|
|
The collective memory of a nation is not so much a truthful account of past events, but rather a selective construct. It is a myth that resonates with the members of a group at a specific time (Halbwachs, 1992; Wodak et al., 1998). The selection of specific episodes of the past as constitutive of a nation’s identity is not solely the work of historians. Group myths are created (and challenged) through the representation of landscapes (Till, 1999, p. 255); they are evoked in cinematic representations of the past (Koshar, 1995); and in politicians’ speeches (Billig, 1995). As Till (1999) reminds us, “because collective identities are defined in part by perceived group needs in the present and projected future” their social narratives about the past are always changing (p. 254). Since 1945, national socialism has been at the heart of Germany’s collective memory and informs Germany’s sense of self. This became particularly evident after 1945, when political elite and public alike sought to find a new identity for Germany and its people.
East Germany declared itself unburdened by links with the past. Defined as victor over fascism, the East German state denied responsibility for crimes of the Third Reich (Chandler, 1999, p. 59). In West Germany, politics and culture were caught in a “seesaw effect” of remembering and forgetting (Grossmann, 2000). West Germany defined itself as successor of the nation before 1945, with all its consequences and responsibilities. Political identity was based on the conviction that political isolation and the lack of liberal and democratic thought had led to the horrors of the national socialist regime. Consequently, a decisive turn away from these principles was made the foundation of national identity and government policies. Institutional rebuilding, economic recovery, atonement for the crimes of the Third Reich, reconciliation with former enemies, and Western integration were new bases for identity (Chandler, pp. 58–58). West Germany was imagined as a Western, anticommunist state, a “state of law” with democracy and constitutionalism as key normative characteristics (Hogwood, 2000, p. 128). The regime in Bonn “was to be distinguished from the lawlessness of the Third Reich and Soviet authoritarianism” (Hogwood, p. 128).