Summary

TRIP; AUSCHWITZ: QUESTIONNAIRE 1

This questionnaire was offered at the beginning of March (around the 7th), to all students from 1^era L, including those who had already expressed their wish not to participate in the trip. Out of 33 students in the class, only 18 questionnaires were returned to me, despite my frequent requests.

The "official" recommendations were as follows:

Take the time to reflect before answering this questionnaire: it is not a question of knowledge control, but to bring out your representations about Auschwitz. So answer honestly, do not hesitate to develop your answers: no one will be judged on what he writes. To do, individually, on a copy sheet, remembering to put the number of the question you are answering. This questionnaire can remain anonymous if you wish it to be so.

The analysis of the responses is very brief here. It would have been interesting to look at the vocabulary used by the students, particularly the very frequent use of the word "prisoner" instead of "deported". But I didn’t have enough time

1/ Before we started working on the Nazi concentration camp system and preparing this trip, what did the name Auschwitz evoke for you?

"Before working on Auschwitz, the name meant very little. I thought it was a concentration camp, that serious things had happened there, but I didn’t know many details. So, that didn’t bother me too much."

Eight students admit that before starting the work we conducted on the concentration camp system, Auschwitz did not evoke anything really specific for them, admitting that they did not know it was an extermination camp (these are the same people who reply that they did not make a distinction between concentration and extermination camps in question 3).

Few students have an accurate picture of Auschwitz. For some, the name of the Lager evokes the Absolute Evil: "[it] evoked for me the proof of what is worst in the human being. It evoked a pain, an unspeakable heartbreak perpetrated on thousands of men, women, and children"; "allegory of fascism" (!); "the worst concentration camp and Nazi horror"; "the most famous camp, the example of cruelty, fear, death, dehumanization"; "Auschwitz has always represented for me the horror"

In two cases, the name evokes images: "The first image that imposes itself on my mind is the entrance to the camp, with the kind of tower, perhaps not to fit into the walls or because it is the most common representation given of Auschwitz. [] It is these faces [those in the photographs of deportees in a book consulted by the student at his school’s CDI] that also come to mind"; "The name of Auschwitz evoked no words, only an image, that of a bulldozer pushing bodies to gather them into piles, this is the image I have in mind every time I hear the name of Auschwitz".

This last statement is interesting because it reveals confusion and a lack of precise and reliable knowledge about the concentration camp system. Auschwitz was not known as such, but turned out to be only a weak echo of what was seen in 3^th. The specificity of the place (a mixed camp), its vastness, the complexity of its structure are unknown to students. Auschwitz was the name heard in class or in the media, difficult to pronounce, even more so to write, the symbol of the Nazi concentration camp system, but without them really knowing why Auschwitz is precisely "exceptional".

2/ Did you know where Auschwitz is?

Five out of 18 students admit that they did not know where Auschwitz was: three were convinced that it was in Germany, one placed it more towards Austria and another leaned towards Eastern Europe, without really knowing where.

3/ Did you make the difference between extermination camps and concentration camps?

A majority of students did not really make the difference between concentration camps and extermination camps:

- Three admit that they absolutely did not make the difference between the two. A student even seems to say that she was not aware of the existence of the industrial killing practiced by the Third Reich (maybe it is me who over-interprets?): "No, I thought there was only one type of camp. What I imagined was closer to the concentration camp than to extermination".

- Ten admit that they imagined that there was a difference (just because it’s not the same name, says one of them!), but without really being able to explain it, these notions being very vague for them.

- Two remembered the difference between the two a little more precisely: "The extermination camps are camps where the goal is to put people to death, as industrially, by force, whereas in the concentration camps, death is slow; it happens day after day, at the same time as dehumanization" ; "For me, an extermination camp means a quick death, by gas chambers or crematoria, a concentration camp, a slow death from shame, work, hunger, cold, fear"

- Two, finally, say that they made a difference, but don’t go further.

4/ Did you know the figures for the victims?

Most students respond that they do not know the exact number of victims, while claiming that they were aware of the importance of these figures (11 out of 18). Two admit they knew nothing about it. Only four students propose a number: one distinguishes the deaths at Auschwitz and the total figure (1 million and 5 million), then we find 1 million (without it being possible to determine whether for the student concerned it is only the deaths at Auschwitz or a figure considered as global), 5 million, 6 million and 7 million. In any case, it seems that only the Jewish victims are counted, without any real distinction between the different modes of extermination.

Two responses are noteworthy:

- that of Marie-Pierre, who, without denying the importance of these figures, considers that they are not everything: "The very (too) large number of victims contributes to the horror of the phenomenon, but the execution of such a project does not need a phenomenal number to be frightening. Moreover, the victims have already been considered a lot as numbers. I am more interested in the traces left, photos, testimonies; however, I do not deny the importance of knowing the extent of the disaster. But, as a general rule, I have difficulty remembering the figures, although these deserve an effort."

- that of Charlotte P., who points out that she did not understand the extent of the genocide.

5/ What does the expression "duty of memory" mean to you?

For me, the expression "duty of remembrance" means to show past generations that we have not forgotten what they have lived through, that their suffering and actions still serve us today to build our lives and it is a proof of what man is capable of doing. But if we know what it is capable of, we may be better able not to get carried away by extremist movements and have a more objective view of the world around us."

This answer (Anonymous 2) is a bit of a summary of what came up most frequently:

- The "never again" principle largely prevails, even if some express some reservations by reminding us that this is not enough (Anonyme 5 and Fabien) or that the "duty of memory" should only be a step to go further (Marie-Pierre and Pauline).

- Also very regularly mentioned is the need to show that victims are not forgotten and the expression of compassion for them.

Some consider it an obligation (Léa, Anonyme 5). After a long development, Anonyme 4 concludes as follows: "It can be scary, the fact that we were entrusted with the task of instilling in future generations the notions of "never again this" because, if a Third World War were to break out, there would be a feeling of failure for us, but also for all the victims who died for nothing, because in the end, their deaths did not even serve to make men think."

The warnings, when evoked, are addressed only to future generations, to young people, as if they believed that only them and those who will follow them may not be aware of the genocide. It is necessary to draw a parallel here with the certainty that the temporal distance of events makes them incomprehensible (which many "verify" daily in history class) and that the disappearance of the last players in the Second World War will plunge this period into oblivion, if they do not fulfill their duty to transmit memory (exit historians). The duty of memory is rarely perceived as a possible warning against executioners, past or future, except for Anonymous 1 and Jason. There is only one reference to negationism (Louise).

The duty of remembrance was understood by one of them (Anonymous 3) as "defending ideals that have long been forgotten, such as the dignity of man". All the more so because some people fear that, "for comfort" (Leslie), many prefer to forget.

Finally, a student confesses that this duty of memory was to "fill the feeling of powerlessness" he feels in front of the indifference of some on this subject (Anonymous 6).

6/ What difference do you make (if you make one) between History and Memory?

A very difficult question, if not the most difficult of this questionnaire. Especially since it was asked to them before we worked, with Mr. Clamens, on History and Memory.

Most students believe that Memory and History are closely linked, with one exception (Anonymous 2). From this, opinions diverge: some believe that memory is the transmission of history (Charlotte B.), others that it is rather the opposite, that "History brings memory. And without history, memory would not be transmitted, I think. " (Elsa). Another interesting answer regarding the formulation: "History allows us to know, while memory allows us to remember" (Charlotte P.).

In general, history is a science, the study of facts, which allows us to understand our current societies and explain their context. She is perceived as neutral (Louise), objective (Hugo, Pauline, Leslie).

Memory, on the other hand, is less easily defined (see Anonymous 6 who admits having had difficulty answering or Léa who does not really distinguish between History and Memory): it consists of testimonies, it is a judgment, not a science, a duty for citizens (Anonymous 5), "it is the fact of thinking, to thank, to celebrate those who have lived and suffered, not to forget that there was a life before us" (Anonymous 1). This notion is more vague in the minds of the students, they are few to express the idea that it can be the object of a criticism (Anonymous 1) as a reinterpretation of facts (Fabien, for whom History would be a "raw information").

History is sometimes credited with the ability to avoid repeating past mistakes; sometimes it is memory that has this task.

7/ What are your current representations about Auschwitz?

Currently, it meant "after the work done in class this year." There are different types of answers to this question:

There are those who say that their representations on Auschwitz have changed: after a long development on the industrial aspect of the killing, Anonyme 6 confesses the fear that this trip inspires in him.

Others claim that their depictions of Auschwitz have changed little. Anonyme 2 reports that it is rather its relationship to memory that has evolved with the work carried out in class. He came to the conclusion that "some people, wanting too much from memory, kill her". However, he does not specify why he reached such a conclusion. Marie-Pierre and Leslie, whose representations have not changed either, concede that they are now more precise.

For two students surveyed, it was impossible for them to imagine Auschwitz (Anonymous 5 and Charlotte P.)

The majority of students say how they perceive Auschwitz:

- This representation remains that of the images of the camp they have seen before, in documents or media (Charlotte F., Elsa) or the description they have read (the deposition of Mrs. Vaillant-Couturier, and notably the call for Jason).

- Auschwitz provokes a feeling of horror and fear: "the symbol, the emblem of barbarism" (Anonymous 3), "dehumanization" (Charlotte B.), "a nightmarish space" (Louise).

- It’s a kind of Oradour-sur-Glane, but more impressive (Anonymous 4); "A silent place, still motionless under the shock" (Léa).

- Some think that Auschwitz "no longer resembles much" (Anonymous 1), "Like a place that has lost its horror with the reconstruction in a 'tourism' way" (Hugo).

Finally, a little apart, Fabien says: "My representation on Auschwitz is something hard for me. Many people tell me, you’re going to "see Auschwitz, I don’t think I’m going to see Auschwitz, I’ll imagine Auschwitz." Because the camp is no longer the same; for me, it has become an image that is offered to "visitors." a very different image of the 1945 camp, since there is grass, no more body dust, no more smell, you can only imagine the worst and tell yourself it was here. Despite this image, I feel a visceral need to go."

8/ We will make a film about this trip to Auschwitz. Based on what you know and your representations of Auschwitz, what would you like to show in this film?

Most have a more or less precise idea of what they would like to show.

Only three say they don’t really know: Léa says, "We see the images. But we in the images are something else " ; Anonymous 6, who nevertheless wishes that it be different from what we are used to seeing, and Fabien, who links this question to the previous one (Given the representation I have of Auschwitz, I won’t know what to film in particular. I think I’ll make the final shot on the grass next to the barbed wire to say, the Nazis tore it off so that the inmates wouldn’t eat it, now they let it grow to give us a "hope."

Two would like to show that it is impossible to show the reality of the concentration camp system (Anonyme 2 and Hugo).

The vast majority opted instead for the "educational" film that would show the "daily life" of the deportee (Charlotte F., Jason, Marie-Pierre, Charlotte P., Elsa, Louise, Leslie, anonymous 1 and 3).

At the same time, the "militant" film of "never again" is highlighted (Elsa, Pauline, Leslie).

We wish to restore the dignity of the victims (Anonyme 2 and Leslie).

We want to film and analyze the reactions of students at Auschwitz itself (Anonymous 1 and 4, Charlotte B., Louise).

9/ Do you know what the motivations are that led you to undertake this journey? Which ones? (In the same way, if you did not wish to make this trip, do you know why?)

What comes up most frequently is the need to "know," to "see." (Anonymous 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, the latter to be able to "retransmit", Charlotte F. who wants to "better see the camp with my own eyes, as the deportees saw it," Jason, Hugo, Marie-Pierre, Charlotte B., Elsa, Louise and Pauline).

Are also mentioned:

- the Duty of Memory (Anonymous 3, Jason, Marie-Pierre, and Leslie who admits that this trip scares him);

- the desire to share an enriching human experience with the deportees and/or the class (Elsa, Pauline, Marie-Pierre);

- seize the opportunity that is offered to go to the scene (Anonymous 5, Léa, Charlotte who, however, initially refused to take this trip: "At first, I didn’t want to leave simply out of fear. Yet it seemed very interesting to me (if we can use that term). Then, I told myself that I surely would not have the opportunity to make such a trip anymore. I refused at first, but now, I really want to visit this camp.

- Some need to do it for themselves, for their conscience (Léa, Louise), wish to put themselves in danger, they who live in comfort (Anonymous 1: "Yes, I think I have known, vaguely, my motivations. I believe I "need" to see, because we all live in a "perfect" world compared to the world in which the victims of the Shoah lived, and it is important for me to know evil, We are very lucky in France and we do not realize the poverty, suffering, evil, and horror that may have arrived on our Earth." Anonymous 2: "The motivations that led me to take this trip are the desire to disgust me a little more with humanity, but also a need to know and a certain way of telling me that our life is a real paradise").

Fabien, finally, says he can’t explain why he wants to go there. It’s a need, he explains. However, he is afraid not to feel anything once on site. That fear is shared by Marie-Pierre.

10/ Many voices are raised at the moment which doubt the relevance of organizing a one-day trip for schoolchildren to Auschwitz. What do you think?

The question, poorly formulated I agree, could be interpreted in two ways, on the relevance of making a trip to Auschwitz or on that of the extremely short duration.

Regarding the trip itself, a majority of students think that there should be no doubt about its relevance:

- It is useful to put things into perspective: "I think that many people nowadays believe that their quiet little life is a hell. Something that, for me, is false. Perhaps a short visit that shows so little of the horror that was the concentration camp system would do them good."

- It is necessary for the duty of memory (Anonymes 3 and 5, Charlotte F. who specifies that no one should be forced to go there, Louise, Pauline, Charlotte P., Leslie who places this necessity in a context of resurgent antisemitism, Anonyme 5 and Marie-Pierre).

- For Jason, to doubt the relevance of such a trip is to doubt the relevance of the students.

- Some believe that certain reservations are nevertheless understandable: this type of trip must, they say, be based on an important preparatory work (Anonyme 6, Pauline). Anonyme 1 seems rather to echo what those who know nothing about the Shoah and admit to being afraid of feeling nothing at Auschwitz can say, in terms of relevance for travel.

Regarding the duration of the trip:

- Léa recalls that participating in it is a personal choice and that "in any case, a day is not too short for me to do my own duty of memory."

- Others, however, think that a round trip during the day is a bit short:

* Marie-Pierre ("I think it’s true that a day is a bit short, especially when you consider the travel time. The day will be dense and it will be difficult to see everything, to perceive everything; this is not very conducive to commemoration and meditation. However, if the trip lasted longer, I suppose it would also be more expensive and, in that case, less accessible.");

* Anonymous 4 ("I think they are right, because a day is too short because you arrive shocked and you don’t have time to pause to reflect and visit Auschwitz properly");

* Elsa ("A one-day trip to discover and understand Auschwitz is very short, especially since the camp is far from Bergerac. And I have the impression that as long as people explain things to us, as long as we’re 'visiting', etc.. the day will have passed quickly and we won’t have time to understand everything. I don’t think it won’t be relevant, but it will be much too short. This day will be a marathon day, but I still want to go anyway, because the opportunity to go to Auschwitz will not present itself twice").

Finally, two different responses that differ from the others:

- That of Fabien, who admits not being able to give an opinion on this issue ("I don’t know what to think since I myself have a rather paradoxical opinion about this place, but I feel the need to go there. That’s all I can answer this question.")

- That of Hugo, who seems to imply that this type of trip is useless, more or less directly incriminating the indifference and selfishness of high school students (Some high school students will never be able to understand what happened there. I know that I would not be able to "honor" the memory of the dead inside (cynical thoughts inevitably cross my mind). I also believe that about 70% of those who leave do not care about honoring the memory of people whose death will have no impact on their small, joyful lives)

Student responses in full.

---

Summary