By Emily Szamocki
At first, I was unsure as to what I would be doing for my travel journal. I knew that I wanted to focus on the historical sites we would be visiting, but I didn’t know how to go beyond the information present on the surface. Then, one day while we were in Kraków, Professor Callahan drew our attention to a memorial commemorating the Battle of Grunwald where Polish and Lithuanian forces defeated Teutonic Knights in the early 1400s. She also included the fact that the original monument was destroyed during World War II by the Nazis. Additionally, she mentioned that near this site, there was a monument for the Soviet liberators of Poland which was eventually taken down after the fall of Communism in Poland. Professor Callahan’s impromptu lecture regarding historical preservation inspired my journal topic—Historical Preservation: A Conundrum.
After visiting numerous sites relating to the Holocaust, I started to notice the different types of historical preservation and land use when it came to the sites that have historical significance. In this journal, I will discuss the different types of historical preservation that we saw during our trip, as I pose the question “In what instances should historical sites be preserved, and in what instances should the land be reclaimed?”
When discussing the scale of authenticity in historical preservation, I observed three different types of historical preservation based on the sites we visited. The first type of historical preservation includes different sites where, for the most part, the historical integrity and authenticity of the site was maintained, barring any structural adjustments made to keep the structures intact. Within this category of historical preservation falls Auschwitz-Birkenau. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, the different barracks present in the grounds were presented in an authentic manner, with only small additions made to a few of the buildings in order to create an exhibit and maintain the structure. Similarly, the ruins of the Nazi-demolished crematorium are left as they were when it was originally destroyed. Because Auschwitz-Birkenau was the most historically authentic Holocaust site we visited during our trip, it leads me to ask whether how big of a role societal expectations of historical preservation plays in determining this. Would it have been perfectly acceptable to the public if the site of Auschwitz-Birkenau was leveled and used for a large memorial or museum dedicated to the victims? This is just another factor that makes historical preservation a conundrum to states and other organizations. How do we, as a society, decide what the appropriate way is to preserve and learn from history?
The second type of historical preservation that we came across on our trip was one where the outer appearance of the site or the original building was maintained, but the inside was not historically authentic, instead was converted into a museum. Two examples of this classification of historical preservation include the Schindler Factory in Kraków and the Documentation Center in Nuremberg. At both of these sites, the outer appearance of the building was preserved. However, the inside was transformed into very detailed museums that communicated information regarding not only the sites specifically, but the Holocaust and the Nazi party in general. This shows a contrasting approach to historical preservation, which leads one to ask what the motivating factors were to transform these sites into museums. One could argue that the educational potential of these sites was better served by remodeling them than preserving them; an idea that is equally supported by the authentic preservation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The third type of historical preservation that we came across when visiting different sites pertaining to the Holocaust was when there was a reclaiming or reuse of the area. This was seen at the Nazi Rally Grounds in Nuremberg and the original Jewish Ghetto in Kraków. While we were in Nuremberg, a music festival was being set up on the Nazi Rally Grounds. A few of the other students made remarks such as “I don’t like this” or “This makes me uncomfortable”. They were referring to the fact that this historically significant place was casually being used as a concert venue. This use of the land completely ignored the dark past that was unfortunately associated with it. Also, while in Kraków the original Jewish Ghetto was not kept up, but was mostly under construction with new apartment buildings. While this is not as alarming as the Nazi Rally Grounds, both examples lead one to the overarching question of this journal; at what point do we, as a society, stop preserving land and start reclaiming it?
​
As we saw in four different cities and three different countries, there is no standard way that historical preservation is carried out. This is caused by many underlying factors such as who has control of the land, what occurred there, and what type of preservation is considered the best for the public. This conundrum regarding historical preservation is seen all over the world, but it especially presents in Europe regarding sites that pertain to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime in Germany during World War II.