I'm at a bit of an impasse. Sometimes certain things get in your craw, and it ruins the whole book.
Let's start with the good, which to be fair, constitutes the core argument of Divided Memory -- West Germany did a far better job than the East, largely due to pressures from the West German center-left as led by the SPD, especially after the state-led anti-Semitism (against "rootless cosmopolitans") that reached its culmination in the Doctors' Plot conspiracy theory in Stalin's Russia (which isn't covered) and which found a receptive audience among East German leadership (which is, thoroughly).
But why does he not hammer home the degree to which the CDU government perpetuated the repulsive myth that Nazism was the result of Western man forgetting God? And why does he ignore the vital role that anti-Marxism and anti-modernism in general played in the formation of Nazi ideology, centering anti-Semitism to the seeming exclusion of all else? How does he completely ignore how capital created the pre-conditions of fascism to begin with, especially given how many parallels can be drawn with other anti-modernisms?
The real weakness for me was the way that Herf seemed to equate support for Israel with preserving the memory of the Holocaust. While you could make the argument that supporting the Zionist ideal in the wake of World War II was one of the few ways Germany could make reparations, especially given how unaware the rest of the world was of the displacement of Palestinians at the time, he carries this line of reasoning into more recent decades. A bit of research into Herf's recent essays on the subject reveal him to be firmly in the "Israel does what it needs to" camp, making me pretty damn suspicious of any of his claims on the subject.
So I'm left with the realization that this is a half-good book of history. By all means, read Herf's Reactionary Modernism, it's a brilliant study of "intellectual" anti-Semitism that's worth reading now more than ever. But I hesitate to recommend Divided Memory.