Historical analogies are rather popular these days. 1 of the most well known is “Never again”. However, these words are not always associated with the same worries, hopes and demands. On the contrary, they can even be voiced with the same conviction by opponents within a debate. This is due to the fact that the main question is what precisely should not happen again? And what are the harbingers of the evil that may be emerging erstwhile again? any relate the message primarily to the Holocaust or Shoah and inform of the alarming emergence in antisemitism. Others interpret the request more broadly and emphasize that genocidal force must never again occur. In Germany, many relate the message to National Socialism in general and fear further electoral success for the AfD. Still, others think primarily of the Second planet War as a full and fear a third.
This has become peculiarly noticeable in the last fewer days and weeks. Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded to the speech by the fresh American Vice president JD Vance at the Munich safety Conference by saying that a commitment to “Never again!” forbids any cooperation with the AfD. A fewer days earlier, during the parliament’s memorial service for the victims of National Socialism, specified words of informing were repeated respective times in the Bundestag. The Ukrainian Holocaust survivor Roman Schwarzman drew a parallel based on his own biography:
“Back then, Hitler wanted to kill me due to the fact that I was Jewish. Now Putin is trying to kill me due to the fact that I am Ukrainian. (…) present we must one more time do everything we can to put barbarism in its place. This is the only way to peace and common understanding. I implore you to arm us so that Putin ends this war of annihilation. erstwhile I escaped annihilation. Now I am already old, but I gotta live with the fear that my children and my children’s children will become victims of a war of annihilation.”
Just 2 weeks later, the “Never Again War” initiative published a statement praising the talks between Russia and the US as a possible end to the war – which were taking place in the kind of imperial large power politics without Ukraine – and emphasized that the refusal of NATO membership for the invaded country “gives origin for hope”. The CDU, SPD and Greens were shocked by the US solo effort, while the leaders of the AfD and BSW took akin positions to the Trump administration. While many in the German media warned that the appeasement policy of 1938 should never be repeated, the US historian Timothy Snyder pointed to another looming parallel in the form of a fresh Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
White place east Europe?
Such quotes show how much a look into the past determines which lessons are drawn for the present, as well as which political demands are associated with the words “Never again”.
“The memory of the Nazi reign of panic is determined by the cognition of the incomparability of the Holocaust: The systematic genocide of six million Jews, aimed at complete annihilation, as a crime against humanity on an unprecedented scale, is of singular importance in the German, European and worldwide culture of remembrance. The National Socialist crimes against Russians and Poles in the course of the war of extermination in east Europe are as much a part of our collective memory as the disenfranchisement and extermination of the Sinti and Roma and another people persecuted as Gypsies.”
These words are part of the introduction of the German government’s memorial concept from 2008, which is inactive valid due to the failed effort to update it in 2024. possibly the mistake is not even noticeable on first reading. The paper uses the word “Russians” as a synonym for all the peoples of the multi-ethnic russian Union – and thus the subsumption of all russian republics under the name of a country whose brutal force they besides suffered. For the people in the successor states of the USSR, specified imprecision prolongs the russian appropriation of their past in the present. In the occupied territories of Ukraine, we are presently seeing how purposefully and brutally Russia is trying not only to take distant the country’s independency but besides to erase its past and language. Yet in Germany, many have become accustomed to a communicative in which “the russian Union” is remembered as a homogeneous victim of National Socialism and “Russia” is considered an acceptable synonym. Why is it crucial to point this out right now? This supposedly tiny linguistic lapse has serious consequences. For example, this is clear erstwhile Ukraine is denied aid with the argument that Germany committed atrocities in Russia during the Second planet War.
Still, in the chancellor’s celebrated “Zeitenwende” speech, this sentiment is evident:
“Because Putin, not the Russian people, has decided to start this war. And so it must be clearly stated that this war is Putin’s war! It is crucial to me to specify this. due to the fact that reconciliation between Germans and Russians after the Second planet War is – and remains – an crucial chapter of our shared history.”
The far-reaching consequences of utilizing “Soviet Union” and “Russia” as synonyms are besides made clear by 2 studies that draw a intellectual map of the German memory landscape. The Bielefeld University Memory Monitor revealed considerable geographical confusion about the Second planet War. erstwhile asked which countries they associate most with the war, 75 per cent of respondents named France, 60 per cent Poland, and 36 per cent Russia. Only 1 per cent named Ukraine and only 0.1 per cent Belarus. “This is all the more remarkable,” the survey rightly emphasizes, “because both countries [unlike Russia] were completely occupied, genocidal crimes were committed against the civilian population as part of a colonization policy and millions of people from these 2 countries had to execute forced labour in Germany.”
A study commissioned by the Pilecki Institute to mark the 85th anniversary of the German invasion of Poland shows that almost two-thirds of people in Germany believe that German Jews were the largest group of victims of the Shoah. Around 28 per cent named Polish Jews and only 9 per cent russian Jews. In fact, around 175,000 German Jews, almost 3 million Polish Jews and over 1 million russian Jews were killed under Nazi rule.
Despite these serious gaps in knowledge, according to the Bielefeld study, almost 60 per cent of Germans are convinced that they are “fairly well” to “very well” informed about the National Socialist era. Around 25 per cent think it is time to draw a line under this chapter of the past. However, even among those who admit Germany’s historical responsibility, there is frequently no consensus on the lessons to be learned from the past.
Divided cultures of remembrance
It is peculiarly striking that support for Ukraine in its conflict for freedom and independency varies greatly between East and West Germany. 1 possible explanation is the diverging experiences and memory cultures.
In West Germany, there are 2 dominant interpretations. While any see a historically justified work to actively support Ukraine’s fight for freedom, others want to derive a pacifist imperative from the experience of the Second planet War. Many people who identify powerfully with the peace movement of the 1970s and 80s call for an end to military support for Ukraine and welcome the beginning of talks with Russia. This view ignores the fact that peace in Europe was not achieved in 1945 through negotiations with the Nazi government but through its capitulation. Germany was not liberated but defeated and occupied by the Allies. A culture of remembrance that ignores this aspect runs the hazard of turning historical work into moral non-commitment. Even now, only 23 per cent of Germans believe that there were perpetrators in their own family, while 36 per cent think that their ancestors were victims of the Nazis.
There has already been much discussion in the media as to why there is comparatively small solidarity with Ukraine in East Germany, which had been part of the russian sphere of influence for 45 years following the Second planet War. After the uprising in 1953 and the Peaceful Revolution of 1989, is there no likewise affirmative communicative of freedom erstwhile people in erstwhile East Germany look to a country fighting for its endurance and independence? There surely is, but another voices are a lot louder, and opinion polls do not reflect majority support either. The historian Franziska Davies has noted that, unlike in Ukraine, the end of communism “is not remembered as a communicative of national self-liberation and a successful anti-colonial struggle, but as a take-over by the West”. The years of reunification may besides be a reason why many East Germans respond with greater apprehension to another Zeitenwende. many attempts have been made to establish a affirmative narrative. Yet, many people do not seem to identify with it. Their memories are marked by economical hardship and biographical disruptions. For any time now, the memory of 1989 has besides been appropriated by the AfD, which presents it as an unfinished revolution. At the same time, the phenomenon of German-Soviet friendship, which was always praised by the GDR regime, is experiencing a renaissance in the form of a worrying sympathy for Russia.
Even 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification, Germany is simply a fragmented scenery of memories. What unites opponents of further military aid in both the east and west is their shared criticism of the US, which, although it is based on different historical contexts, holds akin positions erstwhile it comes to rejecting NATO.
German reunification did not unite the different memory cultures but alternatively created fresh tensions. Even during the alleged “boom of remembrance” in the 1990s, memory remained patchy. It recalls the names of a fewer concentration and extermination camps but it can barely find them. another brutal crimes that took place beyond the camps, the full past of the German occupation, and the close links between the Shoah and the war of extermination in east Europe, received small public attention until the Wehrmacht exhibition in 1995. Even this event inactive triggered a heated debate. Today, the Holocaust and the war are frequently seen as being unconnected, and not components of a colonial project.
Has memory work failed?
The aforementioned federal memorial concept states that its goal is “sensitizing the public to the causes and consequences of Nazi panic and the SED dictatorship, strengthening the anti-totalitarian consensus in society and raising awareness of the value of democracy and human rights”. Obviously, these goals have only been achieved to a limited extent. This is evidenced, among another things, by the latest election results. A recent survey besides shows that 57 per cent of Germans between the ages of 18 and 29, but only 28 per cent of those over 70, are against further aid for Ukraine. These figures may be evidence of different conclusions drawn from different experiences and socializations, or of generational differences in expectations. Could we besides be dealing here with the dramatic consequence of a failure at the level of historical-political education?
This is possibly true. So, what could we do to tackle this problem? More memorials, more exhibitions, and more excursions do not automatically lead to more awareness. Historical education does not work like a vaccination. Unfortunately, a visit to a museum or a school task does not automatically immunize people against right-wing extremism and racism. Historical events only become a origin of identity for a society if it regards them as essential to its self-image. Therefore, it is of central importance to always show the current relevance of historical knowledge. To have an impact, historical education must engage with the present, encouraging people to ask fresh questions and draw their own conclusions, showing them the historical developments that have led to today’s planet and explaining how interpretations of past form people’s perceptions and actions. This besides means listening to others and making heard and seen the experiences and perspectives of those whose voices have been all besides seldom heard thus far. Ultimately, the aim must be to turn remembrance from a ritual back into a dialogue, and from reflection into action in the form of civilian society engagement. To guarantee that “Never again” is more than just a phrase, these 2 words must be a guiding rule all day. This must be actual in both the narrowest and broadest possible interpretation.
Conclusion
The rule of “Never again” has become a central part of German memory culture. However, the lessons it contains are by no means unambiguous. Different historical points of mention can lead to contradictory conclusions. Russia’s war against Ukraine has made diverging perspectives peculiarly obvious. While any in German society derive from the Nazi past a sense of work to actively defend democracies and people affected by genocidal violence, others conclude, frequently with mention to German guilt, that the country should stay out of global conflicts.
Particularly problematic is the precarious function of east Europe in German memory culture. Ukraine – like another successor states of the USSR, specified as Belarus or the Baltic countries – is inactive not recognized by many people as a central site of the German war of extermination. This deficiency of cognition frequently leads to a painful deficiency of empathy and solidarity.
In light of current geopolitical developments, it is becoming increasingly urgent to rethink the lessons of the past, to point out problematic narratives and their consequences, and to actively advocate for change. If the US and Russia now negociate over the heads of the people of Ukraine, if the Ukrainian president is insulted and humiliated in front of live cameras in the White House, and if the US president may come to see NATO’s Article 5 as an option alternatively than an obligation, then the full of Europe is in danger of becoming a playground for large power interests. This could lead to a fresh explanation of “Never again”: not pacifism at any price, but the active defence of European sovereignty, freedom and democracy.
Stand with Ukraine.
A German version of this text was published on Zeitgeschichte Online on March 3rd 2025.
Please support New east Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.
