 |
|||||||||
     |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| You are here: 2000 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Panel 2: Remembering the Holocaust - The challenges of Memory / Report from Panel 2 on Remembering the Holocaust - the Challenges of Memory | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme 
|
|
|
|
Report from Panel 2 on Remembering the Holocaust - the Challenges of Memory Presentation by Mr. Serge Klarsfeld Presentation by Dr. Anita Shapira Presentation by Dr. Franciszek Piper Report from Panel 2 on Remembering the Holocaust - the Challenges of Memory Report from Panel 2: Remembering the Holocaust – The Challenges of Memory Chair: Serge Klarsfeld
1. The session touched upon various aspects of remembering the Holocaust. Discussions focused mainly on what was important to remember; the Holocaust and its victims as well as the sites where it took place, or the process and political and social environment which led to the Holocaust. The role of the memory was also debated, as were the changes which have taken place in the way the Holocaust is remembered. The important role of gathering survivors’ testimonies and communicating their experiences was debated, as well as the role of historical sites and memorials. Presenters: Prof. Anita Shapira, Dr. Franciszek Piper Prof. Dr. James E. Young 2. In his introductory remarks Serge Klarsfeld characterised remembrance of the Holocaust as a common challenge, as survivors who are able to tell their stories will soon disappear. The challenge relates to the difficult issues of how to remember, what to remember, and the important obligation to remember each and every one of the individual victims. Remembrance should encompass not only the memory of the Jews, but also other groups which were victims, and it should be promoted through all possible means, through important historical locations, museums, art work etc. Prof. Shapira discussed the changes which have occurred in the way we remember the Holocaust. In the first decades following the trauma, remembrance was collective and an important factor in the creation of the state of Israel. In connection with the Eichmann trial, and as the victims achieved some distance from their experiences, they started to tell their personal memories, creating a more personal remembrance of the Holocaust. The victims faced the ambiguity of not wanting to look back, to get on with their lives, but at the same time feeling a responsibility to contribute to the task of not allowing such a genocide to happen again. Dr. Piper, head of the Archives of the Auschwitz Museum, emphasised the role of Auschwitz as the major symbol of the Holocaust, built on the tragic facts that it was the largest death camp, that around 30.000 victims survived and have been able to tell the world, and that it is still there to visit and see. He acknowledged that until the fall of Communism, Auschwitz was exclusively seen as a Polish national memorial which reminded of the fight against fascism. But now the Museum is working actively to make Auschwitz the symbol of remembrance of the Holocaust for all groups involved; Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and others. Prof. Young concentrated his talk on the problem of remembering through the establishment of memorial sites and memorial days. He exemplified this by relating to the recent debate in Germany on a National Memorial Site in Berlin and in Israel on a Memorial Day in 1948/49. How these Memorial symbols came into being, what they mean, and how memory is collectivised are important parts of the remembrance process. The problems encountered illustrate the difficult task of a perpetrator nation – in the German case - to honour its victims. 3. Discussions following the presentations were lively. Several participants acknowledged the difficulties for survivors to give their testimonies, since they were still haunted by their memories and wanted to live their lives without constantly being reminded. At the same time most survivors wanted to tell what happened to them in order to contribute to increased knowledge and remembrance, so that the Holocaust would never be repeated. Survivors found that telling their grandchildren was much easier than telling their children. One participant agreed that the facts were important, but also proposed that research should be made on how the memories themselves have been used over the time. One participant opposed the panel’s preoccupation with remembering only the victims and the Holocaust itself. He argued that remembering the Holocaust is also to remember its beginning, and to remember the process which lead to the genocide. Education should therefore concentrate also on the ”road” to the Holocaust, not only the acts and crimes of the concentration camps. The chair agreed and underlined that early warning signals should not be ignored. He also referred to the opportunity of participants and political leaders at the Stockholm conference to send a strong political signal to Austria regarding the possible inclusion of Mr. Haider in the national government. History happens twice, argued another participant: when an event takes place, and when it is recreated in history books. He argued that some governments and countries are not giving a true picture of what really took place in different European countries prior to and during the Second World War. In order to reveal all the facts, he proposed that an international commission should write the history of the Holocaust of Europe. The chair agreed that many countries had not given the full account of the Holocaust and endorsed this proposal. 4. Recommendations: The Chair Serge Klarsfeld summarised the session by giving the following recommendations: -The work to find facts and to document individual victims should be carried on. Governments should support this work and open their archives in order to make research possible. This was especially important in Poland and in Russia, where the pre-war censuses should be found, if possible. -Governments should back the programme of Yad Vashem, which aims at registering the name and personal information on each of the victims. -Governments should also give financial support to create national museums with the aim to show the life of Jews before the Holocaust. -Testimony of survivors should be gathered by research institutions. -Germany and other governments should consider giving financial support to Poland in order for the Polish authorities to preserve important historical sights such as Auschwitz. -Countries should be encouraged to support the creation of museums that are situated on Holocaust sites, as has been done at Theresienstadt. -A European Commission on Holocaust Sites should be created. Rapporteur: Mr. J. Frotzler, Ministry for Foreign Affairs >> Back to top |
|
|
|
Introduction Opening Session: Messages and speeches Plenary Sessions: Messages and speeches Workshops, Panels and Seminars
Other Activities |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to www.humanrights.gov.se or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden | |||||||||