Commemoration and the West
Commemorate 1: to call or recall to mind 2: to serve as a memorial of
 The purpose of this paper is to give a brief overview of how West Germany commemorates the victims of Nazism.  I would like to examine the roots of dealing with the memorialization of the Holocaust.  This cannot be done without examining what view they have on commemoration and whom they think is a victim.  Influencing factors that took place towards the end of the war shape these feelings.  One of these factors would be the occupation of Germany by four powers, particularly that of the United States, in the west, and the Soviet Union, in the east.
Background:
 I am going to focus on the western part of Germany so the United State’s occupation of that territory is what is most strategic for this endeavor.  However, a little must be said about the Soviet Union’s occupation because it played such a large role in shaping the east and inadvertently shaping the west.
The period following World War II was a great time of change in the world.   Unlike the previous post-World War era, there were now two superpowers that formed blocs of polar ideologies.  Soviet sentiment was clearly anti-capitalist and American sentiment was clearly anti-Communist.  So the two powers that had once allied to form a winning coalition not too long ago were now in a state of tension.  Both powers were also standing out as the prominent players in this “New World,” they would guide the policy in the postwar.  This policy could greatly be seen through the development of the two Germanys.
America had remained out of European affairs in the post-World War I period and they paid the price for it twenty years later.  By the end of World War II, they could no longer ignore their position in the new power structure - they were number-one.  However, their very existence and status angered the Soviets, and vise-versa.  A new war was being waged and the stakes seemed as high, if not higher.   A race to gain allies began.  But the biggest race was for Germany.  Because of their prominent role throughout out the past century, both the United States and the Soviets wanted to control the Germans, believing if they did so they would be able to prevent further conflicts and ultimately control the strategic portion of the continent.
Both of the superpowers allowed their own ideologies and the race for Germany (and the German mind) to shape their policies toward post-war reconstruction of the defeated state.  Their control of the country led to a different mindset within the people of the various occupied zones.  Democracy and capitalism shaped the west while dictatorship and communism shaped the east.  The contrasting ideologies created new alliances and new ways to remember the past.
American Policy Prior to Occupation:
 From the beginning of the war, all the superpowers were wondering what they should do with a Germany that had caused two world wars within the first half of the century.  Each side carried their own prejudices from past and current experiences, from their own ideologies and from their own view of why Germany was the way she was.  Each state had different views on how to handle Germany.
 American policy makers were split on what to do for the better half of the war.  Some agreed with the Morgenthau Plan to pick Germany apart and create an agrarian state that could not rise up to create World War III.   However, others believed that it would be best to not punish her so harshly since that is what led to problems the second time around.  Finally the problem was diagnosed, Germany needed to be taught the ways of democracy.  If this was accomplished, Germany would be stabilized, making it safe for the rest of the world.
 The Americans started to make attempts at reaching the German mind by 1944.  They had a crude system of reeducation setup within the prisoner of war camps on American soil.  The goal of the program was to instill ideas of democracy in the prisoners.  The “denazified” prisoners would then go back to Germany and work with the occupying forces to spread democracy amongst the masses.  They would be trained and ready to go when the war ended.  Their knowledge and cooperation would be useful to the Allies’ goal of democratizing Germany and not excluding her like after World War I.
American Occupation:
 As the war came to an end, the Allied Forces moved in quickly to claim German territories.  Four zones were carved out.  Of these four, three were in the west and those became the democratic zones that were most influenced by the American ruling force, also known as the Office of the Military Government, of the United States (OMGUS).  OMGUS moved in and focused their efforts on denazifying Germany.  JCS 1067 reiterated this with the directive signed by President Truman, declaring that American occupation policies in Germany would be focused on denazification.   After JCS 1067 was issued, Nazis were divided into two categories, “active and nominal”.   These groupings would help with the purging of the government of Nazis and their sympathizers.  The ultimate goal of this action was democracy.
 However, the American plan was unpopular with many Germans.  Large numbers still sympathized with the National Socialist Party and others did not trust the western, democratic ways.  There was also the sense that “there was no second Dolchstosslegende (“stab-in-the-back legend”)” that could redirect the blame of the “national disaster”.   Germans had two choices: to face up to the past or to keep their mouths shut and move on, they opted for the latter.
 It was easiest to keep silent.  Silence won you support and the Americans wanted democracy so they were willing to push the memory and justice aside.  This especially became the case after Secretary of State James F. Byrnes made a speech in Stuttgart in September 1946, claiming that “the American people want[ed] to return the German government to the German people”.   This declaration did not sit well with the Russians and the split between east and west began.
The Cold War:
 As previously mentioned, the Cold War played a large role in the shaping of east and West Germany.  Russia was weary about the Germans and therefore they pushed to suppress them and make them pay war reparations for their crimes.   They were not concerned about democracy, in fact, they feared the Germans ruling themselves.  Instead, the Russians wanted the German’s to remember their atrocities and pay for them.
 In the west, there was a different philosophy – push democratic rule, have the Germans assimilated into the world order as soon as possible.  Byrnes speech vocalized this plan and the spit between east and west was set in motion.  Unfortunately, with the push, there was “tension between democracy on the one hand and memory and justice on the other.”    The west was willing to give up the past, for the time being, in order to create a better future.  Even though there was strong anti-Nazi sentiment, those that pushed for denazification were not elected to office, further instilling the silence.
Nuremberg:
 However, there was a brief moment in time when the allies worked together to bring justice to the victims – the Nuremberg Trials.  The trials ran from November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946.  During this time, it was “established beyond a doubt that war crimes and crimes against humanity had occurred.”   Most significant for the later memory of these victims is the definition of whom the victims were.  In the trials that followed Nuremberg from 1946-1949, it was “established that Hitler and the Nazi regime had launched World War II as a war of aggression and racism;” specifically targeted was the European Jewry.
This statement would effect the view of a victim for decades to come in the west.  Because Americans and the other western Allies were “anti-Communist,” their idea of a victim laid within racial and ethnic terms.  So when the question of commemoration resurfaces, memorials are designed around this premise.
 The Nuremberg Trials rejected the notion of collective guilt by pinpointing individuals and holding them accountable for their actions.  The German community could now look at the crimes and publicly accept blame but it was difficult to point to each individual member of the society.  They could not and were not excused from the atrocities because they were so public, however, recognition was suppressed.  Jews were heard from and became an important issue in the west.  Most likely this is a mixture of the racial/ethnic nature of the crime mixed with the domestic structure of American culture – a race based not class-based society.  Nuremberg also served to aid the west in purging the country of any Nazis that were left and it documented the German crimes before they were to be pushed aside in the name of democracy.
Democracy in West Germany:
 Democracy was the decided “antidote for fascism” in the western occupied zones.  At first this meant forgetting the past, temporarily.  “Amnesia” was carried out by Konrad Adenauer (1946-1963), the first chancellor of the new democratic state.  He further implemented the Allies guidelines by pushing memory under the rug, momentarily.  Adenauer did not want the people to forget completely but he felt it would damage the democratization process, which he believed to be the full-proof way to prevent another fascist rising.
 German suffering became his focus, reinforcing the Nuremberg Trials ideal – there was no collective guilt.  Even though Adenauer publicly conducted himself this way when he regarded the matter, he was not blind to the point that there was something about the German people that “allowed” for these crimes to happen.  He made a point to examine racism and anti-Semitism, purposely not taking class into consideration – further positioning himself with the west.  For a better future he believed the past must be understood, but in its own time, and the German people were not ready yet because of the disillusionment that losing the war caused.  No longer could they feel as though they were a superior race.  They were betrayed for all those years by the Nazi regime and it would take time to heel the public.
German Education:
Because democracy was pushed as the means to ward off fascism, any interference by the state in educational matters was looked down upon and discouraged.  The suppression of the German history for the good of democracy made proper education regarding the Holocaust and other war crimes almost obsolete in German schools.
It was not until the “rise in frequency of anti-Semitic incidents” during 1957, and 1958, that Chancellor Adenauer did anything to “increase the efforts to ensure that ‘special attention be devoted to historical instruction in the recent past.’”   Then in 1959, more anti-Semitic outbreaks in Germany brought about the guidelines “for the treatment of Jews in two areas: ancient Israel and the persecution of the Jews under Nazism.”
The wake up call to the German government came during 1959 and 1960 when anti-Semitic attacks and vandalism were being committed throughout Germany by German youth.  It was then realized that there was “profound ignorance of the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany,” a committee was set up to handle the treatment of the subject in German textbooks.   By 1970, new guidelines were set up for the treatment of Jews and Nazism in the textbooks.  The German State now required that the German Jews, Judaism, and the Holocaust are treated in the textbooks, authors were expected to follow these new guidelines.   Another breakthrough took place in 1978, when the State Ministries of Education called for “nationwide anti-Fascist commemorative ceremonies.”   Schools were requested to handle the matter with intensity as they dealt with the 40th Anniversary of the “Reich Crystal Night.”
Unfortunately, because the government feared a resurgence of thought control, they only set up the guidelines but how they were to be carried out was up to each individual state.  Some chose to deal with the issue while others just fulfilled the minimal requirement.  This is yet another backlash of the post-war period idea of refraining from justice and memory.  It is also true when one looks at the Holocaust in America -collective guilt is also absent.  When America closed its doors to the Jews or when the railroads were not bombed, these are not issues that are readily examined in American texts.  No one country (or individual) wants to bare the responsibility of such a horror so pushing it aside in the name of democracy may be an easy way to put of the self-reflection that commemoration requires.
“Who is to blame for the crimes?,” creates a complex question for memorialization.  The Nuremberg Trials alleviated collective guilt however, the rise of anti-Semitism by the German youth  was a clear warning sign that there was a problem within the greater mindset of the German people.
Conclusion:
 While in Germany I would like to examine how the Germans deal with the theory of collective guilt vs. individual guilt through their memorials they have set up.  Do the memorials reflect a feeling of guilt or do they reflect a feeling of responsibility to do something because it was an atrocity that they were not directly involved in, but they feel it should be commemorated?  I am also looking for the contrast of the democratic west and their views of "victimhood" and responsibility vs. the communist east and their feelings on the issue.  I would also like to see if there are similarities between how victims are memorialized in America and how they are memorialized in West Germany.