Germany's Holocaust Memorial Problem——and Mine

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Young
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Final Solution ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
Peter Eisenman ◽  
Potsdamer Platz ◽  
German Bundestag

Once not so long ago Germany had what it called a "Jewish Problem". Then it had a paralyzing Holocaust memorial problem, a double-edged conundrum: How would a nation of former perpetrators mourn its victims? How would a divided nation reunite itself on the bedrock memory of its crimes? In June 1999, after ten years of tortured debate, the German Bundestag voted to build a national "Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe" on a prime, five-acre piece of real estate between the Brandenburger Tor and Potsdamer Platz, a stone's throw from Hitler's bunker. In their vote, the Bundestag also accepted the design——an undulating field of pillars——by American architect, Peter Eisenman, which had been recommended by a five-member Findungskommission, for which I served as spokesman. Like many others, I had been quite satisfied with the insolubility of Germany's memorial dilemma. Better a thousand years of Holocaust memorial competitions in Germany than any single "final solution" to Germany's memorial problem. But then I began to suspect that the neverending debate over Holocaust memory in Germany was itself becoming a substitute for taking any kind of action on behalf of such memory. In this report, I tell the story of Germany's national Holocaust memorial and my own role in it, my evolution from a highly skeptical critic on the outside of the process to one of the arbiters on the inside. I find that as the line between my role as critic and arbiter began to collapse, the issues at the heart of Germany's memorial conundrum came into ever sharper, more painful relief.

Berlin's Holocaust Memorial: A Report to the Bundestag Committee on Media and Culture

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 54-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Young
Keyword(s):  
Final Solution ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
National Monument ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
The Holocaust

The question as to why a national monument to the “Murdered Jewsof Europe” should be erected in Berlin is multi-dimensional, and hasanswers in political, cultural, and historical contexts. As most peoplealready know, I once took a hard stand against actually ever completinga central memorial in Germany to the Holocaust. “Better athousand years of Holocaust memorial competitions in Germanythan any final solution to Germany’s Holocaust memorial problem,”I wrote many years ago. “Instead of a fixed icon for Holocaust memoryin Germany, the debate itself—perpetually unresolved amid everchangingconditions—might now be enshrined.”

Fragments of the Holocaust

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Duindam
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Museum Studies ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
World War ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
Memorial Museum ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
A Site

Why do we attach so much value to sites of Holocaust memory, if all we ever encounter are fragments of a past that can never be fully comprehended? David Duindam examines how the Hollandsche Schouwburg, a former theater in Amsterdam used for the registration and deportation of nearly 50,000 Jews, fell into disrepair after World War II before it became the first Holocaust memorial museum of the Netherlands. Fragments of the Holocaust: The Amsterdam Hollandsche Schouwburg as a Site of Memory combines a detailed historical study of the postwar period of this site with a critical analysis of its contemporary presentation by placing it within international debates concerning memory, emotionally fraught heritage and museum studies. A case is made for the continued importance of the Hollandsche Schouwburg and other comparable sites, arguing that these will remain important in the future as indexical fragments where new generations can engage with the memory of the Holocaust on a personal and affective level.

The Palace of the Republic versus the Stadtschloss: The Dilemmas of Planning in the Heart of Berlin

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Ledanff
Keyword(s):  
Architectural Design ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
The Republic ◽  
German Bundestag ◽  
Historical Sites ◽  
Architectural Competitions ◽  
A Site ◽  
Art And Architecture ◽  
First Time

On 4 July 2002, the German Bundestag had to decide on the futureof one of the capital city’s principal historical sites: the square knownas the Schlossplatz, where the Hohenzollern Palace once stood butthat since 1976 had been the site of the German Democratic Republic’sflagship Palace of the Republic. It was not the first time thatGerman politicians had been called upon to decide issues relating toart and architecture. On previous occasions votes had been taken onthe wrapping of the Reichstag by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, SirNorman Foster’s dome, Hans Haacke’s artistic installation “DerBevölkerung” inside the Reichstag, and Peter Eisenman’s design forBerlin’s Holocaust memorial.1 Their decision to rebuild the historicalpalace, however, differed in that the politicians did not vote onan architectural design, “in eigener Sache.”2 That is, it was not abuilding or monument belonging to the governmental or politicalsphere of the capital city but rather a site likely to house culturalinstitutions. Parliamentarians, thus, were called upon to settle atwelve-year-old planning and architectural controversy after all othermeans, including architectural competitions, had failed.

What is ‘virtual Holocaust memory’?

2019 ◽  
pp. 175069801988871
Author(s):  
Victoria Grace Walden
Keyword(s):  
Gilles Deleuze ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Henri Bergson ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
Digital Memory ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
The Holocaust

As more Holocaust memorial and educational organizations engage with digital technologies, the notion of virtual Holocaust memory has come to the fore. However, while this term is generally used simply to describe digital projects, this paper seeks to re-evaluate the specificity of virtuality and its relationship to memory through the thinking of Gilles Deleuze and Henri Bergson in order to consider how both digital and non-digital memory projects related to the Holocaust might be described as drawing attention to the virtuality of memory because they bring us into critical interstitial spaces between multiple layers of pasts and present in embodied ways that encourage us to consciously recognize the movements towards temporal planes which characterize memory. After reviewing the philosophies of Deleuze and Bergson in light of collaborative Holocaust memory, this article considers a range of digital and physical memorials to assess where we might find examples of virtual Holocaust memory today. I propose that we should see the virtual as a methodology – a particular form of memory practice – rather than a medium.

The Ongoing Major Distortion of the Holocaust

2018 ◽  
pp. 151-178
Author(s):  
Manfred Gerstenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Fast Rate ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Very Old ◽  
Holocaust Denial ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Memory Distortions ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Mainstream Society

This chapter analyzes mainly recent developments of the various types of distortions of the Holocaust. The analysis follows the main categories of the author's earlier book, The Abuse of the Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses (2009). These are justification of the Holocaust or promoting a new one, Holocaust denial or its minimization, deflection or whitewashing of guilt, Holocaust de-Judaization in part through its universalization, Holocaust equivalence, Holocaust inversion, Holocaust trivialization, and obliterating Holocaust memory. The abuse keeps increasing at a rather fast rate and has permeated several quarters of mainstream society. It is feared that manipulation of the truth may become a substantial part of the debate on the Holocaust. This will be even more possible when all surviving Holocaust victims are very old. It is difficult to see how in a more and more chaotic world this trend could be halted. It is recommended that Holocaust memorial institutions start to systematically and professionally monitor abuse in their respective countries and categorize them.

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 127-139
Author(s):  
Mariya M. Sirotinskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Sources ◽  
The Past ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
German Ideology ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Age Appropriate

The article is aimed at examining how the United States Memori- al Museum in Washington, D.C., preserves the memory of the Holocaust, what educational technologies are recommended for teachers. Transmission of the Holocaust memory is still very important, as even nowadays attempts are made to deny the fact of systematic persecution and destruction of Jews or underrate its scale. The museum communicates, in the historical context, traditional nar- rative – Hitler’s rise to power, Nazi Jewish policy. Emphasis is put on German ideology and propaganda. Great attention is paid to the historical sources, not only official ones, – to the diaries, letters, memoirs, photographs, interviews with the camp prisoners who have survived, as well as to the artifacts, audio- and video materials. The online exhibition “Americans and the Holocaust” reveals events in Germany as seen through the lens of different U.S. periodi- cals. Concrete recommendations are made to the educators – to avoid simple answers to complex questions and the comparison of suffering, to show that the Holocaust was not inevitable, to take into consideration an age-appropriate approach, etc. The author shares the views of the researchers who come to the conclusion: the reconstruction of the Holocaust in the museum determines our perception of the past and, therefore, deepens our understanding of the present.

scholarly journals Designing the historical atlas «Holocoust in Ukraine (1941-1944)»

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Jewish Question ◽  
Final Solution ◽  
Additional Material ◽  
Thematic Map ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
Memorial Museum ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Three Stages

This article contains main information on designing the historical atlas of the Holocaust in Ukraine. The goal of creating the atlas is to demonstrate preconditions, progress and aftermath of the Holocaust in Ukraine. During the analysis of the sources of historical information about Holocaust, the authors found two atlases, which contained maps of the Holocaust in Europe: Martin Gilbert’s «The Routledge Atlas of the Holocaust» and «Historical Atlas of the Holocaust» created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Developments of the Holocaust in Ukraine are classified by location and chronology in three stages: escalation of the Holocaust in Ukraine (1941), mass extermination of Jews (1942), the final solution to the Jewish question (1943-1944). The process of the atlas design includes creating system of map’s symbols, arrangement of maps, design of different elements of cartographic images and pages of atlas. There two types of map’s symbols: general geographic and thematic. Thematic map symbols are distributed by frequency of use into commonly used and special. The creation of the map’s symbols is based on three statements: associativity, unambiguousness and equipment with explanations (optional). The designed atlas has five chapters: «Ukraine in advance of the Holocaust», «Escalation of the Holocaust in Ukraine», «Mass extermination of Jews», «The final solution to the Jewish question» and «Aftermath of the Holocaust in Ukraine». According to a dramatic conception of the atlas themes, there are used two color models: CMYK (for cartographic elements and symbols on maps) and Grayscale (design of pages and additional material). The atlas project is accompanied by a series of maps, which demonstrates semantic and design features of it.

scholarly journals Arquitectura, dispositivo de experiencia memorial. *** Architecture: a drive of memorial experience .

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilda Azulay Tapiero
Keyword(s):  
Present Communication ◽  
History Museum ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
Peter Eisenman ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Daniel Libeskind ◽  
Yad Vashem ◽  
Jewish Museum

La arquitectura puede introducirnos en la experiencia de la memoria; memoria como reflexión, y arquitectura como dispositivo para la experiencia memorial a la vez que contenedor de la información. Cada objeto es definido en un proceso en el que considerar diversos actores, sus voluntades, opciones y experiencias. Es el caso de las obras que aborda este trabajo, en las que evidenciar e interrogarnos sobre el gesto arquitectónico, la memoria evocada y su interpretación social. Obras que han alcanzado notoriedad por diferentes motivos: como la Sala del Recuerdo, de Arieh Elhanani, Arieh Sharon y Benjamin Idelson (1961) en Yad Vashem, Jerusalén; por su significado científico e histórico, como el Museo de Historia del Holocausto, también en Yad Vashem, de Moshé Safdie (2005); por su relevancia cultural o arquitectónica, como el Museo Judío (Ampliación del Museo de Berlín con el Departamento del Museo Judío) de Daniel Libeskind en Berlín (1999); e incluso por la controversia que han suscitado, como el Monumento en Memoria de los Judíos Asesinados de Europa, también en Berlín, conocido como el Monumento del Holocausto, de Peter Eisenman (2004).***Architecture can introduce us to the experience of memory; memory as reflection, and architecture as a drive for the experience of remembering as well as a container of information. Each object is de ned in a process in which different actors, their wills, options and experiences, are taken into account. This is the case of the artworks addressed by the present communication, in which we reveal and ask ourselves about the architectural gesture, the evoked memory and its social interpretation. Artworks that have achieved prominence for different reasons, such as the Hall of Remembrance, of Arieh Elhanani, Arieh Sharon and Benjamin Idelson (1961) in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem; for its scientific and historical significance, such as the Holocaust History Museum, also in Yad Vashem, by Moshe Safdie (2005); for its cultural or architectural relevance, such as the Jewish Museum (Extension of the Berlin Museum with the Department of the Jewish Museum) by Daniel Libeskind in Berlin (1999); and even because of the controversy they have raised, such as the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, also in Berlin, known as the Holocaust Memorial, by Peter Eisenman (2004).  

The Exile, the Nomad, and the Ghostly: Holocaust Memory and Identities of the Biblical at the Edge of Reception Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 574-590
Author(s):  
David Tollerton
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Reception Studies ◽  
Extended Version ◽  
Recent Discussion ◽  
Holocaust Memory ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Holocaust Memorial ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
The Relationship

This article considers the relationship between biblical reception studies and Holocaust memory, with particular reference to the construction of a new Holocaust memorial in central London. I suggest that although in the twenty-first century there has been a small but growing body of literature on the interface of Bible and Holocaust memory, this scholarship has been unable to engage with the fullest possibilities of encounter between the two. Amidst plans for the new memorial we see an unconventional kind of reception taking place, one that resonates with Primo Levi’s description of Holocaust witness accounts as ‘stories of a new Bible’. To explore the implications of this phenomenon I turn to Brennan Breed’s recent discussion of the Bible as ‘nomadic text’, proposing that an extended version of his ideas can speak valuably to this context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document