Shared Memory. Buchenwald and Beyond.

I. Introduction

One could say that Germans have “difficulties” with their past. Posthumous generations have started to accept collective responsibility for the moral, political, and financial consequences of the “Third Reich”. Therefore, younger age groups still see National Socialism (and not the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989) as the central historical event. German unification, rejected by some as an imaginary “penance for Auschwitz”, led to a follow-up problem called the “second past”: How are crimes committed by the SED-dictatorship to be dealt with? Comparisons force themselves to be made, although the crimes committed by GDR’s leadership and population were of less significance than the outrages of National Socialism. And whoever compared the two was attacked, although only the comparison could clear up proportions. For victims and those who had suffered at the hands of the SED, respectively the Ministerium fuer Staatssicherheit, or the Ministry of State Security, this debate was too academic in any case. Again, victim and perpetrator stood face to face, this time, certainly, even more obvious within a nation, which was not joyfully united, as it turned out in the meantime.

Guilt is attributed, played down, and exaggerated and also, reparation is demanded, paid, and denied. Politico-pedagogical consequences are postulated, drawn, and postponed, which, as it happened after 1945, were supposed to prevent the recurrence of state-controlled and privately committed injustice. Thus, although each process took a totally different course, the “working out” of both German pasts can be compared and one can comprise analog processes of post-dictorial mastering of state-committed crimes by and in other democracies – from Poland to Spain, from Argentina to Russia. This expansion, prolific for analysis, of the perspective on the inheritance of fatal times does not change the specificity of the German double-burden, which cannot simply be dealt with by means of concepts which refer to a theory of totalitarianism.

There is hardly another place, where the twofold hereditary burden is so densely concentrated as in Buchenwald near Weimar, de facto as well as symbolic. As commonly known a Concentration Camp of the Third Reich used to be there. But since 1990 the awareness recurred that the Soviet “Special Camp No. 2” had been set up there right after the Concentration Camp’s liberation. From July 1937 up to March 1945 about 240.000 people, of which 56.000 were executed, were imprisoned in Buchenwald and its external camps. Between August 1945 and March 1950 28.500 people were interned in the same place anew, of which 7.000 died from hunger and malady. And as if one had to outdo the tragic of this genius loci by a direct convergence of the Nazi and the Communist dictatorship, some people were even imprisoned in both camps successively.

Such a fatal history gives rise to a “divided memory” as Jeffrey Herf called it. Consequently this is a memory, which unites the divided nation, but also divides the united nation, and which, since 1990, has developed into an issue of heated, and by no means settled conflicts of interpretation. Neither this past itself nor the historiographic re-interpretation of Concentration Camp and Special Camp, initiated in the meantime, will be issue of our reflections. We are rather interested in a third significance, which has accrued to the name Buchenwald, which the GDR had turned into a cornerstone of its anti-fascist state doctrine: the extremely difficult attempt, initiated in 1990, to do justice to both pasts by redesigning the National Memorial Buchenwald, and at the same time to correct the working out of the Nazi past by the GDR, which failed in many aspects.

Therefore, it is a matter of the “working out of the working out”, which really is no crotchet of Social Scientists bent on detail, but rather touches the core of political culture and collective identity of the united Germany and the “Berlin Republic”. To come to a point with our inquiry: Not only is the discursive formation of the dispute about this “twofold past” a desideratum of research, but more so the political decision process, which has resulted in reshaping and designing the Buchenwald Memorial. This nonconformity is no accident or a consequence of mere topicality. “Commemorative cultures” are normally considered as cultural discourses about questions of historical truth, of aesthetic design and eventually of educational consequences and are reconstructed accordingly. But the politico-administrative system is usually neglected or considered as of secondary importance. This level works off such “last questions” of true or false, beautiful or ugly, appropriate or inappropriate into mostly very profane seeming aspects of legal and financial practicability, respectively the chance to prevail by a majority vote and/or an act of administration, and has to create legitimacy in a procedural manner. We believe that neglect of the political dimension (or its classification as a more or less manipulative and disturbing appendage to “more substantial questions”) leads astray analytically.

By this, one notion, mentioned in the title, can already be better comprehended: political culture, a key notion of Political Science since the 1950s, which labels empirical research of political attitudes, values and behavioral patterns of a political system’s population. In the perspective of theoretically demanding analysis such concepts can hardly be considered as being up-to-date, especially not surveys of political attitudes carried out under this label. A culturalization of political culture research is to be stated, in so far that “culture as text” as well as the negotiation process of meanings should be set as themes. The German political scientist Karl Rohe defines it this way: “Political culture can (…), of course, not only be understood as an already existent result but must always be conceived as a process, too. (…) The analysis of politico-cultural practice therefore belongs to the analysis of political culture, and they are, of course, of equal importance” (Rohe 1994, 8).

The textual and narrative dimension of this practice is normally grasped by exegetic-reconstructive procedures. The phenomenon of representing the past in shape of memorials can be read as text also. Especially the studies of Young (e.g. 1994) have shown this. Our emphasis, however, is on the analysis of the corresponding negotiation process as described by Schwab-Trapp and Herz (1997) and recently by Wolfrum (1999). While they focus foremost on the discursive dimension of the conflict, we, on the other hand, direct our attention on the current procedures of politico-administrative decision and its often neglected relevance for the determination of meanings. Thus, politics of memory can be reconstructed as a policy of political culture.

II. Commemorative culture and historical site

The political culture of a community emerges not lastly by confrontation with history. Normally, this refers to the affirmative follow-up to an act of founding (often long ago), which permanently establishes the self-evidence of the “imagined community” (Benedict Anderson) without questioning it. For the successor states of the Third Reich, however, only the demarcation from National Socialism came into question: Consequently the political culture of the Federal Republic was above all constituted through conflicts over this “Nazi past’s” interpretation, also called “mastering of the past”. At first this developed as a political and lawful working out of state-committed crimes of violence in the Third Reich. Simultaneously, the psychologic-educational process of working out Nazi felonies took place within the family, in journalistic debates, and in the general public. Furthermore, politico-historical controversies took place within the dispute about the shaping of the official sphere of commemoration. This dispute is of specific interest to us and can be conceptualized as a important part of commemorative culture(s). This above all is a matter of the past’s adequate representation in form of commemoration days and speeches, and of memorials and monuments. But it is also about compensation of damages, statute of limitation for crimes, and cleansing of and granting amnesty to perpetrators and silent accomplices, and so forth.

This perspective can be applied to the authentic historical sites also. The “physical remnants” (as one might call it) found at a Concentration Camp, for example, are not only reminiscent of those who were killed there and a “past, which does not fade” (or rather should not fade). But the interpretation of the past also manifests in the iconographic, architectural, and textual organization of the memorial, which is determined by the conception of history that underlies official commemoration. As an element of cultural memory institutionalized commemoration links up to a functional coherence, which primarily aims at the collective identity of the living (cf. Koselleck 1979).

As aforementioned, both successor states of the “Third Reich” (which the GDR never officially considered itself to be) had to be established as negative detachments of their previous past. With the unification of both states in 1989/90, totally inconsistent commemorative cultures, which now were paralleled and confronted with each other, added to this particularity. The Communist past stepped up to (and sometimes in front of) the Nazi past, as especially victims of the SED-dictatorship and of Stalinism have emphasized. Out of this resulted the demand to correct the National Socialist past’s perception through the filter of GDR-official historiography as the third historical and politically relevant level. With the upcoming reorganization of the memorials for National Socialism’s victims in the new federal states not only problems of institutional change surfaced. It was also about re-determining these memorial places’ symbolical meaning for the political culture of the “Berlin Republic”.

The exemplary relevance of the analyzed Buchenwald memorial for German commemorative culture thus results out of the three significations of this historical site. At first, the National Socialist’s concentration camp was established on the Ettersberg near Weimar in 1937. A definite presentation of the concentration camp’s structure and function proves to be difficult due to the number of inmates in the course of the camp’s history: Buchenwald prisoners came from over 30 different countries and were interned because of various reasons. This resulted in a heterogeneous prisoner’s society, from which the “privileged” positions of so-called functional prisoners stood out – over which a heated controversy has arisen in the meantime.

The Concentration Camp Buchenwald and its external camps were liberated by allied troops in 1945. Already a few weeks after the end of the Second World War, in the course of of denazification, an internment camp was erected in August 1945 on the Ettersberg site as well as further camps in other occupational zones. The internment camp on the Ettersberg was named “Special Camp Nr.2” by the Soviet local authority responsible. Because of the arbitrary internment practice of the SMAD a heterogeneous prisoners’ society formed here likewise, embracing Nazi functionaries of different ranks as well as actual or supposed enemies of the Soviet reorganization policy. Their inhumane treatment, taking death and malady into account, was only known by hearsay and spread by rumor in GDR’s further history, but was never officially recognized – not even in the course of destalinization and rehabilitation. The unmarked graves of the people hurriedly buried in Buchenwald were covered by vegetation. The existence of these Special Camps was placed under a taboo or at least was no subject of discourse.

Concerning the victims of the National Socialist camp the facts were completely different. The precondition for realizing a memorial covering the entire site was established when the camp ground was handed over to GDR authorities in mid 1951. With the foundation of the GDR the realization of a memorial had been declared a “national duty” on initiative of former Communist prisoners of the Concentration Camp. The Memorial’s design was started by minimizing the physical relics: From those buildings, which had largely survived until 1951, especially the entrance area with camp gate and guarding towers as well as crematory and warehouse were preserved. But the actual creation of the historical meaning was shifted to establishing a monumental Memorial. Those changes brought about an intended homogenization as well as a hero worshipping of the victims. The center of commemoration was always the communist opposition inside of the Concentration Camp and its significance as a legacy. This creation of function already manifests itself in the so-called oath of Buchenwald as an obligation for shaping the future. All together, the National Memorial Buchenwald, inaugurated in September of 1958, conveyed a picture of history that served GDR’s moral legitimization out of the spirit of anti-fascism.

By this concise account one can already see that by now the Buchenwald Memorial functions as a symbol of a threefold German contemporary history: The temporal and in a certain way material continuity of the camp site downright provokes a confrontation with the twofold past of National Socialism and Stalinism. Subsequently this calls for a revision of the functionalization of commemoration during GDR-dictatorship. How did the conflict about the interpretation of the past, resulting out of this intricate constellation, realize precisely and how did the actors concerned articulate their interests regarding commemoration? After defining our understanding of “politics of memory” this will be reconstructed chronologically and in view of the also perceptible transformation of political culture.

III. Politics of memory in perspective

Not only the GDR gave examples of how nonchalantly and excessively “politics with the past” was conducted (for the history of the Federal Republic see Reichel 1995). However, analysis cannot be restricted to official distortions of the past in an instrumentalizing manner and blatant commissioning. One rather has to proceed from the assumption that politics of memory is inevitable. The historian Wolfrum defines politics of memory as that “field of action and policy different actors seek to burden with their specific interests and try to use politically”. More specifically, he is interested in “how, by whom, why, with what sort of means, with what sort of intention, and with what sort of effect are experiences with the past set as a theme and thus become relevant in a political sense” (Wolfrum 1999, 25 f). This definition, however, suggests that politics mainly handles the past in a manipulative way. The author himself characterizes politics of memory as a “weapon variable in each situation steadily handled by politicians” (ibid., 29). He also differentiates, in our opinion not quite successfully, between “progressive” and “regressive”, meaning enlightening and emancipating intentions and effects and correspondingly meaning legitimizing or traditional intentions and effects. But with good reason he emphasizes that a pluralistic society like the one of the Federal Republic cannot postulate, generate, or presume a consistent picture of the past. Instead a “contest of memories” will come about necessarily and through this “dominating interpretational axes and explanational patterns” (ibid., 26) crystallize. This contest will be staged among “interpretational elites” within public culture and has an undecided outcome. In a “process, mediated publicly and by mass media, visible powers and counteracting forces are at work”, which “struggle for the hegemony of discourses and interpretational patterns” (ibid., 28).

With this extensive definition one disassociates oneself from a variant of “policy of the past” (Frei 1996) that concentrates on the cleansing of a dictorial past or on its working out in a closely related temporal, a practical-political, and a lawful manner. This allows a (not relativizing) “historization of National Socialism”, which Martin Broszat had already called for a couple of years earlier. This means that a rather formal comparison of the in-no-way-singular process is conducted, if “collective identities are constructed and reconstructed by means of public discourses about history and through conflicts of interpretation related to the past” (Wolfrum), especially after a change of regimes or turning-points in history.

Above all we want to accentuate two aspects beyond Wolfrum:

  • on the one hand discourse analysis based on the Sociology of Knowledge (or also, discourse analysis based on the Political Science of Knowledge, because this is about interpretations based on power and generating domination);
  • on the other hand the classification of politics of memory as policy analysis.

This means we want to bring politics of memory back into the customary policy-cycle and by this de-dramatize it. This political process approximately runs through the following stages:

  • First, the agenda-setting – here, for example, by publishing a tabooed past and the discussion about adequate representation of the past(s) in the local public as well as within the Memorial’s administration.
  • After this the politico-administrative settlement and canalization of conflicts, which can come about by various means: namely, by expertise (such as a historians’ commission), or by “commemoration competition” (Volkhard Knigge), and antagonistic mobilization (as by victim or advocacy groups rivaling for medial attention). Additionally, the settlement and canalization of conflicts can occur via “policy brokers” and finally by sovereign superintendence of personnel and sovereign budget supervision of agencies on municipal, state, and federal level. Here also, money and law are available as the most effective means of control. Representatives of the governmental monopoly of force, however, are only one actor among many in the field of politics of memory, and have to, above all, rely on politico-rhetorical and persuasive media as well as on procedures of “governing through discussion” (respectively moderation).

IV. The conflict in chronological perspective

During an investigation at the end of January 1990 a journalist of a local newspaper stumbled on mortal remains beneath the site of the Buchenwald memorial. These obviously belonged to common graves out of the time of the Soviet internment camp. After this unearthing, subscribers’ letters and articles started off in the local newspapers. The memorial’s staff was accused of active complicity in the imposed silence about the camp’s second history. At this point of time already the demand for a memorial for those killed in the Special Camp was raised. In comparison to the monumental Memorial for the victims of the Concentration Camp, the wooden cross set up as a makeshift at the place where the common graves were presumed to be, was anticipated as a continuation of a forgery of history with aesthetic means.

Because the administrative routine of the memorial’s management did not do justice to the articulated need of an adequate representation of this memory, an association was constituted to safeguard the interests of the Special Camp’s former inmates and their relatives. The rather revisionary attempt of the Weimar Initiative “Buchenwald 1945 – 1950” (other associations joined later) was soon taken as a reason for reformulating and simplifying the relationship of both German pasts by the West German side. Hence, the “Association of the Victims of Stalinism”, which was founded in the Federal Republic, organized a commemoration “For the victims of a 58-year-dictatorship in Germany”. The secretary of intra-German affairs at that time, Dorothee Wilms, demanded that the “former Concentration Camp Buchenwald must be extended to a memorial ‘for the victims of arbitrariness and persecution’” (Frankfurter Rundschau, 18.07.1990). Here the common de-concretization of historical experiences was already perceptible in connection to the official tradition of commemoration in the Federal Republic for the “victims of the rule by force”, which is supposed to enable an inclusive offer of identification to both groups of victims. To this, the commemoration interests articulated by the organizations of former Concentration Camp prisoners were strictly opposed. The Internationale Komitee Buchenwald/ Dora und Kommandos (IKBD) addressed the by now all-German federal government in the beginning of October 1990 with the appeal to “safeguard this Memorial against every alteration that could diminish or veil its meaning”. This includes “that the women and men, which have been for years and decades communicating the message, our oath contains, to millions of visitors from all over the world, can continue (…) to perform their meritorious vocation”.

The interpretational conflict, thus rudimentary unrolled, moved the memorial’s personnel policy, which had been the responsibility of the Thuringia Ministry of Science and Arts since the German unification, to the center of interest. The local political public alleged the continuance of an SED-ring. This allegation was reinforced by the appointment of a new manager for the Memorial, whose former membership in the Communist Party of the Federal Republic (DKP) became public only a little later. Because of this he then had to resign. The dismissal of those employees at the Memorial, who had been members of the SED, became the main criterion for an appropriate reorganization of the institution. In order to decouple the elaboration of the Memorial’s future conception from personnel-political decisions, the Thuringia Ministry of Science and Arts announced the nomination of a commission of experts, parallel to the repeated advertisement of the vacant office. This commission was supposed to relieve the new director of personnel-political decisions.

Through the means of scientific expertise competing claims on the design were rather to be clarified cognitively, which means in regard to the historiographic “state of research”. While the moral claim of the persons concerned was still recognized by the hearing of their arguments, the role of the Memorial’s employees was reduced to the implementation (which they were then responsible for) of the reached fundamental decision. This procedure did not seem to bring about a consensus between all persons involved, but increased the prospect of recognition of corresponding decisions. The institutional arrangements thus called forth the assumption that it was now possible to decide with better reason in case of disagreement.

At the center of this, the historian commission under chairmanship of the historian Eberhard Jäckel was set up in the summer of 1991. Other renowned historians from the former federal states were members, of which the majority can be regarded as experts on National Socialism. Furthermore, an editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, versed in this field, and a female representative of a West-German memorial were appointed. Following an inspection of the site, a hearing of representatives of the victims’ associations and of other social groups was held, in which, for example, the IKBD as well as the Initiative “Buchenwald 1945 – 1950” participated. On the 15th of September 1991 the commission announced its fundamental decision to separate the two commemoration spheres spatially and at the same time recommended: “The emphasis should be on the Concentration Camp” (Gedenkstätte Buchenwald 1992, 10). Furthermore, the exhibition of the Concentration Camp Buchenwald was to be drafted anew because of the obvious distortions. Afterwards a corresponding exposition for an adequate commemoration of the Special Camp was to be elaborated. Moreover, the commission advocated an exhibition documenting the history of the Memorial from 1950 to 1990. The new conception thus resulted in a hierarchical presentation of now three periods of history (1933-1945, 1945-1950, 1950-1990), which were categorized under the catchwords Buchenwald I, II, and III during consultations. In this, one can make out a general trend of commemorative activities related to National Socialism: to switch from the presentation of factual knowledge about the “worked out” past to the reflexive working out of this working out itself, thus a reflexive feedback, which in this case was only possible because of the de facto ending of GDR-history.

At their second meeting on the 16th of November 1991, the historians’ commission concretized its conceptions and formulated inter alia the following recommendation: “The space for a ‘Special Camp 2’ Memorial should, if possible, be positioned within the site of the prisoners’ camp, in order to document the spatial continuity” (Gedenkstätte Buchenwald 1992, 11). This decision was especially criticized by the IKBD, who had wanted to reserve the camp’s site exclusively for the representation of the memory of felonies committed during National Socialism. In the follow-up report, which the commission had formulated subsequent to the repeated hearing of the persons concerned on the 14th of February 1992, the commission tried to take the various interests into account. In order to leave the character of the prisoners’ area as unchanged as possible, the new building for the exhibition about the Special Camp was to be constructed within the camp site, but hid by other buildings (Gedenkstätte Buchenwald 1992, 13). The revealed burial-places were essentially to be preserved in their form as woodland graveyards and a place of mourning was to be erected additionally. Besides this conceptual decision the commission recommended a legal step: with the purpose of removing Buchenwald from the grip of a single actor permanently, the Memorial should be given the legal form of an independent foundation of public law, in which the persons concerned are represented in an advisory function. These recommendations were met with approval by all parties represented in the Federal State Parliament of Thuringia on the 17th of September 1992 and were thus politically authorized.

Although the institutional transformation of the Memorial was largely settled administratively by this political decision, the controversies regarding the contents of the facility continued. One of the reasons for this was that formal claims rather than claims as to the contents were made regarding the reshaping, not only because the past of both camps still was to be investigated in full. At the same time, however, an intense demand for acting existed especially for the exhibition about the Concentration Camp, since the date, the changes had to be finished, was already set by the 50th anniversary of the liberation in April 1995. This is, in our opinion, an example of how political controversies about history can develop an internal logic of commemorative culture (here: rhythm and cycle of anniversaries) as against other valid claims on its way form deliberation to decision.

Within the now detached comparative perspective of the two German dictatorships, the conflict accumulated in an argument about the Communist functional prisoners. Their role was conveyed by document findings in the SED-archive, in the course of corresponding researches for the revision of the exposition, which goes back to the time of the GDR. Especially the manner and degree of collaboration of the so-called “Kapos” with the camp-SS was an offense, as well as the probable continuity of the conspiracy of the Communist Party’s administration in the Concentration Camp Buchenwald into the later observation apparatus of the SED-state. The corresponding findings remained controversial, but led to the resignation of a managing director of the Memorial, who had held office in the meantime. As a cause of the ongoing problems he named the impediment by employees, which had been members of the SED. In the election year of 1994 the discussion about personnel was issue of a press campaign, particularly urged on by a tabloid newspaper in Thuringia (BILD-Zeitung), in which the dismissal of former SED-members was demanded. Supposedly they had been working for the State Security and were now obstacles to a truthful working out of the past.

This discussion spread to the “Memorial Foundation of Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora”, which had been constituted in the beginning of April 1994. The foundation’s council mainly consists of representatives of the politico-administrative system of the federal and the federal state level, thus of financier and personnel supervisor, as well as of representatives of the concerned county and the city of Weimar. A board of curators, consisting most of all of historians, manages the conception of the institution. Furthermore three advisory boards with the according representatives of the former prisoners are appointed to the board of curators – one prisoners’ advisory board for Buchenwald, one for Mittelbau Dora, and one for the Special Camp. These advisory boards were established in July of 1994 and the Cultural Scientist Volkhard Knigge was appointed as the new managing director of the Memorial and the Foundation. At the same time the only East-German member of the board of curators had to resign due to his proven former activity for the Ministry of State Security. The composition of the committee remained controversial from the perspective of the former Special Camp’s prisoners, too. They demanded an inclusion of historians not only working on the time frame of and the problems arising out of National Socialism but rather also on “Soviet Communism and Stalinism”.

Although further consequences concerning the personnel did not occur, the foundation’s construction enabled a relief of the Memorial’s personnel from the technical responsibility for the exhibition, which was being worked on. Simultaneously a first edition with excerpts of the documents relevant for the argument was published (Niethammer 1994). Although the evaluation of the findings was controversial, this publication enabled a review of the statements, which were to manifest themselves in the exhibition. With the opening of the new permanent exhibition about the history of the Concentration Camp – on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the liberation in April 1995 – the commemoration of the Special Camp moved into the center of interest. In June of 1995 the construction of the exhibition building had started, according to a plan a price had been awarded to by a jury. In the October following, the construction was stopped without hearing the prisoners’ advisory board concerned. This triggered a controversy because, according to Knigge, the design contained elements that lean upon the design of Holocaust Memorials. In his opinion this could have been understood as an attempt to relativize the separation of commemoration by aesthetical means. A discussion about the composition of the prisoners’ society of the Special Camp followed. In its course the chairman of the Association of the Victims of Stalinism in Thuringia filed a suit against Knigge, owing to his statement that the inmates were for the most part “civilian bearers of function” of the National Socialist regime. Subsequently the prisoners’ advisory board of the Special Camp suspended its assistance at the foundation. The participatory rights of the persons concerned were not heeded with reference to a possible endangering of the fundamental decision. Had the construction been implemented as intended, the fundamental decision to differentiate commemoration would have been neutralized by the equivalence established through the architecture. Some elements of the Special Camp’s commemoration site would have looked exactly like some of the elements of the commemorative architecture of the Concentration Camp. Due to these proceedings the decision of the historians’ commission to subordinate the commemoration of this complex was criticized again as a whole.

The inquiry commission for the “Overcoming of Consequences of the SED-dictatorship in the Process of German Unity” provided a fundamental platform for this controversy (cf. Deutscher Bundestag 1999). This commission was, among other things, assigned the “development of an all-German form of commemoration of both German dictatorships and their victims”. The victims of the Special Camp and the sciential representatives of totalitarianism theory tried to instrumentalize the discussions for a revision of the fundamental decisions made for Buchenwald. The representatives of the victims of the Concentration Camp, on the other hand, already perceived it as an affront to see their concerns actually subsumed under the overall topic “working out of SED-injustice”. This resulted in an uproar on the 14th of October 1996 in Buchenwald when the IKBD refused to sit at the table with the lobbies of post-war victims, on the occasion of a public hearing of the victims’ associations by the working group “Memorials”.

This development clearly shows the attempt to revise the differentiation of claims of validity, which underlies the foundation’s construction as well. With the rejection of their claim for a specific commemorative architecture the representatives of the Special Camp’s prisoners perceived their status as victims being questioned in general. The justification for the rejection of the claim – the reference to the composition of the prisoners’ society – was absolutely opposed to the way they perceived themselves. Only the legitimacy of the decision-making procedure could be set against this politico-moral rating. Thus, on the 25th of May 1997, the permanent exhibition on the Special Camp’s history was inaugurated in a commemorative place as a “functional building” without any architectural elements interpreting history. Even though the representatives of the victims’ associations welcomed the facility as such, they adhered to their criticism on the symbolical representation of commemoration. In their opinion this plain concrete building, which is located at a slope and cannot be seen from the camp’s site, supposedly looks like a bunker.

The last fundamental element of the Memorial’s redesign was the opening of the exhibition on the history of the Memorial in the GDR, on the 24th of October 1999. This, on the other hand, provoked the protest of the Concentration Camp’s victims, who perceived a utilization of the historic site as a means to de-legitimize the GDR in the presentation of the commemoration’s instrumentalization by the GDR. Although the institutional transformation regarding the contents of the Buchenwald Memorial is for the most part completed (and can be considered a success from a sciential and museum-didactical perspective), the controversy on the grounds of politics of memory continues. Mission Impossible – has the redesign therefore failed? The development could be just as well understood as the actual intended result of the chosen institutional arrangement: Since the disparity of the historical experiences to be represented cannot be solved discursively, the commission of experts transferred the intended process of deliberation, as a means for administrative decision-making, to the Memorial’s conception. This, however, did not settle the conflict, resulting out of the competition of commemorative claims, but regulated it at least. The symbolical significance of the historic site now exactly infers from the reflection about the various connotations, to which the memories there realized refer. Indeed, this differentiation of commemoration turns out to be an insult to the victim-groups concerned. From the perspective of the united Germany’s political culture, however, this can be characterized and accepted as a prerequisite for symbolical integration through reflective reception. A de-ideologization of commemorative cultures instead of a de-historization and de-concretization of historical events can be stated, as the heterogeneity of the historical information relevant is not preserved in a homogeneous picture of history, which could be ritually received or ritually consummated there. This is not a bad outcome for the “future of commemoration”.

V. Outlook

We have presented an example of an intervention in interpretational conflicts related to the past, which in our opinion was not awkward and rather wise. It can furthermore illustrate the, at times quite turbulent, process of politics of memory. In other policy areas a parallelism of three streams can be stated, according to the so-called Garbage-Can-Model as (1) problem accumulation and articulation, (2) the relevant policy community, including political advocates, mediators and entrepreneurs, and as (3) political increase (for instance concerning elections). These parallel streams run corresponding to each other and make decisions possible at certain intersections (windows of opportunities). Here also an analogous process has taken place, having, of course, two characteristic aspects, which could be interpreted as defects and re-actualized in a conflictual manner: first, the missing of democratic participation and legitimacy, customary with decisions related to the past – people try to keep these delicate issues out of election campaigns and try not to leave them up to majority votes in parliament. Therefore the issues are delegated to experts’ commissions and administrative authorities. The East-West-disparity could turn out as the second deficiency. Not regarding the decision as such, this contrast could become inflamed on the exclusive composition of the historians’ commission, should an equation of the under-representation of the east-German side with the marginalization of this corresponding group of victims occur.

The redesign of Buchenwald has shown very precisely that the East-West-dimension has now always to be taken into consideration in regard to the past. Up to now this dimension has not permitted a mutual perception or a unanimous problem awareness. In connection to this, overall transformations of politics of memory are imaginable, surpassing the German special case. These transformations can only be listed here in keywords:

In regard to the Concentration Camp Buchenwald, first of all, the effect of the gradual, biologically determined cessation of the immediate memory of contemporaries becomes obvious. They have played a major role in the founding as well as the legend of the GDR-memorial. But what will change, when the last survivors – victims and silent accomplices as well as perpetrators – have died and the immediate existential dimension of memory, established through experiencing and being affected, is thus thrust to the background. If the witness stand remains empty, a communicative memory based on it will drop into the cultural repertoire of commemoration of posthumous generations and will put the “mediators” in its place. This has always been the claim of historiography and Historical Science striving for objectivity, whose methodological distance excelled the claim of oral reporting for authenticity.

The passing away of contemporaries and the generational shift secondly pose a challenge to the further shaping of the “authentic site”, whose facets are still fought over. The “working out of the working out”, as the amplified incorporation of the level of reflection of commemorative cultures and of politics of memory as such, relativizes the physical remnants of the camp and shifts the attention from “monument to media”, which means to the saved and mediated memory. Their digitalization has enlarged the funds immensely and allows to have them at disposal independent of time or place, whereby rigid and vivid pictures play a more important, and at the same time more controversial role (cf. Wehrmacht exhibition). Presentational formats of popular culture become more significant as well, including fictional and collaged elements.

Connected to this is thirdly a transnationalization of commemoration, parallel to the globalization of economy, culture and politics, therefore a commemoration, which orients itself on the by far most excellent memorials worldwide. Even the “nation of perpetrators” can fall into line here, as a re-orientation of commemoration towards the prevention of genocide, racism, and xenophobia has started, which can disregard the concrete factualness of the crimes committed in Buchenwald and their asserted uniqueness.

Fourthly, as the example of Buchenwald should have shown adequately, the opportunity for an all-round instrumentalization of memory for political objectives related to the present as well as a certain degree of nationalization of commemorative rituals is given. This raises the difficult question of what lessons are to be drawn from the past with all seriousness anew.


References:

Deutscher Bundestag [ed.] (1999): Materialien der Enquete-Kommission “Überwindung der Folgen der SED-Diktatur im Prozeß der Deutschen Einheit” (13. Wahlperiode des Deutschen Bundestages), Bd. VI: Gesamtdeutschen Formen der Erinnerung an die beiden deutschen Diktaturen und ihre Opfer, Baden-Baden.

Frei, Norbert (1996): Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS-Vergangenheit. München.

Gedenkstätte Buchenwald (1992): Zur Neuorientierung der Gedenkstätte Buchenwald. Die Empfehlungen der vom Minister für Wissenschaft und Kunst des Landes Thüringen berufenen Historikerkommission, Weimar-Buchenwald.

Herz, Thomas/Schwab-Trapp, Michael (1997): Umkämpfte Vergangenheit. Diskurse über den Nationalsozialismus seit 1945. Opladen, 11-35.

Koselleck, Reinhart (1979): Kriegerdenkmale als Identitätsstiftungen der Überlebenden. In: Marquard, Odo/Stierle, Karlheinz (eds.): Identität. München, 255-276.

Niethammer, Lutz [ed.] (1994): Der “gesäuberte” Antifaschismus. Die SED und die roten Kapos von Buchenwald, Berlin.

Reichel, Peter (1995): Politik mit der Erinnerung. Gedächtnisorte im Streit um die nationalsozialistische Vergangenheit. München/Wien.

Rohe, Karl (1994): Politische Kultur: Zum Verständnis eines theoretischen Konzepts. In: Niedermayer, Oskar/Beyme, Klaus von [eds.]: Politische Kultur in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Berlin.

Wolfrum, Edgar (1999): Geschichtspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Der Weg zur bundesrepublikanischen Erinnerung 1948-1990. Darmstadt.

Young, James E. [ed.] (1993): The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven.

Copyright © 2002 by the authors. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with this header included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically, in whole or in part, without written permission from Transit.
Tr@nsit online, Nr. 22/2002

Tags:

Related Content

  • Warnings from Another Refugee Crisis

    The last world war began amidst a refugee crisis. In discussions of refugees today, many European politicians neglect to mention how exclusion led to murder the last time around.
    Read more

  • Rachelka’s Tablecloth. Poles and Jews, Intimacy and Fragility “on the Periphery of the Holocaust”

    What does local participation in the Holocaust—victims who refer to their murderers by the diminutive versions of their names—teach us about intimacy? About the fragility of the border between good and evil? About what it means to be a human being? For Marci Shore, these are the central questions addressed by Agnieszka Holland’s film In Darkness, Jan Gross‘s and Irena Grudzinska Gross’s book Golden Harvest, and Tadeusz Słobodzianek’s play Our Class. These works reveal the extent to which Poles are coming to see the history of Jews—their lives and their deaths—as a history about themselves, and about all of us.
    Read more

  • Jenseits des Traumas.
    Überlegungen zur Erinnerungsforschung in der Postmoderne

    Die Erinnerungsforschung emanzipiert sich zunehmend von der Nationalgeschichte. In der Folge wird kollektives transnationales Gedächtnis oft mit Trauma gleichgesetzt. Martina Steer zeigt die Konsequenzen dieser Gleichsetzung auf und beleuchtet Perspektiven für einen breiteren Zugang zur Erforschung transnationaler Erinnerung, die nicht auf der Kategorie „Trauma“ basieren.
    Read more

  • Russia’s Reckoning with Katy?

    Why does it matter that the Russian parliament has just declared the Katy? mass murder of 1940 to be a Stalinist crime? Seventy years on, no one doubts the responsibility of Stalin, Beria, and the Soviet NKVD for the murder of about 21,892 Polish citizens in the Katy? Forest and four other sites. Yet, according …
    Read more

  • Lebendige Erinnerung an die Diktatur
    Was Europas Süden und Osten gemeinsam haben

    Der französische Politikwissenschaftler Maurice Duverger wurde 1951 europaweit durch das „Duverger’sche Gesetz“ bekannt, demzufolge ein System einfacher Mehrheit in Einerwahlkreisen die Herausbildung eines Zweiparteiensystems begünstigt. Zehn Jahre später jedoch veröffentlichte der 1917 geborene Sozialdemokrat ein mit „De la dictature“ betiteltes Buch, in dem er nicht trockene sozialwissenschaftliche Wahlstatistik trieb, sondern einen emotionalen, gar dramatischen Ton …
    Read more

  • The Burden of History and the Trap of Memory

    Erzwungene Wege ["Forced journeys"] is the title of the newly opened exhibition at the German Historical Museum in Berlin on the history of forced migration in Europe. It has been organized by the German League of Expellees, which represents Germans forced to migrate after WWII, and is a step towards the League's goal to set up a permanent exhibition in the German capital. The exhibition has been the source of ongoing diplomatic conflict between Germany and its eastern neighbours – above all Poland – since the League called on Poland to pay compensation to former German owners of Polish property and even opposed Poland's accession to the EU. Philipp Ther outlines the background of the historical conflict between Germany and Poland, the reasons behind the paradigm shift from culprit to victim in the German view of its history, and the enduring and very different memory in Poland of the German occupation.
    Read more

  • The Reasons for the Current Upsurge in Memory

    We are witnessing a world-wide upsurge in memory. Over the last twenty or twenty-five years, every country, every social, ethnic or family group, has undergone a profound change in the relationship it traditionally enjoyed with the past. This change has taken a variety of forms: criticism of official versions of history and recovery of areas …
    Read more

  • Hot Memory … Cold Memory. On the Political Half-Life of Fascist and Communist Memory.

    In his reflections on twentieth-century history, Memoirs of a Ravaged Century, Robert Conquest admits that for all his scathing condemnation of Soviet atrocities, "I feel" the Holocaust was "worse" than Stalinist crimes.[1] The comparative intensity of feelings makes a difficult subject for historical explanation, but these feelings are important - they happen to be my feelings too, and those of many in Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere who reflect on history.
    Read more

  • L’avènement mondial de la mémoire

    Nous vivons l’avènement mondial de la mémoire. Depuis vingt ou vingt-cinq ans, tous les pays, tous les groupes, sociaux, ethniques, familiaux, ont été amenés à connaître un profond changement du rapport traditionnel qu’ils entretenaient avec le passé. Ce changement a pris des formes multiples: critique des versions officielles de l’histoire et remontées du refoulé historique; …
    Read more

  • Entre la mémoire et l’histoire

    Mon propos, après bien d’autres, c’est la vérité en histoire. Il faut peut-être insister sur cette dimension critique à une époque où l’on aborde trop vite les questions de devoir de mémoire. C’est à elles que je viendrai pour finir; ce n’est pas d’elles que je partirai. Mon approche à son tour n’est que l’une de celles qui ont marqué l’épistémologie de la connaissance historique après le déclin de l’hegelianisme.
    Read more

Tr@nsit Online Authors

  • Bradley F. Abrams

    History, Stanford University
    Read more

  • Thomas Ahbe

    Thomas Ahbe studierte Philosophie, Ökonomie und Soziologie. Seit 1998 wirkt er freischaffend als Sozialwissenschaftler und Publizist. Seine Arbeitsschwerpunkte sind Diskurs- und Kulturgeschichte der deutschen Zweistaatlichkeit und der ostdeutschen Transformation sowie die Generationengeschichte der DDR und Ostdeutschlands.   Print

  • Karl Aiginger

    Karl Aiginger is Director of WIFO (Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung), Professor of Economics and Coordinator of the project A new growth path for Europe within the 7th European Framework Program.   Print

  • Huercan Asli Aksoy

    Ph.D. candidate in Political Science, University of Tübingen
    Read more

  • Sorin Antohi

    Sorin Antohi is Professor of History at Central European University, Budapest.   Print

  • Timothy Garton Ash

    History, Oxford
    Read more

  • Roumen Avramov

    Program director for economic research at the Center for Liberal Strategies, Sofia
    Read more

  • Adam Baczko

    PhD Candidate in Political Science, EHESS, Paris
    Read more

  • Pavel Barsa

    Associate Professor of Political Science, Charles University Prague
    Read more

  • Rainer Bauböck

    Rainer Bauböck is professor of social and political theory at the European University Institute in Florence. In 2006 he was awarded the Latsis Prize of the European Science Foundation for his work on immigration and social cohesion in modern societies. Among his many publications are Immigration and Boundaries of Citizenship (1992), Transnational Citizenship: Membership and …
    Read more

  • Steven Beller

    Geschichte, Cambridge
    Read more

  • Naja Bentzen

    Freelance journalist, Wien
    Read more

  • Luiza Bialasiewicz

    Jean Monnet Professor of EU External Relations, University of Amsterdam
    Read more

  • Muriel Blaive

    Muriel Blaive ist seit 2012 Institutskoordinatorin des Ludwig Boltzmann Instituts für Europäische Geschichte und Öffentlichkeit.   Print

  • Andras Bozoki

    Sociology, Budapest
    Read more

  • José Casanova

    Professor für Soziologie, New School for Social Research, New York
    Read more

  • Daniel Chirot

    Soziologie, Seattle
    Read more

  • Robert Cooper

    Robert Cooper ist britischer Diplomat und derzeit als Sonderberater des Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienstes (European External Action Service, EEAS) tätig. Er ist zudem Gründungsmitglied des European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).   Print

  • Peter Demetz

    Sterling Professor Emeritus of German and Comparative Literature, Yale University; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • James Dodd

    Associate Professor of Philosophy, New School for Social Research, New York
    Read more

  • Martin Endreß

    Martin Endreß ist Professor für Soziologie an der Universität Trier.   Print

  • Mischa Gabowitsch

    Mischa Gabowitsch (gabowitsch.net) is a research fellow at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam. He is the author of Putin kaputt!? (Suhrkamp, 2013), a study of the 2011-13 Russian protests for fair elections, and maintains protestrussia.net, which collects academic resources for the study of protest in Russia.   Print

  • Charles Gati

    Charles Gati is Senior Acting Director of Russian and Eurasian Studies and Foreign Policy Institute Senior Fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.     Print

  • Dessy Gavrilova

    Dessy Gavrilova is the founding Director of The Red House – Center for Culture and Debate in Sofia, Bulgaria.     Print

  • Keith Gessen

    Keith Gessen is a freelance writer living in Cambridge, MA.   Print

  • Gerhard Gnauck

    Warsaw correspondent for Die Welt
    Read more

  • Katya Gorchinskaya

    Managing Editor for Investigative Programming, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (REF/RL), Kyiv
    Read more

  • John Gray

    John Gray is Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics.   Print

  • Rainer Gries

    Rainer Gries lehrt und forscht als Universitätsprofessor am Historischen Institut der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, am Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft der Universität Wien sowie an der Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversität Wien. Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpuntken zählen u.a. die Gesellschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands und Österreichs im 20. Jahrhundert und die Geschichte des Konsums in Europa.   Print

  • Eva Hahn

    Geschichte
    Read more

  • Gábor Halmai

    Professor of Law, Department of European Studies; Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
    Read more

  • Elemer Hankiss

    Professor für Politikwissenschaft, Eötvös Lorand Universität, Budapest; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • Miklós Haraszti

    Miklós Haraszti is a writer, journalist, human rights advocate and university professor. He served the maximum of two terms as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media from 2004 to 2010. Currently he is Adjunct Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia Law School, New York. Haraszti studied philosophy and …
    Read more

  • Sabine Hark

    Sabine Hark forscht an der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Potsdam, Professur für Frauenforschung.   Print

  • Annemieke Hendriks

    Freelance journalist, Berlin
    Read more

  • Charles Hirschman

    Charles Hirschman is Boeing International Professor at the Department of Sociology and the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, Washington University.     Print

  • Jennifer L. Hochschild

    Jennifer L. Hochschild is Professor of Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Professor of African and African-American Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.   Print

  • Yaroslav Hrytsak

    History, Central European University Budapest
    Read more

  • Richard Hyman

    Richard Hyman ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der London School of Economics.   Print

  • Vladislav Inozemtsev

    Professor of Economics at Higher School of Economics; Director, Centre for Post-Industrial Studies, Moscow
    Read more

  • Bruce P. Jackson

    Bruce P. Jackson is the founder and President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. The Project is a multi-year endeavour aimed at accelerating the pace of reform in post-1989 democracies and advancing the date for the integration of these democracies into the institutions of the Euro-Atlantic. Jackson has written extensively about the engagement of Russia …
    Read more

  • Tom Junes

    Visiting Researcher, Warsaw University, and Visiting Lecturer in Polish history, KULeuven, Belgium
    Read more

  • Alex J. Kay

    Alex J. Kay holds a PhD in History from the Humboldt University Berlin.   Print

  • Anatoly M. Khazanov

    Anatoly M. Khazanov ist Professor für Anthropologie an der University of Wisconsin, Madison.   Print

  • Cornelia Klinger

    Professor of Philosophy, University of Tübingen
    Read more

  • Gudrun-Axeli Knapp

    Professor of Social Sciences and Social Psychology, University of Hannover
    Read more

  • Jacek Kochanowicz

    Jacek Kochanowicz is Professor for Economic History at Warsaw University.       Print

  • Michal Kopecek

    International Relations, Charles University Prague
    Read more

  • János Kornai

    János Kornai is Prof. em. for Economics  at Harvard University and Permanent Fellow at the Collegium Budapest – Institute for Advanced Study. He is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Academia Europeae, and Foreign Member of the American, British, Bulgarian, Finnish, Russian and Swedish Academies. He has served as President of …
    Read more

  • Pavel Kouba

    Professor für Philosophie an der Karlsuniversität, Prag; Leiter des Zentrums für Phänomenologische Forschung an der Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
    Read more

  • János Mátyás Kovács

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Lecturer, Department of Economics, Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest
    Read more

  • Ivan Krastev

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Chair of the Board, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia
    Read more

  • Yustyna Kravchuk

    PhD candidate in Film and Media Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv
    Read more

  • Jacek Kucharczyk

    Jacek Kucharczyk ist Head of Programs am Institute of Public Affairs in Warschau.   Print

  • Aleksander Kwasniewski

    Aleksander Kwasniewski war Präsident Polens. Seine Amtszeit verlief von 1995 bis 2005 über zwei Legislaturperioden.   Print

  • Mladen Lazic

    Professor of Sociology, University of Belgrade
    Read more

  • Claus Leggewie

    Professor für Politikwissenschaft, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen
    Read more

  • André Liebich

    Honorary Professor of International History and Politics, Graduate Institute, Geneva
    Read more

  • Burkhard Liebsch

    Burkhard Liebsch ist Professor für Philosophie an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.   Print

  • Michal Luczewski

    Ph.D. candidate in Sociology, Warsaw University
    Read more

  • Charles S. Maier

    Charles S. Maier ist Direktor des Center for European Studies, Harvard University.   Print

  • Andrey Makarychev

    Andrey Makarychev ist Professor und Research Fellow am Institut Osteuropäische Studien an der Freien Universität Berlin.   Print

  • Michał Maciej Matlak

    Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute, Florence
    Read more

  • Erik Meyer

    Erik Meyer ist seit 2000 wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Sonderforschungsbereich ‘Erinnerungskulturen’ an der Justus-Liebig Universität Gießen.   Print

  • Krzysztof Michalski

    IWM Founding Rector
    Read more

  • Hans J. Misselwitz

    Hans-Jürgen Misselwitz ist ein deutscher SPD-Politiker und Gründungsmitglied des Instituts Solidarische Moderne.   Print

  • Alessandro Monsutti

    Alessandro Monsutti is an associate professor of anthropology and development sociology at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, as well as research associate at the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. He worked as a consultant for several nongovernmental and international organizations, icnluding UNHCR. His book War and Migration: Social Networks …
    Read more

  • Jan-Werner Müller

    Professor of Politics, Princeton University

    Visiting Fellow
    (September 2016 – June 2017)
    Read more

  • Rainer Münz

    Professor für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • Sighard Neckel

    Professor of Sociology, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
    Read more

  • Katherine Newman

    Katherine S. Newman is the James B. Knapp Dean of The Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. She is a widely published expert on poverty and the working poor who led major interdisciplinary initiatives at Princeton and Harvard universities.     Print

  • Pierre Nora

    Pierre Nora lehrt Geschichte an der École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris.   Print

  • Tereza Novotna

    Political Science, Boston University
    Read more

  • Ewald Nowotny

    Ewald Nowotny is Governor of the Austrian National Bank.   Print

  • Thomas Nowotny

    Thomas Nowotny teaches Political Science at the University of Vienna. He has been Austrian diplomat, private secretary to Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, senior political counselor to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and consultant to the OECD.   Print

  • Vlad Odobescu

    Freelance journalist, Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism, Bucharest
    Read more

  • Andrzej Paczkowski

    Professor für Geschichte, Institut für Politische Studien, Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Warschau
    Read more

  • Emilia Palonen

    Politics, University of Essex
    Read more

  • Irina Papkova

    Irina Papkova is a Research Fellow of Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. She spent five years teaching at the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Central European University, Budapest.   Print

  • Agnieszka Pasieka

    Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from the Martin Luther University, Halle/Saale
    Read more

  • Gleb Pavlovsky

    President, Center of Effective Policies; Member, Public Chamber of the Russian Federation; Editor-in-Chief, The Russian Journal (Moscow)
    Read more

  • György Péteri

    Professor of Contemporary European History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
    Read more

  • Tanja Petrovic

    Tanja Petrovic works at the Scientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana.   Print

  • David Petruccelli

    PhD candidate in History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Alexander von Plato

    Alexander von Plato ist ein deutscher Philosoph und Historiker. Er gründete das Instituts für Geschichte und Biographie an der Fernuniversität Hagen, das er bis 2007 leitete. Von 1996 bis 2000 war er Sekretär der International Oral History Association, von 2006 bis 2008 deren Vizepräsident. Er ist Mitherausgeber und Redakteur von BIOS – Zeitschrift für Biographieforschung, Oral …
    Read more

  • Andrei Plesu

    Andrei Plesu ist Rektor des New Europe College, Bukarest. 1989- 1991 war er rumänischer Kulturminister und 1997- 1999 rumänischer Außenminister.   Print

  • Martin Pollack

    Martin Pollack, geb. 1944 in OÖ, studierte Slawistik und osteuropäische Geschichte. Er war von 1987 bis 1998 Redakteur des “Spiegel” in Warschau und Wien und lebt heute als Schriftsteller und literarischer Übersetzer in Wien und Bocksdorf im Südburgenland. 2011 erhielt er den Leipziger Buchpreis zur Europäischen Verständigung und 2012 den Stanislaw-Vincenz-Preis. Zuletzt erschien von ihm …
    Read more

  • Krzysztof Pomian

    Krzysztof Pomian is Professor of History at the Nicolaus Copernicus University (Toruń) and Academic Director of the Museum of Europe in Brussels.   Print

  • Romano Prodi

    Romano Prodi war von September 1999 bis November 2004 Präsident der Europäischen Kommission.   Print

  • Lipin Ram

    PhD candidate and teaching assistant in Anthropology and Sociology of Development, Graduate Institute, Geneva
    Read more

  • Mykola Riabchuk

    Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Political and Nationalities’ Studies, Academy of Sciences, Kyiv
    Read more

  • Edelbert Richter

    Edelbert Richter ist deutscher Theologe, Politiker und war Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages.   Print

  • Paul Ricoeur

    Paul Ricoeur ist Philosoph und war Professor Emeritus an der University of Chicago und an der Sorbonne. Er war Mitglied der Académie Francaise und Mitglied des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats des IWM. Er starb 2005.   Print

  • Michel Rocard

    Michel Rocard, former First Secretary of the French Socialist Party and a member of the European Parliament for 15 years, was Prime Minister of France from 1988 to 1991.   Print

  • Akos Rona-Tas

    Akos Rona-Tas is professor at the Sociology Department of the University of California, San Diego and a research associate at Met@risk, INRA, Paris. He is the author of the books Plastic Money: Constructing Markets for Credit Cards in Eight Postcommunist Countries (with Alya Guseva, 2014) and Surprise of the Small Transformation: Demise of Communism and …
    Read more

  • Lew Rubinstein

    Lew Rubinstein lebt als Poet und Essayist in Moskau. Nach dem Studium der Philologie war er als Bibliothekar tätig. Seit Ende der 1960er-Jahre verfasst er poetische Arbeiten, seit 1974 serielle Textzyklen als so genannte Kartotheken. Zusammen mit Andrej Monastyrskij, Dimitrij A. Prigov und Vladimir Sorokin gilt er als wichtigster Vertreter des Moskauer Konzeptualismus. Print

  • Jacques Rupnik

    Geschichte und Politikwissenschaft, Paris
    Read more

  • Claudia Šabi?

    Claudia Šabi? ist Politikwissenschaftlerin und Ethnologin. Seit 1998 ist sie Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main. Print

  • Ranabir Samaddar

    Ranabir Samaddar is the Director of the Calcutta Research Group. His research focuses on migration and refugee studies, the theory and practices of dialogue, nationalism and post-colonial statehood in South Asia, and new regimes of technological restructuring and labour control. Among his many publications are Marginal Nation: Trans-border Migration from Bangladesh to India (1999), Politics of Dialogue: Living under …
    Read more

  • Paul Sanders

    Paul Sanders is a historian and management scholar. He is a full-time professor at Reims Management School in Reims, France. He has published across the disciplines of history, international relations and leadership.   Print

  • Karl Schlögel

    Karl Schlögel war Professor für Osteuropäische Geschichte zuerst an der Universität Konstanz, dann an der Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder. Nach seiner Emeritierung arbeitet er an einer Archäologie des Kommunismus und einer Geschichte des Wolgaraumes. Zurzeit ist er City of Vienna/IFK Fellow am IFK in Wien.     Print

  • Thomas Schmid

    Thomas Schmid is the publisher of the WELT Group, Berlin. He worked for various newspapers, among them as editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. From 2006 to 2010 he was Editor-in-Chief of Die Welt.   Print

  • Margit Schratzenstaller

    Margit Schratzenstaller is senior researcher at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) and is currently coordinating (together with Karl Aiginger and Stefan Ederer) ‘WWW for Europe’, a 4-year research project within the 7th Framework Program funded by the European Commission.   Print

  • Dieter Segert

    Dieter Segert ist Professor für Transformationsprozesse in Mittel-, Südost- und Osteuropa am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Wien. Seit September 2007 ist er Mitglied des Vorstandes des IDM Wien, seit Juni 2008 Mitglied der Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.   Print

  • Victoriya Sereda

    Sociologie, Ivan-Franko-Universität, Lviv
    Read more

  • Michel Serres

    Michel Serres ist Philosoph und Mitglied der Académie Française.   Print

  • Marci Shore

    Associate Professor of History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Sławomir Sierakowski

    Director, Institute for Advanced Study, Warsaw; Founder, "Krytyka Polityczna" movement
    Read more

  • Sara Silverstein

    Ph.D. Candidate in Modern European and International History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Aleksander Smolar

    Political Science, Paris
    Read more

  • Timothy Snyder

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Bird White Housum Professor of History, Yale University
    Read more

  • George Soros

    George Soros is a pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, investor and philanthropist, he is the author of many books, including Financial Turmoil in Europe and the United States: Essays (2012), The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University (2010), The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Finance Markets (2009).   …
    Read more

  • Robert Spaemann

    Robert Spaemann ist Professor em. für Philosophie an der Universität München.   Print

  • Pawel Spiewak

    Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, Warsaw University
    Read more

  • Wilfried Stadler

    Wilfried Stadler ist Unternehmensberater, Wirtschaftspublizist und Honorarprofessor an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Bis 2009 war er Vorstandsvorsitzender einer österreichischen Spezialbank für Unternehmensfinanzierung.   Print

  • Rudolf Stamm

    Rudolf Stamm war von 1975 bis 1988 Korrespondent der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung für Osteuropa und Österreich, anschließend bis 1999 für Italien, dann bis zu seiner Pensionierung 2002 für die USA mit Sitz in Washington D.C. Er starb 2010 in der Schweiz. 1985 erscheinen seine NZZ-Reportagen aus Osteuropa in dem Band Alltag und Tradition in Osteuropa. …
    Read more

  • Paul Starr

    Paul Starr ist Professor für Soziologie an der Princeton University und Mitherausgeber von The American Prospect. Er ist Pulitzer-Preisträger.   Print

  • Martina Steer

    ÖAW APART Fellow (History)
    Read more

  • Kristina Stoeckl

    Research Director
    APART Fellow, Austrian Academy of Sciences; Department of Political Sciences, University of Vienna
    Read more

  • Roman Szporluk

    Roman Szporluk is Professor em. of Ukrainian History at Harvard and Professor em. of History at the University of Michigan. He is a foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences in Kiev, Ukraine. His research focuses on modern Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish history, and on Marxism and nationalism in Eastern Europe.   Print

  • Charles Taylor

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Professor em. of Philosophy, McGill University, Montréal
    Read more

  • Maria Teteriuk

    PhD candidate in Mass Communications and senior lecturer in Media Studies, National University of 'Kyiv-Mohyla Academy', Ukraine
    Read more

  • Philipp Ther

    Junior Professor of Polish and Ukrainian Studies, Europa-Universität Frankfurt / Oder
    Read more

  • Maria Todorova

    Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
    Read more

  • Balázs Trencsényi

    Balázs Trencsényi, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the Department of History, CEU. His research focuses on the comparative history of political thought in East Central Europe and the history of historiography. He is co-director of Pasts, Inc., Center for Historical Studies at CEU and Associate Editor of the periodical East Central Europe (Brill). He was …
    Read more

  • Stefan Troebst

    .
    Read more

  • Marius Turda

    Lecturer in the Education Abroad Program, Eötvös Lorand University, Faculty of Humanities, Budapest
    Read more

  • Andreas Umland

    Andreas Umland ist Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Euro-Atlantische Kooperation Kiew sowie Herausgeber der Buchreihe Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, ibidem-Verlag Stuttgart. Print

  • Victoria Vasilenko

    Assistant Professor of Contemporary History and International Relations, Belgorod National Research University
    Read more

  • David G. Victor

    David G. Victor is a Professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, where he directs the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation.   Print

  • Harald Welzer

    Harald Welzer ist Forschungsprofessor für Sozialpsychologie an der Universität Witten/Herdecke und Direktor des Center for Interdisciplinary Memory Research am Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts Essen.   Print

  • Karolina Wigura

    Adjunct of the History of Ideas, University of Warsaw; Co-Editor of Kultura Liberalna
    Read more

  • Volodymyr Yermolenko

    Volodymyr Yermolenko is a Ukrainian philosopher and essayist. He has a degree in Political Science from the EHESS, Paris, and teaches at Kyiv Mohyla Academy in Kyiv. He is the author of the book Narrator and Philosopher: Walter Benjamin and his time (2011, in Ukrainian). Print

  • Oksana Zabuzhko

    Free-lance writer, Kiev
    Read more

  • Tatiana Zhurzhenko

    Research Director, Russia in Global Dialogue / Ukraine in European Dialogue
    Read more