World War II was one of the biggest tragic events in modern history, and its adverse consequences made all involved parties reflect on the moral implications of the participation in any military conflicts and responsibilities it may impose on both individuals and nations. The readings Wounds of Memory by Maja Zehfuss and The Guilt of Nations by Elazar Barkan cover many controversial issues related to World War II and especially those which impacted Germans, Jews, and some other allied countries. Zehfuss discusses the post-war sentiments which prevailed in German politics and literature after 1945. The chapters in the book are meant to show how the political actors and the public manipulated the concept of war in order to justify their actions and decisions. At the same time, the review of chapters from The Guilt of Nations allows learning about the development of the German-Jewish relations after the war and a long way to Germany’s recognition of its own responsibility for the war crimes, as well as the factors that interfered this process.
The Guilt of Nations
The major controversies identified in the reading are related to Germany’s role in the fulfillment of the Jewish claims for the property lost in the war. The chapter depicts the theme of victimhood from two different perspectives. As the people who were exposed to Nazis’ oppressions most, the Jews started to claim their right for justice and property refunds to the international community as soon the war was over. At the Paris Reparation Conference that took place in 1945, the German government which did not associate itself with the Third Reich establishment became the primary party to decide on the Jewish claims which implied both moral responsibilities and financial compensations to the victims.
However, the way towards the delivery of these commitments to the Jewish nation was not smooth at first because the German public did not want to be responsible for Nazis’ war crimes and, moreover, at that time, Germany was coming through a tough situation in the domestic politics aggravated by the unfavorable economic position and the division of the country by the western capitalist and the eastern socialist forces. Moreover, although the government recognized that Jews suffered significant losses, it placed Germans in the position of primary victims of the dictatorship and misleading ideology. However, during the negotiations in 1949, Israel and Germany ultimately decided to “translate past war crimes into present justice” (Barkan 9). And it was the first step towards the development of the positive German-Jewish relations in the modern post-war era.
Wounds of Memory
In the book, Zehfuss notes that Germans expressed “strong aversion to war” in the post-war political discourse, and at first, the politicians heavily criticized any war-like actions (8). However, after World War II, Germany, nevertheless, participated in some international military conflicts, e.g. the war in Balkans and Afghanistan. It means that there is a certain controversy regarding the attitude of the German government towards war, and although Germans do keep the memory about the adverse impacts of war and strongly condemn it, they seem not to judge war-like actions performed for liberation despite the fact that they may cause as many casualties and negative consequences as any other military conflict. It is possible to conclude, that Germans’ aversion to war is mainly associated with the avoidance of dictatorship and recognition of responsibilities for war crimes. It means that war itself remains a large ethical issue that should not be sentimentalized or idealized but must be evaluated from a realistic point of view.
The German Strategy for Acknowledgement of Past Aggression
One of the main signs demonstrating that Germany had become a peaceful nation was its endeavors aimed at the establishment of good relationships with Israel. Germany has cut any relation to its Nazi past by making anti-Semitism illegal and promoting pro-Jewish sentiments to the public. Germany actively participated in the negotiations with Jews regarding the sums of intended reimbursements. Although there were many disputes and disagreements about the amounts between the parties, Germany’s strong determination to reimburse the losses of the victimized Jews despite all the economic difficulties made it clear that the country no longer is prone to aggression.
Remained Arenas of Contestation
The memorization of the German war dead continues to be one of the most contentious issues because it provokes many controversial feelings in the international public which do not allow a rational and constructive approach towards the problem. When in 1985 Ronald Reagan accepted the official invitation to visit Bitburg cemetery which symbolized reconciliation between Germany and the United States, the Israeli government condemned him although the US President was the Israeli ally. The news about this visit displeased the public because over 40 SS officers were buried in the cemetery. The fact that Reagan’s decision was highly criticized demonstrates that the international public does not consider the German war dead as victims but mostly regards them as criminals.
Discussion Questions
- What revelations have led the international community towards questioning the Swiss neutrality in World War II?
- What were the major prerequisites of the formation of the modern Jewish identity and the development of Israel in 1948?
- How did the German government interpret the implications of World War II memories and the national “aversion to war” (Zehfuss 8) when supporting the military deployment to Bosnia?
Works Cited
Barkan, Elazar. The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. Norton, 2000.
Zehfuss, Maja. Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany. Cambridge University Press, 2007.