Thanks to the generous support of the German Academic Exchange Service, Temple University College of Liberal Arts, and the William Penn Foundation, ten Temple undergraduates traveled to Germany for three weeks this summer to study German history. Accompanied by Professors Regina Gramer and Jay Lockenour, the students visited Munich, Weimar, and Berlin. Their aim was to study how the various German states since 1945 have remembered the horrific crimes of the Third Reich and memorialized the victims of those crimes. Broadly speaking, the central issues and themes were clear to the group before they left. Most students had signed up for an independent studies class with Drs. Gramer and Lockenour, and had written short research papers about the major themes and places covered during the trip. The Federal Republic of Germany, founded under American protection in 1949, mourned the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and honored the conservative and religious opposition to the Nazis found among groups like the White Rose or the Kreisau Circle. In the East, the Soviet-sponsored German Democratic Republic erected monuments to workers' resistance and the Socialist and Communist victims of Nazi concentration camps. In today's Germany, united since 1990, some effort has been made to find a common ground between these interpretations. The current political debates surrounding the construction of a national Holocaust memorial and the reconstruction of several old East German memorials were central to their excursion.

Despite their preparation, however, the students found no easy answers. Their experiences, reactions, and reflections raised many new questions. Their adventures in a foreign country (the first such trip for seven of the ten students) planted new seeds which will spur them to travel again and the explore further some of the issues they discovered.

With one exception, all of the students were history majors. Without exception, they knew a great deal about Europe and felt a certain fascination for the past. Nevertheless, all were shocked by the ubiquitous presence of history, and especially the Third Reich, in Germany. Once taught by Professors Gramer and Lockenour what to look for, they noticed everywhere they looked small memorials, damaged buildings, or other evidence of the war and the National Socialist past. After speaking with a few older Germans, particularly survivors of concentration camps, even the people walking the streets began to be the subjects of curiosity. Did they bear the same scars and burdens as the buildings of Munich and Berlin? How had they experienced these events we studied?

One question confronted the students just as it has historians for over fifty years: What had "regular Germans" known? It was eye-opening, even for the two professors, to note the proximity of the camps, particularly Sachsenhausen, to the nearby communities. Documents at Buchenwald told of the myriad contacts between the camp and the surrounding area. Inmates marched through (and sometimes died in) town on their way to and from the camp; Buchenwald contractors worked on the camp; utilities supplied power, water, and other services; local businesses employed inmates; children and their families walked in the woods surrounding the camp and even visited the camp zoo, constructed at inmates' expense for the pleasure primarily of the SS guards.

Remarkable also was the degree to which that twelve-year period of history shapes current politics. At Dachau, the desire to recreate the original layout of the camp by reopening the main gate has run afoul of the Bavarian State Police, which uses the former SS barracks at the camp as a training ground and has so far refused to allow camp visitors to traverse their facility to access the original gate. Neighbors resist efforts to expand the memorial sites and their missions, citing traffic and parking issues. The legacy of political division which the war bequeathed has given rise to conflict between "Ossies" and "Wessies," Germans from opposite sides of the old Iron Curtain. At Buchenwald and elsewhere, where the Eastern leadership of the academic centers and historical monuments has been replaced by newcomers from the West, a certain resentment simmers just below the surface. Neo-nazis, though extremely few in number, remain a matter of concern for politicians, courts, and museum staffs which must protect their sites against vandalism.

Among the many highlights of the trip were conversations with Germans persecuted by the Nazis. At Dachau we spoke with Ernst Grube, a child-inmate of the Theresienstadt concentration camp near Prague. The students asked probing questions about his memories, his family, and his religious beliefs. Mr. Grube was remarkably forthcoming and claimed never to have heard such probing and thoughtful questions from a group of students. In Berlin, the students met Franz von Hammerstein, a member of a prominent resistance group during the Third Reich and a survivor of concentration camps at Sachsenhausen and Dachau. That conversation, as well as the visits to the 20th of July resistance memorial and the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism raised new questions about the size and efficacy of opposition movements under National Socialism. Noted author Michael Cullen engaged the students in a fascinating discussion of the proposed memorial to European Jews murdered by the Nazis.

One of the unexpected pleasures of the trip was the opportunity to meet "ordinary" Germans outside the context of our studies. Several of the travelers attended the exhibition soccer game in honor of Lothar Matthäus' retirement and returned arm in arm with some young German fans. At Starnberg Lake, the group learned more about the German education system and daily life from Burkhard Bechinger, a local resident who hosted our excursion to that beautiful area.

After the official completion of the trip, five students visited Dr. Gramer's family in the outskirts of Stuttgart, enjoying local culinary treats, a tour of the Porsche Museum in Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen, and a tour of the picturesque scenery of the renovated downtown area of Bietigheim.

To learn more about the trip, read the travel diary compiled from the student's final reports, available at http://nimbus.temple.edu/~jlockeno.

****************************************

Everything overwhelmed us upon arrival in Munich, some 2000 miles from America-the sights, sounds, smells, atmosphere, architecture-everything we felt was new! The ancient buildings sandwiched between modern department stores fascinated me. The convenience of the subways and amazing public transportation scheduling enabled our group to get off one train and walk across the platform to a waiting connection train. AMAZING! The perfect connection. The order with which things ran, the precision of technology, the honor system-all reasonably new experiences.

With churches older than the entire United States, Munich became our home base the first week. The city's quaint charm of modern day living within an ancient framework simply took my breath away. The authenticity of Bavaria was divine. My first impressions of Germany will always be remembered because of the absolute beauty of the city. But as I admired the beauty of modern Munich, I recognized that the city had been a crucial place for the early workings of the 1930's National Socialist Movement and a witness to the viciousness of human nature.

Dachau was our first visit to an actual Concentration Camp. The immediate first impression was how odd it seemed to have a town located ten feet from the camp's perimeter. Although we learned that the close proximity of the modern town had only been a recent development because of an expanding population and land pressures, it still struck an odd chord with most of the group. The Bavarian Police had blocked off the original main entrance since the old SS buildings were reused to train current police officers. Although this too seemed a bit politically incorrect to our American ears (perhaps even unethical, and not just inconsiderate), it may have been perfectly practical.

Our tour of the camp lasted about three hours. In that time we learned how the camp developed to initially hold political prisoners yet expanded to include all types of "socially unacceptable" persons. It was also made abundantly clear that the camp had been primarily for labor unlike those in Poland designed specifically for mass murder. We also got our first real look at commemoration within Germany. Each group of victims from the National Socialist era had a monument in one form or another and each memorial had been donated and paid for by the individual groups. The Roman Catholic memorial was immense-the size of a silo-in commemoration of the priests executed and imprisoned at Dachau. The Jewish victims had a small memorial at the back of the crematorium, which consisted of a menorah, Star of David, and flowers all set upon the ashes of thousands of victims. By visiting Dachau the atrocities of Nazism seem real rather than simply factual. It deeply impacted my perception of humanity. While viewing the crematorium, reconstructed barracks, or electric fence, my disappointment at the waste and destruction of so many for religious, racial, political, or ethnic reasons disgusted me.

Interview with ERNST GRUBE

In the afternoon our group headed to a nearby hostel for a conversation with Holocaust survivor Ernst Grube. Thanks to Professor Jay Lockenour, Mr. Grube's explanation was translated flawlessly and incredibly touchingly. During the Jewish persecution in the 1940's throughout Germany, Mr. Grube’s mother had been sent to a camp in Poland because she was a Jew. Although his father was German and Christian, the young boy followed his mother and was sent to the concentration camp as well. Because his father did not desert his duty to wife and family, the Grubes survived and were not exterminated. But Grube was traumatized by the fact that his playmates died, fellow religionists were gassed, and yet he survived.

As he spoke, Grube paused momentarily to explain certain aspects of life in the camp, of his childhood disappointments and losses. Yet he unflinchingly told of the after-effects of National Socialism. When asked how he was treated after the war he said, "my classmates called me Jew-pig." Nothing seems to have changed. Thankfully he was able to tell us his story.

Our group met at the EurAid office in the train station to go on the "Munich Walks Tours: Infamous Sites of the Third Reich". Our tour guide, Jason, was an American and our group was filled with various other tourists. Some of the sites included the Hofbräuhaus, the German War Memorial, a memorial to the White Rose Resistance, and a memorial to the Jewish people. The tour highlighted the "infamous" sites, and gave us a good feeling for Munich and where certain events took place.

As the trip went on certain questions arose in my mind- why were those sites highlighted and others ignored? Such as the Munich ghetto- where was it? What happened to it after the war? All over the city, on side streets and squares seldom traveled by pedestrians, there are small plaques and memorials to the victims of National Socialism. To me this can be taken two ways. First that the citizens of Munich feel they have done their part and they've put up the Memorials, but put them out of the way. Rather, I believe, these small memorials act as daily reminders of the National Socialist past.

Though a slight travel mishap precluded several students from joining us, Dr. Lockenour and a few of the students traveled south of Munich to visit the Andechs Cloister and sample some of their famous beer. Our hostess was Alexandra Friedrich, a Temple graduate student currently writing her dissertation and living near Munich. The Cloister is also the burial place of Carl Orff. His grave site and the magnificent view from the top of the church steeple were unexpected treats.

Those students who remained in Munich had a once-in-a-lifetime experience when they traveled to Olympic Stadium to see the farewell exhibition game for Lothar Matthäus, the FC Bayern star. With no guidance and very little German, they managed to get great tickets for the match and ingratiated themselves with some of the local fans.

Several shuffles in the schedule resulted in Saturday being a "free" day, so the group used the opportunity to travel to Salzburg, Austria. All were impressed by the beauty of the town, its fortress, and surroundings. Several students took the "Sound of Music" tour and saw the crystal-clear mountain lakes, the house, the gazebo, and other sites made famous by the film.

The group visited Starnberg Lake, south of Munich, today at the invitation of Burkhard and Felicity Bechinger, friends of Dr. Lockenour from Philadelphia who now live in Starnberg. While the weather precluded swimming, a few of the students took the cruise around the lake and enjoyed the scenery. The rest of the group enjoyed an afternoon with a real German family and sampled the traditional German cuisine at the Starnberger Seestube. Apple Strudel was a big hit. Burkhard was kind enough to invite us back to his house, which was the first time most of the group had seen a typical German apartment.

The excursion also reinforced the student's sense of the omnipresence of history. On the walk back to the train station from Burkhard's house, someone spied a small statue depicting emaciated figures. On closer inspection, it was a memorial to the Dachau inmates who were marched through Starnberg during the final weeks of World War Two. The statue was erected to commemorate their suffering and to document the Starnberger's claim that they had not known of the plight of those victims until the final moment.

Following the "Munich Walking Tour" we still had unanswered questions, therefore Dr. Lockenour provided his own tour of the city. Although we did cover some of the same sites, Dr. Lockenour made sure to include details and facts that were pertinent to our purpose. The tour ended at the University in Munich, where the White Rose Resistance group was active during the Third Reich. In the basement of the University stands a memorial dedicated to the White Rose students. Although the display was all in German, the group found it particularly interesting, especially since we are students, and identify with these young people.

When the tour was officially over, Dr. Lockenour and the group sat outside the University to discuss what we had seen in Munich so far concerning memory and remembrance. One of the first things Dr. Lockenour pointed out to us was the small number of German (or Bavarian) flags present in the city. This is very much unlike America, where the United States flag is displayed everywhere: post offices, government buildings, even restaurants.

The next issue we debated was the number and placement of memorials in Munich. Although most monuments or plaques are fairly small and not very obvious, they are virtually everywhere, acting as small reminders of a time that once was. Even more so, almost every plaque or memorial is entirely in German. This suggested to us that the monuments are more for the German people than they are for tourists. Even though we may not have understood what each memorial said, it meant more to us that they were there in the first place.

The last day of May in the year 2000 began as any other one had for us, little did we know it would end up one of the most sobering we were ever to endure. Joined by Dr. Gramer and after an afternoon exploration of Weimar, the sun was setting upon our arrival to Buchenwald and the weather was beautiful. We had just made our way through a forest of green when a few orderly buildings materialized in the distance. These structures would serve as our residence for three haunting evenings. To our amazement we were to be housed in the former barracks of the SS guards. These few days would turn out to be more than all encompassing, it was a total experience. For what seemed like an eternity we were immersed in the history of what has happened at Buchenwald from the time of its inception until the present. Time seemed to slow down, almost stand still as we absorbed the details of what has happened in that place. That evening all twelve of us walked into the woods away from the barracks. We saw the remnants of former officer's homes and stumbled upon what we easily understood to be the old East German memorial of KZ-Buchenwald. Its sheer size amazed us. The impact would be felt even further after our tour the following day.

As with our tour of Dachau, we followed a guide at Buchenwald. We discovered the infrastructure of the camp, the various punishments, its changing role in 1942, and the many problems having so many inmates presented. Most of this information was comparable to Dachau and later Sachsenhausen in terms of human suffering. The main issue we began to focus on revolved around individuals more than sheer numbers. This evaluation of the events that were presented to us gave the group a [delete: real] feel for what really went on. Only after we understood the pain and torment each individual was made to endure could we even begin to grasp how the entire prison community suffered as a whole. The reality of the events that transpired at Buchenwald struck most of us deeply. Free thoughts, debates, asking ourselves how we might have reacted to living under those conditions, and many tears followed our exploration of the prisoner camp and memorial.

After seeing all the buildings, the graves, the experiments, the roll call blocks, the "examination room" which resulted in the final demise of so many, the personal belongings and writings in the museum called upon emotions within most of us we were unaware of possessing. We could only imagine it, those who had lived though the Holocaust must have known what it was to live a nightmare for so many endless years. It would even be fair to say that if a form of hell ever existed on Earth, Buchenwald was a prime example. Dachau's museum was filled with posters while Buchenwald had objects, pictures and personal items. Buchenwald painted a much clearer picture of the complete camp.

Two primary issues emerged as a result of that first day at Buchenwald. The first was that of the local residents of Weimar and its surrounding areas. Questions of the everyday German reaction to the build up of concentration camps are common. Many wonder about he legitimacy of statements of innocence where the German population is concerned. One thing was made clear during our tour of Buchenwald. The citizens knew by way of oven sales, contracted prison work and after the war via a 1000 person march through the camp itself. Any doubts we had about whether or not the everyday German knew of the camps were quickly dismissed after one tour of the [museum exhibit] at Buchenwald.

The second pressing issue was that of survivor guilt versus the question of why was one individual interned over another. This matter was not outlined in our tour but readily apparent in our minds and in the statements of survivors posted on he walls of the museum. Heinz Galinski, a former inmate stated that, "One question will confront us, the few survivors, all our lives: Why not the others? Why me?" Clearly he feels that everyday he should wonder why he was chosen to live and not the others. This idea lies on a different plane in comparison to Martin Niemoeller's statements: "First they came for he socialists, but I was not a socialist so I did not speak out, then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionists so I did not speak out, then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out, and then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me." His statements ask why me, but in a different context. He seemed to punish himself for not speaking out earlier, but only after he himself was condemned, while Galinski seemed to punish himself for being spared his own life.

The third day started out as any other. We awoke groggy, some more than others due to another lost night's sleep due to our "hostel". We attended a lecture and tour by Daniel Gaede that day and learned of the camp's changing role over the last 60 years. While attending our lecture that day we learned of the animosity of the two German peoples (east and west) toward each other, and also that of the Jews toward the Germans as a whole. Mr. Gaede also spoke of the continued rift even among the citizens of Weimar and their losses during the war. He used all of these example to push his point that all of this continued tension is one of the main factors that keeps Germany and, in a way the world, from completing the healing process.

Almost immediately after the lecture we followed Mr. Gaede on a tour of the Soviet Special Camp #2. We debated the effectiveness of the monument in the mass graves that had been erected for the German victims of communism. Now our tour guide took this time for ask us how we felt about this monument and further out debate upon the issues of commemorating possible Nazis, buried in the graves. As fascinating as all of this was, we still did not get to research our thoughts and theories. Our lack of knowledge, in general, plagued us upon entering the museum of Special Camp #2. There was much fascinating information inside, however most of us forced ourselves to be content with looking at photos of a time that we never knew existed. The day had become long, longer as the temperature increased. for the first two days, the weather was cool, even cold at times.

But on our third and last full day, the temperature was turned up, and served to increase tensions we felt with our surroundings and with each other. It was 'time to get away from it all' for a few hours. The time that we had spent in Weimar upon our arrival, had been quite minimal. Some took time to wander the city, which turned out to be much larger than any of us had thought, and then to get some dinner; after which we immediately boarded a bus for the ride to Buchenwald. The night before we left for Berlin, many of us returned to Weimar for "a night out!". The city did not look quite like we remembered. Over the last two days, we learned of the city's involvement with the camp, and our perception of Weimar had changed due to our newly opened eyes. Even though we only had two hours until the last bus left for the camp we decided it was worth the ride down and back. Some of us fancied some dinner and dancing, but we would be content with just dinner at a place of our choice.

That was one thing about staying at the camp. Our choices were virtually nonexistent. We had only one place to eat, one to sleep in and that also served as our recreation area. As one could imagine, it helped to heighten our sense of our surroundings and what it must have been like 60 years ago. The feeling of freedom and choice consumed us while in Weimar, and we decided that it would be worth our money to forget the last bus and take a cab back to the camp, whenever we chose. Many took that time to check their email, and tell others of their experience the last few days, and a couple of us decided that a nice long walk to nowhere was the best way to relieve stress and reflect, the latter proved very useful. Later that night, upon returning to camp, we began to relax as a group. We had a few drinks, and a meeting. The next morning was early..

We missed the bus back to the city, so we called a troop of taxis to come pick us up and get us to our train, it was "On to Berlin". A train ride through some of the most beautiful country one could [possibly] imagine, but the heat once again dulled the experience. The train pulled out of Weimar none too soon as we have all been in and around Buchenwald way too long. The train ride to Berlin proved to be rather uneventful. However, I rather enjoy a rail system, which is efficient and runs on the actual posted schedule. We arrive at Ostbahnhof ready to begin our adventures in Berlin. Like Munich, we decide a weeklong transportation pass would best suit our needs. Our hostel is called the Odyssee and Dr. Gramer explains that it is in the former East Berlin. We arrive after a short bus ride and survey Grunberger Strasse. Our hostel is located in what appears to be a very rundown part of town. We fear the worst as we remember the hostel in Buchenwald. We climb a set of stairs and enter a whole different world. Odyssee is everything the Buchenwald hostel wasn't. The huge leather couches; pool table and Portishead playing over the sound system immediately impressed me. The oppressive nature of the old hostel had been wiped away by the wonderfulness of the new abode. Our living arrangements had won us over but would Berlin, the new capital of the Republic, impress as much as beautiful Munich?

One of the most difficult translating problems I had in Germany would take place that first afternoon in Berlin. I decided to explore the exciting world of Berlin wash centers, as I really needed to do some laundry. Chris and I set off with dirty laundry and optimism at our ability to handle what would seem to be a most simplistic task. We were certainly in for a surprise and ego deflating experience. I consider Chris and myself, intelligent, competent individuals. This would not be enough to prepare us for the wash center on Boxhagner Str. We spend a good hour attempting to figure the complex system of DMs to tokens, tokens to laundry. Our confidence was shattered, just when we thought we had half a wiener's idea about the German language. Thankfully this would prove to be the most difficult language barrier we ran into which was a major fear of mine on the trip. It may have taken us an embarrassingly long time, but our clean clothes were symbolic of advancement in our ability to understand German language and living.

May had ended with us depressed after a long three days in Buchenwald, June looked promising as I helped some of my fellow travelers do laundry later that night. How would Berlin, the final stop on our research journey, help answer the questions we had been pondering throughout the trip?

The group separated into smaller subgroups to begin to get accustomed to our new setting. I spent the day eating lunch and exploring Potsdamer Platz as well as the Charlottenburg area. The most striking lesson from Sunday's adventures was about the diversity the great city of Berlin has to offer. This diversity was clearly evident in the very architecture of the city. Our explorations showed us a broad range of building styles. We saw everything from regal estates of the Prussian and Brandenburg past to ultra-modern buildings under construction in the aforementioned Potsdamer Platz. This diversity of architecture would soon be understood as just part of the past and present divisions which exist in Berlin.

After traveling through Weimar and Munich, Berlin was certainly a welcome and exciting change. Weimar had proved to be a bit difficult, emotionally for a majority of the group, and the daily adventures Berlin offered gave the group members a chance to relax.

Monday's main activity gave us more evidence in our new concept of Berlin, the divided city. We had the extreme pleasure to participate in a walking tour offered by a former British embassy staff member. Terry Brewer had been responsible for showing visiting dignitaries Berlin for many years in an official capacity. In his semi-retirement he continues to show groups the same sights. For a mere fifteen DM the group toured mid-town Berlin for eight hours. Brewer was able to point out many more distinctive divisions in Berlin. We started at the Jewish synagogue that was damaged by SS guards and civilians before Kristallnacht and walked through the old Jewish sector, seeing the restoration of homes and businesses. Mr. Brewer then took us past Unter Den Linden and the Brandenburg Gate, showing the beauty of Berlin's glorious past. We stopped at the remaining section of the Berlin Wall and the Topography of Terror Museum that stands behind it.

Brewer showed us many things such as: buildings in the East which had never been repaired after suffering damage in the Second World War, the few remaining Nazi buildings, prefabricated buildings from the time of the DDR, the remnants of the Wall itself, and again the newly constructed buildings erected since the reunification of Berlin and the two German states. His walking tour taught us many things. Although Berlin had been divided for a time the great city had a history long prior to the division. Terry's enthusiastic belief that Berlin will only grow once again to greatness in the near future was contagious. He showed us the past of division and offered the promise of a bright future. An additional lesson reminded us that much like the relatively short period of divided Berlin and Germany in our research we had to remember that the Nazi regime only lasted a scant twelve years. By seeing the wonderful new face of Berlin and looking at memories of the past we must not focus all thoughts on just one period of history. This lesson put the whole trip into a broader historical framework.

Our five-hour tour of Berlin turned into seven hours. I thought that we had seen a great part of the city in that time but when Terry showed us a map of the city and pointed out our route we realized that we had barely scratched the surface of Berlin. That is when I realized how immense Berlin was.

Our trip to the Memorial to the German Resistance was the next main scheduled event. The collection is so vast it was very difficult for our speaker to narrow down what to speak of and what to show us. In spite of the overwhelming resources available, due to the majority of the group's unfamiliarity with the German language we were left looking at pictures and attempting to discern meaning. The main message of the museum seemed to be twofold. First, clearly the collection exists to honor those who fought the National Socialists in any possible way. Secondly the memorial itself is a reminder of just how difficult it was to resist the state. A question that resurfaced many times during our trip was brought to the fore. Why didn't a more concerted resistance appear during the regime? Clearly many brave resistors existed. But how did the vast majority allow the Reich to gain such vast control to do as it pleased?

The museum and our guide were extremely informative, but the tour left me feeling a bit puzzled. The resistance groups the guide mentioned were far more effective than I thought any group defying Hitler could have been. It surprised me that the general history classes that I have taken and which deal with Hitler and the Second World War, the Holocaust, etc do not mention the many various forms that resistance against Hitler and against other aspects in German life at that time took, but focused mainly on those persons who did nothing.

The collective versus individual guilt debate, which rages among historians, appeared many times in our discussions of resistance or the lack thereof. The film (shown in English) was perhaps the most useful reference as it summed up the efforts to resist National Socialism quite succinctly.

The daylong visit to the Technical University's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism was also fruitful. Dr. Johannes Heil was one of our most generous hosts. He made his entire facility open to our group. He along with his wonderful staff helped put the anti-Semitism of the Nazis into a broader historical context. The research the Center is performing is varied but all seems poignant. Frustration again arose as we saw such wonderful source materials, which those unable to read German could not use.

The purpose of the Center is to gain a historical background to Anti-Semitism; however, the contemporary relevance of some of the research was not missed. Another theme of the journey was that education about the past is a terrific weapon to avoid similar ignorance today. The vast collection of neo-Nazi news-clippings and propaganda the Center maintains, serves as a warning to historians and citizens of the Federal Republic to accurately and faithfully portray events of the past.

After touring the archives, Dr. Heil spoke to us about the purpose of the center. While the center is located in the Technical University, it is not a part of the University. Students at the Technical University and other Universities in the city can take classes at the Center to fulfill curriculum requirements.

Before going to the seminar, we read an article by Dr. Heil on the religious roots of racial anti-Semitism. During his talk he went more in depth about the connection. He explained the differences between religious and racial anti-Semitism. Religious anti-Semitism is hatred of the Jews solely based on their faith. If they converted to Christianity then there would no longer be any reason to hate them. However, over time the Jews became more than a religious group; their Jewishness became their race. When this happened, conversion was no longer enough. It became possible for Hitler to say that Jews that have been in Germany for generations are not German.

Professor Werner Bergmann gave us a lecture on Anti-Semitism in the GDR, FRG and unified Germany. What his numbers showed was that anti-Semitism was extremely low in the GDR. In the FRG anti-Semitism was very high particularly just after the war. However since unification the numbers are reversed. Anti-Semitism in West Germany is very low but since unification anti-Semitism has grown immensely in the East. Professor Bergmann attributed this to the relative isolation of the East Germans during the time of the GDR. They did not have to interact with foreigners. Also the ideology of the East was that they were all anti-fascists. There was no distinction made between Germans and Jews so there was no real reason for anti-Semitism in the East. However, since unification, the East has been opened up. The current economic problems are being blamed on foreigners and Jews.

Our last stop at the anti-Semitism Center was to Claudia Schoppman. She is working on a research project called "Saving Jews in Nazi Germany." She is compiling a database on Berliners who helped Jews in Nazi Germany. The idea is to recognize those that put themselves at great risk to hide Jews or to help them escape. The government draws on this database to identify people for special awards to honor their acts. The goal is to find all of the people in Berlin who helped Jews and put their name and their story in this database. I was really saddened by this project. The numbers of people that were willing to help are so small. Only a few thousand in a city of millions were willing to do the right thing.

On the eighth we took the train out to Sachsenhausen, the third and final concentration camp of our tour. This camp also had the most interesting history and presentation. The camp-memorial's layout was designed under the East German (Soviet) government so the statues and memorials represent the strength and grandeur and graciousness of the Soviets during and after the war. Similar to Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen was an SS training camp used to indoctrinate SS members into the National Socialist ideology. But, unlike Dachau and Buchenwald, this camp was placed right at doorsteps of the city residents (who still denied its existence). The grounds at Sachsenhausen were not as well kept or as nicely, or as sanitarily presented as the other two camps. For me, this fallen state spoke volumes about the East German government's recognition of and involvement in the camp, the events that led to its creation, and its motives for the camp's preservation.

On the camp tour, we were first shown a scale model of the camp. This camp was built to be a model camp. The Nazis wanted to build the camp in such a way that a minimum of guards could watch over a large number of prisoners. The camp took on the shape of a triangle. At each point was a guard with a gun. The triangle was first divided into equal halves. The guard that sat at the first point sat directly on the dividing line. His gun could fan across the entire triangle. Once the camp was in operation, it was decided that three guards were not enough and other guard towers were added along the sides of the triangle.

Because the memorial site was in East Germany, it still carries remnants of the communist ideology very strongly. The fact that Sachsenhausen was primarily a camp for political prisoners was emphasized. In the center of the camp stands a tower with faded red triangles. It is meant to memorialize the anti-fascists. At the base of the tower is a sculpture showing Russian troops liberating the camp. Instead of the prisoners looking sick and weak, they are standing strong, assisting in their liberation. This site was used by the communists as a gathering place. Speeches were given here. In front of the tower is a podium. Surrounding the square are poles that at one point held loud speakers. One of the things that struck me as I walked into the camp towards this square are the two large trees that perfectly frame the square. It almost seems as if they were planted for the sole purpose of drawing your eyes to this huge memorial tower.

We toured the reconstruction of the prisoner's barracks at Sachsenhausen. A few years ago neo-nazis torched the reconstruction. It was decided that the damage would only be partially repaired. Three events are most memorable from Sachsenhausen. The torched Jewish barracks were a painful reminder of the anti-Semitism, which still exists today. The exhibits on gypsies and homosexual men at the camp were well put together. Again German language skills would have made the exhibit more accessible. The third outstanding memory was standing on the balcony and being able to clearly see the layout of the camp. The conic design of the camp is evidence of the cold efficiency of the concentration camp system. Standing at the spot where the machine gun once kept control over thousands was quite an experience --as well as a privilege of our visit, since the top floor of the watch/entry gate is not routinely accessible to visitors of the camp.

It was at Sachsenhausen that we again broached the subject of commemoration and who deserves it and who should be forgotten. As in Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen housed a special camp for Germans and Nazi soldiers who were imprisoned after the allied victory. After touring the camp, Wolfram von Scheliha and two of his colleagues from the Memorial and Museum at Sachsenhausen gave us a lecture on the Special Soviet Camp. After the war, Sachsenhausen was reused by the Russians to imprison war criminals. These people were kept there for years. The vast majority of them never received a trial. Most of the families of these prisoners claim that they were never criminals in the first place. The Russians imprisoned many low ranking functionaries in the Nazi party. They were not war criminals in the true sense. Also in this camp were POW's, East German political prisoners, Soviet citizens charged with treason, Soviet soldiers with venereal disease, and soldiers of the Red Army charged with neglect of duty. The new emphasis to study the special camps established by the Soviets in the postwar period is an interesting new field. How fine a line is drawn between remembering the oppression of the Soviets and creating an unintentional memorial to Nazis?

Also similar to the special camp at Buchenwald, those developing and researching the memorial to the victims of the Special Camp are experiencing some resistance. Those that object to the memorial say that it is an insult to the true victims of the Holocaust to memorialize Nazis. Those that argue for it say that those that died in the special camps were also victims and that only a few were actual war criminals. They were victims of an arbitrary political system. These people were imprisoned for years without a trial and deserve to be memorialized. The debate then becomes whose pain is worse? Will the memorial site become a gathering place for Neo-Nazis to come and worship their heroes? Both sides seem to agree that whatever pain and injustice that was suffered in the special camps is not equal to the pain and injustice suffered by victims of the Nazis. The memorial to the special camp will be small and off to the side.

This resistance is something that I have yet to understand, and is an issue that has plagued my memory of the trip. Current researchers estimate that at least 12 000 prisoners of the "Special Camp Nr. 7" at Sachsenhausen died of malnourishment and disease between 1945 and 1950. The prisoners of the Soviet camps were humans, they were members of a society in which they had families and jobs and lives. Do they not also have a right to be remembered? I believe they do and I think that to not allow that is hypocritical and neglectful to the memory of the entire period in which we are researching. I feel passionately about both the special camp memorials that we encountered and I found that the opinions and actions of others were based on emotional responses rather than empirical thought. Is there a way to approach this subject without emotion?

On Friday we visited the Topography of Terror exhibit. The exhibit stands on the site of the former Gestapo headquarters. The exhibit is a series of panels telling the history of the building that stood in there during the Nazi regime. The idea is to show the bureaucracy that went into mass murder. In these buildings orders were given to kill millions of people. These men would probably never see the effects of their orders. It is a lot easier to kill people when you never have to see their faces. It is easy to say that these people deserve to die when you never actually have to pull the trigger. Sitting in a comfortable office in the city gives a person a lot of distance from the reality of the concentration camp. That had to make it even easier for these men to kill. This exhibit also shows how systematic the killing was. The fact that there was a bureaucracy set up to perform the function of mass murder is meant to horrify you. Although the site of the "topography of terror" is meaningful, the exhibit will be better displayed in the proposed building.

The afternoon was spent in what may have been the best group discussion of the trip. We went to the Martin Niemoeller Peace Center, housed in the original building of Pastor Niemoeller’s Lutheran parish (from 1931 until his imprisonment in 1937), located in Berlin-Dahlem. As an opponent to the state-controlled organization of evangelical churches, Pastor Niemoeller was in solitary confinement in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen from 1938 until 1941, and was held at Dachau from 1941 until 1945. Annette Kuebler--Dr. Gramer’s high-school friend, and long-time peace activist and resident at the Niemoeller Center--had arranged a meeting with Franz von Hammerstein, a good friend of the Niemoeller family and survivor of the camps Sachsenhausen and Dachau. Mr. von Hammerstein spoke very engagingly about his family’s resistance efforts. His father, General Kurt von Hammerstein, had plotted unsuccessfully against Hitler in 1939; and two of his brothers, Ludwig and Kunrat, were part of the conspiracy to kill Hitler on July 20, 1944. Franz von Hammerstein himself was interned along with his mother and two of his other siblings, because his two brothers, unlike many plotters of the 20^th of July, had managed to escape, go underground, and survive. When asked why he did not go underground himself, Mr. von Hammerstein reminded us that going underground was a very dangerous proposition, not only for oneself, but more importantly for endangering the people who did the hiding and the cover-up. Having studied theology at Goettingen University, and the University of Chicago and Howard University after World War II, Mr. von Hammerstein made many fabulous links between his own personal history and many contemporary issues, both German and American ones. He explained what lessons he drew from National Socialism, and how he helped Martin Niemoeller and others to work for reconciliation between Christians and Jews after World War II by organizing "Aktion Suehnezeichen" (an organization that fosters not only contacts among Holocaust survivors, but works toward reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity, and also encourages young people from around the globe to volunteer in a wide array of peace initiatives). The discussion called into issue many of the themes of the trip. We discussed guilt issues, memorialization, and current events and the relation to the past. Group members who had been quiet at many of the previous discussions came to life as issues, which now sounded familiar, were replayed in discussion.

Our final group activity occurred on Saturday. Michael Cullen led a fascinating discussion about the proposed memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe. The discussion chronicled the history of the concept and also served as a jumping off point for discussion of the whole concept of memorialization. Mr. Cullen pointed out that the beginnings of the debate on a national monument for the victims of the Holocaust and World War II went back to the early 1970s. Not only the site, but also the design and purpose of this monument had remained controversial over all these years. Should there be a monument to the deed or to the dead, only to Jews or to all victims of the Holocaust? Even the question of who the discussants should be in this debate was very controversial. As an American resident of Berlin, Mr. Cullen interjected himself in this debate in opposition to Lea Rosh and Eberhard Jaeckel whom he portrayed as favoring an executive decision in conjunction with the German chancellor but at the expense and exclusion of the German parliament and majority of people. His personal initiative opened up the debate in the German parliament. Mr. Cullen also pointed out that there is currently no real popular majority in Germany in favor of such a monument. Even though the projected ground breaking for the monument is in 2002/3, many hurdles remain. German government funds have yet to be allocated and there will be a new European competition for the design of the monument. Mr. Cullen himself seemed to be in favor of constructing a museum instead of a simple monument--not unlike the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. which he deemed not very objective, but very effective. Mr. Cullen favored a site very close to the German parliament, the Reichstag--as a daily reminder for all German parliamentarians. Whether a consensus on the proposed Holocaust Memorial can be reached, remains open for the time being.

I was so excited to go to Germany. My head was whirling with information - things I knew, things I did not know and things I wanted to know. No matter how much I thought about the trip or the thesis, nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to do.

As I said, I read and studied on the topic but I could not believe the difference between the East and the West. Both did such a great job at memorializing the victims and made their own judgements concerning those individuals whom they felt were the greatest victims of National Socialism. The subtle and non-flashy memorials allowed me to evoke my own emotions and ponder what was happening in the country during the war and during the post-war years of east versus west.

Regarding the question of "guilt" we have several unanswered questions. We talked about the memorials and the war and post-war years. Even the subject of the East dealing with the past through denial came up, but the West was not talked about in the same light. After experiencing German culture and life for a brief time, it was easy to see that they do not deny their past, however their opinions on the matter ambiguous at best.

Generation gaps play a large part in the German realization of the past. Younger generations are more receptive to speaking about the Third Reich whereas older generations do not share their thoughts as readily or even at all. The German youth do not experience the Nazi past until they are at an age where they can fully understand the consequences of the past in relation to the Germany they are growing up in today. After speaking with some German teen-agers you could sense awareness for the past and maturity in handling what it means for their future.

Mass resistance towards the Nazi regime was easier said than done. Hindsight is always 20/20, as was the case of the German resistance. It was easy for us to question why there was no national resistance movement during the Third Reich, but in all fairness when you really study the power structure of the time you could understand why everyone was afraid to oppose Hitler. Neighbors could not trust each other and this was the downfall of any mass resistance movement. And because silence was such an integral part, Hitler and the National Socialists were able to carry out their horrendous deeds of the Final Solution. Fear of the regime led to a lack of questioning by German citizens which in turn led to misunderstanding of how perilous the situation was for Jews, political dissidents and other 'undesirables.'

The most important lesson I feel the group learned was the importance of being aware of what your government is doing because, if you do not than no one else will do it for you. It is also important to deal with the past in order to overcome it and learn from it because, "we do not exist outside of history, our lives uncomplicated by what came before."

The thing that I took away from this trip is that Germany is not and may never get past the Nazis. This short period in German history seems to define the entire country. The sheer number of memorials to the Holocaust implies a collective guilt. With all the memorials that already exist it still is not enough. There is still a need for the memorial that is being planned in Berlin. Although there is the feeling that this will be the central memorial for the country, there is no indication that this will be the last. I feel very sympathetic to Germany. Although the Holocaust was a horrible thing I think that it is sad that generations from now Germans will still feel responsible for the actions of the Nazis. I want to know if there will ever be enough memorials.

The question of guilt was constantly brought up on this trip. Who was responsible for this? Was it the Nazis or was it the German people as a whole? Is it those that were alive during that time or is it those that are alive now? I wonder why it is only Germany that has to debate these questions. Why doesn't the rest of the world feel the collective guilt that the Germans feel? We look down on the Germans that turned a blind eye to what was going on but so did the rest of the world. Why are only the Germans guilty?

What initially surprised me the most about Berlin was the amount of construction that I saw as our train pulled into East Berlin. I am assuming that most of the building that is going on is a result of the reunification of the of the East and the West. Nonetheless, I would love to come back to Berlin in a few years and see how large and modern the city will be by then. In addition to the amount of construction that is going on, I also took quick notice of the sharp contrast between East and West Berlin. Obviously, the West was so much more modern and clean, while the East looked more like a city that, architecturally speaking, looked untouched in terms of modernization and cleanliness. Again, I would love to visit this city in a few years and see if there are any remaining aesthetic differences between the East and West.

I learned so much during my stay in Germany. It was so interesting to be able to talk to German people from both Munich and Berlin and hear what they perceived as big differences between the two regions. From what I was told by people that I met, the northern and southern parts of Germany have differences in their dialect of the German language, culture, and religion. These are things that I have never learned or heard of before. It was also interesting to note that Berlin seemed to have more of an American influence then Munich did. In fact, as I wondered through what looked like a business district, close to "Check Point Charlie," It was hard to see any differences between that part of Berlin and a typical large American city.

Touring Germany for three weeks taught me more than a three-month college course could have done. The walking tours that we took to see the historic sites, taking in the culture at night, touring and spending time at concentration camps, and attending lectures given by people who are directly involved in preserving history was more than any class could have offered. I will never forget the feeling I had staying inside of a concentration camp. I have been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C, and that place in no way compared to my stay in Buchenwald. I cannot say what part of the camp had more of a profound effect on me. Staying so close to gate was unsettling. Seeing the mass graves, reading about the horse stable, and visiting the quarries was something that I will never forget. However, the most educational thing about that camp was to learn how it was run. The division among the prisoners, the different treatment depending on who you were, and just how much these prisoners were used as labor for the war effort was astounding to learn.

For me, the most exciting and gratifying part of the trip was the gentleman that we met outside of Berlin one afternoon. We were fortunate enough to spend time with Franz Von Hammerstein, who helped lead the German resistance against the Nazi party. Seeing the work/concentration camps and learning how quickly anyone who posed a threat to the Nazi Party was rounded up and imprisoned made me see how difficult and life threatening it was to oppose Hitler. At first, I couldn't help but think that because there wasn't really a mass opposition on the part of the German people, that they were in a way, just going along with the plans and views of the Nazi party. However, through meeting people like Von Hammerstein, I got a new understanding of how swift and controlling Fascism was, and that the alternative was mass murder. Nevertheless, this man and his family were courageous enough to resist Fascism. It was amazing to hear about his brothers and the attempt that they made on Hitler's life. Moreover, hearing about his sister helping Jews escape Nazi Germany on her motorcycle was incredible. Through meeting this man, I learned how much more there is to learn from hearing an oral history as opposed to reading about it. Visiting Franz von Hammerstein is something I can tell my kids and family about.

I found that this research trip was unsettling to the ideas and feelings I had already developed about the Holocaust. I desire to learn more about issues such as the present-day xenophobia and special camps and will be making an effort to do so from the states. I know that I have left out a great deal of information, but I am, to be honest, still having difficulty sorting through most of the notes and material I acquired. The trip has proved me with other perspectives on subjects such as war, religion, faith and beliefs, loyalty, resistance, and accepting and acknowledging one's past. I am appreciative of being given such a wonderful and thought-altering experience and can only hope that when I do reach a subsequent conclusion about this research that I will be able to share it with others who raised questions similar to those our group raised.