Page 75 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(2) (2023)

perpetrators and commemoration takes place tion the exceptionality of the Holocaust. To pre-
from the univocal perspective of the perpetrator. vent this, the Foundation Act of the Foundation
Answering Koselleck’s second question: Flight, Expulsion, Reconciliation refers to the
“what is to be remembered?”, there is no doubt indispensable historical contextualisation, ex-
that adding the commemoration of “flight and pecting that this would thus prevent the norm
expulsion” to that negative memory breaks with of German national memory (the overarching
this univocity and adds a layer of complexity to framework of remembrance of guilt as Assmann
German official memory. In this case, the group calls it (2006, 188) that has applied at the latest
31
of perpetrators and the group of victims over- since the Historikerstreit ) from being put into
lap. The challenge thus lies in the question of the question.
compatibility of the memory of suffering and Finally, if the way of remembering the vic-
guilt, and in the fact that the victims cannot be tims of “flight and expulsion” not only as victims
commemorated only as such. It is thus not possi- is a moral challenge and a challenge to nation-
ble to focus solely on the German sufferings. al memory culture, the remembrance of the per- 75
ti other experiences of expulsion does not solve the petrators and the criminal dimension of “flight
At the same time, including the numerous
and expulsion” are challenges to knowledge and
problem since the juxtaposition of several dif-
understanding (Piotr Cywinski, quoted in Wah-
28
ta ferent cases of forced migrations confers to the nich 2011, 59). Indeed, a sole focus on the victims a visible sign with a “quiet gesture”?
does not permit grasping historical events in
Germans a special status in regard to the sheer
their full dimension. To be able to ask the his-
29
numbers of German expellees because the nar-
torically essential questions, to understand the
rative underlying this kind of presentation is
di that the history of the twentieth century in Eu- causal chains to give the moral commandment
of “never again” (which is at the origin of the
30
rope was one of forced migrations driven by
efforts of patrimonialisation of the negative –
the desire to create ethnically homogenous na-
Wahnich (2011, 48)) a concrete content, one has
tion-states, of which Nazism was ultimately only
the most extreme incarnation. In this respect, to bring to light the perpetrators’ side. But the
here sion of Germany’s history by putting into ques- memory and historical point of view as it is po-
remembrance of the perpetrators and those re-
commemorating “flight and expulsion” (only)
sponsible for the crimes is as complex from a
from the victims’ point of view leads to a revi-
litically delicate. It might stand in the way of the
28
Muslims from the Balkans, Armenians, Turks, Greeks,
desired reconciliation (and more so since recon-
Jews, Poles, Germans, Finns, Italians etc.
ciliation is part of the name of the Documenta-
This was the narrative behind the exhibition “Erzwungene
29
tion Centre) with the neighbouring states to the
Wege” that was organised in 2006 in the Kronprinzepalais
in Berlin by the Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen, the Foun-
studiauniversitatis dation of the BdV, and this was also the narrative behind
of the Germans.
the first exhibition “Gewaltmigration Erinnern” that led
to a political scandal and to relieving Manfred Kittel, the east, which were both perpetrators and victims
Coming to the third question, “how is it
first director of the Foundation Fight, Expulsion, Recon- 32
ciliation from his duties by the Foundation Council. to be remembered?”, a first indication can be
30 This is the title given to the exhibition on the first floor in found in the location of the Documentation
the Konzept für die Daueraustellung, Stiftung Flucht Ver-
treibung Versöhnung (Bavendamm et al. 2017), published 31 The Historikerstreit was a debate among historians of the
by the Foundation. This title is not to be found anymore present, that took place in 1986/87, about the place of the
in today’s exhibition. The first floor is not named, and the Shoah in German history and its uniqueness.
conception of the exhibition has changed from a chron- 32 Koselleck (2002, 29–31) notes in relation to the Holocaust
ological approach whose aim was “to give an [historical] four possible interconnected modes: (1) through a moral
overview over the enormous and the hitherto unknown judgment (that is necessary but insufficient to understand
extent of forced population displacements of millions of what happened), (2) though science that completes the
people in the Europe of the long XX century” (p. 14) to a moral judgment and helps understanding, (3) though a re-
more thematic one, centered around the individual expe- ligious memorial cult (that does not reach everyone), and,
riences of forced migrations, that includes today’s migra- because all those three ways are insufficient, he adds (4) the
tions. aesthetic one.