Holocaust Memorial History

In the late 20th century, Germany faced the problem of creating a shared identity for the Holocaust. Germany set out to create memorials that could help German citizens recognize the atrocities of Hitler's reign, mourn the deaths of more than 6 million Jews and avoid fascist dictators in the future. James E. Young was a member of a five-man committee that would decide which memorial sketch to construct. The process was troublesome because the memorial had to be accepted by the Jewish community and have the Germans not feel targeted. Young was Jewish, so he would be responsible of the criticism for either accepting or denying a memorial sketch. What was significant in the article was that the topic of the Holocaust had been talked about more
during this event, than after WWII. Nevertheless, Young and the members of the committee agreed on the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, which consisted of slabs that would represent a maze with no exit in the shape of a cemetery, to demonstrate the pain and struggle the Jews endured. What was troublesome, according to Brody, was that the memorial allowed visitors to seek their own meaning, he argued that the memorial would not represent anything without its title. The second issue that Brody has against the memorial is that it does not represent all the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Since the title says “murdered Jews of Europe”, is not specific because Europe is a country consisted of many nations, while the holocaust only occurred in a limited number of nations. In addition, the slabs in the memorial do not indicate anything about Jewish genocide or their oppressors. The way that the stumbling stones differ from the central memorial is that the stumbling stones serve as a way to educate people about doing the right thing and a reminder of laws and culture.
On the other hand, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is not as specific with what it is trying to represent, the observer has a greater chance to expand their thinking and view the memorial with a critical eye. Secondly, both these memorials differ in the way they give information. For example, stumbling stones are specific in the background they include; victim's name, death dates, and cemetery that they are located in. Unlike the stumbling stones, the concrete slabs have no information on who should be mourned. In the article “Stumbling Stones”, Harjes argues that if the people are not educated, then they will not get the purpose of the memorial. “The designer of the national Holocaust memorial expects visitors walking among the thousands of narrowly spaced stelae to experience feelings of claustrophobia and oppression reminiscent of the experience of Jews in the concentration camps” (Harjes p.142). Without background the memorial becomes inefficient because people do not know what they are seeing or experiencing. The most important difference is that stumbling stones allow the German citizens to create their own national identity and historical responsibilities, instead of having their identity influenced by the state or government. Kirsten Harjes called this process “authentic memory” because it originates from the individual. Even though, these two memorials are very important in acknowledging the Holocaust and helping create a collective memory, in the process, both memorials create different
memories.