In the same way that a film or picture can evoke countless feelings and emotions from its audience, monuments, memorials, and public demonstrations have the same ability. The events of the Holocaust have created an everlasting impact on not only those affected and the future generations, but even cities and countries that were not directly affected. The Holocaust Memorial located in Marion Square in Charleston, South Carolina attracts hundreds of residents of the city and tourists from all across the globe among the duration of the day. Almost hidden in plain sight among the trees stands a memorial that provides purpose and displays a moving message that an unaware passerby may not understand if never visited before.

Constructed in 1999 by architect and Jonathon Levi, the monument was built to commemorate the 19 Holocaust survivors who relocated to South Carolina. Levi's design features three separate components to transcend even the terrible events of the mid-twentieth century; the place of assembly, a place meant to gather, and the place of remembrance (Boughton). The place of assembly features concrete steps facing the grass where gatherers come to commemorate the annual Yom Ha Shoah Ceremony (waymarking.com) The second component of the memorial is the sanctuary, where passerby's can reflect and can take a moment to think of the horrific events that revolutionized the twentieth century. It features a rectangular iron screen that sits seventeen feet high, sixty feet long, and twenty-five feet wide. Inside the screening lies a twelve-foot long tallit or Jewish shall that is worn during prayer or during burial. The abandoned tallit stands for those who have died as the screening represents a prison, synagogue, or concentration camp (e.g. see fig. 1).

The final component, the place of remembrance is where plaques are displayed on a large concrete wall honoring originally twenty-four Holocaust victims, but since 2015, survivors and the

(Fig 1.) The Holocaust Memorial located in Charleston, South Carolina features the iron fence and tallit. twenty-four concentration camp locations have been added to the list as well (Greuber). One of the plaques features a brief message describing the purpose of a tallit. It explains, The tallit is a four cornered garment worn by many Jews at prayer. It is customary for Jews to use the tallit as a burial shroud with one of its four fringes removed as a symbol of death and mourning. This is highly symbolic since it is traditional to be buried with this religious prayer shawl primarily for men, but women too who prayed with this garment. The abandoned shawl strategically placed in the memorial represents the fallen synagogues in Europe whose services were dismantled and striped away from its community.

Although its physical size is overwhelming and its symbolic representation is as just, it can easily be overlooked if not consciously looking for it. Passing by the memorial on my runs, I was unaware of it ever existing until recently. Its unassuming and simple concrete walls which feature names of survivors and concentration camps locations prove that despite the under-bearing design, its symbolic meaning is greater than the physical aspect of it. The plaques are set in concrete, making it discreet enough for people walking along the street not to notice, but when the sunlight hits the area, illuminating the Holocaust victims' names honored in the memorial (e.g. see fig. 2).

After researching the purpose of the memorial,

(Fig. 2) Two of the nineteen last names of the Holocaust survivors residing in South Carolina displayed at the Holocaust Memorial in Charleston, South Carolina. each component became more compelling and intriguing and is evidence of the saying, Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others. (Jonathon Swift). Without visiting the memorial, it would've remained in my memory as an unsuspecting, random architectural design located in Charleston, known for its art scene. After my experience, I have a newfound appreciation for the subtle but loud message of the pain and suffering of those who have been mistreated without having to witness the physicality of it. Our generation cannot empathize with these victims as we have not been through the same atrocities they have endured, but we can sympathize and make sure an act such as the Holocaust never occurs again.

The survivor's name are inscribed in the memorial which gives the audience a personal connection to those being honored. The article, Making the Memorial written by Maya Lin discusses the making of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as she was the designer for it and how she was criticized for being impersonal about the incidents that occurred. She explains, I think as well the listing of names reflected a response by these designers to the horrors of World War I, to the immense loss of lifeThey [memorials] captured emotionally what I felt memorials should be: honest about the reality of war, about the loss of life in war, and about remembering those who served and especially those who died (Lin). Not only does this evoke emotions from any audience of a memorial, but with the Holocaust Memorial in Charleston, it seems to promote a sense of optimism listing survivors, instead of the millions of victims.

A quote is placed above the names of the countries which reads, On that day, one who has escaped will come to you to let you hear it with your own ears. Ezekiel 24:26 (e.g. see fig. 3).

(Fig. 3) A quote from Ezekiel 24:26 inscribed into a plaque located on a portion of the Holocaust Memorial located in Charleston, South Carolina.

The living survivors are the only ones who can recount the experiences of concentration camps, even as they pass on, the stories they tell will be the tales that continue to impact the generations to come. In 2015, when a ceremony was held for the rededication of the memorial, Holocaust survivor Joe Engel spoke, Never again! That's why we are all here, to remind ourselves, never again (Boughton). It seems as our duty as a society is to consistently remember the torture the survivors endured and the bravery and courage of all the survivors and those who have perished.

One of the plaques explains that we must alert ourselves to the dangers of prejudice, to express our outrage at the scourge of racism, and to warn the world that racism can lead to genocide. The creator of this memorial purposely displayed plaques that are thought-provoking and sorrowful, but also to let us not forget that the exigence of prejudice and racism remains in our society today. Despite being constructed nearly two decades ago, the message is prevalent and fitting to the conflicts in the United States in 2018 with constant talk about police brutality among Blacks and prejudice against Muslims.

In the piece The Effects of Public Memorials on Social Memory and Urban Identity constructed by Ebru Erbas Gurler and Basak Ozer, the writer's discuss the impact of an audience and the location of a memorial. It states, Moreover, these memorials help tourists to carry this frame of mind back to their own countries and inspire them to establish a bond with similar crimes and problems today, whether faced in different societies or in different contexts (Gurler et al). The audience of the memorial isn't limited to the citizens of Charleston, but tourists and people of all ages and races visiting the city from all over the world. The message and purpose of the memorial can be taught to children of any gender, adults of any race, elders with any ailments. Prejudice is not accepted and it is irresponsible to be ignorant or forgetful of the crimes that happened on humanity during World War II.

Not only does The Effects of Public Memorials on Social Memory and Urban Identity discus the significance of an audience and the location of a memorial, the writers discuss an essential point that correlates to the message of the Holocaust memorial. Public memorials, which remember the events and the pain they caused to the public through (civil) war, terrorism, genocide, etc. In our day, they are actually reflecting the psychological and sociological requirements of the societies on the landscape (Gurler et al). As discussed in their writing, it is implied that through the takeaway after visiting the Holocaust Memorial in Marion Square, it is our society's duty to be the voice of the previous generation who suffered and can longer share their story. We have to reflect upon the psychological and sociological requirements of Charleston's society to bring constant awareness and to never forget the events that coincided.

The article written by James E. Young titled Memory and Counter-Memory compares different design approaches to Holocaust memorials and highlights its distinct differences. Both a monument and its significance are constructed in particular times and places, contingent on the political, historical, and aesthetic realities of the moment (Young). The Holocaust is a memory that is individual to each visitor who views the memorial in Marion Square. It reflects the time period during which the memorial was built.

The events of the Holocaust are discouraging and haunting, the millions of those who have lost their lives from brutality have been encapsulated in memorials, photographs, and monuments constructed by architects, designers, and artists who have deemed it crucial to display their message to society. The symbolism of this memorial celebrates and honors the large population of Jewish faith still residing in Charleston, South Carolina. The Holocaust Memorial in Marion Square sheds light on the survivors and urges visitors to eternal recall the monstrosities conducted on human life.

Cite this page

The Holocaust has always been a hard topic to speak about, read about, and understand the why's and how's. Rarely is it spoken of the implications it had on the people who survived it, their posterity, and the world as a whole. Upon further examination of numerous online articles and biographies there are several mainstream affects that have afflicted all that have lived and will ever live in the limelight of the Holocaust.

During the time that the Holocaust was happening, none of the victims even thought about how their experience would affect the lives of future generations. They were focused on surviving at all costs. Forcing them to mentally, emotionally, psychologically shut down and block out the atrocities that were happening to them and all around them.

The effects of this type of mental survival is now labeled as PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) (Fogelman, 2008). Basic psychological functioning tells us that during extreme times of survival we emotionally detach and try to bury the horror deep into the recesses of our minds. During the time of the Holocaust few people spoke about it, few believed that it happened, and even fewer wanted to remember it. This societal denial propelled the survivors to bury their emotional burden even deeper, but what they couldn't bury were the effects of the atrocities on their mental well-being (Fogelman, 2008).

In an article written by a daughter of a Holocaust survivor she states, We are all survivors of humanity's lowest point; survivors of the trauma our parents and grandparents experienced first-hand. And so too, we are survivors of the trauma they transmitted to us, which continues to permeate our lives. Invisible to most, it's always there with us. We carry with us a feeling that nothing we experienced”or ever will experience”is worth complaining about because what they went through was a thousand times worse. (Wanderer-Cohen, 2017). She continues to elaborate on American society's views of the survivors, how her mother was older than her peers, spoke with an accent, and did not fit in with the normal American ideal. She states that her childhood was stolen because her mother had had hers stolen by the Nazis, she didn't know how to give her daughter anything more than what she had experienced. She states, We just wanted to be normal, American kids. But we couldn't be--because we weren't. (Wanderer-Cohen, 2017). The trauma of the Holocaust, quite obviously, did not end at the liberation, but seeped its way into the next generations.

An interesting shift of self-perception seems to happen within the third generation (grandchildren of survivors). Due to the 40 plus years after the Holocaust the third generation has grown up in a different society, detached from the unspeakable history. They do not feel ashamed of their ancestry in fact they are proud and in awe of the survivors, they don't fear antisemitism, they are yearning to understand the past but to also make the future better. Time does rot away the emotional connection, yet hopefully it does not erase the memory (Fogelman, 2008).

There have been three major societal changes the Holocaust caused that has an effect on society even to this day. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Genocide Convention, and the Catholic Church made milestone changes to their theology concerning Jews (Admin.,2017). This is the most dramatic change, a change that has had both positive and negative consequences for the Jewish people.

According to internationally acclaimed anti-Seitism scholar Manfred Gerstenfeld, The Catholic no longer hold Jews responsible for the murder of Jesus. It was a lie from the beginning for the Jews could not kill anyone under Roman rule. But according to the New Testament, all of the Jews are responsible for what their ancestors didn't do. However, in 1965, the Pope published a document where he stopped blaming the Jews for the crucifixion. So this idea was abandoned in 1965 and it is because they saw that it led to the Holocaust. (Admin., 2017).

Despite these efforts to turn around the history of mass genocide and become a world people there are movements and groups that have gained many followers and power to once again bring anti-Semitism and anti-Israel to the forefront of the people's mind. Today it is popular in Europe to be anti-Israel, Gerstenfeld noted in response to the recent development of a radical Zochrot organization (a leftist group working to eliminate the State of Israel and seeking to implement a Palestinian right of return.) In the EU, there are 150 million people who think Israel is exterminating the Palestinians. The EU Council blames Israel for what is happening in Gaza. (Admin., 2017). So despite the groundbreaking progress that the world has made to understand and accept the Jewish people there are still large groups who see them as an inferior race that needs to be exterminated.

The impact that Elie Wiesel and his lifelong journey of educating the public about the Holocaust has caused many generations to not forget. It has led to museums being erected to the remembrance of the victims, books written by survivors who have given us a stark glimpse of a harsh reality, and educational curriculum being taught in schools that keep the Holocaust as a current historical atrocity to never be forgotten (Martin, 2016).

Lessons of the Holocaust speak very powerfully because they are lessons about the fragility of freedom, the dangers of hatred, and the consequences of indifference. Elie often said, indifference is the greatest sin in the world. There will always be evil people, but they will count on the indifference of others. The challenge that the Holocaust is to all of us is never to be indifferent. Never be a bystander. (Bullard, 2016) When we see or hear about groups of people who are being indifferent, not standing up for a fellow human being we need to remember that the Holocaust started with indifference. Stand up and speak out so history does not repeat itself.

Cite this page

There is a controversial debate regarding the film The Pianist (2002) directed by Roman Polanski on whether it is a truthful representation of the Holocaust which involved systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution of six million Jews (Introduction to the Holocaust). In particular, there are many views that the film was not focused on the Holocaust event itself, but rather primarily intended to convey the power of art and the relationship between aesthetics and politics. Specifically, Polanski used devastating, chaotic conditions of the Holocaust and the beauty of music which moved the German officer's heart as two contrasting aspects to emphasize the power of art in society. In other words, Holocaust was one of the minor focus in the film as it was simply utilized as a background to magnify how aesthetics “ in this case, music “ is strongly influential even in that kind of threatening period. It is obvious that art is one of the main points Polanski wanted to discuss through the film as its title is even called The Pianist; the significance of music as a theme of this movie cannot be dismissed. However, the incident of the Holocaust also should not be dismissed as well because directorial choices and details of the film such as sound effect and design of the shelter meticulously displayed all the depressing situations in which Jews experienced during the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not concealed under aesthetics but was rather truthfully represented in the film; Polanski equally highlighted both music and the Holocaust, not heavily focusing one over the other.

First and foremost, many details directed by Polanski in the film expertly picture the life and emotions of Jews hiding from the Germans, which implies that Polanski took a lot of effort in portraying what the Holocaust would have been like in the perspective of Jewish people. For example, in the scenes when Szpilman lived in an apartment where he was locked inside with the assistance from a married couple, there were two major directorial choices that allowed the film to show specifically what the life of Jews hiding from the Germans would have been. Firstly, the usage of various sound effects in these particular scenes built up the tension of the film. For example, the car engine sound and the sound of car doors being slammed and Germans speaking German arouse the feeling of nervousness right away because if Szpilman gets caught, it will lead to very negative consequences. Then, the tension builds up more as Szpilman hears Germans climbing up the stairs and knocking hardly on the doors near where he is living. Such sound effects produced as the scene progresses make even the audience feel nervous, which conveys the feelings of Jewish people had during the Holocaust more effectively because they are experiencing similar emotions. Through this choice, Polanski was able to portray the situation in which Jewish people had to feel fear in every moment of their lives. Additionally, sound effects in these scenes enabled Polanski to highlight how Holocaust negatively affected Szpilman's life. Before the Holocaust, beautiful sound of music was present in Szpliman's life as a pianist, showing one of the brightest times in his life. However, as the film moved on to the Holocaust, sound such as bombing and gunshot took over his life and continuously tortured him; this directly showed that everything before the Holocaust was taken away from him. As a result, his life has fallen off to the darkest time in his life. Happiness he used to have was not visible anymore. The time when he pretended playing piano was only when such sound was blocked, giving him comfort. Due to these contrasting sounds in his life, the negative effects of the incident on him were strongly emphasized and more conspicuous. In fact, they were especially magnified because his occupation was a musician “ a job that involves sensitive hearing. Sound effects therefore played a great role in sketching the Holocaust in this film, representing very well in terms of how the Jews were affected in every aspect of their lives.

The second directorial choice that contributed to highlighting the Holocaust in these scenes was the presence of windows in the shelter. Even though he was physically isolated from outside, he could literally see what was going on outside through the windows every day. In other words, the apartment where he was hiding could have provided a shelter for him, but Szpilman was actually not separated, at least mentally, from the outside world, where Jewish people are ruthlessly beaten and killed by the Germans. It was visible in the film that Spzilman always had to remain in alert as he kept checking through the windows if something risky that could possibly affect him was happening outside. This implied the fact that Jewish people were never able to avoid the reality. The directorial choice of including the windows to the setting made the windows picture Jewish people who were always in danger hiding from the Germans. Szpilman might have had stayed in the place where there are no windows. However, if that was the case, the director would not have been able to carefully express the nervousness Jewish people felt because then sight would have been completely blocked. The visual aid of bombing and people being shot, which Szpilman was able to see through the windows, clearly placed additional tension on the film and explained the life of Jewish people more directly. In conclusion, Polanski meticulously created the setting with such detail in order for the film to truthfully display the Holocaust.

However, there are several counterarguments refuting that there are many directorial choices making this film a very weak representation of the Holocaust. The first question usually brought up in the discussion is the reason why Polanski chose the life of Wladyslaw Szpilman to portray the incident. This is often challenged because Szpilman did not experience the concentration camps, the most common material that pops up into people's minds when the word Holocaust is given. People point out that if Polanski intended to picture the real Holocaust in the film, he would have chosen a different person's life which involves the time in the concentration camps, making the film more provocative and a more truthful representation of the incident. However, because Szpilman's life was very different compared to other Jewish people, Polanski was able to show a different aspect “ Jews hiding “ of the event. What Jewish people underwent in the concentration camps is well known by the public at this point. If The Pianist showed the concentration camps just like other Holocaust movies, it would have been very banal. The film was therefore a very unique approach. In fact, hiding life shown in the film was not very different. Just like other Jews, Szpilman was separated from his family. He was always under target, so there was always risk for death. At times, his life was even tougher than those in the concentration camps as he had to keep running away from the Germans whenever he judged that staying is not safe anymore. In addition, he often didn't have any food to eat. This implies that situations of Jews outside the concentration camp were quite similar to those forced to stay in the camps. This unique choice conveyed the fact that regardless of the situations Jewish people were in, they suffered equally under the Germans, ultimately directing the audience to think about the same Holocaust in a different perspective. In fact, the film itself was provocative enough as it showed various scenes picturing the cruelty of Germans. For instance, there was one scene when the Germans threw an elder sitting on his wheelchair off a balcony to his death. There was another scene when one German soldier shot a woman as soon as she asked where she is being taken to. Besides these scenes, dead bodies being piled up and burned on the streets, massive revenge executed whenever the Jewish people rebel against the Germans, constant beating and all kinds of mistreatment successfully showed the real brutality of Germans during the Holocaust. In other words, the film was provocative enough without the concentration camps, again emphasizing that people who did not go through the concentration camps similarly experienced harsh life. It was therefore not too different.

Another point often made following the previous challenge is the ending of the film. First, Szpilman miraculously survived from the Holocaust. Second, it is natural that one suffers from the traumatizing event afterwards, but Szpilman was displayed as a very healthy person, who seemed to have completely recovered from the incident right away; he even played piano just like he previously did. People point out that this kind of happy ending is unusual. However, not everyone dies from the event. Szpilman was just one of the people who survived. Similarly, in the novel The Complete Maus written by Art Spiegelman, in which the author writes about his father's experience in the Holocaust, the father luckily survived from the Holocaust too. Even the scene when Szpilman was suspected as German (because he was wearing a German coat) after the end of the war showed group of other people who survived, so it was not extremely unusual. Moreover, this does not make any difference because survivors are equally the victims of the Holocaust and part of the incident. Regarding the second point, Szpilman's life afterwards is when the power of music that director wants to point out emerges. It is music that comforted Szpilman and enabled him to live a normal life after the war because he got music back in his life. Thus, the movie wraps up with scenes of him playing the piano to show this; because Polanski wanted to highlight both art and the incident, he structured the ending in this way. This kind of unusual ending does not weaken the Holocaust part of the film at all because main part of the Holocaust is what happened during the Holocaust, not that after the Holocaust; it is already depicted carefully in the previous scenes. In conclusion, although the film deals with aspects of the Holocaust unfamiliar to the audience, they do not make this film a false representation.

Moreover, other counterarguments point out that although Polanski attempted to portray the Holocaust in detail, relatively heavy focus on music consequently weakened the film's direct representation of the incident. With respect to this, people primarily argue that music was what drove the German officer named Hosenfeld to save Szpilman when he found him trying to open a can in an abandoned building and continue to provide him supplies afterwards until the end of the war. However, the history specifically reported that Hosenfeld saw how the Nazis dealt with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and around this time decided to make a difference, helping to shelter and save several persecuted individuals (Admin, M.). To recognize and honor his kindness, Yad Vashem, Israel's largest memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, presented members of his family with a medal in tribute for the actions he took in Warsaw (Officer Who Saved 'The Pianist' Honored). Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev stated that he exercised a very very human kind of behavior. Like this, the historical record points out that the German officer saved lives of Jews other than Szpilman. In other words, it was not music that specifically caused him not to kill him. Even the film depicts the kindness of Hosenfeld. If he were just a normal German under Hitler, he would have just killed Szpilman as soon as he saw him; however, he didn't. He started talking to him and showed interest in him. His eyes even seemed like he did not have any threatening intention to kill him from the beginning. Thus, it is quite difficult to connect music to this matter.

There are also claims that music was definitely a motivation for him to survive, which made the focus of this film shifted to music rather than the incident. However, Polanski rather depicted music as a source of comfort for Szpilman. Music took over whenever piano was spotted and literally provided him a time of isolation from the Holocaust. If music was a motivation for him to live, music would have appeared in the film more frequently. In fact, scenes related to the Holocaust appeared more often, which implies that Polanski did not heavily focus on music. To explain, music only appeared in the film whenever piano was present. Even when he pretended playing piano, there was piano with him. In other words, without piano, music was not expressed in his life at all. However, he even sold his piano for his survival, which lessened the amount of screenplays related to music. This shows that living was the priority in his life, not accompanying music by keeping the piano with him. Even without piano, if Polanski wanted to put stronger emphasis on music, he would have included additional scenes such as Szpilman's recount on music stopping his consideration of death. However, not a single scene even displayed him thinking of death, so it is unreasonable to argue that music motivated him to survive. Moreover, the fact that no one wants to die is notable as living is one of human being's common desires. In the film, Szpilman showed human-like responses to any potential danger that could possibly kill him. He just did not want to die. Thus, music did not contribute to his actions that much. Like this, although music indeed played one of the major roles in the film, it was, in fact, not as heavily concentrated as usually evaluated by the audience.

Due to awe of music pictured in the film with professional piano playing, it is very easy to miss or even forget about the Holocaust described in the film. However, if we pay closer attention, we can clearly see how Polanski meticulously directed the film in a way that music does not stand out too much, balancing the significance of both music and the Holocaust. Although the Holocaust was displayed differently from most Holocaust films due to the interesting life of Szpilman, it undoubtedly represents the same incident by including provocative scenes of cruelty of the Germans. On top of that, counterarguments pointing out strong emphasis on music hindering truthful depiction of the Holocaust are masterfully weakened by Polanski's choices regarding Hosenfeld's actions and the role of music in Szpilman's Holocaust experience. This also does not necessarily mean that the theme of music was undermined. Overall, within the same representation, The Pianist allowed us to extend our view of the Holocaust to hiding life of Jewish people during the incident through Szpilman's life and consider the value of aesthetics in our society at the same time.

Cite this page

The Holocaust has been an undisputed fact of history since WW2. Yet there are people out there who deny that it ever happened, or that the events presented to us are altered in some way, be it death count or how the prisoners were actually treated. This belief first appeared almost immediately after the end of World War 2, as people were just learning about the brutality of the Nazi regime. A combination of shock and horror of the violence that could be inflicted upon another human being made belief difficult, and had people creating lighter, less horrific stories to ease them.

Historically, Holocaust Denial started as the Nazis destroying all documents of their deeds as to cover up what happened in the horror camps. Then later, people were appalled at the reports that came out regarding the concentration camps. Not to mention that previously, there was an anti German account in the papers called The German Corpse Factory that made fallacious claims. These lies undermined the validity of the news from the camps and made sending relief difficult. Furthermore, when put on trial, the Nazis claimed that the camps were lies put up by the Brits in an attempt to get them sentenced, and cited the Corpse Factory as proof that they had lied once before. Actually the Corpse Factory story is cited as a particular reason for why people doubted the Holocaust because, as the Christian Century put it The parallel between this story and the 'corpse factory' atrocity tale of the First World War is too striking to be overlooked.

Some early major players in denying would be several members of the SS. They claimed that the Holocaust was nothing but a lie spread throughout the world to discredit and vilify them. They were able to able to build some form of a defense because of precautions they took during, the germans wrote down as little as possible about their plans/ orders to avoid having documents fall into oppositions hands. Most of the killing orders were communicated verbally, particularly with the higher-ups. Hitler's order to kill Jews was issued only on a need-to-know basis. The leaders generally avoided detailed planning of killing operations, preferring to proceed in a systematic but often improvised manner. The Germans destroyed most documentation that did exist before the end of the war, making it hard to pin them with the crime. With a lack of documented evidence, they were able to convince some of the population that the Holocaust was a lie.

Even the modern heralds for Denial, cite this lack of documented evidence as an important detail for denying. Most notable modern denyers include; B.o.B who said in his song Flatline Do your research on David Irving, Stalin was way worse than Hitler, That's why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah. Historian David Irving, who was cited by English court ""for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"" as well as distorting historical evidence in his books to portray Hitler in a favorable and sympathetic light. Irving's beliefs have shifted wildy to Hitler was bad to Hitler was great, even going as far as to say that he and Hitler had a spiritual connection and that it was his job to wipe away the slime that was unjustly applied. Bobby Fischer, chess grandmaster and eleventh world chess champion,was also anti semitic. Jan Hein Donner, Dutch Grandmaster, wrote that at the time of 1961, ""He idolized Hitler and read everything about him that he could lay his hands on. He also championed a brand of anti-semitism that could only be thought up by a mind completely cut off from reality."". There is also Fred A. Leuchter, infamous for his botched and unscientific report titled the Leuchter Report which has been disproven and has been criticised for a complete disregard for the Scientific Method.

These people all had different ways of coming to the belief that the Holocaust was wrong. Irving apparently read several reports and heard several accounts from sources that were later proven to be fallacious, biased, and generally incorrect, although the damage was done, and he started endorsing denial movements. He even got all the neo nazis in England to join one faction that he presided over called Focus. This venture fell short though due to lack of funds. B.o.B seems to have been influenced by the writings and lectures of David Irving, once again, saying in his song Flatline that Irving had done his research and that Stalin was worse than Hitler. Leuchter changed when he was asked to provide a paper detailing if gas chambers existed at Auschwitz to provide defense at Ernie Zundel's trial. Ernie was a photo retoucher who also operated a small-press called Samisdat Publishers which published and distributed Holocaust-denial material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood. In 1985, he was convicted under a ""false news"" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for ""disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust"".

The Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg was a witness for the prosecution at the 1985 trial. But his conviction was overturned in an appeal on a legal technicality, resulting in a second trial in 1988, in which he got himself again convicted. The 1988 trial included Fred A. Leuchter, David Irving and Robert Faurisson as witnesses for the defense. Leuchter report was presented as a defense document and was published in Canada in 1988 by Zundel's Samisdat Publishers, and in Britain in 1989 by Irving's Focal Point Publishing. In both of his trials, Zundel was defended by Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the ""false news"" law unconstitutional. Zundel has a website, web-mastered by his wife Ingrid, which publicises his viewpoints. This website landed him in more legal trouble as, in January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal delivered a ruling involving a complaint with his website, in which it was found to be defying the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court ordered Zundel to cease spreading his hate messages. In February 2003, he was arrested again in Tennessee based on an immigration violations matter, and few days later, Zundel was sent back to Canada, where he tried to gain refugee status. Zundel remained in prison until March 1, 2005, when he was deported to Germany and prosecuted for disseminating hate propaganda. In 2007, Z??ndel was convicted on 14 counts of incitement under Germany's Volksverhetzung law, which bans the spread of hatred against a portion of the population.

During this the details of how the Leuchter report came out. He traveled to Auschwitz with a draftsman, a cinematographer supplied by Z??ndel, a translator fluent in German and Polish, and his wife. Once at the former Auschwitz concentration camp site, and another at the Majdanek concentration camp. At these, they filmed Leuchter illegally collecting what he said were quality samples of materials from the wreck of the former gas extermination facilities. His wife and translator were lookouts in case authorities came around. Drawings of where the samples were taken from, the film footage of the sample collection and Leuchter's notebook detailing the work were given to the trial court as evidence. Leuchter claimed that his work and writings were based on his expert knowledge of gas chamber operation, his visual inspection of what remained of the structures at Auschwitz, and original drawings and blueprints of some of the facilities. He said that the blueprints had been given to him by Auschwitz Museum officials. When questioned about his authority on the subject, he admitted that he wasn't a toxicologist, he only had a B.A. in art, and then went to say that he didn't need to be a toxicologist to study toxicology samples. The judge presiding over the hearing said that his methodology was ""ridiculous"" and ""preposterous"", and dismissed many of the report's conclusions on the basis that they were basically ""second-hand information"", and refused to allow him to testify on the effect of Zyklon B on humans because he had never worked with the substance, and was neither a toxicologist nor a chemist. The judge even dismissed Leuchter's opinion because it was of ""no greater value than that of an ordinary tourist"". Several of the people Leuchter claimed to have helped him, like DuPont and the officials that gave him the blueprints for the crematoria at the concentration camps, have said that they never helped or offered to help, and that he basically lied."

Cite this page

Even in his old age, Vladek still does his best to take care of himself as he pedals on his bike. This tendency was hard-wired into him during his time in the concentration camps: only the fit and the strong survived as they were valued over those who were weak and sick. Artie has clearly talked about chronicling Vladek's life during the war before, and Vladek suggests he sticks to what he is good at instead, apparently reluctant to reopen old wounds. In the fifth panel of the page, Vladek's prisoner number can be seen: one of the few remaining tangible reminders of the horrors he endured in the camps. It also hammers in the fact that Vladek is a survivor and that the Holocaust as it is for all survivors will always be a part of him.

Artie is Jewish; however, he is not a Holocaust survivor like his father. Vladek may be in denial or does not realize it, but Artie knows that Vladek's experience as a survivor is a tremendous responsibility. Artie knows he is not fit to tell Vladek's story, he has never met any of the people in Vladek's life and does not have all of the information necessary to authentically depict the scenes Vladek describes. However, that does not change the fact that Artie's family was almost wiped off the face of the planet during the Holocaust and he feels an obligation to preserve Vladek's memories out of respect for the suffering he endured and ensure the atrocities of the Holocaust are never forgotten. However, it is also worth noting that Artie's first question about his father's past shows how little he truly knows about him and how fragmented their relationship is. He does not even know how his own parents met. This foreshadows more unrest to come in later chapters. It is also a stark contrast from Vladek's life where familial bonds were an integral part of human life, even going so far as to sustain them and kept them alive. Artie is clearly distant from his family and very independent of them.

Vladek and Mala are not happy together, but her and Artie seem to get along reasonably well. Artie treats her with respect and ignores Vladek when he tries to speak poorly of her, suggesting that perhaps Mala is not as bad as Vladek says she is. Artie's stories about food and the dinner table hint at deep tension and brokenness and unhappiness in his family that everyone present at the table wishes not to address.

Both Artie and Vladek's relationships have been fractured by the ruin of the Holocaust and the trauma brought by Anja's suicide. However, they are both selfish and neurotic, and both are too proud to address their shortcomings. The Holocaust's effects on Vladek are also present in almost every aspect of his life, especially in his interactions with Artie. It is apparent that even from the beginning of the first novel where Vladek asks Artie to test the sincerity of his friends by locking them together in a room with no food for a week, that the Holocaust has shaped Artie's entire life. He finds himself unable to relate to many of his father's seemingly strange habits and mannerisms. Artie even tells his wife Francoise that he sometimes he could have been in Auschwitz with his family so he could better know what they went through and how it impacted them.

Vladek is shown to be controlling and presumptuous by pitching Artie's coat. He believes he knows better than Artie and Artie like a young child cannot make his own decisions. Vladek still thinks of Artie as a child despite the fact he is very much grown up. Artie tries to prove himself a man by berating Vladek but he is still forced to accept the hand me down, and like a child, he still has to what Vladek wants, even though it aggravates and that he is an adult.

Artie strives to be as honest and upfront about Vladek's shortcomings as he can. He knows that despite all of the admirable qualities Vladek displayed, Vladek is not an uncomplicated, flawless hero and it would do Vladek a disservice to depict him as such. However, an unambiguously positive portrait would serve also allow Artie to vent his frustrations towards Vladek, which often seems to be the case. Artie is also distant from the love and compassion of his Jewish roots that his family displayed during the war even when they had little reason to live or persist living. This disconnect does not enable Artie to relate to what Vladek does or even see the good intent behind his actions although presumptuous.

4.) Vladek grows sick of hiding and wishes to be treated like a human once more. His frustration is justified, but regardless, he displays remarkable recklessness and stubbornness in asserting his decisions. He does not make an effort to understand Anja's anxieties nor does he exhibit any sympathy towards her.

In such times of persecution, familial connections and friends were a crucial aspect to Vladek and Anja's survival. Parents, siblings, cousins, and friends all helped one another in any way they could even if they were not close before the war. While he is insensitive and reckless in this particular panel, Vladek still cares deeply for Anja, and Anja even states in a letter in Auschwitz that the fact he is alive is the only thing keeping her from throwing herself into the electric fence. All they had was each other, and Jewishness as Artie knew it became synonymous with survival under these circumstances.

Artie is sharing his childhood insecurities with Francoise and how uncertain he was about his relationship with his parents. It also reveals the living's tendency to glorify or valorize the dead. Richieu did indeed die a tragic death, but he was still an ordinary person like Artie. Vladek and Anja's laud of Richieu was indeed a coping mechanism but revering his memory created tension among the living that was almost never resolved.

Despite how hard Vladek has supposedly tried to forget about the Holocaust, he can recount the events in extraordinary detail and often cannot help becoming emotional as he relives his memories. He weeps when he remembers four of his friends hung in Sosnowiec and displays profound, parental grief when speaking of Richieu. Vladek displayed love and compassion constantly towards those around him, and that is what makes his memories so painful. Love like it did for so many Jews during the Holocaust, gave their lives meaning when the tyranny of the Nazi regime had taken all other reasons. Because Vladek and Anja loved so profoundly, they consequently hurt and mourn deeply as well. Nevertheless, comparing Artie to the memory of Richieu was unhealthy and contributed to Artie's inferiority complex and widened the gap between him and Vladek.

This panel portrays a number of different reactions to Vladek's life which perhaps represents how contemporary generations view the Holocaust. Artie remains firm in compartmentalizing his life and Vladek's, keeping them distant from one another. Francoise is sympathetic and tries to be very kind to Vladek in light of what he had to endure. The grocery store manager likely wished to end the conversation early and give Vladek what he wanted and instead of hearing the tales of cruelty and tragedy that Vladek had to endure.

Both Artie and Vladek have a duty to share their experiences with the world. Both the survivors and those whose lives were touched by the tragedy have an obligation to share. By sharing, they contribute to the larger narrative of the Holocaust and help generations to come to make sense of the tragedy. Artie wrestles with whether or not it is right for him to share these experiences at all as he was not present and feels it is often not is place. The stories of the living, stories of triumph and overcoming impossible odds are often told, but in doing so, the perspectives of the dead are often forgotten. Artie is afraid he will misinterpret what Vladek tells him and in doing so dishonor the living and the dead. Nevertheless, while he cannot relate to the Holocaust the way that Vladek can, he has been molded by the tragedy, and the legacy of the event transcends generations. The Jewish people as a whole share it. While he is apparently willing to use his past to his advantage, Vladek still feels compelled to help Artie create an account worthy of the truth and gives those who cannot speak for themselves a voice.

The mask that Artie wears is symbolic of his feeling of falsehood. He does not feel like he is worthy of his identity as a Jew and feels as though the story is not his to tell that he is profiting off the dead. He is unable to disconnect himself from his book, and his book persona has become intertwined with his real self. The dates he names show the passage of time as well as touching upon the thought of life and death and how they are interlocked in regards to the Holocaust.

Artie is overwhelmed by the demands of success and his fear of doing the survivors and those who have perished a disservice. His ears and hair are visible from behind the mask he wears. The head of the mouse connects Jews over all nations and generations which suggests Artie feels as though he is a fraud and is hiding his true self. He feels as though he is unlike his parents and other Jews. This shows his anxiety about profiting off of a story that he feels he has no right to tell.

The tombstone shows that Vladek and Anja are reunited in death. There is undoubtedly pain and complication that will persist after Vladek's death, but the peaceful grave quells these concerns. This is clearly a tribute to Artie's love and forgiveness towards his parents. Artie knows that death does not resolve the relationship between him and his parents, but it is still a sign that Artie has moved forward and that love persists despite the conflict they endured in life.

Artie has relinquished his anger and respects their memory peacefully. His story does not have an easy or pleasant ending, but Artie acknowledges the fact that he needs to let go. Artie's peaceful release does not placate his wounds and suffering nor does it mend what his parents endured. The significance and depravity of a story such as their's perhaps has no redemption. The last page shows that Artie must settle for some semblance of a resolution and learn to live with pain and anguish when he is unable to vanquish it himself.

Cite this page