1. Critically examine the view that recent discussion of German suffering
and victimhood during the Second World War represents a threat to
cultural memory of German perpetration during the Nazi period.
The extent of the crimes committed upon Germans during the Second World War, who
was involved, and the range of German victims has been discussed extensively to build
upon the understanding of German victimhood and perpetration that existed before 1990.
This essay will argue why recent discussions of German victimhood and suffering have
for the large part, been constructive for, and have not threatened the cultural memory of
German perpetration. A threat would undermine the consciousness of, relativise, or
silence the acts of German perpetration committed during the Second World War. The
resurgence has placed importance upon the conditions that led to the victimhood and has
given an important voice to the suffering, without silencing the acts of perpetration.
Whilst it has been argued that the discourse shift towards German victimhood has been
used by some conservative politicians “in order to relativise the Nazi regime” and
decontextualize German suffering; it is clear that the inclusive picture of victimhood and
suffering, along with perpetration, means that German suffering can be appropriately
addressed in light of the suffering of victims of Germans.1
Cultural memory is a transformation that tries to either justify or legitimise the
present through maintaining the authority of history whilst requiring political meaning.
Perceptions of the past change over time, as they are influenced by the present and it is in
this way that memory is directly related to the present. Cultural memory does not revolve
wholly around factual history, rather what is remembered: “Für das kulturelle Gedächtnis
1 Sierp, Aline. History, Memory, and Trans-European Identity: Unifying Divisions. (New York: Routledge 2014) p.70.

2. zählt nicht faktische, sondern nur erinnerte Geschichte”.2
Whilst cultural memory is
mediated through education and the media, it is not necessarily a past that has been
personally experienced.
It will be discussed to what extent well balanced post-unification texts that
investigate German suffering provide arguments that allow Germans to be viewed as both
victims and perpetrators in cultural memory, thus acknowledging the interdependence
between their perpetration and suffering. Next, discussions around German expellees will
be examined in terms of their importance in engaging with the binary perpetrator/victim
discourse, but also the extent to which the political right and revisionists have attempted
to use the discussion to decontextualise German suffering. Subsequently, the role of
gender will be critically examined in terms of shedding light on the boundaries between
victim and perpetrator, without undermining German perpetration.
Widespread discussions of German victimhood are not new. In the immediate
postwar period, the theme of German suffering was dominant and collective memory, a
memory shared by the German population, “focused largely on German victimhood”.3
This memory lacked “guilt, shame and a culpable conscience”, however.4
These intense
feelings of victimhood were strengthened by the Nuremburg trials, which seemed to
alleviate the sense of perpetration even more, by sentencing those perceived as “mainly
responsibly”.5
From the early 1960s up until unification, Bill Niven notes that the GDR
2 Assmann, Jan. Das Kulturelle Gedachtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung Und Politische Identitat in Fruhen Hochkulturen̈ ̈ ̈ .
(Munchen: Beck, 2007) p.52.̈
3 Wittlinger, Ruth, Taboo or tradition, in Niven, William John. ed. Germans as Victims: Remembering the past in
Contemporary Germany. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) p.30.
4 Ruth, Taboo or tradition, in Niven, William John. ed. Germans as Victims, p.30.
5 Ruth, Taboo or tradition, in Niven, William John. ed. Germans as Victims, p.30.

3. and West Germany “worked against, rather than in the interest of, coming to terms with
National Socialism”.6
West Germans focused their attention on crimes that were
committed against Germans. Whilst placing particular emphasis on those crimes
committed by the Red Army rather than the holocaust, there was a strong sense of
selective memory.7
The Official GDR discourse focused on communist victims of
socialism, perpetration by western allies to achieve territorial gains, and to a large extent
excluded Jewish victimisation, which was “downplayed in relation to Communist
resistance”8
. Niven has argued that Unification allowed National Socialism to hold
responsibility in a single nation, without memory being politicised, warped by selectivity
and exaggeration to suit political narratives of the two former Germanys.9
The recent
memory shift towards German victimhood and suffering can be explained as a
culmination of interdependent factors. Firstly, the third post-war generational shift,
accompanied by the death of witnesses which would have arguably enhanced the need for
a constructive memory to be formed. Secondly, the media played a significant role. The
2001 TV series “Die große Flucht” and film “Dresden” broadcasted in 2006. Attracting
over 30% of viewership, it brought discussions of victimhood to the forefront.10
Also, the
third generation post Second World War, who rather than draw lines between themselves
and their parents, began to explore their past legacies less contritely and without a sense
of guilt.
6 Niven, William John. Facing the Nazi Past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich.(London: Routledge,
2002) p.2.
7 Pinfold, Debbie and Saunders, Anna, Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple Perspectives and Plural
Authenticities (Palgtave Macmillan, 2012), p 36.
8 Kattago, Siobhan, Ambiguous Memory: The Nazi past and German National Identity (Westport: Praeger, 2001), p.
135.
9 Niven, William John, Germans as Victims: Remembering the past in Contemporary Germany (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2006), p. 5.
10 Schmitz, Helmut, A Nation of Victims? Representations of German Wartime Suffering from 1945 to the Present
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), p. 2.

4. The recent discourse of German suffering and victimhood has addressed the context of
suffering alongside perpetration, something that the student movement in 1968 failed to
do. The accusatory nature of the movement produced a defensive reaction from the so-
labelled “perpetrator generation”. This was exacerbated by the many studies prompted by
the movement that examined certain societal groups of the Third Reich.11
The Federal
Republic of Germany was left still “unable to mourn” German victims as a result.12
Assmann argues that the generation of today “shares neither the historic mission nor the
preoccupation of their parents”13
. In this respect, the generational shift today is a strong
reason why German victimhood discussions have been constructive to cultural memory
of perpetration as a contextualized picture of German suffering alongside National
Socialist crimes can be formed. Critics of the recent emphasis on German victimhood and
suffering have argued that the discourse shift has dehistoricised elements of the past in
order to fulfil a capacity to construct empathy. Dehistorisation involves separating events
from history and depriving them of their historical context. Germans were bombed
indiscriminately and whether they were women, children or hospital patients, they all
suffered. But Schmitz argues they were still members of “a murderous Nazi
Volksgemeinschaft” and their suffering must be contextualised.14
This is important if
Germany wants to have a sense of self understanding in cultural memory. To define
11 Sinka, Margit, The “Different” Holocaust Memorial. In: Cohen-Pfister, Laurel, and Dagmar Wienroder Skinner.̈
ed, Victims and Perpetrators, 1933-1945: (re)presenting the past in Post-unification Culture. (Berlin: W. De
Gruyter, 2006) p.202.
12 Slawinski, Maurice, Bartram, Graham and Steel, David, Reconstructing the past: representations of the fascist era
in post-war European culture (Keele: University Press, 1996) p.102
13 Assmann, Aleida, On the (In)Compatibility of Guilt and Suffering in German Memory, German Life and Letters
(Blackwell 2006) 59:2 p.192.
14 Schmitz, Helmut, A Nation of Victims?: Representations of German Wartime Suffering from 1945 to the Present,
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007) p.15.

5. themselves as a nation, the events of the Second World War must be contextualized so
that the interdependence of Germans’ perpetration and victimhood is clear.
A changing view of Germans during the Third Reich past a simple
perpetrator/victim approach thus has raised challenging issues. Firstly, it can lead to
attempted decontextualisation in order to produce an empathetic approach so that
Germans can be seen as innocent victims. This can be dangerous because of the uncritical
approach taken merely because people want to approach German suffering with
compassion. Secondly, an emphasis on trauma does not shed light on the
victim/perpetrator discourse or the complexities of the debate as it can decontextualise
the suffering. Whilst seemingly threatening to the cultural memory of perpetration, a
significant proportion of the discourse has managed to engage with German Suffering,
without undermining German perpetration. This has been achieved by forming
contextualised picture, through media and debates, which recognises the interdependence
between the German suffering and perpetration.
Building this picture of victimhood and perpetration requires moving away from a
one dimensional view, to allow Germans to be viewed as both victims and perpetrators in
cultural memory, thus acknowledging their perpetration, suffering and interdependence
between the two. Uwe Timm’s 2003 narrative Am Beispiel Meines Bruders told the story
of his brother, an SS soldier killed in 1943. It has been recognised as an important
document in shifting the discourse towards suffering and victimhood, whilst at the same

6. time producing an analytical insight into the blurred victim/perpetrator boundaries.15
Timm’s memoir managed to acknowledge suffering and memories that were genuine,
whilst remembering the very conditions that led to it. This is achieved by not emphasising
victimisation, especially in relativising German crimes, as doing so would deny
responsibility of perpetration. The text sheds light on the tensions between public and
private memory. Private memories are within individuals or families and are therefore by
definition, heterogenic. On the other hand, public memory, one that may be
instituitionalised to be official commemorated and communicated, is generally
homogenic. The memoir gives a very good description of how individual families, in the
historical context, became intertwined with the national socialist regime. As Timm’s
brother was engulfed by the regime, he was a victim and suffered as part of the Nazi
Volksgemeinschaft. This captures the interdependence between German perpetrators and
the political reality that caused them to be victims. Germans were simultaneously
members of the Nazi regime and suffered as the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft.
Timm distances himself emotionally from his brother throughout the text. In
doing so he is able to shed light on “The historical context in which memory, empathy
and suffering are to be situated”.16
This is a historical context which is complicated but
necessary for a strong cultural memory to exist. One can empathise with German
sufferers and note that the victimhood was and remains genuine, but one must note the
place of the suffering in the historical context. This is done by recognising the political
reality of the situation, in that those who suffered were intertwined with the national
15 Sathe, Nikhil, “Ein Fressen fuer mein MG”, In: Cohen-Pfister, Laurel, and Dagmar Wienroder-Skinner.̈ Ed, Victims
and Perpetrators, p.51
16 Schmitz, A Nation of Victims?, p. 216.

7. socialist regime. Whilst Novel’s such as Der Verlorene (1998), by Hans Ulrich Treichel
and Grass’s Im Krebsgang (2002) engage with German suffering, Am Beispiel Meines
Bruders provides reasons why discussions of German victimhood are constructive if used
appropriately. The suffering must be approached with a neutral emotion, and be
remembered alongside German perpetration, so as to create a big picture view of the
German Wartime experience, and not to undermine or relatavise the German perpetration.
German families struggled in engaging with the past after the Second World War, but
many suffered physically by being forcibly removed from their homes. By 1950, twelve
million ethnic Germans had been expelled or forced to flee east-central Europe, including
three million that were expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1945. Recently, discussions of
these events have seen a revival, and comparisons have been drawn with the ethnic
cleansing in the former Yugoslavia in 199017
. These discussions have had mixed impacts
on the cultural memory of German perpetration. The German-Czech reconciliation of
1997 was created to “pave the way for a new era of international harmony” through
Germany acknowledging her responsibility for the crimes against Czechs during the
Third Reich and through the Czech Republic acknowledging her expulsions of ethnic
Germans.18
This difficult act of national reconciliation instead provided “a focal point for
the mobilization of national sentiment” and gave a voice to the powerful force of
nationalism.19
The focus on moving forward, rejecting the relevance of the past, led the
way for revisionist groups in Germany to have a voice in the discourse and argue the very
17 Glajar, Valentina. Representations of the German-Czech Conflict. In: Cohen-Pfister, Laurel, and Dagmar
Wienroder-Skinner. ed.̈ Victims and Perpetrators, p.226.
18 Kopstein, Jeffrey S, 'The politics of national reconciliation: Memory and institutions in German-Czech relations
since 1989', Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, (1997) 3:2, p.58.
19 Kopstein, 'The politics of national reconciliation, p.58.

8. opposite, that “moral imperatives in the present derive from actions and events in the
past”.20
One such group is The Bund der Vertriebenen, a non-profit organisation that
represents the interests of ethnic Germans who were victims of forced expulsions post
Second World War. Opposing the declaration, the group argued that the Czech Republic
and indeed Poland, where an estimated two million Germans died in the process of ethnic
cleansing, had acted inadequately in terms of taking legal or ethical responsibility21
.
Through their political agenda, the Bund der Vertriebenen has distorted history; alleging
that Germans are absolute victims and equating crimes of the Czechs and Poles to those
of the Nazi perpetrators. They do not focus on the Holocaust in understanding of German
history. Most notably this is observed in the temporary, historically selective exhibition
opened in 2006, Erzungene Wege. Using juxtaposition of the expulsions of Armenians in
1916/17 and of Turks and Greeks in 1992 & 1923, the Holocaust is effectively written out
of the history of expulsions, attempting to “implicitly equate German expulsions to the
suffering of the Armenians”22
.
These specific discussions that aim to relativise German crimes have not been
constructive for the cultural memory of German perpetration as they have created a
competition for guilt with the ethnically motivated expulsions committed against victims
of Germans. This does not serve to create a bigger picture view involving Germans as
victims and perpetrators but rather it attempts to move away from perpetration, in doing
so relegating the historical importance of the Holocaust. Whilst the BdV has been given a
voice due to recent discussions on German suffering, it is clear that this one dimensional
20 Schmitz, A Nation of Victims, p.109.
21 M., De Zayas Alfred, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans: Background,
Execution, Consequences, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, (1979) p.3
22 Schmitz, A Nation of Victims?, p.87.

9. view is not the only product of the discourse. An exhibition showed concurrently, Flucht
Vertreibung Integration, managed to acknowledge German responsibility for the
conditions for the expulsions. Although it did not receive as much press attention, the
exhibition did not represent Germans as absolute victims and was an important event in
ensuring that the debate of victimhood was not an attempt to simply move away from,
and in doing so undermine, German perpetration.
Along with German expellees, German women have been a group upon which
discussions have centered. Recent discussions regarding the systematic rape of over two
million German women outlined more problems in the incomplete picture of German
perpetration and victimhood, more so than the allied bombings or expulsions. In a crime
where the boundaries between victim and perpetrator are so clear “it serves as a marker
for evaluating the changing perceptions of German’s historical roles in the Second World
War”23
. Discussions have elicited emotions different to those of the expulsions or
bombings. Because of such a stigma attached to the victims of the mass rapes, outrage
was shown against the suppression of emotion towards the unaddressed yet well
documented crimes. The crimes were addressed in the 1992 film Befreier und BeFreite
by Helke Sander, who interviews female victims of rape by the Soviet soldiers in 1945.
As the film was released during the ongoing rapes in Yugoslavia, Sander has been
accused of decontextualising the crimes. The film portrayed men as perpetrators and
regardless of their involvement in the regime of National Socialism, women were
portrayed as victims. Grossman argues that by documenting the number of women who
23 Cohen-Pfister, Laurel. Rape, War and Outrage. In: Cohen-Pfister, Laurel, and Dagmar Wienroder-Skinner. ed.̈
Victims and Perpetrators, p.317.

10. were raped resembled a “competition in victim status” of German deaths against that of
the Jews and soviets.24
Sander has contested the criticism of her film, arguing that its goal
was to open the discussion around the rapes. The differentiated view of the role of
women in the Third Reich, has been important in raising concerns about ignoring German
victimhood and how necessary these discussions are for the cultural memory of German
perpetration.
Bibliography
Assmann, Aleida, On the (In)Compatibility of Guilt and Suffering in German Memory,
German Life and Letters, 59:2 (Blackwell 2006)
24 Grossmann, Atina, Women in German Yearbook (Nebraska: U of Nebraska Press: 1996), 12: p.13.

11. Assmann, Jan, Das Kulturelle Gedachtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung Und Politische Identitaẗ ̈
in Fruhen Hochkulturen̈ , (Munchen: Beck, 2007)̈
Cohen-Pfister, Laurel, and Dagmar Wienroder-Skinner.̈ Victims and Perpetrators, 1933-
1945: (re)presenting the past in Post-unification Culture. (Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 2006).
Grossmann, Atina, Women in German Yearbook (Nebraska: U of Nebraska Press: 1996).
Kattago, Siobhan, Ambiguous Memory: The Nazi past and German National Identity
(Westport: Praeger, 2001)
Kopstein, Jeffrey S, 'The politics of national reconciliation: Memory and institutions in
German-Czech relations since 1989', Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, (1997)
M., De Zayas Alfred, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of
the Germans: Background, Execution, Consequences, (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1979)
Niven, William John, Germans as Victims: Remembering the past in Contemporary
Germany (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)
Pinfold, Debbie and Saunders, Anna, Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple
Perspectives and Plural Authenticities (Palgtave Macmillan, 2012)
Schmitz, Helmut, A Nation of Victims? Representations of German Wartime Suffering
from 1945 to the Present (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007)
Sierp, Aline. History, Memory, and Trans-European Identity: Unifying Divisions. (New
York: Routledge 2014)
Slawinski, Maurice, Bartram, Graham and Steel, David, Reconstructing the past:
representations of the fascist era in post-war European culture (Keele: University Press,
1996)