Two historians present their views on this.
Number one suggests that it should be preserved as long as there is still an Auschwitz survivor alive, and then left to decay and be repossessed by nature.
Number two -as well as the vast majority of those posting comments- wants it to be left and maintained forever as a grim reminder of one of history's darkest hours.
I can understand both sides. It is obviously important to remember the Holocaust and the gravity of the atrocities committed. No generation must ever grow up and not know about it. However, I will add that I don't think there is a huge danger of that being forgotten. The Holocaust is probably the most well known historical event worldwide. The people who have visited that camp describe it as a life altering experience, realizing the scale of what was done there. This should also be taken into consideration.
But I also understand the other side. One the one hand, there is the questionable but eventually inevitable process of maintaining and rebuilding parts of the camp, which would become necessary if it is to survive. It's easy to understand why people would have objections to renewing the architecture of this place of death.
Also, letting the natural surroundings reclaim the area has a powerful symbolic value. The idea that the greatest human tragedies will pass and the damage heal is understandably attractive. That would be a lengthy but natural process of the camp slowly being covered with new life, as years and decades pass.
Altogether, I'm undecided. Thoughts?
Genocide still happens and is too readily ignored. Keeping at least one of them memorated seems like a good idea to me.
I don't see a problem with restoring a historical site, even if it was used in such away, as long as it is supposed to be a memorial for those who died and a warning for other generations not to repeat the same mistakes.
Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander
26th April 2004
History should be left open for everyone to see. You can't erase history, it happened there. Obviously if there are sponsors for maintaining the museum there, they should be allowed to do so. And why not the state should also fund it, historical places are a good destination.
It is a shame the underground bunkers etc. in Berlin for example were destroyed as well.
It's a memorial for the survivors, it reminds us of what happened. When I went it felt like a sybol for all the Jewish people as when i went alot of jewish people were there. It reminds me that I'm still human and that such atrocities still happen and even changed how i lived a little.
If they destroy it, it will be like destroying a war memorial, no it is like desotrying a war memorial, i find it would disgrace all the people who survived there or lost people there and we should remember the consequences of our actions.
I think it'd be a good idea to preserve it for as long as possible. I'd be amazed if they could keep it preserved for at least 90 years. As Fancypants said, it serves as a memorial and a warning. Just as Chernobyl does; A warning about the dangers of not paying attention.
I completely agree about the importance of keeping the memory alive, however keeping the site itself isn't enough to stop coming generations from forgetting. What's more important is that it remains an important subject in education; only a tiny percentage of the world population will ever have the chance to visit the site.
Keeping it up as a reminder is a good idea. And if we're going to partake in genocide, lets make sure it's just some small nation in Central America. Either you join our political ideology and our business interests or we invade the fuck out of you. I'm talking to you in particular, Nicaragua.
Nothing like preventing communist atrocities by fighting it with right-wing insurgents, whilst creating more atrocities. :beer:
...where is the monument commemorating that? Or the Trail of Tears and Native American ethnic cleansing?
However, I will add that I don't think there is a huge danger of that being forgotten. The Holocaust is probably the most well known historical event worldwide.
But then, there was that Bishop who thought the holocaust didn't happen, and I imagine there are plenty like him, to be honest.
Mr. Pedantic;4782846But then, there was that Bishop who thought the holocaust didn't happen, and I imagine there are plenty like him, to be honest.
But people like that ignore the facts anyway. They wouldn't believe it if they saw it or not. That's the problem.
People that go and visit Auschwitz aren't Holocaust deniers in the first place.
Karst;4782835I completely agree about the importance of keeping the memory alive, however keeping the site itself isn't enough to stop coming generations from forgetting. What's more important is that it remains an important subject in education; only a tiny percentage of the world population will ever have the chance to visit the site.[/quote] the coming generations should know of such a thing which is why it is there! the Holocaust is something thats compulsory to learn(well here In England anyway)to teach us of how inhuman we were and how it is still happening. If they tear it down they may as well tear down war memorials for lost soldiers! When I visited Auschiwtz we spoke to a survivor who gave his experience and if they tear it down you will be destroying the memories of his family. Have a chance?We all have a chance, get the money and GO!! I don't think that it will EVER be allowed to be torn down.
[quote=Mr. Pedantic;4782846]But then, there was that Bishop who thought the holocaust didn't happen, and I imagine there are plenty like him, to be honest.
The KKK protested with big banners saying such things....Theres photos of them.