Summary

JOURNEY 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 think before answering this questionnaire: it is not a test of knowledge, 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 they write. To be done, individually, on a copy sheet while thinking about putting 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 succinct 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 missed the time

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

"Before working on Auschwitz, this name only evoked few things. 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 evoked nothing really precise for them, admitting that they did not know it was an extermination camp. (these are the same ones who answer that they did not differentiate between concentration camps and extermination camps in question 3).

Few students have an accurate picture of Auschwitz. For some, the name of the Lager evokes Absolute Evil: "[it]suggested to me the proof of what is worse in the human being. It evoked a pain, an unspeakable heartbreak perpetrated on thousands of men, women and children"; "allegory of fascism" (!); "the worst of the concentration camps and Nazi horror"; "the most well-known of the camps, 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 comes to my mind is the entrance of the camp, with the kind of tower, perhaps not to enter the walls or because it is the most common representation given of Auschwitz. [ ] These are the faces [those of the photographs of deportees in a book consulted by the student at the CDI of his school] also that come to my mind"; "The name of Auschwitz did not evoke any word, only an image, that of a bulldozer who pushes bodies to group 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 confusions and a lack of precise and reliable knowledge about the concentration camp system. Auschwitz was not known as such, but only proved to be a weak echo of what was seen in 3^th. The specificity of the place (a mixed camp), its immensity, the complexity of its structure are unknown to the 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 located?

Five out of 18 pupils admit that they did not know where Auschwitz was: three were convinced that it was in Germany, one rather located it 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 differentiate 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’s me who is over-interpreting?): "No, I thought there was only one type of camp. What I imagined was closer to the concentration camp than extermination.

- Ten admit that they clearly imagined 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 a little more precisely the difference between the two: "Extermination camps are camps where the goal is to put people to death, as industrially, in the same way, whereas in concentration camps, death is slow, it happens over the days that pass, at the same time as a dehumanization"; "For me, an extermination camp means a quick death, by the gas chambers or the crematories, a concentration camp, a slow death through shame, work, hunger, cold, fear "

- Two, finally, state that they made the difference, but say no more.

4/ Did you know the numbers of the victims?

Most of the students respond that they do not know the exact number of victims, while claiming that they were aware of the importance of these numbers (11 out of 18). Two admit that 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 if for the student concerned it is just the deaths at Auschwitz or a figure considered as global), 5 million, 6 million and 7 million. In any case, it seems that the only Jewish victims are counted, without any real distinction between the different modes of extermination.

Two responses are worth noting:

- 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 find it difficult to retain the figures, although these deserve an effort.

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

5/ What does the expression 'duty of memory' mean for you?

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

This response (Anonymous 2) somewhat summarizes what came up most frequently:

- the "for never again that" largely prevails, even if some express some reservations by reminding that it 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).

- Very regularly mentioned also, the need to show that the victims are not forgotten and the manifestation of compassion that one feels 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 have been 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, it would be a feeling of failure for us, but also for all the victims who died for nothing, because ultimately, their death will not even have served to make men think."

The warnings, when evoked, are addressed only to future generations, to young people, as if they believed that only they and those who will follow them could not be aware of the genocide. It is appropriate 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 actors of the Second World War will plunge this period into oblivion, if they do not fulfill their duty to transmit memory (exit historians). The duty to remember is rarely perceived as a possible warning against executioners, past or future, with the exception of Anonyme 1 and Jason. There is only one reference to negationism (Louise).

The duty to remember understood for one of them (Anonymous 3) as "defending ideals that have been, for a long time, forgotten such as the dignity of Man". Especially since some fear that, "out of comfort" (Leslie), many prefer to forget.

A student finally confesses that this duty of memory was to "fill the feeling of powerlessness" he feels in the face 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 All the more so since it was asked to them before we worked, with Mr. Clamens, on History and Memory.

Most students believe that Memory and History are intimately linked, with one exception (Anonymous 2). From this, opinions diverge: some think 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, whereas 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, explain the context. She is perceived as neutral (Louise), objective (Hugo, Pauline, Leslie).

Memory, on the other hand, is less easily defined (see Anonyme 6 who admits having had difficulties in responding 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 (Anonyme 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 emit the idea that it can be the object of a criticism (Anonyme 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, currently, your representations on Auschwitz?

Currently implied "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 of Auschwitz have changed: after a long development on the industrial aspect of the killing, Anonyme 6 confesses the fear this journey inspires in him.

Others claim that their representations 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, are killing her". He does not, however, 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, he understood that it is impossible for them to imagine Auschwitz (Anonyme 5 and Charlotte P.)

The majority of students say how they perceive Auschwitz:

- This representation remains that of the camp images they saw before, in documents or media (Charlotte F., Elsa) or the description they read about it (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 is 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" (Anonyme 1), "Like a place that has lost its horror with the reconstruction in a 'tourism' way" (Hugo).

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

8/ We are going to 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 who says: "We see the images. But us in the images, it’s something else"; Anonyme 6 who wishes however 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 will make the final shot on the grass at the foot of the barbed wire to say, the Nazis tore it off so that the detainees wouldn’t eat it, now we 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 opt instead for the 'educational' film which 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 "activist" 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 the students at Auschwitz itself (Anonymous 1 and 4, Charlotte B., Louise).

9/ Do you know what are the motivations that led you to undertake this trip? 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 (Anonyme 3, Jason, Marie-Pierre and Leslie who admits that this trip scares him);

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

- seize the opportunity that is offered to go to the scene (Anonyme 5, Léa, Charlotte who, however, initially refused to make this trip: "At first, I did not wish to leave simply out of fear. Yet it seemed very interesting to me (if we can use this term). Then, I told myself that I would surely no longer have the opportunity to make such a trip. 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 know vaguely my motivations. I believe that 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 understand evil, we are very lucky in France and we do not realize the poverty, the suffering, the evil and the horror that may have arrived on our Earth"; Anonyme 2: "The motivations that led me to make this trip are the desire to disgust me a little more about 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 cannot explain why he wants to go there. It’s a need, he explains. He is however afraid of not feeling anything once on site. Fear that Marie-Pierre shares.

10/ Many voices are raised at the moment that doubt the relevance of organizing a one-day trip for school children 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 relativize certain things: "I think that many people, nowadays, believe that their quiet little life is a hell. Something that, for me, is false. Perhaps a small 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 resurgence of antisemitism, Anonyme 5 and Marie-Pierre).

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

- Some consider that certain reservations are nevertheless understandable: this type of journey 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 Holocaust and admit being afraid of feeling nothing at Auschwitz might say, as far as relevance of travel is concerned.

Regarding the duration of the trip:

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

- Others, however, believe 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 one considers the travel time. The day will be dense and it will be difficult to see everything, to perceive everything, it is not very conducive to commemoration and meditation. However, if the trip lasted longer, I suppose it would also be more expensive and, in this case, less accessible );

* Anonymous 4 ("I think they are right, because a day is too short because we arrive shocked and we don’t have time to sit down to reflect and visit Auschwitz as it should be");

* 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 the time it takes to be explained to us, to 'visit', etc.. the day will pass 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 want to go anyway, because the opportunity to go to Auschwitz will not arise twice").

Finally, two different responses that stand out from the others:

- That of Fabien who concedes not being able to give an opinion on this question ("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 to this question").

- That of Hugo who seems to imply that this type of trip is useless, incriminating, more or less directly, the indifference and selfishness of high school students (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 interiorly (cynical thoughts inevitably cross my mind). I also believe that about 70% of those who leave do not care to honor the memory of people whose death will have no impact on their small joyful life )

The students' responses in their entirety.

---

Summary