground Zero.

Well, yes. If the 4 million figure is artificial, and is serving a political end, it means that the damage is being exaggerated in order to milk a little extra sentiment.

I have the same problem with Bush making election speeches from Ground Zero.

Do you think they could milk it less politically if only 1.1 million people had died? The numbers are both high - how high is irrelevant.

I think Auschwitz should be preserved.

Do you think they could milk it less politically if only 1.1 million people had died? The numbers are both high - how high is irrelevant.

It's irrelevent to pretend the deaths of 3 million people, for political advantage?

It's irrelevent to pretend the deaths of 3 million people, for political advantage?

There is no political advantage. Once you get to the millions, it doesn't really mean shit whether it's 3 or 1.

There is no political advantage. Once you get to the millions, it doesn't really mean shit whether it's 3 or 1.

So Stalin was responsible for a million deaths, Hitler was responsible for a million deaths, a pandemic that erased the population of the US would kill a million people...

So Stalin was responsible for a million deaths, Hitler was responsible for a million deaths, a pandemic that erased the population of the US would kill a million people...

The amount of emotion engendered as part of trying to gain advantage would not be much different. It's as difficult to try and understand / come to terms with a million deaths as a 3 million deaths, on a personal level. They're too large.

Unless it's political advantage gained by tit-for-tat diplomacy based on numbers? E.G. Gulags were worse than concentration camps because of more deaths. But that's quite a cynical number-toting exercise, which most would consider crass.

So Stalin was responsible for a million deaths, Hitler was responsible for a million deaths, a pandemic that erased the population of the US would kill a million people...

If you're not personally involved, yeah. Obviously its not that simple, but essentially. Does the fact that Stalin killed more people than Hitler make him somehow worst of an evil dictator? Of course not. The measure of evil isn't quantitative. I can't imagine the difference between 1.1 million and 4. They are both just huge numbers.

The measure of evil isn't quantitative.

So there's no difference between Hitler and, say, Johannes Mehserle (the BART guy)?

One killed one guy, one was responsible for the death of millions. But it's not about numbers?

So there's no difference between Hitler and, say, Johannes Mehserle (the BART guy)?

One killed one guy, one was responsible for the death of millions. But it's not about numbers?

If the BART guy killed millions of people (or even tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc) and you were not personally involved with either him or Hitler, absolutely.

I would appreciate you refraining from twisting my words, however.

If the BART guy killed millions of people (or even tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc) and you were not personally involved with either him or Hitler, absolutely.

I would appreciate you refraining from twisting my words, however.

How is that twisting your words?

You said that 'the measure of evil is not quantitative'.

That's your words. I'm not twisting anything.

And yet - when presented with an (admittedly) extreme example - a guy who kills one guy, versus a guy responsible for the death of millions - you immediately say that the two would be equally evil if.... yep, the numbers were the same.

How is that twisting your words?

You said that 'the measure of evil is not quantitative'.

That's your words. I'm not twisting anything.

And yet - when presented with an (admittedly) extreme example - a guy who kills one guy, versus a guy responsible for the death of millions - you immediately say that the two would be equally evil if.... yep, the numbers were the same.

Oh you caught me you dog you. This entire time we haven't been talking about people who killed millions of people for a reason, its just been because we're not as smart as you, and didn't realize that people killed less than millions of people. Man, how do you do it?

You know what I think? I think you deliberately ignore the points people try and make just because its not about arguments and debates for you - its about being "right", whatever that means. Don't be dense.

This entire time we haven't been talking about people who killed millions of people for a reason...

Sorry, I cut out all the crap - is "the measure of evil" quantitative or not?

That's what happens when you keep picking at the scab.


Which again, you are doing. Again, you want to pull the scab off (Auschwitz is a scab, you said yourself, and you literally want to get rid of it) and put some makeup on it (a nice economically productive facility).

Your own analogy fails you so miserably and it's kinda sad that you're just going to go "na uh" as if that will make it magically make sense for you.

Amusement park?

Why are we turning it into an amusement park?

I think I missed that part of the conversation.

Amusement park, factory, whatever is most economically beneficial right?

You can't 'definitely' say anything about it. You can state an opinion, which has (at best) the same chance as mine of being cosmically 'right'.

So... yeah, you were wrong.

lol OK - I have an opinion, therefore I was wrong. Boy you got me there. Anything else, Einstein?

Sorry, I cut out all the crap - is "the measure of evil" quantitative or not?

I don't think a person who kills an individual is evil. Certainly not the BART cop. Nor your average murderer.

That's not the point. Yes, to an extent the amount of people you kill effects how I will view you.

But... let me think this through. Are serial killers less "evil" than Hitler or Stalin just because their access to resources limited their ability to kill more people than they did? I think we can judge evil based much more on the desire to kill rather than the amount. So in that respect it is not at all quantitative.

I don't think a person who kills an individual is evil. Certainly not the BART cop. Nor your average murderer.

That's not the point.


You're right, and I do appreciate that you actually answered the question.


Yes, to an extent the amount of people you kill effects how I will view you.

But... let me think this through. Are serial killers less "evil" than Hitler or Stalin just because their access to resources limited their ability to kill more people than they did? I think we can judge evil based much more on the desire to kill rather than the amount. So in that respect it is not at all quantitative.

One person tortures and kills one person - what should the sentence be?

On person institutes a policy of torturing and killing people - what should the sentence be?

I think what I'm trying to get to - people make these judgements all the time, and people (collectively) treat 'evil' as different, based on numbers.

And that's why (I'd argue) there is political leverage to be gained.

And that's why (I'd argue) there is political leverage to be gained.

Your arguments are too broad. What specifically can be politically gained from claiming 3 or 4 million, instead of 1 million?

Your arguments are too broad. What specifically can be politically gained from claiming 3 or 4 million, instead of 1 million?

Popularity?

Cheese?

Your question is too specific.

I can't let G & I have the last word on this thread (See G & I, you're not the only one who is competitive).
G & I asserted that the Soviets were big-noting themselves because they were the liberators of Auschwitz. I think that it was more likely that all the Allies accepted the round figure of 3 million because that was the figure that many of the Nazis came up with. (Maybe the Nazis were trying to big-note themselves but I don't think so.

The estimates of the total number killed vary still, though many historians have downsized the number.
There are many reasons for this - one of them being that the despite the claims that Nazi records were meticulous, this wasn't the case toward the end of the wall where whole trainloads of victims were marched straight to the gas chambers and crematoria.
The Nazis were losing the war and so they speeded up the "Final Solution" - to the point where much of the rail transport needed to transport troops and supplies to the eastern front was being tied up in transporting victims to the death camps.

You're right, and I do appreciate that you actually answered the question.

I know its abnormal, but some of us on this forum do that occasionally. Mostly me though.

One person tortures and kills one person - what should the sentence be?

On person institutes a policy of torturing and killing people - what should the sentence be?

I think what I'm trying to get to - people make these judgements all the time, and people (collectively) treat 'evil' as different, based on numbers.

And that's why (I'd argue) there is political leverage to be gained.

In the US at least, I'm not sure the sentence would be different. For instance, in Virginia, if you commit several murders, you are sentenced to death. Now the sentence can't be much different if you are the head of a genocidal government, can it? After we start killing people for capital crimes, the fact that you kill 2 or 40,000 or 4 million people has less and less shades of difference.

And I just realized you weren't talking about legal judgments but moral ones, so I look like an idiot. But I liked my argument so it stays!

I can't let G & I have the last word on this thread (See G & I, you're not the only one who is competitive).


I didn't realise I was competitive?


G & I asserted that the Soviets were big-noting themselves because they were the liberators of Auschwitz. I think that it was more likely that all the Allies accepted the round figure of 3 million because that was the figure that many of the Nazis came up with. (Maybe the Nazis were trying to big-note themselves but I don't think so.


The three million figure is only one of the figures cited. SIgns at Auschwitz claimed 4 million... who knows why?


The estimates of the total number killed vary still, though many historians have downsized the number.
There are many reasons for this


The chief one being that the last century has seen REAL rigour applied to historical analysis... and one of the things that REAL rigour has revealed... is that the numbers are almost always wrong.


- one of them being that the despite the claims that Nazi records were meticulous, this wasn't the case toward the end of the wall where whole trainloads of victims were marched straight to the gas chambers and crematoria.


Or not.

That's the problem with a lack of documentation - just because you see trains, doesn't mean they're full of people going to be killed. Just because you see a train full of people going to be killed, doesn't mean there were ten trains. etc. I'm sure you see my point.

Not that I find it hard to believe. But I don't want to debate what I believe happened... which is why I like to keep it in the realms of what we can SHOW.

Ok, is this topic still about Auschwitz or what?

Personally, I think it should be preserved as a reminder - and a warning - of man's inhumanity to man. The bitter history of the Holocaust shall never fade from anyone's memory, not from survivors, from the families of survivors, or from the rest of the world, so to say that letting it rot away will make everything better in some way or another is very naive. It is a place which symbolises the death of civilisation and civilised society upon the altar of ideology, and is a place which has a profound effect upon anyone who has visited it since WWII, and this is a good thing - those who have visited have left with their sense of right and wrong strengthened, and are never likely to forget the experience.

A teacher from my old high school has visited the camp several times with school visits - she says the experience is heart-wrenching, yet altogether positive, as every year that visited has been left speechless at the scale of the camps and the thought of what they represent and what occurred there, leaving them with a very important life experience.

She did say, however, that down the road from the camp some tacky little tourist shops and burger bars have opened up, which to me seems shocking. If there is anywhere in that area which deserves to rot, it should be the tacky tourist places.

Ok, is this topic still about Auschwitz or what?

Personally, I think it should be preserved as a reminder - and a warning - of man's inhumanity to man. The bitter history of the Holocaust shall never fade from anyone's memory, not from survivors, from the families of survivors, or from the rest of the world, so to say that letting it rot away will make everything better in some way or another is very naive. It is a place which symbolises the death of civilisation and civilised society upon the altar of ideology, and is a place which has a profound effect upon anyone who has visited it since WWII, and this is a good thing - those who have visited have left with their sense of right and wrong strengthened, and are never likely to forget the experience.

A teacher from my old high school has visited the camp several times with school visits - she says the experience is heart-wrenching, yet altogether positive, as every year that visited has been left speechless at the scale of the camps and the thought of what they represent and what occurred there, leaving them with a very important life experience.

She did say, however, that down the road from the camp some tacky little tourist shops and burger bars have opened up, which to me seems shocking. If there is anywhere in that area which deserves to rot, it should be the tacky tourist places.

Good on your teacher Eriskyne! That was well put.

And G and I, I agree with your point about the need for historical accuracy.