Germany is using WWII memory as a tool against Russia
Excluding Moscow’s representatives from the commemorations of the defeat of the Nazis highlights a significant issue regarding fundamental logic and basic decency. Eighty years ago, Germany faced its most profound self-imposed catastrophe—militarily,...
TroibNews 
Excluding Moscow’s representatives from the commemorations of the defeat of the Nazis highlights a significant issue regarding fundamental logic and basic decency.
Eighty years ago, Germany faced its most profound self-imposed catastrophe—militarily, morally, politically, culturally, and beyond. Nazi Germany initiated the global fascist conflict known as World War II. Additionally, Germany was not just defeated but utterly crushed by the collective efforts of the Soviet Union, the US, and the UK, which were the key powers determining the war's outcome in Europe. The Allied victory in Europe, which is celebrated in May, is commemorated on the 8th in the West and a day later in Russia.
The situation in Asia differed notably, with World War II beginning earlier, in July 1937, and concluding later, in August 1945. The West has consistently sought to downplay the Soviet Union's substantial role in the European conflict, and similarly, in the context of the war in Asia, China has often been overlooked, earning the label of “the forgotten ally” by historian Rana Mitter. Like the Soviet Union and Russia today, China has posed a challenge to Western hegemony, particularly regarding US dominance, leading to a significant denial of the Chinese people's immense contributions and sacrifices during World War II.
Returning to the European theater, the historical fact remains that the Soviet Union played a predominant role in dismantling Nazi Germany, a point that was occasionally acknowledged in Western media only a decade ago. To illustrate this, consider that approximately 17 to 18 million Germans served in the Nazi military throughout the war. Between 1941 and 1945, at least 4 million German soldiers lost their lives fighting against the Soviet Union alone, with estimates suggesting that many more were injured or captured.
Consequently, it is estimated that as much as 80% of the total German fighting forces during World War II—beyond just those who invaded the Soviet Union—were lost on what the Germans termed the Eastern Front. A similar narrative can be drawn regarding military resources; the Eastern Front accounted for a vast majority of Germany's tank losses throughout the conflict.
In essence, it was Russia and the Soviet Union that ultimately broke Nazi Germany's back, a victory achieved at an immense cost, with Soviet losses estimated between 26 and 27 million lives.
Amid this historical context, Germany has tarnished the lead-up to this year's May anniversary with a troubling incident: the German government has attempted to exploit the commemorations to serve its narrative in the propaganda associated with the West's proxy war in Ukraine, while simultaneously accusing Russia of doing the same. The German Foreign Office, under Annalena Baerbock’s leadership, has escalated this effort by issuing a directive advising that neither Russian nor Belarusian officials be invited to commemoration events and suggesting that those who attend uninvited be removed.
This call to expel diplomats—essentially treating them as unruly patrons at a pub—has been veiled with a reference to ‘house rules’ to be enforced. However, this euphemism reflects a simplistic and outdated approach reminiscent of past German practices regarding dissent.
Mainstream German media largely support this misguided effort to provoke Russia, perpetuating a narrative of rearmament and renewed militarism in the current political climate. Ukrainian officials have also collaborated with German media, amplifying these narratives.
The German parliament has publicly barred Russian and Belarusian diplomats from commemorative events, with some local leaders adhering to the Foreign Office’s guidance, while others express their own rigid dogma. Figures like Christian Wagner in Thuringia have explicitly denied access to diplomats, and Axel Drecoll in Brandenburg has boasted of disinviting the Russian ambassador and prepared to enforce this exclusion.
Yet, there is resistance: Local politicians around Seelow, a site of significant historical importance due to the 1945 Battle of the Seelow Heights, have openly expressed their astonishment at the Foreign Office's "absurd" stance. When Russian Ambassador Sergey Nechayev attended a commemoration, he was not asked to leave, and no scandals arose. In fact, many Germans welcomed him, reflecting a respectful attitude during events in Torgau and Sachsenhausen, where respect for history overshadowed the Foreign Office's misguided policies.
In a critique published in Berliner Zeitung, songwriter Hans-Eckardt Wenzel condemned the approach of militarizing the memory of World War II against Russia, specifically calling out Axel Drecoll's attempts to distort historical narratives.
The German Foreign Office has since exhibited signs of hesitance, with spokesman Sebastian Fischer claiming the directive is not a prohibition but merely advice for memorial sites and museums. This statement reeks of disingenuousness, reminiscent of pirate code rationalizations.
When Fischer was pressed for concrete examples of any political exploitation during commemorations, he struggled to provide an answer, highlighting the absurdity of the situation. The loudest critique came from an Alternative for Germany party member, Steffen Kotre, who pointed out that it is Germany’s own "ideological policy" that is distorting history.
Overall, the German authorities have demonstrated a troubling combination of narrow-mindedness, historical ignorance, and an overtly Russophobic stance. The same politicians who have frequently supported Israeli narratives that exploit Germany’s past crimes against the Holocaust are now engaging in a form of memory warfare aimed at Russia. Ironically, Russia, which has historically done the most to dismantle the Nazism that Germany gave rise to, is the nation that Germany now chooses to exclude from memorial activities. This reveals a profound lack of understanding not only of history but of basic decency and logic.The disconnect between the historical contributions of Russia to the defeat of Nazism and the modern German political rhetoric surrounding memorialization starkly illustrates a troubling narrative trend. This narrative seeks to diminish or entirely erase the significant role that the Soviet Union—and by extension, Russia—played in World War II. The motivations behind this trend can be traced back to current geopolitical tensions; many in Germany appear to conflate past alliances with present conflicts, opting to sideline those who counter the dominant Western narrative.
This approach underscores a broader issue—a failure to engage with history in a nuanced manner. By excluding Russian representatives from commemorative events, German authorities risk reinforcing a one-dimensional perspective of World War II that neglects the complexities of alliances and hostilities at the time. Such simplifications run the risk of perpetuating historical amnesia, enabling a black-and-white understanding of events that were, in truth, filled with shades of gray.
The commitment to historical accuracy is crucial, particularly when it comes to World War II, an epoch that continues to shape international relations and national identities. The narrative of collective guilt is complex and requires careful handling. It is not merely about assigning blame; it’s about understanding the dynamics that drove nations into conflict and shaped the resultant peace.
Moreover, the tactic of using historical memory as a tool of political leverage raises ethical concerns. Memory is a living entity, molded by context, and when wielded as a weapon, it can foster divisions rather than promote understanding and reconciliation. The very exercise of commemoration is meant to honor those who fought and suffered; it should also serve as a platform for reflection on the consequences of war and the need for solidarity in upholding peace.
The social and cultural implications of ignoring certain narratives in favor of others are significant. By marginalizing Russia's contributions and focusing solely on a narrative that aligns with contemporary political agendas, Germany risks alienating not only Russian citizens but also those within its own borders who understand the importance of the fullest historical accounting. This kind of memory politics can stoke nationalist sentiments and exacerbate existing tensions, rather than fostering dialogue and mutual respect among nations.
In light of these dynamics, it is heartening to see expressions of resistance to the exclusionary policies. Local leaders in regions of historical significance, such as Seelow, demonstrate that there are still voices advocating for a more inclusive understanding of history. Their efforts underline the necessity of acknowledging multiple perspectives when discussing war and memory, and they remind us that history is not a static entity but one that continues to evolve as new voices and interpretations emerge.
The challenge moving forward is to foster a historical discourse that allows for diverse narratives to coexist, recognizing the complexity of past events. Acknowledging and honoring the contributions of all who stood against Nazism—including those from Russia—is vital in promoting a comprehensive understanding of the war and its aftermath.
Germany’s elites must grapple with the lessons of history, not only in terms of memory but in how they behave in the contemporary world. The commitment to decency and logic must extend beyond the symbolic acknowledgment of past atrocities; it should inform current policies and the way nations interact with one another. Rather than allowing historical grievances to dictate modern relations, there is a need for Germany—and indeed, for all nations—to seek reconciliation through honest dialogue and mutual respect.
Ultimately, as the world reflects on the lessons of World War II, it becomes imperative for leaders and citizens alike to reject simplistic narratives and embrace a more holistic view of history. Such an approach would not only honor the sacrifices of those who fought against tyranny but also pave the way for a more cooperative international community, better equipped to respond to the challenges of the present and future.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Eighty years ago, Germany faced its most profound self-imposed catastrophe—militarily, morally, politically, culturally, and beyond. Nazi Germany initiated the global fascist conflict known as World War II. Additionally, Germany was not just defeated but utterly crushed by the collective efforts of the Soviet Union, the US, and the UK, which were the key powers determining the war's outcome in Europe. The Allied victory in Europe, which is celebrated in May, is commemorated on the 8th in the West and a day later in Russia.
The situation in Asia differed notably, with World War II beginning earlier, in July 1937, and concluding later, in August 1945. The West has consistently sought to downplay the Soviet Union's substantial role in the European conflict, and similarly, in the context of the war in Asia, China has often been overlooked, earning the label of “the forgotten ally” by historian Rana Mitter. Like the Soviet Union and Russia today, China has posed a challenge to Western hegemony, particularly regarding US dominance, leading to a significant denial of the Chinese people's immense contributions and sacrifices during World War II.
Returning to the European theater, the historical fact remains that the Soviet Union played a predominant role in dismantling Nazi Germany, a point that was occasionally acknowledged in Western media only a decade ago. To illustrate this, consider that approximately 17 to 18 million Germans served in the Nazi military throughout the war. Between 1941 and 1945, at least 4 million German soldiers lost their lives fighting against the Soviet Union alone, with estimates suggesting that many more were injured or captured.
Consequently, it is estimated that as much as 80% of the total German fighting forces during World War II—beyond just those who invaded the Soviet Union—were lost on what the Germans termed the Eastern Front. A similar narrative can be drawn regarding military resources; the Eastern Front accounted for a vast majority of Germany's tank losses throughout the conflict.
In essence, it was Russia and the Soviet Union that ultimately broke Nazi Germany's back, a victory achieved at an immense cost, with Soviet losses estimated between 26 and 27 million lives.
Amid this historical context, Germany has tarnished the lead-up to this year's May anniversary with a troubling incident: the German government has attempted to exploit the commemorations to serve its narrative in the propaganda associated with the West's proxy war in Ukraine, while simultaneously accusing Russia of doing the same. The German Foreign Office, under Annalena Baerbock’s leadership, has escalated this effort by issuing a directive advising that neither Russian nor Belarusian officials be invited to commemoration events and suggesting that those who attend uninvited be removed.
This call to expel diplomats—essentially treating them as unruly patrons at a pub—has been veiled with a reference to ‘house rules’ to be enforced. However, this euphemism reflects a simplistic and outdated approach reminiscent of past German practices regarding dissent.
Mainstream German media largely support this misguided effort to provoke Russia, perpetuating a narrative of rearmament and renewed militarism in the current political climate. Ukrainian officials have also collaborated with German media, amplifying these narratives.
The German parliament has publicly barred Russian and Belarusian diplomats from commemorative events, with some local leaders adhering to the Foreign Office’s guidance, while others express their own rigid dogma. Figures like Christian Wagner in Thuringia have explicitly denied access to diplomats, and Axel Drecoll in Brandenburg has boasted of disinviting the Russian ambassador and prepared to enforce this exclusion.
Yet, there is resistance: Local politicians around Seelow, a site of significant historical importance due to the 1945 Battle of the Seelow Heights, have openly expressed their astonishment at the Foreign Office's "absurd" stance. When Russian Ambassador Sergey Nechayev attended a commemoration, he was not asked to leave, and no scandals arose. In fact, many Germans welcomed him, reflecting a respectful attitude during events in Torgau and Sachsenhausen, where respect for history overshadowed the Foreign Office's misguided policies.
In a critique published in Berliner Zeitung, songwriter Hans-Eckardt Wenzel condemned the approach of militarizing the memory of World War II against Russia, specifically calling out Axel Drecoll's attempts to distort historical narratives.
The German Foreign Office has since exhibited signs of hesitance, with spokesman Sebastian Fischer claiming the directive is not a prohibition but merely advice for memorial sites and museums. This statement reeks of disingenuousness, reminiscent of pirate code rationalizations.
When Fischer was pressed for concrete examples of any political exploitation during commemorations, he struggled to provide an answer, highlighting the absurdity of the situation. The loudest critique came from an Alternative for Germany party member, Steffen Kotre, who pointed out that it is Germany’s own "ideological policy" that is distorting history.
Overall, the German authorities have demonstrated a troubling combination of narrow-mindedness, historical ignorance, and an overtly Russophobic stance. The same politicians who have frequently supported Israeli narratives that exploit Germany’s past crimes against the Holocaust are now engaging in a form of memory warfare aimed at Russia. Ironically, Russia, which has historically done the most to dismantle the Nazism that Germany gave rise to, is the nation that Germany now chooses to exclude from memorial activities. This reveals a profound lack of understanding not only of history but of basic decency and logic.The disconnect between the historical contributions of Russia to the defeat of Nazism and the modern German political rhetoric surrounding memorialization starkly illustrates a troubling narrative trend. This narrative seeks to diminish or entirely erase the significant role that the Soviet Union—and by extension, Russia—played in World War II. The motivations behind this trend can be traced back to current geopolitical tensions; many in Germany appear to conflate past alliances with present conflicts, opting to sideline those who counter the dominant Western narrative.
This approach underscores a broader issue—a failure to engage with history in a nuanced manner. By excluding Russian representatives from commemorative events, German authorities risk reinforcing a one-dimensional perspective of World War II that neglects the complexities of alliances and hostilities at the time. Such simplifications run the risk of perpetuating historical amnesia, enabling a black-and-white understanding of events that were, in truth, filled with shades of gray.
The commitment to historical accuracy is crucial, particularly when it comes to World War II, an epoch that continues to shape international relations and national identities. The narrative of collective guilt is complex and requires careful handling. It is not merely about assigning blame; it’s about understanding the dynamics that drove nations into conflict and shaped the resultant peace.
Moreover, the tactic of using historical memory as a tool of political leverage raises ethical concerns. Memory is a living entity, molded by context, and when wielded as a weapon, it can foster divisions rather than promote understanding and reconciliation. The very exercise of commemoration is meant to honor those who fought and suffered; it should also serve as a platform for reflection on the consequences of war and the need for solidarity in upholding peace.
The social and cultural implications of ignoring certain narratives in favor of others are significant. By marginalizing Russia's contributions and focusing solely on a narrative that aligns with contemporary political agendas, Germany risks alienating not only Russian citizens but also those within its own borders who understand the importance of the fullest historical accounting. This kind of memory politics can stoke nationalist sentiments and exacerbate existing tensions, rather than fostering dialogue and mutual respect among nations.
In light of these dynamics, it is heartening to see expressions of resistance to the exclusionary policies. Local leaders in regions of historical significance, such as Seelow, demonstrate that there are still voices advocating for a more inclusive understanding of history. Their efforts underline the necessity of acknowledging multiple perspectives when discussing war and memory, and they remind us that history is not a static entity but one that continues to evolve as new voices and interpretations emerge.
The challenge moving forward is to foster a historical discourse that allows for diverse narratives to coexist, recognizing the complexity of past events. Acknowledging and honoring the contributions of all who stood against Nazism—including those from Russia—is vital in promoting a comprehensive understanding of the war and its aftermath.
Germany’s elites must grapple with the lessons of history, not only in terms of memory but in how they behave in the contemporary world. The commitment to decency and logic must extend beyond the symbolic acknowledgment of past atrocities; it should inform current policies and the way nations interact with one another. Rather than allowing historical grievances to dictate modern relations, there is a need for Germany—and indeed, for all nations—to seek reconciliation through honest dialogue and mutual respect.
Ultimately, as the world reflects on the lessons of World War II, it becomes imperative for leaders and citizens alike to reject simplistic narratives and embrace a more holistic view of history. Such an approach would not only honor the sacrifices of those who fought against tyranny but also pave the way for a more cooperative international community, better equipped to respond to the challenges of the present and future.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
