Released in 2008, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas presents the Holocaust through the perspective of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of a Nazi commandant living near Auschwitz, who forms a friendship with Shmuel, a Jewish boy his own age imprisoned in the camp. Entirely oblivious to the reality around him, Bruno enters the concentration camp in an attempt to help Shmuel, only for both boys to be murdered together in a gas chamber. The film, regarded as a historical drama, has been widely used in educational settings despite its oversimplified narrative and moral rehabilitation of Nazis, which reframe Auschwitz from a site of systematic, racially organised genocide into a sentimental tragedy of individual suffering and accidental loss. This essay examines how the film distorts historical reality through its narrative structure and visual syntax, discusses why its emphasis on child innocence makes it ethically problematic, and explores why it continues to be used as an educational tool for children. 

In March 1942, nearly four years after Kristallnacht, approximately 75 to 80 percent of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were still alive. Yet, within the following eleven months, from March 1942 through February 1943, more than half of them were murdered. The dramatic increase in the number of victims was the result of the carefully designed “Final Solution” to the “Jewish question”, a response to the inefficiency of deportation and the chaos created by unsystematic murders discussed at the Wannsee Conference—the beginning of the industrialisation of mass murder into genocide. The international legal definition of genocide is the intent to systematically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and, as Ben Kiernan adds, it is carefully planned, and committed intentionally with foreknowledge. Therefore, the Holocaust was not simply a large-scale mass killing, but a state planned and deliberate genocide aimed at erasing the targeted groups through a bureaucratically organised system that began with ghettos, violence, forced labour, and eventually culminated in the industrialised killing centers of death camps such as Auschwitz. Approximately 6 million Jews were murdered alongside millions of other victims including Romani, disabled people, communists, prisoners of war and others.

Auschwitz, the most well-known death camp of the Holocaust, was in fact not a single enclosure but a vast complex consisting of three main camps: Auschwitz I, the main camp, led by Senior SS officers who were responsible for the camp complex; Auschwitz II Birkenau, which later became the primary killing center; and Auschwitz III Monowitz, where the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel was imprisoned as a teenage inmate. The forced labour provided by concentration-camp prisoners was economically valuable to the Nazi Germany, especially after the labour shortages created by the Four Year Plan of 1936, which redirected free workers into German rearmament programs. In 1942, there was even a conflict between Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, and Albert Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments and War Production, over whether concentration-camp inmates should be assigned to SS-run armaments plants or to industrial enterprises.  Arthur Liebehenschel, the Nazi German commandant at the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps said that “everything has to be done to preserve the Jews’ ability to work”.  Consequently, children, the elderly, and those who were unfit for labour were selected by camp doctors, and children under the age of fourteen were almost all gassed on arrival. Between 1942 and 1945, fewer than 2,500 Jewish children survived the initial selection. Those who were not murdered upon arrival often died from starvation, illness, exhaustion, beatings, and medical experiments. Among them was seven-year-old Ernest Schwarcz, the youngest victim recorded in this transport, who survived for barely one month.

As harsh as it may sound, it is highly unlikely that a nine-year-old boy such as Shmuel would have been selected for physical labour in Auschwitz, as young children were almost always murdered upon arrival or died during the brutal conditions of transport. Moreover, although limited “leisure time” did exist in concentration camps, it was strictly controlled and supervised by the SS, and was reserved for the privileged prisoners, such as functionaries and kapos, in return for obedience. For a child like Shmuel, it would have been impossible to move freely around the camp or linger near the barbed-wire fence, casually interacting with Bruno. The recurring barbed wire fence is one of the most important visual devices throughout the film. The symmetrical framing and still, eye-level positioning visually equalise Bruno and Shmuel, emphasising their innocent friendship. Moreover, there is no music during the boys’ conversations; instead, the scene is accompanied by the quiet background sounds of cicadas chirping and leaves rustling in the wind, suggesting that although the two boys are physically separated due to the circumstances, they are morally equal because they shared a world of childhood innocence, which is untouched by the brutal reality. However, the film’s representation of the permeability of the barbed-wire fence and the absence of guards is entirely detached from the historical reality. As early as 1937, Himmler made a clear command to the Wehrmacht officers: “The camps are enclosed by barbed wire, electrified fences… anyone entering a forbidden zone or access road will be shot.” The film’s inaccurate representation not only fails to educate the audience about historical reality but also diminishes the scale and brutality of the concentration camp system. 

The film’s portrayal of Bruno as an innocent “Aryan” child untouched by Nazi ideology is historically implausible. Throughout the film, Bruno is depicted as having no understanding of the world around him: he does not know what a Jew is and believes that the concentration camp is a farm where people wear striped pyjamas. The truth is, antisemitism has long been rooted in European society, and under the Nazi regime, it became increasingly explicit and institutionalised. With the implementation of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, Jews in Germany were formally excluded from the public domain. Antisemitism permeated everyday life and extended into schools, where Jewish children were harassed in playgrounds and often beaten by their peers and teachers. Stores, swimming pools, restaurants, and other public spaces would openly display signs stating that “Jews are not wanted here.” Memoirs of Germans who grew up under the Nazi regime likewise describe how children were indoctrinated in racial hatred and nationalist ideology from as early as age five or six. Therefore, by 1942, it was impossible that a German child would have been unaware of the persecution of Jews. By portraying Bruno as a morally untouched child through his narrative alibi, the film sentimentalises his obliviousness from the German perspective, and diverts the audience’s attention from the millions of Holocaust victims toward Bruno’s death, an innocent and righteous “Aryan” boy who dies simply because he wanted to help his friend. 

In order to magnify the melodramatic effect through the perspective of a guiltless child, the film reduces the atrocities of the Holocaust from a rigorously organised system of industrialised killing into an accidental tragedy. The audience learns about Bruno’s personality, background and his adventurous dream, while Shmuel exists only behind the barbed wire to highlight Bruno’s bravery and moral purity. Throughout the film, the audience is never exposed to the conditions of the concentration camp or to the experience of being a Jew in Nazi Germany, except for two brief conversations that reveal the prisoners once had ordinary jobs before being sent to the camp. As a result, the audience is emotionally drawn to and deeply moved by Bruno’s death, and they forget that the Holocaust was a bureaucratically engineered mechanism of extermination targeting specific victimised groups: not only the six million Jews but also the six to eight million non-Jewish victims who were not combatants. Bruno’s death is undoubtedly a tragedy, but his death is not an organised persecution, and the film’s narrative choice ultimately marginalises and neglects the experiences of the actual victims who suffered under the atrocities. 

According to a 2016 study by the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education, 35 percent of teachers in England have used either the book or the film The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas when teaching about the Holocaust. Some argue that it is a practical educational resource because its narrative is accessible and succinct, even for younger children, and does not directly expose them to graphic violence that may be inappropriate for their age. Although most audiences recognise the historical inaccuracies of the film, they are nonetheless moved by its “powerful story” , “compelling characters”, and the message that suggests Shmuel and Bruno are morally equal. The most problematic aspect of the film lies in its narrative suggestion that ordinary Germans were not evil but merely ignorant of the atrocities, and that even those who belonged to the privileged group under the Nazi regime, like Bruno, can be victimised. Instead of offering a historical lesson, the film celebrates “childhood innocence” by misusing the Holocaust as a sentimental narrative device. 

Ultimately, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas transforms the Holocaust from a deliberate, rigorously organised genocide into a melodrama of a German child’s accidental death. By spotlighting Bruno’s innocence and marginalising the Jewish victims, the film distorts the historical reality and the nature of genocide itself. Using the film as a Holocaust educational source is inadequate, not only because of its historical inaccuracies, but also because of its problematic narrative that sentimentalises the perpetrators and obscures the realities of systematic extermination. 

Give us your take on the Roundtable.