Can Auschwitz Be Saved?
Liberated 65 years ago, the Nazi concentration camp is one of Eastern Europe's most visited sites—and most fragile
- By Andrew Curry
- Photographs by Maciek Mabrdalik
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2010, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 5)
Until 1990, the museum’s directors were all former prisoners. Cywinski is just 37. His office is on the first floor of a former SS administration building directly across from a former gas chamber and crematorium. He tells me that Auschwitz is about to slip into history. The last survivors will soon die, and with them the living links to what happened here. Preserving the site becomes increasingly important, Cywinski believes: younger generations raised on TV and movie special effects need to see and touch the real thing.
But the effort to preserve the site is not without its critics. One is Robert Jan van Pelt, a cultural historian in the school of architecture at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and the leading expert on the construction of Auschwitz. He supports the preservation of the Auschwitz main camp, although he acknowledges it is a “kind of theme park, cleaned up for tourists.” In any event, it’s a fully equipped museum, complete with exhibits and conservation facilities, where most of the original buildings still stand. But van Pelt views the Birkenau site in a different light. For one thing, 80 to 90 percent of the original structures are gone or in a state of ruin. Most important, it’s where most of the killings took place, so it is a core site of the Holocaust itself. He says letting Birkenau disintegrate completely would be a more fitting memorial than constantly repairing the scant remains. Birkenau is “the ultimate nihilistic place. A million people literally disappeared. Shouldn’t we confront people with the nothingness of the place? Seal it up. Don’t give people a sense that they can imitate the experience and walk in the steps of the people who were there.”
Realistically, the Polish government and the proponents of preserving Auschwitz are not about to abandon the place, but at times during my visit I had some appreciation for van Pelt’s perspective. I arrived on the September day the camp counted its millionth visitor of the year. Cellphone-wielding visitors snapped pictures of the sign at the main gate, Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Will Set You Free). Tour group members wearing headphones stood shoulder to shoulder with their guides speaking into wireless microphones.
At the Birkenau camp, a five-minute shuttle-bus ride from the Auschwitz visitor center, the scene was so peaceful it was almost impossible to imagine the sea of stinking mud that survivors describe. The vast expanse was covered in neatly mowed grass. Flocks of Israeli teenagers in matching white-and-blue hoodies wandered from ruin to ruin. As I stood at the stairs leading down into the ruined gas chambers, a dozen Brits posed for a group picture on the steps of a memorial just a few yards away.
Mindful that no mere visit can convey what the concentration camp was like when the Nazis ran it, I met with survivors. The week before I arrived in Krakow, I had called Jozef Stos, 89, to ask if he would discuss his years in captivity. “If I’m still alive then, sure—it’s my civic responsibility,” he said with a laugh. “But I’m pretty darn old, you know.”
Early one morning I met Stos, a retired architect, at his small first-floor apartment on the outskirts of Krakow. We sat in his small, dark dining room, a plate of jam-filled ginger cookies on the starched white tablecloth between us. He said he grew up in Tarnow, Poland, about 50 miles from Krakow. He remembers the day the Nazis shipped him off to Auschwitz: June 13, 1940. It had been almost a year since Germany invaded Poland and launched its campaign to destroy the nation. Following instructions issued by SS chief Reinhard Heydrich—“the leading strata of the population should be rendered harmless”—the SS killed some 20,000 Poles, mainly priests, politicians and academics, in September and October 1939. Stos was an 18-year-old Boy Scout and a member of a Catholic youth organization. Germans put him and 727 other Poles, mostly university and trade-school students, in first-class train cars and told them they were going to work on German farms.
The train wasn’t headed to Germany. Stos was on the first transport of Polish prisoners to Auschwitz. There to greet them were 30 hardened German convicts, brought by the SS from a prison near Berlin. Guards confiscated Stos’ belongings and issued him a number. Sixty-nine years later, he slid a business card across the dining room table as his daughter brought us cups of tea. It read “Jozef Stos, former Auschwitz Concentration Camp Prisoner No. 752.” “I was there on the first day,” he said. “They had me for five years and five days.”
The camp Stos first saw, some 20 brick buildings, was a run-down former Polish artillery barrack the Nazis had taken over a few months before. Many Poles followed Stos to Auschwitz; few were as lucky. In its original incarnation as a concentration camp, Auschwitz was designed to work inmates to death. At first, most of the labor helped expand the camp itself; other work, such as gravel mining and farming, earned money for the SS. The Nazis even had a term for it, Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Destruction through work”). The notorious SS camp supervisor Karl Fritzsch greeted new arrivals with a speech: “You have arrived here not at a sanatorium, but at a German concentration camp, from which the only exit is through the chimney of its crematorium.”
Prisoners were crammed into the crumbling barracks and provided only a few hundred calories a day. Most died of starvation, exhaustion and diseases such as typhus and dysentery. Beatings, torture and executions were commonplace. Camp doctors conducted experiments—usually fatal—on prisoners, looking for ways to sterilize women with radiation or toxic chemicals, and studying the effects of extreme cold or starvation on the human body. In the first few years of the camp, 80 percent of new inmates died within two months.
Stos said he survived by making himself useful. Prisoners had a better chance of staying alive if they worked under a roof—in a kitchen or an administration building—or had a skill, such as training in medicine or engineering, that made them hard to replace. “The hunger was hellish, and if you could work you could get something to eat,” Stos said. Having grown up in the countryside, he could do a little bit of everything, from pouring concrete to cutting grass. I pressed him for details of his time in the camp, but he spoke only of the work. “I had eight different professions at Auschwitz,” he said. “I knew how to take care of myself. I avoided the worst of it.”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (45)
+ View All Comments
The first sentence of the article says it all, you cannot forget that moment of the visit when you realize that there is a huge room full of hair.
Posted by Mario on November 14,2012 | 04:07 PM
This is truely 100% sad. how and what he did to those poor people. innocent childern, parents, everyone. these stories and videos are very sad and touching. imagine if that was ur family member or even worse maybe you. may we never have this kind of thing ever again. may those souls rest in peace. there shouldnt be no vilence at all in this world because this is an example it doesnt prove anything nor will it your just hurting others around you. the concentration camps the gas chambers the people in it. their bodies are veryy bad. may violence never happen like this
Posted by malayka on April 12,2011 | 08:10 PM
This is truly one of the most touching articles I have ever read. My stance on the subject matter however would be to maintain the visitor aspect of Auschwitz, as the only way for the children of the future to know for themselves what happened during World War two would be to allow them to see it first hand, as the survivors of this mass atrocity are sadly disappearing. However, I believe that the site of Birkenau should be allowed to disintegrate without any human influence or contact whatsoever, and can be left as a place of mourning and grief to represent the destruction and despair brought on by the Nazi and SS regime. No wandering tourists or posing for pictures allowed, simply a untouched place that can only be viewed from afar.
Very well written article, also. Well done Curry.
Posted by Madison on February 21,2011 | 01:23 AM
We can save auschwitz if we try to and if we put our hearts into it. If we all care and spread the stories then we can sucsed
Posted by D'Wayne Watson on February 17,2011 | 10:44 AM
"There is no question as "should it be saved", only why has it not already saved. The only thing that keeps the world from repeating the same terror oven and over is teaching every child what kinds of terrible this has been done in the past by government. There are already countries that clam it never happened. Do not let the "hide it and we can deny it happen crowd win. Memorials do not show what happen and allow people in the future to deny how back things were. Rather as the way native populations were treated when the colonists first arrived in the new world, most of the truth has been lost."
How has this prevented what happened in places like cambodia, as well as other places that have witnessed similar things? Presumably you mean that this places existence will prevent another such occurrance, well it has not, there have been many such places where this kind of thing has happened, unless you mean it only apples to jews and other people can go to hell?
Posted by T.Harm on August 9,2010 | 10:44 AM
I see one blogger commented that she never hears of Theresienstadt, where her step-grandmother was held and forced to watch her husband's cremation. Theresienstadt is not as well-known as some of the other camps because it was considered a "work camp," which of course was a lie, because the prisoners were worked and starved to death. There is an interesting book that touches on this, titled "Divided Lives: The Untold Stories of Jewish-Christian Women in Nazi Germany" by Cynthia Crane. It is about Mischlinge, the children born of mixed marriages. Some of the women in the book talk about their mothers being sent to Theresienstadt. As for Auschwitz, it absolutely should be saved. Every civilized country and wealth individuals who can afford it should step up to the plate and contribute to this effort, so that the world never forgets.
Posted by Frank Henderson on April 22,2010 | 01:43 PM
My father liberated it with the 45th Infantry Division. He recalled the horror of it. He told of lying in his bunk at night hearing the machine guns going as the liberated inmates tried to escape. The army was afraid that the prisoners would lead to massive epidemics across Europe, they were so sick.
Posted by paul campbell on March 18,2010 | 02:40 PM
If you charge each of the million visitors $10 a head, there's your $10 million right there.
Posted by Ambrose Benkert on March 15,2010 | 09:18 AM
Auschwitz should be saved as a reminder to mankind how to much power can control an entire society and allow people to disregard the fact that people no matter what race, religion or creed they are human beings with hearts and souls. If mankind can massacure blacks and jews who's next?
Posted by Pamela Mitchell on March 2,2010 | 12:32 AM
What about Auschwitz 3 the slave labor camp where most inmates worked.
Posted by Martin on February 21,2010 | 02:27 PM
This is by fair one of the most emotional articles I have yet to read in Smithsonian. Incredibly detailed, nicely written, and it has a grave impact. Personally, I do believe it should be saved. It is a piece of history. Good or bad, history should be preserved as a reminder of what once was.
This article had me choking up until the final paragraph.
Spot on, Smithsonian.
Posted by Ashley on February 17,2010 | 02:49 PM
I believe Auschiwitz should be preserved for the millions of people to visit in the future to come. To educate themselves of the tragedy Hitler and his puppets have committed. To not forget, to remember and to replace ignorance with education.
Posted by Moses Checa on February 12,2010 | 06:15 PM
There is no question that Auschwitz should be preserved. It is indeed imperative that no one ever forget the horrors of the nazi regime. What never seems to come up, however, is how this regime came to power....never forget the lesson of promises that were made to the German people and how the children were so brainwashed to accept the whole premise of "dirty Jews" to begin with. When the SS terrorized, people turned on each other because of their own fears, the populace was disarmed and could no longer defend themselves, and then turned a "blind eye" to the disappearing people. Many say it could never happen again...I say, "Always be vigilant" The atrocities of the past should be remembered, not by a memorial, but by the "real thing". Don't let the past be "whitewashed". It then becomes too easy for people to believe that it was all propaganda and did not really happen. Recommended reading: "Those Who Save Us" by Jenna Blum.
Posted by C. Borchelt on February 11,2010 | 02:19 PM
There is no question as "should it be saved", only why has it not already saved. The only thing that keeps the world from repeating the same terror oven and over is teaching every child what kinds of terrible this has been done in the past by government. There are already countries that clam it never happened. Do not let the "hide it and we can deny it happen crowd win. Memorials do not show what happen and allow people in the future to deny how back things were. Rather as the way native populations were treated when the colonists first arrived in the new world, most of the truth has been lost.
Posted by Gary Wruck on February 11,2010 | 09:32 AM
+ View All Comments