 |
|||||||||
     |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| You are here: 2000 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Workshops on Remembrance and Representation / Workshop 4 on Remembrance, "Remembering the Holocaust: The Public Perception of Remembrance" / Report from Workshop 4 on Remembrance: "Remembering the Holocaust: the Public Perception of Remembrance" | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme 
|
|
|
|
Report from Workshop 4 on Remembrance: "Remembering the Holocaust: the Public Perception of Remembrance" Presentation by Mr. Ralph Grunewald Presentation by Mr. Arne Ruth Presentation by Dr. irena Veisaite Report from Workshop 4 on Remembrance: "Remembering the Holocaust: the Public Perception of Remembrance" Report from Workshop 4 on Remembrance and Representation Moderator: Mr. Clifford Longley
The workshop discussed the public perception of the Holocaust on the basis of examples from different countries and tried to define essential elements to ensure that historical veracity, even if sometimes it may be painful for nations and societies, prevails in the public discussion of the subject. It was made clear that, while every nation must follow its own approach to Holocaust remembrance in accordance with its own cultural background, the subject of Holocaust remembrance in general must constantly be put on the international agenda because of its transnational character. The workshop welcomed the progress in Holocaust remembrance that was made during the last decade and stressed that a lot of work still remains to be done. Presenters: Mr. Ralph Gruenewald Dr. Irena Veisaite Mr. Arne Ruth Ralph Gruenwald commented on the Swedish ”Living History Project” which is one answer to the question what effective public policy initiatives can be derived from political conferences such as the London Nazi Gold Conference and the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era assets. In fact, a survey by the American Jewish Congress indicates that on a cross-national comparative basis, Swedes today are at the top of the list attaching importance to Holocaust remembrance. This example emphasizes the positive effect of national commitment to Holocaust education. This commitment to memorialization must be both historically accurate and authentic in order to instill an appreciation of the human dimension of the unique tragedy that was the Holocaust. In this regard, the seriousness in which political, civic and religious leaders take initiatives to strengthen Holocaust remembrance is essential for remembrance to flourish. Among the most important and effective means to instill Holocaust memory on the national consciousness are civic commemorations, be it in Parliaments, on public squares or elsewhere. In this context, the creation of National Remembrance Days is an important tool. But if civic commemorations can focus the attention of a large number of people, others can only be reached if commemoration rituals also reach the family and individual level. In this area innovative efforts will be necessary in the future, especially in non-Jewish social contexts. Dr. Irena Veisaite pointed out that the perception of the Holocaust differs dramatically in Western and Eastern Euopean countries. While the first agree on the Holocaust being the greatest crime ever to have been committed in history, the second tend to consider it a second-rate topic. To a large extent, the terror deriving from the Soviet system ”overwhelmed” the Holocaust. In the Lithuanian example, Lithuanians and Jews do not listen to each other when lamenting their own tragedies. There are different reasons for this phenomenon. While under Soviet occupation Lithuanians virtually heard nothing of the Holocaust, the memory of Lithuanian Jews who emigrated during World War II often was distorted by hate and they generally perceived the Lithuanians as antisemite murderers. After 1990, on the governmental level things where quickly solved in a clear and consistent way, e.g. by the guarantee of equal rights to minorities, by the condemnation of the war time genocide of the Jews and by the declaration of a Holocaust Remembrance Day. But antisemitic myths and stereotypes continue to play a significant role in the public opinion. The Holocaust nearly is not present in the collective memory. To many it seems as if the topic shall be imposed on them by others, for example the Wiesenthal Center, the West or the American government. The theory of the ”two genocides”, which relates the Holocaust to the Soviet terror, is still dominant. In order to overcome the stereotypes a lot of efforts will still be needed. But nowadays, the dialogue between Lithuanians and Jews has at least begun. Arne Ruth stressed the fact that the conception of the Holocaust remains singular in each nation and compared the Nordic states as an illustration. In Finland young Jewish men had the choice between joining the army and fighting as Germanys allies against the Soviet Union, or refusing collaboration with Germany and at the same time refusing to serve their country. Denmark is one of the few blessed examples for having saved its Jews from the Holocaust. In Norway, even while being a country in which resistance to the Nazi occupation was strong, the police did collaborate in arresting Jews and sending them to the concentration camps. Research on this subject was only done recently and only after it was discussed internationally the Norwegian public was prepared to face this part of its history. In Sweden, a really serious discussion about the implications in the Holocaust only emerges in these weeks in the context of the Stockholm Forum on the Holocaust. The Forum itself was motivated both by the honest wish to help Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research progress on an international level and by the reflection that Sweden should take another approach to the Holocaust than Switzerland. The examples of Norway and Sweden, as well as the Holocaust Remembrance in a number of other states, illustrate the fact that in order to help progress in this matter come about, it must not be treated only on a national, but on an international level. Before opening the floor for the discussion, the chair gave Zdravko Sami the opportunity to provide information about the situation of the Jewish community in Macedonia. In the discussion the floor compared the Swedish and the Swiss approach towards facing their implication in the Holocaust. It was remarked that by refusing to acknowledge any guilt until recently the Swiss government provoked opposition in intellectual circles in Switzerland itself which led to a serious research on the question already in the 1950s. The question of the representation of the Roma people in Holocaust remembrance in general and especially at the Stockholm Forum was although raised. Ralph Gruenberg explained why the difference in proportion between the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people and the murder of other groups must be seen. Anyhow, a balance between the Jewish people and the other victims of the Holocaust is difficult to be struck. At the end, a proposal to make advanced standards in education about the Holocaust and human rights a condition for entering European institutions such as the EU has been put forward. The Workshop reached two conclusions: -Holocaust remembrance is an international task and no country should be left alone with the difficulties involve in the area -Political, civic and religious leaders can strongly influence the perception of the Holocaust in their countries by taking appropriate initiatives Arno Kirchhof
>> 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 | |||||||||