visiting Auschwitz

Yesterday, we went to Auschwitz to see the site where the Nazis murdered millions of people, mostly European Jews.

We'd had a good experience with Cracow Tours the previous day, so we went with them again. We were picked up at our hotel by mini-bus around 9:15am, transferred to a central location where we got on a big bus. It was certainly a popular tour as the bus was nearly full.

During the hour-plus drive from Krakow to Auschwitz I, we were shown a video featuring footage taken by the Russian Red Army when they liberated the camp in 1945. (Auschwitz consists of three actual camps; the original Auschwitz I, the largest Auschwitz II Birkenau, and the smaller Auschwitz III Monowitz, strategically located near a Germany factory so they could use the prisoners as forced labor.) As expected, it was a disturbing video, and between the video content, the somewhat bumpy ride, and the lack of circulation in the bus, both of us were a bit queasy when we arrived.

We spent nearly two hours touring the barracks and exhibits at Auschwitz I with a local guide, Simon. He was informative, opinionated, and had a strong local connection; his great-uncle had been imprisoned at Auschwitz for "political" reasons, and his wife's grandmother had nearly ended up inside as well, after trying to give food to some of the prisoners. Luckily for the grandmother, her husband had managed to bribe the SS men into letting her go.

Looking at numbers like "3 million Poles" or "6 million people", we know intellectually that it's a lot of people, but it's hard to get a real grasp on the scale of what happened there. Some of the exhibits helped a bit; there was a 30-meter long display filled with two tons of human hair (the Nazis shaved women's heads and used the hair to make blankets and jacket linings), another of thousands of eyeglasses, one of several thousand suitcases (representing a single train of arriving prisoners, when trains arrived multiple times a day), and more.

We also saw suffocation cells, starvation cells, standing cells (about a square meter, in which up to four prisoners were forced to stand), a gas chamber (where up to 3000 prisoners could be murdered at a time), a crematorium (where over 300 bodies would be cremated every day), mass gallows, a courtyard where shootings were carried out, lots of barbed wire fences, small huts where SS men would stand in inclement weather, and the infamous German "Work will set you free" sign over the gate of Auschwitz I.

Simon told us some stories; he's met several survivors of Auschwitz, and even now, they are badly scarred by their experiences. One woman can't stand striped clothing, because they were forced to wear stripes. Another man saw a funeral shortly after leaving the camp and couldn't reconcile all the crying and mourning with "just one coffin". Some former prisoners have severe reactions to white smocks, the German language, and other triggers.

We heard about a priest, Father Kolbe, took the place of another prisoner in a starvation cell, and when he failed to die after having been starved for several weeks, the frustrated SS men shot him to death. Later he was canonized by the Catholic Church and made a saint.

Simon also told us about a woman who was an obstetrician, who gave illegal abortions to women who arrived pregnant. Visibly pregnant women were immediately "selected" for death, but women who were early enough in their pregnancies might escape initial detection. Once they started showing, they would be killed, so the abortions allowed them to perhaps live longer. For the prisoners, often the only goal was to survive another day.

Several hundred people tried to escape Auschwitz, and some succeeded. In one successful attempt, four prisoners who had good "jobs" managed to steal SS uniforms and guns, and actually walked out of the camp posing as high officials. The Nazis punished escapes and escape attempts severely; if one person tried to escape, ten people from his/her barrack would be killed, to serve as a warning. There were also attempts at rebellion but none succeeded.

We saw walls and walls of prisoner photos, mostly political and non-Jewish. (After 1942, when Auschwitz evolved from a labor camp into a death camp, most Jews were killed immediately and not registered and photographed.) When prisoners arrived in the camp, 75% were "selected" for instant death by gas chamber (the elderly, the sick, children, pregnant women), and the others were sent to the labor camps to work 11 hours a day on a daily diet of 1500-1700 calories. Auschwitz II Birkenau (which was huge, 425 acres and ten times the size of Auschwitz I) was built using the forced labor of these prisoners. Those who worked generally lasted only a few months before dying of exhaustion, starvation, and/or disease.

There were only a few latrines in the camp, and prisoners were only allowed to use the facilities twice a day; once in the morning and once at night. Because of starvation diarrhea, prisoners ended up soiling themselves regularly, and as a result, typhus, dysentery, and other diseases were rampant. The Nazis actually avoided the toilet areas because they were afraid of catching the diseases, leaving one area where prisoners could more safely communicate and effect black market transactions of items found on dead bodies and in suitcases of arriving prisoners.

The belongings of the prisoners were sorted, cleaned, and sent to Germany. Gold teeth were melted down, clothing was disinfected, and jewelry and valuables were extracted from various hiding places. Belongings which had not yet been sent away were stored in storehouses which were nicknamed "Canada" by the prisoners, as Canada was considered a land of plenty. On the signs that we saw, the storehouses were actually labelled "Canada I", "Canada II", etc.

There was an exhibit with photos which attempted to document the degree to which the prisoners were starved. One woman weighed about 23 kg (50 lbs) when she was liberated. In the photos of her four months after liberation, she still looked completely emaciated. Several prisoners died after leaving the camp because they tried to eat normally, and their stomachs could no longer deal with the food.

After looking at the exhibits at Auschwitz I, we went to Auschwitz II Birkenau a few kilometers away. There was no museum there, only empty barracks, but the vastness of the place was much more striking. The Nazis destroyed much of the camp when they realized the Russian Red Army was advancing on them, but there are still ruins that go for miles.

By the numbers: about 6 million people, mostly Jews, were killed by the Nazis in concentration camps during World War II (of course, many more died outside the camps, in battle and otherwise). Other groups which were targeted were: political prisoners (Poles, Russians, and more), gypsies, homosexuals, and other "undesirables". About 1.3 million of those were imprisoned at Auschwitz, of which about 1.1 million died. Only prisoners at Auschwitz were tattooed with registration numbers. Before the war, there were about 3.5 million Jewish people in Poland, which was nearly a third of the population. About 3 million Polish Jews were killed by the Nazis in the camps, and many others must have fled, because there are only tens of thousands left today. Jews were sent to Auschwitz from all over Europe; France, Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and other occupied areas. Great Britain escaped this fate, as it was not occupied, having won the Battle of Britain. In one particularly brutal period, half of all Hungarian Jews (over 400,000 people) were sent to Auschwitz and murdered in a period of only 56 days. Overall, about 6 million Polish people died during World War II, which is about 20% of the pre-war population.

A variety of political and ethical questions remain. Simon seemed to think that the Allies should have taken action during the war to bomb the camp, the train lines, or otherwise break the mechanism and delay the killings. Others question the local population and ask if they were not anti-Semitic, why they didn't do anything to help. In one heated exchange, a person on our tour accused Simon of spreading propaganda and actually compared the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the atrocities committed by the Nazis, which I thought was ridiculous (and I think the rest of the group did too). Godwin's Law, indeed!

It was true that Simon had a strong anti-Soviet bent; he told us "anyone who says Poland accepted Communism is lying", and also mentioned that his great-uncle who survived Auschwitz only to be imprisoned by the Communists later. But, I imagine Poland suffered quite a bit during the Iron Curtain days, so his animosity is likely justified.

Anyway, Simon handled the situation pretty gracefully and proceeded with the rest of the tour. As I told D later, it's possible that Simon had a biased view, but it seemed to be a very Polish view, and that's why we're in Poland; to hear about that viewpoint.

In the end, we were both glad that we had gone to Auschwitz; it's one thing to hear in clinical terms about millions of people being killed, but it's yet another to hear the stories and see the possessions and the eerily normal-looking brick barracks.

you should vote

In case you've been hiding in a cave for months, here's a reminder: Today is election day!

Over the years I've spent a lot of time trying to convince various people that they should vote. This year, my college roommate is registered to vote for the first time ever. Yay! I'm not sure I can claim any credit but it's good news either way.

Last week I read an article about why women, in particular, should vote. I dislike the idea that women should feel more responsibility to vote because of the history of women's suffrage, but I do think it's good to remember and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of the women who fought for that worthy cause.

I especially liked this part:

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The doctor admonished the men:

"Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

still remember 7th grade history class?

Yes, in fact I do. I just took one of those online Can you pass a citizenship test? quizzes and was all proud of myself for scoring 100%. I think doing well on these things makes me feel justified for storing lots of random mostly useless facts in my head.

Hawaiians from Taiwan?

I vaguely remember hearing something awhile ago about how recent research had suggested that Polynesians may have originally come from Taiwan. I was telling a friend about it today, and in trying to find support for my claim, I came across this Economist article. I hadn't seen it before, but it looks like it may have been the primary source for whatever I had seen/heard:

Maori legend has it that Polynesians originated from a place called "Hawaiki". Where Hawaiki was located is a mystery. But the toings and froings of the Polynesians—arguably the greatest seafarers in history—have long intrigued researchers of an anthropological turn of mind, and two of them, Jean Trejaut and Marie Lin of Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, think they know the answer to the riddle of Hawaiki: Taiwan.

This is not a total surprise. Linguistic evidence pointed that way already. But, in a study just published in Public Library of Science Biology, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin nail the question down with that talisman of modern research, genetics.

Present day Taiwan has a population of 23m, but only 400,000 are descended from the island's original inhabitants (the majority of the population is descended from mainland Chinese who have settled there over the past 400 years). Those 400,000 speak—or, at least historically spoke—languages belonging to a group known as Austronesian, which is unrelated to Chinese, but includes the Polynesian tongues. Indeed, small though the aboriginal Taiwanese population is, it accounts for nine of the ten linguistic sub-families of Austronesian. Hence the supposition that Hawaiki might be Taiwan.

To check this out, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin decided to look at variations in mitochondrial DNA. This is passed from mother to offspring without genetic admixture from the father, because it is found in the bodies of cells—including, crucially, egg cells—rather than in the cell nuclei where the rest of the genes reside. (Sperm jettison their mitochondrial DNA at fertilisation.) That makes tracing mutations through the generations easier than looking at those genes that get mixed up by sex.

In a study involving 640 people from nine Taiwanese tribes, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin found three mutations shared by Taiwanese, Polynesians and Melanesians (who also speak Austronesian) which are not found in other Asians. So the mystery seems to have been solved at last. Where the Taiwanese came from, though, is a different question again.

words of a queen

For some reason, I've always been fascinated by European royalty. I've read all about Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry VIII and his wives, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, William the Conqueror, and many others.

Recently, I've been on a Queen Elizabeth kick. Rosalind Miles' I, Elizabeth is a fairly easy read, but I don't think it does justice to the real Queen Elizabeth.

Anyway, I recently came across this Queen Elizabeth quote in a recent SF Chronicle article, which I liked very much:

Queen Elizabeth I [...] in her famed speech to English troops before their showdown with the Spanish armada declared: "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England, too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm."

The Other Boleyn Girl

Even though I'm a pretty big fan of historical fiction, I didn't get around to reading Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl until sometime last year. I quite enjoyed the premise and the fresh viewpoint, if not always the writing.

Just this week, I found out that BBC Films has already finished shooting the movie version, starring Natalie Portman as Anne Boleyn and Scarlett Johansson as the titular Mary Boleyn. Yet another reason to get Netflix.

history

I was having a conversation with a friend today, which involved topics ranging from the recent rise of the Chinese economy, to World War II and its aftereffects, the American Civil War, and feudalism in the Middle Ages.

It reminded me of how hard it is to study history; it's a non-linear subject that we often try to fit into a one-dimensional timeline, and you can always find additonal factors that may have affected the course of events.

A thought that occurred to me during that conversation, is that history is what happens when you let human nature run amok. We all know how complicated human nature can be.

the Baron has arrived

I started watching the Warriors a bit in the mid to late '80s, when Jordan was ruling the league. Back then, Mullin, Hardaway, and Richmond were doing their thing, and the Warriors weren't the best, but at least they made the playoffs every couple of years.

In late '91, Richmond got traded to the Kings for Billy Owens, and although the Warriors did make the playoffs the year afterwards, I always felt like things started to go downhill from there. There was a faint glimmer of hope in '94 when Mullin, Webber and Sprewell managed to get the Warriors back into the playoffs, but then Webber got traded, and a few years later Sprewell famously tried to choke P.J. Carlesimo. After that, I basically gave up watching basketball at all; although I did read the sports section, so like most Bay Area sports fans, I could always reel off a list of former Warriors who were now stars of other teams.

A couple of years ago, when I started to play basketball, I started to watch the NBA again. I enjoyed watching the Rockets, the Kings, the Pistons, the Spurs, the Mavs, and the Heat, but I never really felt any compulsion to start watching the Warriors again, until a month ago.

On February 25th, the Warriors acquired Baron Davis for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis. The Chronicle's Ray Ratto said it best: Chris Mullin finally found a talented player on a team so bad that going to the Warriors would seem like a fabulous career move.

A bunch of us happened to have tickets to the Pistons game on the night that Baron Davis made his debut with Golden State. Our anticipation was well rewarded, because as soon as Davis got on the court, the Warriors started to look better. It was obvious that Davis was giving the team some much needed leadership and explosiveness. And, even though the Warriors still lost, the crowd at the Coliseum showed their appreciation (and probably, surprise) throughout.

Since then, the Warriors have gone 8-7, which doesn't sound that great, except to anyone who's lived in the Bay Area in the past 15 years. Players like Richardson, Dunleavy, Cabarkapa, and Pietrus are taking better shots, and putting up significantly higher numbers. I imagine Richardson must thank his lucky stars every day; those monster dunks he's now getting wouldn't be happening with Claxton or Fisher at point.

With the addition of Davis, the Warriors are suddenly fun to watch, they play with energy and best of all, they look like they're on their way up. They've beat a succession of good teams, including Sacramento (twice!) and Phoenix. If Davis can get fully healthy next year (that's one serious worry; he's known to be injury-prone) I think the Warriors will have a real chance to make the playoffs.

Tora!

I just realized it's Pearl Harbor day.

I'll have to see if I can Tivo a showing of Tora! Tora! Tora!; it's a very good Pearl Harbor movie told from both the American and Japanese viewpoints, and I haven't watched it since I was about ten.

back to my favorite topic

Wow, I haven't written a post about Taiwan in months...how unlike me.

I was reading an article this morning with a pretty good explanation of Taiwan's political situation.

As an aside, the article also includes an explanation of Taiwan's history by former President Lee, that clearly articulates a point that I often have trouble making; that China does not have any reasonable claim to sovereignty over Taiwan:

Lee pointed out that Chiang's regime was originally asked by the United States in 1945 to go to Taiwan to set up a temporary administration, since the US itself was somewhat overstretched at the time. There were no implications of sovereignty attached, no more than there are to the United Kingdom's current responsibility for Basra in Iraq. The whole question of who was to own what was to be sorted out at the peace treaty to be negotiated after the end of the war.

Chiang's regime then made a land grab - based on the gentlemen's agreement - claiming to have recovered China's "lost" territory, and returning to Taiwan as the sovereign power, which, of course, it wasn't.

In 1952 the final claims of the war were settled in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. By this time there were two rival Chinese regimes, Mao's in Beijing and Chiang's in what it is becoming fashionable in Taipei to call "occupied Taiwan". In the treaty Japan finally renounced the sovereignty over Taiwan it had gained in 1895 and that sovereignty was given to - nobody, a situation that remains to this day.

Anyway, back to the main point...

The author uses the premise that any act of aggression by China will push Taiwan's voters further towards independence-minded candidates, and hypothesizes that the recent inflammatory statements by President Chen and ex-President Lee are designed to provoke Beijing into initiating such acts. It is possible that some of Taiwan's politicians may use China's highly reactionary nature to advance their agendas, but politicians aren't the only ones annoying Communist China. Last month, 150,000+ marched in Taipei to advocate that Taiwan (currently the "Republic of China") officially rename itself as Taiwan. Although it's a possibility, it isn't highly likely that all of those citizens were involved in a ploy to advance the DPP party agenda. I think it's just becoming clear to an increasing number of Taiwanese that they have to stop cowering in China's shadow, so that they can get the international recognition that they deserve.

Robert E. Lee

I've just started reading The Killer Angels by Michael Sharra. It's a work of fiction set during the Civil War, but I hear it's very close to historically accurate.

Coincidentally, I ran across a blog posting today about combat leadership and how it applies to business, which discussed a scene from that novel:

Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee understood the importance of giving praise along with criticism. At the Battle of Gettysburg, Lee's cavalry commander, Jeb Stuart, failed to provide needed intelligence. Stuart was an exceptional cavalry commander and Lee didn't want to lose him. But he had to make certain that Stuart would not repeat his actions. Gen. Stuart was only 30 and very temperamental. If Lee was not careful in his criticism, Stuart might quit the army.

Here's how he did it. After condemning Stuart's failure in no uncertain terms, Lee said: "There has been a mistake. It will not happen again. I know your quality. You are a good soldier. You are as good a cavalry officer as I have known, and your service to this army has been invaluable. I have learned to rely on your information; all your reports are always accurate. But no report is useful if it does not reach us. And that is what I wanted you to know. Now, let us talk no more of this."

I know the author (not Sharra, the blog author) was trying to make a point about how to learn from General Lee and become a better leader, but to me that anecdote just reinforces my mental picture of Robert E. Lee as a really cool guy. I first read a story about him when I was about 8 years old, and it was pretty flattering. I haven't read anything since then that seriously suggests otherwise; that includes a couple biographies as well as Connie Willis' strangely titled Lincoln's Dreams, which is actually a novel about Lee.

Besides, when I read new articles about JFK and his philandering, I can't help but think that it's easier to have heros that are long dead.

CrisisWeb on Taiwan-China relations

I had a discussion with someone the other day about whether people who don't capitalize are just lazy. Just to prove my point to myself, I'm going to write my posts using proper capitalization, for at least the rest of the month. Here I go...

There's a fairly intelligent and unbiased analysis of the Taiwan-China situation at CrisisWeb, which is the International Crisis Group (ICG) web site.

Those who know me will recognize another one of my favorite subjects, and run away and/or cower in fear.

In the interest of full disclosure:

- My parents were both born and raised in Taipei, Taiwan. All four of my grandparents were schooled under the Japanese occupation, and both my parents under KMT martial law.
- I've been brought up on horror stories about KMT rule. I've read and/or heard about unprovoked killings of civilians during the 2/28 massacre, beating of schoolchildren for speaking native Taiwanese, massive disregard for property rights of local landowners, and general suppression of the educated upper middle classes by the KMT.

That having been said, I recognize my bias, and am able, I think, to semi-objectively evaluate other people's analyses of the current political situation. The ICG makes a major point in each of three reports:

1. Taiwan has been moving "slowly but surely" away from the "one-China" principle, primarily due to increased democratisation and the emergence of the "new Taiwanese" identity.
2. The risk of war remains distant, for two main reasons: Beijing's objectives are "reunification" and economic development, and the first is at odds with the second. China does not have the military force necessary to conduct an effective blockade, which would be the most logical military strategy.
3. Peace may be achieved across the Taiwan Strait if proper measures are taken by Taiwan, China, and the international community. Specific steps are outlined in the report.

I can not agree more with the first point. In fact, this is a point that I often try to explain to people who haven't been to Taiwan recently. There is a real cultural gap between Taiwan and China right now; the political freedom that the people of Taiwan enjoy has become a cherished part of the new Taiwanese identity. In the last presidential election, voter turnout was around 80%, and there were grandparents and parents going to political rallies and protests. I would argue that Taiwanese people appreciate their newfound freedom even more than Americans, who have enjoyed their civil liberties throughout their lifetimes. It's hard to imagine that the people of Taiwan, who have fought for their freedom, and now live in a vibrant democracy, would ever accept any kind of governance by Beijing.

The second point is another one that I have made before. I once posed the idea the Taiwanese government shouldn't try to kowtow to Beijing at all. In fact, it should cause the situation to come to a head right now, rather than to let the status quo drag on until China is a real military threat to Taiwan. If Beijing were forced to attempt a blockade or invasion of Taiwan right now it would most likely fail, and Taiwan might gain sovereign nation status in the eyes of the international community. This would be a major risk for the DPP-led government to take, and I doubt it will happen, but it's an interesting scenario to think about.

The last point about peace being achievable assumes that the Chinese government is or will at some point be willing to take steps to stabilize the situation. I argue that this is a flawed premise, since Beijing has shown again and again that it will always take the hard-line stance towards Taiwan. A few weeks ago, pressure from China on the officials at the Miss Universe pageant caused Miss Taiwan to have to change her sash to say, "Miss Chinese Taipei". China has fiercely opposed the inclusion of Taiwan in the WHO, in spite of the SARS threat and the fact that a WHO entity does not have to be recognized as a nation state. Most disturbingly, after entry into the WTO, China has repeatedly tried to downgrade Taiwan's membership status in the WTO, to the same level as Hong Kong. Unless there are radical changes within the Chinese government, peace will not be achieved in the near future...and every year the Taiwanese people take another step towards a separate national identity.

thomas friedman on globalization

thomas friedman from the new york times was here today to give a talk on globalization.

lots of interesting ideas and opinions, and i want to talk about some of them, but before i start...

i think it's really scary that some people are so charismatic, persuasive, and well-spoken. of course it's to their benefit that they are, but i think there's a real danger that some people will just take everything that they say as fact, without spending a lot of time thinking about it. i think thomas friedman is one of these people; he's obviously very intelligent, very educated, very well-informed, has a lot of interesting opinions and ideas that be believes in very strongly and expresses very persuasively, and i very much enjoyed hearing him speak, but i almost needed to make a concerted effort not to agree with everything he said. other people who came out of the talk actually said that their whole worldview was changed, and that's what started me on this train of thought. what if a person who were less well-intentioned and less well-informed decided to use his speaking skills to convince everyone of some totally crazy idea? i'm sure that's happened before in the course of history. i bet that's why we sometimes look at history books and think, what were these people thinking? the answer is some one man or woman was just very very good at convincing them to do something that seems very wrong, when you think about it clearly enough.

anyway, back to the things he said. the most central point he made was about the US and its power, and why the rest of the world hates us "way more than it should" as he put it. his idea was that the US has become more and more powerful, in terms of cultural, economic, political, and military influence, and during the 1990's this was mostly okay for the rest of the world because although we were a hegemon, we were somewhat benign. we were happy and dumb and making tons of money and our biggest worry was whether our president was sleeping with his interns. after 9/11, we became angry, and as an angry giant the US is much more scary. his theory was that people are angry with the US because we have so much influence over their daily lives, even more than their governments do, and they have had no say giving us that power. so there's kind of a resentment that is created, not necessarily on a conscious level.

i think that's one possible explanation, but maybe it gives the US too much credit. i think to a large extent the US does consciously meddle with other nations, and sometimes we don't really know what we're doing. obvious examples are afghanistan (when we were helping the people who eventually became the taliban) and argentina (when we essentially helped instill a dictator). yes we have cultural and economic influence also, but it also seems like we feel free to use our political and military power more than any other powerful nation.

for example, friedman's argument that we should have gone to war with iraq, not for whatever reason the bush administration was espousing, but because the middle east is a factory for undeterrable threats (terrorists) and we need to put a functioning government somewhere in the middle east so that failing nations will have an example to follow...it's interesting and makes a lot more sense to me than rumsfeld's rambling, but that argument seems to try and draw a line in the middle of a grey area. for example, should we have the right to pressure china into free press, because their efforts to conceal SARS cases have resulted in a worldwide epidemic? it's a similar case; if we have the right to invade iraq because we are being hurt by something that their government has done, do we have the right to invade, or otherwise pressure china?

after hearing talks like this i'm always tempted to run out and go buy some books on world history and politics, but then i remember that i'm not any good at reading non-fiction. i always have to work to finish any book that's not a biography or a novel, and i doubt i get as much out of it as i could (or should).

on a completely separate topic (well, perhaps not completely separate) i've always been very impressed with Rilla of Ingleside (by L.M. Montgomery) and its depiction of the Canadian home front during WWI. recently i've been looking for more fiction set during WWI...after looking around quite a bit, i've been pretty much unsuccessful. i guess i'll keep looking.