thursdaysd

Sorry ann, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I had read extensively on WWII, including diaries by survivors, but nothing prepared me for the impact of actually being at Auschwitz. It is NOT a tourist site, it is, or at least it was for me, a profoundly moving and troubling experience. There was so much evil and suffering there it seems to have seeped into the ground, and you can feel it. It took me several days to recover.

Admittedly I went by myself, going with others would probably reduce the impact some. As the OP recognizes, it is not a place for a child, however, it also not a place to be rushed through in a couple of hours. It took me, including travel by public transport, the better part of a day. If it's a choice of Auschwitz or the salt mine I would have to say Auschwitz, I wasn't particularly impressed by the salt mine.

There is indeed plenty to do in Krakow itself, you shouldn't short-change your time there.

adrienne

thursdaysd - your clear, non-judgmental view on visiting Auschwitz is much appreciated.

BigRuss

<<How and whether we can understand the horrors that our ancestors went through better by seeing what are essentially tourist sights . . .>

Stated by someone who hasn't been there.

Teresienstadt isn't a "tourist" site. Go there. Learn something. Overcome your own prejudices. It had a larger impact for us than Auschwitz-Birkenau precisely because of its relative lack of tourists and tour groups. And because we trailed a tour group led by a survivor. And because we saw the drawings by the children who were interred there. And because we went to the holding rooms that had 20-person capacity, jammed in 60 men and had one toilet. And because we saw the grave sites.

Birkenau isn't a "tourist" site, it's Hell in fossilized form. Auschwitz is more a museum of depravity than anything else but visiting it has impact.

Adrienne made a choice to avoid the sites based upon a desire to "enjoy" and learn the "culture." That's a choice that avoids the history of what took place nearby. But to say you don't gain any understanding from an actual visit to the site is shallow. Exceedingly so.

Michael

To raise the bar slightly: Jorge Semprun, who wrote a few books about his camp experiences, originally felt that the KZ grounds should simply be fenced off and declared taboo territory. He was afraid that these places would be turned into tourist sites of the worst kind. He then went to visit Buchenwald with his nephew and changed his mind, feeling that the preservation of the camp (and presumably any exhibits that might have been established) were well done. But clearly he flet that his original attitude was a valid one, at least from the point of view of a survivor.

adrienne

<< But to say you don't gain any understanding from an actual visit to the site is shallow. >>

BigRuss - ann didn't say this. She said the opposite - that she gained an understanding without visiting Auschwitz.

She did not feel the desire to visit Auschwitz but is not imposing her view on anyone else. She is simply stating her opinion of what was right for her.

tipsygus

The OP asked if Auschwitz was suitable to take a 6 year old to,having visited Auschwitz I would say definitely no. It was a trip a friend and I did show in our way our respect for those who had no say in the matter of going there.

We also did the salt mines afterwards and enjoyed them, again I am not sure if they would appeal to a 6 year old. We hire a private taxi for the day and relied on the driver.

thursdaysd

"The OP asked if Auschwitz was suitable to take a 6 year old to"

No, the OP certainly did not ask that. He asked how much time it would take to visit Auschwitz precisely because he didn't want to take his child there.

captbuzz

Many people go to see Auschwitz as a "must do" becouse its on the list of thing to do when in Krakow ,but everyone brings something out of that experience even if they dont really understand it.
Children of young age may not comprehand it at all.