This page is dedicated to debates in the media surrounding the opening of the Memorial to the Murder Jews of Europe, located in Berlin, Germany. 

Many people formed opinions about the new memorial, which opened on May 11, 2005, based upon their views of how the Holocaust should be remembered.  Because the memorial only honored the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust, many Germans, including many Holocaust survivors,  felt that it did not respect the losses of other groups.  Another concern was that the memorial would allow Germans the ability to escape the Holocaust as part of their past.  Some felt that the memorial was unnecessary due to the number of other Holocaust-related memorials in and around the city, and also felt as if it would be less effective than those already existing; others were wary of the type of equipment used to construct the memorial.

Each of these arguments was explored using media sources gathered between May 7th and May 16th, 2005.

Argument #1:  Separation of the Jews from Other Groups:

• There are an estimated 5 million other victims of the Nazis who should be commemorated, including Poles, political adversaries such as communists, homosexuals, and Roma (otherwise known as Gypsies). 
• Paul Spiegel, president of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, claims that by not including other victims, the memorial suggests there was a “hierarchy of suffering,” and that, “pain and mourning are great in all afflicted families.” (Washington Post). 
• The division of people into different groups or races was one of the main aims of the National Socialists.   “The Nazi state began with separation into different groups of victims.  Why must this course be continued now, 60 years after the fall of the regime?” (BBC).
•  Says Holocaust survivor Kurt Julius Goldstein, “You know, I was here, and they [the Nazis] didn’t begin and end with the Jews.  How can we focus on our own suffering and ignore that of the physically and mentally handicapped, the gays, the gypsies, the communists, those who opposed them?  This should be a place to unite us.  Instead, just like before, it divides.”  (The Philadelphia Inquirer). 
•  “There must be memorials to all who suffered, and they must be in Berlin,” said Jacob Schulze-Rohr, a member of the memorial board of directors, “But they must be separate.  A gypsy could become a Nazi.  A lesbian could deny her sexuality.  Jews were separated from the rest of humanity by the simple fact that they were born Jews.” (The Philadelphia Inquirer). 

Argument #2:  The Memorial is Unnecessary

• Germans are tired of being reminded of the evils of the Nazi regime.  After 60 years of not creating a memorial, the MMJE is untimely.
•  Germany already has plenty of memorials, including concentration camps such as Dachau, mass graves, and the former Gestapo headquarters in Berlin.  Spiegel also says these sites are closer to the dead.  (USA Today). 
•  Rafael Seligmann, author of Hitler:  The Germans and Their Fuhrer, said that more effort and money should be put into educating people about the Holocaust rather than building the 35.5-million-dollar memorial, referring to a study that claimed about half of Germans under age 24 said they didn’t know much about the Holocaust.  (USA Today). 

Argument #3:  The Ability to Escape the Past

• Some wonder if the Germans may feel excused for the Holocaust by building a memorial to it. 
•  German historian Wolfgang Wippermann wonders if the memorial does not add to what he sees as “the Hollywoodization,” of the Holocaust, an increase in attention to the drama of the events that obscures, rather than illuminates, the real horror of the Nazi years.  “In that case, this is a perpetrators’ memorial, built by perpetrators and for perpetrators.  Once it’s up, it’s easer to say, ‘We’ve done our job, now let’s move on.’” (The Philadelphia Inquirer). 

Argument #4:  The Materials Used in Creating the Memorial

• It was suspected that the site would become a magnet for neo-Nazi graffiti and was to be sprayed with an anti-graffiti coating.  However, the coating was made by Degussa, who held 42 percent stake in the firm that made the gas for the gas chambers used in concentration camps.  (Washington Post). 
•  Officials decided to use the coating anyways, claiming that Degussa had taken major steps to face up to its past.

Sources Used:

“A Holocaust Memorial,” The Japan Times.  May 14, 2005. 

“A Memorial in Berlin,” The Globe and Mail (Canada).  May 16, 2005. 

Bernstein, Richard.  “Berlin Holocaust Memorial Opens,” The International Herald Tribune.  May 12, 2005. 

Berstein, Richard.  “Holocaust Memorial Opens in Berlin,” The New York Times.  May 11, 2005. 

Bhatti, Jabeen.  “Germany Opens 1st Official Holocaust Memorial,” USA Today.  May 11, 2005. 

“German Daily Says Berlin Holocaust Memorial Insufficient,” BBC Monitoring Europe.  May 11, 2005. 

“Is Germany Really Apologetic for Nazi Crimes?” Korea Times.  May 11, 2005. 

Ouroussoff, Nicolai.  “A Forest of Pillars, Recalling the Unimaginable,” The New York Times.  May 9, 2005. 

Schofield, Matthew.  “In Berlin, A Field of Tombs;  In Berlin, A Monument to the Jews Germany Confronts Past Crimes,” The Philadelphia Inquirer.  May 9, 2005. 

Whitlock, Craig.  “Going to the Heart of the Holocaust;  After Delays and Disputes, Memorial in Berlin to Open,”  The Washington Post.  May 7, 2005.