341 69 4MB
English Pages 382 Year 2018

MEMORIALIZING THE GDR
MEMORIALIZING THE GDR Monuments and Memory after 1989
Anna Saunders
berghahn NEW YORK • OXFORD www.berghahnbooks.com
First published in 2018 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2018, 2020 Anna Saunders First paperback edition published in 2020 All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, ȱ Ĵȱȱȱȱǯ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Saunders, Anna, 1967- author. DZȱ£ȱȱ ȱDZȱȱȱ¢ȱĞȱŗşŞşȱȦȱȱ Saunders. Description: New York : Berghahn Books, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. ęDZȱȱŘŖŗŝŖśřŘŖŞȱǻǼȱȩȱȱŘŖŗŞŖŗŝŗŖŗȱǻǼȱȩȱȱ ȱȱȱşŝŞŗŝŞśřřŜŞŗŘȱǻǼȱȩȱȱşŝŞŗŝŞśřřŜŞŖśȱǻȱDZȱǯȱǼ DZȱ DZȱ ¢ȱǻǼȬȬ ¢ǯȱȩȱȬȬ ¢ȱǻǼȱȩȱ ȱȱȱ£ȬȬȱȬȬ ¢ȱǻǼȱȩȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȬȬ ¢ȱǻǼȱȩȱ ¢ȬȬ ¢ȬȬęǰȱŗşşŖȬȬĚǯ ęDZȱȱŘŞŘȱǻǼȱȩȱȱŘŞŘȱǯřŞśȱŘŖŗŞȱǻǼȱȩȱȱ ȱȱȱşŚřȦǯŗŖŞŝȬȬŘř ȱȱȱȱĴDZȦȦǯǯȦŘŖŗŝŖśřŘŖŞ
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢
ȱşŝŞȬŗȬŝŞśřřȬŜŞŖȬśȱ ISBN 978-1-78920-801-6 paperback ȱşŝŞȬŗȬŝŞśřřȬŜŞŗȬŘȱ
ȱǰȱĴȱȱ
찞 Contents
List of Illustrations Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations and Key Terms
x xii xiv
Introduction ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱ ‘Working Through’ the GDR Past ȱĞȱȱȱ
1 ś 10 ŗś
Chapter 1. Memory, Monuments and Memorializationȱ ȱǰȱȱȱ ǰȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ǰȱȱȱȁ¢ȱȂȱ
Řś Řŝ řŜ
Chapter 2. Socialist Icons: From Heroes to Villains?ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ Transition: October 1989 to October 1990 ȱȱDZȱȱęȱȱȂȱȱ ȱȱDZȱȱȱȂȱȱȱ Thälmann’s Survival ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱ£ȂȱȁȂȱ ęDZȱȱȱȱȱ Ȃȱȱȱ DZȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ£Ȃȱ ȱ¡ Relief DZȱȱȬȱȱȱŗşŞşȱ
śś śŝ 62 Ŝś 72 ŝŝ Şś 91 şś
ȲȊȲContents
Chapter 3. Soviet Special Camps: Reassessing a Repressed Past ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ£DZȱȱ Silenced Memories at Buchenwald Emotive Symbolism and Reconciliation at Fünfeichen ȱȱDZȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ A Monument without Answers? ЧĴȱPrenzlauer Allee, Berlin DZȱȱȱ Chapter 4. 17 June 1953 Uprisings: Remembering a Failed Revolutionȱ ĚȱȱȱDZȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱûȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ£ȱ Tank Tracks in Dresden DZȱȱȱ Chapter 5. The Berlin Wall: Historical Document, Tourist Magnet or Urban Eyesore? The Early Post-Wende DZȱȱęȱ Preservation t§DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱđȱȱȱǻȱǼDZȱ Remembrance? ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱ Treptow ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱȱ Victimhood and Visibility III: The Freedom Memorial, ȱȱ Towards Decentralized Remembrance: The Gesamtkonzept and ȱđȱǻȱǼȱ DZȱĞȱȱ Chapter 6. Remembering the ‘Peaceful Revolution’ and German Unityȱ ȱȱ¢ǵȱȂȱȱȱ¢ ȱ ȱȱ£ȱDZȱȱ Nikolaikirchhof and Beyond
110 ŗŗŘ 117 128 ŗřś 140 ŗŚŝ
ŗśş ŗŜś ŗŝŚ ŗŝŞ 181 ŗŞś
194 197 ŘŖŗ 207 214 ŘŗŞ ŘŘŚ Řřŗ ŘřŜ
Řśŗ ŘśŜ 268
ContentsȲȊȲ¡
Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Swords into Ploughshares: Dessau’s Peace Bell Transforming the Fortunes of Magdeburg? The Development ȱȱ£Ȃȱȱ A Truly Democratic Project? Plauen’s Wende Monument DZȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
Řŝŝ 281 ŘŞŜ 291 ŘşŜ
Conclusion. Beyond the Palimpsestȱ ȱǵȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
řŗŚ řŗś řŗŝ řŘŘ
Bibliographyȱ Indexȱ
řŘş řśŗ
찞 Illustrations
Řǯŗȱȱ ȱȱǻȱǰȱŗşŝŖǼȱȱȱȱ £ǰȱȱǻ¢ȱŗşşŗȦşŘǼȱ ŘǯŘȱ §ȱȱǻȱ ǰȱŗşŞŜǼǰȱ ȱ đǰȱ£ȱǰȱȱ Řǯřȱ ȱ¡ȱȱǻȱ ǰȱŗşŝŗǼǰȱûđǰȱ £ȱ ŘǯŚȱ ȱȱǻȱȱ¢ȱȱǰȱ ŗşŜŝȱȦȱȱ¢ȱěȱǯȱǰȱŘŖŖŚǼǰȱ ǰ
ȱ Řǯśȱ ȱ¡ȱȱǻȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ǰȱŗşŝŚǼǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ǰȱ£ȱ řǯŗȱ Waldfriedhof ǻȱŗşşśȦşŜǼǰȱ ȱȱȱ řǯŘȱ ȱȱȱûǰȱȱȱȱ ȱǻ ȱ ǰȱŗşşřǼȱȱȱȱǻȱȱǼȱȱ Ȃȱȱ řǯřȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ Ȃȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǻȱěǰȱŗşşŝǼǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱđȱǻȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ Ǽǰȱ ȱ řǯŚȱ Denkzeichenȱȱȁ ȱřȂ ǻ ȱǰȱŗşşŝǼǰȱ£ȱ ǰȱȱ Śǯŗȱ ȱȱŗŝȱ ȱŗşśřȱǻȱûǰȱŘŖŖŖǼǰȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱǻŗşśřǼȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin
Ŝŝ ŝř ŝŞ
şŖ
şŗ ŗŘś
ŗřŗ
ŗřş ŗŚř
170
IllustrationsȲȊȲ¡
ŚǯŘȱ ȁŗŝȱ ȱŗşśŞȱȮȱȱŗşŞşȂȱǻ ȱȬ ǰȱ ŗşşřǼǰȱ£ȱȱŗŝǯȱ ȱŗşśřǰȱ ȱ Śǯřȱ ŗŝȱ ȱŗşśřȱȱǻȱȱȱǰȱ ŘŖŖřǼǰȱ£§đǰȱ£ȱ ŚǯŚȱ ŗŝȱ ȱŗşśřȱȱǻ ȱđǰȱŘŖŖŞǼǰȱ Postplatz, Dresden śǯŗȱ ȁǰȱǰȱȂȱǻȱ ǰȱŗşşŝǼǰȱ ûǰȱȱǻt§ȱǼȱ śǯŘȱ ȁȱ¡ȂȱǻȱǰȱŗşşŞǼǰȱȱȱ ǰȱȱǻt§ȱǼȱ śǯřȱ ȱȱȱǻ ěȱǭȱ ěǰȱŗşşŞǼǰȱ Bernauer Straße, Berlin śǯŚȱ ȱȱ Ȃȱȱȱǻ ȱȱȱûȱ ǰȱŗşşşǼǰȱ Ģ£đǰȱȬ ȱ śǯśȱ ȱȱǻȱûȱȱ ȱǰȱŘŖŖřǼǰȱ Spreeufer, Berlin śǯŜȱ ȱȱǻȱȱȱȱŗşşśǼǰȱȬȦ đǰȱȱǻ ȱ ȱȱȱŗřȱ ȱŘŖŗŗǼȱ śǯŝȱ ȱȱȱǻŘŖŗŖǼǰȱȱȱȱ ǰȱȱđǰȱȱ Ŝǯŗȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ şȱȱŗşŞşȱǻȱã£ǰȱŗşşşǼǰȱǰȱ £ȱ ŜǯŘȱ ȱȱǻ ȱûǰȱŗşşŖǼǰȱ đȱȦ Puschkinstraße, Schwerin Ŝǯřȱ ȱȱǻȱȱ¢ȱȱǰȱŘŖŖŘǼǰȱ£ȱ ȱȱǰȱȱ ŜǯŚȱ £ȂȱȱǻȱǰȱŘŖŖřǼǰȱ ȱȱdral entrance, Magdeburg Ŝǯśȱ Wende ȱǻȱǰȱŘŖŗŖǼǰȱđȱ ǻȁȂǼǰȱȱ
ŗŝŜ ŗŞŖ 182 ŘŖř ŘŖś 210 Řŗŝ 220
ŘŘŗ ŘřŚ
Řŝŗ 278 ŘŞś 289 ŘşŚ
찞 Acknowledgements
I am indebted to numerous individuals and organizations, who have ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱěȱ ¢ǯȱȱȱ course of my research, I have corresponded with and visited archives, ȱ ȱ Ĝǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ and memory activists. Time and again, I have been met with generosity, enthusiasm and patience concerning my requests for information, for which I am extremely grateful. I would like to thank all those who spent time providing me with personal insights, showing me sites of interest, ȱĞȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ·ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ȭȱ ûǰȱ ȱ ·ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ §ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱȱ ûǰȱȱǰȱȱǰȱȱ ûǰȱȱ¢ǰȱ¡ȱǰȱȱǰȱȱǰȱ Rüdiger Roehl, Wolfgang Sachs, Jan Skuin, Guillermo Steinbrüggen, Ĵȱ£ǰȱȱǰȱ ȱȬ ǰȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ express my gratitude to Elfriede Müller, whose time and generosity in ȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱĜȱȱȱȱȱȱ Sphere during the early stages of my research proved immensely helpǰȱȱ¡ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ into developments in Berlin and at Bernauer Straße, and to Joachim ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ me on an enlightening memorial day trip. My thanks also go to Alan Deighton and Stephanie Bostock, both of whom have allowed me to use their photographs. Many of my research trips were made possible
AcknowledgementsȲȊȲ¡
by funding from a British Academy Small Research Grant as well as ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬȱȱȱ ȱǯȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱęȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱǯ I am especially grateful to those who read or commented on all or part of the manuscript at various stages and provided invaluable advice on how it might be improved: Debbie Pinfold, Bill Niven, Dennis Tate, ȱ¢ǰȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ǯȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱǰȱ inspiration, collaboration and friendship throughout the life of this project. In particular, I would like to thank Sara Jones, Joanne Sayner, ȱ Ĵǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ·£Ȭ ǰȱ ȱ ǰȱȱȬ£ȱȱȱǯȱ¢ǰȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǰȱ ȱǰȱǰȱȱ and humour have accompanied every stage of this project, and to Ĵȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ book, and who remind me every day of the important things in life. ȱ Ȯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ monuments, it is dedicated to them.
찞 Abbreviations and Key Terms
Alltag Aufarbeitung ȱ ȱ ȱ Denkmal Denkzeichen ȱ DM FDJ FDP FRG GDR Ȭȱ ȱ Mahnmal ȱ ȱ Ostalgie ȱ POW ȱ SPD Stasi Wende
the everyday working through the past ȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ monument memorial mark ȱ ȱ Deutsche Mark Free German Youth Free Democratic Party Federal Republic of Germany German Democratic Republic Ȭȱȱ Ĝȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǻ ȱȱ¢ȱǼ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȂȱȱȱȱěȱ ǻȱȱǼ nostalgia for the GDR ¢ȱȱȱȱǻȱŘŖŖŝDZȱȱǼ prisoner of war ȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱ ¢ Social Democratic Party of Germany Ministry for State Security of the GDR ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱŗşŞşȦşŖ
찞 Introduction
‘The Wall must go!’ was one of the most arresting slogans of November 1989, and arguably of the twentieth century. The concrete scar across Ȃȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ calls for its destruction. Its demolition in the early 1990s was almost unanimously greeted with enthusiasm by politicians, residents and ȱ Dzȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ę¢ȱ ȱ ǰȱ allowing Germany’s new capital city to look to the future. Yet in March ŘŖŗřǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ‘The Wall must stay!’, angered by the removal of a section of wall from one of few remaining historic sites. One protestor highlighted the historical irony of the situation, inscribing onto its concrete base an ȱȱȱȂȱ¢DZȱȁȱ ȱȮȱȂȱȱ ȱȱ wall’.1 The removal activity, sanctioned by the district council, enabled access to a building site between the wall and the river Spree, on which a luxury high-rise apartment block was to be constructed. Protesters objected not only to the damage caused to what has become a valuable ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱ also to the plans to build a high-rise development in the former death ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ cal importance. Revelations about the investor’s involvement with the Stasi in the 1980s added further grist to the protesters’ mill, and brought an extra layer of moral complexity to one of many recent East German memory debates. As with other controversies in Berlin and the eastern §, this ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ demands of past and present in the contemporary eastern German
ŘȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
landscape. Despite the increasing tendency of recent years to use the term ‘site’ to refer to non-spatial domains of memory, especially since Pierre Nora’s seminal work Les Lieux de Mémoire, the built environment remains central to questions of memory and remembrance.2 One need ¢ȱȱȱşȦŗŗȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱrial in Berlin as recent examples of sites that have become central to a nation’s self-understanding. Whereas the centres of European towns and cities in medieval and early modern times were marked by the construction of cathedrals and castles, one could argue that monuments and memorials have taken on this role today.ř In contrast, the ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ demonstrates the extent to which concrete structures can come to symbolize entire regimes and provoke highly emotional responses. As this book demonstrates, however, monuments can become invested with ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the moment of their construction. Physical structures particularly acted as tangible sites and repositories of memory in former East Germany, where the socialist regime placed great importance on monuments and urban space in order to promote a collective socialist consciousness and a cohesive East German identity.4ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱǻ Ǽǰȱ however, not only have the futures of many such structures become disputed, but new memorial projects have challenged accepted norms and historical narratives. A project in 2011 to erect stelae to victims of the border regime between the GDR and West Berlin, for instance, caused consternation in the village of Sacrow, a quiet suburb on the ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ȱǻǼȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ‘victim’ in the eyes of some, the project forced residents to rethink any clear-cut divides between the concepts of victimhood and perpetration. Similar questions also surfaced at Buchenwald, where the use of the ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱĚȱstandings of victimhood. At the other end of the spectrum, however, ěȱȱȱȱȱȱŗşŞşȱȱȱȱȱ former East German territory have raised concerns over the potential dangers of heroization, particularly given the monumental socialist ȱȱȱ¢ȱĴȱȱ ȱǯȱȱȱȱ cases, it is the desire to create physical markers to the past, thus sites of memory in the truest sense of the word, that has caused debate and historical re-evaluation in the present. It is this process that forms the subject of this book.
IntroductionȲȊȲř
As this introduction demonstrates, the broader context of GDR ȱȱ¡ȱȱ¢ȱĞDzȱȱȱ ȱȱ where the past impinges on the present quite as much as in contem¢ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ęȱ ǰȱ Ȭ¢ȱ history bears heavily on domestic and international policy-making, as well as on the media landscape, cultural production and the built enviǯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ŘŖŖŖȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢DZȱȱęȱȱ as Der Untergang ǻDownfallǰȱ ŘŖŖŚǼǰȱ Das Leben der Anderen ǻThe Lives of OthersǰȱŘŖŖŜǼǰȱDer Baader Meinhof KomplexȱǻThe Baader Meinhof Complex, ŘŖŖŞǼȱȱSophie Scholl – Die letzten Tage ǻSophie Scholl – The Final Days, ŘŖŖśǼȱȱ¡ȱĜȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ£Dzȱȱ ęǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȁȂǰȱ ȱ ȱ Der Tunnel ǻThe TunnelǰȱŘŖŖŗǼǰȱDie Mauer – Berlin ’61 ǻThe Wall – Berlin ’61ǰȱ ŘŖŖŜǼǰȱ Speer und Er ǻSpeer and Hitlerǰȱ ŘŖŖśǼǰȱ ȱ ûĴǰȱ ȱ §ȱ ǻGeneration Warǰȱ ŘŖŗřǼȱ ȱ Deutschland ’83 ǻŘŖŗśǼȱ ȱ ȱ viewing quotas; autobiographical memoirs topped bestseller lists; and historical exhibitions drew crowds through museum doors. This preoccupation with the past found expression above all in the so-called ‘super commemorative year’ of 2009,ś in which numerous anniversaries fell together: twenty years of the fall of the Berlin Wall, sixty years ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱȱȱŗŜŖȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȁȱ Tsunami’,6 but it saw Germany host several large-scale commemorative events, in which there was apparently genuine public interest and participation. The twenty-year celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 ȱŘŖŖşȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱ physical landscape, with the high point of the evening being marked by the toppling of one thousand giant painted domino stones along part ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱ ȱȱ£ȱȱ the Spree that had changed beyond recognition in twenty years. It is, ǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱ ¢ȱǰȱȱȱȱȱĞȱȱȱĴȱ ȱěȱȱĴȱȱȱȱȱȁȱ¢Ȃȱ ȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱǯ7ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱǰȱ ȁęȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢chronization but also a struggle over symbols’.8 Since the changes of ŗşŞşȦşŖǰȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱĴȱȱ¢ȱȱ the GDR legacy, but also over elements of the National Socialist past, ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ
ŚȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
Berlin, the rededication of the Neue Wache ǻ ȱ Ǽȱrial, the building of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, the development of the Topography of Terror exhibition on the former site of the SS and Gestapo headquarters, the demolition of the Palast der ȱǻȱȱȱǰȱȱ ȂȱȱǼǰȱȱ survival of socialist realist monuments and the proposals for a Freedom ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱǰȱȱsent only the tip of the iceberg. Other unexpected projects have also aroused a renewed interest in the intersection between art, politics and memory. Building work on a new underground station in central Berlin in 2010, for example, uncovered a considerable number of statues and sculptures that had been buried since the Second World War. As examples of ‘degenerate art’, spurned and banned in Nazi Germany, they gained heightened recognition, reminding us of the potentially huge political power of art.9 Other contemporary projects have proȱȱǯȱȱȱȂȱȁ Ȃȱȱȱ ȱȱȱŗşşśǰȱȱǰȱĴȱȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¢Ȭȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ paradoxically more visible through its veiling than it had been for years previously. Art projects in and around the Reichstag have also Ĵȱȱ¢£ȱȱȱȱęDZȱ ȱ Ȃȱtion Der BevölkerungȱǻȱȱǼȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱ ȂȱȱGrundgesetz 49ȱǻȱ ȱŚşǼȱȱȱ Spree promenade, for instance, both emphasize the democratic credentials of united Germany, the former deliberately providing a contrast to the inscription Dem deutschen Volkeȱǻȱȱ ȱǼȱȱȱȱ of the Reichstag building.10 ȱȱĴȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȂȱĜȱ past, such installations suggest that a certain degree of ‘normalizaȂȱȱȱǰȱȱ ȱęȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵǯ11 The seventieth anniversary events of the end of the Second World War, for ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęĞȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¡ȱȱȱȱǻȱ Ǽǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ŘŖŖşȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ have been unthinkable twenty years previously. Similarly, the proȱȱȱ¢ ȱȱȱǻȱȱȱ ŜǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ shame, seeking to commemorate instead civil courage, freedom and unity. While some interpret the ‘normalizing’ process to mark a less sustained interest in memory,12ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ
IntroductionȲȊȲś
from embodied communicative memories to institutionalized cultural ǰȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ȁȱ Ȃǯŗř What, then, of GDR memory, where the actors of history are still very present?
ȱǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȁ£Ȃǵȱȱ ȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱĴȱ today, and how does this manifest itself in the memorial landscape?
Memory Debates and the Built Environment since Unification Our understanding of the GDR’s material legacy must be placed within ȱȱ¡ȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱęǰȱȱ ę¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ that they all relate to the National Socialist past, yet also impact on ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱ ȱęȱȱȱȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ placed it within a new context. While German division ensured that each side could regard itself as morally superior and view the other ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱDZȱęȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ take responsibility for the National Socialist past. The West German notion of §ȱ ǻȱ ȱ Ǽȱ ¢ȱ lost currency, in favour of other terms, most notably Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheitȱǻ ȱȱȱǼǰȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗşśşȱ ǯ14ȱ ȱ Ğȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱĴȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ through critical self-engagement, rather than the idea of laying it to rest or, as Adorno saw it, silencing the past. The 1990s witnessed a surge of debates and controversies over the National Socialist past, ranging from the reception of Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners ȱȱȱ¡ȱȁȱȱȱȂǰȱȱȱ debates over author Martin Walser’s acceptance speech for the German Booksellers Association’s Peace Prize, and deliberations over the Ȃȱȱȱȱȱ ȱĚǯŗś
ǰȱȱęȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ the past, it also brought with it two problems. First, how was the new Germany to be built on the foundations of shame for past injustices? ȱ ȱȱ ǰȱȁȱȱȱȱȱĴȱȱȬȱ itself on the bedrock memory of its crimes or to make commemoration of its crimes the topographical centre of gravity in its capital’.16 To
ŜȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
ȱ ȱ ¡ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ west in a common experience of totalitarian rule in the Neue Wache ǰȱȱȱŗşşřȱȱ ¢Ȃȱȁȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢¢Ȃǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ victim groups on the text outside the building, the general dedication ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¡ǰȱ ȱ £ǰȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ socialism.17 This highlights the second problem: to what extent should the GDR dictatorship and the National Socialist regime be placed alongside each other? References to Germany’s ‘double past’, or the GDR as the ‘second German dictatorship’ naturally encourage such comparisons, and while the equation of the Third Reich with the GDR no longer serves the same political function as during division, it can still serve the purpose of devaluing socialist thinking and placing Nazi ȱ ȱȱȱȱ¡ǯȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱ Erik Meyer state, ‘only the comparison could clear up proportions’, namely the fact that the crimes of the GDR’s leadership were without doubt lesser than those of National Socialism.18 Indeed, historians are ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȁęȂȱ dictatorship that has retained most historical focus and commemorative weight in the public domain.19 This is evidenced by negotiations ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱĚȱȱȱȁȱȂȱ cannot be avoided, as seen most prominently at Buchenwald Memorial ȱǻ¡ȱȱȱřǼǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ to its memorial concept. It is, however, the so-called ‘Faulenbach forȂǰȱĞȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ as the standard model for remembering Germany’s ‘double past’, and ȱĴȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ in the §Ĵ£ȱǻȱȱǼȱȱŘŖŖŞȱȱȱ ȱęȱȱȱȂȱȱȁȱ¢ȱȂȱ ǻȱ Ǽǰȱ ȱDZȱȁ£ȱȱȱȱȱ£ȱ as a result of addressing the crimes of Stalinism. Stalinist crimes should not be trivialized through reference to Nazi crimes’.20 This question of comparison and equation is clearly most important at sites where the two pasts lie side by side, such as at Buchenwald, but this book ȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȮȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ revealing the entangled memory of these two pasts. ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ
ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱǻ Ǽȱ during the 1980s, but which gained strength during the 1990s. While
IntroductionȲȊȲŝ
this can be witnessed in an increasing number of annual commemoraȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Řŝȱ ¢ȱ ǻȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ǰȱ ȱ Ĝ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗşşŜǼǰȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ physical landscape. Berlin, for instance, has not only witnessed highęȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ ȱȱȱȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻĞȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱǼǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ěȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ǰȱ euthanasia victims and Sinti and Roma, as well as historical events such ȱȱȱȱȱŗşřřȱǻȱȂȱȁ¢ȂǼǰȱȱȱȱȬ ȱ ȱȱȱŗşřŖȱǻȱȱȱȱȂȱ ȁȱȱȂǼȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱǻ ȱ ȂȱȁȱŗŝȂǼǯȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱ cities have also witnessed the erection of monuments to local victims ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȁȱ ȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȂǼǰȱȱ ȱȱǻ ȱȂȱȁȬȂǼȱȱȱǻ ȱ ȂȱȁȱȂǼǯȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȂȱ ȱrial, has led to the widely recognized argument that no single, central ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȁ ȱ¢Ȃȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢Dzȱǰȱȱ ãȂȱȬȱȱȱŗşşŞȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ place where Germans ‘like to go’ caused much controversy.21 Inevitably, ȱȱȱĚȱȱȱȱȱȱ pasts, and as this book shows, questions of centrality, an over-abunȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ memoration, and the demands of tourism are all issues that challenge concrete memory of the GDR. Some projects, such as the temporary ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ in central Berlin, have ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ and can, to some extent, be seen as a response to the centrality of
ȱȱǻȱȱśȱȱŜǼǯ
Ȭȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ extent from the mid-2000s, since other memories relating to the war and immediate post-war period have re-emerged. This change has ȱęȱ¢ȱǰȱȱȱĴȱȱȱȁȱ
ŞȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
ĞȂǰȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱěȱȱȱȱȱsion have found renewed resonance.22 Above all, memory of German ȱȱȱęȱ¡ǰȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ěȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȁȱ ¡ȱ ¡ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ bound up in political functionalisation’.Řř Indeed, such memories may have been labelled as ‘nationalist’ or ‘revisionist’ two decades earlier.24 ȱ ȂȱNeue Wache project already placed victimhood in the ȱȱȱ¢ȱŗşşŖǰȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱãȂȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȮȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ theme of German victimhood more fully.Řś The two main themes to emerge were Allied bombing and expulsion, both of which marked the return of a memory that was culturally hegemonic in the early post-war decades.26ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢£ȱ ¢ȱ ãȱ Ȃȱ ŘŖŖřȱ ȱ Der Brand ǻThe FireǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ ȱ loid newspaper Bild and described the Allied bombing campaigns not only in emotive language, but also in terms usually reserved for the
ǯ27 Subsequent documentaries, numerous local publications and commemorative events in heavily bombed cities such as Dresden ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ period, and subsequently triggered several monument proposals.28 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ěȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ all by Günter Grass’s 2002 bestselling novel Im Krebsgang ǻCrabwalkǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ Ěȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ŗşŚśǰ29 and a long and controversial campaign initiated by ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ Berlin.řŖ Renewed memories of German victimhood during the war have, needless to say, cleared the way for other experiences of suffering, namely those connected to division and socialist rule. The republication of the anonymous diary Eine Frau in Berlin ǻA Woman in BerlinǼȱȱŘŖŖřǰȱȱȱ Ȃȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗşŚśǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ŘŖŖŞǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ǯřŗ Other experiences ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǻȱȱ Ǽǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǻȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢Ǽȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ Ȃȱȱȱǻȱȱȱȱ řȱ ȱ śǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȁȱ ĞȂȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ę¢ȱ blurred the boundaries between victims and perpetrators; while commemoration of victims may have increased, so too has the recognition ȱ¢ȱ ȱ¢ǰȱȱěȱǰȱȱȱǯȱȱȱ
IntroductionȲȊȲş
demonstrates that memorialization of the GDR is increasingly contributing to the blurring of such boundaries, and that understandings of the East German regime are moving towards a more complex and less black and white picture. ȱęȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ the role of Berlin as the united nation’s new capital, and particularly the way in which the urban landscape has showcased the concept of Aufarbeitung. During division, Berlin clearly held a special position as a divided city, and the display of power through architecture was no new concept, with the GDR’s Television Tower, for example, representȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱŗşŜşǯȱȱŝśŖȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗşŞŝȱ ȱ ȱ ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱĴȱȱ ȱĴȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯřŘ ȱ ęǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ȱĴȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱǰȱȱ Andrew Webber suggests that it was the ‘capital of the twentieth century’, following Benjamin’s similar claim for Paris in the nineteenth century.řřȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱĚǰȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ capital of a new, united Germany, and constructing a more ‘normalized’ cultural imaginary in the wake of four decades of division and two twentieth-century dictatorships. As the largest building site in Europe, the city authorities even marketed Berlin’s BaustellenȱǻȱǼȱȱ Schaustellenȱǻ Ȧ¡ȱǼȱ ȱŗşşśȱȱŘŖŖśǰȱĴing thousands of visitors each year. In the words of its former mayor, ȱǰȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȮȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȁ ȱȱ ȱ unity’.řŚȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Ě¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱDzȱȱȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱȁȱȱȱȱ are, the more the past becomes invisible, and the easier it is to forget: ǰȱǰȱȱĴȂǯřśȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȮȱȱȱ ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ĵȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ they are likely to respond to existing structures in numerous ways, and become bound up in a network of mnemonic meaning. Second, ȱȱȱȱȱȱĴȱĴȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱęǰȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ the regions.řŜ As this book demonstrates, this relationship has become increasingly important in shaping the commemorative landscape of eastern Germany in recent years.
ŗŖȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
‘Working Through’ the GDR Past The broader memory landscape of united Germany provides the essential context for understanding the memorialization of the GDR. The changing political and social landscape of eastern Germany more ę¢ǰȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ memorial projects, which not only become embedded in the extensive process of ‘working through’ the GDR past, but may also provide a means of Aufarbeitung themselves. Needless to say, this process is highly complex, and memory of the GDR provides a curious conunǯȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱęȱ¡ȱȱȱȱ ĞȱŗşŞşȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ Dzȱ as Wolfgang Thierse states, ‘There is no other dictatorship in world history that has been researched so quickly and so thoroughly’.řŝ On ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ that the GDR should occupy in the memory culture of the Federal ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ŗşşŖȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȮȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǰȱȱ remains no single historical paradigm.řŞ Instead, as historian Martin ȱȱȱŘŖŖşǰȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȁĴęȱȱȂǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ GDR have been much louder and more varied than was ever the case ȱ ȱ ęȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ Ğȱ ȱ £ȱ ǯřş The numerous media available today doubtless play a role here, for not only are ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ety of interest groups are made public through online presences and social media, as well as through popular publications and the mass media; multiple fora allow for a multitude of competing memories. Despite this apparent plethora of voices, popular images of the GDR ȱȱĞȱȱ£ȱȱ ȱ¡DZȱȱȱȱȱȱ grey, uniform police state marked by control and repression, and on the other hand the happy, colourful collective in which employment and social security maintained communal values. All too infrequently ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ěȱ of academics to complicate the picture through studies of everyday ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȁ ȱ Ȃȱ ǻ ȱ Ǽȱȱȱȁ¢ȱȂȱǻ¢ȱǼǰȱȱȱȱ that such terms are discussed in the media, let alone appropriated by the population at large.40
IntroductionȲȊȲŗŗ
ĜǰȱȬȱěȱȱȁ ȱȂȱȱ ȱȱǰȱ unsurprisingly, focused largely on control and repression, yet they ȱĚȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱęȱȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ęȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱǻȬ ȱ£ȱȁȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȬȱȱȂǰȱŗşşŘȮşŚǼȱȱȱȱ establish, in Molly Andrews’ terms, a ‘didactic public history’,41 in which the totalitarian past was used to counter the democratic present.42 This ȱȱĴȱǰȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱȱ ȱ¡ǰȱȱȱȱȦǰȱȱȱȱ the GDR’s citizens’ rights movement, all of whom held an inevitably critical perspective on the GDR. While the second parliamentary comȱ ǻȬ ȱ ȁt ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱȱ£ȱȱȱȂǰȱŗşşśȮşŞǼȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ greater extent on stories ‘from below’, it clearly still served to legitimize ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȦȬ ȱ ȱ ǻŗşşŖȮşŞǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ğȱ £ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ǻȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǽǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ of the regime, and to promote research, exhibitions, events and political education on the GDR. Alongside centrally funded museums, its role in strengthening present institutions through the examination of the past is clear. In contrast, an ‘expert commission’ led by historian Martin Sabrow ȱȱ¢ȱȱȬ ȱȱȱǻŗşşŞȮŘŖŖśǼȱȱ ŘŖŖśȱȱ¡ȱȱěȱȱȱȱ ȱAufarbeitung and to make recommendations on a decentrally organized network ǻGeschichtsverbundǼȱȱȱǯȱȱȂȱȱȱŘŖŖŜȱ unleashed an intensive debate, for although it criticized the ‘trivializaȱȱȱ ȂǰȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȱȱȮȱȱȬȱ museum that would examine everyday life in the GDR dictatorship. The report concluded that the commission hoped its recommendations would set ‘new standards for a plural and multi-perspective Aufarbeitung of German history in a “century of extremes”’.Śř While critics accused the ȱȱĴȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ of the SED dictatorship,44ȱȱ ȱȱȱĴȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ white portrayals of the GDR, and to encourage more serious engagement with the daily workings of the dictatorship. Interestingly, however, ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǰȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱǻǼǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱęȱ Ěȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ
ŗŘȲȊȲMemorializing the GDR
This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the debates concernȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱǻȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱǰȱǼǰȱ ȱȱȱęȱȱ in the eastern §, much to the consternation of the centre-right. Its ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȁ ing’ the past is not always given adequate priority. Indeed, the party’s opposition to numerous projects concerning the concrete legacy of the ȱȮȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȂȱȁȱȂǰȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȮȱȱ ¢ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ party to be obstructing a reworking of the past.Śśȱ ǰȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ Ğȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ § as a protest party, for Ğȱȱȱȱȱęȱ ȱěǰȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱĚ¡ȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȬȱ professionals from the West caused a growing divide between east and ǯȱȱȱȱ£ȱȮȱȱȁ Ȭ£ȂȱȮȱȱȱǰȱlarly in the early years, led some to feel like ‘second class citizens’ and the common usage of derogatory terms such as Ossis ǻǼȱȱ Wessisȱǻ ǼȱȱȱȱȱȱȬȱȁ ȱȱ the head’.46 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ GDR have been particularly evident in the cultural sphere since unięǯȱȱ¢ȱŗşşŖǰȱȱ¡ǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱ debates over the ideological complicity of GDR writers and intellectuȱ Ȯȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ Was bleibt ǻWhat Remainsǰȱ ŗşşŖǼȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Literaturstreit ǻȱ ȱ Ǽ47ȱȮȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ûǰȱ as IMs for the Stasi. The later 1990s and early 2000s, however, saw the ȱȱȱȱȬǰȱȱĞȱǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱǰȱ¢ęȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱOstalgieǰȱȱĚtion of the German words for ‘East’ and ‘nostalgia’. While this could be ȱȱ¢ȱȱęȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȮȱ ȱ¡ȱĜȱȱ such as Sonnenallee ǻSun AlleyǰȱŗşşşǼȱȱ ȱ¢ǰȱǷȱǻŘŖŖřǼ Ȯȱȱ ȱ also evident in the ‘comeback’ of a range of GDR consumer goods, TV shows, board games, popular publications and humorous glossaries, the iconization of symbols such as the Trabi and the §ȱǻȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ȱ Ǽǰȱ as well as GDR-themed shops, pubs, nightclub evenings, and even a
IntroductionȲȊȲŗř
themed hotel in Berlin named the Ostel.48 While many critics deplored such developments as ã§ȱǻ ȱȱǼȱȱgering a true engagement with the realities of life in the GDR, others have been keen to point out that Ostalgie is not necessarily a form of ęȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ this past, but it may rather demonstrate a sense of oppositional solidar¢ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱĴȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ individual experiences and biographies seek legitimacy.49 Recent years have seen the growth of a younger generation of east German authors ȱȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱ drawn on their own experiences of childhood in the east. In contrast to the earlier, more commercial Ostalgie, much of their work rather portrays the ‘normality’ of adolescence in the GDR, for example by interweaving references to the Stasi with humorous recollections of the everyday. The concept of ‘normality’ is one that has proved fruitful in research ter