Holocaust: the facts

[Gramsci]

Christopher Browning ( a historian who studies the Holocaust) wrote a critique of Arno Mayer book.

Most of it is here:

The Path to Genocide

The Path to Genocide studies three aspects of the events leading up to the Final Solution in Nazi Germany. First, Nazi's "solutions" to their self-imposed "Jewish problem" before resorting to mass-murder are examined, specifically ghettoization and early resettlement plans to expel Jews to...

books.google.co.uk

Minus a few pages.

What I get from this is that Browning thinks Arno Mayer misses that exterminating the Jews was fundamental aspect of the Nazi ideology.

So he disagrees with Mayer argument that killing the Jews was started in earnest once the tide of War in the East started to turn against the German army. That it was due to rage at starting to lose the war against Judeo Bolshevism.

He says the historical evidence points to leading Nazis planning how to do this months before the war in the East lost momentum. So it was not related to victory or defeat.

What Mayer also misses is that Hitler wanted to "re order" Europe on racial grounds after victory in the East. General plan Ost. Which would have seen the removal of vast numbers of Slavic people as well as Jews to make space for colonialisation by Germans.

Which is not something that features in Mayer book.

So Browning is saying that Arno Mayer is wrong on time line for killing of the Jews and does not see how racism / genocidal anti semitism was keystone of Nazi ideology.

He says in effect Arno Mayer is denying the "final solution"

 

[Gramsci]

I've read to end of Mayers book now. At end he has speech he gave. After his book was published some Jewish students boycotted his classes. He was regarded as a revisionist downplaying the Holocaust as unique event in history.

His reply ( if I get him right) is that he wanted to get away from dogmatic ( in his eyes ) explanations of the Holocaust. That implied it was beyond explanation. He also questioned the use of the Holocaust in memory. Particularly in relation to Israel and France ( WW1 memorial). How historical events are used and memorialised.

( This I would think shows the relevance of reading about Holocaust and Fascism/ Nazi. In the present war in Ukraine the memory of WW2 is used by both sides. I think Mayer in his speech is saying that history has something to say to the present. And its used in the present. )

He wanted to put the Judeocide ( his preferred term as I don't think he liked the way the word Holocaust made it a sacred term) in the context of what he termed the second Thirty Years War. ( from 1914 to 1945). That during this Thirty Years War millions died. Civilians and soldiers. Many deliberately killed or so badly treated they didn't survive ( in WW2 Red army POWs). Other groups were targeted by Nazis such as Roma.

This was not to deny the Judeocide but to put it in the context of War and conflict in which violence was almost normalised.

 

[Gramsci]

Browning points out the Mayer has no explanation for the building the killing centres in Poland.

These were not like the other concentration camps which moved from housing political prisoners to POW and then Jews. Then become slave Labour camps for German businesss. Only at end become full on extermination camps.

I think Browning makes a valid point. Its something I noticed when I read the book ( see posts above).

 

[Gramsci]

I'm not sure what to make of all this. I don't think Mayer is downplaying the Holocaust. He certainly does oppose it being set up as a unique historical event beyond explanation and not to be compared to any other time.

He's also putting in context the use of concentration camps for other groups. In particular Russian POWs. Who were treated terribly.

He's implicating the German industry, upper classes and regular German army in the Judeocide. The crusade against Judeo Bolshevism had he argued a lot of support in Germany amongst church and old elites. At no time did elite powerful interests push back at the Nazi murderous plans. Other than keeping some Jews alive as slave labour.

So he is broadening out the Holocaust from something that was purely Hitler to wider groups in society.

In this sense I think he makes a good argument.

 

[Gramsci]

Mayer does not have footnotes in his book. He said he wanted it to be for the general reader and didn't want them put off.

My amateur googling around this threw up name of Tim Mason. Died young but his work on Nazi state influenced later historians.

Review here of his book and a book on resistance in the concentration camps. Both move away from idea that Nazi state was monolithic totalitarian state.

Tim Mason argues that the war in the East was a way that Hitler dealt with fear of losing support of the German workers. Tim Mason argues that class struggle in a very loose sense still went on. Despite the Nazis crushing left parties and unions.

German re armanent put in place by Hitler lead to full employment. So despite by that time the Nazis being in full control of government they still feared the working class. Who were getting restive.

So for Tim Mason what pushed the war in the East was that this was only way for the Nazis to keep a restive population onside. It was foremost Imperial colonialisation. Getting extra resources for the German population. "Social Imperialism"

Tim Mason took British history from below to study Nazi state. Kershaw sites him as an influence. Mason was not a historian of the Holocaust as such. More a historian of Fascism/ Nazi state.

Mayer points out in his book that the Nazi state did not fully mobilise its population for war. Unlike Britain. Hitler in this view was not fully sure of the allegiance of the German people to his cause.

Hope against the Holocaust

Its a slightly different view to Mayer who saw the War in the East as a Crusade against Judeo Bolshevism.

 

[tim]

"Time of Darkness and Silence": a documentary about Romani extras (mostly members of Django Reinhardt's extended family) used by Leni Riefenstahl in one of her films. They were taken from the camps spent two years on location and then, despite Riefenstahl's promises, sent to Auschwitz. It mostly contains the reflections of the survivors and ends with a Riesentall lecture and book signing with one of the survivors sitting in the audience. This is apparently, a bootleg copy as the director was sued by Riefenstahl and refused to remove one short clip that caused Reifenstahl offence.



This is a Guardian podcast about the documentary director, but I'd focus on the film.


Best of 2022 … so far: Burying Leni Riefenstahl: one woman’s lifelong crusade against Hitler’s favourite film-maker – podcast

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I've not read this myself yet, but its supposed to be good. Might be worth a read. It is related to the holocaust :

Hitler's American Model

How American race law provided a blueprint for Nazi Germany

press.princeton.edu

Hitler's American Model by James Q. Whitman (Paperback)

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on...

wordery.com

 

[Gramsci]

I've not read this myself yet, but its supposed to be good. Might be worth a read. It is related to the holocaust :

Hitler's American Model

How American race law provided a blueprint for Nazi Germany

press.princeton.edu

Hitler's American Model by James Q. Whitman (Paperback)

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on...

wordery.com

I haven't read this but these kinds of parallels I'm not comfortable with.

Arguments about timing excluded but the Nazi policy ended up being about extermination of European Jews. In a very short time period.

Whether Hitler had this in his mind from the start or failure on the Eastern front military quickened it this was mass murder.

USA state racism was part of a continuum of racism that was at the time accepted as the norm. Same with British Empire.

It wasn't necessarily genocidal in way the Nazis pursued it. It was violent and any uprising against it was put down with extreme violence. It however wasn't about extermination. It was about keeping non white populations in their supposed right place. . But I think it could be argued there is a difference to the Nazis. Racism against black people of African descent was about exploiting them rather than removing them from society. Jews in Europe were to be completely removed from European society. In one way or another under Nazis. I'm not saying there is a hierarchy of racism but that there are historical differences.

In later times British Imperialism justified itself as paternalistic despotism until these subject people learnt under British guidance to rule themselves at some distant point in future. Which kept on being further off.

Also Hitler had temerity to apply these measures to Europe not colonies in Africa.

Ideas around race, social Darwinism, eugenics weren't specific to the Nazis.

It's that the Nazis did this to the extreme. And unlike other right wing regimes in Europe at the time they had particular issue about removing Jews from European society.

It's not that the Nazis took ideas from US it's that the general beliefs about races and superiority of white races was common sense at the time in Western world.

What more concerns me is countries like my own foregrounding being on side of the "good" in WW2 and using this to put in background our Empire. We're the good guys.

WW2 wasn't fought by Britain to rid world of Imperialism and racism.

 

[David Clapson]

Was genocide of Jews the central goal of the Nazi party? Some say it was. I have always thought it was one plank of a larger project, which was to build a so-called Aryan superstate. Killings Jews, Slavs, disabled people, homosexuals, Roma etc were steps along the way. (I hate to state these horrors in such bald terms, I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm trying to downplay them.) I haven't read Mein Kampf and I don't know whether the ambition to annihilate Jews was the central idea which spawned all the invasions and territorial ambitions.

 

[bimble]

Was genocide of Jews the central goal of the Nazi party? Some say it was. I have always thought it was one plank of a larger project, which was to build a so-called Aryan superstate. Killings Jews, Slavs, disabled people, homosexuals, Roma etc were steps along the way. (I hate to state these horrors in such bald terms, I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm trying to downplay them.) I haven't read Mein Kampf and I don't know whether the ambition to annihilate Jews was the central idea which spawned all the invasions and territorial ambitions.

no, just a necessary element of the grand vision not the whole point of it at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I haven't read this but these kinds of parallels I'm not comfortable with.

Arguments about timing excluded but the Nazi policy ended up being about extermination of European Jews. In a very short time period.

Whether Hitler had this in his mind from the start or failure on the Eastern front military quickened it this was mass murder.

USA state racism was part of a continuum of racism that was at the time accepted as the norm. Same with British Empire.

It wasn't necessarily genocidal in way the Nazis pursued it. It was violent and any uprising against it was put down with extreme violence. It however wasn't about extermination. It was about keeping non white populations in their supposed right place. . But I think it could be argued there is a difference to the Nazis. Racism against black people of African descent was about exploiting them rather than removing them from society. Jews in Europe were to be completely removed from European society. In one way or another under Nazis. I'm not saying there is a hierarchy of racism but that there are historical differences.

In later times British Imperialism justified itself as paternalistic despotism until these subject people learnt under British guidance to rule themselves at some distant point in future. Which kept on being further off.

Also Hitler had temerity to apply these measures to Europe not colonies in Africa.

Ideas around race, social Darwinism, eugenics weren't specific to the Nazis.

It's that the Nazis did this to the extreme. And unlike other right wing regimes in Europe at the time they had particular issue about removing Jews from European society.

It's not that the Nazis took ideas from US it's that the general beliefs about races and superiority of white races was common sense at the time in Western world.

What more concerns me is countries like my own foregrounding being on side of the "good" in WW2 and using this to put in background our Empire. We're the good guys.

WW2 wasn't fought by Britain to rid world of Imperialism and racism.

It's not just the racism, of course – the US was the world leader in eugenics in the 1920s. It wouldn't be a lie to say that the Nazis were following in their lead with forced sterilisations of those deemed inferior, including those deemed 'racially impure'. Hitler himself expressed admiration.

In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler referred to American eugenics and cited how successful the sterilization laws were in California (“Eugenics”, 2019; Farber, 2008).

Early American Eugenics Movement – First Wave Feminisms

Plus, there were influential racist white people in the US who wanted not just to keep black people down but to get shot of them, to have them sent to Africa or somewhere. They created a 'negro problem'. The Nazis created a 'Jewish problem'. Both pondered various solutions to their 'problems'.

There were also important intellectual precursors to the Nazis in the UK. The likes of Herbert Spencer, for instance, with his racist theories. But it states the case too strongly to say that racism was 'common sense'. Far too many people went along with such racist theories, but these 'general beliefs' didn't come from nowhere and they weren't ubiquitous.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

It appears that US laws regarding 'native Americans' also played a role in the Nazi formulation of Jewish policies and laws.

And as I say, I've not read Hitler's American Model myself, but I have read these two articles about it :

Nazi Germany and American Indians

Most Americans would probably be shocked to learn that in the early 1930s Nazi scholars, lawyers, and officials were heavily influenced by United States law

indiancountrytoday.com

How American Racism Influenced Hitler

How did a civilized society come to embrace Hitler’s extreme ideas? In 2018, Alex Ross wrote about the scholars mapping the international precursors of Nazism.

www.newyorker.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a scene in the film Judgement at Nuremberg in which the defence lawyer lays out the ways in which the Nazis were following the US lead, citing Buck vs Bell, 1927, a Supreme Court ruling that made forced sterilisation legal 'for the protection and health of the state'.

Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia

 

[billy_bob]

Was genocide of Jews the central goal of the Nazi party? Some say it was. I have always thought it was one plank of a larger project, which was to build a so-called Aryan superstate. Killings Jews, Slavs, disabled people, homosexuals, Roma etc were steps along the way. (I hate to state these horrors in such bald terms, I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm trying to downplay them.) I haven't read Mein Kampf and I don't know whether the ambition to annihilate Jews was the central idea which spawned all the invasions and territorial ambitions.

There's no straightforward answer to that. To some, at some stages, they were a convenient scapegoat. I think I'm right in saying that the first victims of the experiments in extermination using gas were disabled people and 'deviants', so at that stage at least it's arguable those groups were seen as more of an impediment or threat to the development of a master race. But increasingly, and certainly to Hitler himself, anti-semitism and 'dealing with the Jewish problem' was an obsession to the point that if anything it interfered with the larger project. It denied them the science that led to nuclear weapons, after all.

(e2a: not that I'm holding the use of that science up as a good thing of course; but having the Nazis use it rather than 'us' would hardly have been an improvement ...)

 

[Gramsci]

Was genocide of Jews the central goal of the Nazi party? Some say it was. I have always thought it was one plank of a larger project, which was to build a so-called Aryan superstate. Killings Jews, Slavs, disabled people, homosexuals, Roma etc were steps along the way. (I hate to state these horrors in such bald terms, I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm trying to downplay them.) I haven't read Mein Kampf and I don't know whether the ambition to annihilate Jews was the central idea which spawned all the invasions and territorial ambitions.

Reading the Arno J Mayer book I've posted about and I'd say Hitler wanted Jews out of Europe. The argument is whether this was by mass killings or expulsion. Mayer argues that when the war on the Eastern front became bogged down the anger and resentment was unleashed on the Jews.

Your right the war on Eastern front was a colonial war. The Slavs were to be replaced with German farmers. And used as slave labour. Most were to be starved to death. The Hunger plan.

The argument about genocide of Jews being always central goal or not is one of the areas of debate in studying the Holocaust.

I'd say that Hitler wanted Jews out of Europe. Either expulsion or killing. With war on Eastern front being stalled mass murder became main option. But it could have been expulsion.

This is the difference between USA and Hitler. For Hitler removing civil rights was part of means to get Jews to leave. In South of USA it was about keeping a black population for work but treating them as second class citizens. Or rather as non citizens . As the right to vote was made difficult.

The legalistic way of removing Jews from civil life was I think partly pragmatic. The street fighting Brown shirts were all for attacking the Jews. Hitler tried to use both a Street fighting and "legalistic" route. Getting rid of Brown shirts when they started to upset big business and the old conservative elites

 

[weltweit]

I just listened to a BBC Radio production on Eugenics, its history in the USA and how it was eagerly adopted by Nazi Germany.

It turns out it was part of a series, with at least one more to come and three from the past.

The BBC Summary page is here, with 4 to listen to.

BBC Sounds - Bad Blood: The Story of Eugenics - Available Episodes

Listen to the latest episodes of Bad Blood: The Story of Eugenics on BBC Sounds

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[CNT36]

If that's the Adam Rutherford thing he's done a book on it worth reading.

 

[story]

This is pretty detailed. Uses contemporary documents to present the trials as they happened. No hammy recreation.

BBC Sounds - Nuremberg: The Trial of the Nazi War Criminals - Available Episodes

Listen to the latest episodes of Nuremberg: The Trial of the Nazi War Criminals on BBC Sounds.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[bimble]

every time I see this thread get bumped I get a sort of lurching tummy-dread that it’s gonna be some twat rocking up to tell us it never happened. That’s just sad isn’t it. thankful every time when it’s not them.

 

[story]

:solidarity emoji:

 

[weltweit]

If that's the Adam Rutherford thing he's done a book on it worth reading.

Yes, the series is by Rutherford. I am just listening to the other ones now.

 

[weltweit]

 

[AmateurAgitator]

One of my facebook friends recently posted this, about Jewish partisan resistance against the nazis and a new documentary about it :

Over 25,000 Jewish partisans fought back against the Nazis. A new film tells 8 of their stories.

Through interviews and photographs, "Four Winters" documents the little-known story of Jewish partisans during World War II.

forward.com

 

[Idris2002]

I looked up Jewish partisans on wikipedia a wee while ago, hoping for heroic tales of derring-do against the Nazi beast. What I got alleged participation by Jewish partisans in ethnic violence against Polish peasant communities. . .

I say "alleged" because articles like this turn out to be written people who have a rather strange relationship with the truth:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939


Abstract from this open access article:

This essay uncovers the systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history on the English-language Wikipedia, the world’s largest encyclopedia. In the last decade, a group of committed Wikipedia editors have been promoting a skewed version of history on Wikipedia, one touted by right-wing Polish nationalists, which whitewashes the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and bolsters stereotypes about Jews. Due to this group’s zealous handiwork, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland minimize Polish antisemitism, exaggerate the Poles’ role in saving Jews, insinuate that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles (Żydokomuna or Judeo–Bolshevism), blame Jews for their own persecution, and inflate Jewish collaboration with the Nazis. To explain how distortionist editors have succeeded in imposing this narrative, despite the efforts of opposing editors to correct it, we employ an innovative methodology. We examine 25 public-facing Wikipedia articles and nearly 300 of Wikipedia’s back pages, including talk pages, noticeboards, and arbitration cases. We complement these with interviews of editors in the field and statistical data gleaned through Wikipedia’s tool suites. This essay contributes to the study of Holocaust memory, revealing the digital mechanisms by which ideological zeal, prejudice, and bias trump reason and historical accuracy. More broadly, we break new ground in the field of the digital humanities, modelling an in-depth examination of how Wikipedia editors negotiate and manufacture information for the rest of the world to consume.

I've noticed similar stuff with articles about the Portugese empire in Africa, but that's another thread. I'll leave it to someone else to post the Simpsons bit where Bart says "but Dad, it's on wikipedia", and Homer says "then we'll change it when we get home".

 

[scalyboy]

I looked up Jewish partisans on wikipedia a wee while ago, hoping for heroic tales of derring-do against the Nazi beast. What I got alleged participation by Jewish partisans in ethnic violence against Polish peasant communities. . .

I say "alleged" because articles like this turn out to be written people who have a rather strange relationship with the truth:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939


Abstract from this open access article:


I've noticed similar stuff with articles about the Portugese empire in Africa, but that's another thread. I'll leave it to someone else to post the Simpsons bit where Bart says "but Dad, it's on wikipedia", and Homer says "then we'll change it when we get home".

Off the top of my head, apart from the Bielski brothers in Belarus, there was an organised resistance in the Kovno ghetto that became a group of partisans operating in Lithuania; and in another instance of Jewish resistance against the Nazis, the Sobibor and Treblinka uprisings have always stuck in my mind. The planning and organisation of these - in the most horrific and dangerous environment imaginable - I can't begin to imagine...

In the cases of Sobibor and Treblinka, the Nazis' decision to dismantle and shut down both death camps was a direct result of the uprising & escape at each.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Probably the most bizarre bit of the Holocaust was Theresienstadt.

Theresienstadt

The Theresienstadt camp/ghetto served multiple purposes during its existence from 1941-45 and had an important propaganda function for the Germans. Learn more.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

'Theresienstadt served an important propaganda function for the Germans. The publicly stated purpose for the deportation of the Jews from Germany was their "resettlement View This Term in the Glossary to the east," where they would be compelled to perform forced labor. Since it seemed implausible that elderly Jews could be used for forced labor, the Nazis used the Theresienstadt ghetto to hide the nature of the deportations. In Nazi propaganda, Theresienstadt was cynically described as a "spa town" where elderly German Jews could "retire" in safety. The deportations to Theresienstadt were, however, part of the Nazi strategy of deception. The ghetto was in reality a collection center for deportations to ghettos and killing centers in Nazi-occupied eastern Europe.

Propaganda scene staged in the Theresienstadt ghetto​

A scene staged by the Nazis for an International Red Cross inspection of the Theresienstadt ghetto. Czechoslovakia, June 23, 1944.

• Comite International de la Croix Rouge

Succumbing to pressure following the deportation of Danish Jews to Theresienstadt, the Germans permitted the International Red Cross to visit in June 1944. It was all an elaborate hoax. The Germans intensified deportations from the ghetto shortly before the visit, and the ghetto itself was "beautified." Gardens were planted, houses painted, and barracks renovated. The Nazis staged social and cultural events for the visiting dignitaries. Once the visit was over, the Germans resumed deportations from Theresienstadt, which did not end until October 1944.'

The even printed a special stamp that people used for parcels sent to their relatives in the camp.

Edited to add:

This is a very rare and expensive stamp, forgeries abound. The one above is genuine. (Not mine sadly.).

 

[scalyboy]

Probably the most bizarre bit of the Holocaust was Theresienstadt.
...
It was all an elaborate hoax.

The Holocaust murder machine was all about hoaxes and trickery.

They created a fake Treblinka railway station with a painted clock (which only ever told one time) and fake destinations painted on the walls

 

[Gramsci]

I looked up Jewish partisans on wikipedia a wee while ago, hoping for heroic tales of derring-do against the Nazi beast. What I got alleged participation by Jewish partisans in ethnic violence against Polish peasant communities. . .

I say "alleged" because articles like this turn out to be written people who have a rather strange relationship with the truth:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939


Abstract from this open access article:


I've noticed similar stuff with articles about the Portugese empire in Africa, but that's another thread. I'll leave it to someone else to post the Simpsons bit where Bart says "but Dad, it's on wikipedia", and Homer says "then we'll change it when we get home".

The history of nationalism in Eastern Europe is riven with anti semitism. Which was standard in Eastern Europe. Not something imposed by Hitler.

Its something that newish nations like Poland under the Law and Justice party would rather sweep under the carpet. The law criminalising historical study of this by the Law and Justice party goes on the "distinction" that one may criticise individuals but not the state/ nation

Poland makes partial U-turn on Holocaust law after Israel row

Threat of jail removed for those who attribute crimes of Nazi Germany to Poles

www.theguardian.com

Given that here is Polish film on a Pole who did save Jews and was recognised for having done so after the war

In Darkness (2011) ⭐ 7.3 | Drama, War

2h 25m | 15

www.imdb.com

The town he was in was in pre war Poland. It is now in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Germans. This Polish man helped Jews hid. This Polish town is now part of Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalists also ethnically cleansed Poles from what is now western Ukraine.

To my mind a lot of East European nationalism has parallels with arguments in this country about Empire. Those who criticise British Empire as racist and violent are wrong. Mistakes were made by individuals but after abolition of slavery it was gradually a benign Empire. So the narrative goes.

Jews were considered in Eastern Europe as not really part of the nationalist body politic. They didn't "fit"

When people from [ ex ] British colonies came to this country they were not accepted as part of the body politic.

Nationalism is about excluding/ marginalising group who don't fit the constructed categories.

See same mentality with how migrants trying to come now here are treated.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Sorry for the bump but I found myself down a rabbit hole when reading about Martin Luther.Bit of background to what followed later if you can be arsed to read about him

 

[Kate Sharpley]

"The story of the Oyneg Shabes archive. Between 1940 and 1943 a group of dedicated writers, led by historian Emanuel Ringeblum, secretly recorded daily Jewish existence in the Warsaw Ghetto. It would become history as survival. Anton Lesser narrates this new 10-part series revealing the lives, stories and destruction of the Ghetto." BBC Radio 4 - The Warsaw Ghetto: History as Survival