Author: Ashton

Differing Perspectives

by

In Krakow, Poland, we visited Oskar Schindler’s Enamel factory. In the beginning of World War II, Schindler viewed the factory and cheap Jewish workers as a way to earn a higher profit. However, greedy feelings developed into heroic actions and Schindler’s factory became a tool he utilized to help save 1,200 Jewish lives. Today, Schindler’s factory has been transformed into a museum that showcases both the lives of Schindler and the people he helped save, as well as the Polish experience during World War II.

While walking around the museum our fantastic tour guide explained the ambiguous morality of everyone during the war. She claimed there were good and bad guys on all sides. She also mentioned repeatedly how it is unfair to judge other people’s past actions without understanding their full story. I thought it was interesting how many times she reinforced this idea. Her tour highlighted the victimization of the Polish population, Jews and Christians alike. Yet, there was a distinct lack of mentioning the culpability of some within the Polish population. After reflecting, I believed this to be noteworthy. I did not know until after the tour that in Poland it is illegal to discuss Polish accountability for the Holocaust.

Politics in Poland are to be blamed for this law. During the war, although, it is easy to look at both Polish citizens who were helpful and those who were complicit, there is instead a political movement to erase any guilt surrounding the Polish narrative of World War II. I cannot generalize and say everyone in Poland agrees on this historical misrepresentation or omission, but it is what numerous people voted for. I think this represents Poland’s national character as continuously sensitive to their past involvement in World War II. For some of the Polish population, the experience of the war still appears to be a wound that has not fully healed.

In comparison, while in Berlin, Germany, we visited the Topography of Terror museum. At every exhibit there were a multitude of pictures that showcased the Nazi’s horrific actions throughout the war. For example, there was a picture of Nazis beating up an elderly man on the ground in the middle of the street while onlookers watched speechless or in amusement. The museum’s representation of terror highlighted how the Nazis utilized emotional manipulation, especially of fear, to force people to follow their agenda without question. This museum was blatantly honest with Germany’s past actions. There was no omission or denial of history, like in Poland.

I took away from this museum, and the many others we saw while in Berlin, that majority of the German population acknowledges and continues to acknowledge their murderous role in the Second World War. Germany does not want to hide the past so everyone can forget, instead, Germany wants everyone to remember to ensure that their past actions will not be repeated.

In conclusion, the differing national perspectives of World War II were extremely interesting to see within such a short time frame. Going from Poland immediately to Germany really enforced how differently the war is discussed amongst the general population. Both nations are dealing with a complicated past in two different ways. While I understand how hard it is to grapple with victimization as well as culpability within a nation. I think Germany does a decent job in representing their personal narrative as accurately as possible.

The Horrors of the Holocaust

by

Walking around Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau was an emotionally complicated experience. Throughout my life, I have learned of these places and the sickening events that occurred there, but actually standing where more than 1.1 million prisoners were brutally murdered was almost impossible to process. My understanding of the war experience was enhanced through emotionally processing the horrors of the Holocaust at Auschwitz.

Learning history from books is important but visiting a site, like Auschwitz, can completely change your perspective. For example, the first thing that stood out to me when we arrived was how big the site was. When learning about the Auschwitz camps I saw pictures that showcased the inhumane cramped conditions. Consequently, I mentally processed the space as smaller, rather than the amount of people as greater. The size of the space made me realize the amount of people that suffered there was beyond my comprehension. Contrary to my assumptions, being there actually made it harder to understand what happened. Now to clarify, this was not a big area, and the buildings were most definitely cramped, but in my mind, I had always viewed the camps as smaller.

Walking around with our tour guide he discussed the different forms of torture enacted at the camps. In previous classes there were discussions on the purposeful starvation that occurred as well as the combination of inhumane forced labor. I was unaware of women prisoners being routinely used in Auschwitz for sterilization experiments. These women would be hand selected and forced to endure torture in the name of “medical research” that either resulted in their death or their permanent disfigurement. All over the camps men, women, and children were tortured and murdered in the name of science.

In the past, when learning about death camps or concentration camps, hearing the story of the few who escaped was simultaneously uplifting and horrendous. Uplifting for the fact they were able to escape a living hell, yet, horrendous for learning about the reality of what was occurring at these camps. Our tour guide explained that for every 1 prisoner who escaped Auschwitz, 10 prisoners were chosen to go down to cell block 11 and starve to death. Cell block 11 is where prisoners were punished in either a regular small cell, a completely dark cell, or a standing cell. Punishments could last days, weeks, or until death. Standing in cell block 11 for less than two minutes made me nauseous and claustrophobic.

Included in those sent to cell block 11 was Maximillian Kolbe, a Polish Catholic priest. After someone escaped, Kolbe was not chosen as one of the 10 to die by starvation. A man named Franciszek Gajowniczek was chosen along with 9 others. Kolbe heard Gajowniczek’s cries to be spared and desperation about never seeing his wife and children again. Thus, Kolbe requested to take on Gajowniczek’s death sentence, and the Nazis allowed him to do so. Kolbe sacrificed himself for Gajowniczek who was able to survive until 1995. In 1981, Maximillian Kolbe was canonized as a Martyr by Pope John Paul II.

This example of self-sacrifice and love by a complete stranger to another is nothing short of extraordinary. I would never have thought a place filled with hate and unthinkable evil could also bring out the best of humanity.

Visiting Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau, left me feeling drained, angry, sad, depressed, and immensely frustrated, but it was one of the most important days of this trip. I would highly recommend everyone at least once in their life to go and view the Holocaust in a new perspective. I feel I have become more aware of the privileges in my life because of this experience. Going there is a reminder to be grateful for everyone and everything in our lives.

Free to Fightback in France

by

After a long day of travel, our first full day in Bayeux, France, was filled with museums and site visits. I must confess I was sleep deprived. The previous night had been filled with excited chatter of being in France. Why be a responsible adult and go to bed early when I can stay up and have fun with friends in France?

Walking into Caen Memorial Museum took away any lingering desires for sleep. This museum, both inside and out, was beautiful. There were high ceilings, glossy polished stairs, and seemingly endless well-organized displays to visit. This museum focused on the French perspective on World War II and Normandy invasions, through French pictures and occupation memorabilia. But, the museum’s exhibits still highlighted other countries’ World War II experiences, placing France in the larger context of the war. When saying French perspective, I mean the exhibit mainly showcased how World War II impacted the culture and lives of French citizens. I distinctly remember a picture of French citizens dejectedly sitting down outside of their home that was destroyed in the Nazi invasion. It was a reminder of the terrible human toll of French civilians caught in the midst of the fighting.

Walking around the museum helped me recall the discussions about French wartime collaboration and resistance that we’d had in class this past spring. What made someone identifiably a collaborator rather than a resistance fighter? During the war and after, it is hard to generalize the French population into either of these distinct categories.

Depending on the day, we might interpret a person’s actions in a variety of ways. For example, working for the German occupiers, like helping build machinery for the Nazi war effort or providing food, and using that money to support their families could be considered collaboration. Yet, using that money to help out those who are impoverished or need help, like the Jewish population in France, could be considered resistance. It is money that is coming from unfortunate means but could still be used for good. Is the answer to refuse to work for the Germans and suffer without helping others? Is that what qualifies as resistance? These are questions that French civilians in occupied France were forced to confront daily.
Identifying who belonged to the resistance is also complicated. It is easier to view the men who actively fought against the Nazis as resistors. Rather than women doing small things like disobeying curfew or reading banned books. What level of resistance qualifies someone as a “resistor?” In the museum when discussing the resistance, I personally saw photo representation of both men and women. However, I recall readings and class discussions about the minimization of the women’s role in how we remember French resistance.

Towards the middle of the museum I found only one plaque that described collaborators in Vichy France. This plaque stated that people in France who collaborated did so for political power and economic opportunity because they believed the Nazi rule was permanent. They were relatively average people that saw an opportunity to increase their station in life. Essentially, some French citizens collaborated in hopes of securing a lavish future in the new world order. It was a simple description that acknowledged the selfishness of many French collaborators.

I believe this plaque focused on Vichy France, rather than collaboration in other occupied areas, because Vichy France stands out in our historical recollection. Vichy France was technically unoccupied by the Germans, but the newly set-up government collaborated with the Germans immensely. The Caen Memorial Museum may also have wanted to point the direction of collaboration away from areas that have positive significance to World War II, like Normandy being the area of liberation. Putting blame on more obvious culpable parties is easier than discussing a past you may feel guilty about and diminishing an overall positive historical reputation.

My interpretation for why the museum more extensively exhibited resistance in France is that it helps alleviate feelings of national guilt. If the museum designers focused more heavily on World War II collaboration in the museum France would appear in a negative light. Omitting or denying a country’s role may lead to the same mistakes and actions to be repeated. It is impossible to learn if no record exists from which to learn.

At the same time as someone who is not French I find it hard to fully judge the French’s decisions. These are all just my personal speculations that came to me while walking around the Caen Memorial museum. Overall, I greatly appreciated seeing the war from a different national perspective.

Social Divisions and Serial Killers

by

When I set off on a nighttime Jack the Ripper tour exploring the East side of London, I was expecting a lighthearted excursion (as much as a serial murder mystery tour could be) and an interesting way to explore a new part of the city with a tour guide. What I didn’t expect was to be educated on London’s history involving major class distinctions and the separation between East and West London.

Walking around the East side, I noticed numerous new, clean, and polished buildings that were architecturally magnificent. These newly developed buildings did not have the classical look I had become used to in West London. For example, the Lancaster Gate Hotel near Hyde park, where we were residing for our stay, was surrounded by illustrious white mansions. Although far from run down, one could tell that these buildings were not modern designs, unlike in the East.

Our tour guide told us that before World War II, Eastern London was overpopulated and impoverished. It was expected that buildings did not have electricity, plumbing, or clean air. Massive amounts of smog created by coal pollution made living there difficult and unhealthy. Lacking options for food some people had to rely on butchered cat meat to survive.

Meanwhile in the late nineteenth-century West, people were living under Queen Victoria’s eye, and resided in lavish buildings, had luxurious open spaces, and had access to expendable income. According to the tour guide, Queen Victoria did not care how the East was run because most people in the East were immigrants from places like Ireland, not true Englishmen. These men and women left their respective countries in hopes of starting anew in a place they thought was ripe with opportunity. Unfortunately, for most that was not the reality of their situation. Women had to rely on casual prostitution to even afford a place to sit for the night. Regardless of the debatable explanation of London’s past, the massive division between the rich and poor was undeniable.

Before I arrived in London, I learned that World War II damage to the poverty-stricken areas in the East gave the perfect excuse for government officials to tear down the unsightly buildings and start anew. Thus, while walking around in 2019 it is hard to imagine the area as anything other than beautiful and clean. A couple buildings from that time period remain in the area and completely stand out. Without those buildings it would be possible to completely wipe away London’s past of poverty and desperation.