Our own Holocaust

[Mr T.]

Our own Holocaust
(Filed: 23/01/2005)

Thursday is the 60th anniversary of the Russian army's entry into Auschwitz. The discovery of the ruins of that death camp revealed to the world the scale of the Nazi extermination programme. More than a million people were murdered in Auschwitz, the overwhelming majority of them Jews. This grim anniversary will inevitably be an occasion for some smug self-congratulation from politicians: part of the point of reminding ourselves how awful the Nazis were is to tell ourselves of how good we are by comparison.

And yet the moral depravity of the Nazis is not as distant as those horrific pictures of gas chambers and mountains of corpses suggest. Hitler's holocaust began in the 1930s with a policy which was not merely popular in other countries, but frequently practised by them: the forced sterilisation of those deemed "unfit to reproduce" because they were thought to carry a genetic predisposition to mental or physical handicap. Socialist intellectuals in Britain such as George Bernard Shaw were enthusiastic proponents of that policy. The US Supreme Court ruled that forced sterilisation was compatible with the Constitution in 1927, when Oliver Wendell Holmes confidently stated that it was "better for all the world if society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind". Over the next decade, the United States forcibly sterilised more than 20,000 women – a number dwarfed by the Swedes, who only stopped forcibly sterilising women for carrying "defective genes" in the 1970s.

Forced sterilisation is not murder, of course. But the Nazis' slide from the forced sterilisation of the mentally handicapped to their mass murder suggests how slippery the slope from the one to the other can be. As the BBC's outstanding series on Auschwitz demonstrates, the Nazis decided that it was not worth feeding and nursing "gibbering idiots", and that they could not "burden future generations with their care". They claimed that the most "humane" alternative was to exterminate the people they called "useless eaters". They experimented with gas as a discreet method of killing the mentally handicapped before they transferred that innovation to killing Jews. By the summer of 1941, 70,000 disabled people had been killed by being invited into showers – which turned out to dispense not water but carbon monoxide. Three doctors would look at the medical records of a "patient". They would mark the records with a red cross if they thought the individual was a suitable candidate for "evacuation". A majority vote decided his or her fate. The advantages of gassing were that it was hidden from view: shooting people en masse had the effect of turning even SS men into depressed drunks.

There are disturbing parallels with our present laws on abortion. To abort an unborn child beyond 24 weeks' gestation is recognised in British law as infanticide – but only if the child is thought to be "normal". If doctors diagnose physical or mental handicap, including, it seems, a cleft palate, it is lawful to kill the unborn child at any time up to its birth. This is a programme for eliminating the handicapped. Its justification is that it is better "not to burden" either the present or future generations with their care. It differs in practice from the mass murder in Nazi Germany – but it is not easy to articulate how it differs at the level of moral principle. The state is killing unborn children because we do not want to live with them, or to bear the costs of looking after them. It is a justification the Nazis would have appreciated.

About 200,000 unborn children are aborted every year in England and Wales, many because doctors have decided they will be handicapped. That is a killing rate of nearly 550 a day: less than the number of people gassed daily at Auschwitz, but a horrifically large number none the less – and larger than the numbers of defenceless handicapped murdered by the Nazis.

We have successfully disguised the enormity of what we are doing from ourselves, just as the Nazis did. Next Thursday should not be an occasion for congratulating ourselves on how far we have come from the moral abyss of National Socialism. It should rather prompt an honest recognition of how disturbingly close our abortion laws have taken us to it.

[Mr T.]

The Holocaust? What was that, ask some pupils
By Julie Henry, Adam Lusher and Peter Zimonjic
(Filed: 23/01/2005)

Many British children know shockingly little about the Holocaust, a survey by The Telegraph has demonstrated. Despite the publicity surrounding this week's memorial day, key facts still elude pupils, with a quarter unable to say what Auschwitz was and less than 40 per cent able to date the Second World War.


The gate to Auschwitz. Shocking: more than half the children did not know that Auschwitz was in Poland

The British may have an obsession about Hitler and the Second World War, as successive German ambassadors have claimed, but a visit by The Sunday Telegraph to two secondary schools last week revealed that few details of the Nazi campaign of genocide against Jews have sunk in.

At William Farr, a Church of England specialist school just north of Lincoln, and Bexleyheath School, in the outer suburbs of south-east London, 12-year-olds were reassuringly knowledgable in some areas, helped - perhaps - by some last-minute cramming before our visits. Ninety per cent could describe what the Holocaust was – though one child said simply that it was "something to do with WW2" - and 83 per cent could name the principal method of mass killing used at the concentration camps.

Less impressively, children could not say what Auschwitz was, while just 17 per cent knew that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was six million. Estimates ranged from 1,000 to 37 million. More than half the children did not know that Auschwitz was in Poland.

A similar number could not name an ally of the Germans during the war. One child answered England but confessed that she did not know what the word "ally" meant.

The worst-answered, but arguably toughest, question baffled every child in the poll. Guesses as to what Kristallnacht was ranged from the name for a German camp to a "kind of army". No one knew that during Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, in November 1938, Nazis in Germany and Austria mounted a concerted attack on Jewish residents, looting and burning synagogues, homes and businesses. More than 200,000 Jewish men were arrested and 91 people were killed.

Some of the gaps in knowledge can be explained by the fact that these pupils have not studied the Holocaust yet. The Second World War is not taught in the National Curriculum until pupils are 14 and many of the 53 children who took part in the quiz had never studied the subject at primary school.

In light of this, some displayed an impressive level of knowledge. At William Farr, which housed a Royal Air Force base during the Second World War, several children had read The Diary of Anne Frank in their own time. Many pupils had a sense of the horror of the Holocaust.

Thomas Davies, 13, said: "We learned a bit about the concentration camps in primary school. They used to line up the Jews and they would decide who was strong and could work and who went to the gas chamber."

Joseph Faulkner, 13, was one of the 19 per cent of children who knew what Mein Kampf was, describing it as "the book Hitler wrote when he was in jail and in it he talked about all the reasons why the Jews were responsible for the misfortunes in Germany and all the unemployment". Like several pupils, Joseph had talked to his parents or grandparents about the war and had also been taken by his parents to the Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

Other children mentioned learning from history books and television programmes, particularly the BBC2 series Auschwitz, the Nazis and the Final Solution, which got more viewers than Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother last week.

Perhaps the most worrying finding of the survey was the failure of pupils to date the Second World War correctly. Pupils at Bexleyheath School in particular struggled with this.

Some were staggeringly inaccurate. One boy, who was one of the few who knew that six million Jews had died, that Auschwitz was in Poland and that Italy was an ally of Germany, said the war had taken place between 1549 and 1562. Other dates offered included 1835 to 1840, 1903 to 1963 and 1649 to 1745, although most that got the question wrong were nearer the mark.

Describing what the SS was proved equally difficult. Some imaginative answers included a steam ship and the British secret service.

Despite the lapses in knowledge, many children were adamant that the Holocaust should not be forgotten and were looking forward to a series of school assemblies this week dedicated to the subject. George Upsher, 12, said: "It is in the lifetime of some of our grandparents. It is part of history and people should know what happened. I would like to go to Auschwitz to see exactly how many people died and why the people that killed them did it."

It is this kind of sentiment that brought applause from the Holocaust Educational Trust, which described the findings of the poll as "encouraging". Karen Pollock, the chief executive, said:

"The fact that the Holocaust is not taught in schools until children are 14 means these results are actually encouraging. Of course it is not representative and findings will vary depending on how much it has been covered in primary schools, where we would not encourage teachers to go in to too much detail at a young age. While it is not great that they don't know when the Second World War began and ended, understanding the Holocaust is not just about knowing dates and facts. It is about what we can learn about why the Jews were persecuted and what it means today."

[andy2tanx]

At a recent meeting with some of the lesser responsible youths of Bradford prior to Rememberance Sunday, one of the youths asked 'Who are we remembering?' in relation to the 'we will remember them.' section of the service.

Speechless...

And yet, maybe we should endeavour, not only to remember the soldiers lost, but also the massive loss of lives on the home front, both in our country and worldwide.

tanx

[Doug Parker]

That place is not the 'Most fun day out' i've been to. Interesting, quiet and very sad but was happy to be going home.

[Decodiver]

I visited Orianenburg Concentration Camp, North of Berlin, just before Christmas.

A very humbling experience, but Bren it is just not with the abortion laws that we frequent the boundaries of the Third Reich.

They said it would never happen again.

Then what of the Balkans, Rwanda and now Zimbabwe?

I saw the first episode of the Auschwitz program two weeks ago, the first thing they said was:

"1.1 million people died at Auschwitz, more than the combined losses of the British and American military in the Second World War."

When I came back from Berlin, I was quite hoping I'd bump into some Neo-Nazi swastika wearing lowlife on the tube so I could administer some free world justice.

Scum.

[Mr T.]

Results of poll
By Julie Henry, Adam Lusher and Peter Zimonjic
(Filed: 23/01/2005)

1. What was the Holocaust?

90 per cent knew what it is.

2. How many Jews are estimated to have died in the Second World War?

17 per cent knew the correct answer.

3. When did the Second World War start and end?

38 per cent

4. What was Auschwitz?

75 per cent

5. Where was Auschwitz?

41 per cent

6. What was Kristallnacht?

Zero

7. What was the SS?

19 per cent

8. What was Mein Kampf?

19 per cent

9. Name one country that was an ally of Germany during the war?

43 per cent

10. What was the notorious method of mass killing used by the Nazis to kill the Jews?

83 per cent

[kath2407]

I would like to think that I am not long out of school tho each passing day makes that really a lie!!!! However, I have been watching the Auschwitz thing on BBC2 and found it really good.

However, what really annoys me is that during my school history lessons I learnt about Red Indians and the Battle of Little Big Horn, Medicine Thro Time but absolutley nothing about British History.

Why is it that every child in America can resite all of the presidents in order but I personally wasn't taught who was Prime Minister before Maggie.

I hated history becuase I couldn't see the relevant of General Custer to my life. I'm sure I would have felt a lot better being taught about British history, the stuff that shaped our country and the people in it.

The education system is just another way of telling the people of Britain that our history isn't good enough. We have nothing worth learning about so lets learn about the Americans instead.

<End of Rant>

Kath XX

[dry suit diver]

Originally Posted by kath2407

I would like to think that I am not long out of school tho each passing day makes that really a lie!!!! However, I have been watching the Auschwitz thing on BBC2 and found it really good.

However, what really annoys me is that during my school history lessons I learnt about Red Indians and the Battle of Little Big Horn, Medicine Thro Time but absolutley nothing about British History.

Why is it that every child in America can resite all of the presidents in order but I personally wasn't taught who was Prime Minister before Maggie.

I hated history becuase I couldn't see the relevant of General Custer to my life. I'm sure I would have felt a lot better being taught about British history, the stuff that shaped our country and the people in it.

The education system is just another way of telling the people of Britain that our history isn't good enough. We have nothing worth learning about so lets learn about the Americans instead.

<End of Rant>

Kath XX

yeah we learnt about a bog man from denmark i think, no british history at all , i switched brain off after 3 months of being asked to analyse how the bogman might of died.who cares it was 3000 years ago not much chance of the suspects still being around really.

All i know about auschwitz,dachau belsen et al ,and the rise of national socialism in germany was self taught from the library in school and in my hometown.
sometimes i think that succesive governments have become afraid to be british when once we were proud.

[Moray]

Back in 1982, I was driving from Vienna to Zurich with my daughter, and I happened to see the motorway exit sign for Dachau. It was a spur of the moment thing, but I will never forget it, nor will my daughter.

Interesting were the groups of German schoolchildren, noisy and boisterous on their way in, silent and thoughtful on their way out.

Unfortunately, as noted in some of the other replies to this thread, we have learned nothing.....

[jim oldham]

[quote=kath2407]

However, what really annoys me is that during my school history lessons I learnt about Red Indians and the Battle of Little Big Horn, Medicine Thro Time but absolutley nothing about British History.

You should have learned this in Key Stage 3 (1066- 20th Century), and if you did not, your school was very remiss. Medicine Through Time is just one of many sylabuss choices and, if taught properly, is an excellent topic.

Why is it that every child in America can resite all of the presidents in order but I personally wasn't taught who was Prime Minister before Maggie.

There is no inherent value in remembering lists of names. History has come a long way from parrot fashion teaching and there is now more emphasis on evaluation. I don't want to drop into national curriculum dogma. We have also shifted from learning about all the pink bits on the map. You should have been taught what was thought relevant for the topic you were stuying. If you needed to know the PM at a particular time you should have been told/found out about it.

You should also have been taught "the stuff that shaped our country and the people in it". Remember the agricultural and industrial revolution, Chartism, extension of the franchise and the Suffragettes, causes of the world wars and the rise of fascism, Nazism, Communism and the Cold War? This is all taught, but not all fourteen year olds are receptive to it and it History is an option at GCSE level.

"I hated history becuase I couldn't see the relevant of General Custer to my life". I can understand you feeling like this, but the topic you took was designed to hone you analyitical, investigatory and evaluation skills. The subject matter was really immaterial.

The education system is just another way of telling the people of Britain that our history isn't good enough. We have nothing worth learning about so lets learn about the Americans instead.

No, I have to disagree. History is not "Britain good, others bad" History is very often very uncomfortable and sometimes extemely painful, (Britain's role in the slave trade). but to understand the present, we must understand the past, or we will repeat the mistakes of the past. This is why I take an inordinate amount of time to teach the Holocaust in History and why I will be showing the BBC proramme, that Bren referred to, to my year 11 RE groups, because I still don't think that the enormity of the Holocaust has sunk in. To be honest, I still find it very difficult to comprehend the mind set of the people, who perpretated this horror.

Politicians would love, to fully control the teaching of History. I suppose that is why, after revolutions, we are the first ones against the wall. We are not even supposed to cover anything later than twenty five years ago, which is very helpful when teaching the Conflict in Ireland. I have avoided that thread on here as I have just spent two months doing the coursework and after explaining, for the umpteenth time that Sinn Fein is not a bloke. my patience quota is severely depleted.

My rant over.
Jim.
Oh bugger, I only came on here for ten minutes, to wind down, after marking Y9 WW1 work.