What do you think?
Rate this book
Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond
How does a city and a nation deal with a legacy of perpetrating atrocity? How are contemporary identities negotiated and shaped in the face of concrete reminders of a past that most wish they did not have? Difficult Heritage focuses on the case of Nuremberg – a city whose name is indelibly linked with Nazism – to explore these questions and their implications. Using an original in-depth research, using archival, interview and ethnographic sources, it provides not only fascinating new material and perspectives, but also more general original theorizing of the relationship between heritage, identity and material culture. The book looks at how Nuremberg has dealt with its Nazi past post-1945. It focuses especially, but not exclusively, on the city’s architectural heritage, in particular, the former Nazi party rally grounds, on which the Nuremburg rallies were staged. The book draws on original sources, such as city council debates and interviews, to chart a lively picture of debate, action and inaction in relation to this site and significant others, in Nuremberg and elsewhere. In doing so, Difficult Heritage seeks to highlight changes over time in the ways in which the Nazi past has been dealt with in Germany, and the underlying cultural assumptions, motivations and sources of friction involved. Whilst referencing wider debates and giving examples of what was happening elsewhere in Germany and beyond, Difficult Heritage provides a rich in-depth account of this most fascinating of cases. It also engages in comparative reflection on developments underway elsewhere in order to contextualize what was happening in Nuremberg and to show similarities to and differences from the ways in which other ‘difficult heritages’ have been dealt with elsewhere. By doing so, the author offers an informed perspective on ways of dealing with difficult heritage, today and in the future, discussing innovative museological, educational and artistic practice.
240 pages, Paperback
First published March 27, 2008
1 person is currently reading
38 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
February 16, 2013This past summer, my wife and I visited Nuremberg and in particular the Nazi Documentation Center located on the site of the former Rally Grounds of the Nazi Party.
We were both appalled at what we felt was a glorification of the rise of Hitler. We felt the exhibit, titled FASCINATION AND TERROR, was in many respects seriously misleading to visitors, especially the students who comprise the bulk of the attendees. Two prime examples were (1) the depiction of the bungled and treasonous beer hall putsch march of 1923 as "heroic" and (2) the uncontested concluding video, where a German woman says she was told by a friend who worked in a hospital about a patient who had a mental breakdown. She went on (paraphrase) … “He said he was the driver of a truck where Jews were gassed in the back of the truck. He said he couldn’t stand it anymore. But I don’t think this could be true. Our Fuhrer would never allow that to happen."
My written comments found their way to the Museum Director, who not surprisingly was as appalled by what I had written as we were with his exhibit. Director Taubrich and I exchanged several respectful emails, without changing my fundamental position. This exchange has been posted to my author blog at ...
http://lewweinsteinauthorblog.com/201...
Since the summer, I have been searching for an independent evaluation of the exhibit. There are, to my knowledge, no such reviews in the academic or popular press ... except for Difficult Heritage.
Most of Difficult Heritage concerns itself with the decision to create a museum/exhibit and the physical structure itself, but there are enough hints regarding possible omissions to make me think my own comments may be on the right track. I've written to Professor Macdonald to ask her opinion of our negative reaction to the exhibit.
The notes below suggest the designers of the exhibit were very conscious of the difficulties they might encounter, but then (in our opinion) did not avoid them.
... Eckart Dietzfelbinger … Head of Scientific Research, Documentation Center of the former Nazi Party Rally Grounds (2003) … there are serious deficits … Fascination predominates … we had an advisory committee in 1997 … we had developed a room with 10 panels dealing with war prisoners and their exploitation and deaths ... but in 2001 the making of part of the exhibition was taken over by the Institute of Contemporary History, even though we had developed it ourselves ... and then everything was thrown out
... that there was a danger that restoring buildings might be seen as Nazi homage was evident in a report in the Sunday Times in 1983
... critics of the 1984 show … showing the exuberant emotion and symbolism of the rallies put too much emphasis on Fascination … and too little on Terror … schoolteachers said the show should be shown only to pupils in upper stages and who had been thoroughly prepared in advance
... question … to what extent should there be an attempt to understand perpetrators? to condone? to help prevent repitition?
... (Museum Director) Taubrich: one might have imagined confronting the visitor much more strongly with the question 'how would I have behaved?' … or 'where did this fascination come from?' … the current (2001) exhibition is much more factual … the scientific advisory committee felt that the emotional involvement of the visitors was a long way from the factual documentation
... what is absent … direct links with terror and death … prisoner of war camps and deportation at the site
... a visitor comment … the danger of showing so much about propaganda without much about the outcome
... visitors want to know - what happened to Hitler? this most important consequence of Hitler's rise not covered
We were both appalled at what we felt was a glorification of the rise of Hitler. We felt the exhibit, titled FASCINATION AND TERROR, was in many respects seriously misleading to visitors, especially the students who comprise the bulk of the attendees. Two prime examples were (1) the depiction of the bungled and treasonous beer hall putsch march of 1923 as "heroic" and (2) the uncontested concluding video, where a German woman says she was told by a friend who worked in a hospital about a patient who had a mental breakdown. She went on (paraphrase) … “He said he was the driver of a truck where Jews were gassed in the back of the truck. He said he couldn’t stand it anymore. But I don’t think this could be true. Our Fuhrer would never allow that to happen."
My written comments found their way to the Museum Director, who not surprisingly was as appalled by what I had written as we were with his exhibit. Director Taubrich and I exchanged several respectful emails, without changing my fundamental position. This exchange has been posted to my author blog at ...
http://lewweinsteinauthorblog.com/201...
Since the summer, I have been searching for an independent evaluation of the exhibit. There are, to my knowledge, no such reviews in the academic or popular press ... except for Difficult Heritage.
Most of Difficult Heritage concerns itself with the decision to create a museum/exhibit and the physical structure itself, but there are enough hints regarding possible omissions to make me think my own comments may be on the right track. I've written to Professor Macdonald to ask her opinion of our negative reaction to the exhibit.
The notes below suggest the designers of the exhibit were very conscious of the difficulties they might encounter, but then (in our opinion) did not avoid them.
... Eckart Dietzfelbinger … Head of Scientific Research, Documentation Center of the former Nazi Party Rally Grounds (2003) … there are serious deficits … Fascination predominates … we had an advisory committee in 1997 … we had developed a room with 10 panels dealing with war prisoners and their exploitation and deaths ... but in 2001 the making of part of the exhibition was taken over by the Institute of Contemporary History, even though we had developed it ourselves ... and then everything was thrown out
... that there was a danger that restoring buildings might be seen as Nazi homage was evident in a report in the Sunday Times in 1983
... critics of the 1984 show … showing the exuberant emotion and symbolism of the rallies put too much emphasis on Fascination … and too little on Terror … schoolteachers said the show should be shown only to pupils in upper stages and who had been thoroughly prepared in advance
... question … to what extent should there be an attempt to understand perpetrators? to condone? to help prevent repitition?
... (Museum Director) Taubrich: one might have imagined confronting the visitor much more strongly with the question 'how would I have behaved?' … or 'where did this fascination come from?' … the current (2001) exhibition is much more factual … the scientific advisory committee felt that the emotional involvement of the visitors was a long way from the factual documentation
... what is absent … direct links with terror and death … prisoner of war camps and deportation at the site
... a visitor comment … the danger of showing so much about propaganda without much about the outcome
... visitors want to know - what happened to Hitler? this most important consequence of Hitler's rise not covered
November 15, 2021
Goed geschreven en leest lekker weg. De ontwikkeling van erfgoed in dit boek is niet nieuw. Dit is wel jammer. Goed dat de schrijver het ook globaal probeert te trekken.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews