The Museum Für Deutsche Geschichte and German National Identity

The Museum fiir Deutsche Geschichte and
German National Identity

H. Glenn Penny III
Nichts ist zarter als die Vergangenheit;

Riihre sie an wie ein gliihend Eisen:
Denn sie wird dir sogleich beweisen
Du lebest auch in heisser Zeit.
— Goethe, Zahme Xenien, 1821
Dritte Reihe, Vers 25
In geschichtslosem Land die Zukunft gewinnt, wer die Erinnerung fullt,

die Begriffe pragt und die Vergangenheit deutet.
—Michael Sturmer, "Geschichte in
geschichtslosem Land" FAZ, 25 April, 1986
N
O T far from the Brandenburger Tor on Unter den Linden, visitors
to the Museum fiir Deutsche Geschichte (MfDG) entered Berlin's
most beautiful Baroque building. Built by Europe's finest architects
under the auspices of Prussia's kings, the Zeughaus once held a collection
of the nation's weapons and Prussia's trophies of war. But since its resto-
ration in the 1950s, this eighteenth-century edifice's long sculptured hall-
ways and high-ceilinged rooms housed the Marxist story of the German
people's struggle; images of Prussian peasants, Silesian weavers, and hard-
ened revolutionaries were arranged in glass cases, displayed upon walls
and surrounded by Socialist banners, Communist papers, and early Prot-
estant texts. Resurrected from the annals of Germany's past, these images
were brought together to fashion a German history, to create the founda-
tion for an East German national identity, and to provide legitimization
for the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED).
The MfDG actively formulated historical narratives geared toward
reeducating Germans about themselves and their past, and it housed a
record of the SED's identity politics from 1952-1989. Its quick elimina-
tion following German unification represents an unfortunate loss of an
I am grateful for the encouragement and assistance of Georg Iggers, Peter Fritzche, and
Jeffrey Herf while preparing this article. The credit is largely theirs and the responsibility
for any errors or shortcomings is mine.
343
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

344 THE MUSEUM FUR DEUTSCHE GESCHICHTE
historical artifact which exemplified how history museums manipulate the
past in order to legitimate the present, and analysis of the history created
in this museum and the rhetoric surrounding its function and displays
illustrates how history was crafted in the GDR and how the East German
version of German history as well as the essential base of SED legitimacy
changed over time. A close look at the history presented in the MfDG,
for example, shows us that the Marxist base of this history was far from
a static system, that the ever-changing present was mimicked by an ever-
changing past, and that tactical political considerations were at the base
of these changes. Moreover, an exploration of this museum and its fate
brings into question the rather self-assured use of history in Germany
today, as well as the viability and function of history museums in general.
History and historians played an integral part in legitimizing the Ger-
man Democratic Republic (GDR) and fashioning a new German identity
in East Germany. This political function is often noted by Western historians,
who have produced several articles and books concerning East Germans'
approach to history. Most of these, however, focus on the changing
historiography during the GDR's final years, such as Georg Iggers's vol-
ume on new trends in East German social history, or they have argued
for or against the validity of the East German historical project, as in
Konrad H. Jarausch's article on the failure of East German antifascism.1
The only substantial attempt to provide a comprehensive study of history
written in East Germany is Andreas Dorpalen's German History in Marxist
Perspective: The East German Approach, and it is Dorpalen's work which
has largely set the stage for the discussion of history in the GDR. 2
Dorpalen approached his topic from a critical, yet open perspective.
He noted that GDR historians were assigned a "role of considerable [po-
litical] importance" by the SED, which "called on historians to prove
that the socialist transformation of the East German state was in accord-
ance with established historical laws." Rather than attack GDR historians
for their political role, Dorpalen argued that "politically oriented histori-
ans—the Mommsens, and Treitschkes, the Guizots and Michelets, Macauley
and Carlyle—have long been a part of the historical landscape," and that
1. Georg Iggers, ed. Marxist Historiography in Transformation: East German Social History
in the 1980s, trans. Bruce Little (New York, 1991). Konrad H. Jarausch, "The Failure of
East German Antifascism: Some Ironies of History as Politics," German Studies Review 14
(1991); 85-102. See also Jarausch, ed. Zwischen Parteilichkeit und Professionalitdt. Bilanz der
Geschichtswissenschaft der DDR (Berlin, 1991); Alexander Fischer and Giinther Heydemann,
eds. Geschichtswissenschaft in der DDR, 2 vols, (Berlin, 1980-1990); and Iggers, "Einige
Aspekte neuer Arbeiten in der DDR iiber die neuere Deutsche Geschichte," Geschichte
und Gesellschaft 14 (1988).
2. Andreas Dorpalen, German History in the Marxist Perspective: The East German Ap-
proach (Detroit, 1985).

H. GLENN PENNY III 345
"complaints of Western critics that Marxist authors refuse to divest them-
selves of their ideological preconceptions are. . . pointless, for these critics
misunderstand the very nature of Marxist historiography."3 Thus recog-
nizing that historians are often politically oriented in both Eastern and
Western Europe, Dorpalen attempted to evaluate the history written in
the GDR without undue emphasis on the Parteilichkeit of East German
historians.4 His book provided Western historians with the first balanced
and sober picture of history in the GDR, and illustrated the value of, as
well as the deficiencies in their Marxist model. The portrait he presented,
however, had its own limitations; it was focused more on the Marxist
historical narrative than on the applications of history, and it did not
allow for change.
Neither Dorpalen nor subsequent historians have sufficiently examined
how the messages and identity constructions of GDR historians were
disseminated among East Germans, or how and why their historical nar-
rative changed over time. To date, efforts to deal with the importance of
history in the GDR have focused largely on East German historiography;
attempts to understand the national identity they constructed—and the
legitimization of the East German state as it was articulated to the popu-
lation at large—have been cursory at best.5 Analyzing the historical mes-
sages and identity politics surrounding the GDR's museums and monuments,
however, provides an excellent point of departure for locating the func-
tions of history in the GDR, and the fluctuations in the national and
cultural identity promulgated through East German historical institutions.6
It is the purpose of this essay to discuss why the SED built a museum
to promote a new German history, how it was initially constructed, and
how historians and the museum's curators conceived of its function. It is
also the purpose of this article to show that although the MfDG's perma-
nent display was well thought out and internally consistent, the tempo-
rary exhibits—which were hosted throughout the museum's lifetime—clearly
illustrate the changes which took place in the GDR's identity politics
from 1952-1989. Based on my analysis of these exhibits, I will argue that
strategic political considerations in the early 1970s led to the reformula-
tion of both the SED's historical legitimacy and the essential basis of
3. Ibid., 46-56.
4. For an analysis of the strong ideological parameters around West German historians
from 1945-1960 see Winifried Schulze, Geschichtswissenschaft in Deutschland nach 1945 (Munich,
1989).
5. See for example Henry Krisch, The German Democratic Republic: The Search for Iden-
tity, (Boulder, 1985).
6. One noteworthy attempt to move beyond the semiprivate discourse of historians
and into the political articulation of historical legitimization and nation building is Alan
Nothnagle, "From Buchenwald to Bismarck: Historical Myth-Building in the German
Democratic Republic, 1945-1989," Central European History, 26, no. 1 (1993): 91-115.

GDR national identity. Moreover, I will also argue that this did not
simply entail—as James Sheehan and others have claimed—the adoption
of a "more positive view of German history," a reevaluation of the reac-
tionary traditions of the German nation, or the recognition by the SED
that GDR national identity "would have to be created from its own
history as an independent state."7 The changing political environment in
the 1970s required a restructuring of German history, and a fundamental
relocation of the foundation of SED legitimacy. Consequently, the his-
tory presented in the MfDG shifted from a focus on German social his-
tory to a new and overarching international history—in which Germans
and the GDR were just one element in the international Arbeiterbewegung.
Part I: The Importance of History and the Role of the

Museum
In the years directly following World War II, the SED's predecessor, the
Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD), made the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of German cultural artifacts, historical monuments, and museums
a priority.8 This policy was continued by the SED after 1946, and the
SED's reconstruction of museums in the GDR was both noted and ap-
preciated in the West.9 Following the division of Germany and the crea-
tion of two states in 1949, however, the SED began increasingly to redefine
German culture, German history, and the role of museums and monu-
ments. The party's emphasis changed from simply rehabilitating German
cultural artifacts to building a strong national culture and society which
would reinforce socialist ideology. Consequently, the SED not only assumed
7. James J. Sheehan, "National History and National Identity," German Studies Review
(Winter 1992): 163—74. Although this is not an empirical article, Sheehan's evaluations
echo many scholars' work on the GDR, including Krisch and Jarausch; see also Jan Herman
Brinks, Die DDR-Geschichtswissenschaft auf dent Weg zur deutschen Einheit. Luther, Friedrich
II und Bismarck als Paradigmen politischen Wandels, (New York, 1992). While these histori-
ans have emphasized the MfDG's tendency to heroize and uncritically embrace the Prus-
sian heritage and Martin Luther during its later years, their evaluations have not recognized
the degree to which the rehabilitation of Luther and others took place as part of a fun-
damental change which relocated GDR legitimacy in an international myth rather than
Germany's national pasts.
8. Rolf Kiau, "Zur Entwicklung der Museen der DDR," Neue Museumskunde 12, no. 4
(1969).
9. Because of the number of excellent museums in Berlin, the museum communities of
the world were concerned with the state of the artifacts, artworks, and the museums
themselves following Berlin's devastation during the war. Correspondents from through-
out Germany visited Berlin to assess the damage, as did many from the former Allied
nations, and their reports of East German efforts were generally quite favorable. See for
example: Herbert v. Buttlar, "Vom Aufbau der Berliner Museen," Games Deutschland:
Freie Wochenzeitung 5, no. 33 (Heidelberg and Stuttgart, 1953): 6. "Die Berliner Museen
in neuer Gestalt," Die Weltkumt (15 May 1956): 8. Otto Kurz, "The Present State of the
Berlin Museums," Burlington Magazine, 641 (August 1956): 235-38.

ownership of the museums and collections within its territory but it quickly
began building its own museums and creating its own collections. A cen-
tral historical institution involved in this process was the Museum fur
Deutsche Geschichte (MfDG). This museum provided a power base for
Marxist-Leninist historians, acted as a central organ for history in the
GDR, and set the tone for both academic research and popular education
concerning German history.
The MfDG's standing display was created over a period of fifteen years
as the old Prussian Zeughaus was painstakingly rebuilt and refurbished.
Sections of the exhibit were put into place during the building's recon-
struction, until the years 1789-1949 found their expression in a perma-
nent exhibit which portrayed the history of the Germans as an ongoing
struggle between progressive forces—workers, revolutionaries, the com-
mon people—against the forces of reaction—capitalists, imperialists, fascists.10
The museum's exhibits illustrated the long and often tortuous struggle of
the German working classes as they battled immense odds and a series of
powerful oppressors until they reached their final triumph in the found-
ing of a workers' state—the GDR. The purpose of these exhibits was
thus to educate the Germans about their heritage by clearly illustrating
that the humanistic traditions of the German people provided the foun-
dation for the GDR, as well as to articulate a "scientific-historic" worldview
and to place the new society in that world. The MfDG was an ideal site
for this endeavor; it provided a space in which Germans and people from
other countries could be systematically guided through the history of this
great conflict in a way that was clear and controlled, and that impressed
on visitors their own role in this drama.
Because the MfDG was meant to illustrate the history of the German
people and their struggles against Germany's repressive forces, it was re-
garded in the GDR as the pinnacle of museum development. In an arti-
cle in Bildende Kunst, for example, Heinz Mansfeld discussed the long
heritage of German museums, portraying their progression from princely
treasure troves to houses of the nation's cultural treasures and institutions
of public education, and he argued that the MfDG was the natural extension
10. The reconstruction of the building lasted from 1952-1967. The standing display
was established in sections—(1789-1871) in 1962, (1933-1945) in 1963, (1945-1949) in
1964, (1900-1919) in 1965, (1919-1933) in 1966, and (1871-1900) in 1967—as each
area of the building was completed. The order in which the displays were created de-
pended on the progress of the reconstruction and accounts for the fact that they were not
established chronologically. These displays were thus an integral part of the building's
reconstruction. They were supplemented by temporary exhibits held in both the Zeughaus
and the museum's secondary facility at Clara-Zetkin-Strasse 26. During the 1970s sections
on the early history of Germany and Europe and the history of the GDR were added to
the permanent display, completing its portrayal of German history from the earliest times
to the present.

of this trend.11 He noted the role of Goethe and other "Germanists" who
promoted the display of German culture in Heitnat museums, where peo-
ple could come and learn about themselves, and he argued that this
movement toward "die Bildung des Volkes" progressed steadily into the
twentieth century. He also argued that the next step in this movement
would be the creation of a museum to illustrate the entire history of the
German people and that "diese letzte Konsequenz der Museumsentwicklung
ist am 19. Januar 1952 mit der Griindung des Museums fur Deutsche
Geschichte in Berlin verwirklicht worden."12
By an intriguing twist of logic, the history of museums provided the
historical legitimacy for the creation of the MfDG, and the MfDG in
turn provided the historical legitimacy for the GDR. It was expected to
sanction the GDR by illustrating the "true" historical development of the
German people and clearly depicting the GDR as the culmination of
progressive forces in German history. This goal was made clear in Min-
ister President Otto Grotewohl's speech at the founding of the museum,
during which he claimed that the reactionary history written in Germany
until 1945 had "alle humanistischen, revolutionaren und demokratischen
Traditionen aus dem Bewusstsein des Volkes getilgt," and that it was the
responsibility of the MfDG to reinform the German people about their
past and their inheritance.13 He declared that:
Unsere Aufgabe muss es sein, das Wirken der grossen Deutschen, wie
Miinzer und Luther, Herder, Lessing, Goethe, Schiller und Heine, Bach
und Beethoven, Leibniz, Kant und Hegel, Marx und Engels, Bebel
und Liebknecht, Zetkin, Luxemburg und Thalmann, von den
Zweckentstellungen imperialistischer Klopffechter zu befreien und ihr
leuchtendes Vorbild in unserem Volk und unserer Jugend zu verankern,
um sie zu ersten Kampfern fur die wahren, friedlichen und nationalen
Interessen des deutschen Volkes zu erziehen.14
11. Heinz Mansfeld, "Zur Geschichte der Deutschen Museen," Bildende Kunst 3, no 6
(1955): 447-50. The development of museums presented by Mansfeld portrays the gen-
eral changes and stages commonly depicted in Western texts on museums, yet it also
shows how the MfDG is the natural extension of this lineage. Cf. for example, Germain
Bazin, The Museum Age, trans. Jane van Nuis Cahill (New York, 1967); and Alma S.
Wittlin, Museums: In Search of a Usable Future, (Cambridge, 1970).
12. Ibid., 450.
13. A clear discussion of when the decision to create the MfDG was made, who was
involved in its foundation, the importance of the 7th meeting of the Central Committee
and the 3rd Party Congress, as well as the efforts to which historians such as Alfred Meusel
went in order to prepare the museum for its opening in 1952, can be found in Helmut
Heinz, "Die Griindung des Museums ffir Deutsche Geschichte (1952)," Jahrbuch fur Ceschkhte
20 (1979): 143-64; and Walter Schmidt, "Die Geschichtswissenschaft der DDR in den
fiinfziger Jahren," Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft 31, no. 4 (1983): 292-312.
14. "Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte—ein Trager und Mittler des Nationalbewusstseins,"
Neues Deutschland, (20 January, 1952): 3.

Just as German museums evolved from princely cabinets into socially
conscious institutions which were meant to facilitate people's understand-
ing of their heritage and destiny, German culture had evolved into a
socially conscious state that was the heir to the achievements of all the
"grossen Deutschen" from Luther and Schiller to Luxemburg and Thalmann.
By reconstructing the historical narrative in a way that linked classical
German figures such as Bach and Kant with leading Communists like
Thalmann, the SED effectively prepared itself to usurp German culture
and appropriate German history. At this point there was only one "Ger-
man people" and the SED was prepared to incorporate them into one
nation and one future.
Symbolic of the SED's attempts to appropriate the German cultural
heritage while rewriting German history was the party's decision to place
the MfDG in the old Prussian Zeughaus. The historians of the Zeughaus
touted the reconstruction of the almost completely destroyed Prussian
armory as a striking example of the SED's willingness to renovate Ger-
man cultural monuments, and they often stressed the parallel between the
building's history and the history of the German people. Winifried Loschburg
and Horst Biittner, for example, wrote that:
Die Geschichte des Zeughauses ist eng mit der preussischen und deutschen
Geschichte verbunden, ja man kann fast sagen, dass unsere Vergangenheit
dem Besucher hier zweifach begegnet: In den Ausstellungen des heutigen
Museums fur deutsche Geschichte und in den Schicksalen des Hauses.13
The Zeughaus dated from the eighteenth century and had housed na-
tional museums from the Wilhelmian through the National Socialist pe-
riods. Under these regimes it had functioned as a museum of conquest,
containing treasures won in battle and examples of weaponry from Ger-
man history. Consequently, the reoccupation of this eighteenth-century
baroque building by a museum which portrayed the "progressive forces"
in the history of the Germans—those who had opposed the military might
of the princes, kings, capitalists, and later the National Socialists—repre-
sented the usurpation of Germany's national identity and the break with
the national past. The Zeughaus had been plundered by the French, al-
most blown up by the Russians, the people had stormed it in 1848, and
they had rallied outside it in 1918. Now, finally, in 1953, the people
occupied it.16
15. Winfried Loschburg and Horst Biittner, Das Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, (Ber-
lin, 1960): 12.
16. The history of the building is a long one which is well illustrated by Loschburg
and Biittner. Their book contains a particularly good discussion of the building's recon-
struction in the 1940s and 1950s, as well as an explanation of the structural and cosmetic
changes which were made out of necessity and preference. They effectively show the

In the 1950s the SED was still considering the possibility of a united
Germany and it had no intention of simply constructing a separate East
German history. The party accordingly used the MfDG to help press for
a united Germany and to position itself to play a central role in a unified
German government. With these goals in mind the SED argued that East
Germany was the true German community, while West Germany was
simply a contrived construction supported by the Americans, who were
attempting to take control of the German soul by effectively taking con-
trol of the German past. Grotewohl, for example, argued that the Ameri-
cans had gained a hold over the historical institutions in West Germany:
Der amerikanische Hochkommissar McCloy eroffnete an der Universitat
Mainz ein mit amerikanischen Mitteln finanziertes "Institut fur europaische
Geschichte" und forderte von den deutschen Historikern, auf die
Beschreibung und Erforschung der deutschen Nationalgeschichte zu
verzichten und sie durch einen "Schuman-Plan der Geschichtsforschung"
zu ersetzen. Die Ford-Stiftung iibergab der sogenannten Freien Universitat
in Westberlin eine Million Dollar mit der Aufgabe, Gastvorlesungen
amerikanischer Lektoren zu fordern und ein Institut fur "europaische
Studien" aufzubauen.17
Grotewohl considered the American control over German historical insti-
tutes an outrage, and an American approach to German history through a
"Europa-Idee" as a "Schlag" against the German nation. What was taking
place, argued Grotewohl, was a war over German history and Germans'
birthright, and it was a challenge that the SED was prepared to meet.
The SED thus impressed on historians the importance of disseminating
a fresh and "accurate" vision of history to the entirety of the German
people so that they could clearly judge their current positions. Addressing
German historians in an urgent tone, Grotewohl declared that historians
carried a "grosse nationale Verantwortung" and that they were responsi-
ble for retrieving the people's history and heritage from the annals of the
"biirgerliche Geschichtswissenschaft." He assigned them the duty of cor-
recting the falsification of German history, and declared:
Die groBe Aufgabe der wahrheitsuchenden deutschen Historiker besteht
darum darin, diesen Wandlungsprozess zu durchforschen und die in
ihm liegenden berechtigten Lebensanspriiche der arbeitenden Menschen
zu begriinden und sichtbar zu machen. Wir konnen den Kampf um die
Einheit Deutschlands und fur den Frieden nur erfolgreich fiihren, wenn
expense, time, effort, and meticulous detail which went into its reconstruction. A shorter
alternative is: Heinz Quinger, Das Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte in Berlin: Die Geschichte
ies Bauwerks, (Leipzig, 1975).
17. "Trager und Mittler," 3 (see note 15).

wir uns auf die tiefe Kenntnis der historischen Entwicklung stiitzen
und mit dem Volk und seiner Geschichte fest verbunden sind.18
Grotewohl's strong emphasis on the relationship between historians and
the general population illustrates the importance and great responsibility
the SED assigned to historians. Moreover, by stating explicitly that the
war for German unity and freedom was connected directly to control
over the past, Grotewohl made it clear why the SED was so interested in
history and historians and why it was willing to invest heavily in histori-
cal institutions.19
European cultures have typically regarded museums as bastions of sci-
entific objectivity, temples of "truth" and "knowledge." This status pro-
vided GDR historians with a certain legitimacy from the very beginning,
and gave them a foundation on which they could build their "scientific,"
Marxist narrative. Equally important, the museum provided an easily accessible
public space where Germans could come with their families or friends
and learn about the past and their future during their free time. By care-
fully constructing the exhibits, and directing the visitor's progression through
the museum, GDR historians could insure that the museum's patrons
would be exposed to the entire story and all its ramifications before leav-
ing. Guides could help explain the displays and their implications, and in
this way historians could have more control over their message and more
exposure than they could gain through books. Moreover, because the
museum was the central historical museum in the GDR, regional muse-
ums looked to it for guidance. The East German historian Rolf Kiau, for
example, has noted that "die Arbeit des Museums wurde richtungweisend
fur die Geschichtsabteilungen der Regionalmuseen,"20 and Wolfgang Herbst
and Ingo Materna emphasized that the MfDG worked closely with other
institutions so that the Heimat museums' presentations of local history
stressed their regions' "unlosbar[e] Verbindung mit der Geschichte des
deutschen Volks."21 Thus established as the hub of history in the GDR,
historians in the MfDG proceeded to construct a new national identity
for Germans which was based on the "progressive" forces in German
history and which was meant to legitimate their new community.
18. Ibid., 3.
19. Ingo Materna argues that the creation of the museum involved "considerable pub-
lic expenditure, at a time when the battle to overcome the direct consequences of the
war was still being fought." Ingo Materna, "The Museum of German History, Berlin,"
Museum 29, no. 2/3 (1977): 88.
20. Kiau, "Zur Entwicklung," 429.
21. Wolfgang Herbst and Ingo Materna, "20 Jahre Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte,"
Neue Museumskunde 15, no. 1 (1972): 10.

Part II Organization, Objectives, and Temporary Displays
Neither the national identity promulgated by the SED nor the narrative
of GDR historians were static constructions; both changed with the po-
litical climate. Despite Andreas Dorpalen's portrayal of historical scholar-
ship as fairly uniform over time,22 an examination of the MfDG's displays
clearly illustrates that there were significant changes in the representation
of national and cultural identity. GDR historians in the 1950s rewrote
German history as the story of German social and cultural forces in opposition
to Germany's ruling elites. Initially, the national identity they attempted
to fashion in the MfDG was linked to a history of German achieve-
ments—including those of commoners and workers, as well as of unique
individuals such as Miinzer, Goethe, Beethoven, and Marx. This national
identity was oriented toward all Germans, and reflected the SED's desire
for a unified Germany from 1946 through the early 1970s. With the
advance of the Cold War and the eventual agreements following Ostpolitik,
however, unification faded in importance and GDR identity became increas-
ingly based on an international solidarity with the socialist nations in the
East.23 At the same time, the social history of the German people con-
structed in the MfDG gave way to a broader European history in which
German history was subordinated to the tale of an international struggle.
In this section I will discuss the creation of the permanent display in the
MfDG, the concepts and periodization which provided its framework,
how it addressed the visitor, how the curators and historians conceived of
its use, and I will illustrate that the museum portrayed an internally con-
sistent and unambiguous interpretation from early history through 1949.
In addition, I will argue that the temporary displays which were regularly
hosted by the MfDG are the most explicit indicators of the changes which
took place in the MfDG's representations of national identity, and based
on these displays and the discouses of historians connected to the MfDG,
I will illustrate how the MfDG's identity constructions changed over the
course of the 1960s—1970s, from being founded on the historical struggle
of the German people to being one element in a general, international
workers' movement.
The essential structure of the MfDG's permanent display was created
during the 1950s.24 During these early years, the curators and historians
responsible for the initial displays set up the basic framework of the
22. See Iggers's "Forword" to Dorpalen, German History, 18.
23. This took place after international diplomatic recognition was given to the GDR
in 1972.
24. Although the MfDG was founded in 1952, it remained in its temporary location at
Clara-Zetkin-Strasse until the interior of the Zeughaus was completed in 1967.

H. GLENN PENNY 111 353
museum's narrative, and began the collection of the materials which would
provide the substance of the museum's exhibits. After the decision was
made to establish the MfDG, the historians responsible for its construc-
tion recognized the need for material artifacts which would illustrate the
people's struggle against oppressive forces, and a call went out to the
general population urging them to bring forward or help locate historical
artifacts from Germany's past, particularly anything from or representing
one of the people's struggles. Sepp Miller, for example, argued that many
Germans probably had materials in their own homes that the museum
could use.
Viele Arbeiter haben bestimmt noch Briefe, Flugblatter, Photos, alte
Mitgliedsbiicher, Fahnen, Gegenstande, usw. von historischem Wert,
die im Museum der Allgemeinheit zuganglich gemacht werden konnen.
By bringing these items to the museum, Miller argued that people could
contribute to the representation of their history, and take part in the
construction of the people's museum. He emphasized that this was a nec-
essary, even essential project because,
was friiher den Werktatigen und besonders der Jugend in der Schule von
herrschenden Kreisen und den biirgerlichen Historikern als deutsche
Geschichte vorgesetzt wurde, war nicht die Geschichte des deutschen Volkes.25
Miller argued that what Germans had previously been told to have been
their history was actually only the story of a limited segment of the popu-
lation, and an inaccurate one as well. He argued that "die Rolle der
werktatigen Massen, der entscheidenden Gestalter der Geschichte, wurde
in der Darstellung der Geschichte bewusst ignoriert und geleugnet," and
that this situation had been perpetuated in order to keep the people in
ignorance of their place as the prime mover in history, and allow the
ruling classes to remain in control. In the new MfDG, however, the
author argued, the people would learn "die Rolle der Volksmassen in' der
Geschichte zu erkennen," and "was sie theoretisch aus Biichern und im
Unterricht lernen, soil durch die wissenschaftliche Darstellung der Geschichte
im 'Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte' wirkungsvoll unterstiitzt werden."
Pressing his point, the author assured the public that this was not to be
another museum built for "einen kleinen Kreis" but for the entire people,
and by arming the people with a "richtigen Verstandnis der Geschichte
des deutschen Volkes," the MfDG would propagate an "Entwicklung und
Festigung eines wahrhaft nationalen Bewusstseins."26
25. Sepp Miller, "Mehr Aufmerksamkeit dem Museum fiir Deutsche Geschicte," Neuer
Weg (21 November 1952): 40-42.
26. Ibid., 40.

In addition to collecting materials, GDR historians set to work deter-
mining the proper periodization and critical events in Germany's past,
and attempted to explain the unfolding of German history from man-
kind's earliest days until contemporary times by constructing a "scien-
tific" narrative around Marxism-Leninism.27 The essential framework of
this history was created during the mid 1950s, and was reflected in the
museum's first exhibits. At the outset approximately 85 historian and tech-
nicians led by Alfred Meusel began to construct a German history around
changing material forces and the means of production. For conceptual
purposes, German history was initially divided into seven major sections.28
Each section was assigned to a group of historians and technicians, and
each group determined a focus (Schwerpunkt) for its own period. As work
on the project progressed, the original sections were further subdivided
into smaller periods with their own focal points. The section on the
Middle Ages, for example, was divided into four parts: the origins of
feudalism, the complete feudalization of society, the development of Ger-
many until 1356, and the sharpening of class conflict and governmental
and church reforms.29 These sections were in turn further subdivided,
until history became a chain of historical elements which were given
impetus and motion by a series of critical moments: revolts, revolutions,
war, and repression.30
As the MfDG was completed in stages and it was laid out so that the
visitors' physical movement through the museum would mimic the pro-
gressive, upward movement of the people's struggle against oppressive
forces. After ascending the stairs from the displays portraying Urgeschichte
and the Middle Ages, the visitor entered the modern era. Patrons were
greeted by the French Revolution, which was portrayed as both a people's
27. The emphasis on the scientific nature of the museum was further reinforced by its
attachment to the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education. Materna, "The Museum
of German History," 88.
28. The initial divisions were: prehistory, 4th century A.D.-1517, 1517-1848, 1848-
1895, 1895-1918, 1918-1945, and contemporary history. Helmut Heinz, "Die Konzeption
der ersten Ausstellung im Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte 1952," Zeitschrift fiir
Geschichtswissenschaft 28, no. 4 (1980): 341.
29. Ibid., 344.
30. Decisions about the periodization, division, organization, and presentation of Ger-
man history often sparked controversy among the Marxist historians at the MfDG and
elsewhere. The leader of the section on the Middle Ages, for example, wanted to end his
period at 1500, but Meusel (see note 14) argued that 1517 initiated the Arbeiterbewegung,
and that it must be portrayed as the most significant turning point in German history.
Meusel argued that the German peasant revolt was "die erste gesamtnationale Bewegung
des deutschen Volkes" in which the people began to fight for their rights and develop
the heritage of the German nation. Therefore he demanded that Martin Luther's actions
be portrayed as both the end of the Middle Ages as well as the beginning of the modern
period and the German peoples' heroic struggle. Heinz, "Die Konzeption," 345.

movement and the spark for unrest in the German areas under French
rule. It was designed specifically to stress that the year 1789 was also the
"giiltige Epochenwende" for Germany, and that the revolutionary herit-
age of the German people was articulated in the ongoing fight for a
national state.31 As visitors exited this first chamber (1789-1815) they
were directed forward toward a series of twelve more rooms.32 Each room
was dominated by a central display which emphasized the critical event
in the respective period—the French Revolution and its impact on Ger-
man nationalism, the rise of capitalist development, the importance of
Marxism, the 1848 revolution, the fight for unification, the rise of impe-
rialism, the imperialist war of 1914, and fascism.
As the narrative unfolded, the pattern of going from one critical event
to another was consistently used to illustrate the progressive role played
by workers in molding the historical process and reactionary tendencies
in German history. The visitors' movement from one room to the next
was accompanied by a heightening tension between these elements, and
each central display was surrounded by supporting artifacts which high-
lighted the contrast between these progressive and reactionary forces. In
the room on the Great War, for example, a central display of modern
weaponry, sandbags, and huge, unexploded shells was surrounded by pho-
tographs, documents, statistics, and newspapers illustrating the ruthless and
antipopular policies of Imperial Germany's drive toward war. These were
juxtaposed with other documents which indicated the struggle and toil
surrounding the labor movement and a large placard stating "Nein zum
imperialistischen Krieg!" Pamphlets, brochures, Communist papers, and
photos of popular rallies and Marxist legends such as Liebknecht and
Clara Zetkin held out the promise of an alternative; the Great War, de-
pression, chaos, and fascism demonstrated the outcome of its denial.
The emotional thrust of the museum's exhibits was intertwined with
the scientific force of Marxism-Leninism. Historical laws informed the
fervent displays and explained the visitor's journey. Moving through the
displays made it increasingly clear that each phase in history owed its
origins to a new mode of production and a new economic system—
slavery, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism—and that during each phase
the elite who obtained control over these means of production also gained
the fruits of the workers' labors. Moreover, the exhibits emphasized that
these elites consistently attempted to maintain their hold over the people
through force and coercion, and by distracting them from their plight.
Thus imperialism, for example, was portrayed as a natural extension of
31. Ibid., 347.
32. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Lebendige Geschichte: Wegweiser durch die Ausstellungen
des Museums fur deutsche Geschichte, (Berlin, 1967/1968), 5.

356 THE MUSEUM FUR DEUTSCHE GESCH1CHTE
capitalism, and the Great War as a natural extension of imperialist aims—
a flight forward in an attempt to undermine the workers' increasing con-
sciousness. The GDR and Marxism-Leninism, by contrast, worked for
the people.
Stressing the importance of historical awareness, the museum's direc-
tors and curators saw the MfDG's central goal as consciousness raising,
especially among young people. School teachers were encouraged to bring
their classes to the museum, and in order to assist them, pedagogical
pamphlets were distributed which effectively illustrated how the museum's
creators conceived of its use. These pamphlets detailed the importance of
each display, discussed how to use the displays in individual rooms as
well as the entire museum to frame questions, and suggested sound peda-
gogical principles which emphasized the importance of challenging the
students, the use of pointed questions, and suggested tactfully guiding
students' inquiries so that they could come up with the answers on their
own. In 1970, for example, the MfDG published a booklet which broke
down the standing exhibit, room by room, and listed the critical themes
in each display.33 Armed with this booklet every teacher knew exactly
what to teach. And so that there would not be any confusion, several
lesson plans were included as well. Each plan walked the teacher through
the rooms, explained which display to begin with, suggested questions
for initiating conversation, and explained to the teacher what his or her
goals ought to be.
One plan dealing with the period 1815-1847, for instance, informed
the teacher that the critical event during this time was the 1844 Silesian
weavers' uprising, because it was the first serious rebellion against the
capitalists and the Prussian military state. This plan encouraged the teacher
to begin by bringing his or her students to the re-creation of two rooms—
a working family's kitchen, and a bourgeois living room. The example
recommended comparing the rooms, and calling attention to, or letting
the students discover, the differences in living conditions. The teacher
was instructed to discuss the working conditions versus the leisure condi-
tions, and then move on to the weavers revolt of 1844, which was referred
to as "die erste Klassenschlacht des Proletariats." The plan then further
discussed the displays on the accompanying walls—pictures of the weav-
ers storming an owner's house, examples of machinery, newspapers and
books proclaiming their heroism, and reminded the teacher to emphasize
pride (Stolz) in the heroic tradition of the workers' movement, the necessity
of freeing the working class, and the role of the Prussian military state.34
33. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Museumspddagogische Infortnationen (Berlin, 1970).

34. Ibid., 13-16.

The production and use of such guides helped the MfDG assure that
the museum's messages were uniform. Individuals who were not brought
by schools were encouraged to take guided tours—in which many similar
techniques were applied—and the museum's pamphlets and guidebooks
illustrated these same messages for those who chose to tour the building
alone. The Manichaean fight between the progressive and the oppressive
forces, between weavers and Prussians, between socialists and capitalists,
between Communists and fascists, between good and evil remained the
central focus in these guides, and the history constructed in the MfDG
clearly showed that the GDR, its precursors, and its allies were on the
correct side because the GDR had a solid, historically founded legitimacy
and identity which were clear and consistent.
While the MfDG's message may have been transmitted faithfully to its
visitors, neither its uniformity nor its emphasis on a united Germany
remained consistent over time. Henry Krisch argued in his book on GDR
identity that the GDR's relationship to German history fluctuated with
its relationship to the West. Consequently, the policy of Abgrenzung, which
"took on great importance" during the 1960s and early 1970s, was aban-
doned during the GDR's last years. In a sudden about face, following the
Ostvertrdge, the GDR began a "rediscovery of virtue in the German past"
in order to "appropriate as much of German history as possible and to
use if for buttressing the legitimacy of the GDR." 35 Andreas Dorpalen,
however, argued that the positive revaluation of German history identi-
fied by Western historians was initiated much earlier than most realized,
and Jan Herman Brinks, extending some of Dorpalen's observations while
still acknowledging a sea change in SED policy in the 1970s, has argued
that East German historians embraced this transformation because it cor-
responded to an historical outlook on the "national question" underlying
a significant amount of their work in the 1950s and 1960s.36 Yet in each
35. Krisch, The German Democratic Republic, 85-87. This emphasis on the sudden shift
of policy toward the past has been shared by several historians who have focused on the
later years of the GDR, such as James J. Sheehan, "National History and National Iden-
tity," and Konrad H. Jarausch, ed. Zwischen Parteilichkeit und Professionalitat (Berlin, 1991).
36. Brinks stresses the interrelationship of the historical profession and the political
ideological framework in the GDR and argues that historians occupied a critical place in
the academic sciences because of the function they served in legitimating the state. He
also claims that East German historians returned to a concept of a unified German history
in the 1970s and 1980s, and notes somewhat ironically that under Ulbricht they promul-
gated unification but stressed the differences between the reactionary West and the pro-
gressive East, while under Honecker they promulgated separation but pursued a common
German history. Yet in both cases unification and a shared German past were present to
some degree. See also the introductory essay by Georg G. Iggers in Dorpalen, German
History, 17.

case, if GDR identity was based on a historical narrative, and if this narrative
changed over time, then GDR identity must have fluctuated as well.
Such changes, however, are not readily apparent to historians who have
only analyzed the MfDG's standing display. References to the MfDG by
Western historians typically hold up the standing exhibit as representative
of the SED's relation to history and stress its outdated or "down-at-heel"
character.37 The permanent exhibit was created slowly over the first dec-
ade of the MfDG's existence, given a face lift in the late 1960s, and then
left essentially alone until the GDR dissolved in 1990. In other words,
by the mid 1970s the permanent display did not reflect many of the
subtle changes which had taken place in East-German historiography or
SED identity politics. Yet the MfDG was not created simply to house its
standing exhibit. It also hosted an ongoing series of temporary exhibits
which functioned as an integral part of the museum, and which articu-
lated current political concerns and revealed subtle shifts in GDR identity
during each re-representation of the past. Consequently, it is in these
temporary displays that we can see indications of fluctuations in the GDR's
historical narrative and identity politics, and the degree to which the pre-
sentation of history was altered in response to changing political trends.
Moreover, by examining these displays and the rhetoric around them we
can also see how the persistent theme of unification in East German his-
toriography detected by Brinks was subsumed within a more fundamental
international identity by the 1980s.
Temporary exhibits were an important part of the MfDG's project from
the very beginning. Histories and accounts of the MfDG's structures con-
sistently listed the temporary exhibits as indications of the museum's pro-
ductivity and importance.38 According to Kurt Wernicke, the temporary
exhibits were of equal if not greater value than the standing exhibit, and
were mainly responsible for attracting new visitors. He stated that "im
Geschichtsmuseum findet die standige Ausstellung ihre Erganzung in der
mit zeitlicher Begrenzung laufenden Sonderausstellung." Thus temporary
exhibits functioned to complete the message of the permanent exhibit,
focus in on specific problems in German history which were otherwise
neglected, give more detailed examples and explanations, and provide new
insight into critical historical moments or figures. Moreover, these exhib-
its—which were relatively short and compelling—grabbed the viewer's
37. See, for example, Charles S. Maier, The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and
German National Identity (Cambridge, 1988), 124—25; Sheehan, "National History," 165-
66; Ian Mitchell, "Reichstag Museum and Museum of German History," History Today
37 (Aug. 1987): 61.
38. Compare, for example, the lists of temporary exhibits in Wolfgang Herbst and
Kurt Wernicke, Das Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, (Berlin, 1969), 27-32; and in the
editorial in Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft 20, no. 7 (1972): 873.

attention by portraying critical periods in German history in greater de-
tail and often with more timely implications, thus bringing in new visi-
tors and stimulating regular ones as well.
The temporary exhibits, however, were not only used as a means for
gaining and maintaining patrons. They also had an explicit political func-
tion. As director of the MfDG, Wolfgang Herbst argued that socialist
history museums should not only offer explanations of the past but also
indications of how to deal with present concerns, and that current politi-
cal issues must first be grappled with in the Sonderausstellungen and then
later incorporated into the permanent exhibit.39 Thus he and Ingo Materna
noted that while creating the temporary exhibits "die Mitarbeiter des
MfDG bemiihten sich stets, mit der Wiirdigung des historischen Ereignisses
die aktuelle politische Aufgabenstellung zu verbinden."40 The political ob-
ligation of the museum, as Herbst explained, was to support the SED's
policies, and the temporary exhibits provided the best vehicle for dealing
with current concerns and contemporary commemorations:
Auch die Geschichtsmuseen haben, vor allem durch Sonderausstellungen,
Gedenktage genutzt, um im Riickblick und in Wiirdigung des jeweiligen
geschichtlichen Ereignisses die Politik der SED zu unterstiitzen und
den Blick der Besucher auf die nachsten Ziele beim Aufbau des Sozialismus
zu richten.41
The "next goal" in the building of socialism, however, changed signifi-
cantly over time as the SED moved from a policy of promulgating Ger-
man unity and promoting themselves as the inheritors of the German
humanistic tradition and the German workers' struggles, to grounding
their legitimacy in an international heritage shared most closely with the
socialist nations in Eastern Europe and the USSR. The temporary exhib-
its hosted by the MfDG reflected these changes and illustrated the impli-
cations of the SED's identity politics as they shifted over time.
The emphasis on unity and the coming together of the German people
was a central theme in the MfDG's Sonderausstellungen well into the 1960s.
The first display placed in the museum, for example, was a temporary
exhibit on Karl Marx, set up in 1953. This was part of the celebrations
initiated by the SED during "Karl-Marx-Year," and it was meant to honor
him and make the workers aware of his contributions to German and
world history. The emphasis of the display was on Marx as Germany's
39. Wolfgang Herbst, "Geschichtswissenschaft und Geschichtsmuseum," Zeitschrift fur

Geschichtswissenschafi 20, no. 1 (1972): 5-6.
40. Herbst and Materna, "20 Jahre Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte," 11.
41. Wolfgang Herbst, "Geschichtsmuseum und sozialistische Gesellschaft," Beitrage und Mittei-
lungen: Protokoll des wissenschajilichen Kolloquiums am 19.120. Januar 1912 (Berlin, 1972), 15.

"grossten Sohn" and on the need for German unity. Horst Haun noted,
for instance, that during this exhibit,
war der Ausstellungsabschnitt iiber die burgerlich-demokratische Revo-
lution 1848/1849 in Deutschland vorrangig unter dem Blickwinkel der
von ihr zu losenden "Hauptaufgabe," der "Schaffung einer einheitlichen
deutschen Republik," gestaltet worden.42
Promoting German unity while illustrating the role of economics in
German history remained a consistent theme in the MfDG's earliest diplays.
"Deutsche Stadt im Mittelalter," for example, was focused on the roles of
the various economic classes during the Middle Ages, with a special em-
phasis on the fight of the Burger for independence in the cities, and the
general plight of workers. Underlying this exhibit was an emphasis on
the shared experiences of the German lands, the shared plight of the
German people, and the "Zeugnisse der Kampfe und des Konnens unserer
Vorfahren in ganz Deutschland."43 Work in the cities was portrayed as
communal and mutually reinforcing, with early guilds acting as aggregate
units; collective bargaining with the aristocrary over taxes was depicted as
indicative of citizens' ability to pull together.
The most explicit depiction of the essential need for German unity was
presented during the display "Deutschland von 1789-1871" which opened
in January 1962. Like most of the displays created by the MfDG, this
illustrated the progress of German history toward a socialist present. Ad-
mission was free, hours were convenient, and guides were available to
lead guests through the series of rooms which housed the exhibit. This
exhibit was divided into five central sections, and the importance of German
unity was made clear from the beginning. The pamphlet produced as an
introduction to these displays stated "Die Geschichte Deutschlands im
19. Jahrhundert war die Geschichte des Kampfes um die nationale Einheit,"
and the emphasis on the people's struggle to bring about a German na-
tion, as well as their need for a German state were the overriding themes
of the exhibit.44 The first section (1789-1815) portrayed the importance
of the French Revolution as an inspirational event, and Germans as a
people who reacted to it with the desire to unite into their own nation.
The display also presented this movement as confounded by conservative
42. Horst Haun, "Die Karl-Marx-Ausstellung 1953 des Museums fur Deutsche Geschichte,"
Zeitschrifi fur Geschichtswissenschaft 31, no. 5 (1983): 420.
43. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Deutsche Stadt im Mittelalter, (Berlin, 1956).
44. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Deutschland von 1789-1871, (Berlin, 1962).This
display was later incorporated into the permanent exhibit and did not yet reflect the
Abgrenzung which became characteristic of SED policy following the Cold War's escala-
tion during the 1960s.

powers, aided by England, which worked to maintain the feudal system
and Germany's Zersplitterung.
The parallels between this depiction of the past and the recent events
in the Cold War era are clear. In both cases, conservative forces aided by
strong Western powers were blamed for preventing the unity of the German
nation, a nation which should be built on the people's interests and needs.
This message continued throughout the display: 1815—1840 was portrayed
as a period of retrenchment, but also one in which the freedom and
unity movements became stronger, culminating in the Hambacher festival
in 1832. The yean 1840-1847 illustrated that "der Kampf um die biirgerlich-
demokratische R e v o l u t i o n u n m i t t e l b a r mit d e m sich entfaltenden
Klassenkampf des Proletariats gegen die Bourgeoisie verbunden war," 45
and that the weavers' revolt—symbolizing the people's rejection of the
conservatives' system—sparked the revolution. Revolution in 1848-1849
showed that "die Einheit Deutschlands zur zwingenden Notwendigkeit,
[wurde]" and that the bourgeoisie put their interests above the interests
of the "nation." While the workers fought for changes which would
benefit all Germans, the bourgeoisie stood by and lined their pockets.
The period 1850-1871 was used to show that "die Einheit Deutschlands
war durch die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung zu einer dringenden N o t -
wendigkeit geworden," and to emphasize that the creation of a united
Germany could have come from either above or below. Because the bour-
geoisie were intent on preserving privilege, however, they chose to ally
themselves with Prussian militarism rather than with German society, and
the results of this decision were made clear in the pamphlet's conclusion:
Dass die staatliche Einigung nicht unter Fiihrung demokratischer Krafte

zustande kam, hatte verhangnisvolle Folgen fur die weitere nationale
Entwicklung Deutschlands. Das verscharfte alle inneren and ausseren
Gegensatze . . . Deutschland wurde der Ausgangspunkt zweier verheeren-
der Weltkriege. 46
Again, the parallels remain clear. Germany had previously ignored the
need for national unity, and had been led into an unholy pact with a
military might by its own social elites. The failure to heed the workers'
cry and to create a nation based on the people's interests had disastrous
results before, and threatened to do so again in the 1960s.
All the elements that Grotewohl and the SED had called for during
the MfDG's foundation could be found in this nineteenth-century por-
trait: the emphasis on the need for unity, the desire to show that the
people must be the foundation of the German nation, and the warnings
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.

against accepting aid from West. As Grotewohl had demanded, German
history and MfDG supported and promulgated the GDR as the inheritor
of the German people's movement and Germans' promise for the future.
The importance of unity was consistently stressed until the late 1960s,
and the themes of the temporary exhibits remained nationally oriented.47
Beginning in the late 1960s and following the Cold War's escalation,
however, identity constructions in the MfDG shifted, unity began to be
deemphasized and a stronger focus on the shared history of Germany,
Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union emerged as the dominant trope in
the museum's exhibits. Following cues from the 8th Party Congress,
Wolfgang Herbst encouraged the MfDG's historians and curators as well
as directors of regional museums to refocus their efforts on the Germans'
place in international history and especially the relationship between Ger-
many and the USSR:
Fur uns als Geschichtsmuseen erwachst daraus die Aufgabe, die deutsche
Arbeiterbewegung als Teil der internationalen Arbeiterbewegung
darzustellen und den Prozess der sozialistischen Integration in seinem
Wesen zu erfassen, regional und fur die gesamte Republik durch
Sachzeugen in den Ausstellungen zu belegen. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit
gilt dabei der Darstellung der Beziehungen zu der Sowjetunion.48
47. During their discussion of the temporary exhibits in the MfDG up until 1969,
Wernicke and Herbst provide a list of the exhibits staged during this period. All of the
exhibits up until 1966 focus on Germany and Germans, with the socialist movements in
the East left largely in the sidelines. Herbst and Wernicke, 1967, 29-31. The same list is
confirmed by Judith Uhlig, "Berichte und Bemerkungen: 20 Jahre Museum fur Deutsche
Geschichte," Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft 20, no. 7 (1972): 873-75.
48. Herbst, "Geschichtsmuseum und sozialistische Gesellschaft," 14. Throughout his
presentation at the colloquium in honor of the MfDG's 20th anniversary, Herbst stressed
the need to ground the evolution of German history in the "welthistorischen Prozess"
and argued that without a dominant international perspective a true Marxist-Leninist his-
tory could not be attained. This was echoed by many other presentations during the
colloquium, indicating the extent of consensus achieved following the 8th Party Con-
gress. Rudolf Forster, for example, in his discussion of regional museums, returns to
Herbst's call for an international grounding, and Karl-Heinz Mahlert not only repeat
Herbst's demands but quotes directly from the 8th Party Congress proceedings when
stating that "der erste deutsche Arbeiter-und-Bauern-Staat ist nicht nur das gesetzmassige
Ergebnis des mehr als hundertzwanzigjahrigen Kampfes der revolutionaren deutschen
Arbeiterbewegung, sondern zugleich auch 'Resultat und . . . aktiver Mitgestalter des
revolutionaren Weltprozesses, der unter Fiihrung der internationalen Arbeiterklasse und
der internationalen kommunistischen Bewegung gesetzmassig zum Sozialismus und
Kommunismus fuhrt." See Forster, "Uberlegungen zur Arbeit regionaler Geschichtsmuseen,"
and Mahlert, "Die Verwirklichung der Einheit von Geschichtswissenschaft und Geschichts-
museum am Beispiel der Vorbereitung einer standigen Ausstellung am Museum fur Deutsche
Geschichte," in Beitrdge und Mitteilungen: Protokoll des wissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums am 19.120,
Januar 1972, 80-86, 96-102. That these attitudes remain consistent into the 1980s is
made clear by reports in later colloquiums. See for example: Gregor Schirmer, "Zum 25.
Jahrestag des Museums fur Deutsche Geschichte," Beitrdge und Mitteilungen, Museum fur
Deutsche Geschichte 4 (1977): 11 — 19; the international colloquium covered in Beitrdge und

As the museum moved into the 1970s, the emphasis on the particular
character of German history began to wane, and the MfDG gained a
more international orientation. Exhibits such as the one on the German
peasant revolt—set up in 1975—still took place, but they were increas-
ingly accompanied by exhibits which had foreign themes and which illustrated
the solidarity between the GDR and other Eastern European countries.49
The change in the historical grounding of SED legitimacy directly affected
the national identity promulgated by the party and through the MfDG,
yet the new national identity which emerged in the 1970s did not appear
simply because the SED sought to create a new East German identity
based "on the GDR's history as an independent state." Moreover, this
identity shift was not as inconsistent or "uneven" as many Western historians
have argued.50 GDR national identity had always rested on the intersec-
tion of a German national identity with an international socialist identity.
What occurred in the 1970s was a shift in this intersection. Both ele-
ments coexisted throughout the GDR's lifetime, but in the earlier period
the German, national element dominated, while in the later half of the
GDR's existence internationalism was emphasized. Jan Herman Brinks
has come close to this assessment in his discussion of the persistent coexistence
of concepts of a common German history with themes of separate East-
ern and Western heritages/governments. Yet even in this case, the tendency
of Western historians to focus specifically on East Germany's relationship
to the German national past has obscured the degree to which German
history was recast during the 1970s as one episode in an international
struggle, and SED legitimization and the foundation for GDR national
identity were transferred from German history to an international history.
The temporary displays set up in the MfDG from the late 1960s through
the early 1980s exemplify this transition. The year after the exhibit on
Mitteilungen, Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, 8 (1982); Kurt Wernicke, "Einige Leitgedanken
zur Neufassung der standigen musealen Ausstellung 'Sozialistisches Vaterland DDR,'" Beitrdge
und Mitteilungen, Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte 11 (1985): 17-22. For further discussion
of the 8th Party Congress's impact on history in the GDR see Werner Berthold, "Forschungen
zu Theorie, Methodologie und Geschichte der Geschichtswissenschaft," Historische Forschungen
in der DDR, 1970-1980 (Berlin, 1980): 538-93.
49. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Die Gewalt soil gegeben werden dem gemeinen Volk:
zum 450. Jahrestag des Deutschen Bauernkrieges. Ausstellung des Museums fur Deutsche Geschichte
(Berlin, 1975). It should be noted that even this exhibit had a strong international tone.
Vera-Gisela Ewald's discussion of this exhibit, for example, stressed that this was not only
an important date in German history, but also in the history of the "internationalen
Arbeiterbewegung." See Vera-Gisela Ewald, "Sozialismus und geschichtliches Erbe. Die
Aufgaben des Museumswesens in der DDR," Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Wissenschaftliche
Zeitschrift: Gesellschafts und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 28 (1979): 313.
50. Sheehan "National History," 166; Krisch The German Democratic Republic, 83—87,
Jarausch, Zwischen, 16.

the peasant revolt, for example, the MfDG set up a display on the Polish
fight for freedom against the National Socialists. This display showed the
international character of the antifascist fight, Poland's contribution to the
war effort, the Polish people's sufferings and resistance during the war,
their development toward socialism, and emphasized the bases and obli-
gations for solidarity between the GDR and the Polish People's Republic.51
Not only were there an increasing number of exhibits on international
brotherhood, but the exhibits on Germany itself changed in character.
Georg Schirmer noted in 1975 that,
in den Sonderausstellungen tragt das Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte
dazu bei, den sozialistischen Patriotismus und den proletarischen Inter-
nationalismus, inbesondere die Freundschaft zur Sowjetunion zu verbreiten.52
This emphasis continued to take precedent in the museum's displays, so that
by 1980 the displays on German history were fundamentally different than
those of a decade earlier. German history ceased to be the history of one
nation and became one part of the development of international socialism.
The pamphlets printed in the early 1980s in conjunction with the
Sonderausstellungen on German history were not only longer, more colorful
and more detailed than those produced earlier, they were also more Eu-
ropean in orientation. The exhibit on German history from 500-1789,
set up in 1980, was heavily sprinkled with examples of international in-
fluences and effects on German development, which set it apart from
earlier portrayals of the German past.53 Feudalism was an international
problem, nationalist regimes were upper and middle-class creations which
broke apart workers' potential international solidarity, the role of Columbus
and the discovery of the New World were emphasized as key events in
the international history which had ramifications in Germany and the rest
of Europe, and revolutions and uprisings are traced throughout Europe as
the international movement progressed over time. Similarly, the exhibit
on Germany history from 1917-1945, set up a year later, paid particular
attention to the link between German Marxists and Soviet leaders, and
the discussions of each period spent as much time on Soviet history and
its impact on Germany as on the events or characters in Germany itself.54
These changes in presentation, however, are most striking in the display
51. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Fiir Frieden, Demokratie und Sozialismus: Polen
1939-1945. Ausstellung im Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte (Berlin, 1976).
52. Georg Schirmer, "Zum 25. Jahrestag des Museums fiir Deutsche Geschichte," Beitriige
und Mitteilungen des Museums fiir Deutsche Geschichte 4 (1977): 13.
53. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Ausstellung: Deutsche Geschichte 500-1789 (Ber-
lin, 1980).
54. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Ausstellung: Deutsche Geschichte 1911-1945 (Ber-
lin, 1981).

55
on German history from 1789-1917, which was created in 1982.
The 1982 exhibit on German history was quite different from the 1962
exhibit discussed above, and these differences reflect the evolution of the
MfDG's historical narrative and identity constructions during this twenty-
year period. The first obvious difference is the periodization.56 Both ex-
hibits began with the French Revolution, but the earlier one ended with
German unification while the later ended with the October Revolution.
One progressed toward a critical event in German history, the other to-
ward a critical event in international history. Additionally, while the di-
vision of the periods into sections was similar, the presentation of these
sections was distinctly different. The first section (1789-1830) in the 1982
exhibit, for example, began with a quote from Lenin rather than Marx,
and while the discussion of the French Revolution was similar to that
given in 1962, an emphasis on the importance of Russian troops for
ending Napoleon's domination of Germany and Europe was added to the
narrative. The second section in the 1982 exhibit—which led up to 1848—
discussed how the means of production changed, and how the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat emerged as the two most important groups in Germany.
The Hambacher festival was cited as the high point of the people's
movement, as it was in the 1962 exhibit, but missing from the 1982
exhibit was the importance of German unity, which had been the central
concern of this section in 1962. By 1982, German unity was no longer a
major consideration—for historians at the MfDG or otherwise. Similarly,
the section on 1848/1849 was no longer dedicated to the same German
revolution which had been portrayed to East Germans in 1962, rather
the 1848 revolution had evolved into one of several European revolu-
tions which took place together and which signaled an international de-
sire among the lower classes for socialism. The critical event according to
the 1982 narrative—and which was not even mentioned in the 1962
booklet—was the Paris uprising in June. The crushi'ng of this revolt was
depicted as the turning point for all of Europe. Moreover, German uni-
fication in 1871 was played down in the 1982 exhibit. The booklet which
accompanied this display stated simply that "[es] erhielt auch in den deutschen
Staaten die nationale Bewegung einen Auftrieb," and the visitor was shown
that German unification was just another example of nationalist movements
in Europe. The truly critical event in this period—according to the 1982
exhibit—was the establishment of the First International, and Marx's ad-
dresses to the German workers which encouraged them to ignore the
German victory of 1871 and return to solidarity with the French workers.
55. Museum fiir Deutsche Geschichte, Deutsche Geschkhte, 1789-1917 (Berlin, 1982).
56. The 1962 exhibit covered the years 1789-1871, while the 1982 exhibit began in
1789 and ended in 1917.

A similar emphasis on internationalism and the relationship of the Ger-
mans to this movement continued in the two sections of the 1982 ex-
hibit which went beyond the period covered in 1962. The section 1871—1900,
for example, began with another quote from Lenin, moved to the Paris
commune, and only afterward returned to German history. Once there,
the importance of this period for the GDR in 1982 was stated clearly:
Die Sozialdemokratie entwickelte sich zu einer revolutionaren marxistischen
Massenpartei. Sie wurde die angesehenste und einflussreichste Partei in
der internationalen Arbeiterbewegung.57
Emphasis was also placed on the Social Democrats' ability to tailor their
program in a way that created a mass party and on the importance of the
Second International. Further developments in German history were not
mentioned; instead, the exhibit focused on the workers and their place in
the international. The final section leading to World War I was similarly
constructed. The rise of German imperialism was discussed and was charged
with the responsibility for the war, but a full third of the discussion was
on events in Russia, the importance of the 1905 revolution, and the
approach of the big event—"Red October."58
Just as the 1962 exhibit on German history contained all the elements
Grotewohl had called for during the founding of the MfDG, so too did
the 1982 exhibit fulfill Herbst's appeals during the commemorations
of the MfDG's twentieth anniversary. The historical narrative put forth
by the MfDG shifted and changed in order to accommodate the SED's
new policies. History was reformulated according to current political concerns.
By the 1980s, the SED and the GDR were no longer portrayed primarily
as the culmination of the progressive forces among the German people.
The people's struggles in Germany became representative of people's struggles
worldwide, and the GDR's historical legitimization was shifted to an in-
ternational heritage. There is good reason to believe that the shifts in
identity politics which mimicked the SED's political goals were problem-
atic for the GDR, and that the national identity initiated after the Ostvertrdge
was less capable of eliciting the sort of national commitment they re-
quired from their citizens. Moreover, when the international alliance in
the East collapsed in the late 1980s, the basis for SED legitimacy and East
German national identity essentially collapsed with it. GDR historians
57. Ibid., 62.

58. This shift in emphasis from a need for a united Germany to a desire for an inter-
national community is reflected in the discourse surrounding the museum as well. In his
article "25 Jahre Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte," for example, Peter Mobius quotes
from Otto Grotewohl's speech during the MfDG founding, but leaves out any mention
of German unity or the fight over the German past. Similar examples abound.

had not only paved the way toward unification by embracing a broader
conception of German history, as Brinks has argued, but they also inad-
vertently contributed to the quick disintegration of the GDR by ground-
ing its legitimacy in this international movement. East Germans' material
situation was thus coupled with the fact that the SED's ideological
maneuverings had distanced them from earlier claims to German history
and their desire for a single German nation. Had they maintained the
national identity initiated in the 1950s, it is reasonable to assume that
East Germans might have been able to play a more active role in the
recent unification.
Epilogue: Museums, Myths, and Historians

When historians examine national identity as it is created and reflected in
museums, they must recognize that identity construction is more about
myth-making than critical evaluation of the past.59 The creation of na-
tional legitimacy in the modern or postmodern world is closely linked to
the fashioning of historical narratives and modern myths.60 This tendency
is exemplified in national museums, but it is by no means limited to
them, nor to the former Eastern Block countries—as a brief examination
of the MfDG's fate makes clear.
In the early 1980s, a series of successful exhibitions focused on German
history and a general surge of West German interest in the past renewed
calls for a German Historical Museum—a West-German response to the
MfDG.61 Enthusiastically backed by the Kohl government, this project
59. Historians and museologists examining museums in the United States and Europe
have identified this as a consistent and perhaps unavoidable element in museum exhibits.
See for example Daniel J. Sherman, Worthy Monuments: Art Museums and the Politics of
Culture in Nineteenth-Century France (Cambridge, 1989); the two excellent collections of
essays edited by Ivan Karp, Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display
(Washington, 1991); and Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture (Wash-
ington, 1992); the articles by Michael Wallace, "Visiting the Past: History Museums in
the United States," Radical History Review 25 (1981): 63-96; Annie E. Coombes, "Muse-
ums and the Formation of National and Cultural Identities," The Oxford Art Journal 11,
no. 2 (1988): 57—68; and Donna Haraway, "Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the
Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936," Social Text 11 (1984-1985): 20-64; and
the British anthologies by Gaynor Kavanagh, ed. Museum Languages: Objects and Texts
(Leicester, 1991); and Robert Lumley, ed. The Museum Time Machine: Putting Cultures on
Display (London, 1988).
60. See Nothnagle for the extent to which myth was employed in East Germany. For
consideration of the role of historical narratives in fashioning German national identity in
the West, we need only turn to the recent debates over national museums in the BRD or
the Historikerstreit. See for example Maier, Unmasterable.
61. The most influential of these exhibitions for initiating discussion for a German
history museum was "Preussen—Versuch einer Bilanz," held in Berlin in 1981. This dis-
play followed a series of successful exhibits during the previous five years, such as "Wittelsbach
und Bayern in 1980," and "Tendenzen der zwanziger Jahre," which was also held in

was publicly unveiled by the Chancellor at the thirty-fifth German His-
torical Congress in Berlin in October 1984, and was presented as a gift
from the Federal Republic to the city of Berlin on its upcoming 750th
birthday in 1987. A government committee of experts was soon commis-
sioned to formulate a Konzeption for the museum which, when finally
presented in 1986, was a "painstakingly balanced document, suffused with
didactic earnestness" that reflected the committee's attempt to negotiate
the heated controversy in both academic circles and the popular press
engendered by the decision to build this museum.62 Yet the dissension
that followed Kohl's proclamation was never over the ability of West
Germans to improve on the history presented in the Zeughaus or the
importance of history for German identity. As Beatrice Heuser has noted,
the "self-seeking perspective" was never seriously questioned during the
debate which arose around the planning of the Deutsches Historisches
Museum (DHM), because the "vigorous opposition" was not opposed to
"the search for identity." Rather conflict arose about who would control
the museum's organization and displays.63 The greatest fear expressed during
these debates was that "the powers-that-be would create a picture of
history that would legitimize not just the Federal Republic . . . but spe-
cifically the conservative regime and its politics."64 This fear, however,
Berlin in 1977. Suggestions for creating a German history museum were put forward
during the late 1970s by Wolf Jobst Siedler, Walter Scheel, and others, but according to
Christoph Stolzl these suggestions began to be seriously considered following the Prussian
exhibit. See Christoph Stolzl Das Deutsche Historische Museum: Ideen—Kontroversen—Perspectiven
(Frankfurt, 1988). The increased interest in history among West Germans in the 1980s
was pronounced by the initial commission of historians organized to draft a proposal for
the Deutsches Historisches Museum, which is reprinted in Stolzl, 61—66; similar points of
view are found throughout the volume in the various testimonies. The MfDG's role in
the desire among many West Germans to create a museum which would serve as a coun-
terpart or a corrective to the history found in the Zeughaus is made clear in this volume
as well. The MfDG appears in both his introduction as a problem which required a
response and in many of the articles included in his book.
62. Maier Unmasterable, 128. Stolzl's volume contains many German historians' stances
at that time. Critical evaluations of the museum controversy have been folded into many
American and English historians' assessments of the Historikerstreit, such as in Maier Unmasterable,
or Beatrice Heuser, "Museums, Identity and Warring Historians—Observations on His-
tory in Germany," The Historical Journal 33, no. 2 (1990): 417-40. For observations at the
time see Geoff Eley, "Nazism, Politics and Public Memory: Thoughts on the West Ger-
man Historikerstreit 1986-1987," Past and Present 121, no. 1 (1988): 171. Mary Nolan,
"The Historikerstreit and Social History," New German Critique 44 (Spring, 1988): 51.
63. Heuser claimed in her evaluation of the museum controversy that Germans as a
nation are "obsessed with self-examination," and argued that this obsession is "not con-
fined to the historians who drafted the plans for the museum, but is . . . essentially shared
(minus the actual word identity) by historians who . . . have little liking for the planned
museum or its proponents." 422—23.
64. Heuser, "Museums," 425.

generally gave way during the enthusiasm of unification as the stakes in
the game of portraying the past shifted once again.
In 1990 the Zeughaus and the MfDG's exhibits became the property of
the Deutsches Historisches Museum. The first democratic government of the
G D R _ e l e c t e d in March 1990—chose to close the MfDG because of its
link to the SED. They signed an agreement with the Federal Republic of
Germany (FRG) that the museum would be closed in the middle of
September, and that the general director of the DHM would be given
control of the museum until unification took place in October. In fact,
however, the museum was never closed to the public, and beginning
with the day of unification, the museum and its contents were given to
the DHM. The standing display was quickly disassembJed and put into
storage, most of the staff was quietly dismissed, and the Zeughaus became
the site of temporary exhibits on themes in German history organized by
West German historians. These temporary exhibits will continue until
the DHM receives sufficient funds to establish a permanent display.65
As a result of these political agreements, the DHM, which had been
slated to move into a postmodern, Aldo Rossi building symbolizing the
future, quietly and symbolically moved into the Zeughaus and the past.
Christoph Stolzl, head of the new museum was completely pleased with
the situation, calling it "ein Gliicksfall" and referring to the Zeughaus as
a "ganz tolles Ausstellungsgelande" in which "die ganze deutsche Geschichte
[soil nun] ohne ideologische Scheuklappen zur Diskussion gestellt werden."66
His statement makes two things clear: he believed that the history which
was portrayed in the MfDG was limited because of the SED ideology
and that the new DHM would be able to illustrate a complete and better
version of history. An examination of the DHM's recent exhibit on the
GDR, however, makes it equally clear that ideology continued to play a
significant role in the Zeughaus, as a new historical narrative was con-
structed within its walls.
In a temporary exhibit entitled "The Image of America as the Enemy in
the former GDR," the DHM began to fashion a new identity for the GDR
which demonstrated that its version of German history was just as open to
critique as the history which was formerly portrayed in the Zeughaus.67
65. Dr. Hans-Martin Hinz, letter to the author, 18 October, 1993. Karlen Vesper,
"Der grosse Coup Unter den Linden—Museum verschenkt," Neues Deutschland, 26 Sep-
tember, 1990.
66. Christian Miinter, "Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte legt seine alten Scheuklappen
ab," Der Morgen, no. 224, 25 September, 1990. For further information on the projected
designs for the DHM and the plans that were abandoned in favor of the Zeughaus see
Aldo Rossi, Deutsches Historisches Museum, 1989 (Berlin, 1989); and Stephanie Williams,
"The Future German Historical Museum in Berlin," Apollo 128 (Dec. 1988): 413-16.
67. This exhibit toured the United States in 1993, and was both illustrated and "ex-
plained" in Deutsches Historisches Museum Magazin 3, no. 7 (Spring 1993).

Based on placards and posters from the Cold War era, the display was meant
to show the excesses of Cold War propaganda and the lengths to which
East Germans were forced to go in order to rationalize their opposition
to the West.68 The booklet that accompanied this display presented an
argument that GDR propaganda failed because it "borrowed wholesale
the 'anti-Semitic' physiognomies of Nazi propaganda," relied on Soviet
styles and even Soviet designers for their posters, and put their faith in
avant-garde style poster art which further linked their rhetoric with that
of the USSR.
While these stylistic connections may be true, the DHM's evaluations
of them were hardly without ideological color. The DHM equated the
methodology, language, and intent of these posters directly with those of
the Nazis, and portrayed the GDR as the primary agent in the Cold
War. The visitor to this exhibit was told, for example, that "the words
on the posters . . . remained rooted in the language of the Third Reich,"
and that "what is proclaimed here as 'building up socialism' is more like
a process of cleansing the country of 'vermin' and misfits." These refer-
ences to Nazi policy and allusions to the Holocaust were made more
explicit by the accompanying text, which explained that the images in
the posters embodied a vision in which "an inferior race—the capitalists
and the imperialists—were competing against the superior stock of the
socialists and communists," and that "it is an evolutionary forecast which
is described in detail in Marxist-Leninist scientific theory."69
Moreover, the messages in the posters about the fear of approaching
war, not to mention the GDR's evaluations of the West, are totally dis-
counted. The booklet stated that "whether or not these statements are
true in the context of the power politics of those years is not relevant
here," what is relevant is that the posters used in the GDR "played their
unpardonable part in history after 1945," by "providing] a platform for a
life-or-death struggle" which "contributed to the climate of distrust and
political persecution in the GDR," and therefore "prevented the democ-
ratization process" in East Germany. In the end we are told that:
68. Although there is a brief mention of West German propaganda, no examples of

this are provided which would put the GDR posters into context. The viewer is told that
in Western propaganda the "darkest visions of popular anti-bolshevism were revived" and
that the Communist Party was quickly banned, but the viewer is also reassured that "fears
of the spread of Communism in West Germany were largely unfounded," because "eco-
nomic success in the Federal Republic had in any case created a broad acceptance of the
West German democratic model," and that "a catalog from a West German department
store was capable of generating more unrest in the GDR than political tracts on West
German democracy could ever do." Consequently, the DHM saw no reason to provide
examples of West German propaganda produced at that time. Ibid., 3-4. English in the
original.
69. Ibid., 6-7.

A glance at the image of America as the enemy, as depicted in posters
from the early GDR, reveals how the socialist countries set about re-
solving the East-West conflict. Their method involved naked Darwin-
ism: the mighty proletariat destroys its deformed and degenerate political
enemies. We should perhaps be grateful that for most of this time the
USSR suspected it was inferior to the West in military and economic
terms and did not dare to carry out its historic mandate.70
This display, of course, is easily criticized. The visitor to the "new" Zeughaus
learns that it was actually the GDR that wore the "black hat" in a his-
tory which is portrayed as black and white—every bit as black and white
as the history which filled the "old" Zeughaus. Nowhere in this booklet
is there a positive word about the GDR. No reference is given to an
alternative vision of the German past or future. No mention is made of
people who chose to stay in the GDR rather than leave for the West.
The GDR was the product of negative integration, reaction against the
Western forces rather than a construction based on any positive goals, the
system was imposed from above, it was invalid, it was a pipe dream, and
we are told that "in the end this excessive utopianism robbed it [the
GDR] of its future, if indeed it ever had one." Clearly, the underlying
point of this display is to argue that the GDR did not have much of a
future, and that it was based more on lies and coercion than anything
else—an evaluation which could hardly hold up to scholarly scrutiny.
Just as the SED constructed an East German national identity in oppo-
sition to the West, historians at the DHM continued to fashion a new
German identity and their historical narrative in opposition to the now
defunct GDR. This exhibit, which today's anthropologists might quickly
rename "The GDR as Other," illustrates the degree to which history
continues to be linked to ideology. When the new owners of the Zeughaus
arrived, they brought new identity politics with them as well. The DHM
replaced the East Germans' vision of the GDR as an image of creation,
of building a new community, and of the people's story with one of
reaction to the West, a will to power, and the misguided and dangerous
game of duping the people. Future historians interested in unraveling the
identity politics in the new Germany will certainly find the DHM's dis-
plays indicative of West Germans' identity politics, and will probably find
it ironic that the GDR, which during its early years proclaimed itself to
be the pinnacle of the progressive forces in German history, was equated
in the DHM's display with the most repressive ones. Yet for either fu-
ture assessments of the DHM or current investigations into the MfDG, it
is important for historians to remember that if the goal is to ascertain
70. Ibid., 10.

how national identity was constructed and promulgated, to locate its es-
sential components, and to determine its role in legitimizing the state,
then historians must approach a museum's narratives as constructions and
indications of what was at stake at the time of their creation and what
was possible, rather than simply evaluating these histories in terms of
their legitimacy. As Dorpalen reminds us, ideology always plays its role
in history. But if we as historians wish to understand the identities fash-
ioned and promulgated in the GDR, then we must recognize the limita-
tions to our ideologies as well as theirs.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

The Museum Für Deutsche Geschichte and German National Identity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Museum Für Deutsche Geschichte and German National Identity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Museum fiir Deutsche Geschichte and

German National Identity

Nichts ist zarter als die Vergangenheit;

In geschichtslosem Land die Zukunft gewinnt, wer die Erinnerung fullt,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Part I: The Importance of History and the Role of the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

33. Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Museumspddagogische Infortnationen (Berlin, 1970).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

39. Wolfgang Herbst, "Geschichtswissenschaft und Geschichtsmuseum," Zeitschrift fur

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Dass die staatliche Einigung nicht unter Fiihrung demokratischer Krafte

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

57. Ibid., 62.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Epilogue: Museums, Myths, and Historians

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

68. Although there is a brief mention of West German propaganda, no examples of

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

70. Ibid., 10.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008938900011869 Published online by Cambridge University Press

You might also like