Germany Remembers Their Controversial Past

As an American experiencing Germany for the first time, I was able to focus on the relationship and history between the German people and their government, especially during the Third Reich. The German Historical Museum explores the people’s perspective and their interaction with Hitler’s government. The juxtaposition that exists between the rights of the individual in Nazi Germany and in the United States makes the German experience unique and distinct from other European nations. The German Historical Museum discusses the Weimar Republic, the democratic government after World War I, and its shortcomings before its eventually destruction. Essentially, Weimar was a democracy without democrats and was doomed to fail the moment it was formed because the people saw its creation as a betrayal of the German Army. It’s hard to fathom from an American perspective, how the majority of the German people were willing to sacrifice their freedoms in favor of a totalitarian regime that persecuted its own people. The fact that the German government can change so drastically within a ten-year period makes it all the more interesting to analyze, especially from an American point of view.

The tour of Germany’s Bundestag helped provide a basic structure of Germany’s current governmental system. The current system relies heavily on democratic ideals and the structure of the Reichstag provides a constant reminder of the past. The glass dome in the center of the building reminds elected officials of the past and symbolizes that the people are always watching. This idea that the government exists to serve the people has a strong connection with America’s own governmental system and it demonstrates the progress Germany has made over the last several decades under democratic rule.

Germany’s World War II museums also present an accurate history of their country’s war experience and participation in war crimes. The museums discuss the atrocities that Nazi Germany committed, from the mobile killing units of the Einsatzgruppen to the systemized execution of the Jews, and tries to help Germans come to terms with their difficult past. Germany has a better grasp about recognizing their mistakes when compared to the United States. Some Americans forget the mistakes that the United States has made, from the institution of slavery to the treatment of Native Americans, and they fail to understand these events as a part of American history. Similarly, the German Resistance Museum accurately describes the different resistance movements against Hitler’s government. Under the Nazi regime, there was no widespread resistance movement like in France or Poland, and the German Resistance Museum accurately portrays these few movements that challenged Hitler’s authority. This museum does not inflate the accomplishments of the different types of resistance and does not suggest that the efforts of these resistance groups had any significant influence on the outcome of the war.

Polish People Hope to Perceive Their History From a Controlled Perspective

The Polish sites we visited help demonstrate Poland’s desire to remember World War II in a way that coincides with their own self-image. The new Holocaust Law passed earlier this year by the Polish government represents Poland’s national claim to innocence in regards to their complicity in the Holocaust. When we visited Auschwitz and Birkenau, it was evident that the Polish government wanted to control how the site was presented to the public. All tour groups needed to be accompanied by a guide inside both camps, and there was a systematic structure that predetermined what aspects of each camp were open to the public. The Poles want to make it abundantly clear that the Nazis were solely responsible for creating these death camps on Polish soil and engaging in the mass genocide of minorities the Nazi’s deemed to be inferior. It’s not difficult to understand where the Poles are coming from and their desire to separate themselves from one of the greatest atrocities in human history. As I walked through Auschwitz and saw each step of the extermination process, I just felt helpless. Each pair of empty shoes, each strand of hair, and each personal item confiscated just hit me with a new wave of despair. There are no words that completely describe the essence of that place and the horrors human beings had to endure.

Nevertheless, the Polish claim of national innocence towards the Holocaust is a fallacy. The participation of some Polish people in the Holocaust is a part of their history. Our tour guide told us that there were Polish people in the area who worked in the camps and others in nearby towns that knew about them. During the chaos of war and widespread destruction, some of the Poles were just doing what was necessary to stay alive. It’s not right, nor does it provide justification for their actions. But it is a part of Poland’s history even if the central government chooses to deny it.

On the drive to Auschwitz and Birkenau, the tour guide talked about focusing on three different aspects when touring the camps, memory, awareness and responsibility. She asked us to remember the victims as well as the oppressors of the camps, recognize the impact of the Holocaust on the rest of Europe, and try to comprehend how something like this could happen. However, if the Poles choose to ignore their roles as both victims and oppressors in the Holocaust, they lack the full awareness of what happened and will never successfully answer why something like this could happen. By putting forth their own national interests above the historical account of events, the Polish government’s emphasis on controlling how each camp is presented distracts from the meaning of each site and Poland’s war experience.

The French Embellish Their Role in World War II

The French World War II sites failed to recognize the widespread collaboration efforts of Vichy as part of their history and acknowledge their shortcomings in the war. At the Caen Memorial, the museum contained little information about Vichy France and French life under the occupation of Nazi Germany. It seemed like the memorial was trying to push all the blame for a collaborationist government that emerged in Vichy as Philippe Pétain’s fault. The way the French appeared to be using Pétain as an escape goat was very similar to the German belief of Dolchstoss in World War I. In both circumstances, the German and French public blamed a new emerging government, Weimar and Vichy respectively, and failed to accept the reality that they were bested on the battlefield. Pétain understood that France had lost the war and choose to surrender to save French lives and act in a way that would position France in the best situation possible under a German controlled Europe. A significant number French soldiers who were rescued at Dunkirk willingly surrendered themselves in order to return to France proves that there was public support for Vichy France.

Les Invalides in Paris along with the Caen Memorial also generated a distorted account that the French should see themselves as an Allied Power throughout the entirety of the war. After the fall of France, both of these museums made it seem as if France was a part of Allied victories leading up to the liberation of Paris. For instance, Les Invalides made it seem like France had a significant impact in the African theater, but this past spring semester we learned that French soldiers initially opened fired on American troops landing in Morocco. Furthermore, the sites suggested that World War II ended with the liberation of Paris in August 1944. I did not see anything in the museums that discussed the Battle of the Bulge or the Battle of Berlin. They followed a pattern that stressed the liberation of Paris and then ignored the major events leading up to Germany’s surrender in May 1945.

The majority of the French sites also glorified Charles de Gaulle and exaggerated the accomplishments of la Résistance. Les Invalides dedicated an entire wing to de Gaulle and tried to emphasis that he was on similar status as Roosevelt and Churchill. In reality, de Gaulle was the head of a government in exile with resources that came nowhere near to the extent of Roosevelt or Churchill. There were also several claims regarding the accomplishments of the French Resistance throughout the different sites in France. Although the French Resistance provided information to the Allied forces and hindered German troops, especially in the Normandy campaign, they were not successful in liberating the majority of France by 1944. After learning about the actual history of the war and visiting these memorials, France appeared to approach World War II with a selective memory that relied heavily on exaggeration and drifted from the reality of their war experience.

 

 

British National Identity Past and Present from an American’s Perspective

The strong resolve that the British displayed during World War II remains a prominent aspect of their national identity and is proudly displayed in their museums. In the British Imperial War Museum, several objects symbolize the sacrifice of ordinary British civilians. From the long boats that rescued soldiers from Dunkirk to the bomb shelters that became a part of everyday life, the Museum acknowledges that World War II was a people’s war. This tough national character is also exemplified by the British civilians who are still fortunate enough to share their experiences during the war, such as Micheal Handscomb. His recollection of the Blitz and his memory of the war helped from a civilian perspective made the war more personal and real. When Handscomb recalled what it was like after France surrendered, I was able to gain a better sense of Britain’s overall mindset on resisting the Nazi war machine. After listening to him speak, I developed a greater appreciation for the British people and their strength of will as they faced an enemy who at that point in time appeared to be invincible. Handscomb’s firsthand account exemplified the British strength and helped me make real connections from the present to World War II.

The British Museums and eye-witness accounts like Mr. Handscomb, generate an image of the British characterized by admirable resilience and determination rooted in their experience from World War II. However, the British also perpetuate the controversial aspect of their imperial legacy. The British Museum embodies this imperial pride and historical traditional of the British Empire and is a symbol of the power they exerted all over the world for centuries. The fact that the British government refuses to return these artifacts to their place of origin makes it seem that the British willingly choose to ignore some of the controversial aspects as to how some of these pieces were acquired by them in the first place. For instance, the Rosetta Stone should be readily available to the Egyptian people because it is an Egyptian artifact that is a part of their history. On the other hand, the museum itself supports the national identity of the British people and represents the powerful position Great Britain has held since its creation. It helps reinforce the idea that the British hold onto tradition and demonstrate their nationalistic pride to the rest of the world.

This conflict between the international community and the British is a complex situation with no simple solution. The British will not return all the artifacts because in doing so they would be acting in a way that is contrary to their national character. Essentially, the British would yield to an outside influence and in doing so would betray their own self-image of power. The different ways national identities were affected by World War II and how certain conflicts today connect with this period in history demonstrates the continual relevance of World War II and imperialism in modern society.