What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

168
Who were the perpetrators and who was responsible?
■■
The youngest students of the age spectrum (11
to 13 years old) depicted ‘the Nazis’ as ‘believers’
or disciples of Hitler. By contrast 14 to 16-yearold
students were more likely to frame ‘the Nazis’
as a paramilitary organisation, characterised by
violence and visually distinctive uniforms. Students
in Years 12 and 13 (17 to 18 years old) were the
most able to name individual Nazi figures, and to
identify the political affiliation that ‘the Nazis’ had.
■■
With age, students increasingly appreciated that
the Nazis were centrally involved in the Holocaust.
Whereas, for example, 20.3 per cent of Year 7
students and 33.0 per cent of Year 9 students
held the Nazis in some way responsible for the
Holocaust, by Year 12 the figure had climbed to
49.7 per cent.
■■
Many younger students (11 to 16 years old)
did not describe Nazis in terms of being ‘evil’,
‘inhuman’ or monstrous. In fact, a large proportion
asserted that Nazis were human beings, who –
some indicated – were capable of benevolence
and being ‘nice’. There were indications from a
few students that Nazis ‘changed’ once in a group
or when doing their ‘job’.
■■
In various ways all students showed disdain
and abhorrence for the actions of the Nazis, but
a number did intimate that Nazis acted out of
self-interest – in terms of providing for their family
– and/or out of patriotic fervour. Although not
condoned, the patriotic dimension was seen
by some to be understandable.
■■
Only a small number of students (fewer than 10
per cent) considered that the German people were
complicit in, or responsible for, the persecution
and mass murder of Jews and other victims
groups. The vast majority of students separated
‘the Nazis’ from ‘the German people’. In terms of
the latter, they were variously regarded as having
had some role (often undetermined) in Hitler’s
coming to power, not having ‘done anything’ in
relation to the Holocaust (due to ignorance and/
or fear), and having offered help to Jews (most
commonly specified in terms of hiding). Students
in Years 12 and 13 not only had more to say
than younger students on all of these issues, but
were also alone in suggesting that some German
people were more directly involved – principally
through denouncing people to the authorities.
■■
Many students believed that the German people
succumbed to the will of Hitler and the Nazis
because they were ‘brainwashed’. Most younger
students, and a number of older students,
regarded speeches as the principal means
by which Hitler’s ‘thoughts’ and ‘ideas’ were
communicated. Hitler is presented as a talented
orator, often to the extent that his speeches
‘brainwash’ his audience into doing his bidding.
Some Year 12 and 13 students, although by
no means all, displayed more sophisticated
understandings of propaganda and showed some
scepticism towards ‘brainwashing’, with some
preferring to cast Hitler as an ‘influencer’.
■■
Many students believed that the German people
did not know about the mass killing of Jews and
other victim groups. Students typically believed
that, due to secrecy, propaganda and the remote
locations of the death camps, it was difficult for
ordinary people to know about the extremes of the
Holocaust. Some students even reasoned
that if the German people had known they would
not have allowed it to continue. Others suggested
that the German people were truly shocked when
they found out about the extermination camps
after the war.
■■
Alongside ‘brainwashing’ many students believed
terror and intimidation explained why the German
people supported the Nazis. Younger students
personalised obedience in terms of fear of Hitler;
older students framed terror in more systemic
terms. This partly reflected older students’ more
developed conceptions of the Nazi state.
■■
Nevertheless, a significant majority of all students
incorrectly believed that if a member of the
military or police refused to kill Jewish people
they would be shot. Only 5 per cent selected the
most appropriate answer: they would be given
another duty. In general, students did not accord
the German people and their collaborators with
agency, choice or responsibility.
■■
On many occasions, students’ understanding of
the Holocaust stood in direct contrast to prevailing
historical scholarship. For example, many students
adopted an ‘intentionalist’ perspective on the
Holocaust and typically assumed a Hitler-centric
focus on all events. Students also seemed less
aware of the pivotal role played by the Nazi
Party and the broad-based support it received.
Furthermore, students’ evaluation of what the
German people ‘knew’ about the Holocaust and
the role they played in the persecution and mass
murder was at odds with the historical record.