Dresden, 13th February 2012. Part II

 Picture taken from a Roman Catholic student group

Whenever fascists/racists march, the reaction usually contains a mixture of utter stupidity (from the state apparatus, media and a handful of anti-fascists) and utter brilliance (from the anti-fascists and other parts of civic society).  The recent case of the Nazi march in Dresden on the 13th of February this year saw largely a positive example of openly combating fascism and racism.

Regarding other racist marches it is the ONR/NOP marches of Warsaw and Wroclaw (now a tradition on the 11th of November) that are mostly similar to that in Dresden.  Anti-EDL or anti-Pro-Köln/Deutschland protests focus on groups/marches that deal largely with Islamophobia (though anti-immigration and anti-socialism is also a feature) and therefore the anti-fascists build contacts with Muslims.  Regarding Dresden or the ONR/NOP marches the focus is on national myths of history, as well as on how to commemorate events of the past.  Consequently, the reaction to the Dresden Nazi march offers lessons for Polish anti-fascists.

Summary

The Allied bombing of Dresden on the night of the 13th and 14th of February 1945 led to the deaths of about 25,000 civilians and destruction of the city.  This was clearly a war crime.  Commemoration of the event until 1990 was led by communist state authorities who concentrated the commemoration on fighting imperialism, and left no room for individual biographies and memories to be recognised.  After 1990 it was the case that it was Nazis who took the lead in commemorating the event, seeking to portray Germans as being the "victims" of WWII, a myth held by many people in Dresden (just to be clear here, those who died during the bombing were victims.  It doesn't mean that Germany as such was a victim of WWII).  To begin with, in Dresden, only a few hundred Nazis marched through town.  By the 2000s this had increased to a few thousand, supported by Nazis from other countries.  Accordingly, anti-fascist numbers (left-wingers, anarchists, Christians) also increased.

 

The Nazis have tended to do their main march on the nearest Saturday to the 13th, wanting to gain bigger numbers. This led of course to bigger numbers of anti-fascists being able to come.  Last year saw, for the third time in a row, a successful blockade of the Nazi march.  However, the public discourse saw a focus on violence, as the police were particularly violent last year (as were some anti-fasicsts, some of whom having been provoked by police and Nazi violence).  Afterwards, anti-fascist and other civic society organisations saw themselves criminalised by the Saxony state, whereby offices were occupied, people were stripped naked and phone numbers of 40,000 people were taken illegally by the police.

2012 saw the Nazis being demoralised and divided.  Many didn't want to do their main march on the nearest Saturday, as they didn't want to face a humiliating blockade again.

2012 also saw the Saxony government making changes, wanting to avoid the problems of last year.  A cross-party political group was set up to organise a civic commemoration of the event, a "traces of the perpetrator" march by anti-fascists was finally legalised, and generally the police were better prepared and less willing to use violence (though tear gas was used on some anti-fascists).  Owing to this, and also the news about the Zwickau Nazi cell more people turned up to the human chain, some of which also went onto the anti-fascist blockade.  It seemed that the mainstream had had enough of Nazis and violence dominating the anniversary.

Posters by state institutions, businesses and NGOs (such as shown here) have been in existance in Dresden for a few years now.  What was different this year, however, was the determination to give a respectful commemoration to those who died, while still remembering that it was Germans who had started WWII, and that Nazis are still a problem in Germany.  While anti-fascists and other civic society organisations had been saying this for year, 2012 was the first time when this became the narrative of the anniversary.  In addition, the anti-fascist blockade was fairly successful, forcing the Nazi march route to be massively shortened.  In the end less Nazis came to Dresden than expected, about 1,200 (compared to 5,000 anti-fascists).  "Dresden Nazifrei" are calling this the end of the big Nazi marches in Dresden.

News reports largely said the following: The commemoration of the event was dignified, the mainstream of Dresden took part, churches provided a platform for commemoration, remembering the dead was linked to being anti-Nazi (white roses were laid in remembrance of those who died, more about this later).  The anti-fascist blockade was also seen to be positive.

Analysis

The narrative was visual and moving: People old enough to remember the event was interviewed and photographed.  The laying of white roses and lighting of candles in front of the Frauenkirche and in many churches provided the mainstream with the opportunity to do something dignified.  Bells were tolled.  The anti-fascists were colourful, musical and lively, and largely seen to be positive.  I would say that it was anti-fascists who took the lead in opposing Nazis, and the mainstream followed.  Indeed, a leading politician of Germany, wothisname said that "one cannot criminalise those who combat fascism".  Perhaps the prejudice against anti-fascists is lessening?

On the one hand, I find the usage of white roses to commemorate the dead to be slightly questionable, to be honest.  White roses are of course the symbol of the "Weisse Rose", a group of Protestants who were a resistance group in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg.  Those who died in Dresden were not necessarily those who actively resisted the Nazis.  Some of them may have done.  Some of them may have also been big supporters of the Nazis.  There is an old myth in Germany (well, old in western Germany) that it was a minority of Germans who were responsible for the crimes of the Nazis, or that the public couldn't do anything against the the Nazis.  However, it is nonetheless good that the official way now of remembering those who died is being tied to being anti-Nazi, something that, I believe, led to the wider acceptance of the anti-fascists this year.  Indeed, the white roses are officially signs that "people from Dresden stand against those who use the 13th of February 1945 to promote anti-democratic and inhumane ideologies [...] By wearing white roses that we show that our remembrance has a diferent horizon: A sign for the ending of war, racism and violence!"

A second protest against fascism has taken place on the 18th of February, a report will follow in part III of this report, together with a consideration as to the future of Nazi marches in Germany.

Now, what about Poland?

The lessons are probably obvious to the reader, but I'll highlight a few ones:

Actually turn up to protest, and block

A strong anti-fascist base is a foundation for success in combatting racists.  Blockades frustrate Nazis and demoralise them and make them less likely to turn up.  Making it clear (to quote the Protestant church in Germany, "love requires clarity") our opposition to them in big numbers makes a difference.  It also makes being Nazi "uncool".  In Poland we need all people concerned about the ONR/NOP and other nationalists to actually turn up to their marches to achieve similar successes, instead of sitting on their arses complaining.  While some may be afraid of being attacked, the truth is that Polish people have traditionally included people who have stood up to people who attack us.  There is strength in numbers.

A positive message is needed

The Nazi message in Dresden was essentially negative (something acknowledged by the NPD), of being the "victims".  The anti-fascist message was positive, lively, musical and "cool".  Somehow the anti-fascist events in Poland were not seen as positive, despite the music and colour in Warsaw.  We need to strongly portray fun to the media and mainstream.  We need our counter-demos to be obviously happy events, not just negative.  We need to be clearer in our alternative to nationalism in order to win more people over.  There are obvious messages that we can portray: From 11/11/18 Poles could vote in elections, they could form their political parties, they were not under foreign occupation, Poland was multi-cultural.  Those are things to celebrate.  You know that, stupidly, many believe that the anti-fascists in Poland are against Poland not being occupied.  Let's not just say "blokujemy", let's say "swietujemy".  No, let us promote the celebration of the creation of a multicultural and free Poland.  (Of course, one can take the view that nation states lead to the abuse of people via the centralisation of power, the creation of a monopoly of violence and concentration of the human identity on one particular part of our identities.  However, one can still say that Polish people should have the same rights as people in other countries.  In any case, freedom should always be emphasised.)

Be visual

The visual message is important.  Let's have clear symbols that portray our message, symbols that average people can use.  Like in many places, flowers and candles are popular symbols in Poland.  Despite our rightful reservations about the RC church in Poland, such symbols are useful.  We need symbolic actions that people can do, more than shouting chants at Nazis.  If, for example, a rynek became an area where people were invited to light red and white candles in order to create a big Polish flag, or with other colours to promote a multicultural Poland, or if we threw flowers at Nazis when they throw lit torches at us, if people got soup and paid donations, if people could buy grilled cheese with cranberry sauce and other foods from Poland, if people could attend poetry reading from Polish poets, hear music performed (say, by Gorecki) on the street, people will receive a better message.  There are enough creative people within anti-fascism to come up with some good visual symbols.

This involves all of us

Civic society shouldn't, as Andrzej Rychard said, just leave it to the anti-fascists.  We need governmental institutions, churches and NGOs to make clear their opposition to racism.  Now, of course, we all know that there are people within the first two groups who tend towards the ONR/NOP rather than us.  But not all of them do.  Those of you who have connecti ons within such groups needs to think about how you can corporately show your opposition to Nazis, while still (as in Dresden) promoting a positive message.  Posters can be part of this, like the ones I showed here.

Get off your arse

Across central and eastern Europe Nazis are getting more active.  In the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and in Romania Roma are being attacked.  In Serbia, Montenegro and again in Hungary gays are being persecuted.  Here in Poland of course, Wrocław has lately seen new Nazi graffiti appear (to be reflected upon in a later article), gays need police protection during their parades and there has been an arson attack on a house where Roma live, to name just a few examples.  Are we to wait till the situation gets worse before we react, or we are to work for fighting Nazism now?

In any case, let us strengthen a spirit of criticism.  People in Poland often like to complain, anyway!  Let's use this criticism to test things in the public sphere.  I have an example here of a student group in Wroclaw that tolerates racists.  You'll have to wait till another article to find out more about that however.  To keep in touch with this blog, "like" Wroclaw workshops on Facebook.

Dresden, 13th February 2012. Part I

German people really can be ace:

Civic society in Germany makes it clear, what they think about the attempt by Nazis to instrumentalise the anniversary of the Allied bombing of Dresden:

 A "human chain to remember the destruction of Dresden 67 years ago - with courage, respect and tolerance - Dresden professes colour" of about 13,000 people around the old town, (Photo Jens Meyer / The Associated Press)

Volkswagen's  Dresden factory: 

"For diversity, for tolerance, for Dresden"

"Dresden greets our guests....and good riddance to Nazis!"  
From the SPD site.

"In all mischief that happens it is not those who do it who are guilty, rather, those who didn't stop them.  Dresden theatres, museums and orchestras against right-wing extremism".

A poster hanging from the Dresden State Theatre.

A report from the anti-Nazi demo will follow in part II, including an analysis of the implications of the event for Polish civic society.

Keep in touch.

Review: Róża

Thank you, culture.pl

Wojtek Smarzowski is the film director of the grotesque films "Wesele" and "Dom zły", films which take an unflinching look what life in Poland can bring.  Certainly, Wesele may be somewhat OTT, but themes of alcohol, corruption and social hypocrisy regarding sex can be features of life in Poland (though of course this isn't limited to Poland!).  Dom zły also shows the abuse of alcohol and corruption (this time at the state administrative level), while dealing with difficult historical areas (the militia and secret police and their abuses).

Róża is also uncompromising.  Certainly, the first scene of the film sets the scene for the film in that it shows a rape and murder of a Polish woman by a German soldier during the German counter-attack during the Warsaw Uprising, watched by her husband, Tadeusz.

The film is based around the figure of Róża, a woman who suffers all manner of abuses during the film, and is set in Mazury, an area which used to be part of East Prussia (part of Germany) and became Polish possession towards the beginning of the film.  Now, ethnic groups in Poland are quite a complicated business (despite what many will say, talking as they do of "proto-Germans" and "proto-Poles"); you just need to know that Masurians have a mixed ethnic background, and tended, by the 20th century to be German speaking Lutherans, though, as the film shows, many could also speak Polish, as Róża does in the film, as well as the other main character, Tadeusz.  Some define themselves as being Masurians, not German or Polish.

That she is not seen to be Polish and lives alone on a farm leads to terrible events for Róża, including being raped and beaten many times, despite the attempts of Tadeusz to (occasionally successfully) fight off those who attack her.

The film has two main plots: Róża and the attacks on her (as well as those on the German speaking community in the village) and the story of Tadeusz.  With the former, it shows what happened to the areas which had been in Germany, the discrimination towards Germans (not being given food, having their possessions being plundered, being beaten by Soviet and Polish militia, being raped), as well as the "repatriation" of Poles from the east of what was pre-1945 Poland (a family speaking the dialect of eastern Poland appears to live in and eventually take over Róża's house).  To add to that we see Germans being forcibly expelled to the new borders of Germany.

Regarding Taduesz, he had fought in the Armia Krajowa partisan army.  Now, members of the Armia Krajowa were viewed with suspicion by Soviet and later Polish authorities (the later Polish communist head Władysław Gomułka said "Soldiers of AK are a hostile element which must be removed without mercy").  For this reason Tadeusz tries to keep his head down to avoid being detected.  He eventually meets someone who had also been "in the woods" (euphemism for being a partisan) who urges him to declare his past to the communist authorities, something he declines to do (something that results with Tadeusz being arrested, tortured and imprisoned).

In doing so, the film deals with a few essential themes, relevant for modern Poland.

Rape is a key feature of the film.  As I said, one sees a Polish woman raped at the start.  Róza is raped many times, as is the Polish woman who comes to live with her.  Like as shown in the film Anomyma, the rapes were perpetrated by members of the Red Army (one mass-rape by Red Army soldiers is also shown in the film).  However, the film also shows the rape of Róża by Poles.  This is a very important issue.  The film was made by a Pole, and is, as far as I know, the first film made in Poland to thematise the abuse of German woman by Polish men.

It's a similar case with the discrimination towards Germans, showed in their eventual expulsion towards the new version of Germany.  The film shows Polish officials and militia organising and carrying out that expulsion.  The depiction of rape follows the line of Anomyma which came out in 2009 was the first film in Germany to bring the attention of the mass rape of German woman by Soviet soldiers (certainly, Die Blechtrommel in 1979 did contain a rape scene; however it wasn't the main story of the film) shows that this is a sensitive theme that is only now being addressed openly (this was a repressed theme in the GDR, and in the BDR the official myth of German victimhood during and after WWII was dominant, though that was heavily challenged in the 1960s).

Róża is therefore a contribution towards the efforts of Germans in coming to terms with their past (following a Czech near-equivalent, Habermann in 2010 which partly deals with Czech abuses of Germans, including their expulsion from the Sudetenland after the end of WWII.  Thanks to a reader for that tip).  This is a healthy development at the mass level, supported by smaller initiatives, such as this talk between a German woman who feared for being raped in Wrocław* after the end of WWII and a Polish former forced labourer; as well as that by Karta, who have organised meetings between German expellees and Poles who are now living in the towns the Germans used to live in, Poles who themselves had been expelled from areas now in Belarus and the Ukraine.

While the film may prompt debate in Germany, I am interested as to what impact the film will have in Poland.  As I wrote here, there is a tension in Poland regarding the themes of the rape of German woman by Polish men, the expulsion of Germans, as well as, to a smaller degree, Stalinist terror in Poland from 1944.  Despite the views of some foreigners, Poland is more than Warsaw and the issues of the Nazis and the communists; the issue of the "reclaimed territories" is a big issue not often dealt with in a productive way.

Is the film any good?  Well, for someone like myself aware of the context of tensions in Poland and Germany about these issues, it was interesting.  Generally the film is difficult.  While murder is commonly shown in films, rape is not.  For that reason, perhaps, I found the rape scenes to be horrific (of course, rape is horrific, but we are less sensitised to the depiction of it in films than with murder).  Otherwise, the acting in the film is very good.

I therefore can recommend the film.

* Of course, the story of Mazury is similar to that of Lower Silesia, whereby Germans (and, regarding stealing and rape, Poles as well) faced similar ordeals.

"On February 6th, at seven o'clock in the morning, Renata B. a girl of fifteen, who was on the way to the children's mass in [...] the church of St. Mary-on-the=Sand, was stopped by a Polish militiaman.  He dragged her into a demolished building, raped her, and stole her clothes"

From an eyewitness account by a Polish man, quoted in "Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City" by Norman Davies

I watched the film in a cinema containing a high proportion of elderly people, people old enough to have been those expelled from the east to Wrocław, and old enough to have experienced those times.  If only there had been an open discussion about the film afterwards.

PS: Seeing as Germans supported Poles who took a stand for democracy and against racism last November, perhaps Poles could so likewise on next Monday (the 13th) and/or next Saturday (the 18th)?  Poles were deffo there last year.

The brown behind the table (and gun)

In the most recent edition of konkret (in my opinion the best source for political news and analysis in Germany) Hermann Gremliza has written an article about the recent news in Germany regarding a Neo-Nazi cell in Zwickau which is very relevant to the concerns of this blog (as shown in articles about "Why prejudice against the 'far-left' helps the far-right" and "Wachet auf!").

Now, I don't always agree with Hermann Gremliza.  His understanding of the uprising in the GDR on the 17th of June 1953 is full of shite.  However, he does offer a very good analysis of contemporary politics in Germany and economics generally and I recommend reading his articles.

Here is a summary of his most recent article (one can listen to the original here in German).  The text in italics is my additions, as are the photos:

 "Lazy justice.  Comfortable judges.  Delayed trials."  From the Spiegel.

"When eight people from Turkey and one from Greece are murdered in the civilised and notoriously xenophobic Germany, society and state concentrate their suspicions regarding "Who did it?" on who?  On the milieu of those who were murdered, their "mafia" and "clans".  As soon as a policewomen is shot and there is no suspicion of this being the work of "left-wing extremists who are enemies of the constitution", the people to blame (according to the state bar of Baden-Württemberg) are "mobile social groups like Sinti and Roma", in other words "Gypsies" (Inverted commas here added by myself).

"As soon as it comes to light that it is an unhappy accident that the murderers were Nazis politicians and the media march separately to make a combined strike: Liberals demand a "relentless clarification" of "mistakes" and "accidents", while Conservatives shake with disgust and use the moment to call for an extension of police and intelligence services.  The Spiegel  made this clear with their title for their write-up of the murders: "The brown army faction" (In other words, they are like the "Red Army Faction".)

"Chancellor Merkel spoke of the ten murders as being "probably from extremism from the right side" (obviously "right" means direction in this case) and speaks that this incident "should make us attentive to every form of extremism".  In Niedersachsen the Interior Minister Uwe Schünemann speaks that there must be a "a centre for the defense against terror, also for the area of right-wing and left-wing extremism".

"Who or what is a left-wing extremist?  For Merkel, Schünemann and other defenders of the state in public authorities and editorial offices, left-wing extremism begins with people who sit down or lie down in the way of the police who clear the streets free with blows for brown (i.e. Nazi) battalions, after city administrations have declared racist slogans to be a matter of free-speech and not of criminal acts and therefore declare the Nazis to require the protection of the constitution.

"The  dominating thing that we are told in politics is this: Left and right don't exist any more; and when it looks like they do exist it's the case that left is like right, and right is like left.  Of course everyone knows that this isn't true.  It wasn't an Islamist (though many thought so) who did the massacre in Norway, rather it was a blonde Arier.  No-one thought: It must be a fascist, a Nazi, someone from the right-wing; this mass murder could have been started by a Communist, a Socialist, someone from the left-wing: even in the wildest dreams of the President of the protection of the constitution and the Professor for totalitarianism they didn't believe such things.

"The talk of extremism or, alternatively of radicalism is propaganda.  There is no left-wing extremism or no right-wing extremism or "right-wing terrorism".  What there is are Nazis, Communists, Anarchists, Autonomists.  Undoubtedly many of these are prepared to do criminal acts.  Six million Jews, twenty million "Slavic sub-humans" (actually 25-30m Soviets died) and, in the past few years, 182 people in Germany were not killed by extremists, in other words Nazis and/or Communists, rather by Nazis.

"The definition of extremism is a derivative of the totalitarian "theory".  It insinuates that there must be a something on the left side that is a version of the Nazis.

"The Red Army Faction started murders [and were, in a marked difference to the Fellowships (Kameradschaften, nationalist groups) in general and the National Socialist Underground especially were hunted by state and press organs, until all its fighters were imprisoned or dead].  However condemnable the motives of the RAF were, their victims were no poor devils, rather were representatives of the ruling class.  99.9% of people in Germany could go without fear into the streets or in bed.  There are 6.7 million (non-native Germans) potential victims of Nazis.  That state offices such as the Spiegel magazine can name the brown murders as like the RAF shows that they so-called theorists of totalitarianism have made their old chestnut that the "class war" is the left-wing equivalent of the "race war" and therefore the president of an industry group, a rich SS man, the head of the federal office as well as representatives of a persecuted race (the Jewish, perhaps?) become ennobled.

"Since the capitulation of the RAF in 1998, the year in which the protectors of the constitution now know to be the year when the now discovered Nazi group started to arm themselves with weapons and explosives, and nothing happened with them for twelve years, because of "the lack of concrete evidence of planned murders", there were, apart from the defense from police attacks, from the left no occasions of violence against people as far as I can remember.  What there were and are, are a few marks on bank industry property and burned cars, things that insurance could give pay-outs for.

"The Spiegel  says "the secret service is under the suspicion of being found out".  In truth all offices have functioned as they wished.  Regarding this we have to look into their history.  The police, the federal information service, the office for the protection of the constitution, the judiciary and military were all formed by people from the Nazi state.  Almost all Nazi policemen and women stayed in their jobs, the federal information service and the offices for the protection of the constitution were formed and occupied by men from the Reich Main Security Office, the Gestapo and the "Foreign Armies East" (a Nazi formed military intelligence organisation). Not a single Nazi judge was prosecuted and the German army was formed (and let it be said, given a soul) by officers of those who had planned and carried out the "war of extermination" (i.e. in the Soviet Union).

"That's all a long time ago now.  The thing is, it's not over.  The last founders were still working in their posts in the 1980's and those who are now in their posts received their spirit, a spirit which goes through all floors.  As someone who left the Neo-Nazi scene, Manuel Bauer was asked "Do you have the experience of whether Neo-Nazi sympathisers also work within the police and the 'Protection of the Constitution?'" the answer was given "Yes.  We received information from members of the police who we knew about when and where their colleagues were to do their patrols".  "Why?" one can ask.  "Their existed a sympathy among the police", said Bauer, "Just because they can hide themselves behind their uniform, their state uniform or system uniforms it does not mean that they are different or think democratically."

 Theodor Maunz

"The number of secret sympathisers and understanders in robes and other uniforms is higher than the book-learned could dream of.  The NPD and other Nazi fellowships  (Kameradschaften) are so intermingled with state-paid informs (V-Männer und Frauen) that the Federal Constitutional Court is not able to differentiate between the Nazi men who are paid by the state and the original Aryan faces.  The Minister for the Interior Hermann from the CDU, who wishes to present himself as the protector of democracy, should look to the early history of his party, as well as the jurist Theodor Maunz.  (Theodor Maunz was a Jurist.  He joined the SA in 1933 and for his services to the Nazis was made Professor in Freiburg and served as enabling the Nazis to gain juristic legitimacy.  To highlight his Naziness I would add that he wrote articles for an extreme right wing newspaper till his death in 1983.) He is quoted as saying "That which the Führer assigns in the form of judicial commands forms the judicial foundation of the police".  The "Maunz-Dürig" commentary to the constitution (written after the war) has been quoted by Roman Herzog (president of Germany 1994-99), the judges of the constitution Udo di Fabio and Hans Hugo Klein, as well as Hans-Jürgen, who was president of the court of the constitution.  (In other words, he was influential in how the constitution of Germany is being understood and applied.)

"Here and there lies the suspicion that the "National Socialist Underground"were behind the (of course) unsolved attack on the "Crimes of the Wehrmacht" exhibition in Saarbrücken in the March of 1999.  After the opening of the exhibition in 1995 a former officer of the Wehrmacht who had taken part in the blockade of Leningrad (at least 900,000 died from hunger and cold), was later a consultant to Hermann Göring's Reich Air Force Ministry, was able to observe the trials of men following the 20. July 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler before being a head of a military battery on the west front; this former officer spoke out against the calling of 19 million of German soldiers of being members of a criminal organisation and said that no-one "who knows anything seriously about historical truth" can "see the Wehrmacht wholly and collectively as being a criminal organisation."  The name of this man was Helmut Schmidt [who was Chancellor of West Germany from 1974 til 1982.  Note also that Helmut Schmidt, the co-founder of the "German national foundation" spoke out against immigrants ("It was a mistake to call people from other cultures here") as well as "anti-authoritarian education")  See here for more details.]

"The "right-wing terror", said Chancellor Merkel to her party friends is "a shame for Germany".  One which is earned."

Wew!  Let's briefly consider what has been said here.  Regular readers of this blog will know my position regarding the focus on so-called "left-wing extremism" in GB, Germany and beyond, and also how this focus in Germany contributed to the fact that Nazis were able to kill immigrants in Germany and stay undetected for over ten years; therefore I agree with much here.  The same regular readers will also know of my pointing out that Nazis are much more of a danger to society than any supposed act of "left-wing terrorism".  I also share the view that it is the police who are often the force behind the issue of violence regarding those who are anti-fascists.  What Gremliza says, though, goes further, namely that it is the state institutions of Germany themselves which carry Nazi echoes within their corridors.

Certainly, many Nazis continued working for the state, sometimes in important positions in both West and East Germany (see here for more information.)  The Allied occupying forces wanted to build up the structure of the West German state in order to keep Germany as a strong force in the threat of the Soviet Union.  Therefore many of those who underwent trials for being members of illegal organisations (the NSDAP, the SS, the Gestapo, for example) or actual criminal acts were later amnestied.  Regardless of the moral nature of such acts, it could be understood that Gremliza is indeed right in saying that it is Nazis themselves who influenced the spirit of German state organs (including those with the monopoly of violence) post-1945.


Germany wouldn't be alone of course in having state organs that have dodgy beliefs.  The City of London police consider the peaceful protestors of the Occupy movement in GB to be "terrorists". As I have written before, Spinwatch have written an excellent report showing how prejudices against the "far-left" were much more important than the threat of actual (but less overtly political) violence from the IRA.  The Polish judiciary has itself recently made a bizarre and dodgy decision regarding Nazis.

Maybe Gremliza is however being too dark in his analysis of the situation in Germany.  Certainly, not all members of state organs in Germany (say, the police, the protectorate of the constitution) are Nazi sympathisers.  The thing is, as sure as we see in GB a police which carries a cold-war hangover regarding the left-wing, it is very much possible that German police and other state security organisations carry not only such a hangover, but one from the Nazi times.  To tell the truth I am not totally knowledgeable about post-1945 history in Germany.  I do know, though, the motivation of the aforementioned RAF:

"They'll kill us all. You know what kind of pigs we're up against. This is the Auschwitz generation. You can't argue with people who made Auschwitz. They have weapons and we haven't. We must arm ourselves!"

Don't get me wrong.  I am not RAF fan, sympathiser or excuser (after watching "Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex" I thought they were a load of stupid bastards for whom I had no sympathy).  A look at post-1945 history in West Germany however does offer a few clues as to why they existed.  When one knows however about things like Operation Gladio or see how German state authorities have dealt with the Zwickau Nazis, one can get quite anti-state, I have to say.

In any case, I believe that Gremliza could be right in saying that we are wrong to use the term "right-wing extremism" in that it insinuates a left-wing alternative.  There are murderous twats on both left and right.  The thing is, there are many many many many more on the right, and their potential victims comes from a much wider group. 

Keep in touch.  I plan to write a review of the Wrocław Modern Art museum next week, and also the start of the "Taboos and other subjects to piss people off" series: Starting with "How Britain deals with its history".

An evening with Ursula Waage and Danuta Orłowska

As part of the 'Three Women' (Trzy kobiety) series at the Edith Stein house I attended a talk given by Ursula Waage, born in Germany and a resident of Breslau (now Wrocław) and Danuta Orłowska, born in Poland and someone who was a forced labourer in Breslau during WWII.

Picture the scene: Ursula Waage, born in 1928 was sitting in the salon.  She has written a book about her experiences of living in Nazi Germany in Breslau, 'Crossroads at the Odra river' (a book in German called 'Kreuzwege am Oderstrom') and managed to survive the 'Siege of Breslau' which almost lasted for three months, an event that was to result in the death of at least 29,000 civilians and military personal (estimates wildly vary as to just how many people died).  She, along with almost other Germans were forcibly expelled from what became Wrocław in Poland, and left in 1947.

Sat next to her was Danuta Orłowska, a woman who had herself been in Breslau during the Siege of Breslau.  They had never met during their years in Breslau but came into contact during an historical event four years ago and decided to keep in touch, as their life's paths had both been strongly marked by WWII.

Danuta Orłowska

I have been to many talks by historical witnesses* and generally one person has been interviewed, and they are themselves the centre of the talk.  With this talk things were different.  Ursula Waage put Danuta Orłowska at the centre of the talk.  She reported from her biographical story, something she had done in the aforementioned book.

Danuta Orłowska was born in Greater Poland and was together with her mother and siblings sent by order of the German occupation powers to work as forced labourers in Breslau shortly after Poland capitulated to Germany.  Her father was sent to the Dachau concentration camp as a member of the intelligencia (part of the 'Aktion AB') and was due to be executed, but the executioner decided to let him free, and he managed to survive in hiding during the rest of WWII and eventually came to Breslau to look for his family.

During this time Danuta Orłowska's mother had for a short time taken in a young child which was Jewish.  She reported that the child immediately ran into the cupboard upon being delivered to the house, a sign that it was used to being in hiding.  This child was a fearful child that would run to the cupboard whenever any noise outside was to occur.  The family were in danger by taking in this child.  The protection of Jews carried the death penalty in Poland (only in Poland.)  After a week the child's aunty came and took the child away, bringing it has to be said relief to the family.

As preparation for the Siege of Breslau an airfield was to be made on Kaiserstrasse (now the area where Plac Grundwaldski is) Danuta Orłowska, her mother and siblings were made to work there.  (Interestingly enough she got breaks from work (which lasted a few hours) and used the time to go into the city centre and she very much liked the town hall, wanting to work there afterwards; something she eventually did).  Her father managed to find them and eventually they went into hiding in a cellar during the bombardment of the city.

One day the noise has subsumed and, thinking the war was over, went outside, only to be confronted by Gestapo personal.  This was during the days of martial law where people were being executed for all manner of crime, and they were all sentenced to death.  They were separated from their father and were taken to be shot.  The Gestapo man however shot to the side of them and let them go, telling them they could get help from his sister in Munich if need be.  The father was also let go.

Danuta Orłowska was to eventually settle in Wrocław.

Ursula Waage

It is notable that Ursula Waage decided to put the attention on Danuta Orłowska.  She also faced the danger of being killed during the Siege of Breslau due to the perilous nature of being there.  After the war ended she faced hostility from Poles who moved to Wrocław (in fact, Poles who were by and largely forcefully expelled from their homes in the east).  She said that she realised that Germans were hated by Poles and she also felt in danger of being attacked and raped during the nights, so much so that she took to hiding in the cellar (in his book 'Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City' the Welshman Norman Davies included many reports of German and indeed also Soviet and Polish woman of being raped by both Soviet soldiers as well as Polish marauders).  

Once she was at what is now the Nadodze train station (not that far away from where I am writing this article now) seeing Germans who were being deported to Germany.  She reported how she saw children lying on the bank and wondering why no-one was looking after the children.  Then she saw how a mother passed a two-month old baby out of the train window, a baby that had died.  Then she realised that the children lying on the bank were also those who had died on the train.

In 1947 she and her family were themselves forced to leave the now named Wrocław and she was sent to Leipzig.

Reflection

Danuta Orłowska's story is representative of stories that could be told throughout Poland: That of being a forced labourer (being effectively a slave) and seeing her family split up with no knowledge of where the others were, or if they were even alive; additionally death through execution or through mistreatment was a danger.  As I said here there are many individual histories in Poland that are traumatic and my experience of talks by historical witnesses is that they serve as a way of dealing with the pain of the past.  Danuta Orłowska was visibly moved by the talk and became more animated as the evening went on.  There were plenty more stories to be told and, despite her mature years, she had more energy to talk than most people there.

The narrative of the forceful expulsion of Germans from the former German territory which is now in Poland is a sensitive theme in both Germany but especially in Poland.  The head of the 'Federation of Expellees' (Bund der Vertrieben) is someone who has relativised Nazi war crimes and due the Bund's lack of attention given to the crimes are not liked in Poland.  (Indeed, some Poles can get quite emotional about her.)

Due to the nature of the crimes done by Germans during WWII and the fact that it took Germans a few decades before they were able to deal with crimes done by their compatriots, together with the fact that the statistics of Germans who were expelled from Poland were exaggerated leads many to have little sympathy for the plight of Germans such as Ulrike Waage.  In this sensitive political climate talks by people like Ulrike Waage, talks which also focus on the suffering of Poles during WWII are an important step forward, especially when, as the Karta organisation, enabled both Poles and Germans to tell each other of their personal histories.

The situation faced by Germans in Breslau after WWII are not, so I believe, part of the narrative of the stories spoken by Poles about those times.  Even Dorota Orłowska spoke of the years directly after 1945 as being a very good time, with people being 'very friendly and looking out for each other'.  In fact, the different experiences of Ursula Waage and Danuta Orłowska led to a small conflict between them as to life in Wrocław directly after the war's end.  As ever, the different personal (and national) narratives regarding the past leads to conflict.  A sense of victimhood by and large permeated both Polish and German people who were young during the WWII and immediate aftermath.  Of course, from the Polish perspective this is natural and appropriate.  Talks such as this one however shows that the narratives of German/bad Polish/good are not totally appropriate (i.e. Germans helping Poles; Poles attacking Germans).  While stories on both sides face the danger of being misrepresented (such as with anti-Polish feelings in the west) the more nuanced view that people on both sides suffered is one that emerges from such talks (I say that while stating that suffering can mean many different things.)

Just one thing.....

It is good when people from different countries can talk about their experiences of WWII.  It helps them and others to see that, for example, some Germans did good things, that Poles were also forcefully expelled from the east, and so on.  The human face behind history becomes much clearer.

Organisations like the Edith Stein House, the Foundation for German-Polish reconciliation, and the aforementioned Karta do much needed work to facilitate this.  Considering prejudices in both countries this is vital.

The thing is, is that the nature of such a dialogue brings a third 'group' into play: The 'Russians', or better said, people from the Soviet Union.  It is the 'Russians' who bombarded the cities, who raped the women, who were behind the deportations.  Unlike with the narratives about Germans and also Poles, only one side of the 'Russians' are shown, that of the people who did bad things.

Let's be clear, soldiers of the Soviet Union did human rights abuses during and after WWII.  Is it possible that such talks can help prejudices about people from the Soviet Union (or Russian) to continue?

Let's talk about rape

Rape is a crime.  It is a human rights abuse.  Willful rape is without excuse.  Let's be clear about that.

The thing is......while not seeking to excuse the men (and in this regard it was only men, as far as we know anyway; unlike the Wehrmacht there were women in the Soviet Army) who raped women during and after WWII, there are a few facts that need to be drawn into account.  The Soviet Union suffered massively in the war (see here,  though bear in mind that the figure given of deaths is wrong, and is more commonly estimated to be between 25-30m.  A key thing to focus upon is the treatment of Soviet POW's that led to the death of around 3.3m soldiers).  The men and women of the Soviet Army had lost family and friends during the war.  They also, again unlike the members of the Wehrmacht had no holiday from the war.  They could not return home for a break.  From the 22nd of June 1941 they were at war, and that was that.

War does not humane behaviour make.  As the film 'Anonymous, a woman in Berlin' shows quite well, the members of the Soviet Army were people with trauma behind them, and were brutalised by the war; a war their government had indeed helped to start in 1939 but a war which devastated millions of people in the Soviet Union.  Some of the men in the film were shown also to be young people, young people who actually fell in love with the women, who thought that they had started a relationship with them.

None of this excuses rape, or takes away or relativises the suffering of the women raped in Breslau after WWII.  I am just saying that the men who committed rape were human beings and it is possible that they were people traumatised by and unable to deal with war.  I am not advocating forgetting what happened, or saying that rape is OK, rather, I am trying to understand why it happened.

Hands open to the east

To be clear: I am not against such talks as the one last week.  I am not against the work of the aforementioned organisations that deal with Poles and Germans.  I am also not against the moderation of the talk last week.  I think I have been clear in saying that they are vital.  How, though to deal with the danger of strengthening the 'evil' figure of Soviets?

May I suggest the following: 

A greater education of not only the crimes suffered by Poles (and also some Germans) is needed, but also that of Soviets?  Seriously; did you know how many Soviet POW's died during WWII?  In my tours in Berlin I do not believe I have ever met anyone who knew that so many people died (more Soviet POW's died and non-Jewish Poles or than British and American casualties during both WWI and WWII together).

German-Polish work to be expanded into German-Russian and Polish-Russian.  Interestingly I shared my view regarding how Russians were spoken about with two Poles and both agreed with me, one saying that Polish is not yet ready to open the hand to Russians.  Bear in mind that Soviet citizens were also victims of Soviet crimes after 1945.  Many POW and forced labour camp survivors were executed.  Perhaps Poles could learn that Soviets also suffered and died due to Soviet policies (through the NKWD).

Perhaps events such as that in Krzyż can also take place in L'viv, Lut'sk, Brest and Vilnius, enabling expellees who now live in each of these countries could share their experiences?  Perhaps then young people in those areas would hear a wider narrative than that given to them by their families and schools?

The Edith Stein House

In this talk it has showed itself to be focussed on the 'other', not on the people in the 'we' group, but rather on people who have different and occasionally contradictory and even opposing views.  Long may the focus on the 'other' and its relationship with the 'we-group' continue.

To return to Ursula Waage, here you can hear her speak (in German).  Her book shall be translated into Polish so look out for it.  Otherwise you can read it in German.  Otherwise the final segment of the Edith Stein House's 'Three Women' series is with Sonia Winterburg on Wednesday the 31st of May at 6pm, where she shall talk of themes known to regular readers of this blog: war and trauma.

* The German word 'Zeitzeugen' is one of the most falsely translated words into English, often being translated as 'eye witnesses'.  This is false.  'Eye-witness' in German is Augenzeuge and in both English and German means someone who witnessed but was not the main character influenced by a historical event (say, of a crime on the street).  'Zeitzeugen' rather means someone who was directly influenced by the event and are reporting their own story.  They serve as living evidence of something historical (unlike, say, documentation of records of statistics) and therefore are 'historical witnesses' of their own experiences.  See Harold Marcuse for more information on this term.  Depending on what they have experienced, they may also be titled as Shoah or genocide survivors, dependent on whether it could be considered that their death would have been likely, such as with the Shoah or genocide in Srebrenica.