In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, American-born, Berlin-based philosophy professor Susan Neiman assesses the state of Germany’s commemorative culture and finds it wanting – but not for the reasons one might think. She suggests that Germans use the 75th anniversary of Hitler’s seizure of power to reevaluate and recallibrate their country’s choices of whom it should commemorate for their acts of moral courage in standing up to the Nazi regime. In short, she finds that, in its selection of heroes, Germany has so far „chosen ... wrong.“

As the title of the article indicates, Neiman would prefer heroes who were able to „resist and survive“ over those whose „deeds cost them their lives, and accomplished nothing.“ She contrasts the self-sacrifice of Munich‘s White Rose student group and the conspirators of July 20th with the lesser-known protests by German women whose Jewish spouses were held, and subsequently released, from Gestapo captivity in Berlin’s Rosenstrasse. Neiman proposes that, in addition to restraining the attention given to the victims of the Nazis, we, and Germans particularly, should instead focus on those, like the women of Rosenstrasse fame, whose acts demonstrated that the Nazi regime could be opposed successfully. Only the latter, she believes, can serve as a working model for current and future generations.

One is inclined to agree with Neiman that Germans have often demonstrated a tendency to focus on death and failure in their memorial culture. „Gescheitert“ (failed) has become such a catchword in postwar usage that one sometimes wonders if Germans automatically assume that failure is the default setting for all human action. There is something to be said for the power of positive thinking.

But even so, Neiman’s suggestion here seems misdirected – at least in placing emphasis on events like those in Rosenstrasse. First of all, it is odd that Neiman should assert that „these brave women remain anonymous,“ especially since the Rosenstrasse protests were the subject of a 2003 feature film (entitled Rosenstrasse !) by the well-known German director, Margarethe von Trotta. More significantly, there remains some question as to just how successful those protests were in actually bringing about the release of the Jews held by the Gestapo in Rosenstrasse, with some scholars arguing that the Nazi authorities never intended to deport those they were holding to concentration camps. (For more on this debate, see: www.h-net.org/~german/discuss/Rosenstrasse/Rosenstrasse_index.htm)

Most importantly, however, is the question of whether these protests constituted acts of resistance qualitatively equivalent to those taken by the likes of the White Rose, the Kreisau Circle and other resistance groups. While taking nothing away from the courage these woman demonstrated, a distinction should nevertheless be drawn between protests, like those in Rosenstrasse (rare enough in itself), which aimed solely at altering or stopping specific actions taken by an evil regime, and those acts, such as by the July 20th plotters, that were aimed the much larger purpose of putting an end to that evil regime. While the one sought to save individuals linked to the protesters by the intimate bonds of marriage, the latter sought to further the greater good of all: family, friends and strangers alike. It seems to me that there is still something to the biblical adage that no man hath greater love than to sacrifice his life for others.

When read in combination with Neiman’s book, Fremde sehen anders, it seems clear that her suggestion serves as part of her larger purpose of encouraging Germans to embrace a more positive view of themselves and their history. But, to use a German aphorism, she is “running through open doors.” The time when a hypercritical caste of Germans saw their country through darkened glasses is past – except perhaps among a small group of mostly leftist negativists. The majority need no encouragement from Dr. Neiman. Most Germans feel quite comfortable in their skins – at times perhaps a bit too comfortable.