What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

160
Who were the perpetrators and who was responsible?
at least had to be persuaded; and second, that those
who bought into the promises being made were –
crucially – choosing to support the Nazi leader.
The notion that some Germans made a conscious,
rational decision to support Hitler, having concluded
that this was the best option in the circumstances,
was coupled with references by some students to
other considerations. Particularly strong here were
ideas of patriotism, and familial bonds.
Other Year 12 and 13 students also offered further
rational attempts to explain why Hitler enjoyed
popular support. For example, one student argued
that Hitler ‘had quite a personal relationship with the
electorate, so they really believed in him and believed
in what he was saying that maybe made it easier for
him to … impose his policies on Germany’ (Lucas,
Year 12, LON7). Another student argued that, at a
time of economic and political crisis, Hitler ‘convinced
them [the German people] over the course of his
campaign that they needed someone like him’ (Jake,
Year 12, LON7). Meanwhile, Jamie (Year 13, LON3)
reasoned why Hitler gained the people’s support:
‘You can see why in a time when Germany were in
despair and upheaval, you can understand why a
man who is so well spoken, able to sort of get the
people onside in his radical speeches.’
Many other older students also referred to the
political and economic context in Germany in the
early 1930s to explain why ordinary people turned
towards extremist parties. For example, by drawing
comparisons with contemporary issues in Greece
and Britain, one Year 13 student rationalised why
people might potentially turn towards extremism:
I think there was a vacuum where the country
[Germany] was obviously in decline and it was
struggling for a variety of reasons, partly because
people like him were deliberately whipping it up and
making it worse, but he then presented himself as I
am the leader… the one you need, I am the radical
alternative and … the mainstream has failed. I saw
the Channel 4 news special thing on the situation
in Greece, where obviously things have got very
dire and they are talking about it becoming the
first country to go from being developed to being
semi-developed, to actually go backwards, which
obviously is massive, and there was a thing about
Golden Dawn, who are neo-Nazis and pretty open
about it, their logo is basically a swastika, it’s a sort
of modified version… And there were people in the
streets making jokes and generally talking about the
Holocaust as if it was nothing, and there’s that idea
that in a country where things are going downhill,
people feel that the mainstream has failed so people
go to extreme alternatives. And maybe in the same
way that the BNP here got a bit of a, you know,
had a bit of a rise in European elections maybe five
years ago, there was the sense with the economic
crisis – that of course it wasn’t clearly anywhere
near as extreme as it was in Germany, or as it was
in Greece – but people felt that a radical alternative
was needed and perhaps didn’t necessarily, people
when they vote for BNP aren’t necessarily going,
‘We need to remove all people of this ethnicity from
the country’, and they are not necessarily complete
racists, and they are not neo-Nazis in the same way
the leadership is, but they sort of go along with it
because they just feel we need something radical,
and it’s not maybe thinking directly about each
individual policy (Kadir, Year 13, LON3).
This and other attempts to both contextualise and
utilise broader knowledge and understanding about
the rise of National Socialism was a distinct feature
of discussion with many older students. It often
enabled students to give more substantial accounts
and even emboldened some to enter into deeper
reflection – a good example of which featured in
the following exchange:
Jake: He was a really good orator as well. He didn’t just
get elected because people decided we want someone
like Hitler, I think he convinced them over the course of
his campaign that they needed someone like him.
Interviewer: So do you think Hitler just brainwashed
everyone?
Lucas: I think he set the agenda, I think you’re right.
Whether he actually put his name on the plans – he
channelled energy of the sort of views of the Nazis,
he set a platform for the Holocaust to eventually take
place. Whether he actually put his name, stamp on it or
not, I think without someone guiding it in that direction
it probably wouldn’t have been on the same level that
it would’ve been, whether people took it too far after
him is another matter, but he definitely takes some
responsibility (Year 12, LON7).
This student was not alone in refuting, or at least
questioning, the assumption that Hitler ‘brainwashed’
everyone; others conceded they too thought that
brainwashing could not entirely explain why so
many German people appeared willing to support
Hitler. However, just as some students in Years 12
and 13 sharply departed from younger students
in this way, it should be said this was not true of
everyone. Some were adamant that Hitler did
‘brainwash’ people – so much so ‘he’s able to
basically, like as a demigod just rile up the
population over time, and secure their support’
(Mike, Year 12, LON7).
Nevertheless, a more common intonation from
Year 12 and Year 13 students was that of Hitler
‘influencing’, or being an ‘influencer of people’s
opinions’ (Paul, Year 12, LON7). This idea was