Alors qu’un vaste corpus de documents existe en français concernant la Shoah en général et Auschwitz en particulier, celui relatif aux sites de l’Action Reinhard – Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec, et surtout Treblinka - est relativement peu abondant. Un des obstacles majeurs à leur étude est l’absence - voulue par les nazis - des traces « visibles » de leur existence. Rasés et transformés en exploitations agricoles dès la fin 1943, aucun ne fut libéré par une quelconque armée. En France, Treblinka reste un camp encore largement méconnu. De tous les centres de mise à mort de l’opération Reinhard, ce fut pourtant celui où l’assassinat des Juifs fut le plus « efficace » (selon les responsables du système) - près d’un million victimes en 400 jours - et celui où les survivants furent (relativement) les plus nombreux : entre 50 et 70 en 1945. Il représente le cas paradigmatique d’une « impossibilité de rendre compte ». Décrire et réinscrire Treblinka dans l’Histoire, malgré tous ces écueils, c’est aussi déjouer les pronostics mémoriels du projet nazi tout en incitant l’historien à réfléchir sur les méthodes de son champ de recherche et sur le sens de son travail. / If a vast array of historical and literary material concerning WWII and the Holocaust is available in French, accounts concerning Aktion Reinhard in Poland, (Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka Camps) are relatively scarce. One of the major causes for this scarcity is the fact that the Nazis purposely destroyed almost all traces of their occurrence. Before the end of 1943, these sites were dismantled and turned into fake farms. None of these places was “liberated” by any military force.In France, Treblinka remains quite unknown. So is the fact that it was the most “successful” unit of the Aktion Reinhard death machinery. Close to a million Jews were assassinated there during the 400 days that it operated. It was also there that the number of survivors was relatively important: 50 to 70 were alive in 1945. It can be viewed as the paradigmatic case of words’ inability to express such knowledge. Despite all these difficulties, the description and reinsciption in History of Treblinka’s reality addresses a double necessity: to defeat the Nazis’ predictions regarding the erasure of their crimes and to confront the Historian with the relevance of his methods and the meaning of his endeavor.

During World War Two, the European Jewish population was faced with this during Shoah (the Holocaust). From Kristallnacht in November 1938 to the collapse of the Nazi Regime in May 1945, they relied heavily on each other and their instincts to discover ways to survive while in the ghettos, labor camps, and partisan units, if they managed to escape and head for the forests. Even with some Jews turning on their own to help the Nazis, the vast majority stuck together and did everything they could to persist and survive. While only two uprisings were viewed as successes, the ghetto and camp revolts that failed still showed the Jewish people were not going to lie down to the Germans and that they were never going to give up. This thesis details some of the ways Jews fought for survival in the ghettos, concentration/extermination camps, and as partisan fighters.

I analyze the behavior of Jews imprisoned in the Treblinka, Sobibór, and Birkenau extermination camps in order to illustrate a systematic process of deception and psychological conditioning, which the Nazis employed during World War II to preclude Jewish resistance to the Final Solution. In Chapter I, I present resistance historiography as it has developed since the end of the war. In Chapter II, I delineate my own argument on Jewish behavior during the Final Solution, limiting my definition of resistance and the applicability of my thesis to behavior in the extermination camp, or closed, environment. In Chapters III, IV, and V, I present a detailed narrative of the Treblinka, Sobibór, and Birkenau revolts using secondary sources and selected survivor testimony. Finally, in Chapter VI, I isolate select parts of the previous narratives and apply my argument to demonstrate its validity as an explanation for Jewish behavior.

This paper considers the symbiotic relationship between iconic visual representations of the Holocaust – specifically film and Holocaust sites – and processes of Holocaust memorialization. In conjunction, specific sites and objects related to the Holocaust have become icons. I suggest that specific Holocaust sites as well as Holocaust films can be perceived as elements of one and/or multiple translocal assemblage/s. My focus in this analysis is on the role of knowledge production and witness creation in Holocaust memorialization. It is not my intention to diminish the role of Holocaust memorialization; rather, I seek to look beyond representational aspects, and consider the processual relationships involved in the commemoration of the Holocaust in institutions, such as memorial sites and museums, as well as through elements of popular culture, such as films. Furthermore, I analyze the tangible and intangible layers of memories and meaning present in Holocaust films and sites through the lens of palimpsests. These conceptual frameworks allow me to consider how visual representations of the Holocaust, such as film, and site inform each other? How are specific representations of Holocaust sites and objects shaping and informing the commemoration of the Holocaust in the 21st century? / Graduate / 0326 / 0335 / 0751 / myriamt@uvic.ca

No description available.