How Germany deals with the Nazi legacy - English

Hitler’s long shadow

By Alexander Görlach17.09.2014Culture and Society

We should learn to deal differently with our Nazi past, for the perpetrators of the time were human beings like you and me. That does not mean, however, that we can’t continue arguing about the Führer.

d6f3035657.jpeg

ODD ANDERSEN/AFP/Getty Images

Hitler sells. Whether on a magazine cover, in a movie plot or as a subject of satire: Seventy years after his demise, the “Führer” still manages to send shivers down the spines of audiences worldwide. The black-and-white footage flickering across movie and TV screens shows the Germany of our grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ time – a country so distant that we are no longer able to imagine it, but that we nevertheless long to comprehend.

Luckily, the Third Reich is long gone. And yet its relics continue to loom large. For months, there has been a public debate over whether an annotated version of Hitler’s racist and ranting autobiography, _Mein Kampf_, should again be published in Germany, where it is currently stuck in legal limbo. There is a deeply rooted fear that yet another demon may rise, that those words that caused calamity during Hitler’s reign may again bring harm to the world.

Can we portray Hitler in a playful way?

We Germans are all but done with Hitler – and I don’t mean that in a purely academic or historical manner. When the German comic satirist Walter Moers released his comic “Adolf, die Nazi-Sau” which translates roughly as “Adolf, the Nazi Pig”, the public was baffled. People feared that the way the comic portrayed Hitler was playing down the danger that the dictator still poses. Andreas Mühe’s photo series “Obersalzberg”, which depicts men in Nazi uniforms urinating in the iconic surroundings of Hitler’s favorite vacation retreat, also sparked a debate about how we should approach the Nazi legacy. Is it all right to do so in a playful way?

The question is a valid one. If you want to satirize something, you first have to come to grips with it. This is becoming increasingly tricky, since today’s younger generations can no longer relate to their country’s Nazi past and the Holocaust. The eyewitnesses of Germany’s darkest period are slowly passing away, and with them, the memory of this great catastrophe is gradually fading. History books are becoming the only source of information available to today’s youth – not a particularly appealing one.

If direct or personal memory fades, then Adolf Hitler is reduced to the figure with ridiculous gesturing and the nasal voice that almost begs for imitation. Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin – wherein lies the difference? Who’s mocking whom?

Seventy years after the end of the Second World War, our culture of remembrance faces an enormous challenge. When Timur Vermes’ book _Look Who’s Back_ – a fictional account about Hitler waking up in contemporary Berlin and trying to propagate his ideas in the digital age – hit the shelves in Germany, it was sold at a cover price of €19.33. Is that an allusion all buyers still understand? It is legitimate to ask whether the year 1933, the year in which the Nazis took power, can still serve as more than a mere marketing gag.

They were ordinary human beings

Today, Hitler both deters and amuses. De-demonizing the specters of the past would do our relation to our Nazi past some good: After all, the perpetrators that performed those horrible deeds were no demons; rather, they were human beings like you and me – ordinary people from next door, not messengers from hell.

Back then, people considered Adolf Hitler a political messiah. Their descendants tried to relativize this in two directions: Hitler as demon or Hitler as the man who brought Germany the Autobahn and eliminated unemployment – a man with a somewhat laudable track record.

What does Hitler mean to us today? We are still a long way from agreeing about him.

COMMENTS

MOST COMMENTED

Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

What decisions would we make if we deliberated carefully about public policy? Alexander Görlach sat down with Stanford's James Fishkin to discuss deliberative democracy, parliamentary discontent, and the future of the two-party system.

A Violent Tea Party?

For many Europeans the massacre in Arizona is another evidence that political violence is spreading in the United States but this unfortunate event was the deed of a mentally ill person, not a political activist. There is no evidence of an increasing political extremism tearing America apart. Using

Passage to India

The US and Russia don't agree on much - but they are both keen to develop a good relationship with India. How do we know? Look at the arms trade.

"Cities are making us more human"

More than 50 percent of the world's population now live in cities – and there is no end of urbanization in sight. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser believes urbanization to be a solution to many unanswered problems: pollution, depression and a lack of creativity. He spoke with Lars Mensel about the

No Glove, No Love

Contrary to the mantras repeated by the press, HIV infections are not increasing. We need to move away from activist scare tactics and towards complex risk management strategies.

Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept

Nick Bostrom directs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He talked with Martin Eiermann about existential risks, genetic enhancements and the importance of ethical discourses about technological progress.

Mobile Sliding Menu