In Hitler's Children, director Chanoch Ze'evi creates a dialogue with and between the children or grandchildren of the most powerful and terror-inducing Nazis from the Second World War and Jewish Holocaust survivors. The perspectives of those who carry the names of war criminals and who must somehow cope with that legacy is fascinating. One brother and sister whose great-uncle had been a noted war criminal decided to have themselves sterilized. Obviously the taint of the name was not the only issue for them. They had a fear of the blood that ran through their veins. In fact, this was an issue that almost all progeny in the film had considered:
Do I carry the monster within me?
Am I evil?
Am I guilty??
A further question plagued them:
How do I reconcile the love I received from my parents and grandparents with the horrors they perpetrated on others?
One of the grandchildren made the interesting comment that it is not possible to live in a grey area where one reconciles the love with the horror. She felt strongly that either you deny the horror and love your parents, or you acknowledge the horror and reject your family. She had observed that there was really no middle ground experience for her generation. Children who could not reject their families, also denied the Holocaust.
Another child of a war criminal spent his entire life consumed with the task of ferreting out his father's crimes and holding them up to scrutiny. At one point in a lecture he gave, a woman got up and asked him how he had coped with grappling with the evil he was exposing, and the effect on his own family life. His answer was really a non-answer in that he did not really understand that her question had to do with the tragic fact that his father's crimes had in fact destroyed his life. He had not coped. He was consumed by an awful truth and an awful hatred of his parents and their generation.
The last and most poignant and perhaps thought-provoking vignette in the movie involved the journey of the grandson of the Auschwitz commandant and the grandson of an Auschwitz survivor back to the camp. While there, the commandant's grandson met with a group of Israeli young people, many of whose families had been directly affected by his grandfather's crimes.
I was struck by many things. First, there is no small amount of courage involved in facing one's family's legacy and stepping forward with bared soul to those who have been harmed. Though it is apparent that this young man had not perpetrated, he was potentially a modern-day personification of the terror survivors had suffered. For those people whose entire family identity was tied to the crimes perpetrated by his grandfather, he was a focal point for them.
The interesting thing is, that human grace and empathy being what it is, his vulnerability and courage stimulated a moment of absolution in an Auschwitz survivor who had actually been in the camp. In answer to a question, the grandson said he felt guilty about the actions of his grandfather. At this point the survivor came to him and said that he understood that he himself was not the perpetrator. The release and relief for the grandson was palpable. I think that in his heart, he wondered if he bore the burden of the crime of his father. Here, his existence was absolved by probably the only person who could do it.
This is not to dismiss questions of collective guilt and accountability for genocide. However, it is important to recognize that this particular individual does not solely bear the weight of the thousands of murders perpetrated by his grandfather. For this is the question that I think he had in his soul.
The commentary by the observing grandson of the Auschwitz survivor who traveled with the commandant's grandson was insightful and illuminating. He did not doubt the sincerity of the moment of reconciliation, but he said it was 'too quick'. He felt that it lead to a sense that there was a happy ending. In his view, there is no ending. And it is not happy.
I think that his opinion was actually quite complex and interesting though I disagree with his comment about 'quickness'.
This documentary was an attempt to set up a bridge or process of reconciliation to deal with the past. As can be seen in the movie, reconciliation can mean reconciliation between victims and perpetrators, reconciliation within family, and reconciling (or not) truth with emotion. Reconciliation is the attempt to create some level of coherence from complexity, for the purpose of stepping forward from the same point.
The moments of intense emotional reconciliation that occurred when the grandson of the commandant met face to face with the group of Israelis and survivors were not quick moments that occurred out of the blue. The reconciliation moment was a transformative moment that resulted from years of preparation and emotional and intellectual journeying on both sides of the equation. Those survivors and Israeli students came after having learned and reflected upon the horrors their families had suffered. They came with the emotional ability to face the progeny of a perpetrator in a very charged location. They came with the ability to assert the truth of their families' experience with the knowledge that they might hear denial from the other side. On his side, the commandant's grandson came to the stage after a long emotional journey through the landscape of his own family. He dealt with his extreme fear, his ignorance and his shame.
And yet, I understand what the commentator was saying. The reconciliation moment was a cathartic moment for the grandson of the perpetrator when perhaps catharsis for him is not the critical issue. Survivors have to live with the legacy of the Holocaust. Humanity has to live with the legacy of the Holocaust, and the knowledge that it is not a singular occurrence. For the grandson of the survivor, this is more significant than the personal moment between the commandant's grandson and the Auschwitz survivor. For him, the collective impact and responsibility for the Holocaust is more significant.
I agree with the commentator, but I also think that these individual moments of understanding, honesty and connection between human beings are significant. It is moments like these when there is a level of connection created. There is a powerful coming-together of both sides to better understand an enormous breach of humanity. The descendants gather to view this breach, this violent terror that occurred. They try to learn from it and to take a step forward.
The reason why the documentary was so riveting is precisely because we do not often see true encounters between people grappling with their own personal accountability for the events of the past. Though it was not the Nazi war criminals themselves, we see that there is a horrific legacy that their progeny carry. To witness their struggles, their encounters with the past and their encounters with the present is relevant. Where the parents could not be present, the children are coming forward to deal with their heritage.
I agree with the commentator: reconciliation is not quick. It is merely an effort to come together on the same path of understanding before trying to step forward on a journey of peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment