JEFFREY HERF
387
the Nazi term
Arbeitsdienst
Oabor service) or
Wehrdienst
(military service).
He also cast aspersions on the motives of those (unnamed) postwar
Germans who had spoken publicly in favor of remembering Nazi crimes.
Rather than being motivated by ethical concerns, their real desire was to
escape identification wi th the perpetrators and join the ranks of the blessed
victims. He was no more specific when he referred to a "continuous pre–
sentation of our disgrace" in the media, as if it were impossible to turn on
the television or read the papers in Germany without being bombarded
with stories about the Holocaust. As the Communists in East Germany
and the far right in the Federal Republic had argued for years, the real
motive of Holocaust memory lay in its use for contemporary political pur–
poses.
In
other words, the memory of Auschwitz was a form of emotional
and poli tical blackmail and extortion, wielded to attain gains through the
presentation of past victimization.
Walser did not specify who or what would benefi t from such efforts.
But the chip on his shoulder was unmistakable. From listening to him, one
might have thought that the memory of the Holocaust had in fact been
mobilized to prevent German unification and preserve the East German
"anti-fascist" regime, and that such memory had been imposed from out–
side by unnamed persons and institutions with Germany's worst interests
at heart. One might conclude that there had been no indigenous postwar
German tradition of public memory of Nazi crimes against the Jews and
others. The memory of Auschwitz, far from being a moral obligation,
needed to redeem the nation's honor, or building a just democracy was a
"moral club" wielded by unnamed sources whose intent was to harm post–
war Germany.
If
such memory had any legitimate moral impulse or
impact, Walser did not mention it. The proposed Berlin memorial thus was
only the latest example of the efforts by unnamed persons to publicize
Germany's disgrace and thus harm the nation.
Walser's speech was greeted by the assembled elite of German pub–
lishing and letters with prolonged applause. There were no angry
interruptions from the audience, nor did any of the prominent figures in
attendance cri ticize him in the press-even though Walser was clearly play–
ing with the fires of nationalism and anti-Semitism. With the exception of
one public figure, the articulate elite found itself at a loss for words. The
exception was the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany,
Ignatz Bubis.
November 9 is a remarkable anniversary in twentieth-century German
history.
It
marks the anniversary of the beginning of the Revolution of
1918-19, the anti-Jewish pogrom of 1938, and the fall of the Berlin Wall
in 1989.
In
today's Germany, the anti-Jewish pogrom occupies center stage
in national ceremonies.
In
Berlin, with the chancellor and Federal
