The implication of survivors’ bearing witness of the atrocities of the Shoah more than once during their lifetime was the topic of a conference held at Humboldt University of Berlin from March 14th to 16th, 2016. It was organized by Alina Bothe (Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Jewish Studies [ZJS]/ Free University Berlin) and Andree Michaelis (European University Viadrina Frankfurt [Oder]). While many survivors have chosen not to bear witness at all, others have done so on multiple occasions and for a variety of reasons. Their accounts provide multifaceted insights into the genre of testimony, asking how media, institutions, and time shape the testimonies of Shoah survivors. While it has often been stated that each testimony is a single narration influenced by aspects such as national memorial cultures, gender, and time, the still remaining task of this conference was to precisely analyze how these different factors shape survivors’ testimonies. The focus therefore was on audio-visual and digital testimonies from different archives, but also expanded on written testimonies in several case studies on different survivors who bore witness more than once. The discussion of individual survivors, such as Anita Lasker-Wallfisch or Yehuda Bacon, was framed by presentations on more general topics such as institutions and different media.

The conference was opened on Monday, March 14th with a welcome address by STEFANIE SCHÜLER-SPRINGORUM (Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Jewish Studies [ZJS]) and an opening speech by ANNETTE WIEVIORKA, head of research emeritus at CNRS, Paris. By casting light on the emergence and importance of the first video testimony archives such as the Fortunoff Video Archive, Wieviorka emphasized the impact of the digital development and illustrated how new technologies such as YouTube and internet platforms revolutionized witnessing.

Following her, JEFFREY SHANDLER (New Jersey) initiated the second day with his keynote speech on the ‘celebrity’ survivor Kitty Hart-Moxon. He started off by pointing out that the majority of NS survivors might have been ordinary people before the war, still numerous among them transformed into leaders of remembrance during their lifetime and many also gained a reputation and celebrity. On that score, he introduced Mrs. Hart-Moxon, illustrating how her personal relations, the nature of her audiences and the expectations of the public shaped both the content of her interviews and her motivation for testifying. Like many others, her testimony, given on multiple occasions, eventually turns into the usual spiel, a performance which over time becomes the ‘story of the famous survivor’.

ALINA BOTHE and ANDREE MICHAELIS pointed towards different fields of interest in their introduction. They stressed that this conference tried to focus further on the repetition of narratives as well as their cultural and historical aspects and motives. For this, a variety of factors such as language, national context, institutions, gender, time and media have to be taken into account with regards to the many survivors who chose to testify more than once. According to the organizers it is therefore the concept of the dispositif (Foucault/ Agamben) which applies most adequately regarding the examination of influences on the shape of survivor testimonies, as it implies the interlocking of all stated factors with social power relations and allows speaking of them as non-static and polymorphous.

The first panel was chaired by DIANE L. WOLF (Davis) and started off with JARED STARK (St. Petersburg) dedicating his contribution on “Questioning Authority” to Geoffrey Hartman, philologist and literary theorist at Yale University, who passed away on March 14th 2016. He drew attention to four video testimonies given by Czechoslovakian survivor Jolly Zeleny who refused to talk about her story more than once in front of the same audience, as she feared the transformation of her bearing witness into a performance. As the motivation for testifying on videotape as well as the role of the eye witness may vary relative to the individual story of each survivor and the institutional context, YEHUDIT DORI-DESTON (Jerusalem) delivered an instructive talk on the particularity of witnessing within the scope of NS war crime trials such as the Eichmann Trial, the Treblinka Trials, and the Demjanjuk Trial. Following the example of Eliyahu Rosenberg she pointed towards the difficulties of comparing testimonies even by the same witness, introducing the question of “core” narratives of each particular story, while showing how each telling is connected to a specific time, place, and audience. Following her, HENRY GREENSPAN (Ann Arbor) delivered his paper on the “Consistency and Difference in Multiple Accounts by the Same Survivors”, raising the issue of genre and proposing a way of dealing with testimony that goes against any normalization. For Greenspan, testimony is always the result of a dialogical, or co-constructing, encounter with the listener and as such a joint exploration of the subject’s experiences.

The second panel was chaired by AUBREY POMERANCE (Berlin) and focussed further on the testimonies of Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, surviving member of the ‘Women's Orchestra’ in Auschwitz. CHRISTINA BRÜNING (Berlin) talked about the survivor's “Remembering Bearing Witness for the First Time” before she introduced her first oral statement given to the BBC in 1945 which the conference then examined regarding possible underlying motives. Brüning also provoked a discussion about the relevance not only of a survivor's first, but also of the very last testimony and its relevance as their seemingly most complete and final word. With this dilemma in mind, CHRISTOPH THONFELD (Taipei) elaborated on the difficulties experienced by Lasker-Wallfisch, emphasizing that for many survivors it was crucial to reach the moment when they would be able to tell their story. In her case, the death of her husband grew to be this turning point. Only very late, she turned to becoming a “professional” witness, but kept a particular style as she often applies humor and irony, never submitting to pathos or emotions. According to CORD PAGENSTECHER (Berlin) she also claims an authority available only to her as the survivor of the atrocities she refers to, which makes it impossible for anybody else to ‘smoke a cigarette in Auschwitz’ as a manifest of normality. Her video testimony thus substantiates this privileged status while at the same time revealing the performativity of bearing witness.

The third panel, chaired by MARKUS NESSELRODT (Berlin), brought transmedial and transhistorical perspectives of bearing witness into the focus of the conference. JUDITH GERSON (New Brunswick) presented a talk on “Testimonial Accounts as Explanations of Survivor Narratives”, illustrating the idea of self-help as a core part of German-Jewish collective identity. She compared a 1972 audio interview by the Chicago Research Foundation for Jewish Immigration with a much later VHA video testimony by Dorothy Becker, thereby raising a discussion both on the comparison of the different media as well the interviewer’s differences on background.

DANA MIHĂILESCU (Bucharest) further examined “Shifts in Testimony Focus Depending on Medium and Temporal Context” by referring to Ruth Glasberg Gold's Holocaust experiences in Transnistria, thereby drawing attention to the Romanian context which is only rarely being discussed. In her comparison of written, audio and audio-visual medial forms of Gold’s testimony, the ways and means of storytelling especially in Gold’s 1996 memoir Ruth’s Journey received special attention: How dominant for the personal as well as collective development of a survival story is the written form?

The last day of the conference started with a keynote speech by OREN BARUCH STIER (Miami) chaired by ANDREE MICHAELIS (Frankfurt an der Oder). In his talk, Stier discussed “Memorial and Institutional Frames for Holocaust Videotestimonies”, introducing what he called “Landmarks” of memory, a term he referred both to major elements of an entire memory culture after the Shoah, but also to specific elements within individual testimonies. As an example, Stier traced the usage of the phrase “Arbeit macht frei” in several testimonies and analyzed its relevance as a “landmark” or point of orientation within these testimonies. Much discussed was also his reference to the “era of the archive”, saying that the archive, too, is an example for multiple bearing witness on the same or similar events.

The fifth panel, chaired by ANDREA GENEST (Berlin), took a closer look at the testimonies of Israeli artist Yehuda Bacon, a survivor of several German concentration camps. SHARON KANGISSER COHEN (Jerusalem) spoke about “Reframing Behavior” and emphasized that Bacon believed that his survival had happened for a reason. It is this perception that lies at the center of his narration, hence, as Cohen illustrates regarding Bacon’s views on elder prisoners in the camps, judgemental visions and negative views on controversial issues are less likely to play a role in the survivor's later testimonies. TERESA SCHÄFER (Berlin) who herself had the chance to interview Bacon in Israel then went on highlighting the prominent standing of Martin Buber's philosophy within the scope of his process of subjectification after his survival. She also emphasized the role of art in Bacon's life. Finally, KOBI KABALEK (Jerusalem) drew attention to survivors who have installed bearing witness as a crucial part of their post-war identities, the so-called ‘Professional Survivors’. He pointed out how these survivors gain and retain control and authority on the one hand, and dramatize their storytelling throughout the video interview on the other. As the discussion showed, though, the concept of the ‘professional survivor’ is neither fully differentiated yet, nor can it be considered an analytical research category at this point of time for it must instead be developed further.

The fifth and last panel of the conference was dedicated to the “future of testimony”. It was chaired by ALINA BOTHE (Berlin). ALASDAIR RICHARDSON (Winchester) started off with a talk on “Holocaust Survivors Evaluating the Changing Landscapes of their Own Narratives over Time”, and showed how testimonies are currently used in (British) Holocaust education, presenting intriguing examples of the multilayered problems in the educational sector. One of his major points was how survivors often change their story and the way they tell it according to the school class audience they tell it to, thereby often undermining the teachers and their general approach to the Shoah as a history of murderous annihilation. RACHEL BAUM (Wisconsin) then went on with a talk on another much anticipated topic: “Holocaust Testimonies in New Media”, focussing on new holographic forms. According to Baum the USC Shoah Foundation Institute's latest project New Dimensions in Testimony introduced a new perspective to the discussion around the future of testimony. Baum contextualized this new perspective with other forms of contemporary “data visualization”, stressing the character of testimony as “big data”. This was discussed in a highly controversial manner with some participants arguing that holographic testimonies might destroy the elements of dialogue and encounter – which were once considered central features of testimony. Others welcomed this development as it enables new forms of encounter particularly in the realm of education.

The conference concluded with a roundtable chaired by Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, giving Annette Wieviorka, Jeffrey Shandler, Oren Baruch Stier and Diane L. Wolf another opportunity to share their thoughts on the event with the audience.

Thanks to the high standard of the talks and the productive atmosphere, the conference allowed for a stimulating exchange among researchers and interested participants alike. However, it also raised pressing new issues and questions: Why do we ask survivors to tell their story again? Is it our interest as listeners to be present or involved in the renewal of their story? Do we ask them for their sake or ours? Is it because we want to experience ourselves the “aura” of their story or because we did not truly understand their first testimony? More importantly, what does this implicate for the many survivors who bore witness only once? Must we not pay their testimonies the same attention? The conference gave an intriguing overview on the variety of aspects associated with the phenomenon of bearing witness more than once while it also made clear that we are still at the beginning of fully understanding testimony: its origins, forms, and contexts, as well as its meaning for us – the listeners. A volume of selected papers will be published with de Gruyter next year.

Conference Overview:

Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (Berlin), Board of Directors, Center for Jewish Studies Berlin-Brandenburg: Opening and Welcome Address

Opening Speech
Annette Wieviorka (Paris): Does the Disappearance of the Witnesses Mark the End of an Era?
Chair: Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (Berlin)

Keynote
Jeffrey Shandler (New Jersey): “Keep Talking!”: A Celebrity Holocaust Survivor’s Life Story Retold
Chair: Gertrud Pickhan (Berlin)

Alina Bothe (Berlin), Andree Michaelis (Frankfurt an der Oder): Introduction

1. Panel: Institutional Frameworks
Chair: Diane L. Wolf (Davis)

Jared Stark (St. Petersburg): Questioning Authority: The Holocaust Testimony of Jolly Zeleny

Yehudit Dori-Deston (Jerusalem): Treblinka Survivors on the Witness Stand: Eliyahu Rosenberg’s Testimony in the Eichmann Trial, Treblinka Trials and Demjanjuk Trial

Henry Greenspan (Ann Arbor): Putting Context in Context: Consistency and Difference in Multiple Accounts by the Same Survivors

2. Panel: The Testimonies by Anita Lasker-Wallfisch
Chair: Aubrey Pomerance (Berlin)

Christina Brüning (Berlin): Remembering Bearing Witness for the first time

Christoph Thonfeld (Taipei): Interviewing Anita Lasker-Wallfisch – Historical Analysis of Multiple Testimony

Cord Pagenstecher and Dorothee Wein (Berlin): Testimonies in Digital Environments. Supporting “Quellenkritik” with Anita Lasker-Wallfisch

3. Panel: Transmedial and Transhistorical Perspectives
(Chair: Markus Nesselrodt, Berlin)

Judith Gerson (New Brunswick): Testimonial Accounts as Explanations of Survivor Narratives

Dana Mihăilescu (Bucharest): Shifts in Testimony Focus depending on Medium and Temporal Context: On Ruth Glasberg Gold’s Holocaust Experiences in Transnistria

Keynote
Oren Baruch Stier (Miami): Landmarks of Memory: Memorial and Institutional Frames for Holocaust Videotestimonies
Chair: Andree Michaelis (Frankfurt an der Oder)

4. Panel: The Testimonies by Yehuda Bacon
(Chair: Andrea Genest, Berlin)

Sharon Kangisser Cohen (Jerusalem): Reframing Behavior: The Testimonies of Yehuda Bacon

Teresa Schäfer (Berlin): Testimony as Dialogue

Kobi Kabalek (Jerusalem): “Professional Survivors” and the Shape of Holocaust Memory

5. Panel: The Future of Testimony
Chair: Alina Bothe (Berlin)

Alasdair Richardson (Winchester): Who owns my story? Holocaust survivors evaluating the changing landscapes of their own narratives over time.

Rachel Baum (Wisconsin): Remediating the Body of the Witness: Holocaust Testimonies in New Media

Roundtable, Closing Remarks
Chair: Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (Berlin)
Participants: Annette Wieviorka, Jeffrey Shandler, Oren B. Stier, Diane L. Wolf