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 5 of 5)
Fleeing Germans also torched a couple of dozen of the wooden barracks at Birkenau. Many of the camp buildings that were left largely intact were later taken apart by Poles desperate for shelter. Birkenau remains the starkest, most tangible, most haunting reminder of what Dwork says was the “greatest catastrophe Western civilization permitted, and endured.”
Ever since the Auschwitz memorial and museum first opened to the public, in 1947, workers have repaired and rebuilt the place. The barbed wire that rings the camps must be continuously replaced as it rusts. In the 1950s, construction crews repairing the crumbling gas chamber at the main Auschwitz camp removed one of the original walls. Most recently, the staff has had to deal with crime and vandalism. This past December, the Arbeit Macht Frei sign was stolen by thieves, who intended to sell it to a collector. Although the sign was recovered, it was cut into three pieces and will need to be repaired.
Inevitably, Auschwitz will grow less authentic with the passage of time. “You’re seeing basically a reconstruction on an original site,” says van Pelt, the historian. “It’s a place that constantly needs to be rebuilt in order to remain a ruin for us.”
He is not the only one to argue against wholesale preservation of the camp. A 1958 proposal called for paving a 230-foot-wide, 3,200-foot-long asphalt road diagonally across the main Auschwitz camp and letting the rest of the ruins crumble, forcing visitors to “confront oblivion” and realize they could not fully comprehend the atrocities committed there. The concept was unanimously accepted by the memorial design committee—and roundly rejected by survivors, who felt the plan lacked any expression of remembrance.
For the preservation staff, the burden of remembrance informs every aspect of their restoration efforts. “If there’s damage to an object as part of its history, we leave it that way,” Banas says. She points to crates of shoes stacked in a hallway, most with worn insoles and uneven heels—signs of human use that will be left as they are. The International Auschwitz Council—museum officials and survivors from around the world dedicated to the conservation of Auschwitz—has decided that the mounds of hair will be allowed to decay naturally because they are human remains.
After three days at Auschwitz, I was left with the feeling that for some visitors, the former concentration camp is a box to check off on a tourist “to-do” list. But many people appeared genuinely moved. I saw Israeli teenagers crying and hugging each other and groups of people transfixed by the mug shots of prisoners that line the walls of one of the Auschwitz barracks. Walking through the room full of hair still makes my stomach churn. But what I hadn’t remembered from my first visit was the room next door filled with battered cooking pots and pans, brought by people who believed until the last moment that there was a future wherever they were being taken. And when Banas told me about the carefully folded math test that conservationists found hidden in a child’s shoe, I choked up. Even if only a fraction of the people who come here each year are profoundly affected, a fraction of a million is still a lot of people.
There is no more forceful advocate for the preservation of Auschwitz than Wladyslaw Bartoszewski. Born in Warsaw in 1922, Bartoszewski, 87, was a Red Cross stretcher-bearer when the German Army invaded the capital city in September 1939. Plucked off the street by German soldiers a year later, he was sent to Auschwitz. He’d been there seven months when the Red Cross arranged for his release in April 1941—one of the few inmates ever set free.
After Auschwitz, he helped found an underground organization to help Poland’s Jews. He fought against the German Army during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. He was jailed three times: twice as an active dissident during Poland’s early communist era and once for his support of the Solidarity movement in the 1980s.
Today, he is chairman of the International Auschwitz Council. Nothing, he says, can replace the actual site as a monument and memorial. “It’s great that you can go to a Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.,” he says. “But no one died in Washington in the Holocaust. Here—here is a massive cemetery without gravestones. Here they spent their last moments, here they took their last steps, here they said their last prayers, here they said goodbye to their children. Here. This is the symbol of the Holocaust.”
Andrew Curry’s article on Hadrian’s Wall appeared in the October 2009 Smithsonian. Maciek Nabrdalik is an award-winning photographer who resides in Warsaw.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5
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