Politics of preservation: Rescuing the authenticity of Auschwitz

Two years ago Robert Van Pelt, one of the leading scholars on Auschwitz, made a provocative suggestion: he said that once the last survivor has died the camp should be left for nature to reclaim, and eventually forgotten. He argued that what is left at Auschwitz is only ruins, and how we will actually remember it after the last witnesses die is using texts and literature. That should suffice, conserving the physical remains is unnecessary. The Auschwitz museum has a different view. They argue that every piece of remains should be conserved and preserved, no matter the costs. It is our duty to honour the victims and preserve the site for the future generations. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, chairman of the Auschwitz International Commission sees it this way: “It lies in the nature of man that when no tangible traces remain, events of the past fall into oblivion.” According to first point of view history is basically texts and stories told by the earlier generations and Auschwitz is no exception to that; according to second view only concrete, tangible evidence of the past will keep the memory alive and fulfil the pedagogical function historical site can offer us. To put it on other terms, what we have here are two contesting views on Auschwitz, those of history and memory. In my paper I analyse Auschwitz as a historical place and a place of memory in the light of the earlier conceptions of the Auschwitz Museum, and try to clarify how each parties have attached meanings and memories to physical remains, objects, texts and images, and how they try to represent the sufferings of the absent victims.