What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

Who were the perpetrators and who was responsible?
143
they correctly pointed to the instrumental role that
Himmler came to occupy in the development of
anti-Jewish policy. In this sense, these students’
responses implied an appreciation of Himmler as the
‘architect of genocide’ (Breitman 1991) – insights
that went beyond simply connecting a name to
an event, and into the realm of assessing role and
significance. There is much to suggest that, in
the roster of key figures related to the Holocaust,
Himmler’s importance was second only to Hitler; after
all, Himmler ‘eventually succeeded in either gaining
control of or co-ordinating virtually every institution
involved in both racial policy and organised terror’
(Burleigh and Wippermann 1991: 59). With that
in mind, while the students who referred to him in
interview deserve merit, it is potentially problematic
that he was not cited by students more frequently.
A similar conclusion could be drawn about
students’ knowledge and understanding of the
organisation headed by Himmler – the SS. The SS
were also listed as part of survey question 31, with
students’ responding as shown in Figure 6.2.
Of those who responded to the question, 44.4 per
cent of all students believed there was a connection,
with 39.3 per cent indicating their uncertainty.
Significantly, the likelihood of students answering
correctly increased exponentially with age. Whereas
just over a quarter of Year 8 students (12 to 13
year olds) made the link, this doubled with Year 10
students (14 to 15 year olds) and grew again to over
two-thirds of students in Year 11 (15 to 16 year olds).
Although uncertainty did correspondingly decline,
over a fifth of Year 11 students remained unsure of
the SS and its association with the Holocaust.
Figure 6.2 Percentage of students who responded
‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ when asked if the
SS were connected to the Holocaust (survey
question 31)
39.3
16.3
■ Yes ■ No ■ Don’t know
44.4
Percentage of students
The SS was mentioned sporadically in focus
groups with younger students. When reference was
made, it mainly took the form of just naming the
group without providing any further detail. Some
students demonstrated slightly more knowledge:
Elliot (Year 9, EE1), for example, described the SS
as Hitler’s ‘elite minions’, while Anthony (Year 9,
SE1) indicated ‘it wasn’t Hitler that thought of it
[the Holocaust] before the SS’. Yet only once did a
student explicitly tie the SS to acts of murder, and
even then with a qualifying admission of uncertainty:
‘I think they were the ones killing everyone,’ said
Rachael (Year 10, LON6), ‘killing all the Jews.
I can’t remember’.
Older students (Years 12 and 13) generally proved
more proficient in describing the multifunctional
nature of the SS, identifying various roles performed
by the organisation. In this vein they were described
as ‘the guards in the concentration camps who
obviously did most of the persecution in the name
of Hitler’ (Mike, Year 12, LON7) and members of the
Einsatzgruppen (Simon, Year 13, LON7); they were
‘in control of the chambers’ (Jack, Year 12, EE1) or
‘ran the camps’ and ‘were there’ – that is, in German
society – ‘to instil fear in people’ (Joe, Year 12,
EE1). They were also ‘Hitler’s kind of personal army’
(Damien, Year 12, LON3). While implicit in all these
responses was the sense of the SS having a crucial
relation to the Holocaust, not all students were as
explicit as Jeremy (Year 12, LON7) who asserted
‘they were quite pivotal’.
As the ‘Nazi vanguard’ (Bloxham 2009: 162)
which provided bureaucratic administration,
oversight of the running of the camp system and
personnel to carry out the killing, it is hard to
overstate just how essential the SS were to the
Holocaust. Furthermore, since key organs of the
state like the police force and intelligence services
came to be brought under the authority of the SS,
knowledge and understanding of the organisation
carries potentially productive lines of enquiry around
issues related to responsibility and culpability. For
all of these reasons students’ limited knowledge of
the SS is a cause for concern, and should arguably
prompt consideration of how students’ awareness
and understanding might be expanded.
In a similar vein, student recognition of
another collective integral to the Holocaust – the
Einsatzgruppen – was also limited. As noted in
Chapter 5, these mobile killing units were given
open-ended instructions to operate behind the front
line, removing those regarded as political and military
opponents – now, or in the future. Quickly, the routine
of rounding up Jewish men was extended to include
all Jews found in cities, towns and villages. The
modus operandi of these killers saw men, women
www.ioe.ac.uk/holocaust