Regimes of Twentieth-Century Germany

From Historical Consciousness to Political Action

Marc T. Voss

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781137598035
• eBook ISBN: 9781137598042
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

Regimes of Twentieth-Century Germany is a concise theory of and empirical study on action consciousness as an integral dimension of historical consciousness with specific emphasis on National Socialist Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

1

Introduction

The twentieth century saw the rise and fall of many dictatorships that subjugated and killed millions of people. With two totalitarian regimes, twentieth-century Germany holds a special place not only in the minds of historians and other academics but of the international community as a whole. Amongst the most infamous regimes of the era is National Socialist (NS) Germany, which, in its short existence, fundamentally transformed the European landscape on multiple levels. The Holocaust in particular, which stands for the horror of Nazi crimes committed against humanity, genocide, and the cruel extermination machine that murdered about six million Jews and countless others, marks the by far darkest chapter in German history.

Dictatorship and authoritarianism in Germany, however, is not a new concept and had much deeper roots than the frequently cited Third Reich. The founding of the German state by Prussia meant that ‘[its] constitution was highly authoritarian; the army was outside civilian control, under direct command of the king, and the Prussian parliament was elected by … the Junkers (an influential and powerful group of aristocratic landowners)’ (Gilbert and Large, 2002, 70).¹ With such a structure in place well before the rise of Germany’s most gruesome dictatorship, it becomes ever clearer why some scholars argue and have argued that Germany possessed a Sonderweg² unique from the historiography of other nations in Europe, most notably those of England and France.

The Germany that emerged after National Socialism found itself torn between a pro-communist regime (German Democratic Republic or GDR) in the east and the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) in the west. When in 1946 Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated that an ‘iron curtain has descended across the Continent’ (Churchill, 1946),³ Europe, Germany, and its capital Berlin found itself at the heart of a greater struggle between the repressive Soviet-supported systems in the east known as the Warsaw Pact or Eastern Bloc countries and the NATO member countries in the west.⁴

Today, more than 65 years since the end of World War II, and more than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunified Germany has not only transformed into a democratic and internationally respected open society, but has even emerged as one of the pivotal leaders driving the European integration process. Yet, since freedom and peace should be appreciated as a fragile gift that cannot be taken for granted, to what extent is the collective memory of the Holocaust, the NS dictatorship, and the GDR regime still alive, and what are the attitudes in regard to these past events today? Since the end of World War II, countless empirical and theoretical contributions from various disciplines have tried in one way or another to address certain aspects of this important question. From a historian’s perspective, or more specifically, from a history didactics perspective, research of Geschichtsbewusstsein⁵ and of the Formen der geschichtskulturellen Sozialisation⁶ represents the conceptual basis for many theoretical and empirical studies aimed at assessing knowledge, understanding, and attitudes relating to important past events.

Among the frequently cited concepts, Hans-Jürgen Pandel’s multidimensional model of historical consciousness, a model that combines seven dimensions (Temporalbewusstsein,Wirklichkeitsbewusstsein, Historizitätsbewusstsein, Identitätsbewusstsein, Politisches Bewusstsein, Ökonomisch-soziales Bewusstsein, and Moralisches Bewusstsein) into an integrated framework of overall historical consciousness, be it on an individual or societal level, has been used as the foundation for much of this research (Pandel, 2005, 8).⁷ Most of the empirical Holocaust research performed to date has focused on assessing the status of what students know and how they think about the Holocaust. Some studies have aimed specifically at measuring knowledge and/or attitudinal changes resulting from the effect of an isolated stimulus or an individual representation, such as a film, a memorial visit, or a didactic learning experiment.

Likewise, empirical research on the history of the GDR and its infamous SED⁸ regime has frequently focused on assessing the Geschichtsbewusstsein of students and the resulting implications for history didactics. While this research has undoubtedly added valuable transparency to important aspects of the discourse, such as the state of awareness, knowledge, or attitudes concerning the Third Reich and/or the GDR, and, as a result, has helped in establishing the necessary preconditions for coming to terms with the past, one critical set of questions still remains largely unanswered and is subject to an ongoing debate: How do we know if we as a society have not only learned history, but learned from history?

In view of the sequential collapse of twentieth-century totalitarian regimes in Germany and Eastern Europe, to what extent has the collective memory of the horrific events helped society in learning from the past and preventing history from repeating itself in a comparable fashion? What can and should history didactics contribute to preserving the precious gift of freedom and peace for current and future generations? Translated into a more specific set of research questions, what do people know about the crimes committed by the Nazi regime today? What do they know about the most recent dictatorship, that is, the SED regime? How do they think about these dictatorships and their crimes, or in the terms of history didactics, what is the Geschichtsbewusstsein in regard to the Nazi regime, in particular the Holocaust, and also to the GDR? Most importantly, how determined are people to stand up against the rise of potential future dictatorships and crimes against humanity? What is the impact of individual forms or Formen der geschichtskulturellen Sozialisation on knowledge and attitudes regarding the SED and NS regimes, and in particular the Holocaust? What are the conclusions and implications for the further development of history didactics?

¹ The Junkers belonged to the traditional elite of Germany and maintained their power up until the end of World War II when the land reforms in East Germany expropriated their property.

² Meaning ‘special path’. This was supposedly characteristic of German historiography and defines Germany’s unique socio-economic development which was unlike that of England and France.

³ Winston Churchill delivered a speech after World War II on 5 March 1946 at Westminster College, Missouri about the state of Europe and the Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. For the full speech, see Winston Churchill (1946) The Sinews of Peace, quoted in Mark A. Kishlansky (ed.) (1995) Sources of World History (New York: HarperCollins), 298–302.

⁴ The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For further information on the history of NATO, see John C. Milloy (2006) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1948–1957: Community or Alliance? (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press).

⁵ ‘Historical awareness’ or ‘historical consciousness’.

⁶ ‘Forms or representations of historical–cultural socialization’ (e.g. museums, monuments, remembrance days, films).

⁷ ‘Temporality’, ‘reality consciousness’, ‘historicity’, ‘identity consciousness’, ‘political consciousness’, ‘socio-economic consciousness’, and ‘moral consciousness’. For a detailed discussion of Pandel’s model refer to section 3.1.3.7.

⁸ Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany).

2

Research Subject, Objectives, and Hypotheses

The purpose of this theoretical and empirical study is to help find answers to some of these fundamental questions. Specifically, my objectives are threefold: (1) to contribute to the conceptual development of historical consciousness research by introducing an eighth dimension to Pandel’s model that encompasses individual or societal determination to engage in peace and freedom-preserving actions and that I will label action consciousness or, in German terms, Aktionsbewusstsein;¹ (2) to explore the current state of knowledge and attitudes with specific focus on Aktionsbewusstsein in regard to twentieth-century Germany’s dictatorships and their crimes, and assess the impact of the forms or Formen der geschichtskulturellen Sozialisation on knowledge, attitudes, and Aktionsbewusstsein; and (3) to synthesize the implications and develop a set of recommendations for the further development of history didactics.

In terms of scope, it is my goal to explore the current state of and factors determining knowledge, attitudes, and Aktionsbewusstsein toward Nazi Germany, notably the Holocaust, and the SED regime primarily for Germany. To validate the results and to further explore the importance of Aktionsbewusstsein for preventing the rise of potential future dictatorships, I will conduct an in-depth comparative empirical analysis of the NS and SED regimes, focused on East and West German adults. That said, I will also selectively draw on the database of my 2010 international Holocaust study (Voss, 2010) to juxtapose and complement the implications of the Germany-focused research in an international context.² To accomplish these objectives, I investigate three sets of hypotheses:

(1) The need to broaden the conceptual scope of Geschichtsbewusstsein research: The current conceptual discourse on Geschichtsbewusstsein is predominantly focused on fostering an in-depth understanding of historical events, investigating the forms of representations and their impact on historical consciousness, and, as a result of such research, on optimizing didactical teaching and learning approaches. Acquiring knowledge from the past, however, ultimately involves the determination to engage in preventing similar horrific events from occurring in the future. Introducing an action component that can be labeled Aktionsbewusstsein should therefore broaden the scope of Pandel’s model of Geschichtsbewusstsein in didactics in general and history specifically.

(2) The need to strengthen knowledge, attitudes, and Aktionsbewusstsein of former East and West Germans in regard to the SED and NS dictatorships, notably the Holocaust: Despite the special moral responsibility of Germany for much of the past events, the need to strengthen knowledge, perceptions, and Aktionsbewusstsein in regard to the NS and SED dictatorships applies to both former East and West Germans.

(a) With the passing of over 65 years since the fall of the Third Reich and over 20 years since the collapse of East Germany, enough time has passed to put the Nazi dictatorship topic to rest. However, nostalgia for the former East Germany continues to exist amongst former East Germans and to a significantly lesser extent amongst West Germans.

(b) Former East Germans have a tendency to downplay the shortcomings of the SED State and the repressive police apparatus. In general, a more favorable view of the GDR exists amongst former East Germans. West Germans, however, have a more negative opinion of the GDR and its former leadership.

(c) Identification with a shared Nazi past is less likely amongst East Germans than those of the West, the former holding West Germans largely responsible for National Socialist crimes and criminal behavior; this attitude being more common amongst older generations.

(d) The historical awareness of NS and SED regimes varies substantially between East and West Germans on the one hand, and younger and older generations on the other. East Germans had their own view of the SED, different to that of Germans living under NS rule in the West – a separate historical consciousness exists regarding both regimes.

(e) The level of Aktionsbewusstsein differs between for...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Abstract
• Translated Terms
• Symbols and Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Research Subject, Objectives, and Hypotheses
• 3 On the Need to Incorporate an Action Component in History Didactics
• 4 Review of Select Previous Research
• 5 A Concise Theory of Action Consciousness
• 6 Research Methodology and Approach
• 7 Research Results
• 8 Extending the Reach and Role of History Didactics
• Appendix A: Questionnaire (English text)
• Appendix B: Questionnaire (German text)
• Bibliography
• Index