Auschwitz Concentration Camp Frei, Norbert.

¶ … Auschwitz concentration camp

Frei, Norbert. (2010, September). 1945-1949-1989: dealing with two German pasts.

The Australian Journal of Politics and History. Retrieved October 24, 2010 through

FindArticles.com at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1877/is_3_56/ai_n55422670/

Auschwitz article review:

Frei, Norbert. (2010, September). 1945-1949-1989: dealing with two German pasts.

The Australian Journal of Politics and History. Retrieved October 24, 2010 through

FindArticles.com at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1877/is_3_56/ai_n55422670/

How does a population come to terms with atrocities committed by its citizens in the past? This question has often been asked when discussing the American crime of slavery, perpetrated by whites upon African-Americans; the legacy of apartheid in South Africa, and perhaps most searchingly, regarding Germany's atonement for the crimes of the Holocaust. According to Norbert Frei's 2010 article, "1945-1949-1989: dealing with two German pasts" from the Australian Journal of Politics and History, the modern, post-war Germans have come to be regarded as paradigmatic, positive examples of people who have come to terms with negative events in their history. The Germans have been praised for their ability to engage in self-examination and to set laws and rules governing how the Nazi past should be viewed. Even President Barack Obama, who has, as a president, had to acknowledge and tackle the United States' relationship with slavery, praised Germans' ability to move forward. Frei's article, however, illustrates that this coming-to-terms of Germany with its past is far more complex than it might initially seem on the surface (Frei 2010, p.1). Frei divides this coming-to-terms in three distinct phases, which he says marks a gradual, painful acceptance of German responsibility for the Holocaust.

Frei alleges that when trying to begin anew, many postwar Germans simply tried to draw a line between past and present, between Auschwitz and today. One issue Germany was forced to deal with regarding its treatment of the Jews that contemporary Americans were not forced to address regarding slavery was the issue of material compensation to the living victims of the atrocity. In East Germany, which was under Soviet control after World War II, there was no such compensation, as part of the insistence of a policy of economic equality under the regime of the U.S.S.R. (Although Germany was forced to 'pay' for some of the costs of the war to Russia) (Frei 2010, p.2). In contrast, West Germany negotiated a policy of restitution and compensation with Israel and the Jewish Claims Conference in 1952. But even West Germany first attempted to 'forget' as it tried to rebuild its economy.

The official policy of the Americans was not to extract crippling economic compensation from Germany for the war, as was done of the Weimer Republic after World War I (an action that many historians believed helped propel the National Socialists to power, because of the economic costs to the fragile democracy). This fed this tendency to shy away from blaming Germany. The Germans themselves entered into several phases of soul-searching regarding the past, according to Frei. The title of the article "1945-1949-1989" refers to the three major generations Frei perceives in coming to terms with Holocaust responsibility. The first generation was made up of those Germans who were alive when Hitler was actively in power and remembered the Allies' active denazification program. This generation, largely born around 1905, often saw themselves as victims of Hitler, rather than as perpetrators of crimes. They mentally divided Germany into 'real' Nazis vs. themselves, the 'good Germans' (Frei 2010, p.3). Frei states that Germany viewed itself as a kind of sad, tragic hero during the period from the postwar era to the 1950s. It saw itself as a nation that wished to do good, with a proud intellectual heritage, although it had faltered in its path. Frei deliberately calls the German view of itself 'Faustian' in line with the classic Goethe re-telling of the myth of the great scholar who sold himself to the devil for a night of pleasure with a beautiful woman. Hitler was seen as an alien force that ensnared Germany and diverted it from its better self. Auschwitz, in the early postwar German view was something to be relegated to the past, and had nothing to do with the present, in which Germany was trying to reassert its true self and identity (Frei 2010, p.3-5).

In contrast, Germans born around 1925 who came to power in the 1960s were more affected by the worldwide resurgence of liberalism and interest in democracy internationally. German politicians of this era were more pragmatic in their view of Germany's relationship with the rest of the world, and were less inclined to see themselves as tragic figures. They also took a more critical approach to Germany's past, and had a sobriety and lack of romanticism that the previous generations had lacked. There were also more practical issues that brought about this self-examination. The traumatic struggles of the early Cold War were fought on German soil in large part. The postwar partition and the war for Germany's ideological soul gripped the attention of the nation and the world. This made the world less inclined to engage in soul-searching about what the Holocaust and the extermination of six million Jews had meant in the greater scheme of German identity. Some events, such as the release of Anne Frank's Diary, did provoke debate, but it was not until the 1960s that there was true probing in the national German unconsciousness to understand what had been done during the war. Too often, says Frei, in history books there has been a tendency to elide this 1960s coming-to-terms with the earlier generation's repression. Many of the older generation were either perpetrators or actively stood by and did nothing while the Holocaust took place. Only the younger generation began to explore the 'unresolved' past. The generational conflict between old and young that characterized so much of Europe at the time allowed for a more critical view of how older generations had viewed and acted during the Holocaust.

As the 1970s wore on, and other economic issues came to the forefront of the national conscience, there came to be what Frei calls a kind of second forgetting, as the past came to seem of less importance, in relation to contemporary German concerns. But a third wave of interest resuscitated itself in the 1980s, and a completely new evaluation of the Holocaust took place. No longer were Hitler's foot soldiers viewed as victims or merely Germans rather than Nazis, in stark contrast to the leaders of the Nazi party. The German nation began to collectively judge itself, rather than merely blame one political figure for all that had been suffered in Auschwitz and across Europe (Frei 2010, p.5). The fact that an older generation had passed away, and now Germans did not have to show respect for their fathers and grandfathers, enabled a cold and critical light to be shone into the darkness of the historical past.

The fall of the Berlin Wall further stimulated interest and self-examination in the immediate postwar past, after files in the Stasi (secret police) headquarters of East Germany were released, many of which contained data about the Nazi past as well as information about surveillance that took place during the communist period (Frei 2010, p.7). In the wake of reunification and the need to establish a sense of common national history uniting East and West, there was a call to engage in the 'politics of memory' and a commission was established, a Foundation for Assessing the Past, to make coming to terms with the Nazi past a national effort (Frei 2010, p.11).

Part II: Evidence and analysis

Frei's article is presented primarily in a philosophical manner. He begins his essay with a quotation from Barak Obama's speech on a visit to Germany, when touring historical landmarks involved in World War II. But when illustrating the points-of-view of different Germans, such as the first, second, and contemporary generations, he does not provide ample quotation or evidence to support his generalizations about their attitudes in the text of his article. On the surface, his thesis sounds plausible. Rhetorically, some of his statements such as the Faustian bargain that older Germans believed had been struck between Hitler and the German populace, are persuasive. But Frei cites no hard, data-driven evidence from newspapers, writers, or major speeches of politicians of the era to justify that statement. It is not clear if the analogy was used by anyone other than Frei.