German Memory Culture: Institutionalized Collective Memory of Holocaust Incomparability and What This Means for Palestinian Movements and Colonial Remembrance

Published 12/03/2024 in Scholar Travel Stipend

Written by Julissa Mendoza | 12/03/2024

Since the post-war era, there has been a steady institutionalization of memory culture that revolves around the collective memory of the Holocaust. This historical narrative bleeds into domestic and foreign political policies/institutions, such as Germany’s foreign relations policy in Kosovo and with Israel.

This has continued to form social norms of “proper” remembrance and what is worth discussing, making it so that current and past political violence is not addressed or placed in the German collective memory. These widely accepted topics of remembrance have come to produce problems in recent conversations, including but not limited to ones about colonialism or the recent political violence in Gaza.

As primarily introduced by Maurice Harbwachs and later mentioned by Wittlinger and Larose, collective memory can be explained as collective views or beliefs that form a narrative of history. Collective memory describes the ways historical events become significant in the present and how they are recalled. It is through collective memory that a unified narrative is accepted, taught, denied, memorialized, or politicized (Wittlinger and Larose).

Now, while it is true that Germany’s multi-faceted collective memory has been formed steadily since before WW2, it is inadequate to say that Holocaust incomparability, German historical guilt, and National Socialism have not incredibly influenced the modern German collective memory. The Holocaust’s sinister nature pushed many to formalize it as an outlandish and singular phenomena in their minds. In German collective memory, the greatest sin of the state is its genocide. Although initial efforts were grass-roots and took years, the nation turned to memorialization as a way of transparency and amending wrongdoings. However, the narrative of Holocaust singularity, although valuable, has become dangerous and instrumentalized, especially when large-scale memorialization in Germany has turned to publicly-funded institutions.

Since WW2 and Germany’s reunification, there have been incredible developments in institutionalized memorialization. According to the 2021 Institute of Museum Studies survey, 51% of museums are public institutions, this percentage includes 3,438 public museums, 443 of which are state-funded (Compendium of Cultural Policies & Trends). Museums, driving forces in a country’s memorialization, are central to our understanding of larger patterns overall. Berlin State Museums are funded by the federal government in cooperation with the country’s federal states. Having such an extensive, accessible, and funded system of museums explains how the Berlin State Museums are now the largest complex of European museums (Berlin State Museums). Although beneficial, this means that remembrance has become highly politicized. A certain initiative won't receive state or federal funding if something doesn’t fit the accepted narrative.

Examples of Germany’s strong collective memory is exemplified in Germany’s foreign relations. Since WW2, there was constant comparison to National Socialism and German historical guilt. This has been used to justify political actions of non-militarization and military intervention. As explained by Wittlinger and Larose, the situation in Kosovo in the 1990s, precisely the question of German military involvement during this period, sparked varying interpretations of Germany’s past. In their article, Wittlinger and Larose state, “Rather than refusing military involvement because of its past – the argument went – Germany had a particular responsibility to offer military support because of this past” (Wittlinger and Larose). What this meant concerning the choice of military involvement in Kosovo is that Germany should no longer feel the need to avoid wars but to step in and avoid genocide. In the Kosovo situation, the political response shifted and memory arguments rose to justify political or militaristic actions. The question remained: What was the German responsibility in the post-Holocaust era? 

In 2024, this question and the recent topics about the violence in Gaza have sparked debates nationwide. To contextualize: Germany as a state has defined itself as Israel’s protector. In an attempt to address its past and its sins, Germany has delegated itself a self-proclaimed title of “Anti- antisemitism” and unwavering support. Most notably, Germany’s foreign policies concerning Israel have cemented themselves in unwavering support/aid. As popularly coined by Angele Merkel in her 2008 Knesset speech as she addressed Israel's parliament, the “Staaträson,” or reason of the state. This phrase basically informally constitutionalized Israel’s “security”  as a “ key element in Germany’s national interests.” (Federal Chancellor Merkel in Israel). This objective has remained vital since then. In 2021, Merkel re-addressed how Israel’s security is as the “Staaträson”  near the end of her term (Federal Chancellor Merkel in Israel). Her successor, Scholz, has also repeatedly cited “Israel's right to exist as Germany's "reason for state." (Germany Rebukes Nicaragua’s Gaza “Genocide” Claims). This unwavering support has sparked hot allegation on the ICJ stage. However, despite allegations put forward by Nicaragua that Germany is “failing to honor its obligation to prevent genocide” at the ICJ in April 2024, only mild criticism of Isreal’s response has been put out by Scholz (Germany Rebukes Nicaragua’s Gaza “Genocide” Claims).

Now, all of the above mentioned factors have begun to cause problems for the recent domestic debate of Gaza and colonial history. I argue that many problems originate in the norm of Holocaust singularity, not so much on its own but with how it is instrumentalized.

In German memory culture, the collective memory has encompassed Holocaust singularity as definition and norm, affecting how we view other instances of political violence in Germany’s history.  Often, relativization of the Holocaust is dangerously equated to anti-semitism; an accusation of Holocaust relativization can kill careers (Veracini). This is exemplified with Mbembe (African philosopher scholar and activist) in 2020 and other Palestinian activists since then (Fricke). This memory culture puts the Holocaust into a narrative of outlandish phenomenon, oftentimes overlooking the patterns and racist systems that slowly contributed to the Holocaust over time. However, by placing the Holocaust in an outlandish zone of possibility, incomparable to anything in the present, how will we be able to spot dangerous proximity to reoccurrence? The Holocaust is a singular historical event in its profoundly sinister effects. Still, its origins are based on longstanding systems of racism and oppression, which can be studied in relation to other forms of political violence (Fricke 131). Veracini writes on the lagging legacy of colonialism in Germany and how, because of the crime of relativization, the link between colonialism and genocide is denied. In Veracini’s article, Laura Fricke is referenced for talking about the dangerous instrumentalization and norm of singularization (Veracini).  

 “If guilt entails confession and if the insistence on the Holocaust’s uniqueness obstructs a proper acknowledgment of German colonialism, it can be inferred that the affect of guilt within German memory culture does not include guilt about colonialism…The belief in the Holocaust’s uniqueness, thus, serves not only as a confession, but also as a refusal to confess to the crimes of colonialism.”(Fricke 135).

On the other hand, since October 7th, many scholars and activists in Germany (many of whom are Jewish), have seen waves of censorship and cancellations because of their activism about Gaza and their refusal or lack of relativization of October 7th to the Holocaust. So which is it? Can the Holocaust be relativized or not, and should a refusal to do so call for cancellation? The problem diverts from just forcing singularization to forcing relativization. For example, artists like Candice Breitz have been doxxed from publicly funded museums and academic institutions on the grounds of relativization (Oltermann). 

During our talks with Candace in her studio, and during her interview with Philip Oltermann, Candice shared details about the museum’s cancellation of her exhibition. 

‘When I finally got to speak to the museum’s director, she told me that the way I had publicly spoken out about the ongoing bombardment of Gaza was inappropriate… The museum is arguing here that they can’t show my work because I have not acknowledged an equivalence between the Holocaust and the 7 October attacks. To demand that… as a condition for exhibiting my work, is to effectively demand that I relativise the Holocaust.”(Oltermann)

Obarmeir writes, "...thirty percent of those canceled in recent years for alleged antisemitic statements by state-funded German institutions.”(Obermaier). In another case, in 2023, Masha Gessen’s Hannah Arendt Prize was canceled due to their essays on Gaza, their essay “In the Shadow of the Holocaust” being specifically cited (Sheehan). In the essay, which criticizes Germany's Israel foreign policy and remembrance politics, Gessen famously writes:

“Here was a country, or at least a city, that was doing what most cultures cannot: looking at its own crimes, its own worst self. But, at some point, the effort began to feel static, glassed in, as though it were an effort not only to remember history but also to ensure that only this particular history is remembered- and only in this way”(Gessen).

In conclusion, Germany’s collective memory, which has been defined by the Holocaust and German-guilt since the end of WW2,  has melted into the country’s most powerful institutions. On the one hand, it has defined Germany’s foreign relations politics for decades and continues to present itself as a problem with the Staadträson. On the other hand, the extensive memory culture in Germany, specifically a publicly funded culture of remembrance, has introduced issues of censorship and politicization when there is intolerance of any collective narratives that diverge from what is considered “true” or the norm. In this case, Holocaust singularity, or the way it has been instrumentalized, has dictated what is worth mentioning and how it should be remembered. This has been detrimental to the voices of artists and activists that speak on colonialism and the violence in Gaza, with waves of censorship leading these figures to initiate/discuss their movements and topics in a grass-roots method. Ironically, Germany’s need to amend the past and to have Israel as its witness and ally, is anti-semetic on its own, because it silences the Jews who are fighting to claim their right to criticize Israel, Germany, its remembrance politics, and the dangerous German collective memory.