Dialogic Remembrance, Collective Commemoration – The international workshop for military officers in Auschwitz as an education and reconciliation project

A central feature of the workshop is that it deliberately brings together many different voices. The participants have diverse biographical, cultural and military backgrounds. In this international group, they reflect on their national cultures of remembrance as well as their perspectives on Auschwitz. It becomes clear just how much these differ: French remembrance focuses heavily on the resistance, while in Poland the suffering under German occupation takes center stage, and Germans are concerned mainly with their own responsibility as perpetrators.

These differences are not an obstacle but rather constitutive for learning as part of an “agonistic” culture of remembrance.^[3] It is precisely this juxtaposition of different perspectives that creates a space where reflection can unfold – without the expectation of a consensus. The discussions are often highly charged, but productive – precisely because the three nations have such different ways of dealing with history.

The memory of Auschwitz, the Holocaust and the Second World War is central to the self-image of European societies. France, Poland and Germany were involved in the violence in different ways: Germany was the aggressor and perpetrator state, France and Poland were participating countries in the war as well as victims under German occupation – especially Poland. The fact that these common points of reference have been woven into very different narratives shows that has not been ascribed a historically, politically and culturally consistent meaning. Therefore, it must be renegotiated in an international discourse: “One and the same historical event is interpreted in completely different ways in different countries, from different points of view and by different groups.”^[4]

This is where the workshop begins. Through comparison, confrontation and open communication processes, a learning space is created in which national difference is not neutralized, but instead put to productive use.

Examining the perpetrators and recognizing the victims’ perspective

A particularly striking moment during the workshop is the encounter with survivors of the concentration camps. Their personal accounts make history real and emotionally tangible. When a contemporary witness describes Dr. Josef Mengele as a “courteous man”, for example, it is deeply unsettling. It breaks with established ideas and forces a new level of reflection. Perpetrators no longer appear only as abstract monsters, but as actual people embedded in social and institutional contexts. This discomfort opens up a space for a deeper examination of culpability, complicity and moral gray areas.

At the same time, encounters with survivors and an exploration of artistic and documentary testimonies make it possible to experience the victims’ perspective in its existential profundity. The exhibition of works by Marian Kołodziej makes a particularly strong impression, for example. He was an Auschwitz survivor who remained silent for decades, only later transforming his traumatic memories into powerfully expressive images. These visualize what words often cannot capture: the destruction of humanity, the violence of everyday life in the camp, the continuing effects of the trauma over generations.

All these testimonies give the victims a voice – both literally and figuratively. They demand recognition, empathy, and a willingness to face this history as a present-day human being. The workshop honors the victims not just as a historical point of reference, but as individual people with names, faces and stories.

In subsequent discussions and reflection phases, the participants explore the ambivalences of human behavior. An examination of the biographies of perpetrators shows that Nazi crimes were not the result of personal aberration, but arose from the interplay of ideology, opportunism, careerism, group mechanisms and a culture of obedience. The officers analyze these structures from the perspective of their own professional role. This raises the existential question: “What would I have done?”

For military personnel – especially those from Germany – this is a particularly acute question. Today, they themselves face the tensions that arise between command, obedience and personal responsibility. They are part of the state’s monopoly on violence, yet at the same time they themselves are potentially victims of violence. This dual perspective fundamentally molds the military identity – as a potential perpetrator and as a potential victim. The workshop provides space to discuss these tensions, not only in theoretical terms but also in terms of emotions and experiences.

The discussion about why people became perpetrators is not reduced to moral condemnation. The participants look at studies showing that Nazi perpetrators often did not have sadistic personality traits. Under certain conditions, they were “completely normal men”.^[5] This finding is uncomfortable but necessary, and confronts each participant with the question of their own moral resilience in extreme situations.

In the workshop, this also means thinking about possible structural and cultural conditions of action today: Which institutional, social and personal factors encourage people to join in? What roles do professional socialization, peer pressure or political narratives play? And what distinguishes the soldiers of today from those who served in Auschwitz back then?

Including the perspectives of perpetrators and supporters does not serve to relativize the injustice committed, but rather to sharpen historical judgment. At the same time, this is an inseparable part of respecting and honoring the victims. Ethical learning can succeed only with this dual perspective – seeing both the suffering and the responsibility.

Historical contextualization instead of moral simplification

A central feature of the workshop is an in-depth examination of the historical contexts of Auschwitz. Extensive guided tours of the main camp Auschwitz I and the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp are accompanied by lectures. Participants gain a comprehensive picture of the structure, operation and institutional context of the National Socialist camp system. Topics covered include the ideology of the perpetrators, bureaucratic processes, social mechanisms, and the systematic planning and execution of mass extermination.

A conscious effort is made to avoid any kind of heroization, moralization or simplistic categorization into “good” and “evil”. The aim is not to leave the participants with ready-made judgments. Instead, they should be able to grasp historical complexity, and independently develop a deeper understanding of the interplay of individual, institutional and social factors – and how this can also constitute mechanisms that favor violence.

The workshop encourages the realization that there was no single cause, no single motive, but rather a network of political indoctrination, bureaucratic normality, collective patterns of interpretation and individual interests. Perpetrators were not all “monsters”. Often they were socially adjusted, functionally integrated and supported by those around them. This is exactly what makes critical engagement with the subject so challenging – and ethically productive.

At this point, the shared responsibility of institutions, the influence of political narratives and the transformation of social norms are also considered. Historical contextualization widens the view of continuities and ruptures, of institutional mechanisms and the impact of ideologies – also in relation to today’s security policy challenges.

This part is complemented by presentations and discussions on issues such as remembrance culture, the passing on of trauma across generations, and the long-term psychological effects of experiences of violence. The participants reflect not only on the Nazi past, but also on its present significance for the military profession.

The purpose of historical contextualization is not moral exoneration, but to develop ethical acumen. It is necessary in order to assume responsibility today on a well-founded, thoughtful and nuanced basis.

Thomas Hoppe writes that authentic remembrance is the foundation of sustainable reconciliation. It should not selectively interpret the historical facts, but rather serve justice by giving the victims a voice and publicly recognizing their dignity. Above all, however, it should prevent the repetition of violence – through individual and institutional reflection, ethical consideration, and especially through education.^[6]

With this in mind, the workshop opens up a space for introspection: How should I, as a soldier, as a citizen, as a human being, deal with the legacy of this history? How can I use my freedom of action today in a responsible and humane way?

The goal is to impart historical awareness not by teaching moral theory, but through active acquisition: through knowledge, empathy, reference to one’s own life and surroundings. This includes listening, tolerating different patterns of remembrance, and the willingness to engage in open discussion. Experience shows that these controversial cross-border discussions are where understanding emerges for the diversity of national perspectives. This is accompanied by an appreciation of shared ethical principles.

Auschwitz symbolizes not only inconceivable crimes, but also the destruction of human relationships between individuals, groups, states. Commemoration and reconciliation work at this site is therefore never just backward-looking. It also serves to mend relationships and shape a common future.

Emotional experience and collective responsibility

The emotional dimension is an essential part and a key pedagogical element of the workshop. The impact of the Auschwitz memorial site is felt not only because of the knowledge imparted, but because of its immediacy. The participants walk round a site that itself bears witness to industrialized extermination, systematic degradation and complete contempt for human existence. The process of “taking it all in” is felt physically, and is emotionally demanding.

A whole day of the seminar is dedicated to this conscious process. The main camp Auschwitz I and the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp are explored not just as historical sites, but as spaces of experience. The Centre for Dialogue and Prayer – just a few minutes’ walk away – offers a retreat that combines spiritual reflection with intellectual discussion. It provides a space for contemplation where visitors can process what they have seen, heard and felt.

The moments when participants get to talk with contemporary witnesses are particularly intense. As they tell their personal stories, history is not analyzed, but experienced – as a fragment of biographical memory, as a vulnerable, often painful disclosure. It is precisely because the accounts defy any full explanation or clear categorization that they are deeply moving. The confrontation with lived suffering and survived trauma has a lasting effect – beyond rational categorization.

Artistic forms of expression such as the exhibition mentioned earlier open up special ways of understanding in this context, by conveying the unspeakable in a different form. What the participants encounter here is not historical facts, but inner states: fear, pain, powerlessness. This fosters a way of learning that is not only cognitive but also resonates emotionally.

These experiences create space for something that is often missing: permission to be upset. They enable a way of remembering that is aimed at empathy, not explanation. And they show that the purpose of a memorial site is not just to impart knowledge. Its remembrance work is an ethical and emotional practice, recognizing that dignity must be defended even in remembrance itself.

During the seminar, reactions such as speechlessness, withdrawal and tears are seen not as a weakness, but as an expression of moral discomfort – and therefore as part of the learning process. They mark the point at which knowledge is no longer enough, and a stance is required. In jointly organized memorial rituals, such as the wreath-laying ceremony at the death wall, the officers themselves take responsibility: for an expression of remembrance that combines language, symbolism and compassion. The ceremony is multilingual, interreligious, and is planned by the participants themselves, generating a form of collective responsibility that grows out of the moment but has an impact beyond it.

In this context, Mihaela Mihai describes emotional learning as a democratic resource.^[7] It is not about being sentimentally moved, but about developing empathy, moral judgment and a sense of historical responsibility. Those who not only understand history but also feel it are better able to grasp the ethical consequences for their own actions.

Military personnel face a special challenge. As part of their job, they have a monopoly on the use of violence, and bear responsibility in highly complex, often ambivalent situations. At the same time, they are personally exposed to the effects of violence – physically, psychologically and morally. The workshop makes it possible to experience this dual perspective as an opportunity both for self-assurance and for developing an ethically grounded professional identity.

To sum up, emotions are of primary importance in the pedagogical process. They enable the transition from knowledge to action. They help create a sense of responsibility. And – in an international, military and personal context – they open up ways of remembering that honor human dignity without moralizing.

Dialog instead of consensus

The workshop in Oświęcim is intended as a place for dialog rather than consensus. The goal is not to arrive at a harmonized agreement, but for participants to respect their mutual differences – in their experiences, narratives and moral assessments. This is where the concept of agonistic memory comes in. Difference is not perceived as a problem, but as a necessary condition of a democratic learning process.

A Polish officer whose grandfather suffered under German occupation speaks differently about Auschwitz than a German soldier who is coming to terms with his family’s history as perpetrators. These points of view exist side-by-side, sometimes in tension, but they meet in mutual respect and with the goal of learning from each other.

The participants openly discuss national discourses of guilt, collective narratives and moral dilemmas. Different patterns of memory are not dissolved, but made visible. In this way, the workshop is not a space for consensus, but a space for feedback – where contradiction is allowed, ambivalence tolerated and plurality recognized. It is not about “one” truth, but about the struggle for understanding in difference.

A comparative analysis of the narratives of remembrance in the three participating countries is particularly revealing in this regard. These differences are not relativized in the workshop, they are consciously reflected upon. The participants recognize that memory is not a neutral process, but an expression of social processing strategies – it is both a mirror and a construct of collective identity.

This openness to competing interpretations is a particular strength of the workshop. It brings together military personnel with different biographies, values and operational experiences. The professional ethos unites – the memory distinguishes. This tension is not concealed in the workshop, but openly addressed.

This dialog is also particularly important in the context of shared responsibility for the future. The participants are not only individual representatives of national cultures of remembrance, they are also actors in current security policy realities.

It is in these tensions between past and present that the workshop achieves its effect. It enables a dialog that confronts the complexity of history without relativizing it – and that sees diversity of voices not as a weakness but as an ethical resource.

Conclusion

Communication is the key to life-long learning. This is the fundamental attitude that informs the workshop. It is not about imposing a specific interpretation; the aim is for the participants to listen to each other: across national borders, military cultures and biographical differences.

“Working toward reconciliation requires a willingness to leave comfort zones, to expose oneself to other viewpoints, attitudes and experiences, and confront oneself. [... W]hile it is not true that time heals all wounds, healing takes time,” Jörg Lüer writes in his essay in this edition. The experiences of past years show that it is possible to remember together without denying differences. It is possible to share responsibility without comparing guilt. And it is necessary to remain in dialog with one another – especially in view of current political tensions, right-wing populist tendencies, and a new confrontation in Europe.

[1] (Translated from German.) Lüer, Jörg (2002): Katyn und Chatyn – Fragen an die gesellschaftliche Bedeutung von Erinnerung.In: Ost-West 3, pp. 45‑51, pp. 50 f.

[2] The memorial site of the former main camp Auschwitz I and the former Auschwitz-Birkenau German concentration and extermination camp is located in the southern Polish town of Oświęcim. On September 4, 1939, the town was occupied by the German Wehrmacht, and renamed Auschwitz by the Germans. In October 1939, Oświęcim and the surrounding area were annexed by the German Reich.

[3] For a detailed discussion of the concepts of antagonistic, cosmopolitan and agonistic memory, see: Bull, Anna Cento and Hansen, Hans Lauge (2015): On agonistic memory. In: Memory Studies 9(4), pp. 390-404.

[4] (Translated from German.) Altmeyer, Stefan and Boschki, Reinhold (2008): “Sich herauslösen aus der Sprache, die hier gilt” (Imre Kertész): Erinnerungslernen unter den Bedingungen öffentlicher Gedenkkultur. In Ebner, Martin (ed.): Die Macht der Erinnerung. Neukirchen-Vluyn, pp. 381-409, p. 383. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/90952/Altmeyer_068.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed May 29, 2025).

[5] (Translated from German.) See e.g. Neitzel, Sönke and Welzer, Harald (2011): Soldaten. Protokolle vom Kämpfen, Töten und Sterben. Frankfurt am Main.

[6] Hoppe, Thomas (2018): Authentische Erinnerung – Fundament für tragfähige Versöhnung. In: Ost-West. Europäische Perspektiven 19(2), pp. 82-89. https://www.owep.de/artikel/1179-authentische-erinnerung-fundament-fuer-tragfaehige-versoehnung (accessed May 29, 2025).

[7] Mihai, Mihaela (2014): Negative Emotions and Transitional Justice. New York.