Mark Goldstein
4.14.04
Professor Kansteiner
Emotion and Memory of the Holocaust
Surviving what was arguably the greatest act of genocide in human
history, the Holocaust, entitles one the opportunity to recount one’s
feeling and memories of the horror. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, an
outpouring of eyewitness accounts by both survivors and perpetrators has
surfaced as historical evidence. For many, this has determined what
modern popular culture remembers about this atrocious event. Emotion
obviously plays a vital role in the accounts of the survivors, yet can it
be considered when discussing the historical significance of and the
truth behind the murder of six million European Jews by the Third Reich?
Emotion is the expression of thoughts and beliefs affected by feeling and
sensibility of an individual regarding a certain event or individual. In
terms of the Holocaust, emotion is overwhelmingly prevalent in the
survivors’ tales of their experiences almost sixty years ago, conveyed in
terms of life, death, and survival. As scholars often point out, the
Holocaust evokes strong sentiments, and transmits and reinforces basic
societal values. Through in-depth observation of various forms of media
sources, this paper will argue that emotion and the lack thereof, as a
repercussion of the Holocaust, through the testimonies of those who
survived its trials and tribulations, has played an enormous role in
determining historical knowledge of the genocide.
In analyzing the stories which survivors of the concentration camps and
their perpetrators have put forth as historical evidence supporting the
findings of scholars, one must pose the question: where does fact end and
emotional distortion of the subject begin? It is critical to approach
this question with great care, so as to note that not all historical
accounts of the Holocaust by survivors and perpetrators are laden with
emotional input and a multilayered interpretation of the event. In her
acclaimed article “Memory, Distortion, and History in the Museum,” Susan
Crane argues that the distortion of memory is the fault of historical
institutions in failing to pose evidence which agrees with the testimony
of the eyewitnesses. She writes that “the ‘distortion’ related to
memory…is not so much of facts or interpretations, but a distortion from
the lack of congruity between personal experience and expectation…and the
institutional representation of the past on the other” (Crane, 1). At
some point, scholars must interpret a filtered account of the survivor’s
tale, searching through the layers of important facts and emotional
embellishments, and find the most important knowledge buried deep within.
Yet how may one distinguish fact from emotion? Famed Holocaust historian
James Young, in his 1997 work “Toward a Received History of the
Holocaust,” asks:
Is it possible to write a history that includes some oblique
reference to such deep memory, but which leaves it essentially
intact, untouched and thereby deep? In this section, I suggest,
after Patrick Hutton, that ‘What is at issue here is not how history
can recover memory, but, rather, what memory will bequeath to
history’ (Young, 1)
Clearly, this is an issue with which scholars have struggled to deal for
years, however this paper will show that it is quite possible to
distiniguish the two sides.
The methodological approach undertaken in this paper confronts each
account as one in which memory and fact have merged together, through
which even scholars often have trouble determining how historical
knowledge can be retrieved from these testimonies. A prime example of
this emotion layered within a survivor’s account of the Holocaust is
Primo Levi’s discussion of a fellow
prisoner at the
Henri, to Levi’s discontent, rarely exhibits any displeasure with his
treatment in the camp and is one of the most well-respected inmates at
present. Levi’s vendetta against Henri is emotionally-charged, as he
writes, “I know that Henri is living today. I would give much to know his
life as a free man, but I don’t not want to see him again” (Levi, 100).
Why would Levi force obvious feelings of anger into his rememberance of
the camp? His obvious jealousy of Henri’s stature within the camp taints
his testimony, and begs the question of whether of not certain or all
parts of Survival in
paper will attempt to differentiate between emotional charges, such as
Levi’s personal vendetta, and those lacking sentiment, and the way in
which both play a role in historical memory.
It is important to first look at the stoicism portrayed in accounts of
the Holocaust in order to understand those testimonies which are laden
with it. One must also distinguish the testimonial proof provided by
victims as well as perpetrators of the Holocaust, as both are
historically significant in piecing together the chronology of events
between 1939 and 1945. No proof could be stronger than that voiced by
Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in
of Evil. Her work describes the capture, trial, and execution of Adolf
Eichmann by the Israeli Government. Eichmann was one of the most
notorious desk killers of the Third Reich, organizing the deportations of
many Jews from all over Europe,
including
medium through which she describes him as ordinary gentleman, a far cry
from the brutal murderer as he is portrayed by Nazi documents which
survived through the end of World War II. Similar to Christopher
Browning’s argument regarding the psychological state of Reserve Police
Battalion No. 101 in Ordinary Men, Arendt surmises that Eichmann was
influenced by the authoritarian regime of the Nazi government. She
portrays Eichmann as a common citizen, no different from those who
opposed his position during the war.
As scholars have written, it is the Eichmann trial which first opened the
eyes of the world to the atrocities of the crimes committed by the Nazi
perpetrators. Many continue to argue that Eichmann himself is the
stereotypical desk killer of the Third Reich, and represents the
‘banality of evil’ of this regime. Arendt attempts to research Eichmann’s
statements which deem him ordinary, not diminishing his murderous deeds,
however removing the sense of emotional hatred for the Jewish people
which most view as the impetus for his actions. She accomplishes this
task well as she presents ample evidence, while allowing the reader to
decide whether to accept such ideas. Furthermore, she shows Eichmann as a
willing captive of the Israeli Parliament, detailing his lack of
opposition to the arrest, seemingly accepting his fate. “I, the
undersigned, Adolf
Eichmann…express my readiness to travel to
face a court of judgment…I shall try to write down the facts of my last
years of public activities in
embellishments” (Arendt, 241). Arendt’s argument highlights the lack of
emotion often viewed in reminiscent accounts of the Holocaust by the
surviving perpetrators.
At the opposite end of the spectrum of the testimony of the Nazi
perpetrators, contrasting Arendt’s views is Stanley Kramer’s 1961 film
Judgment at
German justices who implemented and enforced the sterilization as well as
anti-Semitic measures of the Third Reich. Kramer evokes emotion through
accounts of their actions by the judges themselves, forcing them to
confront their past and realize the err of their ways, dissimilar to
Eichmann in
proposed Eichmann to be an ordinary citizen merely following orders. As
one of the top German justices during the Third Reich, Dr. Ernst Janning
is represented in the film as a man, at first, unwilling to come to terms
with his decisions and the consequences thereafter. Eventually, though,
through an emotional description of his wrongs and the state of humanity,
Janning accepts responsibility for his enforcement of Hitler’s policies.
As lead prosecutor, Colonel Tad Lawson, argues: “[These men are] the
embodiment of what passed for justice during the Third Reich…They
distorted, they perverted, they
destroyed justice and law in
(Kramer). Kramer’s emotional portrayal of the judge forces the viewer to
feel some sympathy for Janning.
As Arendt argues that Eichmann was
an ordinary man, Judgment at
exhibits the exact opposite regarding these four Nazi judges. Through
expert testimony, and especially the discussions between the group of
perpetrators, Kramer portrays these men with a mission to uphold their
nationalistic feelings for Hitler’s cause. Possibly the film’s most
emotional segment, other then
the liberation of the internment
courtroom, most for the first time, views the atrocities of the
Holocaust. The horror is most obvious in the faces and expressions of the
four men on trial, who have finally realized the fatal effects of their
decisions. The final change in these judges from silent killers to
emotionally scarred criminals takes place as defendant judge Friedrich
Hofstetter inquires of a fellow inmate whether the film’s portrayal of
the murder of thousands upon thousands of individuals is possible. The
prisoner assures him that it is not only possible, but also easy, a
horror which they previously failed to readily accept.
Following Arendt’s lead, Levi also seems to convey coldness and stoicism,
however his work clearly relates to certain aspects of his account of his
time spent in
so often on numerous fronts, exhibited clearly by Levi’s jump from
emotional to stoic descriptions of life within the camp. As noted
earlier, he exhibits a personal vendetta against another former member of
the camp, Henri, however often completely reverses these feelings of
emotion with cold recollections of his experiences. In his depiction of
the hanging of a prisoner attempting to rise up against the Nazi forces
within Auschwitz-Birkenau, Levi leaves the reader void of any emotional
memories, recalling the incident with harsh and bitter precision, not
allowing his feelings to interrupt. “Everybody heard the cry of the
doomed man, it pierced through the old thick barriers of inertia and
submissiveness…I wish I could say that from the midst of us, an abject
flock, a voice rose, a murmur, a sigh of assent” (Levi, 149). Levi’s
chilling testimony contradicts his earlier descriptions so radically that
one must beg to ask: why does he remove all emotion from this description
while layering others with it? The answer, however, is one which
historians have pondered since the conclusion of the Holocaust, and
cannot truly answer, as these differences in the body of the eyewitness
testimonies account for problems regarding their historical significance.
One reason for Levi’s stoicism, though, could relate to his eventual
indifference to death; it is likely that his mind has become numb to the
Nazi murders, and thus such a hanging is merely another life lost, a
number rather than a name.
The stark contrast between emotional and stoic accounts of the Holocaust
as a whole is most noticeable in the aftermath of the events, through the
recollections of its survivors. Such a scene is painted, in contrast to
Levi’s account of the hanging at
book A Brush with Death. Wyszogrod’s work recounts his experiences at the
liberation by the Allied forces in 1945. What is most intriguing about
this book, however, is the artwork created by Wyszogrod to convey
specific events within the camp. One of the most significant pieces is
one in which the author, and artist, has painted a scene recounting the
torturous murder of a member of the
In contrast to Levi’s account of the hanging of an unnamed revolutionary
in
detail. Wyszogrod describes the murder of Bitter as one in which mob
rule, the sentiment felt by those within a society to conform to the
feelings of that community, prevailed and horror set in. Bitter was
murdered by the Ukranian guards, Polakov and Popov, for attempting to
steal potatoes, a violation of an unwritten ghetto law. “Earlier, this
poor soul had been discovered in the industrial area boiling some
potatoes in his tin can…A Jew was not supposed to have potatoes”
(Wyszogrod, 158).
From here on, however, the description of the beating and murder of the
victim becomes much more graphic, detailed, and emotional than at any
point in Levi’s work. Wyszogrod writes of the ways in which the guards
forced other prisoners to attack Bitter, thrashing him to the threshold
of death, while the description concludes with the account of the final
acts committed by the Ukranians to kill their “criminal” prisoner:
Bitter was bleeding from all over, but he was still alive.
The Ukranians…decided that Bitter’s condition was not bad
Enough. They bent his head down and began to burn his
Eyes with cigarette lighters and matches. While all this was
Happening…Bitter cried out as loudly as he could: ‘[May I be
An atonement for the whole people of
Soul. Hear, Oh
To death, they forced a sharp wooden stake down his throat
And poured water into his mouth. (Wyszogrod, 159)
This account of the murder of a fellow Jewish prisoner during the
Holocaust strikes the reader with an obvious contrast to Levi’s lax
re-telling of a similar event. Here, however, emotion pours throughout the
testimony.
Similar to
Levi’s account of his interment at
work Night describes one man’s battles against the Nazi regime and the
social structure of the four different death camps through which he
passed. Wiesel’s account is similar to that of Levi in that both portray
their experiences through emotional means, however there are many
significant instances during which the author fails to exude a sense of
feeling and sentiment in recounting specific events. A famed Holocaust
speaker, it is highly likely that Wiesel intentionally fails to convey
emotion in his portrayals, as he is a firm supporter of the idea that
readers and listeners to such memories can never fully understand what
happened in the camps. As Levi stoically describes the hanging of a
prisoner within the camp, Wiesel also discusses death with a haunting
lack of emotion. In Night he writes:
That same evening, we reached our destination…The guards
came to unload us. The dead were abandoned in the train. Only
those who could still stand were able to get out…The last day
had been the most murderous. A hundred of us had got into the
wagon. A dozen of us got out-among them, my father and I. We
had arrived at
His account of the death of eighty-eight Jews on a train bound for the
experience of mass murder. The lack of emotion exhibited in this instance
alters the historical significance of this testimony, and begs the
question of whether historians may take Wiesel’s argument as evidence
regarding the Holocaust if all emotion is drained? Though not evident in
every stage of Night, Wiesel’s unemotional description here might not
accurately describe the event as historical records must remember it; the
records must portray these experiences devoid of bias and sentimental
memory.
Reeve Robert Brenner takes a different approach to investigating the
aftermath of the Holocaust and its effects on the survivors in his 1980
book The Faith and Doubt of Holocaust Survivors. Brenner eloquently
discusses the religious feelings and beliefs of those who survived, while
furthering his argument by discussing the issue of religion itself and
the current state of Judaism. He sheds light on the innermost secrets and
sentiments of those who emerged from the camps in regards to their
religion and affiliation with it. As Dr. Debora Phillips, Director of the
after page, the book lifts the veil which reveals the Jewish innermost
soul, the richness of the Jewish mind and character” (Phillips). Brenner,
however, explores the emotional aspect involved in the testimony of the
Jewish victims remaining today, as one survivor comments:
Why do you have to do research...There’s nothing so complicated
That it requires scholarship. We who went through the camps no
Longer believe in God. It’s as simple as that. We, because of our
Experience and what we witnessed, know there is no God. God is a
Myth. (Brenner, 109)
This account highlights the fact that many of the survivors who emerged
from the Holocaust felt that there was no one, especially no higher being,
who was concerned for their well-being; many felt betrayed. Brenner
extracts a great deal of emotion from this testimony, which clearly
exemplifies the bitter resentment which many survivors sense towards the
acts committed against them and the lack of aide received. With no one to
blame but the Nazis, the Jews turn to God as the culprit of the Holocaust,
guilty of not saving his people from their ruthless extermination.
Having filtered this individual memory into specific categories of
emotional and stoic accounts, in addition to those by Jewish survivors
and Nazi perpetrators, it is crucial to determine the weight of memory in
recollection of the Holocaust as a whole. May a scholar take into account
the testimony of a survivor of
experiences is layered with feelings such as hatred and sorrow? On the
other hand, does a lack of any such emotion play a part in determining
the actual events of the Final Solution? Memory is a factor which must be
considered heavily before taking any action regarding historical evidence
of the Holocaust, however historians would be rash not to research the
source of the account and its context. Even memorials, such as the United
and treatment of actions taken by both the victims and the perpetrators
during the war. As certain historians have written in reinforcing the
point that memory is a key aspect in the “myth” of the Holocaust,
memorials and museums are important in promoting awareness of the event,
as it can be argued that the
Holocaust came to
the building of the
that the memory of survivors is an important tool for teaching present
and future generations about the horrors which occurred so that such an
atrocity never happens again.
As is written on the website for the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum’s website, a direct quote from a tribute participant of the scroll
of remembrance inscription, “I have survived and am here with my children
and grandchildren. We will never forget and will pass on this memory so
that this horror will never be forgotten”
(http://www.ushmm.org/tribute/index.php?content=followup/). This section
of the website is devoted to the preservation of the memory of Holocaust
survivors, and allows visitors to read excerpts of testimony by such
individuals. Thus, memory is clearly an important aspect of re-telling
the story of the extermination of six million Jews during World War II,
however, it also plays a significant role in shaping future attitudes
towards the Holocaust. Memory devoid of emotion may be recorded
differently from those accounts filled with feeling, often stressed with
greater emphasis than the former, however both play equally significant
roles in determining the ever-changing implications of the Holocaust.
Although survivor testimonials clearly weigh heavily in the role of
re-piecing the events of the Holocaust, they are not the most important
factors, a designation which is credited to historical documents and
footage. Historical evidence, however, would not be the same without the
memory of Jews and Nazis alike. As noted, memory plays on the emotional
aspect of the scholars’ findings, evoking images and ideas about the
occurrences in
facts could not uncover. As Ronald J. Berger writes in his discussion of
memory of the Holocaust in Constructing a Collective Memory of the
Holocaust, knowledge of the genocide and specific facts pertaining to its
occurrences were lacking in the decade or so in its aftermath without the
weight of memory. Berger’s work outlines the ways in which scholars and
pedestrian readers may interpret the accounts by Jewish survivors as well
as Nazi killers, and how that memory can be shaped into one cohesive
whole. The book details the events leading up to the implementation of
the Final Solution and its enforcement through testimony of those whole
survived its wrath. As is clear from the work, without memory, as was the
case essentially until the Eichmann trial of 1961, historical records of
the Holocaust are tainted and fail to fully inform historians.
In the first decade after the war the suppression of memory
of the Jewish experience was also apparent in the relationships
Survivors had with those outside their community…Nevertheless,
The 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann marked a turning point in the
Postwar memory of the Holocaust…Gradually survivors who had
Been ‘deprived for so many years of respectful listeners to their
Stories’ came to see themselves as responsible for reminding the world
That what happened to them must happen ‘Never Again!’ (Berger, 4-5)
Berger’s account of the collection of facts regarding the Holocaust before
and after the introduction of memory into scholarly research is
remarkable. His argument exhibits that, without memory of the survivors
and victimizers, the Holocaust would be merely another barbarous act of
humanity, lacking the emotional factors which have made it such a crucial
actor in European history. Devoid of the writings of survivors such as
Wiesel and Levi, remembrance of this event would be seen in a different
light than it is today.
At the focal point of Steven Spielberg’s powerful 1996 documentary
Survivors of the Holocaust is the effort to gather the testimonies of
those who survived the extermination of over eleven million people
between 1933 and 1945. Spielberg’s hope is to ensure that future
generations understand the horrors through which the survivors lived,
and never forget such crimes against humanity. These accounts are
important to society as a whole because they assure that those who
research the topic and learn about the events of the Holocaust will
value their life on an entirely different level than previously thought;
they will always remember and never forget. As Ben Kingsley states in
the introduction to Spielberg’s film, “[The Holocaust] cannot be
understood, may not be forgiven, and must not be forgiven” (Spielberg).
These testimonies ensure that scholars and archivists create accurate
representations of the genocide of the Jews, as well as other
minorities, allowing future generations to understand what occurred and
the impact it had on those who experienced its full force. Among the
other “racially inferior” groups murdered were the gypsies, or Roma,
who, as Guenter Lewy writes in his book The Nazi Persecution of the
Gypsies, were exterminated because of society’s portrayal of them as
thieves, vandals, and nomads. As one survivor recounted to Spielberg,
“When the last Holocaust survivor dies, the six million will finally be
able to rest in peace because we will have passed on the message…we must
always be involved” (Spielberg). Similar to the Yad V’Shem and United
attempts to force the accounts to teach those interested “lessons about
life and hope and the devastation that can come from intolerance”
(Spielberg). Although there is a difference between Levi and Wyszogrod’s
account of the murder of a fellow inmate, both accounts further
historical knowledge of life within the ghettos and camps, and develop
an ever-increasing understanding of the proceedings of the Holocaust. As
Kingsley states in regards to the vast amounts of testimonies recorded
by Spielberg and his crew, “each was important, each was unique, and
each was an important piece of history” (Spielberg).
The tales of Holocaust survivors are clearly among the most important
data used to determine historical records of the genocide of six million
Jews. Though some testimonies stand out with emotional accounts while
others lack sentiment, both types support the idea that knowledge of the
Holocaust would be severely different without the memory of Primo Levi,
Elie Wiesel, and others. The accounts such as those by Wyszogrod play on
the emotion of scholars and pedestrian readers alike, however still
maintain historical significance for the information underneath the
layers of hatred, sorrow, and confusion. On the other hand, Arendt’s work
is one of many which highlight the stoicism of the Holocaust, as she
portrays Adolf Eichmann in such a light. Both types of tales, though, are
used by historians to extract crucial information relating to the events
which occurred within the death camps, in order to learn more about the
daily lives of the survivors and victims of the Nazi regime. Works such
as those visited in this paper have facilitated the spread of the
Holocaust as a cultural phenomenon in the past two decades, and created
an aura about the event itself. As scholar Yehudah Bauer writes,
Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance
with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy
and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has
become a ruling symbol in our culture. I am not sure whether this
is good or bad, but it seems to be a fact. (Bauer)
Bauer’s valid assessment leads one to question whether all of the current
knowledge regarding the Holocaust is completely correct. Can Levi recount
his experiences in
his liberation? Many struggle with errors in the accuracy of the accounts
of survivors and perpetrators alike in the aftermath of the Holocaust,
however one cannot speculate as to their exactness as memory and emotion
are different for each individual, treated differently from fact. The
memory of those who lived through the Holocaust is assessed and read with
care, for the survivors will not be here forever, however their
testimonies will live on forever.
Bibliography
1. Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in
Evil.
2. Bauer, Yehudah. The Significance of the Final Solution.
3. Berger, Ronald J. Constructing a Collective Memory of the Holocaust.
Niwot, Co. University Press of
4. Brenner, Reeve Robert. The Faith and Doubt of Holocaust Survivors. New
5. Browning, Christopher. Ordinary Men.
Publishers. 1993.
6. Cole, Tim. Selling the Holocaust. New York, N.Y. Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Ltd. 1999.
7. Crane, Susan. “Memory, Distortion, and History in the Museum.”. History
and Theory, Volume 36, Number 4, Theme Issue 36. December 1997
8. Greenspan, Henry. On Listening to
Holocaust Survivors.
Praeger Publishers. 1998.
9. Kramer, Stanley. Judgement at
10. Levi, Primo. Survival in
11. Lewy, Guenter.
The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies.
12. Spielberg, Steven. Survivors of the Holocaust. 1996.
13.
http://www.ushmm.org/tribute/index.php?content=followup/. 2004.
14. Wiesel, Elie.
Night.
Group. 1958.
15. Wyszogrod, Morris. A Brush with Death.
of
16. Young, James. “Toward a Received History of the Holocaust.” History
and Theory, Volume 36, Number 4, Theme Issue 36. December 1997.