Jeffrey Herf’s book Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys studies the distinct ways in which post-World War II German national political leaders in both the East and West were influenced by both their pre-war beliefs and post-war “political interests in domestic and international politics”. Herf specifically addresses four questions he wishes to find an answer to: why did German politicians place such prominence on to Nazi crimes in mainstream political rhetoric after 1945; why did the “public memory” of the Holocaust differ so much between the GDR and FRG; how did each side “approach the issues of memory and justice”; and finally, “how did the Cold War affect discussion of the Jewish catastrophe in both Germanys? (p.2).”
It is …show more content…
It is important to note that after the Nuremberg trials, “no major political figure in either of the two Germanys questions the factual occurrence of [Nazi war crimes]. Instead they argued about what caused the mass murder, where commonly accepted facts should fit into public narratives, which of Nazism’s victims should receive primacy in public memory, and how such horrors could be prevented in the future (pp.373-4).” The role of the occupied forces once the golden Nuremberg ages calmed down is just as important to the context of the two divided memories. Pre-existing ideas could find support and flourish with the backing …show more content…
“By 1943, the Jewish community in Mexico had grown to 25,000, about 3,000 of whom had fled from Germany or Austria (p. 41).” Through exile, German politicians were in proximity to both Jewish and non-German victims of the Nazi party. As Herf notes, “the experience of exile made their post-war memory less provincial, self-centered, and self-pitying, and made them more aware of what the Germans under the Nazi regime had inflicted on others (p.375).” I was so interested to read about the German and Jewish populations that were exiled to Mexico. I found myself happily surprised with the German communists’ sympathies but was ultimately let down when upon their return to Germany, the Soviets prohibited them from achieving their ambitions they had realized while in
It is …show more content…
It is important to note that after the Nuremberg trials, “no major political figure in either of the two Germanys questions the factual occurrence of [Nazi war crimes]. Instead they argued about what caused the mass murder, where commonly accepted facts should fit into public narratives, which of Nazism’s victims should receive primacy in public memory, and how such horrors could be prevented in the future (pp.373-4).” The role of the occupied forces once the golden Nuremberg ages calmed down is just as important to the context of the two divided memories. Pre-existing ideas could find support and flourish with the backing …show more content…
“By 1943, the Jewish community in Mexico had grown to 25,000, about 3,000 of whom had fled from Germany or Austria (p. 41).” Through exile, German politicians were in proximity to both Jewish and non-German victims of the Nazi party. As Herf notes, “the experience of exile made their post-war memory less provincial, self-centered, and self-pitying, and made them more aware of what the Germans under the Nazi regime had inflicted on others (p.375).” I was so interested to read about the German and Jewish populations that were exiled to Mexico. I found myself happily surprised with the German communists’ sympathies but was ultimately let down when upon their return to Germany, the Soviets prohibited them from achieving their ambitions they had realized while in