<
>
Download

Mitschrift
Geschichte / Historik

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

2011, Dr Koenczoel

Sara W. ©
3.70

0.07 Mb
sternsternsternsternstern_0.2
ID# 44931







Notes on the Holocaust memorial in Berlin (politics of memory)

Materials on the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe

Published by the foundation for the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe


Preface by Wolfgang Thierse, President of the Bundestag (p6)

25 June 1999, Bundestag approval of construction central “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” in centre Berlin

“dedicated to the six million victims of the Holocaust and will keep alive the memory of the most horrific crimes in German history”

“The memorial honours the victims and warns future generations to protect human rights, to defend the constitutional state, and to safeguard the equality of all people under the law”

Info centre victim-centric, give victims “names and faces” – “personalization and individualization of the horrors connected with the Holocaust” – convey horror and lift victims out anonymity

also names perpetrators

initial impetus for Peter Eisman’s design a grass-roots initiative

“This sparked years of controversial debate that reflected the way Germany saw itself at the end of the 20th Century”

passage of time had made harder not easier to decide on a design

“The integration of the memorial site into the new parliamentary and government district is an acknowledgement of our political responsibility. We are making it clear that we are not associating the fortunate outcome for us of the post-war period with an unspoken wish to be finally able to close the worst chapter of our history. On the contrary, the memorial contributes to our society’s self-awareness.

It is, in the best sense of the word, provocative: it will continue to stir emotions and to prompt discussion”.

Lea Rosh, President, Society for the promotion of the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe (p9)

citizens’ initiative – Perspective Berlin e.V - idea began 1987, took 17 years to come to fruitation. Petition and donations, soon collect over 100,000 marks and 10,000 signitaries, first of whom = Brandt – use his words as motto “our honour demands an immense expression of remembrance of the murder of the European Jewry”

Argues for Jews alone not other victim groups / all of them – cos destruction Eu Jewry = central goal NS state.

25 June 1999 approval Budestag - 314 to 209 votes.

Peter Eisenman (architect) (pgs 10-14)

p14 – aim to create a memorial in which “there is no goal, no end, no working one’s way in or out. The duration of an individual’s experience of it grants no further understanding, since understanding is impossible .In this experience, there is no nostalgia, no memory of the past, only the living memory of the individual experience. Here, we can only know the past through its manifestation in the present”

unlike trad momuments, eschews both nostalgia and representation or symbolism

Günter Schlusche

journalist Lea Rosh propose “highly visible symbol” remember murder Eu J at public forum held 24 August, 1988 to decide fate Prince-Albrecht site > mixed reactions – range ‘enthusiastic approval’ to ‘sharp rejection’ (p14)

Plan growing sympathy public, and soon in pol circles, but generally neg from experts and some sections B public. “The argument for an artistically conceived memorial did not sit well with developments in the culture of memory at the time, which had been influenced by a genuine scepticism regarding modern art in general and the concept of memorials in particular.

Memorials were characterised as affirmative and statuary and the preference was for prompting reflection, and for more active forms of remembrance” (p14)

Also ran into difficulties over conflict project ‘topog of terrors’ site, between Wilhelmstrasse and Stressemannstasse since 1987, seen as place of perpetrators, and unexpected public support for this project

New location first mooted 1990, and only confirmed 1999.

Lots of debates about design of the memorial

1998 Red-Green shift – Schröder had announced reappraisal cultural policies in election campaign, and once in announce decision to be taken by Bundestag re final design not by panel, something which the experts had been saying for years – to give legitimacy across party-lines.

‘Eisenman II’ built in the end, rejecting Naumann’s ‘House of Remembrance’ but incorporating an information centre underneath to give faces to those remembered.

Wasler speech push momentum in favour of building – drove many undecided in direction build.


Wolfgang Benz: ‘A Memorial for whom? The debate about the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe, about victims of persecution and about memorial sites’

Debate ongoing for more than 10 years, began as cit initiative, now taken on national dimensions. A “constant crystallization point in the discourse on NS, one of central importance to the Federal Republic of Germany” (p30)

Bundestag decision not put end to debate, however , and debate itself a form of remembrance, perhaps the best, wonders Benz

Zyklon B producing sister company to one involved in construction > renewed heated debate 2003 during construction back to heart of matter of “whether and for whom should the memorial be built and, if the answer were yes, then which resources might be used and who might take part in the construction” (p30)

“The impact of this confrontation revealed once again a principle function of the post-war discourse on remembrance: the memory of the National Socialist crimes is divided. On the one hand, the survivors of persecution and their descendents, and on the other, members of the dominant society at the time and their descendents, live with different sensibilities that flowed into the debate, and continue to do so” (Salomon Korn, Geteilte Erinnerung, Berlin 1999, p201)

much debate whether memorial was dedicated to victims of NS perepcution (and if so, which to incl) v. warning v crimes NS state.

The memorial to the victims could then – seen in psychoanalytical terms – become a “cover” for the unbuilt central memorial and thereby disguise the necessity for such a memorial. The parcelling out of memorials to individual groups appears to make the central German memorial superfluous” (p31)

> identification with victims preventing confrontation perpetrators – a theme emerge in memorial discussions (p31)

pol decision favour memorial dedicated J victims, but in public mind connotation this decision “was soon seen in relative terms” (p31) – “Holo memorial” (as referred) – all crimes NS subsumed under ‘Holo’, remembracen understood as remembrance guilt perpetrators at same time (p31) “Intellectually and morally, this certainly left something to be desired, but as a form of acceptance, it was valuable in paving the way towards building societal consensus” (p31)

A break with old traditions is the prerequisitve for the recovery of self-esteem” (p31) – Benz says wide agreement public opinion, pol reasoning and philosophic agreement on this point.

Hab define citizens as creators and sponsors f such a memorial, in sense of bearing a resp for their state. “The sponsor is every citizen who finds himself the clear inheritor of a culture in which this was possible – in the context of a tradition that they share with a generation of perpetrators. With their memorial, they establish at once a connection with the perpetrators, the victims and the descendents” – so note that descendents victims etc not part sponsors memorial, or pw immigrants.

Historian Reinhard Koselleck in FAZ article 9 Jan 1997 ‘Vier Minuten für die Ewigkeit’ sees problems with his optimism – refer to 3 overlapping and contradictory goals of memorials, memorial sites and museum projects ince 80s, esp in Berlin – eg wansee, neue wache, J memorial, J museum, topog etc – look at problem dedications and societal and pol povs would rep – 3 different orientations 1. All dead are victims (eg neue wache) 2. victims are only those killed as innocent civilians / defenceless prisoners, esp by Nazis 3. need to differentiate groups victims

Bundestag decision build = attempt reconcile these positions – dedicate memorial to main group victims (Eu jewry) but understanding somehow incl all remembrance all other victims NS perectuion at the site – intention to involve all parts pop in process realise memorial not expressly formulated, but established through discussion about the Bundestag resolution. – ultimately > hugely important confrontation about chemical firm involvement in building.

Hierarchies and forgotten victims of national socialism

Emph memorial inscription not understand as shut out other victim groups – statutes of Foundation state all those persecuted under NS to be incl – ie “the aim was to cultivate remembrance of discrimination, persecution, expulsion and extermination of people and to seek ways to anchor this remembrance in the national memory culture” (p33)

lots of different victim groups, some of whom no lawyers to help secure place official memory – eg little public awareness fate Soviet POWs. Russian, Uk and Bellarussian victims not often mentioned in speeches by pols. (p33)

Recent ^ recognition for the c 46,000 victims Nz military justice – desertion, conc objection mil service, “Wehrkraftzersetzung” (undermine mil) – up to recent no rec, seen as traitors, interest group only formed 1990, 1996 Bundestag say sentences invalid as from a terror state. Still not a place in public memory, but travelling exhib planned by Foundation for the .to draw attention(p33/4)

re-emergence memory Jehovah’s witnesse as victim group in 1990s – had been gradually forgotten after liberation camps, but 1,400 died in camps, and 360 executed. Re-emergence link to efforts of JW’s themselves and work of historian Detlef Garbe (1993 ‘Zwischen Widerstand und Martyrium: die Zeugen Jehovas im “Dritten Reich”, Oldenburg, 1993) (p35)

More interest in victims of medical experiements – a v hard group to define as usually member of another victim group too. Scholars in academia and at memorial sites only just begun explore this complex subject – new research presented in recent years, primarily under auspices of Max Planck Soc and, since autumn 2004, at Sachsenhausen memorial. (p35)

Bubis speech 1995 talk about artistic competition – pleased “that it was non-Js who took the initiative”, hope preserve memory without transmit guilt, also hope victims not remain completely detatched from project. (p36)

V diverse views on memorial within the different interest groups involved.

Centralisation, and memorials at historic locations

debate over site for memorial

location also contov cos of fears centralizing a diverse, federally organized landscape of memory

debate over memorial ran concurrent difficult process unification

1989 newly founded cit’s initiative chose land Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse in Berlin, former location NS machinery persecution, site already used by ‘topography of terror’ on site former Gestapo complex, claimed by group “Active Museum, Fascism and Resistance in Berlin” since early 80s – questions of compatability memorial victims on site of perpetration

Early 1990s – period growth Berlin efforts culture memory :

  • 1992 “House of the Wansee Conferece” (find German name) – opened to public as memorial and education centre [direct link perpetration]

  • 1992 Foundation ‘Topography of Terror’ aim document crimes on site Prinx-Albrecht complex [perps]

  • Many memorials to victims set up in B – at Grunewald train station, in memory deported Js (1991), Rg for persecuted MPs (1992), site Sonnenellee satellite concentration camp (1994), at location Columbiahaus conc camp (1994), site book burnings Bebelplatz (1995), at former location synagogue Lindenstrasse etc etc

  • rededication “Neue Wache” on ?Unter den Linden as central national site – controversy

  • 1999 opening of building ‘Jewish Museum’, Daniel Libeskind, 2001 open as museum. Much interest, seem meet a need.

    Realisation

    Lots of competitons for the planned memorial – reveal difficulty in dealing NS past - see competition entry Horst Hoheisel grind up BB gate, reveal how debate memorial penetrate societal identity – qu how serious ppl were about memorial and its location – “Would the nation of the perpetrators, considering the genocide o European Jews and Sinti and Roma, be prepared to sacrifice a national symbol as a memorial?” (p38)

    1998 “Reunification through Insight” – group 19 intellectuals reject memorial – exclusive, disacossiated reality, abstract, and Walter Jens at same time (head artistic competition 1994-5): “The horror of horrors cannot be grasped though the medium of monumental art” (‘Offener Brief’ in FAZ, 5 Feb 1998)

  • dev private initiatives, memorial etc coincide need arisen in Eu as whole after end CS to clarify how deal SWW, NS occupation Eu, crimes etc – memorials at historic sites all over eu (AUsch, Theresienstadt, Dachau etc) newly designed and shaped. New memorials and museums under construction in many places – open 2005 coincide60 yrs end war (like hol memorial)

    memorial more than abstract sign remembrance appealing emotions – “info Centre” – a site “cognitive experience”, will keep memor alive

    goal activities of foundation and info centre- talks, scholarly activities – “to bring the confrontation with NS into everyday life” (p39)


    Note it was the involvement of the Degussa company in memorial construction which caused controv (p42 – Sibylle Quack)





    | | | | |
    Tausche dein Hausarbeiten