This interesting book sets out to ask the ways in which anti-Nazi leaders formulated their conceptions of Nazism during the Second World War, and the ways in which this shaped the subsequent development of memory in the two Germanys.
7 Interesting Arguments:
1. Focus is on politics and political leaders: “The history of politics and the history of beliefs, ideas, ideology, discourses, narratives and representations are inseparable from one another. By writing about politicians and the discourses and memory they construct, I hope to illustrate the importance of politics for shaping the way a society thinks about its past while at the same time drawing attention to the autonomous weight that traditions and interpretative frameworks exert on political life.” (9)
2. Post-1945 Germany saw the resurrection of indigenous traditions rather than the imposition of new foreign ones: “Postwar memories rested on interpretations of Nazism which its German opponents had begun to develop in the Weimar Republic." (5) This concept is refereed to as: "multiple restorations. The term refers to continuities that link German political traditions of the Weimar era and the anti-Nazi emigration to the period after 1945.” (3)
3. In the West, the government sought at first to move on from the crimes of Nazism in order to strengthen democracy, but this came at a price: “The price for postwar integration of those Germans compromised by their beliefs and actions in the Third Reich was silence about the crimes of that period. Memory and justice might produce a right-wing revolt that would undermine a still fragile democracy. So democracy had to be built upon a shaky foundation of justice delayed- hence denied- and weakened memory.” (7)
4. Importance of the role of wartime exile is heavily discussed: “Exile placed the German political emigres in proximity to the Jewish and non-German victims of National Socialism, be they the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union or Jewish refugees in New York or Mexico City... The experience of exile made their postwar memory less provincial, self-centred and self-pitying, and made them more aware of what the Germans under the Nazi regime had inflicted on others.” (375)
5. The SPD are a driving force in calling for recognition of the crimes of Nazism: “Before 1933 the Social Democratic Party was the fiercest defender of German democracy and of the Jewish minority in Germany... In the 1950s, German Social Democrats were the strongest supporters of a sharper judicial confrontation with the Nazi past, restitution to Jewish survivors, and close relations with Israel. Adenauer’s prominence has diverted our gaze from the central role played by Social Democrats in putting the memory of the Holocaust on the national agenda of West German politics and policy.” (377)
6. “The historical significance of the 1960s was that the relationship between memory and democracy began to change. This was part of the significance of the election of Willy Brandt in 1969 and the Social-Liberal era that extended until 1982 under Helmut Schmidt. For the first time a nationally elected majority emerged that was in favour of more public memory and more justice for the Nazi past.” (390)
7. As for the GDR: “The anticosmopolitan purge of winter 1953, the arrest and imprisonment of Paul Merker, the purging of those Jews and their sympathizers who supported restitution or opposed East Germany’s active antagonism toward Israel, the flight of Leo Zuckermann and of the leadership of the tiny Jewish community all irrevocably broke those bonds of solidarity which had emerged between some Communists and some Jews during the war.” (385)