Dia internacional em Memória das Vítimas do Holocausto

Auschwitz Album

EIN JÜDISCHES KIND - Carlo Taube (1897-1944) and Erika Taube (1913-1944)

por aqui.

Sona Spitzova (Feb. 17, 1931-Oct. 6, 1944) - Theater performance.

Sugestão de Gerald Green, The Artists of Terezin, Schocken Books, 1978, p.130.

BLOODLANDS

"The Second World War was the most lethal conflict in history, and about half of the

soldiers who perished on all of its battlefields all the world over died here, in this same region, in the bloodlands. Yet not a single one of the fourteen million murdered was a soldier on active duty. Most were women, children, and the aged; none were bearing weapons; many had been stripped of their possessions, including their clothes. 

Auschwitz is the most familiar killing site of the bloodlands. Today Auschwitz stands for the Holocaust, and the Holocaust for the evil of a century. Yet the people registered as laborers at Auschwitz had a chance of surviving: thanks to the memoirs and novels written by survivors, its name is known. Far more Jews, most of them Polish Jews, were gassed in other German death factories where almost everyone died, and whose names are less often recalled: Treblinka, Chełmno, Sobibór, Bełżec. Still more Jews, Polish or Soviet or Baltic Jews, were shot over ditches and pits. Most of these Jews died near where they had lived, in occupied Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Soviet Ukraine, and Soviet Belarus. The Germans brought Jews from elsewhere to the bloodlands to be killed. Jews arrived by train to Auschwitz from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Norway. German Jews were deported to the cities of the bloodlands, to Łódź or Kaunas or Minsk or Warsaw, before being shot or gassed. The people who lived on the block where I am writing now, in the ninth district of Vienna, were deported to Auschwitz, Sobibór, Treblinka, and Riga: all in the bloodlands.

(...)

The bloodlands were where most of Europe’s Jews lived, where Hitler and Stalin’s imperial plans overlapped, where the Wehrmacht and the Red Army fought, and where the Soviet NKVD and the German SS concentrated their forces. Most killing sites were in the bloodlands: in the political geography of the 1930s and early 1940s, this meant Poland, the Baltic States, Soviet Belarus, Soviet Ukraine, and the western fringe of Soviet Russia. Stalin’s crimes are often associated with Russia, and Hitler’s with Germany. But the deadliest part of the Soviet Union was its non-Russian periphery, and Nazis generally killed beyond Germany. The horror of the twentieth century is thought to be located in the camps. But the concentration camps are not where most of the victims of National Socialism and Stalinism died. These misunderstandings regarding the sites and methods of mass killing prevent us from perceiving the horror of the twentieth century.

 (...)

The distinction between concentration camps and killing sites cannot be made perfectly: people were executed and people were starved in camps. Yet there is a difference between a camp sentence and a death sentence, between labor and gas, between slavery and bullets. The tremendous majority of the mortal victims of both the German and the Soviet regimes never saw a concentration camp. Auschwitz was two things at once, a labor camp and a death facility, and the fate of non-Jews seized for labor and Jews selected for labor was very different from the fate of Jews selected for the gas chambers. Auschwitz thus belongs to two histories, related but distinct. Auschwitz-as-labor-camp is more representative of the experience of the large number of people who endured German (or Soviet) policies of concentration, whereas Auschwitz-as-death-facility is more typical of the fates of those who were deliberately killed. Most of the Jews who arrived at Auschwitz were simply gassed; they, like almost all of the fourteen million killed in the bloodlands, never spent time in a concentration camp.

The German and Soviet concentration camps surround the bloodlands, from both east and west, blurring the black with their shades of grey. At the end of the Second World War, American and British forces liberated German concentration camps such as Belsen and Dachau, but the western Allies liberated none of the important death facilities. The Germans carried out all of their major killing policies on lands subsequently occupied by the Soviets. The Red Army liberated Auschwitz, and it liberated the sites of Treblinka, Sobibór, Bełżec, Chełmno, and Majdanek as well. American and British forces reached none of the bloodlands and saw none of the major killing sites. It is not just that American and British forces saw none of the places where the Soviets killed, leaving the crimes of Stalinism to be documented after the end of the Cold War and the opening of the archives. It is that they never saw the places where the Germans killed, meaning that understanding of Hitler’s crimes has taken just as long. The photographs and films of German concentration camps were the closest that most westerners ever came to perceiving the mass killing. Horrible though these images were, they were only hints at the history of the bloodlands. They are not the whole story; sadly, they are not even an introduction."

Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, Basic Books, 2012,  pp. xi-xv.

O mal contemporâneo

"Se há algo de novo no mal contemporâneo, não é simplesmente uma questão de quantidade relativa, nem de relativa crueldade. As câmaras de gás foram inventadas para poupar as vítimas a formas dolorosas de morte - e para poupar os assassinos a uma visão que poderia perturbar  as suas consciências. Para muitos, é essa mistura perversa de industrialização com uma pretensa humanidade que torna os campos da morte horripilantes. As discussões sobre que tipos de morte são piores levam a formas macabras de competição. Um momento de reflexão sobre a história da tortura deixa claro que, antes e depois de Auschwitz, os seres humanos mostraram possuir competências para a crueldade que as palavras não conseguem captar. Só o facto de estarmos habituados à morte de Jesus como um ícone pode eclipsar a atrocidade da sua crucifixão. Se isto não fosse tão familiar, podia facilmente servir como paradigma do sofrimento inocente a que o cristianismo primitivo assistiu. Forçar um prisioneiro condenado a arrastar o instrumento que a seguir será usado para o torturar até à morte, pelo meio de uma multidão escarnecedora, é um refinamento de crueldade que nos devia cortar a respiração. Devia ser suficiente para deter à nascença o impulso da comparação entre sofrimentos. O que faz de Auschwitz um problema para o pensamento sobre o mal não deve ser uma questão de grau, porque a este nível não há escalas.

(...) Isolar um factor na rede das atrocidades que constituíram os campos da morte é provavelmente enganador. Em vez de perguntarmos porque produziu este acontecimento em particular uma sensação única de devastação, que anuncia o fim violento de uma era, devíamos olhar mais cautelosamente para as fontes conceptuais que foram destruídas."

(Neiman, Susan, O mal no pensamento moderno, Gradiva, pp.286-287)

Primo Levi, 1963

Primo levi: Auschwitz e o fascismo

Lógica e Progresso

Como com todas as citações boas para serem usadas como epígrafes, muito haveria a dizer sobre a citação de Shaw. Uma primeira consideração seria dizer que o argumento:

1) o homem razoável adapta-se ao mundo
2) o homem não-razoável faz tudo para que seja o mundo a adaptar-se a ele
Logo, todo o progresso depende do homem não-razoável

constitui aquilo que os lógicos designam de entimema, uma vez que transporta consigo uma premissa escondida:

3) toda a mudança no mundo (fazer o mundo adaptar-se) é fonte de progresso.

Um das perguntas colocadas parece questionar se todos os homens não-razoáveis tentam mudar o mundo. Um possível solução, também ela algo silogística, seria afirmar que haverá alguns homens razoáveis que tentam mudar o mundo (será este o caso da ministra?), como haverá alguns homens não-razoáveis (por exemplo, aqueles que só são não-razoáveis em privado ou às escondidas ) que não tentam mudar o mundo público.

O problema do progresso é delicado. Há quem diga que depois
de Auschwitz - a que Shaw ainda assistiu (1856-1950) e certamente a pior mudança no mundo realizada por um não-razoável - não faz sentido falar de progresso e de que valores faz sentido falar ninguém sabe bem.

(LFB)