I have am currently finishing an autobiographical PhD thesis about Germany in the early 1960s. Contrary to common mythology, which sees this as an era of the ‘Wirtschaftswunder” (an “Economic Miracle”) in which Germany outperformed most (if not all) of the WW2 victor nations economically and which is therefore seen as an era of prosperity and universal happiness, this is actually a time of underground turmoil which has been forgotten (or is being suppressed) in much of current economic teaching and writing.
For example, 15-20 years after the end of WW2, Germans were forbidden (by the occupying nations of France, Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as by their own 1949 Constitution (“Grundrecht”) from referring to themselves as a “Master Race” (a concept popular under the Hitler regime, i.e. a race of people superior to other, “inferior” races, sometimes referred to as “sub-humans”). However, the fact that this wasn’t spoken about in the official media did not prevent it from being a frequent topic of private conversation and even of subtle indoctrination in schools.
The evidence seemed to speak for the myth of the Master Race. The Economic Miracle itself, Germany’s 1954 football World Cup (the “Miracle of Berne”, where Germany won the World Cup even though, nine years after the destruction of WW2 there weren’t even proper football grounds in Germany, let alone a proper club and training structure), Armin Hary being the first man in the world to run 100m in 10 seconds, Germany winning exceptionally large numbers of medals in the post-war Olympics, the Pope driving a Mercedes, the Space Programs of both the USA and the USSR being run by scientists poached fro Germany (a race of “whose Germans would win the space race”), and so on, all allegedly demonstrated the superiority of the German people.
Most young people were not even aware of these messages. They had grown up listening to the exaggerated exploits of their fathers during the war and, especially if the father had died in, or as a result of the War, with worshipful stories of heroism allegedly performed by their now deceased fathers as told by their mothers.
And, at the same time, this acted as “encouragement” to the generation of boys and young men who were in line to do National Service at around age 18-20, charged with the task of defending their country (and in particular the women of that country) in “the next war” which was, literally, expected any day.
In entertainment, e.g. in a series of “Wild West Movies” based on the stories of Karl May (Germany’s most successful writer of all times who glorified himself and all things German roughly a century before the popularity of the movies in the 1960s – there were 19 movies between 1958 and 1968) all the “good Westerners” came of German stock (often only admitted under pressure since it was considered “un-German” to brag with your German heritage), while the more sneaky, weak, underhanded or flawed individuals living in the USA came from other national origins Irish, French, Spanish being favourite negatives as seen by May). May also believed in the theory of the “Noble Savage”, where those (American) Indians who were taught by Germans inevitably turned into noble, honest (usually principled to the point of stupidity) and upright people, while those under the influence of the French or Spanish (to use but two examples) turned into underhanded and completely untrustworthy savages.
Racism went further. The “noble Indians”, although in rare contact with “the White Man”, appeared to be linguistic geniuses who mastered the (rather complex) German language (or the English language) easily and completely, while African American slaves, who spent all their time with their white masters never managed to proceed beyond rudimentary pidgin English grunts. (As an aside, it is interesting that the English-language versions of these movies were “cleaned up”, so that the racist over/undertones were not obvious to non-German audiences).
The only reason I became more aware of these underlying themes than my school colleagues was due to my particular circumstances. My father was French, but he died of war injuries, leaving me growing up as a “foreigner” in Germany, the only country I had never known. Derogatory remarks towards non-Germans therefore registered with me while they were accepted as simple statements of fact by my school friends.
The point is that I became very early aware of the differences between the “Golden Era” as commonly portrayed and the rather different reality seething with racism and many other problems. For example, “might made right” – or, to put it differently, anybody with money, political influence, success as public entertainer or sports-person (etc) could pretty much do as he/she pleased (e.g. child sexual abuse was common, and I was a victim myself, yet there was nothing anyone could do if the perpetrators belonged to the power elite). Women benefitted automatically from their husbands’ status/titles in society – a female “doctor” might have earned a doctorate herself, or might have married the title… in either case, she was entitled to all honours and privileges attached to it. Nor could she ever lose it – if her husband died (or she divorced him), she would still be “Frau Doktor”, and if she married into a different title, that would be added; so, you could have a “Frau Konsul Professor Doktor X” who never held a job, or might not even have completed high school. Yet, in terms of what she could get away with, she was practically untouchable.
There are increasingly few of us left who lived through this era. What is more, just about everyone in my age group grew up during the privations of the immediate post-WW2 era (lack of food, lack of medical care, lack of pharmaceuticals and medicines, etc), which means that few of us are healthy, and we aren’t likely to be around much longer to challenge the stereotypes that have become associated with that era.
Much writing has been done to demonstrate that nobody apparently supported Hitler and the Nazi Party before WW2. The common consensus in much of the literature seems to be that “my grandfather was a freedom fighter who tried to stop Hitler”, but that there was nothing he could do against overwhelming odds. So, Hitler (and a very small number of cronies) were, supposedly, opposed by the vast majority of German people, yet nobody had the power to stop him.
This, clearly, is nonsense. I freely admit that my own mother was a Nazi (mainly because her father was Communist and she tried to sabotage him); she married a foreigner (my father, a war-disabled French soldier) in order to “cleanse herself” of the charges of being an active Party Member.
The point is that, while the German people are actually very good at acknowledging the evils of the Nazi era, they do tend to shy away from acknowledging direct family involvement and responsibility. As a result, German History becomes ever more sanitised.
I see it therefore as essential that those of us who lived through this era (in my case, my area of specialisation is the early 1960s in Germany), and who can still remember that era (sadly, I m cursed with an excellent memory and have great difficulty forgetting anything – contrary to what many people believe, this is not a blessing), should therefore put these memories to paper, so that they become a permanent part of the historical narrative.
I am looking for a paper that justifies the value of personal history telling in this context. I want to establish (including to myself) that we cannot allow history to be a “changing picture”, which adapts to the needs of subsequent generation. Certain things simply happened (such as the underlying racism in the early 1960s Germany, as evidenced by such public documents as Karl May movies with a clearly racist message), and such things need to be written down by people who (i) remember them and (ii) can see the link (as, for instance, presented in Karl May movies).
I do NOT need a research paper on Germany or German History, although references to the gradual morphing of German History with time could be quite useful. So, the author need not know anything about Germany per se, nor about German History, nor know the German language.
Instead, I am looking for a general discussion of the importance of oral history to be recorded while there are still people alive who can tell the stories from personal experience. Sources from anywhere around the world could be made relevant, although the closer the sources come to Central Europe, particularly Germany the more weight they would carry. This should not be overly difficult since much discussion and research from Germany is published in English these days.
Please feel free to ask me to clarify any points I have not explained properly. My apologies for this lengthy introduction, but I believe that some explanation was required since I am not looking for a paper on autobiographical writing per se, but on the way such writing makes a valid and important contribution to the writing of history
