What do you think?
Rate this book
Opa war kein Nazi: Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust im Familiengedächtnis
Was wird in Familien "ganz normaler" Deutscher über Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust überliefert? Die Autoren haben in Familiengesprächen und Interviews untersucht , was Deutsche aus der NS-Vergangenheit erinnern, wie sie darüber sprechen und was davon an die Kinder- und Enkelgenaration weitergegeben wird.
249 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2002
21 people are currently reading
389 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
April 21, 2025Auf jeden Fall interessanter Deep dive in das kollektive Familiengedächtnis vieler deutscher Familien in Bezug zur NS-Zeit. An vielen Stellen enorm frustrierend. Die wissenschaftliche Fundierung kam mir stellenweise allerdings etwas dünn vor. Lohnt sich trotzdem!
September 9, 2020
I really got a lot out of reading this book. It was tough at times, for sure, but just fascinating in every way. It took a bit for me to adjust to the clinical vocabulary (zeitzeugen, familiengedaechtnis, and zusammenhaeng became almost comfortably familiar), but once I got past that, it was easy to get through.
I learned a lot about how (selective) memory works and how it functions in relation to family history and how those stories evolve over three generations. The modes of family memory preservation lead to such stunning justification slants that are so easy to understand, yet frightening because it speaks to the greater inability of humanity to actually learn lessons of any kind - even from the NS-Zeit. I realize it's its own form of "individual" self-preservation to see the "bright side," but it can look really disgusting as well.
To read the discomfort from interview transcripts when the storyteller is challenged to fill logical gaps, contradictions, or inconsistencies, is... well... uncomfortable. It reminds me of stories I was told about my grandfather "disarming" North Koreans. I was fascinated to read how much more damning the story was from the perspective of the one who lived it. And how exoneration of the storyteller of that same story can be told, with accelerating levels of exoneration at each generation, by the descendants. In the "familiengespraech" portions (group interview), the young ones would "clarify" (read: correct) grandfather's story by adding their rose-colored interpretation of how grandfather told "them" that story. The seeming-acceptance of that grandchild's version as not really genuine is revealed in the grandfather's individual interview.
The way media influences and/or fills the gaps of memory was fascinating (especially with such a time as this, which was so documented and adapted to film).
I was also quite intrigued to learn about the "twin histories" and how much that changed the way memories are preserved between East and West Germans. The notion that some view "Osis" as having experienced dictatorship as one block from 1933 until 1989, contrasted with some who take great offense to that (other agreed, so it's not a clear result) was quite interesting. Some seemed genuinely upset at the notion that it was compared at all ("No Holocaust"... although Buchenwald was re-used by the Soviets for a time, I learned). Sometimes the disagreement was for hilarious reasons. Those who were sympathetic to the Nazi ways (never overtly, but almost by hints) seemed dismissive of the DDR as a cheap knock-off, and pointed out how easy it was to watch Western TV. It's unsaid, but implied, that Nazis would have locked that down better. Others thought it was the same oppression, and, with the Holocaust unknown anyway (a whole other topic that would be its own post), was exactly the same day-to-day. It also seems to explain why right-wing extremists are rampant in the former DDR. Also how Easterners and Westerners viewed the paradigm of the other was pretty mind-blowing for an outsider like me. But, the main takeaway of this section was that Westerners remembered it as a near lifetime ago, and Easterners, also conditioned to live among spying, have a closer frame of reference, less willingness to talk openly (this is clearly stated by them), but also an entirely extra epoch that changed and uprooted their lives in the meantime. There's a lot to this. Like the grandmother who responded to questions about her being in a Nazi women's group by reminding everyone that her daughter was in a similar DDR "Maedels" group (while turning to her to say so) in the 70s. Is it the same? It both isn't clear, and, yet, ended that discussion.
The notion that no one knew about extermination camps is just a story everyone is sticking to. That is held tightly and no one is breaking the promise to keep that going. Easterners said "hey, we didn't know people were getting beaten." It's... interesting... It is also often very convincing to think about what can go on without people knowing. Which leads to (relatedly...)
The authors illustrate very well how "disappearances" are dealt with in these stories with language that impliedly includes the possibilities other than murder as a self-salve. Also, not turning someone in for being Jewish because they "weren't a bother," does not qualify as "heroic saving of a family." But, that doesn't mean it won't become a hard-and-fast family story (this was one of those "uncomfortable" stories I mentioned). Especially when you have no idea what became of them and never thought to find out. I'm just throwing that out there.
I am certain I am forgetting to include some aspects. Here are a few: I was stunned to see a family name of ours (Renz, and they were born in Germany in the early 1900s) among the interviewed, and saddened by the stories. The fear of Russians and love of Americans was weird to read about (but understood). The stories of family who posthumously discovered that grandfather was a fervent Nazi, and the shattering of that family's identity and history was sad and interesting. This was an occasion where the "family history" was unraveled and decimated by the truth bomb. One family took a part of one story that grandfather (dead at the time of the interviews) only told when drunk and turned it into a heroic saving of children story (grandma openly states "there is a reason he told it while drunk and never told any other stories" before herself revealing how she used an 88mm AA horizontally toward the end and saying "we all did things we don't want to talk about"... which was pretty gangster). But, nope, descendants hold a story of a man who saved a kid (or many... as it evolved). I could just keep writing, but I'll stop here. One grandfather acknowledged his letters home were zealously Nazi, and he addressed it along with stories of "self defense" atrocities. Lots and lots of mental gymnastics all around.
These family stories do not include social media likes, posts, and unfortunate comments that will never be erased, though, so these families get to remember as they wish (unless, like that one family, they open grandpa's old suitcase in the basement). Not sure that will work as well for future generations.
I learned a lot about how (selective) memory works and how it functions in relation to family history and how those stories evolve over three generations. The modes of family memory preservation lead to such stunning justification slants that are so easy to understand, yet frightening because it speaks to the greater inability of humanity to actually learn lessons of any kind - even from the NS-Zeit. I realize it's its own form of "individual" self-preservation to see the "bright side," but it can look really disgusting as well.
To read the discomfort from interview transcripts when the storyteller is challenged to fill logical gaps, contradictions, or inconsistencies, is... well... uncomfortable. It reminds me of stories I was told about my grandfather "disarming" North Koreans. I was fascinated to read how much more damning the story was from the perspective of the one who lived it. And how exoneration of the storyteller of that same story can be told, with accelerating levels of exoneration at each generation, by the descendants. In the "familiengespraech" portions (group interview), the young ones would "clarify" (read: correct) grandfather's story by adding their rose-colored interpretation of how grandfather told "them" that story. The seeming-acceptance of that grandchild's version as not really genuine is revealed in the grandfather's individual interview.
The way media influences and/or fills the gaps of memory was fascinating (especially with such a time as this, which was so documented and adapted to film).
I was also quite intrigued to learn about the "twin histories" and how much that changed the way memories are preserved between East and West Germans. The notion that some view "Osis" as having experienced dictatorship as one block from 1933 until 1989, contrasted with some who take great offense to that (other agreed, so it's not a clear result) was quite interesting. Some seemed genuinely upset at the notion that it was compared at all ("No Holocaust"... although Buchenwald was re-used by the Soviets for a time, I learned). Sometimes the disagreement was for hilarious reasons. Those who were sympathetic to the Nazi ways (never overtly, but almost by hints) seemed dismissive of the DDR as a cheap knock-off, and pointed out how easy it was to watch Western TV. It's unsaid, but implied, that Nazis would have locked that down better. Others thought it was the same oppression, and, with the Holocaust unknown anyway (a whole other topic that would be its own post), was exactly the same day-to-day. It also seems to explain why right-wing extremists are rampant in the former DDR. Also how Easterners and Westerners viewed the paradigm of the other was pretty mind-blowing for an outsider like me. But, the main takeaway of this section was that Westerners remembered it as a near lifetime ago, and Easterners, also conditioned to live among spying, have a closer frame of reference, less willingness to talk openly (this is clearly stated by them), but also an entirely extra epoch that changed and uprooted their lives in the meantime. There's a lot to this. Like the grandmother who responded to questions about her being in a Nazi women's group by reminding everyone that her daughter was in a similar DDR "Maedels" group (while turning to her to say so) in the 70s. Is it the same? It both isn't clear, and, yet, ended that discussion.
The notion that no one knew about extermination camps is just a story everyone is sticking to. That is held tightly and no one is breaking the promise to keep that going. Easterners said "hey, we didn't know people were getting beaten." It's... interesting... It is also often very convincing to think about what can go on without people knowing. Which leads to (relatedly...)
The authors illustrate very well how "disappearances" are dealt with in these stories with language that impliedly includes the possibilities other than murder as a self-salve. Also, not turning someone in for being Jewish because they "weren't a bother," does not qualify as "heroic saving of a family." But, that doesn't mean it won't become a hard-and-fast family story (this was one of those "uncomfortable" stories I mentioned). Especially when you have no idea what became of them and never thought to find out. I'm just throwing that out there.
I am certain I am forgetting to include some aspects. Here are a few: I was stunned to see a family name of ours (Renz, and they were born in Germany in the early 1900s) among the interviewed, and saddened by the stories. The fear of Russians and love of Americans was weird to read about (but understood). The stories of family who posthumously discovered that grandfather was a fervent Nazi, and the shattering of that family's identity and history was sad and interesting. This was an occasion where the "family history" was unraveled and decimated by the truth bomb. One family took a part of one story that grandfather (dead at the time of the interviews) only told when drunk and turned it into a heroic saving of children story (grandma openly states "there is a reason he told it while drunk and never told any other stories" before herself revealing how she used an 88mm AA horizontally toward the end and saying "we all did things we don't want to talk about"... which was pretty gangster). But, nope, descendants hold a story of a man who saved a kid (or many... as it evolved). I could just keep writing, but I'll stop here. One grandfather acknowledged his letters home were zealously Nazi, and he addressed it along with stories of "self defense" atrocities. Lots and lots of mental gymnastics all around.
These family stories do not include social media likes, posts, and unfortunate comments that will never be erased, though, so these families get to remember as they wish (unless, like that one family, they open grandpa's old suitcase in the basement). Not sure that will work as well for future generations.
November 19, 2025
Dieses Buch ist eine Untersuchung, bei der Familien- und Einzelinterviews der Kriegsgenerationen, sowie den zwei Nachfolgegenerationen ausgewertet wurden. Zwar liest es sich an manchen Stellen etwas sperrig - es wurde ja eben für ein wissenschaftliches Publikum verfasst, aber die Erkenntnisse sind erstaunlich. Und gleichzeitig nicht überraschend, wenn man in einer deutschen Familie aufgewachsen ist und einem viele der Narrative vertraut vorkommen.
Im Grunde geht es darum, wie Kinder und Enkel Erinnerung konstruieren und so die Täterschaft der eigenen Verwandtschaft, "des lieben Opa", umschreiben. So kommt es zu bekannten Umdeutungen, die wir heute auch kennen, dass Deutsche sich in ihren Erzählungen als Opfer darstellen und sich dabei der Bilder des Holocaust bedienen.
Jedenfalls hat mich dieses Buch jetzt noch mehr angeregt, mal auf Nachforschung in meiner eigenen Familie zu gehen.
Im Grunde geht es darum, wie Kinder und Enkel Erinnerung konstruieren und so die Täterschaft der eigenen Verwandtschaft, "des lieben Opa", umschreiben. So kommt es zu bekannten Umdeutungen, die wir heute auch kennen, dass Deutsche sich in ihren Erzählungen als Opfer darstellen und sich dabei der Bilder des Holocaust bedienen.
Jedenfalls hat mich dieses Buch jetzt noch mehr angeregt, mal auf Nachforschung in meiner eigenen Familie zu gehen.
September 26, 2022
Es wäre wohl mal wieder Zeit für ein Update! Denn das Buch greift auf Daten aus den 90er Jahren zurück.
TLDR: Die Erinnerungen an die Ns Zeit sind sehr oft von Scham und Schuld belastet, dass Zeitzeugen sich durch ihre Erinnerungen rechtfertigen müssen. Nachkommen dieser Zeitzeugen nehmen ihre "liebenden" Verwanten dann noch weiter in Schutz, denn wer will schon Enkel von einem Kriegsverbrecher sein?
TLDR: Die Erinnerungen an die Ns Zeit sind sehr oft von Scham und Schuld belastet, dass Zeitzeugen sich durch ihre Erinnerungen rechtfertigen müssen. Nachkommen dieser Zeitzeugen nehmen ihre "liebenden" Verwanten dann noch weiter in Schutz, denn wer will schon Enkel von einem Kriegsverbrecher sein?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 30, 2013
Harald Welzer et son équipe de sociologues de l’université de Hanovre étudient depuis vingt ans la transmission de la conscience historique en Allemagne. À l’occasion de la publication de "Soldats", un décryptage des récits des soldats allemands durant leur captivité, Gallimard propose la traduction d’une étude rédigée au tournant du siècle sur la transmission du souvenir du nazisme et de la Shoah dans les familles allemandes.
À partir de 182 entretiens, collectifs puis individuels, réalisés auprès de 40 familles plurigénérationnelles, en Allemagne de l’Ouest comme en Allemagne de l’Est, les auteurs tirent deux enseignements.
Le premier est surprenant. La génération des témoins ne montre pas de réticence à se remémorer son histoire. Ce résultat contredit le mythe cultivé par la génération des enfants, qui, dans les années 1960 ou 1970, ont reproché à leurs parents de s’être cloîtrés dans un silence hypocrite. Ce résultat doit toutefois être relativisé. Il tient, d’une part, à la constitution de l’échantillon des enquêteurs qui, par construction, n’inclut que des familles disposées à discuter collectivement de leur passé. Il tient, d’autre part, à l’époque à laquelle ces entretiens ont été réalisés : au crépuscule de leurs vies, les témoins montrent peut-être moins de réticences à narrer un passé qu’ils imaginent, à tort ou à raison, frappé de prescription.
Le second est choquant. Que les témoins édulcorent leurs souvenirs est de bonne guerre. Ils prennent la posture de victimes : victimes du régime policier nazi, du service militaire, de la dureté des combats, des bombardements alliés, des camps de captivité, des exactions des Russes, etc. Il est plus choquant en revanche que leurs enfants et plus encore leurs petits-enfants ne remettent pas en cause ces témoignages. Pour eux « grand-père n’était pas un nazi ». Pourtant, la génération des grands-parents évoque parfois, fût-ce à mots couverts, des arrestations, des exécutions, auxquelles ils ont assisté sinon collaboré. Ces récits-là ne sont pas « entendus » par leurs descendants qui, au contraire, érigent en faits de résistance des actes anodins pour reconstruire l’image idéale d’un aïeul courageux voire héroïque. Par exemple, un petit-fils raconte que son grand-père a retourné son arme contre son commandant lorsque l’ordre lui a été donné d’exécuter des prisonniers, alors que son grand-père n’avait rien fait de tel. Autre exemple : une petite-fille affirme que sa grand-mère avait « aidé des Juifs durant la guerre », alors que la grand-mère s’était simplement abstenue de dénoncer des voisins.
Un hiatus infranchissable existe entre la mémoire collective, transmise par la culture publique du souvenir, qui ressasse à l’envi l’inhumanité du régime nazi et l’horreur absolue de la Shoah, et la mémoire familiale qui refuse de voir dans un débonnaire grand-père le complice de ces crimes. Cette dimension émotionnelle de la conscience historique révèle les limites de l’éducation scolaire. À l’école, à la télévision, dans tout l’espace public, la génération des enfants et des petits-enfants a été élevée dans le souvenir permanent des horreurs du nazisme. La réprobation du Troisième Reich est quasi-unanime dans la société allemande. Pour autant, elle coexiste paradoxalement avec un « album » familial romantique et enjolivé dans lequel le passé des aïeuls demeure irréprochable.
Il serait intéressant d’effectuer la même enquête en France. On aboutirait sans doute au même résultat désespérant, amplifié par le mythe résistancialiste véhiculé par le gaullisme : pour la génération des enfants et des petits-enfants, leurs grands-parents furent de courageux résistants ou, au pire, d’impuissantes victimes de l’Occupation, mais certainement pas d’odieux collaborationnistes.
À partir de 182 entretiens, collectifs puis individuels, réalisés auprès de 40 familles plurigénérationnelles, en Allemagne de l’Ouest comme en Allemagne de l’Est, les auteurs tirent deux enseignements.
Le premier est surprenant. La génération des témoins ne montre pas de réticence à se remémorer son histoire. Ce résultat contredit le mythe cultivé par la génération des enfants, qui, dans les années 1960 ou 1970, ont reproché à leurs parents de s’être cloîtrés dans un silence hypocrite. Ce résultat doit toutefois être relativisé. Il tient, d’une part, à la constitution de l’échantillon des enquêteurs qui, par construction, n’inclut que des familles disposées à discuter collectivement de leur passé. Il tient, d’autre part, à l’époque à laquelle ces entretiens ont été réalisés : au crépuscule de leurs vies, les témoins montrent peut-être moins de réticences à narrer un passé qu’ils imaginent, à tort ou à raison, frappé de prescription.
Le second est choquant. Que les témoins édulcorent leurs souvenirs est de bonne guerre. Ils prennent la posture de victimes : victimes du régime policier nazi, du service militaire, de la dureté des combats, des bombardements alliés, des camps de captivité, des exactions des Russes, etc. Il est plus choquant en revanche que leurs enfants et plus encore leurs petits-enfants ne remettent pas en cause ces témoignages. Pour eux « grand-père n’était pas un nazi ». Pourtant, la génération des grands-parents évoque parfois, fût-ce à mots couverts, des arrestations, des exécutions, auxquelles ils ont assisté sinon collaboré. Ces récits-là ne sont pas « entendus » par leurs descendants qui, au contraire, érigent en faits de résistance des actes anodins pour reconstruire l’image idéale d’un aïeul courageux voire héroïque. Par exemple, un petit-fils raconte que son grand-père a retourné son arme contre son commandant lorsque l’ordre lui a été donné d’exécuter des prisonniers, alors que son grand-père n’avait rien fait de tel. Autre exemple : une petite-fille affirme que sa grand-mère avait « aidé des Juifs durant la guerre », alors que la grand-mère s’était simplement abstenue de dénoncer des voisins.
Un hiatus infranchissable existe entre la mémoire collective, transmise par la culture publique du souvenir, qui ressasse à l’envi l’inhumanité du régime nazi et l’horreur absolue de la Shoah, et la mémoire familiale qui refuse de voir dans un débonnaire grand-père le complice de ces crimes. Cette dimension émotionnelle de la conscience historique révèle les limites de l’éducation scolaire. À l’école, à la télévision, dans tout l’espace public, la génération des enfants et des petits-enfants a été élevée dans le souvenir permanent des horreurs du nazisme. La réprobation du Troisième Reich est quasi-unanime dans la société allemande. Pour autant, elle coexiste paradoxalement avec un « album » familial romantique et enjolivé dans lequel le passé des aïeuls demeure irréprochable.
Il serait intéressant d’effectuer la même enquête en France. On aboutirait sans doute au même résultat désespérant, amplifié par le mythe résistancialiste véhiculé par le gaullisme : pour la génération des enfants et des petits-enfants, leurs grands-parents furent de courageux résistants ou, au pire, d’impuissantes victimes de l’Occupation, mais certainement pas d’odieux collaborationnistes.
October 22, 2023
what can i say... literally changed my maturarbeit so an absolut 5 star
September 15, 2024
Achtung Sachbuch
August 16, 2017
Kniha NADMÍRU zajímavá, avšak zmršená překladem/redakcí. Některé věty zůstaly na hranici srozumitelnosti, což je velká škoda. U prestižního nakladatelství historické literatury zarážejí nepochopitelné lapsy jako překlad "člen tělesné standarty SS Adolfa Hitlera". Jinak téma předávání rodinné paměti mě osobně velmi zajímá. Některá zjištění byla překvapivá (viz ovlivnění filmovými obrazy aj.), jiná očekávaná, ale celkově se jedná o doporučeníhodnou knihu pro každého, koho zajímají soudobé dějiny a orální historie. Pocit, který ve mně zůstal, byla frustrace z toho, zda se jako lidé vůbec dokážeme pohnout z místa, když z nacismu vyšly vlastně všechny německé rodiny s tím, že jejich dědů a babiček se ty hrůzy netýkaly. Pokání stojí v cestě mechanismy psychiky.
March 7, 2021
Der Einstieg in das Buch fiel mir schwer, da anfangs die theoretischen Grundlagen gelegt werden. Danach habe ich es gerne gelesen, da mich die Erkenntnisse immer wieder zum Nachdenken angeregt haben und ich auch die Methodik der Untersuchung spannend fand (als Fachfremde). Teilweise waren die Unterschiede in den Beispielen nur sehr nuanciert, wodurch sich eine gewisse Wiederholung eingestellt hat. Einen längeren Ausschnitt aus einem Interview hätte ich im Anhang gerne gelesen, da in den kurzen Beispielen natürlich kein größerer Kontext erkennbar war (der natürlich von den Autoren gegeben wurden, trotzdem wäre der eigene Eindruck interessant gewesen).
April 15, 2020
Eine wichtige Arbeit zur Tradierung der NS-Zeit und des Holocausts in deutschen Familienerinnerungen, die in ihrer grundlegenden Tendenz von den Studien der Stiftung Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft 2018 und 2019 (Multidimensionaler Erinnerungsmonitor, MEMO) bestätigt wurde. Problematisch ist allerdings die geringe Stichprobengröße, von der aus Welzer et al. ihre Schlussfolgerungen ziehen.
March 13, 2021
Ein sehr empfehlenswertes Buch, das uns zeigt wie man in den deutschen Familien mit dem Thema des Nationalsozialismus umgeht und welche tabus es noch hinsichtlich dieses Themas gibt. Das Buch basiert auf eine sehr gut aufgebaute Recherche und wird klar und verständlich vorgestellt.
February 26, 2019
Sehr wissenschaftlich fundierte Familienforschung. Wie geben wir in unseren Familien erlebte Geschichte wieder? Hat dazu geführt dass ich eine familiencronik schreiben möchte.
February 28, 2010
Good, solid social research on how history is being processed in three generations.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews