The Past as a Process: Why History Education Must Look Beyond 1933–1945

Society continues to struggle with the challenge of reckoning with the crimes committed by the Nazis – not only because of the amount of time that has passed but also because of the persistent defence mechanisms and new forms of suppression that arise. In an interview with educational scientist Professor Astrid Messerschmidt, we take a look at the tensions between critical historical awareness and social suppression – and at why Germany’s process of confronting its Nazi past will never be closed.

In a pluralistic society characterised by migration, the question arises as to how we can shape a culture of remembrance without restricting it to fixed notions of national identity. What role do educational efforts, intergenerational perspectives, and the growing pressure on remembrance culture play?

Germany’s institutionalised engagement with its Nazi past will never be fully complete and is often rejected and trivialised for this very reason. The response to this lies in the vitality and relevance of historical consciousness education in light of enduring ideologies of denigration and exclusion. The context of the immigration society stands for social progress – and this is mirrored in the work on remembrance

What challenges do you see arising in creating a culture of Holocaust remembrance in a pluralistic society?

The challenges arise not so much because of plurality, but rather because of the rejection of remembrance that has remained strong for four generations – the only change over that time has been in how this rejection has manifested itself. At the sites where the Nazis committed their mass crimes, it is possible to reconstruct just how unwelcome remembrance has been in the society of those who were not victims of persecution and how, despite this, traces have been preserved and symbols of remembrance created.

Along with the survivors and their descendants, other social groups have campaigned for this to happen, groups who found it intolerable that after the devastation of the Holocaust, the victims were erased from the collective memory and the culpability suppressed in families and public institutions. To this day, these groups stand for critical historical awareness, and have constantly been confronted with a prevailing resistance to remembrance. Yet, they carried on and have helped ensure that the remembrance culture so often vilified today was able to find expression in institutions such as memorials and educational centres.

In today’s immigration society, how can education for remembrance be shaped to critically question national systems of belonging and make current discriminatory practices visible?

Starting from the context of an immigration society, a wide variety of relationships with history can be articulated without the need to determine national identities. Differences and contrasts arise from the experiences of the descendants of the persecuted, the survivors, the resistance, the perpetrators and the masses of bystanders. People’s national origins are frequently given too much importance in this country, as if the origins of one’s forebears were in any way central to their relationship with history. On the other hand, research findings from educational sciences show that experiences with history education have a major impact on people’s willingness to engage in memory and remembrance work.

Current experiences of discrimination also impact this willingness, but a clear distinction must be drawn between this type of discrimination and Nazi persecution practices. Any comparison must be avoided as this only serves to distort history. Today’s criticism of institutionalised casual racism is taking place in a democracy. Yet, this democracy is being attacked by groups that are normalising ethno-nationalist or völkisch thinking. And this impacts, first and foremost, those who are not seen as belonging to society, those who, despite being third generation migrants, are still seen as outsiders.

What methods and approaches do you think are best suited to conveying a nuanced view of history that makes the aftermath of National Socialism understandable in the present and that can also be used for anti-racism initiatives, for instance.

Educational efforts on the history and impact of Nazi crimes become trivialised when the horror of the atrocities and unbounded violence defines access to the topic, creating the impression that the right lessons have already been learned from history and now all that is left is for the younger generation to understand them. Understanding both the processes of escalation which led to the mass participation in acts of violence and how this violence has become normalised requires a more nuanced historical view. An in-depth examination should include the following elements: Völkisch ideology based on racist and antisemitic claims of superiority, the associated assertion of authority and willingness to submit, the connection between obedience and indifference, the lack of active humanity, and the appeal of belonging to the so-called “people’s community”. This raises questions regarding the present that concern our structural involvement in today’s relations of violence, without being able or having to equate these systems with the Holocaust.

Currently, once again, despite all the pledges of “Never again”, we are witnessing the expression and practice of antisemitism – this time in the form of marked hostility towards Israel, which does not distinguish between the policies of the Israeli government and affiliation with Judaism. Some anti-racism activists also separate Judaism from migration, which means that Jews are considered part of the dominant society, although in Germany they mostly come with their own migration histories. In an immigration society, a critical examination of antisemitism is part and parcel of remembrance work.

What role does the intergenerational perspective play in memory culture, particularly in a society shaped by migration?

It has been four generations since the liberation from the Nazi system and this temporal distance must be part of the process of remembering. In other words, how people relate to what happened is becoming more abstract and we must not seek to overcome this abstraction by attempting to recreate an ‘authentic’ experience of the past. On the contrary, in fact, this temporal distance opens up opportunities to develop a critical form of remembrance. The transgenerational effects of the Shoah and the genocide of the Roma and the Sinti must be addressed in order to offer a safe space for the descendants of those who were persecuted. This space consists in a society shaped by migration, a society in which former notions of a descent-based national community continue to have an impact, a space which is often perceived as unsafe by those affected by historical and current processes of violence.

This is why history education on “1933–1945” must not depict it as a “separate period of time”, divorced from what came before and after. This would result in a conventional understanding of history that perceives it purely as the past, preventing individuals from seeing themselves as part of it or feeling personally connected to it. In light of the rise in national populism and right-wing extremism, it is crucial that the migration history of both Germany and Europe as a whole be integrated into the culture of remembrance. The experience of belonging and participation is what enables a shared sense of responsibility for remembering and addressing the consequences of the Nazi crimes.

What developments would you like to see in the context of an inclusive and future-oriented culture of remembrance, especially with regard to integrating different social groups and preventing discrimination?

Remembering and commemorating should be an opportunity for “critical self-reflection” in the present, as Theodor W. Adorno put it in his renowned radio talk “Education After Auschwitz” in 1966. What is meant here is not that people should engage in introspection but rather that society itself should contemplate on where mechanisms and circumstances resembling those which led to Auschwitz can be seen today. Current forms of antisemitism and anti-immigration racism must be recognised. Invocations of national identity and the longing for a healthy historical narrative are part of this, as is the contempt for the persecution experienced by the Jews, Sinti and Roma, political opponents of the Nazis, those categorised as “a(nti-)social”, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and countless others who became victims of the Nazis’ policy of occupation in Europe. Recognising and honouring their stories provides a guiding light for Europe and Germany, and stands in contrast to the new and old nationalisms we see today.

The interview was conducted by Joana Marta Sommer.