Contemporary Monument Concepts in Germany

After reunification, critical reflection and a review of existing forms of commemoration began at many former memorial sites in remembrance of Nazi terror in the territory of the former GDR.

Above all, this was about carefully distinguishing between the “authentic” sites of National Socialist crime on the one hand and the ideological staging of commemoration in these places on the other. After 1989, there was also a broad discussion for the first time of the use of many of these places by the Soviet military administration between 1945 and 1950, previously a “gap” in historical knowledge which had not been discussed. The “dual past” of these memorial sites became one of the most sensitive subjects issues in the debates on monuments in Germany in the 1990s.

Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, Ravensbrück

The concentration camps of Buchenwald (near Weimar), Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück (both north of Berlin) were the three outstanding places of commemoration in the territory of the former GDR where remembrance of the horrors of National Socialism were linked with ideological monuments to the socialist resistance. Buchenwald in particular, located very close to Weimar, the city of German Classicism, had on the one hand become one of the most potent synonyms for Nazi terror around the world. On the other hand, however, it was also considered to be a place that symbolised anti-Fascist resistance on account of various resistance groups within the camp, the detainment of well-known socialist politicians, such as Ernst Thälmann, Chairman of the Communist Party, who was murdered there in 1944, and the fact that the inmates liberated themselves in April 1945.

The history of memorial sites after 1945

Between summer 1945 and 1950, “special camps” on the sites of the former concentration camps of Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen were used by the Soviet military administration to detain many Nazi functionaries; at the same time, a large number of innocent people were interned there who had been arrested on account of denunciations. Then there were opponents of the communist system that was establishing itself, whose numbers even now can only be imprecisely estimated. Many detainees were sentenced to death or died as a result of the camp conditions. During the GDR era, there was no discussion of the history of the camps between 1945 and 1950. The clear approach to memorial sites was to emphasise the socialist resistance to Fascism, thus deriving political and moral legitimacy for the GDR. In most cases, there was no extension of the range of vision to other resistance groups beyond the socialist struggle.

Instrumentalised memorial sites

Between 1952 and 1958, the Buchenwald concentration camp site and the surrounding area were made into the GDR’s first monumental presentation of a Nazi memorial site to the victims of the Nazis. Ravensbrück followed in 1959 and Sachsenhausen in 1961. As well as setting up documentation centres, ambitious architectural plans were realised on or near the former location of the camp. Many elements from the traditional repertoire of the history of monuments, such as a tower (in Buchenwald), steps, an obelisk (in Sachsenhausen), monumental statues and war graves were used. The rich visual presentation of sculptures underlined the programmatic content, which presented the sites as memorials to the anti-Fascist resistance. Some of the GDR’s best-known sculptors, such as Fritz Cremer, Waldemar Grzimek and René Graetz, were involved in designing the various memorial sites, and some of their work was of particular artistic merit. Fritz Cremer’s presentation of a group of inmates in Buchenwald in particular, with its psychological differentiation between the individual figures portrayed, expressing weakness, exhaustion and steadfastness that is certain of victory, remains ingrained in one’s memory.

Dealing with the “dual past”

In view of the excessively ideological form of memorial sites, the debate after reunification in 1990 focused on analysing the form and function of this instrumentalisation of sites in the GDR’s state interests. In addition, the history of each of the camps between 1945 and 1950 began to be discussed. Many public discussions accompanied this difficult process. It not only had to make complex historical distinctions, but above all also had to avoid drawing parallels between National Socialism and Stalinism, thus preventing Nazi crimes being relativised. In the end, the existing documentation centres in Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen were critically revised and a new concept drawn up for their content. Additional documentation centres to present the special camps were set up on the edge of the camp areas and existing memorial sites. In Buchenwald, the mass graves found in the special camp were also marked with metal stelae. Alongside all these memorial site extensions, however, the primary aim of the various memorial foundations is to put the function of critical archive and research work at the centre of these memorial sites with a "dual past”. As well as individually and collectively coming to terms with grief, it should be possible for long-term academic study to be carried out of these chapters of German twentieth-century history and for international and inter-cultural encounters to take place there.