Auf Wiedersehen, Deutschland!

During my time in Germany, I found that the main theme portrayed in museums about their history during WWII was the acknowledgement of their evils by blaming the individual Nazi party and not society as a whole. On our first day in Berlin, we visited the Reichstag building, which is the German parliamentary building that was established in the 1990’s. We received an amazing private tour from an official who works there and she explained the entire history of the building from the time before WWI through its current function in the German national government. Although the building was built in the late 1800’s, the Third Reich never used this building during its reign because there was a fire that burned most of the building in 1933. Hitler then used this fire as a plot to further condemn the communists (who were responsible for the fire) and increase his absolute powers in the government. However, during the Battle of Berlin near the end of the war, Soviet soldiers thought this building was the headquarters for the Nazis. So, they wrote graffiti all over the walls out of spite. This building currently is a testament to Germany’s acknowledgment of its crimes and a constant reminder of their past mistakes. When the government decided to use this building, they renovated the place but made strategically important design decisions that saved the history, of what they are both proud and ashamed, of the Reichstag. Therefore, visitors can see the preserved graffiti from Soviet Soldiers and the destruction from the early 20th century on exposed walls from the original building. These design choices also mean that visitors can see how open and honest Germany is about its past. In addition, at the bottom of the building, there is a display that showcases many metal boxes that look like bricks. On each was a democratically elected official from the end of WWI until today, in order to demonstrate the stable foundation of their government. The fact that they included both Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler in this display emphasizes their view of how their history, even the most terrible part, is the foundation of their society today.

Our tour guide was very honest with the German past and acted not as though she was describing the defeat for the nation during WWII, but more like she was describing the growth of the nation from that point on and displayed their successes coming back from this dark past.

In addition, when we visited the house in Potsdam where the Wannsee Conference took place, this theme continued. The Wannsee Conference was the meeting at which the major participants in the Final Solution gathered to discuss the logistics and organization of carrying out the genocide of European Jews. Because steps had already been taken in this direction to eliminate the Jews, this meeting was not where the final solution was decided. It was where it was made official and standardized, as was seen by the packet of documents discovered that highlighted the major points of the meeting with officials like Heydrich and Himmler. In this museum there was constant acceptance for the crimes committed in Germany, but it took more of an intentionalist stance in that it said the main group of Nazis were the masterminds behind all of it, placing all blame on them rather than on society as would be present with the functionalist approach.

Germany as a whole has made many strides to reconcile with its past, though it is apparent that society has accepted the actions of the Nazis and not necessarily their own collaboration involved with the actions of the Third Reich.

Occupied in Poland

During our time in Krakow, our visit to Auschwitz was a very humbling experience. In class we try to put ourselves in the shoes of the people we learn about to better understand their situation and the events that took place. However, when we came to the camp, we walked on the platform that led a million people to their deaths and we saw the shoes that were all that remain of many of the victims at Auschwitz. We saw the gas chambers and crematoria that were the greatest instruments contributing to the success of the Nazis in annihilating the Jewish population. The exhibit that made me the most emotional was seeing the two tons of human hair, collected from over 30,000 women, and the objects the Germans made out of the victims of this tragedy, such as rugs, rope, and socks for their soldiers. I think the site helped us understand just how many people died at the camp. In class we saw large numbers and devastating statistics, but understanding that over a million people were killed in this way is something that can only come from seeing where and how it happened in person.

I live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. and have been to the Holocaust Museum many times. Each time I definitely felt overwhelmed with and saddened by the exhibits, but that was nothing compared to the absolute shock I received when I came to Auschwitz. The museum in D.C. had many similar exhibits to this site, such as a room filled with the shoes of the victims. However, instead of 5,000 pairs of shoes in a room, there were 70,000 pairs of shoes in the room at Auschwitz. The hundreds of thousands of artifacts helped me to understand just how many people were affected by and suffered from this tragedy in human history.

Visiting Poland as a whole was very interesting because it had a completely different feeling of culture from France and England. Not just in that their cultures are inherently different, but more that England and France have an atmosphere that portrays victory for and pride in their nations, while Poland has the atmosphere of defeat and occupation. For instance, in the Schindler Museum the majority of the exhibits are on general information about WWII, the Polish Resistance and resistance, and the tragedies that affected Poland throughout the war. The resistance with a capital R is referring to the official resistance movements, while those with a lowercase r refer to the small acts of resistance common throughout Poland at the time. At the end of the exhibit, instead of a portion on the victorious end to the war and the surge of national pride and honor, the Polish museum had an enormous picture of Stalin hanging on the wall. Poland became occupied by the Soviet Union after the war and continued to struggle under their lack of freedoms. So, Poland did not have a happy ending like the allies did. Poland did not recover after the war like the other nations did because they were immediately taken over by another power – the Soviets replaced the Nazis. This was very sad, seeing much of their struggles throughout the war and knowing that it never truly ended. This occupation after the war was seen all throughout he city of Krakow, especially in the architecture of many of the buildings. They had the classic Soviet, basic, concrete style of design that portrayed the sad, strictly controlled society they were forced to endure both before and after the war. However, even with the remnants of occupation around the city, Krakow has become a place in which people thrive in a new, rich culture that bloomed at the end of their Soviet occupation.

Vive la France!

During our trip to Bayeux, we visited many of the D-day beaches and other monuments that focused on the history of these invasions and their effect on this area. For instance, we visited Caen, which was a major city captured by the allies after months of long, treacherous battle following the invasion of Normandy. At the Caen Memorial Museum, we analyzed the French perspective on the war as it pertains to their involvement in the war and opinion of the nations involved during the creation of the museum at the end of the Cold War. One point of note was that there was a large amount of reading, pictures, and videos throughout the exhibit, much more so than was in the British Imperial War museum. I noticed that the French identified some of their failures, which was not seen to the same extent in the British Museums. The French noted themselves for cooperating with Germany, but seemed to make many convincing excuses as to why they chose to do so and did not describe the full extent to their cooperation. This allowed them to distance themselves from all the responsibility of awful wartime actions they completely put on Germany. They emphasized the history and significance of their resistance that was present, but it was considered a smaller movement than they portrayed it to be.

The French also seem to give more credit to British and American actions by always including them in the casualty count and mentioning their efforts repeatedly, such as with the Lend Lease Act and the significance of the emergence of the United States into WWII. They included a large amount of information about the war in the Pacific, of which England did not do as much, and described the entire role of the United States in the war. This was interesting and different because the Pacific side of the war did not directly apply to mainland occupied France, while it was a factor in their liberation by the allies who were directly affected by the war in the Pacific. The French seemed to honor the U.S. much more than I expected, given that their alliance did not seem to be nearly as strong as the British-American friendship that the British museum portrayed. Regarding the Holocaust, the French made excuses for not protesting it and claimed that its existence at the time was just too inconceivable for their citizens to understand. They blamed most of the deportations on the Germans, but they had a large role in the deportation of French Jews to Nazi concentration camps. This falsehood was also seen at the Memorial des Martyrs de la Déportation in Paris. At this memorial, there was a display of about 200,000 light bulbs down a hallway that represented the 200,000 French who were deported to concentration camps during WWII.

http://https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7I0LERguVD4MVByVnE5WjBnQzQ

About 76,000 of these deportees were Jews. The memorial’s lack of recognition for the Jews in this situation and minimizing of the role of antisemitism in this event create a universal-suffering view of the Holocaust. This view can be controversial because although people want to recognize all who suffered during this time, many negate the importance of racism in this terrible event. Though this Memorial recognized the atrocities that happened to this innocent group of people, it did not recognize that the French played a role in their deaths which effectively made it a memorial to France’s ignorance during and after the war.

The Caen museum romanticizes the idea of French resisters who were deported to concentration camps by the Germans to create sympathies for the French and make the historical account more in favor of France’s actions. Most notably, the exhibit condemned the strategic bombing by the allies because of its view of it being an “anonymous version of civilian annihilation” which mostly affected France before the D-day invasion. They also discussed profusely the heavy price France and Normandy specifically paid for liberation, which was a little shocking because the American perspective of D-day normally leaves out that information in favor of more heroic portrayals. Although the French typically included positive information about the United States’ involvement in the war, they excessively emphasized the terrors involved with their presence as well as it pertains to their bombing and destruction of the cities in Normandy.

The exhibits had less of an emphasis on the eastern front. But, this museum was built a year before the Cold War ended so anti-communist sentiment may have influenced that decision. The French did not want to glorify the accomplishments from nations that were communist at the time of the museum’s creation, preventing a large amount of recognition to be placed on the Soviet Union’s war efforts and contribution to allied success. The museum also claimed that Eisenhower “let” the soviets take Berlin, effectively invalidating the incredible sacrifice the USSR paid in its participation with the allies.

The Caen Museum, like museums in general, makes a political statement that idealizes its home nation and portrays a view of history that aligns with its social, political, and economic ideologies at the time. The refusal of the French to take responsibility for their collaboration with the Nazis was an effort to emphasize the tragedies they faced and establish a national sense of pride after the war literally tore France in half. This lack of acknowledgment was a comforting idea to France as it repaired itself from the war and needed a hopeful message for its citizens to believe in a successful future – for both themselves and their nation.

A Blitz in Time

On our first full day in London we went to see the Churchill War Rooms and the museum attached to the site. We saw the conference rooms in which Churchill gathered with his top staff and advisors to make war decisions during WWII.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7I0LERguVD4YWdBeFZ1VjhoV3c
These rooms were made necessary because, during the Blitz, London was repeatedly bombed by Nazi Germany. And so, after Churchill’s office was nearly destroyed in one of the bombings, he had to move his business underground to his emergency bunker to protect himself and his advisors from the bombings in order to continue making their protection plans for Great Britain throughout the war. Although he viewed this as giving in to the enemy, he knew that it was more important to keep the leaders safe and able to make war plans than to make this public statement of strength and courage for the people.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7I0LERguVD4ZlZwR2dFbF81Qzg
He viewed this war as the people’s war and the museum demonstrated his commitment to the public by displaying his speeches and propaganda to the citizens of Great Britain. They showcase the importance of his speeches in the success of his career as Prime Minister for the people. Our guest speaker also supported this in his speech about his individual experiences during the war in England as a young man. He said that listening to the radio every night to hear Churchill’s speeches was their nightly routine and definitely made the wartime sentiment more calming and encouraging for those suffering from the bombings. All of the speeches encouraged complete cooperation between the people and the war effort. He encouraged everyone to carry on their daily lives in order to prove Germany’s failure to decrease the morale of the public and war effort through the bombings. This was Hitler’s plan all along, but the Churchill talks inspired citizens to take further action and participate in the fighting instead of succumbing to fear. This referred to everyone, but it especially appealed to those helping on the domestic front, on the front lines, in government, and, though it was highly classified information, the people helping with ULTRA intelligence gathering and code breaking at Bletchley Park (which we also visited on our trip).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7I0LERguVD4ZlZwR2dFbF81Qzg
This allowed for England to continue their initially single-handed fight against Germany at the beginning of the war, as their internal support kept the entire operation afloat (though it was materialistic ally assisted by the United States at the time as well). Later in our week, the imperial war museum also exemplified this push for public strength in its presentation of the homefront struggle during the Blitz through the pro-national propaganda section of artifacts. The museum also featured information about life in the bunker for all of Churchill’s staff, demonstrating just how many people were impacted by and contributed to his executive effort – in addition to the effort by the masses. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7I0LERguVD4REgxZ3RKRmdzYWs