Legal Aftermath and Follow-Up of the Holocaust: A Brief Overview

The Nuremberg Trials

 The Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany after World War II beginning on November 11, 1945 and ending on October 1, 1946. However it had been established before the war even ended in 1942, that the Allied countries were going to seek to prosecute members of the Nazi Third Reich. Twenty four men were placed on trial at the Nuremberg Trials, (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler had committed suicide and the International Military Tribunal decided not to try them posthumously) and only three were acquitted of the charges against them.

The International Military Tribunal or IMT which was established to preside over the Nuremberg Trials was composed of members of Allied countries. Charges against the criminals included war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggressive war. The United States Nuremberg Military Tribunal presided over twelve smaller trials known as the Subsequent Trials in which more than one hundred members of various branches and cabinets throughout the Third Reich were put on trial; these defendants were grouped based on their areas of activity: medical, legal, ethnological, economic, or political. After the Nuremberg Trials ended there would be no international court of its kind in existence until the next millennium.

Sources:

"Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuernberg War Crimes Trials Under Control Council Law No. 10." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013. 

"Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013.

 "The Nuremberg Trials and Their Legacy." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 21 July 2013.

"Nuremberg Trials." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013.

"Nurnbuerg Military Tribunals: Indictments." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013.

"Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013.

"Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10." Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress, 10 July 2010. Web. 21 July 2013. 

Genocide and International Law

Genocide was not an issue officially addressed by an international governing body until the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the Rome Statute in 1998; the ICC was not a sitting body until 2002, when sixty countries ratified its treaty. The ICC has jurisdiction over the following areas: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As of May 1, 2013, there are one hundred and twenty-two state members of the ICC; the United States is not one of them.

Sources:

"About the Court." International Criminal Court. Web. 21 July 2013. 

"Frequently Asked Questions." International Criminal Court. Web. 21 July 2013. 

"International Law: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 21 July 2013. 

"Introduction to the International Criminal Court." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 21 July 2013.

"Structure of the Court." International Criminal Court. Web. 21 July 2013. 

Holocaust Denial 

Although it does not seem possible given the plethora of evidence, evidence left behind by the Nazis themselves, there are some who insist on denying that the Holocaust happened. Several countries have made it illegal to deny the Holocaust; in countries where the law does not explicitly outlaw Holocaust denial, legislation does allow for the punishment of racially offensive remarks. The United States has not made it a criminal offense to deny the events of the Holocaust due to the freedom of speech rights protected by the 1st Amendment.

Sources:

Bazyler von Oppenheim, Michael J. "Holocaust Denial Laws and Other Legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism." Yad Vashem. 25 December 2006, PDF. 21 July 2013. 

Appointed by Democracy: Hitler’s Legal Rise to Power

Growing up Adolf Hitler, according to multiple sources, was a not a brilliant student. He had no formal, university-level education and his greatest written work Mein Kampf was a work of fiction. Given these circumstances it seems unlikely that he Hitler would become the most popular response to the question of “which individual dominated the past millennium” (Bergen, 51). The vast majority of people would label Hitler as a brutal, sadistic and evil tyrant, whose corrupted morals lead to the deaths of millions of people during the twelve years he was in power. Such a description would suggest that his actions were illegal, that he acted outside the authority of his government; however assuming this to be true, would mean accepting falsehoods as truth. While Hitler’s actions are morally objectionable to most people, according to the German constitution adopted after World War I, Hitler’s rise to power in the early-to-mid 1930’s was legal.

Article 48 of the German constitution allows for the president of the country to rule by decree during a state of emergency (Bergen, 49). In 1930 the chancellor, Heninrich Bruning, convinced the president, Paul von Hindenburg, to invoke Article 48 and rule without the approval of the Reichstag, or parliament (Bergen, 49). After a third election in November 1932 when the Nazis failed to gain widespread support in the Reichstag, von Hindenburg was convinced to appoint Hitler as chancellor of Germany; Hitler was officially sworn into this office on January 30, 1933 (Bergen, 50).

 Although political scheming and bargaining played roles in Hitler’s appointment, he was ultimately appointed to his post as chancellor by legal means. Later when Hitler merged the offices of the president and chancellor, he did so while the legislative branch of the government was in operation, having convinced that governing body to pass the Enabling Act of 23 March 1933; this act allowed Hitler to put into law “any measure without approval by the Reichstag (Bergen, 53). This essentially meant that as of March 23, 1933, Hitler was acting alone despite the continued standing of the parliament; Hitler was able within one month of appointment to effectively overthrow the democratic government of Germany and he did it with that same government’s approval. Unless members of the Reichstag were willing to stand up to Hitler and the Nazis (the Social Democrats seemed to be the only party willing to do so (Bergen, 54)), there was no one to stop him: “Hitler’s political revolution was not without violence, but he established his dictatorship through means that were, at least in a narrow sense of the word, legal” (Bergen, 54). 

                       

Adolf Hitler was a dictator but according to author Doris L. Bergen, he also placed great value in public opinion; he often acted according to his own beliefs but not after he gained substantial support from the public. Anti-Semitism was something which had existed in Germany for hundreds of years and provided the basis for Hitler’s hatred of Jews. The humiliation Germans felt at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, spurred a desire to re-arm; Hitler’s leadership during years of economic depression also lead to members of the public supporting him. Hitler would often “test the waters” as it were, before enacting his “reforms” in their entirety (Bergen, 54).

The series of laws which provided the foundation for Hitler’s actions against Jews and many other minority/ fringe groups within Germany society were the Nuremberg Laws. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in the fall of 1933 and took the form of two laws: the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, and the Reich Citizenship Law; the first law defined the limits of interaction between Aryans and Jews, while the second defined who was considered to be a Jew by the government (Bergen, 71). Again these laws as morally ambiguous as they seem were proposed and adopted “legally”; Hitler was a dictator but he was also shrewd and realized that in order for his goals to be realized he needed the legal backing and also the support of the populace. Once again these laws would provide the foundation for later legislation which enabled Hitler to enact his “Final Solution” during the Holocaust.

Source: Bergen, Doris. War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher Inc., 2009.

The Good, the Bad and the Emotional: Feature Films and the Holocaust

When I think of the films and television shows I have seen which depict the Holocaust, more often it was the feature films which left the greatest impression on me. I cannot remember when I first learned about the Holocaust, whether it was in school or if I heard about from a relative, I do remember though that the ninth episode of my favorite miniseries, Band of Brothers, was based around the liberation of a concentration camp. (I first saw Band of Brothers I was around ten, and can recall times when it was playing in stores and rather than shop I would sit there and want to watch every episode.) In my AP European History class my sophomore year of high school we watched Schindler’s List and the memory of that girl and her red coat is something I will never forget. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is also a memorable film because it shows a young boy being punished due to the actions of the adults in the story.

 It is likely that the majority of the current generation was introduced to the topic of the Holocaust through feature films (we are after all a generation heavily influenced by actors and celebrities).  However this can be a bad thing as filmmakers may sometimes twist the facts in order to provide the audience with a more compelling story. Using children as the focal point of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas immediately instilled empathy in the viewer, empathy not just for Bruno but also for Shmuel; children are supposed to be innocent but in the film both appear more aware than do the adults. Given that many falsely assume that movies on this topic may offer absolute truth, feature films can prove detrimental to our study of the Holocaust; they can present myths as facts and prevent viewers from seeking the truth. However, perhaps it is the history lover in me, but I always like to do research on movies based on actual events (even those loosely) because sometimes I find the claims so ludicrous or astounding that I would like to confirm them. This being said it is possible that feature films which depict the Holocaust also cause curiosity in other viewers leading them to seek their own outside proof. Again however such understandings and research are hindered by the fact that feature films are meant to entertain the viewer, they are not by their very definition, meant to spur hours of research on a topic (although it is possible for them to). Feature films are also more appealing to audiences, again because they are mediums of entertainment. The average audience is going to be more enthusiastic about viewing a feature film, than they would be if it was suddenly announced that a documentary was going to be shown instead; documentaries have a reputation as being dry, long winded, and not very entertaining. Documentaries are meant to present history as it was, thereby presenting facts and all sides, feature films however are not held by such constraints.

One aspect which may favor the understanding of the Holocaust presented in feature films is that the stories depicted in said films often represent the most compelling of those to emerge from the Holocaust; they also represent what a heavily influential industry (the film industry) recognizes as important. Feature films can depict characters and situations which tug at the heartstrings, (as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas does). Feature films are to documentaries what non-fiction is to poetry; feature films about the Holocaust are emotional and un-constrained, depictions of the human condition which are sometimes inflated in order to make them sell. It is unfortunate though that due to the de-sensitization which has occurred on account of the generations which now stand between society and the Holocaust, that feature films are often the only mediums through which younger generations gain an understanding of the Holocaust.

Excuse vs. Explanation in Schlink's The Reader

The struggle which Michael Berg experiences between informing the judge of Hanna’s illiteracy and allowing her to be punished for acts she could not have accomplished on her own, is illustrative of the struggle the generation of Germans born immediately post-World War II had with addressing Germany’s Nazi past. The novel The Reader is not an attempt by Bernhard Schlink to absolve the perpetrator generation of its crimes, but rather is an attempt to provide an explanation for the actions of said generation. A significant amount of the apprehension the younger generation of Germans has in regards to Nazi criminals is reconciling the supposed monstrous nature of their actions with the “ordinary” people many call neighbors. Most accounts of Nazi guards in concentration camps and the actions of factions within the government of the Third Reich, such as the Gestapo, suggest that the people undertaking these activities were not human; the despicable ways in which they carried out their orders seemingly without question made them into monsters not of this world. Given this description Michael, like many of his generation, struggled with how to best make these criminals account for their wartime actions. Schlink is not providing an excuse but rather an explanation. An excuse would imply that such actions are justifiable to society as a whole, while an explanation demonstrates how an individual justifies his or her actions.

With the novel The Reader Schlink explores the deeply controversial and ambiguous question of what makes a person act as he or she does; the answer to such a question it most often more complex than we think as demonstrated by the revelation of Hanna’s illiteracy. Schlink’s story, like the counter-monument movement, presents as idea which is controversial in nature and causes the reader to pause and reflect on his or her own moral values. No he does not seek to excuse Hanna’s actions, but Schlink does wish to provide a more “human” explanation for the actions undertaken by Nazi criminals such as Hanna and in doing so opening a new line of inquiry into the most basic question asked of people who commit such heinous acts: Why? 

The Ways of Remembrance: Memorials to the Holocaust in Germany

Professor James Young is supportive of the new-age memorials termed “counter-monuments”. Counter-monuments by definition and practice are often abstract and are controversial in nature; counter-monuments challenge the visitor to become the memorial itself by provoking thought and reflection. Young, like many younger generations of German artists who also support the counter-monument movement, believes that the greatest way to honor the victims of the Holocaust and to ensure that such events are never repeated, is to imprint the memory of remembrance on peoples’ minds. Counter-monuments frequently create controversy, and because controversy almost guarantees that the public will take note of the story, Young and others who think like him, see the incitement of the public through new and often contentious means as the only way to create successful memorials. In response to one such counter-monument installed in Hamburg, one reporter wrote that it was the “fingerprint of the conscience of Germany” which was reflected in the response that many had to the “disappearing” memorial, in essence the memorial was successful because it caused the public to examine its feelings regarding German participation in the Holocaust.

The idea of the preservation of such concentration camps as Auschwitz, is not one which is entirely supported by Young. Professor Young believes that it is impossible to accurately convey to the visitor what life was like at the camps by maintaining the buildings and preserving the layouts. He notes that it is important to mark the passage of time, by perhaps allowing weeds to grow up, while at the same time performing enough maintenance on the buildings to make sure that they will continue to stand. His is idea behind such thinking is to show that while the past is ever present, Germany has made attempts to move on and no longer wishes to be identified solely by its actions during the Holocaust. Auschwitz because it has been preserved almost in its entirety, does not elicit a response simply because of its appearance, but rather because most visitors are already aware of its reputation. The online virtual tour does not reflect the camp’s grim past and the sunny appearance of the photographs make it difficult to see anything other than rows of brick buildings; it is  worthy to note that the preservation of the camp as it was constructed by the Nazis could be interpreted as symbolic of the rigorous and fanatic nature of order during the Nazi regime.

The Topf and Sons Place of Remembrance memorial is an interesting memorial because in its initial stages the idea for the memorial was supported by a great-grandson of a founder of the company. This type of memorial is more in line with Young’s belief that it is important to show the past while also demonstrating the evolving nature of the future in memorials. This particular memorial, opened in 2011 and located in the administrative building of the former company, uses educational initiatives and also economic activities to reflect the past and future; it also demonstrates cooperation between private individuals and also the government. I am more apt to call this type of memorial effective because it does not seek to lose the memory of the company’s involvement in the extermination of thousands to the pages of history but rather presents it in such a way that both acknowledges and seeks reconciliation with the events. Memorials which do not provoke deep thinking and reflection are not effective because they are forgotten by the visitor almost as soon as he or she leaves them behind. I believe that an important part of remembrance is an acknowledgment by the perpetrators, as well as an honoring of the victims.

Emotion and Reflection: Paul Celan's Death Fugue

This poem, at times is lost in translation. It is hard to understand not only because it was originally published in German (and I do not speak German) but also because German was the chosen language of expression for its author, Paul Celan. There is something deep and unattainable about reading Celan’s poetry because each translation can vary slightly whereas the original written in German is always going to sound the same. I did not understand Celan’s choice to write in German when he had suffered so much at the hand of Nazi Germany and it was only after reading through information written about his poetry that I began to see the importance behind his choice of languages. And he must have had placed great reasoning behind his choice of languages because in all the biographical information I read about Celan, all authors were clear on the fact that Celan placed great significance on the power of words and language. I believe one reason Celan chose to write exclusively in German is because it was the language his mother wished for him to learn and it was the language he spoke at home in his youth, and perhaps it was one thing about his previous life which he did not wish to relinquish to the Nazis.

“Death Fuge” represents, to me, the raw emotion of the Holocaust; the constant presence of death is reflected in the poem’s dark images and short, clipped lines. Having to endure confinement in a forced labor camp, Celan would have been made to do much while eating very little. In such circumstances it is not difficult to imagine how being deprived of energy he thoughts may have been short and did not extend beyond surviving the day; the erratic nature of his later works is a reflection of his thoughts during the war. Although Adorno’s statement “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric” may be misconstrued by many when read out of context, I still do not think that he had the right to judge the morality of Celan’s work. Adorno was living in the United States during World War II (he immigrated to New York in 1938) and therefore did not have the same experiences of the Holocaust as Celan did. In my opinion Celan was not writing for Aodrno, or as one explanation of his writing stated “to engage the German public”, I think he was writing for himself because that it how he knew to deal with his experiences. “Death Fuge” is an important work of German literature because it represents the raw emotion of a Holocaust survivor. Non-fiction accounts of the Holocaust are limited by constraints which do not allow the author to integrate emotion; history by definition is unbiased, and as such any authoritative account is going to present both sides. Poetry however is not bound by such constraints and can be messy, raw, powerful etc. and can reflect the true nature/ spectrum of human emotion (and in Celan’s case, pain). 

Survivor Stories: The Holocaust and World War II

After listening and reading survivor accounts from the Holocaust and World War II it is difficult to imagine that such atrocities have occurred and are even occurring today. I find myself reluctant to call Helen K. and Agate Nesaule human because the courage and strength these two women displayed lend them super-human qualities. Although their stories both reflect a dark time in world history and the events described took place in relative proximity to each other, nationality defined Agate’s experiences whereas religion defined Helen K’s.

Helen K. had five years of her life stolen. She spent three years combined in the Warsaw Ghetto, Majdanek, and Auschwitz; after liberation she spent two years in a sanatorium recovering her health. None of Helen’s family survived but she was determined to defy Hitler by surviving and defy him she did; her survivor interview was recorded in 1985 for use in the Yale University library.

Agate Nesaule and her family were living in Latvia when war broke out in 1941 between the once allied Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia; the family lived in a parsonage of which Agate’s father was the pastor until 1944. Together with several members of her extended family, Agate voluntarily sailed to German (although it may be argued whether or not they did so because they were forced to by circumstances beyond their control) when the Soviets re-occupied Latvia. The Nesaule family would spend the next six years in work camps and displacement camps before “immigrating” (or being exiled as many Latvian-Americans considered it) to the United States in 1950. Agate was able to learn English and received a university level education which enabled her to have a successful career as a college professor. However Agate admittedly suffered from bouts of depression, which I believe were triggered by a sense of survivor’s guilt she had.

Helen’s story is one of the Holocaust, whereas I would categorize Nesaule’s as one more about World War II. The Holocaust was perpetrated by Hitler and the Nazi’s whereas Agate and her family suffered primarily at the hands of the Soviets. This statement is not meant to diminish the suffering that Agate experienced and neither is it meant to imply that the Nazis did not bring any tragedy to her life, but rather it meant to demonstrate that there is a definitive difference between what Agate experienced and what Helen experienced. As a Jew, Helen was a member of a group specifically targeted by the Nazis, targeted not just for internment in a work camp, but targeted for extermination in a death camp. Agate and her family found themselves in a German work camp after they left Latvia in advance of Soviet troops. Tragedy followed both girls however it was not to the same degree: all of Helen’s family perished during the Holocaust while Agate was able to travel to the United States with all of her immediate family as well as several members of her extended family. The girls were also different ages during the war: Helen was a teenager, old enough to marry while still living in the Warsaw Ghetto; Agate was twelve when her family came to the United States. Being older Helen made decisions and choices which went beyond the acquisition of basic needs; Helen was determined to survive so that she might strike down Hitler’s beliefs regarding Jews and so she might “stick it to the man”. As a child during the war, Agate did not often look beyond her hunger; her desire to live did not develop from a deep set of convictions but rather her actions were a reflection of a basic feeling of self-preservation. 

Neighbors vs. Neighbors: Controversy in Poland

After reading Jan Gross’s book Neighbors I found myself asking what would I have done? Although I am not sure when my ancestors came to the United States, my mother’s family is Polish. I am not Jewish and after finishing Neighbors I was weighed down by the knowledge that it is possible, had I been living in Jebwabne in 1941, I would have been asked to participate in the massacre. I think Gross made a mistake when he did not include a discussion of fear and the will to survive that many must have had, as reasons why ethnic Poles may have turned on their Jewish neighbors. I know that these two entities can be powerful motivators, and are often behind acts which seem beyond comprehension. I think too that it is hard to understand all the circumstances surrounding the events, and that to unearth the facts is never going recreate the adequately.

Neighbors was so controversial in Poland when it was published because many believed it went too far in holding ethnic Poles responsible for the massacre at Jebwabne on July 10, 1941. Publish just over fifty years after the massacre occurred, there were many in Poland who had lived through the war, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Jan Gross, having never lived through the war (he was born almost twenty years after the end), may have found it easy to place blame whereas those ethnic Poles who had lived through the war were perhaps crying foul because Gross had not adequately explained what may have led the residents of Jebwabne to turn on their Polish neighbors; it was this and also the fact that Gross appeared to be placing the blame solely on Polish shoulders that many expressed anger at his book.

Historians also found the book controversial due to the sources that Gross consulted while writing the book. As a student of history I know the importance of documenting sources and also being certain that what is being written is the whole truth, however Gross in Neighbors, did not consult nearly enough sources to satisfy historians, and by his own admission his research was incomplete. Gross presents a single side of the story of the massacre at Jebwabne in Neighbors, one which is controversial and caused great controversy, but I think that was his point. I do not believe that Gross wished to be vicious and accuse every single ethnic Pole living in Poland during the war of war crimes, however I feel that he wrote Neighbors as a way of calling attention to an important, albeit forgotten part of World War II scholarship. If this was indeed his intention, we can say that he was successful because people such as historian Marek Chodakiewicz wrote responses to Neighbors immediately and in Neighbors itself, Gross writes how in 2000 the Institute of National Memory launched an investigation into the massacre at Jewbwabne; although people were reluctant to accept Gross’s book as true, it seems as if they are willing to sponsor investigations to discover the truth.

"Flight and Rescue": The Story of a Dutch businessman, a Japanese diplomat and 2100 Polish-Jewish Refugees

After browsing through the various exhibitions available online through the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum I chose to explore the exhibit titled “Flight and Rescue” under the category of “Rescue and Resistance”. A more positive story than most to emerge from the dark days of the Holocaust, “Flight and Rescue” is about the journey of 2100 Polish-Jews from war torn Europe to the Far East. What proved to be the intriguing part of this story for me was the fact that these efforts were spear headed in the beginning by two very different men: Jan Zwartendijk and Chiune Sugihara.  Just from reading their names it is possible to discern that these two men were not of the same nationality, however it came as a surprise to me just how opposite in their stances during World War II those nations were:  Mr. Zwartendijk was a Dutch businessman and Mr. Sugihara was a Japanese diplomat. Given that the Netherlands was an Axis occupied country almost from the beginning, and Japan was a major Axis power, it would not seem plausible for these two men to work together to save Jewish refugees. However despite never having met and the various opinions their governments may have had, they were able to save 2100 Polish-Jews from annihilation during the Holocaust by arranging travel visas for them to reach the relative safety of the Far East.

This story of the Dutch businessman and Japanese diplomat banding together to facilitate the flight of a group of Jewish refugees is just one contradiction of many to emerge from the horror of the Holocaust. Most of what is taught in history classes about the Japanese role in World War II focuses around the attack on Pearl Harbor; before viewing this exhibit I had never been exposed to a story about the Japanese at this time which painted the Japanese government in a favorable light. We also tend to be taught that the United States was the ultimate pinnacle/ perpetrator of freedom however, several times throughout the exhibit the refugee quotas for the United States were lower than those of other countries, such as states under the jurisdiction of the British government. This exhibition not only chronicles the struggle of Polish-Jewish refugees to find sanctuary outside of Europe but it also demonstrates how even states allied with Germany were want to adhere to that country’s (Germany’s) systematic destruction of groups of peoples.

Beyond the Holocaust the exhibition also briefly touches upon modern-day refugees and the plight many displaced peoples still face today. A section at the end of the exhibition explains how the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum makes it its mission to ensure that the legacy of the Holocaust is not forgotten by acting to prevent or bring attention to genocides in the modern era, such as those which have recently occurred in Darfur. I found it interesting that much of the international legislation regarding the treatment and rights of refugees was written and adopted following revelations regarding the treatment of Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.

A Film Unfinished and The Ghetto: Reaction and Reflection

It is hard to judge/ think/ address the documentary film A Film Unfinished. By the admission of those quoted in the film, deception was a key component in the film, The Ghetto, which formed the basis of the documentary. This may be obvious given that The Ghetto was a work of propaganda, but it also makes it hard to place the film in the spectrum of our understanding regarding the Holocaust. Certainly the film is important to the documentation of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime, but just how important may be further determined by archival research on the subject. It is still possible that documents might still be discovered which shed light on the purpose behind The Ghetto (after all a reel of outtakes was discovered almost half a century after the uncovering of The Ghetto) but it is also equally possible that we may never be able to discover to what end the film was serving. What is known is that the Nazis were fanatical about documenting their regime and the randomness of the film would make it appear as if there was indeed a specific purpose behind its creation.

By my way of thinking the biggest contribution The Ghetto made to our understanding of the Holocaust is that makes it clear that contradictions and contrasts were rampant. In the film, the Nazis attempt to paint the Jews of the Warsaw in a negative light by showing how they suffered in reality, and also how they supposedly lived a life of luxury within the walls of the ghetto. (The film flashes from a scene depicting a large pile of trash and human feces, to one showing a multiple course meal in a restaurant.) The seemingly scattered nature of the scenes the German filmmakers chose to shoot are not cohesive enough, one would think, to be remotely convincing as a film of propaganda. Uncovering the reasoning behind the film would more than likely be the greatest contributing factor The Ghetto could make to society’s understanding of the Holocaust, rather than the film itself.

While viewing the film, I had the strongest reactions to the scenes which depicted the grim reality of life and almost certain death that the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto faced. However upsetting viewing the film was, it was one I knew I had to finish because the Holocaust is an event which should never be forgotten or left to fade into the vaults of history. Like Emmanuel Ringelblum I feel that I owe it to history, to those of the future generations, and also to those who suffered to learn what  I can to make sure that I never allow an event like it ever occur again. The humanity in me demands that I steel myself for the cruelty, but like one of the survivors featured in A Film Unfinished , I also allow myself to cry and not become completely desensitized.

Pictorial Representation: The Essence of the Holocaust

To many this picture may not represent the horror and gruesome nature which categorizes the Holocaust, however  it is a scene which always struck me as bringing many elements together. This picture is actually a still from the episode "Why We Fight" in the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers. Band of Brothers is one of my favorite series and I could watch it several times in a month and not find it boring.

This episode is the second to last and it comes at a time when Easy Company has almost left combat completely behind. Naturally they are delighted to be alive and ecstatic that they might soon be returning to the United States. When the men find this camp they are utterly devastated, and after seeing what they went through and how tough they were even after enduring brutal combat conditions, it is unnerving to see them cry and become stoic. In the image one can see the prisoners still in a camp, locked up as if they are animals, and the body in the middle represents just a portion of the cruelty which also categorized their imprisonment. This picture shows not only the destruction that the concentrations caused but also, what I consider to be the reaction of humanity to that destruction: sorrow and defeat. It is also representative of the Holocaust because it was the remnants, that which was left behind which often in such camps, which society has come to associate with the Holocaust. The soldier represents the end of the war, while the prisoners represent the true cost of the war: a portion of the world's humanity.

Does this image capture the essence of the Holocaust? For the way I choose to view the Holocaust it does; I am sure not everyone will agree. All I know is that when I think of the Holocaust this episode immediately comes to mind and brings together two groups whom sacrificed so much that the Nazis might not succeed. However, the driving forces behind the Holocaust, fear and ignorance, are hard to capture in a single picture, and often manifest themselves differently to each individual person.