It feels like it has truly been forever since I last posted here. (and well...I guess it has :) At the end of last semester, I completed my independent study course for which this blog was originally designed as well as a final project that I am very proud of. Throughout the course of the past semester, I had the distinct honor to personally interview Holocaust survivors along with my history professor and pay tribute to their stories through the compilation of a Shutterfly project. Above is a picture of the title page of the book. However, further inside is a collection of photographs, interviews, and stories that have deeply touched me and I hope will touch those who see this project.
As I transitioned from last semester into my final semester at college, I have realized my true passion for history and am seeking experiences to try and integrate this passion into life after college. As of right now, the adventure awaits on the horizon! I have just applied to an internship that would allow me to travel to Poland for the summer and hopefully continue pursuing my interests in the Holocaust in the setting where many of these atrocities took place. In addition to this experience is another where I would have the opportunity to travel to Auschwitz with Eva Kor, one of the twins who survived the Nazi medical experimentation of Dr. Josef Mengele, and tour this death camp alongside a woman who survived these horrors. What a true honor these experiences would be...
As I look forward to life after graduation, I feel drawn to pursuing opportunities in history and following these passions. As I continue to express my love for history and pursue these opportunities, I am amazed at the continued stories that I have the honor of listening to, the opportunity to take part in the lives of these men and women, hearing how they were each affected by the Holocaust. For lack of a better phrase, these people seem to "keep coming out of the woodwork": a granddaughter traveling to Poland to meet the family who is responsible for hiding her Jewish grandmother during the war and a Holocaust survivor responsible for creating a sculpture outside the Jewish Life Center in Seattle, to name a few. They hear of my passions and the work that I have done and in turn, want to share their stories with me. I am truly in amazement at this honor and how blessed I am to have these opportunities! I consider these stories as confirmation--that these interests should not stop simply because I am graduating, but that it continues. While I am uncertain about the exact direction life will take, it is certainly an adventure that I am willing to jump in feet first and see where it takes me! For now, Poland is the best way that I could imagine taking this first leap!
So, here goes.... :) Nothing but a passionate heart and willing to jump into the unknown!
The year is 1990 and things are drastically changing in the European theater. In Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, but especially in Germany, everyday life is changing with the fall of the Berlin wall. And as Timothy Garton Ash illustrated in The Magic Lantern, there is an overarching global perspective that seems to exist in each of these countries as they seek to try and reform their political structure and return democracy to these countries. But to couple with that global perspective is Daphne Berdahl's Where the World Ended where she examines the individual implications that the fall of the Berlin wall has on the German people and how they are directly impacted by the changes that are coming to them.
Berdahl examines many different perspectives, expecially of those people living in the towns that border the Berlin wall. What does it mean to turn the page, to pick up and try to restore and rebuild the Germany that was? Berdahl makes an interesting statement as she reflects on the "Eichsfeldlied", which is a song, but also what meaning it serves for the people. When she refers to this ballad, she states, "it is, moreover, a ballad of belonging, reflecting the complex, ubiquitious, and emotional concept of the Heimat" (82). As you read further, you see too that the term, 'Heimat' also carries special significance. Essentially, Berdahl credits it to, "[have] provided emotional as well as ideological common ground for the construction and maintenance of local identities, and has been the focus of explorations by various writers, politicians, scholars and filmakers" (83). As Celia Applegate (1990) mentions, the term 'Herimat', "has never been a word about real special forces or real political situations. Instead, it has been a myth about the possibility of a community in the face of fragmentation and alienation. In the postwar era, the term 'Heimat' meant forgiving and also a measure of forgetting" (83). It seems so interesting that in a changing Germany, that this concept of single idea carries so much weight to the restoration and forgiveness of one to another.
The important piece of the 'Heimat' was this idea as well that it focused on the local traditions in a changing political structure. This term emerged at "a period of rapid social transformation in the second half of the 20th century. The whole idea of the 'Heimat' tried to make sensible at least small pieces of a changing society, brushing them with a false patina of fixedness and familiarity" (84).
It was piece that helped as re-unfication took place.
There was a lot of healing that needed to take place, as Berdahl writes, "it is both forgiving and forgetting" that needs to take place to move forward. For Germans in early 1990, this is what is being rebuilt, it is not just the wide overarching need for a unified political and global structure but also a need and a call to remember the individual and the implications that this global perspective has on the people. And whether it is an economic, religious, or social perspective, these are all intertwined to try and rebuild what was lost by a piece of concrete.
Discussion Questions
1)How has the structure of the Berlin wall itself
affect the people, especially in the border towns, as they try to unite both
East and West Germany?? 2)Berdahl states, “since German re-unification,
the church has lost a lot of its power and influence” (96).What is it specifically that would cause
this?Was it the mindset of people as re-unification
took place or was it something else? ***the implications of socialism on religion 3)The permeability of the border is a very
interesting concept that serves as an element of fear that people had to wonder
if they could cross.It was a process
indeed for the border to become less and less permeable; however, it still perpetuates
this prisoner mentality with the guard dogs and watch towers.How do you find forgiveness in the wake of
1990 when you remember what it was like before 1952? 4)It seems that through the process of
reunification, there are things that should innately belong to the people, but
yet, for so long, these basic rights were taken away.How do you cope with changing these pieces and
moving forward? Connection to Jewish reintegration?
References
Berdahl, Daphne. Where the World Ended. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Print.
Growing up, I always remember my dad saying this one phrase, "There are
always three sides to any story. Yours, the other persons and the truth." And
in the wake of 1989 in Eastern Europe, that is exactly what Timothy Garton Ash
seeks to do in his book, The Magic Lantern; is to offer a vantage
point and truthfully detail the events that took place in four separate
countries, yet also simultaneously.
In 2008, there was a political action thriller, Vantage Point, that
told the attempted assassination of the American president through several
perspectives. Instead, in Ash's novel, rather than the perspectives of several
people, he details the perspectives of four different countries: Poland,
Hungary, Germany and Czechoslovakia. All of these countries, more specifically
the cities of Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague, are all undergoing some form
of political 'refolution', as Ash describes.
Each city is undergoing its own separate form of 'refolution', and while these
cities share aspects to this in common, there is also distinct and marked differences
between them all. And the one thing to keep being reminded of, was that all of
these perspectives coexist within the European theater. As Ash lays the
groundwork for outlining the events in each of these cities, as the climax of
their political structure seems to mount, he distinctly makes a point to
compare and contrast the events between these different cities, especially in
Prague as he is dicussing the role of the Catholic church and how this is such
"a striking contrast with Poland" (96).
In Poland, the political territory is such that one of the biggest waves of
change to the country was that of free elections. General Jaruzelski commented,
"It was the first time that voters could choose freely. That freedom was
used for the crossing-off of those who were in power until now" (32).Election day, June 4, 1989, was “a landmark
not only in the post-war history of Poland, not merely in the history of
Eastern Europe, but in the communist world” (32). Ash also presents the
question of what Solidarity truly was in the context of the summer 1989.He outlines four specific aspects to Solidarity that were present.“First, it
was Lech Walesa, whose personal popularity and authority had reached
extraordinary heights, reinforced, of course by every meeting with a President
Mitterand or Bush. Second, it was the parliamentary group- 161 out of 460
members of the sejm, ninety-nine out of 100 members if the Senate.These new parliamentarians personally
represented very different tendencies and traditions, but on June 4 they were
all- social democrat or conservative, Christian or Jew, bright or dull-elected
because they were the candidates of Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Defeated
communist candidates remarked bitterly that if a monkey had stood as an
official Solidarity-opposition candidate he would have been elected; and there
is probably some truth in that. Third, Solidarity was the loose structure of national,
regional and local Citizens’ Committees which actually organized the election
campaign.Beside veteran Solidarity
activists these Citizens’ Committees were joined by many people- doctors,
engineers, teachers, journalists- who had not been so active before. They were
the essential constituency organizations for the new members of parliament,
and, as it were, the local nurseries of Poland’s seedling democracy.Finally, there was Solidarity as what it had
been first: a trade union.But
Solidarity- as- trade union had grown only sluggishly since its (re-)
registration in April.There was none of
the exuberant dynamism of autumn 1980, when an estimated three million people
joined the newborn union within a fortnight” (33-34). The emergence of this
democracy within Warsaw and the greater Poland birthed political transition
with the agendas of Lech Walesa and other leaders who sought to have their own
personal visions into this new government.According to Joanna Szcxepkowska, who was a famous Polish actress,
announced to television viewers that “on 4 June 1989, communism in Poland ended”
(45).And Ash wrote, “To say that
communism in Poland ended on that day was a poetic exaggeration.But the end of communism in Poland followed
directly from the free vote of the Polish people on that glorious fourth of
June” (46).
In contrast to Poland, “Hungary was a funeral, particularly the funeral of
Imre Nagy, a mere thirty one years after his death” (47). As a former prime minister in Hungary who led the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and was later executed, Nagy had a profound impact on the climate of Budapest within the context of the revolution and "pronouncing 1956 to have been not, as previously maintained, a counter-revolution', but rather a 'popular uprising against an oligarchic rule that had debased the nation' (49). The head of the Budapest Workers' Councils in 1956, Sandor Racz, proposed a question of, "Will freedom for Hungary grow from the blood of these heroes?" (50). And in response to this question, he proposes three obstacles to this question, which include, "The first obstacle is the presence of Soviet troops on Hungarian soil. There there is the communist power, clinging to power. The third obstacle is the fragmentation of society" (50). It was this question raised in the wake of the event surrounding the formal burial of Imre Nagy that presents a somewhat interesting perspective and the government structure is under reform. In addition to Racz, Viktor Orban of the Young Democrats stated, "If we can trust our souls and strength, we can put an end to the communist dictatorship; if we are determined enough we can force the Party to submit itself to free elections; and if we do not lose sight of the ideals of 1956, then we will be able to elect a governement that will start immediate negotiations for the swift withdrawl of the Russian troops" (51). While these separate parties exist, it is interesting to note the various perspectives that exist and how they each have their similar and yet in some ways, different approaches to this changing politcal climate.
And next, Ash shifts his focus to Berlin where the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall seems apparent. As Ash comments, "The East Germans felt grateful to Gorbachev. But more important, they felt they had won this opening for themselves. For it was only the pressure ot their massive, peaceful demonstrations that compelled the Party leadership to take this step. 'You see, it shows Lenin was wrong,' observed one worker. 'lenin said a revolution could succeed only with violence. But this was a peaceful revolution'." (64). The monumental step that the Berlin Wall signified in Germany's political infrastructure changing shape demonstrated that "a revolutionary people's movement has set in motion a process of profound upheavals" (64). The very structure of the Berlin Wall had been such a political division that "The Wall was not round the periphery of East Germany, it was at its very centre. And it ran through every heart. It was difficult even for people from other East European countries to appreciate the full psychological burden it imposed" (65). So, on a personal level, what did the fall of the Wall signify for both West and East Germans alike? How did these perspectives vary and how were they similar? It was indeed the fall of the wall that lifted a repression off of the German people and was considered "the first peaceful revolution in German history" (69).
Lastly is the focal point of Ash's collective accounts, the true Magic Lantern in Prague. According to a meeting Ash had with Vaclav Havel, "In Poland it took ten years, in Hungary ten months, in East Germany ten weeks: perhaps in Czechosolvakia it will take 10 days!" (78). However, it was the Magic Lantern that served as "the headquarters of the revolution" (79). And yet, he seems to juxtapose the idea of the theater as headquarters with different smells as well as people playing the rolse of actors. Especially the Workers, Ash highlights this group and how "all the intellectual voices are stilled when The Worker rises to speak" (87). He also contrasts the politcal happenings in Prague to those of Poland and Germany in 1989, which shows how his 'witness' to these events have helped to shape his understanding and develop this sense of political awareness, as Ash recalls, "it was fascinating to see individuals responding instantly to the scent that wafted down into the Magic Lantern as the days went by. The scent of power" (88). And as the Forum commented through deliberations, "we are talking to the government of our country because we want a proper government, responsible to a proper parliament, not the rule of one Party" (92). And so it was with the Revolution and birth of a new government with Czechoslovakia, that reform began to take place. As Vaclav Klaus, as the Star of the Forum, noted, "[the Civic Forum] considers its basic objective to be the definitive opening of our society for the development of political pluralism and for achieving free elections.' The movement is open to everyone who rejects the present system and accepts the Programmatic Principles. There will be no hierarchial structure," (107). The vision for the Prague government was such that, "there should be a grand coalition government, a government of experts, men of competence and moral integrity" (108). And it was with this political vision that this country began to move foward...
And so 1989 brought a lot of challenges for Eastern Europe as distinct political, social and economic reform took place in separate countries which yet still coexisted together. And in the words of Timothy Garton Ash in reference to 1989, "this was the year that communism in Eastern Europe died" (131).
Discussion Questions
1) Ash makes the distinction between being a witness and a historian as well as trying to contrast these two perspectives to a particular situation. Is there a distinct difference between these two vantage points? How are they similar? How are they different?
2) Each of these cities had some form of political "refolution' in the year 1989. And yet, with this, it brought many changes because the Communist party was dissolving. He approaches the year 1989 with dual perspectives of the present as well as hindsight. But how does this dual perspective affect our understanding of this 'refolution' in the European theater?
3) The funeral of Imre Nagy adds another layer to the climate in Hungary 1989. What implications did he/ his funeral have on the changing climate in Budapest and the greater Hungary? What contributions did he bring to Hungary that made the whole country almost give him this day of reverence?
4) It seems that with any change or even proposed change to the structure of Germany, everyone holds their breath and 1989 was no exception, especially with the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, Ash seems to present a change in thinking regarding what the Wall truly symbolizes and how it positions Germany for the future. Is this a true turning point for Germany's attempt at a true democracy?
5) Ash paints this distinct picture of Prague in 1989, with the Magic Lantern being the focal point, in essence, "the headquarters of the revolution". And while it is a true place and accurate to refer to it as such, he also seems to 'personify' this theater as a way of framing the revolution in Prague. Is it fair to say that his use of smells as well as descriptions of groups and other topics fair? And if so, what is his purpose in presenting Prague in this way?
Resources:
Ash, Timothy Garton. The Magic Lantern. New York: Random House Publishing, 1993. Print. Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided
Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Imagine what it would be like for you to try and begin to understand others' opinions and observations of your life. This looming idea that someone was always watching and not necessarily knowing what those around you were observing until after the fact. It was not until Timothy Garton Ash's learning of the Stasi files collected by the East German secret police, "that [he] started wondering whether Andrea had been working for the Stasis and whether she had opened the curtains so we could be photographed from the other side of the street" (5-6). And the reality of the situation is that you indeed were being watched by the Stasi but not knowing until after the fact. Would their observations have a profound effect on your interpration of these events? Would this cause you to alter your understanding of these events basedon what information you discover in hindsight?
The very concept of the Stasi files suggests a large amount of distrust on behalf of the GDR secret police and many of the crimes that they arrested people for were for such miscommunications as "mehl box", which in German translates to box of flour, but all the citizen meant was mail box. He was arrested because of it. And as Ash mentions in his memoir, it was interesting for even him to compare his own written account with that of others' observations, stating that "[he was] made sensitive, perhaps oversensitive, by the Stasi experience," (242).
So how does one begin to reconstruct their past? As a journalist and writer living in East Germany in the 1970s, he was put undersurveillance and tracked throughout his time there. As Germany sought to restore the country in the East, the Stasi contrasted the tactics of Hitler and the Third Reich by instead, "injecting fear, uncertainty and suspicion into every walk of life, making sure that few people ever uttered anything that might anger the regime".
The very divisions between East and West Berlin had created an atmosphere throughout Germany that fostered mistrust between these opposing sides. It would appear that these resentments between one to another were derived from pre-existing perspectives that these Stasi officiers were acting on.
As Ash seeks to understand the mindset of these Stasi officers, he was plagued with questions such "What was it like to work in the ministry? How did they come to be there? What did they think they were up to in investigating me? What are they doing now?"(164). One of these Stasi officers, Erich Mielke, was one that Ash had briefly profiled in his memoir, actually was imprisoned at the time. According to the generalized accounts of these officers, "what [we] were doing, spying abroad, was more like what "normal" secret services do, what all states do, so they feel they have less or even nothing to be ashamed of" (165). However, on the reverse side of the coin, the Stasi took to a radical form of intelligence in pursing citizens of East Germany and finding petty reasons to investigate them. As Ash states, "these gentlemen radiate a sense of quiet power: the power that comes, that has always come, that always will come, from secret knowledge" (243).
The Stasi itself proved to have many different interwoven aspects that allowed for them to be successful in a unit. It does depend however, on how one chooses to measure success. In the Cold War, the very existence of the Stasi stands in an interesting junction within the European context. All countries are trying to rebuild but also apply some sort of control to the newly formed divison.
Timothy Garton Ash's account of The File, is one that examines these perspectives. At this point, he has read through his file and is seeking to get answers to what is going on, especially what prompted these men to join the Stasi.
In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, unification of Germany came in the next 11 months. Elections that took place in East Germany were won by conservatives who shifted the focus of this state towards unification with West Germany. As of October 3, 1990, under the West German constitution, Germany was officially one nation. Timothy Garton Ash presents an interesting perspective on Germany, in a lecture titled, "Germany Needs Europe", and he seeks to answer both the German question as well Germany's involvemnet in the EU, quoting Henry Kissinger, "Germany is in fact too big for Europe, but too small for the world".
Germany itself is a complex nation state. It is a country plagued with memories of hate, espionage and political oppresssion. However, as unification even continues to take place in the country, it is clear that Germany is trying to defy past perceptions in creating their future. The Stasi files themselves are a large component to the memory of East Germany, which through movies such as "The Lives of Others" and other media, have truly come to light all that these Stasi officers did to obtain their information.
Timothy Garton Ash is one of many who was monitored through the eyes of the East German secret police. His artful depiction of his own account in conjunction with that of the Stasi creates a deeper understanding of almost a level of paranoia that took place in East Germany.
The File would be an interesting movie mirroring Bourne, Bond and others like it, where there is a certain degree of surveillance. The film would seek to tell dueling perspectives and therefore perpetuate this knowledge of the Stasi that much further. Even today, "there is a two year wait list for people wanting to look at their own Stasi files", each rich with a story. Just imagine the music from Bourne playing in your head...
Discussion Questions
1)
Ash takes the time to note in his Stasi file that he was
ascribed the number “246816” or “Romeo”. In lieu of this semester and exploring “identity”
throughout the course of German history, I wonder what it meant for him to be
thought of as another number among many?How does this compare or contrast to Alter’s experience?
*** “You
have a very interesting file” (6).
2) Germany itself is a relatively young nation state with only about 20 years "under its belt". Is the concept of peace throughout Europe, especially in reference to Germany, a fair assertion to make? Do people still wrestle with the German question or has it since dissolved with German involvement in the EU and unification of the country?
3) It seems that Timothy Garton Ash and other people like him who were under surveillance of the Stasi would have the right to their own information. However, as one source pointed out, knowledge of these files has been made popular through various forms of media and that there is also a "two year waitlist". How does viewing one own's information take two years? Wouldn't it be the rights of these individuals to see their own files?
4) In post WWII Germany, many citizens had different reactions to the exposure of the Final Solution and Nazi involvement. And with this, there is a huge stigma that exists as these officers continue after the Holocaust. Is there that same type of stigma associated with being a Stasi officer? As much as a
Nazi officer or within the SS??
5) One of the biggest aspects to restoration after the fall of the Third Reich was the idea of collective guilt or being guilty by association. Is that a fair assertion to make within the context of East Germany and the Stasi. How do people in Germany cope today
with this transition between Nazism andthe Stasi? What are the similarities between the SS and the Stasi? What are the differences??
6) I believe that Timothy Garton Ash should be admired for the way he writes The File. He writes very honestly both on a personal level as well as a political level throughout discussions in his memoir, even exposing himself to his readers. But for those who are just now reading their files and getting a sense of their lives through the Stasi, what is it like for them?? What would it be like for a family member to find out that a sister or brother was giving information to the Stasi?
At the emergence of the post war period, Germany was left in ruin. Piles of rubble were filling the major cities and the country itself was left in ashes. The Germans themselves were weary of the Russians campaign against them in addition to the weariness associated with the Nazi regime's war efforts. Much of what hung in the balance for Germany's future was a struture of government and with the demise of the Third Reich, what would emerge in its place and how would everyday Germans cope with this change? And yet, in the wake of post war Germany, what would be this new direction that Germany would take? Especially with most Germans feeling wary of politics in general, it truly became a day to day "sheer fight for physical survival" (Fulbrook 117). It was indeed a chance for Germany to start with a new beginning and all eyes were fixed to see what may happen next.
Germany stood divided by occupation zones and in each of these zones, certain groups formed in this shifting political climate, most of which emerged in the Soviet zone. From the SMAD to the CDU to KPD, each of these groups had a "politcal agenda" so to speak. The KPD, especially, sought to assume positions in the local government and "often subscribed to a humanistic version of communism which differed considerably from the Stalinist variant propagated by Moscow faction" (Fulbrook 119). In Gehler's Three Germanies, he asserts that the KPD was the first party to show "the way to setting up an anti-Fascist, democratic regime, and a parliamentary democratic republic with all the democratic rights and freedoms for the people" (17). Despite all these political parties, it was still important to remember that despite political structure, it was still a country with individual people who were sorting out what to make of this aftermath of the war.
Despite all of their feelings towards Germany, the Allies sought to help install some form of a political structure to help position Germany more in a state of reconstruction. And more than anything, it was not the needs of a government, but the basic needs of the German people such as food, lodging, transportation and communication that the Allies saw as a greater priority in the stabilzation of this war torn country. And in place of Nazism, the Allied powers also sought to try and remove what had become a way of life by being saturated in Nazism for nearly a decade.
As this process continued to take place, "it was generally accepted that in some way, Germany must be cleansed of Nazis, that those guilty of sustaining Nazi rule must be punished, and that it was essential, if future peace, was to be secured, that Germans should be convinced of the errors of the Nazi views and persuaded to assent to more democratic and peacful values" (122). The Allied powers were faced with this responsibility and sought to try and remove Germany from these evils that they were responsible for, but at the same time, how did they wrestle with this notion of widely removing this way of thinking from an entire country? How could you get individuals to simply forget and turn towards a separate way of thinking?
And so in the wake of the end of the 1940s, Germany was faced with several concerns about its future. From 1949, with the creation of East and West Germany to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, these two separate republics were marked by two separate government approaches. The first was the formation of a liberal democracy in the West with a contrasting democratic centralism in the East. For people in West Germany, they found themselves able to rid their pasts and with the rapid growth in this republic, look towards establishing a future.
As Germany waited through the early years of these new republics with their separate leadership and formation of political structures, the Berlin wall was finally erected in 1961. According to Gehler, "the building of the Wall helped to stem the tidde of the threatened exodus from the GDR, led to its stabilization and at the same time marked the end of Adenauer's 'policy of strength', which turned to be a policy of German weakness and Western refusal of active German policy." (114). This division to the city was brought with East and West Germany "coming to terms" with the barbed wire fences that spearated these gates; however, the symbol also was a form of propaganda that was used to assert a "victory of Socialism over Imperialism" (115). But as history continued, it another 28 years before these two opposing sides confronted each other.
In the decades that followed, Gehler details the political structure that took place fueling German history. In many ways, Germany continued to propel in their "cyclic pattern" of what some may call failure. It is not until the end of the Cold War in 1989, that the Berlin Wall is finally torn down and it begins the process of unification. Indeed, there is hope for Germany and even today, this country continues to rebuild itself.
Discussion Questions
1) What is it about the country of Germany that propels itself into a cycle of failure? It seems that after denazification, that it would remove itself and try to establish a simpler form of government to radically contrast the Nazi regime that had existed for a little over a decade, but instead, it goes for a more radial approach? Was this the idea of everyone having a stick in the fire?
2) How does denazification still show itself in modern 21st century Germany? Is it still prominent in Germany and other countries? Or has it since gone away with the unification of the country?
3) With the emergence of KPD and other political parties, how was the political climate affected by the sheer number of political parties that started in post war Germany?
4) Keeping the focus on unification of the country, how does Germany begin to rebuild itself on an individual level? What testimony is there to everyday life throughout the restoration and rebuilding of Germany?
5) What did the Allied powers (British and American) do to help the unification of Germnay? How did their "rescue" efforts seek to bring healing to the country as a whole?
References:
Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided
Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Gehler, Michael. Three Germanies: West Germany, East Germany, and the Berlin Republic. London: Reaktion Books, Ltd., 2011. Print.
Revenge, Defeat, Change, Vision, and Occupation were just only a few of the words that circled in the minds of Germans following World War II. The country was in complete shambles with not a flicker of hope. The curtains came down and Germany was left exposed. The agendas of the Third Reich carried out in the war were coming to light as the Russians, British and the Americans came to liberate the concentration camps whose skeletons loomed for them to find. There was an air of a revengeful spirit as those who Germany had hurt throughout the course of the war suddenly turned to seek revenge on what was left of this desolate country.
For many, Germany was the sole cause of the war and as such, responsible for all that had happened during the war.
But imagine what it would be like to be Germany, for them to have lost everything and feel abandoned but their leaders. In the here and now, we have the hindsight to see the devastation that existed and that maybe, it was not such a bad thing that Germany no longer had Hitler as chancellor. But from their standpoint, they are waiting in ruins for whatever may come next. And what Richard Bessel does in his Germany 1945, is to illustrate on many different fronts, exactly what was going in this devastated state.
For many Germans, according to Bessel, "Germany did indeed go to hell, and in 1945, began to come back; the peaceful half of the 20th century rested on the ashes of the first" (4). Since Hitler's coming to power in 1933, this is exactly what Germany had become in the eyes of some was that state of hell. Hitler had succeeded in his complete control as well as carrying out his Final Solution against the Jews, where, at the hand of the Nazis, six million people perished. And because of what many came to associate with Hitler and the devastation that he caused, other countries viewed Germans as "guilty by association". According to Bessel, "the violence which Germans now experienced, in their daily lives was a profound shock, which pushed into the background their memories of the earlier phases of the war when they had the upper hand and were more often the perpetrators of violence than its victims" (5). And what this shows so poignantly, is that Germany was left in a state of ruin and rather than the perpetrators, that had lost any control they once had and were now victims of the Russians, Americans and other countries that sought revenge for the damage that Germany had caused. And as was true for many people, Germany had also been devastated by the war; "the loss of family, friends, homes, limbs and years of their lives, in service of a criminal and lost cause, left behind an ocean of bitterness" (7). But yet, as a country, many viewed that Germany was responsible as a country for "[what] people had been complicit in, and profited from, the actions of a racist and murderous regime, and were in danger of being called to account by the victorious Allies, raised the question of guilt and the problem of having to deal with one's own often chequered past" (7).
And so this was the state that Germany found itself in; facing that they were a defeated peeple...
Amid the sounds of bombs, terror, illegal activity, and crime, the Nazi state continued to crumble in the wake of 1945. As Bessel writes, "under the circumstances which prevailed during the previous years of Nazi rule, the savagery let loose by the regime during the first four months of 1945 was not the product of its tight control of German society. Instead it was an expression of the breakdown of order, which brought a willingness, and indeed a desire, to engage in violence and an utter disregard for the lives of individual human beings" (65). At the same time, Bessel also states that thie terror carried out was a result of an "inability to deal with the consequences of collapse, or to respect the most basic human values" (65). And with the loss of that control of the Third Reich, those human values were indeed lost as well.
As the months continued to pass in 1945, the Third Reich was reaching its "grotesque conclusion" (93). For higher ranking Nazi officials, "Hitler and his immediate entourage had taken to living permanently underground; military orders were issued but only offered a fleeting relationship to reality" (94). In April 1945, the Russians pursued Germany and as they continued to mount the offesnsive, orders came from underground to continue in this fighting. But as Germany soon became crippled in defeat, it appears that a series of conflicting, as well as mixed emotions were swirling in the minds of the Third Reich's top leaders; they would not concede willingly but were instead forced to do so as they recognized this indeed present reality.
And as the year continued, Germany faced the presence of Communism within their country. This cyclic pattern to their history only continued to perpetuate as they tried to rise from these ashes of devastation; that indeed this devastating war would bring peace.
Discussion Questions
1) Bessel presents this idea of “unconscious self-conscience”.What does this mean in light of our vantage
point? And in a way, Bessel seems to connect this with a sense of identity and
maybe how this was lost with the war?Is
it fair to collectively say that this was how it was for Germany as a country?
2) This idea of being a “predictor of doom” and
foreshadowing that something was coming, even as Roth pointed out in 1933 as
Hitler was coming to power, what would the German response be to this
foreshadowing as all of this evil of the Third Reich is being exposed; with
their hindsight in the aftermath of the war?
3) As Bessel writes, "under the circumstances
which prevailed during the previous years of Nazi rule, the savagery let loose
by the regime during the first four months of 1945 was not the product of its
tight control of German society. Instead it was an expression of the breakdown
of order, which brought a willingness, and indeed a desire, to engage in
violence and an utter disregard for the lives of individual human beings"
(65).From our perspective today, could
one not argue that this had been the case since Hitler’s coming to power in
1933?
4) To draw from another literary perspective, in
Harry Potter, Dolores Umbridge assumes authority within Hogwarts and always
needs to have “order” within the constraints of her position.However, anytime that this is threatened or
otherwise challenged, she feels a need to maintain that grip.But, when all falls apart, and order no
longer exists, it is apparent that in a way this mirrors the same state of Germany
without the control of the leader and how chaos ensues.From the German perspective, how would this
loss of control seem to have affected everyday life?Does abandonment give license to violence in
this case?
5) “Stripped of human decency” was a phrase
mentioned earlier in our readings. This terror and savage nature of the Third
Reich seems to manifest itself even greater in the early months of 1945.In this “last stitch effort”, what
implications does this terror have for the people?Because of their disregard for these basic
human rights, could one argue that the way that the Russians treated them, or
even the British or Americans fair?
6) Bessel speaks to Hitler’s motto, “I can no
longer go back”, as he details the Soviet offensive that took place in April
1945.How is our understanding of his
motto modified, if any, in light of what he did?Does this signal defeat or is he alluding
something deeper?
Resources
Bessel, Richard. Germany 1945: From War to Peace. Great Britain: Simon & Schuster, 2009. Print.
Fulbrook,
Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The
Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Think to your childhood memories of when your mother or even your father announced that tonight for dinner was, yep, you guessed it; leftovers. And to some, depending on if it was meatloaf and mashed potatoes, may have been excited or if it was not necessarily one of your favorites, it may have the opposite reaction. But those associations are powerful things. In The Invention of Curried Sausage, it was the thoughts of a favorite food with an associated memory that that led him in his search for the woman who used to make it for him. Or in A Woman in Berlin, it was the leftovers as Germany appeared defeated and the Russians were left to plunder through Berlin. And yet, each of these accounts shows how people wrestle with the aftermath; the leftovers. Whether, if it is just for one person in the case of Hermann Bremer or several women in A Woman in Berlin, each of these characters is left to face the circumstances in the aftermath of war. And for some, this means war associates with rape by Russian officers whereas others associate with an affair and certain culinary affinities. Either way, these "leftovers" stand to leave an impact whether it is for better or worse.
The opportunities that each of us face stand to have a tremendous impact on our lives. In reading each of these accounts, I found that this was especially with the case of the woman in Berlin. Here she is, left in a state of turmoil as the Russians come in, advancing for Reichstag in April of 1945. For the Russians, they have hardened and vengeful hearts for how Germany treated them and devastated their country throughout the war. And yet, as a result, the use of women to someone satisfy their vengeful hearts proves only temporary as this act is repeated with several different Russian officers. From the perspective of this woman, it seems that 1945 Berlin has become a "living hell" for her and fellow German citizens as they are each "put into their place" and associated with the greater Germany as a whole.
On the contrasting side of this woman's account of 1945 Berlin, Uwe Timm paints a portrait of Bremer through association with a beloved food. The Invention of Curried Sausage chronicles the story of Hermann Bremer and Lena Brucker, who has invented this famous curried sausage. Early on, it details their relationship as lovers together and how he faces the conflict between serving his country as well as his relationship with Brucker, which he details by saying, "Bremer was scared; scared to stay with Lena Brucker and scared to go to the front. These were his options: to desert and possibly face a firing squad of his own people, or to go to the front and be torn to pieces by a British tank. In either case only one thing mattered: to get through alive. But which alternative offered the better chance" (41). Bremer is faced with a decision of what it is that he is needing to do and though his choice, he finds himself in an interweaving of secrets between him and Brucker that appear to be concealed at times primarily for self preservation.
It is a radical change to go from discussing the Holocaust one week to reading about post war Germany another. However, when you truly examine these differences and see the devastation that occurred within Germany following World War II, you'd see that the German people were made to be victims just like the Jews. And yet, one word appears as a common theme both of Alter's story as well as though of Timm and the anonymous writer, which is that of survival. While these individuals are stripped of themselves, both literally and metaphorically and left with facing the choice of continuing to fight in the German cause, it becomes simply a fight for survival. And yes, it is easy to see how in the case of the Holocaust, that for these individuals who were being exterminated, survival seems like a natural thought process. However, the perspective change of post war Germany presents a different vantage point. Whether these individuals were being raped on a continual basis for Russian pleasure or facing uncertainty in serving his country, survival seems to emanate from these pages, despite these separate accounts.
So in the aftermath of World War II in 1945 Germany, things look as they seem. The country is in ruins and at one point, the woman believes that God is the only one that can help us. Each of these accounts presents a profound perspective as they seek to explain the places that German citizens found themselves in. And yes, while Jews were victims of the Holocaust, the Germans were simply victims of being German and therefore punished by the Russians because of it. And yet, in the midst of turmoil, the "leftovers" seem to prevail, the survival lives on and hope continues...
Discussion Questions
1) Over the semester, we have noticed consistencies or at least taken note of the purpose in sharing these various accounts of German history. In terms of the anonymous woman, why do you think it was necessary to remain anonymous? Did she have something in particular that she was needing to protect? At that point, what else is left in need of protection? And in contrast, why did Timm narrate his telling of curried sausage?
2) To be in Bremer's position, how do you face being AWOL and not following the German cause that you sought to fight for? What prompted him to stay with Brucker? Discuss further the implications of being AWOL to the German army; implications for soldier, etc.
3) I have found it interesting in the past week to notice the element of film of the portrayal of history. As I was reading this book, I could not help but find that both of these novels were made into movies (the trailer for A Woman in Berlin is attached above). Of all the novels to become movies, why these two? What is it about these accounts that you may find impacting when seeing it on a movie screen? And another piece to note in the use of these films is accuracy. How can you watch one or both of these movies and feel as though it matches the accounts from the novels themselves?
4) In comparing and contrasting these two representations, would you say that one is better than another? Do you see the same themes and ideas consistent with the book to movie adaptations?
5) Put yourself in the position of the woman. With all of the rape that is continually committed, how do you wrestle with the issue of survival? Does it soon become something that is routine and then disregard the thoughts of your husband? How do you rationalize this behavior? Do you claim it as "war/ social injustices" or is it more from the motives of the Russians?
6) In thinking of the framework that these authors provide in detailing post World War II Germany, are the Russians truly out for revenge? How does this compare to their liberation of the concentration camps in 1945?
Resources
Anonymous. A Woman in Berlin: Eight Weeks in the Conquered City. Frankfurt: Eichborn AG, 2003. Print. Fulbrook,
Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The
Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Timm, Uwe. The Invention of Curried Sausage. New York: New Directions Publishing Co., 1995. Print.
