Context

After World War II, German politics focused on a more positive future. By the 1970s, however, faith in progress was waning. Instead of planning for the future, the nation was increasingly focused on its past.

Growing pessimism about the future

The 1970s and 1980s were a time of profound economic and social change. Social conditions became particularly unstable in industrialised countries. Limits on growth and modernisation also became an issue. People no longer felt optimistic about the future and “cultural heritage” gained in significance. Political visions were increasingly grounded in specific interpretations of the past.

Growing interest in the past

History became an important subject of social debate. The way people interpreted the past often formed the basis for their political identity. Around the world, ‘identity’ and “memory” became important bywords in political struggles. A barrage of new historical exhibitions and museums were created. Historical events were increasingly acknowledged in public space.

After taking office, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl announced plans to establish two new national history museums. A critical public opposed these plans, arguing that the Federal Republic’s view of history should not be imposed “from above”.

Historical museums for Bonn and West Berlin

The museum Kohl planned to open in Bonn, the West German capital at the time, would focus on German history since 1945. A German Historical Museum was also scheduled to open in West Berlin for the city’s 750th anniversary celebration in 1987. It was understood as an ideological counterpoint to the Museum of German History in East Berlin, which presented German history as a history of class struggles that ended happily in the GDR.

A conservative view of history “from above”?

Kohl’s museum plans were the subject of controversial debate. Opponents saw them as an attack on historical activism “from below”. They feared that government funds would be used to codify a conservative view of history. They also argued that money was being spent on prestigious history museums, while educational and memorial sites dealing with Nazi crimes were not being funded.

Protests in West Berlin

The cornerstone for the German Historical Museum was laid in October 1987. Members of the left-wing alternative scene protested during the event. The new museum building was supposed to be built near the Reichstag building. After reunification in 1990, the museum was moved to the Zeughaus, the historical armoury building on Unter den Linden, which had previously housed the GDR Museum of German History. The House of History opened in Bonn in 1994.

Illustration: Governing Mayor of West Berlin Eberhard Diepgen (l.) and Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl (r.) at the Cornerstone-laying ceremony for the German Historical Museum, 1987

How German society dealt with its Nazi past was an ongoing political issue in the 1980s. The question of a German identity after Auschwitz was part of this discussion.

Competing interpretations

From the moment the German Federal Republic was founded, the role of National Socialism in German history and Germany’s national identity were heavily debated. For some it represented a “minor slip up”, whereas others saw it as a radical “break” that required an ongoing critical examination of German history and present-day society.

Dealing with the Nazi past

By the late 1970s, society’s engagement with the Nazi crimes became more tangible. The German broadcast of the American television series “Holocaust” in 1979 represented a milestone. Through the story of a fictitious German-Jewish family, the series documented the persecution and murder of European Jews from 1933 to 1945. The series had a high viewership and received wide media coverage.

Political fronts of remembrance

Conservatives were deeply critical of this development. Many saw it as a sign of a national identity crisis that needed to be countered by a positive view of history. In the historians’ dispute, which began in 1986, well-known intellectuals discussed the role that the Nazi past should play in Germany’s understanding of its history and identity.

Illustration: Poster for the four-part US TV series "Holocaust - The Story of the Family Weiss" from 1978 by Marvin J. Chomsky.

In 1978, the Swedish writer and non-fiction author Sven Lindqvist published a “handbook on researching one’s own history” under the title “Dig Where You Stand”. This expression became a frequently-cited slogan of the new history movement.

Researching one’s own history

Lindqvist encouraged workers to research their own history. He argued that the interpretive authority should not be left to their employers and workers should assume this responsibility. Moreover, workers should see themselves as historical actors who have fought many battles successfully and can shape their own working and living conditions. He suggested they begin by researching the companies where they work.

Shaping the present and future

Lindqvist’s approach gave voice to the main tenet of the new history movement: “rulers” should not be the only writers of history. Furthermore, “little people” should also see themselves as historical subjects who can “make history” in the dual sense: as authors of their own historiography and as historical actors who use their history to shape their present and future.

Illustration: »Gräv där du står« – Cover of the original Swedish edition, 1978

In the mid-1970s, many grassroots initiatives were established, especially in Europe and the United States, that focused on local history. History workshops were also founded throughout Germany.

Historical research as self-empowerment

In the late 1960s, the Marxist historian Raphael Samuel organised the first “History Workshop” in Great Britain. It developed into a social movement aimed at democratising historiography. The idea was to open up historical research to everyone. Based on a perspective critical of authority, it focused on the many people who had been largely overlooked: workers, women, marginalised groups and social minorities.

A “new history movement” in the German Federal Republic

In 1983, DER SPIEGEL described a “new history movement” in the German Federal Republic. The many initiatives appropriating history “from below’ were not limited to the cities. According to DER SPIEGEL magazine, the activists were trying to “secure their identity through their history.” They presented their findings to the public in their own exhibitions, events and publications.

Making Nazi history more concrete

The younger generation in particular was interested in the Nazi era. People throughout Germany began researching their local and everyday histories. In the process, specific places, people and crimes were identified and Nazi rule and its aftermath became less abstract. Although the majority preferred to remain silent about this time, the tide had shifted definitively.

Illustration: DER SPIEGEL article on the ‘new history movement’, 1983

In the German Federal Republic, most Nazi crime sites had been either repurposed or redeveloped. Many had become open green spaces. In the 1970s, a memorial movement formed, demanding that these sites become educational sites and places of remembrance.  

The “unresolved past”

After 1945, victims of persecution from Germany and abroad were largely alone in their struggle to establish memorials at Nazi crime sites. Most people in the German Federal Republic had little interest in being reminded of the past. This changed in the 1970s: in response to the spread of neo-Nazism, young people in particular scandalised the “unresolved past” and began searching for historical traces.

Making Nazi crime sites visible

In 1978, the youth association Landesjugendring began offering alternative guided tours in Hamburg that quickly grew very popular. On the tour, former victims of persecution accompanied groups to Nazi crime sites throughout the city. Similar projects were also organised in other places, thereby drawing attention to Nazi crime sites throughout Germany. That these sites had been allowed to “disappear” was publicly condemned.

Places to commemorate the dead and educational centres

In the following years, many sites were marked with monuments and memorial plaques. Citizens’ initiatives campaigned for the establishment of permanent memorials, especially at former concentration camps. It was argued that these sites should be a place for dignified commemoration of the dead and facilitate historical and political learning. They should also be a place where society can engage in a dynamic dialogue about its past, present and future.

Illustration: “There used to be a concentration camp here” – Graffiti on the site of the former Neuengamme concentration camp, where two new prisons still stood at the time, 1988

To mark the 50th anniversary of the Nazi seizure of power, decentralised events were organised throughout West Berlin. The programme was coordinated by the Berlin Cultural Council, an association of cultural organisations and independent projects.

Diverse themes and formats

The events took place throughout the year. The programme contained more than 130 pages. Some projects focused on anti-fascist resistance while others addressed the stories of women, young adults, workers and homosexuals in Nazi Germany. There were many different kinds of events, including exhibitions, theatre, concerts, film screenings and anti-fascist city tours.

A local view of history “from below”

Much of the programme was supported by smaller project groups addressing specific questions. District initiatives researched everyday life and resistance in local neighbourhoods; women’s groups focused on the experiences of women; and church groups explored the role of churches. Migrants were also involved, for example, the Neukölln “Turkish Centre” organised a Turkish-Greek-Kurdish cultural evening “in the spirit of anti-fascism”.

Illustration: Programme booklet “Democracy Destroyed – Seizure of Power and Resistance”, 1983

The Berlin Geschichtswerkstatt was one of the first history workshops established in the German Federal Republic. Founded in 1981 in Kreuzberg’s Mehringhof, it soon became a driving force behind historical activism.

Self-determined approach to history

The founding members described their intention as follows: “We wish to lend a voice to those who have been silenced by the prevailing history. Instead of leaving our history to established historians and specialised authorities, we wish to test our own standards and methods to research and communicate history.” Their focus was on the everyday lives of the “little people”; they also planned to interview contemporary witnesses.

Commemorating persecution and resistance

The Berlin History Workshop focused primarily on the Nazi era. During the commemorative events marking the 50th anniversary of the Nazi seizure of power in 1983, it contributed with exhibitions, city tours and publications on “Everyday Life and Resistance under Fascism”. Over the next few years, it organised high-profile campaigns to ensure that the stories of the persecuted and murdered were not forgotten.

Illustration: Opening offices in Goltzstrasse in Schöneberg, 1982

Groups and individuals joined together to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Nazi seizure of power. The association Aktives Museum Faschismus und Widerstand in Berlin was founded on 10 June 1983.

Creating permanent remembrance work

The association was founded to create a long-term perspective for West Berlin’s memorial work. During the anniversary year, its members conducted research and created exhibitions that were merged into an ‘Active Museum’. The museum was conceived as a place where members and visitors could meet eye to eye, engage in discussions, ask questions and conduct research. Its thematic focus was on National Socialism, but it also addressed right-wing extremism after 1945. The association considered establishing its offices on the “Gestapo terrain”.

An Active Museum on the “Gestapo terrain”?

Over the next few years, the association campaigned for its vision with various activities and events. Its diverse membership included institutions such as the Berlin History Workshop, the International League for Human Rights, Action Reconciliation Service for Peace, the Working Group of Formerly Persecuted Social Democrats, the Society for German-Soviet Friendship, the Werkbund Archive and the Association of Victims of the Nazi Regime/Federation of Anti-Fascists.

Illustration: Laying a symbolic cornerstone on the “Gestapo terrain” 1989

It was no coincidence that the “1933-1945 Digging Action” was held on 5 May 1985, the day German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and US President Ronald Reagan made a highly controversial and historic gesture of reconciliation.

Helmut Kohl’s agenda of historic “reconciliation”

Seventy years after the start of World War I, in September 1984, Kohl and French President Mitterrand shook hands over the graves of soldiers. In November, Kohl proposed to the American President that they make a similar gesture to mark the 40th anniversary of the end of World War II. In addition to a joint visit to the military cemetery in Bitburg in Rhineland-Palatinate, they also considered visiting the Dachau concentration camp memorial, but this idea was later dismissed.

A gesture of reconciliation at the graves of the Waffen SS?

In April 1985, it became known that members of the Waffen-SS were buried in Bitburg alongside Wehrmacht soldiers. The planned visit was widely criticised in the United States. It was also the subject of a very controversial debate in Germany. The Green Party demanded that the visit to the military cemetery be cancelled. Kohl and Reagan stuck to their plan, but added a visit to the Bergen-Belsen Memorial to their itinerary at short notice.

“Normalising” Nazi crimes?

Critics saw the “gesture of reconciliation” as an unacceptable “normalisation” of Nazi crimes. In the end, it was mainly Jewish survivors and their relatives who demonstrated in Bergen-Belsen and Bitburg on 5 May 1985. In a ‘Lette“ to the German Left’, the Jewish-American sociologist Moishe Postone referred to a “brutal act of violence against the victims of Nazism” and expressed his deep disappointment that mass demonstrations had failed to materialise.

Illustration: German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and US President Ronald Reagan in Bitburg, 1985

German President Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) gave a speech as part of the German Bundestag’s ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the war’s end. Under the motto “the secret of redemption lies in remembrance”, he articulated a new model for remembrance policy.

Honouring the victims of National Socialism

At the beginning of his almost 45-minute speech, Weizsäcker addressed in detail the victims of National Socialist crimes. He also mentioned crimes that had received little attention at the time, including the genocide of the Sinti and Roma, the war of extermination in Central and Eastern Europe and the persecution of homosexuals. He also explicitly acknowledged the communist resistance, which was frowned upon by conservatives.

The 8th of May as a “Day of Liberation”

Weizsäcker referred to the 8th of May 1945 as a “Day of Liberation” – a term that previously had only been used in left-wing and left-liberal circles. He also said that this day was the “end of an aberration in German history” and an “opportunity for a fresh start”. Weizsäcker left no doubt that Germany had to seize this moment. In the second part of the speech, he described a successful learning process: “We have put democratic freedom in the place of oppression.”

“... and the secret of redemption lies in remembrance”

Weizsäcker placed the German Federal Republic in sharp contrast to the Nazi past. He was certain that a democratic success story could be achieved through remembrance. Weizsäcker also referred to an adage of Jewish mysticism: “... and the secret of redemption lies in remembrance”. In other words, remembering Nazi crimes should no longer threaten German identity but redeem it.

Illustration: “The secret of redemption lies in remembrance” – a special stamp printed by the German postal service to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Pogrom Night, 1988

In 1990, the territory of the defunct GDR was incorporated into the German Federal Republic. Unified Germany began discussing its history. This led to a new culture of remembrance, in which the Nazi past took on central importance.

A rise in nationalism and right-wing extremism

German unification awakened old fears at home and abroad. The “reunification” was accompanied by numerous attacks on migrants, leftists and homeless people. In response to the rise in nationalism and right-wing extremism, some people warned of a “Fourth Reich”. At the same time, German society began arguing over its future view of history and the role of Nazi crimes in it.  

Nazi crimes and GDR injustice

Debates over Germany’s remembrance policy dominated the 1990s. The main issue was distinguishing between the commemoration of GDR injustices and the crimes committed in Nazi Germany. Former victims of Nazi persecution and their descendants were not alone in their concern that equating the two would have negative consequences.  A Bundestag commission of enquiry was established to assess how the two German dictatorships and their victims should be commemorated in unified Germany.

A national “memorial concept”

In its final report presented in 1998, the Commission stressed the importance of not relativising Nazi crimes by focusing on injustices committed in the GDR. In 1999, the Federal Government adopted a national “memorial concept” that encompassed both dictatorships. That same year, following many years of public debate in Germany, the Bundestag passed a resolution to build a memorial dedicated to the murdered Jews of Europe in the centre of Berlin, Germany’s new federal capital.

Illustration: The Holocaust Memorial ensured that the commemoration of Nazi crimes occupied a dominant place in Germany’s political symbolism, 2005

In politics, Germany’s commemoration of Nazi crimes had not been fundamentally questioned since the late 1990s. However, after the far-right AfD Party entered parliament, the assumed ‘consensus of remembrance’ began to falter.

A shift in political culture

The far right had always regarded the critical examination of Nazi crimes as a “cult of guilt” that hindered Germany’s positive national identity. In the 2010s, the AfD Party emerged as a political force that used far-right patterns of argumentation. Germany’s political culture changed dramatically after the AfD achieved nationwide representation in parliament.

“... just a speck of bird poop in our 1000-year history”

In its party platform, the AfD did not explicitly oppose commemorating Nazi crimes. It demanded that stronger emphasis be placed on so-called ‘highlights’ of German history. In 2018, then-party chairman Alexander Gauland explained what this meant: “Yes, we acknowledge our responsibility for the twelve years. But, dear friends, Hitler and the Nazis are just a speck of bird poop in our 1000-year history.”

‘... a 180-degree shift in remembrance policy”

Several AfD functionaries took an even more radical position. In a 2016 press release, the AfD in Lower Saxony demanded that we “finally ban this crazy cult of guilt from Germany.” The following year, Thuringian party leader Björn Höcke referred to a stupid coping “policy: What we need is a 180-degree shift in remembrance policy!”

Illustration: Banner at a demonstration against the construction of the Holocaust memorial in front of the Brandenburg Gate, January 2000