Chapter 9

Reshaping Dachau for Visitors:1933-2000

Harold Marcuse

Even though, since the 1970s,Auschwitz has eclipsed Dachau as the most widelyrecognized symbol of Nazi atrocities, the Dachau concentration camp museum re­mains by far the most visited original site associated with Nazi Germany. With theannual number of visitors rising from ca. 100,000 in the early 1950s to peak at justunder 1 million in the late 1980s, the Dachau memorial site museum ranks amongthe top five most-visited museums in Germany. With foreign tourists consistentlycomprising well over 50% of those visitors, state and local officials have long beenconcerned about the impressions visitors gain at the site.As this chapter will show,their attempts to shape visitors' experiences by reshaping the site were misguidedmore often than they were successful. From the early 1950s until the mid-1980s theDachau site was repeatedly sanitized of authentic historical substance, but thosereductions proved ineffectual in modifying visitors' preconceptions and expectations.As the site once again undergoes extensive modification at the turn of the millen­nium, the redesigners' failure to consider their predominantly young audiences' rela­tionships to the historical events appears to be leading to yet another ineffectual,top-down form for the memorial site.

The IIClean Campll: 1933-1943The story should begin at the beginning. Long before the Dachau concentration

camp became a site memorializing Nazi atrocities, it was a showcase for the imple­mentation of Nazi ideology. It was the first concentration camp to be set up in 1933,and it was the first to be under the direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler, whosoon controlled the entire concentration camp network in the German Reich. Al­ready by early 1934 Dachau had become a model for all other Nazi concentrationcamps. One of Dachau's first commandants,Theodor Eicke, developed a penal codethat Himmler extended to the entire Nazi concentration camp system. As the para­digm concentration camp, Dachau served as a "school of violence" where many lead-

118

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9

Reshaping Dachau for Visitors: 1933-2000

Harold Marcuse

Even though, since the 1970s,Auschwitz has eclipsed Dachau as the most widely recognized symbol of Nazi atrocities, the Dachau concentration camp museum re­mains by far the most visited original site associated with Nazi Germany. With the annual number of visitors rising from ca. 100,000 in the early 1950s to peak at just under 1 million in the late 1980s, the Dachau memorial site museum ranks among the top five most-visited museums in Germany. With foreign tourists consistently comprising well over 50% of those visitors, state and local officials have long been concerned about the impressions visitors gain at the site.As this chapter will show, their attempts to shape visitors' experiences by reshaping the site were misguided more often than they were successful. From the early 1950s until the mid-1980s the Dachau site was repeatedly sanitized of authentic historical substance, but those reductions proved ineffectual in modifying visitors' preconceptions and expectations. As the site once again undergoes extensive modification at the turn of the millen­nium, the redesigners' failure to consider their predominantly young audiences' rela­tionships to the historical events appears to be leading to yet another ineffectual, top-down form for the memorial site.

The IIClean Campll: 1933-1943 The story should begin at the beginning. Long before the Dachau concentration

camp became a site memorializing Nazi atrocities, it was a showcase for the imple­mentation of Nazi ideology. It was the first concentration camp to be set up in 1933, and it was the first to be under the direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler, who soon controlled the entire concentration camp network in the German Reich. Al­ready by early 1934 Dachau had become a model for all other Nazi concentration camps. One of Dachau's first commandants,Theodor Eicke, developed a penal code that Himmler extended to the entire Nazi concentration camp system. As the para­digm concentration camp, Dachau served as a "school of violence" where many lead-

118

+

Chapter 9 119

1

r

ing concentration camp officials received their training. Eighteen of the top concen­tration camp commandants and officials started out in Dachau, among them AdolfEichmann, the bureaucrat who masterminded the industrially organized extermina­tion of the Jews, and Rudolf Hoss, the infamous commandant of Auschwitz (Distel &Jakusch, 1978,p.78;Richardi, 1983,p.125).

Additionally, Dachau was the camp where the best-known prisoners, includingheads of state and leading officials from occupied countries, were incarcerated. Inkeeping with the Dachau camp's importance and prominence, from the startHimmler's SS frequently took German and foreign officials on tours of the camp. SSGeneral von Eberstein accompanied numerous tours. Von Eberstein described hisimpression, and presumably that of his guests, in testimony before the Nurembergcourt in 1946:

I can only repeat that everything was scrupulously clean, the sanitary installa­tions that I saw were in excellent order, that in peacetime the prisoners werewell nourished and, as I saw during the war, on the average their food was likethe food of every German outside. I can only say here on oath what I myselfsaw with my own eyes. (International MilitaryTribunal, 1946, vol. 20, pp. 342ft)

Such testimony points to a little-known fact about the Nazi concentration camps:In the Nazi mindset they were perceived as correctional, even educational, institu­tions.The definition of "concentration camp" in a 1939 German encyclopedia beganas follows: "Better [called] containment and correctional camps. Since 1933 theyhave the purpose a) to hold ... hardened criminals, b) to temporarily neutralizeCommunists and other enemies of the state ... and educate them to be useful na­

tional comrades" (Berning, 1964, p. 112, after Meyers Lexikon, 1939).This idealized conception explains the inscription "Work makes free," wrought

into many concentration camp gates, as well as another inscription painted in broadwhite letters in prominent places in many camps:"There is only one path to freedom.Its milestones are: Obedience, Diligence, Honesty, Orderliness, Cleanliness, Sobriety,Truthfulness, Self-Sacrifice, and Love of the Fatherland."

In light of the actual conditions in the camps, however, these trappings of what Icall the "clean camp" were a pinnacle of cynicism. The "clean" impression was cre­ated by elaborate preparations prior to such visits. They were described at theNuremberg trials by the Dachau camp's former head prisoner doctor (Blaha, 1946).When a delegation was expected, the prisoners had to make sure that their barracksand other showcase buildings such as the kitchens and infirmary were spotless. Pris­oners considered "dangerous" were kept out of sight. A typical visit began at theservice building with the admitting rooms, kitchen, and laundry, then went to theprisoner infirmary, then to a dormitory barrack, usually that of the German inmates,who received the best treatment in the camp (Figure 9.1). Sometimes the priests'barrack chapel, which included an altar and liturgical furnishings, was part of thetour. Visitors met only with carefully selected inmates.

These manipulations were apparently quite successful. In spite of evidence to thecontrary, not only the visitors themselves, but also the broader populace, professedto accept the "clean camp"image.Whether or not they accepted it with inner convic-

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 119

ing concentration camp officials received their training. Eighteen of the top concen­tration camp commandants and officials started out in Dachau, among them Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who masterminded the industrially organized extermina­tion of the Jews, and Rudolf Hoss, the infamous commandant of Auschwitz (Distel & Jakusch, 1978,p.78;Richardi, 1983,p.125).

Additionally, Dachau was the camp where the best-known prisoners, including heads of state and leading officials from occupied countries, were incarcerated. In keeping with the Dachau camp's importance and prominence, from the start Himmler's SS frequently took German and foreign officials on tours of the camp. SS General von Eberstein accompanied numerous tours. Von Eberstein described his impression, and presumably that of his guests, in testimony before the Nuremberg court in 1946:

I can only repeat that everything was scrupulously clean, the sanitary installa­tions that I saw were in excellent order, that in peacetime the prisoners were well nourished and, as I saw during the war, on the average their food was like the food of every German outside. I can only say here on oath what I myself saw with my own eyes. (International MilitaryTribunal, 1946, vol. 20, pp. 342ft)

Such testimony points to a little-known fact about the Nazi concentration camps: In the Nazi mindset they were perceived as correctional, even educational, institu­tions.The definition of "concentration camp" in a 1939 German encyclopedia began as follows: "Better [called] containment and correctional camps. Since 1933 they have the purpose a) to hold ... hardened criminals, b) to temporarily neutralize Communists and other enemies of the state ... and educate them to be useful na­tional comrades" (Berning, 1964, p. 112, after Meyers Lexikon, 1939).

This idealized conception explains the inscription "Work makes free," wrought into many concentration camp gates, as well as another inscription painted in broad white letters in prominent places in many camps:"There is only one path to freedom. Its milestones are: Obedience, Diligence, Honesty, Orderliness, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Self-Sacrifice, and Love of the Fatherland."

In light of the actual conditions in the camps, however, these trappings of what I call the "clean camp" were a pinnacle of cynicism. The "clean" impression was cre­ated by elaborate preparations prior to such visits. They were described at the Nuremberg trials by the Dachau camp's former head prisoner doctor (Blaha, 1946). When a delegation was expected, the prisoners had to make sure that their barracks and other showcase buildings such as the kitchens and infirmary were spotless. Pris­oners considered "dangerous" were kept out of sight. A typical visit began at the service building with the admitting rooms, kitchen, and laundry, then went to the prisoner infirmary, then to a dormitory barrack, usually that of the German inmates, who received the best treatment in the camp (Figure 9.1). Sometimes the priests' barrack chapel, which included an altar and liturgical furnishings, was part of the tour. Visitors met only with carefully selected inmates.

These manipulations were apparently quite successful. In spite of evidence to the contrary, not only the visitors themselves, but also the broader populace, professed to accept the "clean camp"image.Whether or not they accepted it with inner convic-

120 H. Marcuse

Partiallydemolished1957,rebulill965

BarbedwirebarriersDitch

Cementwail

L~~~~D"",,•••,,"~ Ii l~: =~~- ~,>,' demolishedbuildings wilh ,\ r ~ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£~ ~l&nWPUNISHMENT'Ii",! iii!

reconstructedoutlines I~' ~ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£~ ~lt!' PUNISHMENT!' 'I !i!:

°O~ oakandpoplartrees ,. ,ii, I§J!iTIZEEEJ!iTIJ!iTIJ!iTIJ!iTI~ ."" ' .. ", :::,

~ =:~~::ters ';1111 [jj!J!iTIJ!iTIb§723b§J!iTIJ!iTI~ ~:: !P~::::': ~ICAMP-ERA FUNCTIONSOF BARRACKS ii f! lmijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£ijj£iiliil~ ~".".!>" ,... ' '" r~~::~: , Iii! :::::::::::::~ ~,:;:':!r:ANTl~,:,,': 1111

A,C Infirmary,(Iat&rexpanded :\ :;;: ..,. ,~"~"" .... '."'. '::'

C ~;~~ ~i::~:~:~),I;i Ill: :~:::::::::::::; ~:'::i::i:'~!;i:,!',:;\,t:,+': I~3 l'i'=~:::;,:'Wr'"O:r~: ~ !I' ~ii',.''" ,. '.. "t> ~:4~ifjiih':':d'''!d ~~9 quarantine barrack for § , :;;, UI;M,]3BRAllY",,·, ~ ~Jl~"r't" '","" q II

new inmates U \' r I B -CANTEEN" c;j ~ A INFiRMARY I :~Reconstruct&~15 Jews E I! :;;: _mm.m_ •••.--------.i 1/ ditch and barner15,17,19 punishmentbarracks s: It, ::!i Cz.;.;;.;.-co-.i•.••.•• , II~ , .•••• __ ~ • J I"21 French ",\ f; ~---I,-:"HoIyCross ._cornerstone Ifl

I' ~:' '~:;'~" Church r" 1956 II

West side: ii iU _m" ; 1945-64 :--;:-; Golgotha InB canteen (store where some ';;: Roll-call : ;!;~'Church ~~

prisonerscould buy food and \ ':;' square : ~ : 1953-64 -;:"1.1948-64supplies) 1938-n_t;;JGalahouse ::::f"1Ion ------, ~RebuilI1965

D Iibreryand teaching room 2OO1?- EI ~ - 1965-presanl.. :..: Inlemational ,., iilI2,4 German Inmales ,(1948-64: I :::: ~ Memorial •• ,':=ttHI- SS PunishmentsattJementadministration) '1\ t -i 1968 E ""942"

6,22 RussianInmales \I:W '5 ~ -64::8.10,14 Czechs and others i·! U 3:2' Boiler 'l! In

12 Serbs, Slovenes il t ;Ii room S:: N

16,18 Polish Inmates ,~:! ti Laundry it II +24 variouanationalities • ~!: '" Execulion ~~ W E

26 German priests (chapel 'I t "Bunker"(prisoncalls) wall gaIneast end, 1941-45) Ii :;;: " s

28 Pol'Ish pn'ests \ :~~~:~~~'.v.,:,: \~':\~\':~\"': '::~w::: •.•.':'::'::':::'::':':':~"'::':':'::':':':':':':':':-":':':l'::': ':': 'H ':':l':",': ':':'::':'::':':':':',,:: ':': ••••••':': ••••~ t30 extremelyill (onreduced if\! ..... u.\lh.n .•.•.•.•••.•.••••.•.••.1.•.•••.••••••••n •••.••••••••'l.•••\ ••••.n ••\ •••••••••.••••\ •••\\ •.••.n. i

raOOns)(1948-64:school) Ii 1965-20017

Figure 9.1. Plan of the prisoners' and crematorium compounds of the Dachau concen­tration camp, showing changes that were made in converting it to a memorial site.(Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

tion is not important, for it offered a convenient, exoneratory excuse after the war,embodied in the evasive exculpation "We didn't know!"As I will argue, West Germanofficials, when successfully pressured by concentration camp survivors to convert

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

120

LEGEND - - - - - demolished buildings

c::::::J ~:=~~e~u~~~:swnh o 0 ~ oak and poplar trees

181 watchtowers ......- entrances

I-----l scale: 40 meters

"I ... ~' •• 1950-64 ,

H. Marcuse

Partially demolished 1957, rebuiHl965

Reconstructed ditch and barrier

Figure 9.1. Plan of the prisoners' and crematorium compounds of the Dachau concen· tration camp, showing changes that were made in converting it to a memorial site. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

tion is not important, for it offered a convenient, exoneratory excuse after the war, embodied in the evasive exculpation "We didn't know!"As I will argue,West German officials, when successfully pressured by concentration camp survivors to convert

Chapter 9 121

the former camps into memorial sites, attempted to realize, retroactively and per­haps unconsciously, the "clean camp" image. In some cases, such as Dachau, the offi­cials could not avoid incorporating some coincidentally preserved elements of themurder machinery, but the overall impression conveyed by (West) German memorialsites is scrupulously "clean."

The "Dirty Camp": 1943-1945As living conditions in Germany deteriorated after 1943, it became increasingly

difficult to "clean up" Dachau for special tours. By the end of 1944 conditions incamps such as Dachau were absolutely catastrophic. Even Herculean preparationscould· not make them presentable to outsiders, and raging epidemics made thempotentially lethal as well. Thus official visits dropped off during the demise of Hitler'sempire, and the next outsiders to tour the Dachau camp were the American libera­tors on April 29, 1945 (Whitlock, 1998). They saw corpses laid out in rows outsidethe infirmary, viewed the interiors of the filthy, overcrowded barracks, the kennels ofthe camp's guard dogs, and the crematorium building with its gas chamber, over­flowing morgue, and ash-laden ovens. General Henning Linden was one of the first totour the camp. He filed the following report:

We went through a small crematory, outside of which were shoes andclothing ... we saw several stacks of dead bodies, ... each looking like a hu­man skeleton with the skin stretched over it. We visited rooms in barracks,where bunks were stacked five and six high in a room 20 by 30 [feet] where 50men were quartered in so-called hospital wards that were nothing more than aconcrete barracks floor with straw strewn on it ... living skeletons were lyingin ragged, dirty clothing and bedding. The outstanding picture I got from myinspection of this camp was the barbaric, infamous systematic effort of thecamp routine to degrade the human to a point where he bordered on the ani­mal. I would strongly recommend that all German citizens within marchingdistance ofthis concentration camp be forced to walk through [it], to the endthat the German people could know and realize what form of government andphilosophy they have been supporting during the Nazi regime. (Dann, 1998,15t)

Linden, like many other regional commanders throughout Germany, ordered thatnearby civilians be taken through the camp. The sights seen by such forced tourswere published in newspapers, brochures, traveling exhibitions, and weekly news­reel films (Abzug, 1985; Brink, 1998; Marcuse, 2001, pp. 52-56). Whether out of fear,disbelief, denial, or for other reasons, however, those publicity efforts did not suc­ceed in displacing the "clean" Nazi propaganda image in the minds of most Germans.This can be seen in the case of the man who was to serve as the Dachau town mayorfor the three decades from 1966 to 1996, Lorenz Reitmeier. He was 14 years old in1945.

Reitmeier was taken through the camp by a surviving Polish priest immediatelyafter liberation (Holzhaider, 1985; Reitmeier, 1970, 1985). He saw some of the horri­fying sights, including an evacuation train laden with the corpses of 2000 inmates.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 121

the former camps into memorial sites, attempted to realize, retroactively and per­haps unconsciously, the "clean camp" image. In some cases, such as Dachau, the offi­cials could not avoid incorporating some coincidentally preserved elements of the murder machinery, but the overall impression conveyed by (West) German memorial sites is scrupulously "clean."

The "Dirty Camp": 1943-1945 As living conditions in Germany deteriorated after 1943, it became increasingly

difficult to "clean up" Dachau for special tours. By the end of 1944 conditions in camps such as Dachau were absolutely catastrophic. Even Herculean preparations could' not make them presentable to outsiders, and raging epidemics made them potentially lethal as well. Thus official visits dropped off during the demise of Hitler's empire, and the next outsiders to tour the Dachau camp were the American libera­tors on April 29, 1945 (Whitlock, 1998). They saw corpses laid out in rows outside the infirmary, viewed the interiors of the filthy, overcrowded barracks, the kennels of the camp's guard dogs, and the crematorium building with its gas chamber, over­flowing morgue, and ash-laden ovens. General Henning Linden was one of the first to tour the camp. He filed the following report:

We went through a small crematory, outside of which were shoes and clothing ... we saw several stacks of dead bodies, ... each looking like a hu­man skeleton with the skin stretched over it. We visited rooms in barracks, where bunks were stacked five and six high in a room 20 by 30 [feet] where 50 men were quartered in so-called hospital wards that were nothing more than a concrete barracks floor with straw strewn on it ... living skeletons were lying in ragged, dirty clothing and bedding. The outstanding picture I got from my inspection of this camp was the barbaric, infamous systematic effort of the camp routine to degrade the human to a point where he bordered on the ani­mal. I would strongly recommend that all German citizens within marching distance ofthis concentration camp be forced to walk through [it], to the end that the German people could know and realize what form of government and philosophy they have been supporting during the Nazi regime. (Dann, 1998, 15t)

Linden, like many other regional commanders throughout Germany, ordered that nearby civilians be taken through the camp. The sights seen by such forced tours were published in newspapers, brochures, traveling exhibitions, and weekly news­reel films (Abzug, 1985; Brink, 1998; Marcuse, 2001, pp. 52-56). Whether out of fear, disbelief, denial, or for other reasons, however, those publicity efforts did not suc­ceed in displacing the "clean" Nazi propaganda image in the minds of most Germans. This can be seen in the case of the man who was to serve as the Dachau town mayor for the three decades from 1966 to 1996, Lorenz Reitmeier. He was 14 years old in 1945.

Reitmeier was taken through the camp by a surviving Polish priest immediately after liberation (Holzhaider, 1985; Reitmeier, 1970, 1985). He saw some of the horri­fying sights, including an evacuation train laden with the corpses of 2000 inmates.

122 H. Marcuse

After the tour the Dachau teenager joined the liberated priest for a bowl of soup inthe priest's quarters. His subsequent descriptions of the experience indicate that, inspite ofthe evidence he witnessed, he held fast to the image of the "clean camp" thatpresumably dominated his Nazi-era consciousness. For him, the horrific conditionsseem to have been a brief and exceptional phase.

Within 2 months of liberation most of the surviving Dacha.u inmates had beenreleased or repatriated to their home countries, and the US army used the formerconcentration camp as an internment camp for captured German army officers, mem­bers of the SS,and high-ranking functionaries of the Nazi party. In November 1945,parallel to the well-known trials in Nuremberg, a US military court was set up in theDachau camp to try Nazi criminals such as the personnel of Dachau and other con­centration camps. For this purpose the prisoners' barracks were fenced off, and partsof the service building and some outlying buildings in the SSpart of the camp wereconverted into courtrooms. Camp survivors were allowed and perhaps even encour­aged to install a small documentary exhibition in the larger gas chamber-cremato­rium building.

A series of postcards, one small 23-page picture pamphlet (Dachau: BinTatsachenbericht), and a handful of existing photographs document that this firstexhibition emphasized the horrific brutality of the concentration camp. Life-sizemannequins in SS and prisoner uniforms were set up to demonstrate the use of the"whipping horse" and the practice of "pole hanging" (suspending prisoners from atall pole by their hands bound behind their backs). A third group portrayed a re­leased but rearrested prisoner "standing punishment" (Strafstehen) near the entrygate with a sign around his neck, "I am back again."The selection of pictures in theaccompanying pamphlet illustrates the exhibition's focus on crimes and atrocities.More than half of its 23 illustrations depict the most gruesome scenes photographedin the camp at liberation. The subsequent history of the exhibition indicates that itdid not succeed in establishing this "dirty" image of Dachau in the minds of the localpopulace. Rather, it seems to have convinced local officials of the need to expungeevidence of that part of the camp's history.

As the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union began, especially theUS relaxed its punitive stance toward Germany and took measures to gain the favorof the German populace. For example, the denazification and war crimes trials wererapidly ended after 1947. In Dachau in this more lenient atmosphere, the Germanauthorities began removing traces of its atrocious past.

"Cleaning Up" the Former Concentration Camp:1946-1955

Subsequent editions of the Dachau exhibition brochure indicate that its messagewas already being toned down while under US auspices prior to 1948. A secondedition of the pamphlet was published early in 1946, shortly after the end of the firstDachau trial (International Information Office, 1946). In it a shocking sequence de­picting the cremation of corpses was reduced from five pictures to two. New addi­tions were comparatively innocuous, such as 12 pictures showing scenes from theproceedings of the first Dachau trial.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

122 H. Marcuse

After the tour the Dachau teenager joined the liberated priest for a bowl of soup in the priest's quarters. His subsequent descriptions of the experience indicate that, in spite of the evidence he witnessed, he held fast to the image of the "clean camp" that presumably dominated his Nazi-era consciousness. For him, the horrific conditions seem to have been a brief and exceptional phase.

Within 2 months of liberation most of the surviving Dacha.u inmates had been released or repatriated to their home countries, and the US army used the former concentration camp as an internment camp for captured German army officers, mem­bers of the SS, and high-ranking functionaries of the Nazi party. In November 1945, parallel to the well-known trials in Nuremberg, a US military court was set up in the Dachau camp to try Nazi criminals such as the personnel of Dachau and other con­centration camps. For this purpose the prisoners' barracks were fenced off, and parts of the service building and some outlying buildings in the SS part of the camp were converted into courtrooms. Camp survivors were allowed and perhaps even encour­aged to install a small documentary exhibition in the larger gas chamber-cremato­rium building.

A series of postcards, one small 23-page picture pamphlet (Dachau: Bin Tatsachenbericht), and a handful of existing photographs document that this first exhibition emphasized the horrific brutality of the concentration camp. Life-size mannequins in SS and prisoner uniforms were set up to demonstrate the use of the "whipping horse" and the practice of "pole hanging" (suspending prisoners from a tall pole by their hands bound behind their backs). A third group portrayed a re­leased but rearrested prisoner "standing punishment" (Strafstehen) near the entry gate with a sign around his neck, "I am back again."The selection of pictures in the accompanying pamphlet illustrates the exhibition's focus on crimes and atrocities. More than half of its 23 illustrations depict the most gruesome scenes photographed in the camp at liberation. The subsequent history of the exhibition indicates that it did not succeed in establishing this "dirty" image of Dachau in the minds of the local populace. Rather, it seems to have convinced local officials of the need to expunge evidence of that part of the camp's history.

As the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union began, especially the US relaxed its punitive stance toward Germany and took measures to gain the favor of the German populace. For example, the denazification and war crimes trials were rapidly ended after 1947. In Dachau in this more lenient atmosphere, the German authorities began removing traces of its atrocious past.

"Cleaning Up" the Former Concentration Camp: 1946-1955

Subsequent editions of the Dachau exhibition brochure indicate that its message was already being toned down while under US auspices prior to 1948. A second edition of the pamphlet was published eady in 1946, shortly after the end of the first Dachau trial (International Information Office, 1946). In it a shocking sequence de­picting the cremation of corpses was reduced from five pictures to two. New addi­tions were comparatively innocuous, such as 12 pictures showing scenes from the proceedings of the first Dachau trial.

· Chapter 9 123

Still later editions from 1949 and 1950 further reduced the number of photographsof corpses while increasing the total number of illustrations. The new material in­cluded contemporary views of the various gravesites in Dachau, symbolic represen­tations of camp statistics, and a number of charcoal sketches depicting life in thecamp. The shift from pictures of corpses to pictures of cemeteries illustrates a ten­dency to "bury" the horrors of the Nazi past and preserve kinder memories.

As USmilitary authorities began to wrap up the denazification process, close downthe internment camps, and return them to German officials, the Bavarian govern­ment began to think about what to do with the former Dachau concentration camp.In November 1947 the Bavarian parliamentary committee on social policy discusseda proposal that former Nazi camps be reused as work camps, because a new "Law toCombat Work-Shyness and Loafing" was being drawn up that called for the committalof wayward women and lazy men to "educational work camps" (Hagn, 1947). Thematter was discussed in the full Bavarian House on January 16,1948, and the repre­sentatives unanimously passed a resolution that called on the Bavarian governmentto:

immediately begin negotiations with Military Government for the soonest pos­sible release of camp facilities (Dachau) in order to establish work camps forasocial elements .... The importance of work camps as places for the re-edu­cation of work-shy elements to productive citizens should be emphasized.(Verhandlungen,1947/48)

Right down to the choice of words and the explicit inclusion of Dachau, this rea­soning testifies to the postwar pervasiveness in the German public sphere of theimage propagated by the Nazis of the concentration camps as "clean" correctionalinstitutions.

The Bavarian parliament's decision to convert the Dachau camp into a penal facil­ity was not an exception in West Germany. For example, in October 1947 the Ham­burg prison authority appealed to the Hamburg Senate to request from the respon­sible Allied authority the release of the former Neuengamme concentration camp foruse as a prison in the Hamburg penal system (Bringmann & Roder, 1987, 38f). Whilethis endeavor succeeded in Hamburg, in Dachau the Bavarian government had tochange its plans. With the heightening of the Cold War,German refugees began pour­ing into Bavaria from Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries. In thefall of 1948 the Bavarian government instead converted Dachau into a residentialsettlement for refugees.

The wall, barbed wire fencing, and barriers were removed, and most of the 32barracks were converted into apartment buildings with 24 one- and two-room dwell­ings each (Figure 9.2). One barrack was converted into a school and dry goods store,another into four workshops, two others into dormitories for single men and women,yet another into an office and communal kitchen, and one quarter of another into apublic bathing facility. The former delousing facility for clothing at the north end ofthe camp was converted into a restaurant with a meeting hall for up to 600 persons,and several of the apartment barracks also contained small stores (Rost, 1956). Inone barrack space was even allotted for a planned municipal administration. In thefollowing 7 years, the camp street was paved, street lights installed, flower beds

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

· Chapter 9 123

Still later editions from 1949 and 1950 further reduced the number of photographs of corpses while increasing the total number of illustrations. The new material in­cluded contemporary views of the various gravesites in Dachau, symbolic represen­tations of camp statistics, and a number of charcoal sketches depicting life in the camp. The shift from pictures of corpses to pictures of cemeteries illustrates a ten­dency to "bury" the horrors of the Nazi past and preserve kinder memories.

As US military authorities began to wrap up the denazification process, close down the internment camps, and return them to German officials, the Bavarian govern­ment began to think about what to do with the former Dachau concentration camp. In November 1947 the Bavarian parliamentary committee on social policy discussed a proposal that former Nazi camps be reused as work camps, because a new "Law to Combat Work-Shyness and Loafing" was being drawn up that called for the committal of wayward women and lazy men to "educational work camps" (Hagn, 1947). The matter was discussed in the full Bavarian House on January 16,1948, and the repre­sentatives unanimously passed a resolution that called on the Bavarian government to:

immediately begin negotiations with Military Government for the soonest pos­sible release of camp facilities (Dachau) in order to establish work camps for asocial elements .... The importance of work camps as places for the re-edu­cation of work-shy elements to productive citizens should be emphasized. (Verhandlungen, 1947/48)

Right down to the choice of words and the explicit inclusion of Dachau, this rea­soning testifies to the postwar pervasiveness in the German public sphere of the image propagated by the Nazis of the concentration camps as "clean" correctional institutions.

The Bavarian parliament's decision to convert the Dachau camp into a penal facil­ity was not an exception in West Germany. For example, in October 1947 the Ham­burg prison authority appealed to the Hamburg Senate to request from the respon­sible Allied authority the release of the former Neuengamme concentration camp for use as a prison in the Hamburg penal system (Bringmann & Roder, 1987, 38f). While this endeavor succeeded in Hamburg, in Dachau the Bavarian government had to change its plans. With the heightening of the Cold War, German refugees began pour­ing into Bavaria from Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries. In the fall of 1948 the Bavarian government instead converted Dachau into a residential settlement for refugees.

The wall, barbed wire fencing, and barriers were removed, and most of the 32 barracks were converted into apartment buildings with 24 one- and two-room dwell­ings each (Figure 9.2). One barrack was converted into a school and dry goods store, another into four workshops, two others into dormitories for single men and women, yet another into an office and communal kitchen, and one quarter of another into a public bathing facility. The former delousing facility for clothing at the north end of the camp was converted into a restaurant with a meeting hall for up to 600 persons, and several of the apartment barracks also contained small stores (Rost, 1956). In one barrack space was even allotted for a planned municipal administration. In the following 7 years, the camp street was paved, street lights installed, flower beds

124

sleeping room 1(1938: 90 beds in

30 three-tiered bunks)

roomelder

day room 1

I!lI11II

Eoo..crJlCIl

:!:

0;rJldQ; 01'50-0

0:

day room 2

I!lI11II

roomelder

H. Marcuse

sleeping room 2(1938: 90 beds in

30 three-tiered bunks)

I 9.7m-----<Schematic rendition of interior divisions of

concentration camp barracks,1938-45 (1/2 barrack)

~---------------------45m-----------------------lironing room

"C"

1EcocD

11-3.8m-<

IIslave III chimney Barracks as renovated in 1948-49 (1/2 barrack)

Figure 9.2. Comparison of blueprints of the Dachau concentration camp barracks asfurnished in 1938 and as remodeled in 1948. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

planted, and more stores and factories granted concessions in the old camp build­ings (Marcuse, 2001, pp. 162-164).As far as the elected representatives of the Bavar­ian people were concerned, there was no need to preserve remnants of the concen­tration camp for present or future visitors.

The following story published by a visitor in 1951 indicates how foreign visitorsassessed these changes (Werner, 1951).Alfred Werner was an Austrian Jew who hadbeen imprisoned in Dachau for several months in 1938-1939, before he was able toemigrate to the US.In the summer of 1951, Werner returned to Germany as a tourist.In Munich his inquiries about the Dachau camp met with hostile reactions fromlocal residents, but once Werner was on his way to Dachau in a bus, talkative Dachaunatives addressed him and told their version of how a concentration camp had ap­peared from close proximity, namely relatively innocuous.

When his taxi from the Dachau bus station entered the former prisoners' compound,Werner discovered a kind of shantytown, "a German version of a Hooverville," as hewrote. The concentration camp barracks were now covered with "Eternite" asbestoscement paneling and inhabited by "DPs" (displaced persons) from Eastern Europe.Asthe taxi cruised down the central camp/settlement street, Werner noted that barbed­wire fencing still surrounded some parts of the compound (the bunker and entry gatearea still belonged to the USArmy until 1971). He resisted the urge to stop and inspectthe barrack in which he had lived because he did not want to disturb the playingchildren. Finally the taxi drove into a walled enclosure surrounding what appeared tohim like a "tastefully landscaped American state park."This park featured a statue, sev­eral plaques, and two crematoria, the larger of which included a gas chamber bearingthe inscription "shower room," a morgue, and four ovens. Werner commented posi­tively on the graffiti on the walls, much of it from survivors like himself.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

124

E 0

sleeping room 1 day room 1 0 ",0 day room 2 (1938: 90 beds in

e a;o .s::: '5 0

30 three-tiered bunks) I!lI '" I!lI C\l -0 l1li :!: l1li

0

I- - -r= =l elder elder

I 9.7m-----< Schematic rendition of interior divisions of

concentration camp barracks,1938-4S (1/2 barrack)

45m

ironing room

H. Marcuse

sleeping room 2 (1938: 90 beds in

30 three-tiered bunks)

1 E co cD

~#=~~~~~~~~UC"~l II slave III chimney Barracks as renovated in 1948-49 (1/2 barrack)

Figure 9.2. Comparison of blueprints of the Dachau concentration camp barracks as furnished in 1938 and as remodeled in 1948. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

planted, and more stores and factories granted concessions in the old camp build­ings (Marcuse, 2001, pp. 162-164).As far as the elected representatives of the Bavar­ian people were concerned, there was no need to preserve remnants of the concen­tration camp for present or future visitors.

The following story published by a visitor in 1951 indicates how foreign visitors assessed these changes (Werner, 1951).Alfred Werner was an Austrian Jew who had been imprisoned in Dachau for several months in 1938-1939, before he was able to emigrate to the US. In the summer of 1951, Werner returned to Germany as a tourist. In Munich his inquiries about the Dachau camp met with hostile reactions from local residents, but once Werner was on his way to Dachau in a bus, talkative Dachau natives addressed him and told their version of how a concentration camp had ap­peared from close proximity, namely relatively innocuous.

When his taxi from the Dachau bus station entered the former prisoners' compound, Werner discovered a kind of shantytown, "a German version of a Hooverville," as he wrote. The concentration camp barracks were now covered with "Eternite" asbestos cement paneling and inhabited by "DPs" (displaced persons) from Eastern Europe.As the taxi cruised down the central camp/settlement street, Werner noted that barbed­wire fencing still surrounded some parts of the compound (the bunker and entry gate area still belonged to the US Army until 1971). He resisted the urge to stop and inspect the barrack in which he had lived because he did not want to disturb the playing children. Finally the taxi drove into a walled enclosure surrounding what appeared to him like a "tastefully landscaped American state park."This park featured a statue, sev­eral plaques, and two crematoria, the larger of which included a gas chamber bearing the inscription "shower room," a morgue, and four ovens. Werner commented posi­tively on the graffiti on the walls, much of it from survivors like himself.

Chapter 9 125

The expatriate Austrian Jew contemplated the perfunctory manner in which hisdriver-guide explained the ovens and gas chamber to him, namely "with a certaincallousness ... common to all guides who show visitors through cemeteries, battle­fields, and the like."Werner reasoned that the memorial site was probably designedas it should be: soothing for those who had suffered in the camp, a documentarywarning for those who had not experienced Nazi Germany, and not so graphic as todisturb present-day life in the city of Dachau and in Germany.

Many Americans, especially American Jews, right down to the present day, expresssimilar sentiments. In many published accounts from the early 1950s to the 1980s,American visitors describe their anticipation, observations of local Germans, thoughtsabout the sights in the camp, and attempts to make sense of their visit (Bettelheim,1956; Bronstein, 1988; Deeter, 1967; Gun, 1966, pp. 296-309; Halperin, 1971, pp. 106­113;H-Holocaust, 1994; Philipson, 1957; Ragins, 1992; Stokes, 1999;Tennenbaum, 1976;Wakin, 1964; interviews by author, 1992-199Y). Except for details about the physi­cal condition of the former camp, which changed dramatically during those threedecades, their narratives reveal a high degree of similarity. This suggests that preex­isting knowledge and expectations play an extremely important role in how thememorial site is experienced.

Nonetheless, the Bavarian authorities modified the site extensively in repeatedattempts to shape visitors' experiences.The first such modification was prompted byAlfred Werner's published account. His December 1951 article came to the attentionof the main Munich newspaper, the Silddeutsche Zeitung, which sent a member ofits editorial staff to retrace the Austrian-American visitor's tracks and prepare a re­port for German readers (Steinmayr, 1952a).

In contrast to the returning Jewish survivor, the German newspaperman JoachimSteinmayr made no mention of the refugee settlement in his account of his visit. Nordid he reflect about his own impressions, or about what other German visitors mightlearn from seeing the preserved remains. His primary concern was the impressionthat the former camp might make on foreigner visitors. Steinmayr found the smallexhibition of photographs, models, posters, maps, relics, and explanatory tables "un­attractive." In his article he repeatedly mentioned the groups of American soldiersgaping at the whipping horse, entering their "countless" names in the visitors' book,"heatedly" but "unconcernedly" discussing something near the now-empty kennelsof the camp bloodhounds, and all the while taking pictures of sights such as the oldcrematory, the execution range, and the "gallows tree."

Steinmayr concluded his report with a series of quotations.A refugee farmer livingin the former concentration camp barracks said:"Something must be done."The mayorof Dachau commented:"We Dachauer don't like this collection of curiosities at all,but we keep our hands off."A taxi driver told him: "Whether we like it or not, itattracts foreigners, and they would be disappointed if there were nothing to see."Arepresentative of the State Restitution Office told Steinmayr that he personally wasdissatisfied with the exhibition, but explained that the German authorities were atthe mercy of the foreign tourists:

If we change any part, foreigners would storm the barricades. They will say: theGermans want to cover up their guilt. ... Many of the foreigners who were

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 125

The expatriate Austrian Jew contemplated the perfunctory manner in which his driver-guide explained the ovens and gas chamber to him, namely "with a certain callousness ... common to all guides who show visitors through cemeteries, battle­fields, and the like."Werner reasoned that the memorial site was probably designed as it should be: soothing for those who had suffered in the camp, a documentary warning for those who had not experienced Nazi Germany, and not so graphic as to disturb present-day life in the city of Dachau and in Germany.

Many Americans, especially American Jews, right down to the present day, express similar sentiments. In many published accounts from the early 1950s to the 1980s, American visitors describe their anticipation, observations of local Germans, thoughts about the sights in the camp, and attempts to make sense of their visit (Bettelheim, 1956; Bronstein, 1988; Decter, 1967; Gun, 1966, pp. 296-309; Halperin, 1971, pp. 106-113;H-Holocaust, 1994; Philipson, 1957; Ragins, 1992; Stokes, 1999;Tennenbaum, 1976; Wakin, 1964; interviews by author, 1992-199Y). Except for details about the physi­cal condition of the former camp, which changed dramatically during those three decades, their narratives reveal a high degree of similarity. This suggests that preex­isting knowledge and expectations play an extremely important role in how the memorial site is experienced.

Nonetheless, the Bavarian authorities modified the site extensively in repeated attempts to shape visitors' experiences.The first such modification was prompted by Alfred Werner's published account. His December 1951 article came to the attention of the main Munich newspaper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, which sent a member of its editorial staff to retrace the Austrian-American visitor'S tracks and prepare a re­port for German readers (Steinmayr, 1952a).

In contrast to the returning Jewish survivor, the German newspaperman Joachim Steinmayr made no mention of the refugee settlement in his account of his visit. Nor did he reflect about his own impressions, or about what other German visitors might learn from seeing the preserved remains. His primary concern was the impression that the former camp might make on foreigner visitors. Steinmayr found the small exhibition of photographs, models, posters, maps, relics, and explanatory tables "un­attractive." In his article he repeatedly mentioned the groups of American soldiers gaping at the whipping horse, entering their "countless" names in the visitors' book, "heatedly" but "unconcernedly" discussing something near the now-empty kennels of the camp bloodhounds, and all the while taking pictures of sights such as the old crematory, the execution range, and the "gallows tree."

Steinmayr concluded his report with a series of quotations.A refugee farmer living in the former concentration camp barracks said:"Something must be done."The mayor of Dachau commented:"We Dachauer don't like this collection of curiosities at all, but we keep our hands off." A taxi driver told him: "Whether we like it or not, it attracts foreigners, and they would be disappointed if there were nothing to see." A representative of the State Restitution Office told Steinmayr that he personally was dissatisfied with the exhibition, but explained that the German authorities were at the mercy of the foreign tourists:

If we change any part, foreigners would storm the barricades. They will say: the Germans want to cover up their gUilt. ... Many of the foreigners who were

126 H. Marcuse

once imprisoned in Dachau are completely justified in denying us Germans theright to have any say in what happens to the crematorium in Dachau.

Steinmayr used this quotation to imply that only foreign interests supported theexhibition. He concluded this first article with the simple demand that "somethingmust be done." In successive versions of this article Steinmayr continued to criticizethe Dachau memorial site (Steinmayr, 1952b, 1952c, 1952d). In a July 1952 versionhe concluded:

Thus this place that was supposed to stimulate introspection ... has become asite of curiosity and lust for sensations .... Additionally, the visitors of thegrounds, especially the conspicuously large number of American soldiers, shownot the least trace of piety. They take pictures ... and talk as if they were in azoological garden or wax museum, not at a site of remembrance for the suffer­ing and death of innocent people. Thus one has the impression that the gaschamber and the crematory ovens and the two mass graves ... were neverhorrible reality. One leaves KZ Dachau in spite of all of the commemorativeplaques ... with the feeling that this place that was intended to be a fiery ap­peal to humanity does not or only poorly fulfills that mission.

Steinmayr had put into words what many local residents thought, and the Bavarianauthorities responded. Almost immediately after the survivors' memorial ceremonyon April 30, 1953, the Bavarian government took action (Marcuse, 2001, pp. 176­180). On May 5, 1953 the cabinet decided to remove the exhibition and close thecrematorium to the public. Only 1 week later their plan was implemented.The exhi­bition was removed, and the sale of printed matter within the crematory complexand all guided tours were prohibited. The Finance Minister announced to the pressthat it had been necessary to clear out the exhibition in order to "counter uncontrol­lable propaganda" being spread by the curator, a survivor of the camp ("Bayernschliesst," 1953).

The Bavarian government, however, did not realize that an international pilgrim­age of Dachau survivors from France was planned for June 7. French survivors andfamily members of inmates who had perished had been coming to Dachau annuallyin June for a number of years. They had attracted little attention because the Frenchnever stayed overnight on German soil. A short time after the pilgrimage FrenchMinister of Justice Edmond Michelet, a Dachau survivor, published articles condemn­ing the removal of the exhibition in the French newspapers Figaro and Ie Monde,prompting the French General Consulate to send an official inquiry to the Bavariangovernment.

The correspondence between the Bavarian Ministry of Finance and the State Chan­cellery reveals the motives of the Bavarian government for removing the exhibition(Marcuse, 2001, p. 180f). The State Chancellery suggested that the Finance Ministrymight mention that a survivor, Erich Preuss, had set up the exhibition "without apermit"; that the type of presentation was, "in the unanimous opinion of the respon­sible authorities ... not commensurate with the sacrifices of the camp prisoners"(sic!); and that Mr. Preuss had made substantial personal profits through the sale ofbrochures and postcards.The clinching argument was that "a broad spectrum of the

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

126 H. Marcuse

once imprisoned in Dachau are completely justified in denying us Germans the right to have any say in what happens to the crematorium in Dachau.

Steinmayr used this quotation to imply that only foreign interests supported the exhibition. He concluded this first article with the simple demand that "something must be done." In successive versions of this article Steinmayr continued to criticize the Dachau memorial site (Steinmayr, 1952b, 1952c, 1952d). In a July 1952 version he concluded:

Thus this place that was supposed to stimulate introspection ... has become a site of curiosity and lust for sensations .... Additionally, the visitors of the grounds, especially the conspicuously large number of American soldiers, show not the least trace of piety. They take pictures ... and talk as if they were in a zoological garden or wax museum, not at a site of remembrance for the suffer­ing and death of innocent people. Thus one has the impression that the gas chamber and the crematory ovens and the two mass graves ... were never horrible reality. One leaves KZ Dachau in spite of all of the commemorative plaques ... with the feeling that this place that was intended to be a fiery ap­peal to humanity does not or only poorly fulfills that mission.

Steinmayr had put into words what many local residents thought, and the Bavarian authorities responded. Almost immediately after the survivors' memorial ceremony on April 30, 1953, the Bavarian government took action (Marcuse, 2001, pp. 176-180). On May 5, 1953 the cabinet decided to remove the exhibition and close the crematorium to the public. Only 1 week later their plan was implemented.The exhi­bition was removed, and the sale of printed matter within the crematory complex and all guided tours were prohibited. The Finance Minister announced to the press that it had been necessary to clear out the exhibition in order to "counter uncontrol­lable propaganda" being spread by the curator, a survivor of the camp ("Bayern schliesst," 1953).

The Bavarian government, however, did not realize that an international pilgrim­age of Dachau survivors from France was planned for June 7. French survivors and family members of inmates who had perished had been coming to Dachau annually in June for a number of years. They had attracted little attention because the French never stayed overnight on German soil. A short time after the pilgrimage French Minister of Justice Edmond Michelet, a Dachau survivor, published articles condemn­ing the removal of the exhibition in the French newspapers Figaro and Ie Monde, prompting the French General Consulate to send an official inquiry to the Bavarian government.

The correspondence between the Bavarian Ministry of Finance and the State Chan­cellery reveals the motives of the Bavarian government for removing the exhibition (Marcuse, 2001, p. 180f). The State Chancellery suggested that the Finance Ministry might mention that a survivor, Erich Preuss, had set up the exhibition "without a permit"; that the type of presentation was,"in the unanimous opinion of the respon­sible authorities ... not commensurate with the sacrifices of the camp prisoners" (sic!); and that Mr. Preuss had made substantial personal profits through the sale of brochures and postcards.The clinching argument was that "a broad spectrum of the

Chapter 9 127

public, in particular also groups of former prisoners, felt that this was, for obviousreasons, an unworthy situation that was to be terminated." That rationale was laterused in the official answer to the French inquiry.The State Chancellery's accompany­ing explanatory letter to the Bavarian Finance Ministry, however, offers a glimpse ofthe real motivation:"For political reasons we strongly advise that especially no refer­ence be made to the climate of opinion vis-a-vis the exhibition that obviously domi­nated certain circles in the city of Dachau."

Other West German newspapers also used descriptions of tourist visits to Dachauin order to explain the removal of the exhibition. In late May 1953 the Munich Merkurpublished a pathos-filled description of a Swiss family's visit to Dachau ("Dachaukampft," 1953).The family members, according to the article, had felt quite at ease inthe town until they decided to visit the former KZ. That evening they returned totheir hotel completely distraught, and the "aging lady" suffered an "actual" heart at­tack. The family fled the town 2 hours later. "What happened in this 'symptomatic'case?," the author asked rhetorically, and indignantly answered his own question:"The former KZ prisoner Erich Preuss, employed for many years by the US camp[actually by the Bavarian State Restitution Authority], had described the tragic pastwith great authenticity."

The journalist apparently thought that Preuss should have been less authentic.Aweek later a Heidelberg newspaper characterized Preuss as someone who "couldnot forget what he had experienced as a KZ inmate" ("Bayern schliesst," 1953). Thearticle, which suggested that "Dachau be turned into a memorial of reconciliation,just as the dilapidated barracks of the former KZ have turned into a blossoming cityof expellees," then fired its lowest shot at Preuss. In its most powerful invective itclaimed that:

He preferred to lead the columns of visitors, after they had completed theirtravels through the gorgeous landscapes of the [German] south, into his KZmemorial site, where [their impression oD] the reconstruction of the new Ger­many was destroyed by "parting impressions" and intentionally fostered feel­ings of resentment. [emphasis added]

Foreign interest in Dachau remained high, however. For instance, in early March1954 the New York Herald-Tribune published a front page article about the memo­rial site (Coblentz, 1954). The article, written in a cool, objective style, showedunderstanding for the removal of the old exhibition, but also criticized Germanattempts to sanitize remains of the Nazi past. The author described how the SScomplex was being used by the "Dachau Detachment" of the USArmy to processfood and rations for army units throughout central Europe, while the Bavarian gov­ernment had refurbished the prisoners' compound to accommodate 5000 "expel­lees" from the East.The directional sign at the entrance to the US installation listedeclectically "laundry and dry cleaning, chapel, crematory, and motor pool." In thecrematorium itself the author found no historical documentation, only hundreds ofsignatures on the walls. He offered the Bavarian government's explanation for theremoval of the exhibition 9 months earlier, namely because it had been "offensiveto good taste and ... harmful to an improvement in international relations." Heconcluded by noting critically that the German caretaker had tried to convince

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 127

public, in particular also groups of former prisoners, felt that this was, for obvious reasons, an unworthy situation that was to be terminated." That rationale was later used in the official answer to the French inquiry.The State Chancellery's accompany­ing explanatory letter to the Bavarian Finance Ministry, however, offers a glimpse of the real motivation:"For political reasons we strongly advise that especially no refer­ence be made to the climate of opinion vis-a-vis the exhibition that obviously domi­nated certain circles in the city of Dachau."

Other West German newspapers also used descriptions of tourist visits to Dachau in order to explain the removal of the exhibition. In late May 1953 the Munich Merkur published a pathos-filled description of a Swiss family's visit to Dachau ("Dachau kampfi," 1953).The family members, according to the article, had felt quite at ease in the town until they decided to visit the former KZ. That evening they returned to their hotel completely distraught, and the "aging lady" suffered an "actual" heart at­tack. The family fled the town 2 hours later. "What happened in this 'symptomatic' case? ," the author asked rhetorically, and indignantly answered his own question: "The former KZ prisoner Erich Preuss, employed for many years by the US camp [actually by the Bavarian State Restitution Authority], had described the tragic past with great authenticity."

The journalist apparently thought that Preuss should have been less authentic.A week later a Heidelberg newspaper characterized Preuss as someone who "could not forget what he had experienced as a KZ inmate" ("Bayern schliesst," 1953). The article, which suggested that "Dachau be turned into a memorial of reconciliation, just as the dilapidated barracks of the former KZ have turned into a blossoming city of expellees," then fired its lowest shot at Preuss. In its most powerful invective it claimed that:

He preferred to lead the columns of visitors, after they had completed their travels through the gorgeous landscapes of the [German] south, into his KZ memorial site, where [their impression oD] the reconstruction of the new Ger­many was destroyed by "parting impressions" and intentionally fostered feel­ings of resentment. [emphasis added]

Foreign interest in Dachau remained high, however. For instance, in early March 1954 the New York Herald-Tribune published a front page article about the memo­rial site (Coblentz, 1954). The article, written in a cool, objective style, showed understanding for the removal of the old exhibition, but also criticized German attempts to sanitize remains of the Nazi past. The author described how the SS complex was being used by the "Dachau Detachment" of the US Army to process food and rations for army units throughout central Europe, while the Bavarian gov­ernment had refurbished the prisoners' compound to accommodate 5000 "expel­lees" from the East.The directional sign at the entrance to the US installation listed eclectically "laundry and dry cleaning, chapel, crematory, and motor pooL" In the crematorium itself the author found no historical documentation, only hundreds of signatures on the walls. He offered the Bavarian government's explanation for the removal of the exhibition 9 months earlier, namely because it had been "offensive to good taste and ... harmful to an improvement in international relations." He concluded by noting critically that the German caretaker had tried to convince

128 H. Marcuse

him that the crematorium-gas chamber building had been built by the US armyafter the war for propaganda purposes.

Another article, published in 1954 by the Manchester Guardian Weekly, was morecritical of the German clean-up efforts (Prittie, 1954).Author Terence Prittie firstcontrasted the" raggedy refugee-children" and old women peering out of the concen­tration camp barracks windows with the "perfectly preserved" garden around thecrematoria. Then he described the gruesome murder apparatus in straightforwardterms, noting that the walls were covered with "scribbled messages."In conclusionhe quoted a story in a German newspaper that repeated the claim that the UShadbuilt the crematorium after the war to "pin guilt"on Germany.Prittie prophesied thatin a year's time there would be neither a sentry nor directional signs.

He was right on the second count: the town of Dachau had the directional signsremoved that same year,and it even attempted to prohibit the sale of literature aboutthe concentration camp in the stores and restaurants in the former camp. In 1955the county governor spearheaded an even bolder initiative: closing the crematoriumgrounds to the public, and tearing the building itself down (Marcuse,2001, pp. 181­185). In contrast to the Bavarian government's behind-the-scenes maneuvering toclose the crematorium exhibition in 1952-1953, however, this attempt was public.When Dachau county's representative submitted the proposal to the Bavarianparlia­ment in July 1955, it immediately met a barrage of vehement protest from campsurvivors and the news media.

From 1952 to 1955 the political situation had changed. The German "economicmiracle" had come into full swing,West Germany had been accepted into NATOandhad begun rebuilding its army,and Chancellor Adenauer was about to leave for a visitto Moscow,where he would negotiate the release of the last German POWsand Naziperpetrators still being held in the Soviet Union. Thus, West Germans had far lesscause to perceive themselves as victims. State officials were now turning their atten­tion outwards and trying to establish a"clean"imagein the international public sphere,rather than catering to local fears of bad publicity. The same Bavarian Minister ofFinance who ordered the removal of the exhibition in 1953 told the press in 1955:

I think that the former concentration camp Dachau is so well known and sonotorious the world over, and so many people died and were murdered there,that it would give the world a very false impression if one were to prohibitvisitors. Landrat Junker was very poorly advised to have submitted this bill.("Landrat schlecht beraten," 1955)

The county governor withdrew his proposal, and survivors of the camp beganmobilizing internationally to launch a campaign to close the refugee settlement andpreserve the former camp buildings as a memorial site. It took a full decade beforetheir efforts succeeded.

The Move Toward Documenting the Past: 1955-1960Protracted negotiations between the survivors' organization and the Bavariangov­

ernment began in 1957.A breakthrough came in 1960 from a rather unexpectedsource: the Catholic priests who had been imprisoned in the camp.Munich suffragan

-----------------------------------------------~- ..__._~_v __ 'I

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

128 H. Marcuse

him that the crematorium-gas chamber building had been built by the US army after the war for propaganda purposes.

Another article,published in 1954 by the Manchester Guardian Weekly, was more critical of the German clean-up efforts (Prittie, 1954). Author Terence Prittie first contrasted the" raggedy refugee-children" and old women peering out of the concen­tration camp barracks windows with the "perfectly preserved" garden around the crematoria. Then he described the gruesome murder apparatus in straightforward terms, noting that the walls were covered with "scribbled messages." In conclusion he quoted a story in a German newspaper that repeated the claim that the US had built the crematorium after the war to "pin guilt" on Germany. Prittie prophesied that in a year's time there would be neither a sentry nor directional signs.

He was right on the second count: the town of Dachau had the directional signs removed that same year, and it even attempted to prohibit the sale of literature about the concentration camp in the stores and restaurants in the former camp. In 1955 the county governor spearheaded an even bolder initiative: closing the crematorium grounds to the public, and tearing the building itself down (Marcuse, 2001, pp. 181-185). In contrast to the Bavarian government's behind-the-scenes maneuvering to close the crematorium exhibition in 1952-1953,however, this attempt was public. When Dachau county's representative submitted the proposal to the Bavarian parlia­ment in July 1955, it immediately met a barrage of vehement protest from camp survivors and the news media.

From 1952 to 1955 the political situation had changed. The German "economic miracle" had come into full swing, West Germany had been accepted into NATO and had begun rebuilding its army, and Chancellor Adenauer was about to leave for a visit to Moscow, where he would negotiate the release of the last German POW sand Nazi perpetrators still being held in the Soviet Union. Thus, West Germans had far less cause to perceive themselves as victims. State officials were now turning their atten­tion outwards and trying to establish a "clean" image in the international public sphere, rather than catering to local fears of bad pUblicity. The same Bavarian Minister of Finance who ordered the removal of the exhibition in 1953 told the press in 1955:

I think that the former concentration camp Dachau is so well known and so notorious the world over, and so many people died and were murdered there, that it would give the world a very false impression if one were to prohibit visitors. Landrat Junker was very poorly advised to have submitted this bill. ("Landrat schlecht beraten," 1955)

The county governor withdrew his proposal, and survivors of the camp began mobilizing internationally to launch a campaign to close the refugee settlement and preserve the former camp buildings as a memorial site. It took a full decade before their efforts succeeded.

The Move Toward Documenting the Past: 1955-1960 Protracted negotiations between the survivors' organization and the Bavarian gov­

ernment began in 1957. A breakthrough came in 1960 from a rather unexpected source: the Catholic priests who had been imprisoned in the camp. Munich suffragan

Chapter 9 129

bishop Johannes Neuhausler, who had been imprisoned with the famous opposi­tional Protestant church leader Martin Niemoller in the concentration camp's tractof cells for special prisoners, was in charge of organizing the EucharisticWorld Con­gress to be held in Munich that year.Critical reactions by recent prominent visitorsprompted Neuhausler to decide to erect a chapel in the camp, thus making it more"dignified"for the unavoidable visits by foreigners.

Within 6 months Neuhausler had organized a fund-raising drive, found a suitabledesign, and begun construction. He decided to dedicate the chapel at an officialceremony during the World Congress in early August 1960,when tens of thousandsof foreign visitors would be present. The Dachau survivors, who had included a mu­seum in their 1957 memorial site design, realized that the World Congress would bean excellent opportunity to unveil a preliminary exhibition. In July 1960 they cre­ated a smallmuseum in the morgue and undressing rooms of the crematorium, wherethe first postwar exhibition had stood until 1953.TheAugust 1960 chapel dedicationwas an impressive event, with ca. 50,000 people in attendance. During the followingyear the survivors expanded and improved the temporary exhibition, and the Bavar­ian government began negotiating more seriously about relocating the thousands ofpeople still living in the former concentration camp.

This 1960 exhibition contained many of the elements ofthe permanent exhibitionthat was to open in 1965. In one room a model of the prisoners' compound of theconcentration camp, which had already been commissioned by the survivors in 1957for the permanent museum,was displayed.The rest was a collection of artifacts,charts,photographs, and facsimile d·ocuments.A local newspaper reporter described it asfollows:

Statistics, blueprints, and documents aid one's memory: arrest warrants fromthe Gestapo; orders to send the prisoners' tooth-gold directly to the medicaloffice, to make women's hair into felt and yarn, and to bring the low tempera­ture experiments "to a good conclusion"; clemency petitions, reports aboutautopsies, police investigations; photocopies of orders of the day and liquida­tion detail lists;pictures, graphs. In their midst spotted gray-bluestriped prison­ers' uniforms, bull whip, whipping horse, and other instruments of torture. A"profitability calculation" makes a ghastly impression: for an average life span anet profit of 1631 Reichsmarks per prisoner is calculated, "not including theproceeds from the utilization of the bones and ash,"says the panel. Under it theterse preprinted forms: "release due to death"-sent to the families of deadprisoners. The last room of the exhibition is dominated by the headlines in theinternational press-about the liberation of the Dachau KZ prisoners on 29April 1945, and about the subsequent trials of the SSthugs and henchmen. Inone glass case lie nearly 50 books and brochures-memoirs of liberated prison­ers.At the exit a placard warns: "Never Again!"(Reichel, 1960)

It is interesting to examine the differences between this exhibition and the onelater installed in the service building in 1965 (which will remain until ca. 2002).Most notably,the earlier documentation did not contain any reference to the system­atic extermination of the Jews. Of course there was little room in the crematorium todisplay such documentation, but since the judeocide was missing from the contem-

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 129

bishop Johannes Neuhausler, who had been imprisoned with the famous opposi­tional Protestant church leader Martin Niemoller in the concentration camp's tract of cells for special prisoners, was in charge of organizing the Eucharistic World Con­gress to be held in Munich that year. Critical reactions by recent prominent visitors prompted Neuhausler to decide to erect a chapel in the camp, thus making it more "dignified" for the unavoidable visits by foreigners.

Within 6 months Neuhausler had organized a fund-raising drive, found a suitable design, and begun construction. He decided to dedicate the chapel at an official ceremony during the World Congress in early August 1960, when tens of thousands of foreign visitors would be present. The Dachau survivors, who had included a mu­seum in their 1957 memorial site design, realized that the World Congress would be an excellent opportunity to unveil a preliminary exhibition. In July 1960 they cre­ated a small museum in the morgue and undressing rooms of the crematorium, where the first postwar exhibition had stood until 1953.TheAugust 1960 chapel dedication was an impressive event, with ca. 50,000 people in attendance. During the following year the survivors expanded and improved the temporary exhibition, and the Bavar­ian government began negotiating more seriously about relocating the thousands of people still living in the former concentration camp.

This 1960 exhibition contained many of the elements ofthe permanent exhibition that was to open in 1965. In one room a model of the prisoners' compound of the concentration camp, which had already been commissioned by the survivors in 1957 for the permanent museum, was displayed. The rest was a collection of artifacts, charts, photographs, and facsimile d·ocuments. A local newspaper reporter described it as follows:

Statistics, blueprints, and documents aid one's memory: arrest warrants from the Gestapo; orders to send the prisoners' tooth-gold directly to the medical office, to make women's hair into felt and yarn, and to bring the low tempera­ture experiments "to a good conclusion"; clemency petitions, reports about autopsies, police investigations; photocopies of orders of the day and liquida­tion detail lists; pictures,graphs. In their midst spotted gray-blue striped prison­ers' uniforms, bull whip, whipping horse, and other instruments of torture. A "profitability calculation" makes a ghastly impression: for an average life span a net profit of 1631 Reichsmarks per prisoner is calculated, "not including the proceeds from the utilization of the bones and ash," says the panel. Under it the terse preprinted forms: "release due to death"-sent to the families of dead prisoners. The last room of the exhibition is dominated by the headlines in the international press-about the liberation of the Dachau KZ prisoners on 29 April 1945, and about the subsequent trials of the SS thugs and henchmen. In one glass case lie nearly 50 books and brochures-memoirs of liberated prison­ers.At the exit a placard warns: "Never Again!" (Reichel, 1960)

It is interesting to examine the differences between this exhibition and the one later installed in the service building in 1965 (which will remain until ca. 2002). Most notably, the earlier documentation did not contain any reference to the system­atic extermination of the Jews. Of course there was little room in the crematorium to display such documentation, but since the judeocide was missing from the contem-

130 H. Marcuse

poraneous plans for the final museum, considerations of space were probably notthe reason for its exclusion. Rather, in 1960 there was very little public awareness ofthe Holocaust per se. Only after the Eichmann trial in 1961 did the scope of theHolocaust-and its links to their own camp-become clear to the survivors of Dachau.

Another important difference was that the 1960 exhibition included models ofthegassing facility at Hartheim in Austria, where almost 3200 Dachau inmates had beenmurdered, and of the shooting range at nearby Hebertshausen, where an estimated6000 Soviet prisoners of war were executed (see Figure 9.3).Although Dutch survi­vor Nico Rost, one of the leading figures in the movement to create a museum, feltthat these models were, if anything, too small to convey the enormity of the eventsthey represented, they were not included in the 1965 museum (Rost, 1962). The1965-2002 exhibition shows only photographs and some documents of these twoaspects of Dachau's history. I have not been able to find a satisfactory explanation forthe disappearance of the models, although it does conform to the tendency to focusonly on events within the Dachau concentration camp itself. The camp survivorsmade this concession in order to allay the criticism of Germans who claimed that theplanned memorial site would force the town of Dachau to bear the entire burden ofall crimes committed in Nazi Germany.

The survivors' sensitivity to criticism of the memorial site is also evident in thesign explaining the word "Brausebad" (showers) stenciled above the entrance to thegas chamber. The explanatory sign attempted to strike a balance between the untrueclaim that the gas chamber in Dachau had been built under American command afterthe war, and the fact that it had never been used for factory-scale murder. The textread: "This room would have been used as an undressing and waiting room ifthe gaschamber had worked. The sign 'shower baths' served to deceive the prisoners." Infact, the gas chamber was in good working order long before the end of the war. Itwas indeed never used for systematic gassings (probably because the death rate inDachau was high enough to keep the crematorium ovens running near capacity any­way), but it was tested on at least two groups of prisoners. The explanatory sign thusinadvertently supported the myth of the "clean camp," by implying that the gas cham­ber had been some sort of nonfunctional sham. The 1965 sign was terser but simi­larly misleading:"Gas chamber/disguised as a shower room/never used as a gas cham­ber."

The permanent museum's conception, developed in conjunction with Germanspecialists sympathetic to the survivors' cause, was presented to the public in May1963. It claimed programmatically that the exhibition would serve to "transmit tothe widest possible audience a realistic and in every respect truthful picture of allevents that occurred in this camp. Beyond that the exhibition has to show how thismurderous system could develop and expand" (Distel & Jakusch, 1978, p. 5; Lehrke,1988,pp. 99-104).ln keeping with this second goal, the 1965 exhibition included anintroductory section on antisemitism and the Nazi rise to power,and another sectionon the program to exterminate the Jews. The four main sections are entitled: ThePrehistory up to the Take-over of Power, The Dachau Concentration Camp, Extermi­nation, and The End of the Concentration Camps.

The first goal of being "realistic and in every respect truthful," however, proveddifficult.Almost exclusive use of documents and photographs, for instance, was less

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)130 H. Marcuse

poraneous plans for the final museum, considerations of space were probably not the reason for its exclusion. Rather, in 1960 there was very little public awareness of the Holocaust per se. Only after the Eichmann trial in 1961 did the scope of the Holocaust-and its links to their own camp-become clear to the survivors of Dachau.

Another important difference was that the 1960 exhibition included models ofthe gassing facility at Hartheim in Austria, where almost 3200 Dachau inmates had been murdered, and of the shooting range at nearby Hebertshausen, where an estimated 6000 Soviet prisoners of war were executed (see Figure 9.3).Although Dutch survi­vor Nico Rost, one of the leading figures in the movement to create a museum, felt that these models were, if anything, too small to convey the enormity of the events they represented, they were not included in the 1965 museum (Rost, 1962). The 1965-2002 exhibition shows only photographs and some documents of these two aspects of Dachau's history. I have not been able to find a satisfactory explanation for the disappearance of the models, although it does conform to the tendency to focus only on events within the Dachau concentration camp itself. The camp survivors made this concession in order to allay the criticism of Germans who claimed that the planned memorial site would force the town of Dachau to bear the entire burden of all crimes committed in Nazi Germany.

The survivors' sensitivity to criticism of the memorial site is also evident in the sign explaining the word "Brausebad" (showers) stenciled above the entrance to the gas chamber. The explanatory sign attempted to strike a balance between the untrue claim that the gas chamber in Dachau had been built under American command after the war, and the fact that it had never been used for factory-scale murder. The text read: "This room would have been used as an undressing and waiting room ifthe gas chamber had worked. The sign 'shower baths' served to deceive the prisoners." In fact, the gas chamber was in good working order long before the end of the war. It was indeed never used for systematic gassings (probably because the death rate in Dachau was high enough to keep the crematorium ovens running near capacity any­way), but it was tested on at least two groups of prisoners. The explanatory sign thus inadvertently supported the myth of the "clean camp," by implying that the gas cham­ber had been some sort of nonfunctional sham. The 1965 sign was terser but simi­larly misleading:"Gas chamber/disguised as a shower room/never used as a gas cham­ber."

The permanent museum's conception, developed in conjunction with German specialists sympathetic to the survivors' cause, was presented to the public in May 1963. It claimed programmatically that the exhibition would serve to "transmit to the widest possible audience a realistic and in every respect truthful picture of all events that occurred in this camp. Beyond that the exhibition has to show how this murderous system could develop and expand" (Distel & Jakusch, 1978, p. 5; Lehrke, 1988,pp. 99-104).ln keeping with this second goal, the 1965 exhibition included an introductory section on antisemitism and the Nazi rise to power, and another section on the program to exterminate the Jews. The four main sections are entitled: The Prehistory up to the Take-over of Power, The Dachau Concentration Camp, Extermi­nation, and The End of the Concentration Camps.

The first goal of being "realistic and in every respect truthful," however, proved difficult.Almost exclusive use of documents and photographs, for instance, was less

Figure 9.3. Map of the region surrounding the former Dachau concentration camp,including the city center and several of the gravesites of Dachau's victims. (HaroldMarcuse and Steve Brown)

realistic than the mannequins used to reenact punishment scenes in the 1945 exhi­bition. Instead, realism was achieved primarily by huge enlargements of very graphicphotographs of scenes in KZ Dachau and other concentration camps. For example,one series depicts the death of a human subject during "high altitude" experiments

settlement"RomanGrove"1991

tAltet ROmerstr.

131

SS garrisonUS Army, 1945-71State Police, 1972-

cI=Ft> railroad track= == = (removed 1985)

route of hall- - - • - Leiten convoys Leiten 1953

8-10 May 1945 graVe~iteItalian B ttt"7)t chapel..?',1963 "N

Chapter 9

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9

D SS garrison US Army, 1945-71

. State Police, 1972-

cI=*=t> railroad track (removed 1985)

t N

main highway to Munich

I

131

tAlte + ROmerstr.

Figure 9.3. Map of the region surrounding the former Dachau concentration camp, including the city center and several of the gravesites of Dachau's victims. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

realistic than the mannequins used to reenact punishment scenes in the 1945 exhi­bition. Instead, realism was achieved primarily by huge enlargements of very graphic photographs of scenes in KZ Dachau and other concentration camps. For example, one series depicts the death of a human subject during "high altitude" experiments

132 H. Marcuse

•....

in a decompression chamber in Dachau; another shows an 55 man standing amongcorpses in a mass grave after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

And while everything was truthful, it was not the whole truth. No mention wasmade of" cultural "activities organized by the inmates, so that the exhibition does notconvey the aspects of the daily routine that helped to make life remotely livableunder the extreme 55 repression. Reading, writing, dramatic productions, and politi­cal discussions, for example, were important to many of the long-term inmates.An­other example is the role of religion in the daily life of some inmates, to which oneexhibit case in the 1960 exhibition was devoted, but which was dropped from the1965 exhibition. Or the clandestinely tolerated use of forbidden "bed sticks," pol­ished sticks that helped to make the perfectly smooth beds needed to escape pun­ishment during the" ordinary" years. In fact, given the predominance of graphic atrocityphotographs in the exhibition, the overall impression is exclusively of repression,horror, and inhumanity. The decision to rely solely on official documents made itmuch easier to document bureaucratic exploitation and murder than to portray soli­darity and resistance among the inmates.A graduate student studying memorial siteexhibitions concluded in 1990 (see also Lehrke, 1988, pp. 99-103):

Those who leave the [Dachau] memorial site [museum] take shocking picturesof horrors with them. These pictures do not serve only as sources of historicalinformation. The greatly enlarged photographs reproduce especially the fearand terror which the prisoners experienced, presented from the perspectivewith which perpetrators view their victims. Almost all pictures arecontextualized by explanatory texts and historical documents, but the emo­tional shock that they are able to trigger predominates nonetheless.

Consciousness of one's own [distancing] reactions when confronted by photo­graphs of horror is not made possible by the primarily emotional appeal of thepictures in Dachau, but rather only by intellectual reflection about historicalreality. The pictures in Dachau, especially the ones in the section about themedical experiments performed on prisoners, are detrimental to this approach[of fostering intellectual reflection]. (Brink, 1990, p. 72)

In 1960 the general secretary of the international survivors organization, GeorgesWalraeve explained why the museum focused on barbarity:

As a monument of inhumanity it should teach the coming generations love oftheir neighbors, fraternity, and respect of human rights .... [It] should not arousefeelings of hatred towards the German people, although the public, especiallythe younger generations, must be informed about the past without making thingsseem better than they were. (Reichel, 1960)

Exactly how shocking pictures of atrocities can be used to foster love and respectis a problem with which pedagogues are still grappling today.

The IIGreen" Memorial Site

In addition to the development of the main museum exhibition between the late1950s and 1965, the site as a whole was undergoing substantial changes. After the

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

132 H. Marcuse

in a decompression chamber in Dachau; another shows an 55 man standing among corpses in a mass grave after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

And while everything was truthful, it was not the whole truth. No mention was made of" cultural "activities organized by the inmates, so that the exhibition does not convey the aspects of the daily routine that helped to make life remotely livable under the extreme 55 repression. Reading, writing, dramatic productions, and politi­cal discussions, for example, were important to many of the long-term inmates.An­other example is the role of religion in the daily life of some inmates, to which one exhibit case in the 1960 exhibition was devoted, but which was dropped from the 1965 exhibition. Or the clandestinely tolerated use of forbidden "bed sticks," pol­ished sticks that helped to make the perfectly smooth beds needed to escape pun­ishment during the" ordinary" years. In fact, given the predominance of graphic atrocity photographs in the exhibition, the overall impression is exclusively of repression, horror, and inhumanity. The decision to rely solely on official documents made it much easier to document bureaucratic exploitation and murder than to portray soli­darity and resistance among the inmates.A graduate student studying memorial site exhibitions concluded in 1990 (see also Lehrke, 1988, pp. 99-103):

Those who leave the [Dachau] memorial site [museum] take shocking pictures of horrors with them. These pictures do not serve only as sources of historical information. The greatly enlarged photographs reproduce especially the fear and terror which the prisoners experienced, presented from the perspective with which perpetrators view their victims. Almost all pictures are contextualized by explanatory texts and historical documents, but the emo­tional shock that they are able to trigger predominates nonetheless.

Consciousness of one's own [distancing] reactions when confronted by photo­graphs of horror is not made possible by the primarily emotional appeal of the pictures in Dachau, but rather only by intellectual reflection about historical reality. The pictures in Dachau, especially the ones in the section about the medical experiments performed on prisoners, are detrimental to this approach [of fostering intellectual reflection]. (Brink, 1990, p. 72)

In 1960 the general secretary of the international survivors organization, Georges Walraeve explained why the museum focused on barbarity:

As a monument of inhumanity it should teach the coming generations love of their neighbors, fraternity, and respect of human rights .... [It] should not arouse feelings of hatred towards the German people, although the public, especially the younger generations, must be informed about the past without making things seem better than they were. (Reichel, 1960)

Exactly how shocking pictures of atrocities can be used to foster love and respect is a problem with which pedagogues are still grappling today.

The IIGreen" Memorial Site

In addition to the development of the main museum exhibition between the late 1950s and 1965, the site as a whole was undergoing substantial changes. After the

133

DITCHBARBEOWIREBARRIER WALL(to be reconstructed)

db

8

r'

.~ rt·

r

~f;rtr

fPlANNED!

WIl?Ei

FENCEL,

<a................QJ

,~~IIoCO &b CPt

FACTORYACCESS ROAO£~

FACTORY r-----lAREA L..r'"(private)

...~

...~".J

:"1...~

STORAGE SHEDSALONG

OUTER PERIMETER

VEHICULAR ACCESS

N

W+ES

&I used by US Army

......•.• camp era and postwarbuildings to be demolished

Figure 9.4. Design for a "green" Dachau memorial site proposed by Bishop Neuhauslerin 1960. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

Chapter 9

Eucharistic World Congress in 1960, Suffragan Bishop Neuhausler proposed plantingthe whole barracks area with trees (Hoffmann, 1998, 78t) (Figure 9.4). He also in­vited the Protestant and Jewish religious communities in Germany to erect memori-

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 133

Eucharistic World Congress in 1960, Suffragan Bishop Neuhausler proposed planting the whole barracks area with trees (Hoffmann, 1998, 78f) (Figure 9.4). He also in­vited the Protestant and Jewish religious communities in Germany to erect memori-

STORAGE SHEDS ALONG

OUTER PERIMETER

II used by US Army

......•.• camp era and postwar buildings to be demolished

N

W+E

S

FACTORY ~ AREA

(private)

db

8

DITCH BARBED WIRE BARRIER WALL (to be reconstructed)

Figure 9.4. Design for a "green" Dachau memorial site proposed by Bishop Neuhausler in 1960. (Harold Marcuse and Steve Brown)

134 H. Marcuse

als flanking the Catholic chapel at the north end of the central camp street.Althoughthe international survivors organization forced Neuhausler to drop this plan of green­ing the entire memorial site,Jewish and Protestant commemorative buildings wereconstructed.They were dedicated in May 1967.A Russian Orthodox chapel was addedin 1994 (Figure 9.1).

Although Neuhausler was not able to push through the greening of the formerDachau prisoners' compound, he successfully defended a remnant of that plan. Hewanted the three religious memorials at the north end to be "unified" by a grassy areaplanted with trees. While the Dachau survivors and the architects of the Protestantand Neuhausler's Catholic chapel were willing to compromise and allow "sparsenatural plantings" and perhaps "a few tall trees" in the memorial site, the architect ofthe Jewish memorial drew the line, demanding a 30-meter"tree-free zone" around hisbuilding. Ultimately, a ring of grass and dwarf oak trees was permitted around theCatholic chapel only.

The Sanitized Memorial Site: 1965-1996

Although the various exhibitions graphically presented the horrors of the Dachau'sNazi past to visitors, the camp terrain was emptied of historical relics. While it wasclear from the outset that the gatehouse, watchtowers, and gas chamber-cremato­rium building would be preserved, the Bavarian government was able to persuadethe survivors that it was not feasible to preserve the camp barracks. They had beenbuilt in 1937 with a life expectancy of 10-15 years (Himmler had thought that bythen the Nazis would have won the war and been able to dispense with concentra­tion camps), and even their extensive renovation in 1948 had not been able to re­move all damage from years of misuse .The costs for restoring and maintaining nearly29,000 square meters of floor space would have been quite high.The survivors pro­posed various plans for partial preservation, such as restoring only a few select bar­racks, or leaving only the end walls standing, but all were rejected by the Germanauthorities.

It was easier to remove those traces of life and history in the camp that did not fitinto the message that the memorial site was to convey. As Volkhard Knigge (996),director of the Buchenwald memorial site in the 1990s, phrased it: "The minimiza­tion of remains is a prerequisite for the maximization of possibilities for creatingnew meanings" (p. 207).Already in 1959 former camp elder Oskar Muller noted thatthe Bavarian authorities were constantly trying to destroy as many relics of the campas they could. In a letter to a fellow survivor he wrote:

We aren't making any progress in the creation of a warning and memorial sitein Dachau. It is quite obvious:The motivation for this stance [of the Bavarianauthorities] is the intention to spread the cloak of silence and oblivion over thelast period of German history. The persecutors of yesterday who are once againsetting the tone fear the presentation of historical truth, they fear those docu­ments that reveal their shameful deeds. (Muller, 1959)

Without historical relics and documents, government authorities could shape thememorial site to embody the impression they wished to convey to visitors.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

134 H. Marcuse

als flanking the Catholic chapel at the north end of the central camp street.Although the international survivors organization forced Neuhausler to drop this plan of green­ing the entire memorial site,Jewish and Protestant commemorative buildings were constructed.They were dedicated in May 1967.A Russian Orthodox chapel was added in 1994 (Figure 9.1).

Although Neuhausler was not able to push through the greening of the former Dachau prisoners' compound, he successfully defended a remnant of that plan. He wanted the three religious memorials at the north end to be "unified" by a grassy area planted with trees. While the Dachau survivors and the architects of the Protestant and Neuhausler's Catholic chapel were willing to compromise and allow "sparse natural plantings" and perhaps "a few tall trees" in the memorial site, the architect of the Jewish memorial drew the line, demanding a 30-meter"tree-free zone" around his bUilding. Ultimately, a ring of grass and dwarf oak trees was permitted around the Catholic chapel only.

The Sanitized Memorial Site: 1965-1996 Although the various exhibitions graphically presented the horrors of the Dachau's

Nazi past to visitors, the camp terrain was emptied of historical relics. While it was clear from the outset that the gatehouse, watchtowers, and gas chamber-cremato­rium building would be preserved, the Bavarian government was able to persuade the survivors that it was not feasible to preserve the camp barracks. They had been built in 1937 with a life expectancy of 10-15 years (Himmler had thought that by then the Nazis would have won the war and been able to dispense with concentra­tion camps), and even their extensive renovation in 1948 had not been able to re­move all damage from years of misuse .The costs for restoring and maintaining nearly 29,000 square meters of floor space would have been quite high.The survivors pro­posed various plans for partial preservation, such as restoring only a few select bar­racks, or leaving only the end walls standing, but all were rejected by the German authorities.

It was easier to remove those traces of life and history in the camp that did not fit into the message that the memorial site was to convey. As Volkhard Knigge (996), director of the Buchenwald memorial site in the 1990s, phrased it: "The minimiza­tion of remains is a prerequisite for the maximization of possibilities for creating new meanings" (p. 207).Already in 1959 former camp elder Oskar Muller noted that the Bavarian authorities were constantly trying to destroy as many relics of the camp as they could. In a letter to a fellow survivor he wrote:

We aren't making any progress in the creation of a warning and memorial site in Dachau. It is quite obvious:The motivation for this stance [of the Bavarian authorities] is the intention to spread the cloak of silence and oblivion over the last period of German history. The persecutors of yesterday who are once again setting the tone fear the presentation of historical truth, they fear those docu­ments that reveal their shameful deeds. (Muller, 1959)

Without historical relics and documents, government authorities could shape the memorial site to embody the impression they wished to convey to visitors.

Chapter 9 135

The primary prerequisite for the creation of the memorial site was the relocationof the 1500-2000 people who had been living in the former concentration campsince 1948. Finally,in 1963-1964 new housing for the refugee residents was built,and all of the barracks were demolished.The two immediately bordering the roll-callsquare were rebuilt according to modern standards, with foundations, cement floors,tightly fitting windows, locking doors, etc. One of these two new barracks was leftempty, the other furnished to show the three different interior bunk designs in spa­tial succession in the central section of the 90-meter length of the building. One dayroom, one washroom, and one communal toilet room were reconstructed as well(the original barracks had two of each). The small enclaves with more comfortablebeds for the barrack functionaries, however, were not reconstructed. The outlines ofthe other 30 demolished barracks were marked by low cement curbs filled withpebbles. Smalltablets indicate the original barrack numbers, but not the special func­tions that they served.

Other details of the original camp were omitted as well. The roll-call square hadbeen subdivided by raised curbs, which were not reconstructed. Instead, the interna­tional monument with its broad substructure was placed within the wings of theservice building. This left the vast expanse of the original assembly grounds com­pletely empty. The roll-call square itself, and the entire camp including the areaswhere the barracks had stood, were strewn with gravel, while the area around thereligious memorials was covered with small, light-colored pebbles. The "milestonesto freedom" inscription on the roof of the service building was not reconstructed,nor were a number of other signs and pictures throughout the camp, such as themural behind the crematorium ovens depicting a man riding on a pig remindingworkers "Washhands before touching corpses, anyone who does not wash is a pig,"and the saying"One louse-means death" (Gun, 1966,p. 32; Smith, 1972,p~).

Almost all of the special-function buildings in the camp were demolished and notreplaced: the canteen and infirmary barracks, the inmates' library, the punishmentbarracks, the priests' chapel, the clothing disinfectory, the brothel, the greenhouses,the kennels, the rabbit hutches, and an SSdetention building (Figure 9.1). Only theentry gate building, the "special prisoners" bunker behind the service building, thetwo crematoria, and the watchtowers were left standing (or,in the case of two watch­towers, reconstructed). (The gate and the bunker were still under USarmy control;the crematoria were protected by a 1955 international treaty.) Taken together, thesechanges reduce the multifaceted and contradictory hell of KZ Dachau to a rathersterile, unidimensional image: a barren, gray-white expanse surrounded by a highconcrete wall and watchtowers, a huge museum, two dormitory barracks at one end,three churches at the other. Almost as an afterthought, the park with the two crema­toria and gas chamber hang appendix-like at the far corner.Thus, the former concen­tration camp Dachau was reduced to a streamlined symbol: it had all of the stereo­typical attributes of a Nazi camp-gate, barbed wire, watchtowers, crematoria-butotherwise it had become a representation of the spotlessly "clean camp" of Nazipropaganda, complete with a museum and churches. Visitors noted this sanitizedlook with disappointment.

In 1966, after the memorial site was completed, a critical reviewer wrote thatDachau was"made up like a witch who wants to appear harm1ess"("Eineso pittoreske

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 135

The primary prerequisite for the creation of the memorial site was the relocation of the 1500-2000 people who had been living in the former concentration camp since 1948. Finally, in 1963-1964 new housing for the refugee residents was built, and all of the barracks were demolished.The two immediately bordering the roll-call square were rebuilt according to modern standards, with foundations, cement floors, tightly fitting windows, locking doors, etc. One of these two new barracks was left empty, the other furnished to show the three different interior bunk designs in spa­tial succession in the central section of the 90-meter length of the building. One day room, one washroom, and one communal toilet room were reconstructed as well (the original barracks had two of each). The small enclaves with more comfortable beds for the barrack functionaries, however, were not reconstructed. The outlines of the other 30 demolished barracks were marked by low cement curbs filled with pebbles. Small tablets indicate the original barrack numbers, but not the special func­tions that they served.

Other details of the original camp were omitted as well. The roll-call square had been subdivided by raised curbs, which were not reconstructed. Instead, the interna­tional monument with its broad substructure was placed within the wings of the service building. This left the vast expanse of the original assembly grounds com­pletely empty. The roll-call square itself, and the entire camp including the areas where the barracks had stood, were strewn with gravel, while the area around the religious memorials was covered with small, light-colored pebbles. The "milestones to freedom" inscription on the roof of the service building was not reconstructed, nor were a number of other signs and pictures throughout the camp, such as the mural behind the crematorium ovens depicting a man riding on a pig reminding workers "Wash hands before touching corpses, anyone who does not wash is a pig," and the saying "One louse-means death" (Gun, 1966, p. 32; Smith, 1972, p~).

Almost all of the special-function buildings in the camp were demolished and not replaced: the canteen and infirmary barracks, the inmates' library, the punishment barracks, the priests' chapel, the clothing disinfectory, the brothel, the greenhouses, the kennels, the rabbit hutches, and an SS detention building (Figure 9.1). Only the entry gate building, the "special prisoners" bunker behind the service building, the two crematoria, and the watchtowers were left standing (or, in the case of two watch­towers, reconstructed). (The gate and the bunker were still under US army control; the crematoria were protected by a 1955 international treaty.) Taken together, these changes reduce the multifaceted and contradictory hell of KZ Dachau to a rather sterile, unidimensional image: a barren, gray-white expanse surrounded by a high concrete wall and watchtowers, a huge museum, two dormitory barracks at one end, three churches at the other. Almost as an afterthought, the park with the two crema­toria and gas chamber hang appendix-like at the far corner. Thus, the former concen­tration camp Dachau was reduced to a streamlined symbol: it had all of the stereo­typical attributes of a Nazi camp-gate, barbed wire, watchtowers, crematoria-but otherwise it had become a representation of the spotlessly "clean camp" of Nazi propaganda, complete with a museum and churches. Visitors noted this sanitized look with disappointment.

In 1966, after the memorial site was completed, a critical reviewer wrote that Dachau was "made up like a witch who wants to appear harmless" ("Eine so pittoreske

Visitors Statistics: 1950-1995

Many of the didactic improvements had to do with the changing number and de­mography of visitors to the site. Dachau visitor statistics suggest that the popularityof the former camp among visitors is a generational phenomenon. A look at the ag-

kleine Stadt," 1966). He noted the fresh paint on the service building, the clean gravelon the roll-call square, the absence of barracks, the trim" chapel of atonement" at theend of a beautiful tree-lined lane, and the cypress trees and well-trimmed hedgessurrounding the crematoria. In 1968, after the international memorial was dedicated,a reporter for the London Times recorded a similar impression (Warman, 1968). Not­ing that "much of the camp does not ... act as an effective reminder of the past," heoffered the following description:

The watchtowers and barbed-wire fences remain, but all the barracks are gonesave two, which are renovated and clean, almost clinical. ... the barrack areasare now neatly marked off and numbered .... The crematorium-complete withovens, a stretcher in the mouth of each-is a chilling sight, but it is hidden be­hind trees in a beautifully kept garden and it is outside the camp itself.

This British journalist also quoted several survivors who felt that the concentra­tion camp should have been left in its original state. "It means nothing as it is," onetold him.

After the Jewish memorial and Protestant church were dedicated in 1967, twoelements of the survivors' plan for a memorial site still remained to be realized: acentral camp memorial at the roll-call square, and the restoration of the access to thememorial site through the original gatehouse with its inscription "work makes free."The central memorial was dedicated in September 1968, but the access through thegatehouse was not even realized in 1972, when the US army pulled out of the formerSS camp and returned the southeast corner of the camp to Bavarian authorities. Thegatehouse became accessible at that time, but instead of re-creating the original ac­cess route, the Bavarian government stationed a detachment of state police in theformer SS camp (Figure 9.3).Another quarter-century passed before government of­ficials even began to consider modifications of that police installation to allow thepartial reconstruction of the original access route.

From 1968 until the end of the 1990s a few didactic improvements were made,butthe physical form of the site and the exhibition remained essentially the same. In1969 a film about the camp and its liberation was completed, and in 1978 a catalogof the exhibition was published. Outdoors the poplar trees along the camp streetwere replanted in the late 1970s or early 1980s. In 1983 the Bavarian governmentcreated positions for nine secondary school teachers to work with school classes ona rotating basis. In 1985 a few large signboards with maps, enlarged photographs,and short texts were posted at strategic points in the memorial site.Although localauthorities resisted the construction of a youth hostel throughout the 1980s and1990s, in 1983 a coalition of local groups began to sponsor a summer 'tent camp forinternational youth encounters." After a decade their efforts began to bear fruit, andin 1998 a "House for Youth Encounters" was dedicated.

H. Marcuse136

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

136 H. Marcuse

kleine Stadt," 1966). He noted the fresh paint on the service building, the clean gravel on the roll-call square, the absence of barracks, the trim" chapel of atonement" at the end of a beautiful tree-lined lane, and the cypress trees and well-trimmed hedges surrounding the crematoria. In 1968, after the international memorial was dedicated, a reporter for the London Times recorded a similar impression (Warman, 1968). Not­ing that "much of the camp does not ... act as an effective reminder of the past," he offered the following description:

The watchtowers and barbed-wire fences remain, but all the barracks are gone save two, which are renovated and clean, almost clinical. ... the barrack areas are now neatly marked off and numbered .... The crematorium-complete with ovens, a stretcher in the mouth of each-is a chilling sight, but it is hidden be­hind trees in a beautifully kept garden and it is outside the camp itself.

This British journalist also quoted several survivors who felt that the concentra­tion camp should have been left in its original state. "It means nothing as it is," one told him.

After the Jewish memorial and Protestant church were dedicated in 1967, two elements of the survivors' plan for a memorial site still remained to be realized: a central camp memorial at the roll-call square, and the restoration of the access to the memorial site through the original gatehouse with its inscription "work makes free." The central memorial was dedicated in September 1968, but the access through the gatehouse was not even realized in 1972, when the US army pulled out of the former SS camp and returned the southeast corner of the camp to Bavarian authorities. The gatehouse became accessible at that time, but instead of re-creating the original ac­cess route, the Bavarian government stationed a detachment of state police in the former SS camp (Figure 9.3).Another quarter-century passed before government of­ficials even began to consider modifications of that police installation to allow the partial reconstruction of the original access route.

From 1968 until the end of the 1990s a few didactic improvements were made,but the physical form of the site and the exhibition remained essentially the same. In 1969 a film about the camp and its liberation was completed, and in 1978 a catalog of the exhibition was published. Outdoors the poplar trees along the camp street were replanted in the late 1970s or early 1980s. In 1983 the Bavarian government created positions for nine secondary school teachers to work with school classes on a rotating basis. In 1985 a few large signboards with maps, enlarged photographs, and short texts were posted at strategic points in the memorial site.Although local authorities resisted the construction of a youth hostel throughout the 1980s and 1990s, in 1983 a coalition of local groups began to sponsor a summer 'tent camp for international youth encounters." After a decade their efforts began to bear fruit, and in 1998 a "House for Youth Encounters"was dedicated.

Visitors Statistics: 1950-1995 Many of the didactic improvements had to do with the changing number and de­

mography of visitors to the site. Dachau visitor statistics suggest that the popularity of the former camp among visitors is a generational phenomenon. A look at the ag-

Chapter 9 137

gregate number of visitors to the memorial site shows a jump around 1960 fromroughly 160,000 visitors per year to about 360,000 visitors per year (Figure 9.5).Then from 1975 the curve of total visitors climbs steeply to about 900,000 per yearin the early 1980s, where it oscillates sharply before falling off slightly to a newplateau of about 700,000 in the mid-1990s. (The 1990s plateau may actually be 20%or more higher, because the head counts as visitors enter the museum have givenway to hourly estimates.Additionally, during the most crowded times both individualand group visitors often do not enter the museum at all, and are thus not included inthe counts.)The sharp oscillations ofthe 1980s are due to events such as the closingof the memorial site on Mondays for maintenance since 1983; the upsurge of interestduring the anniversary years 1985 and 1990; and a falling off of foreign, especiallyAmerican, visitors at the time of the Gulf War in 1991. Nonetheless, the plateaus ofthe 1950s, 1960s, later 1980s and later 1990s are clearly visible, as are the periods ofchange in the early 1960s and later 1970s.

A closer look at the breakdown between German and foreign visitors allows amore precise dating of transitions (Figure 9.5). The two curves do not begin to di­verge until after 1965, when the number of German visitors falls off slightly and doesnot begin to pick up again until 1974, 5 years later than the climb in the number offoreign visitors. Thereafter the number of Germans climbs more steeply until 1979,when it again begins to level off in comparison to the more constantly rising numberof foreign visitors. Looking at yet another level of detail within the German visitors,we can see that the proportion of Germans coming to the Dachau memorial site inorganized youth and school groups increased dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s,from ca. 2.5% in 1965 to 14% in 1970, to 21% in 1975, and 42% in 1980 (Figure 9.6).The proportion rose much more gradually to 50% in 1990, after which it jumped toand then oscillated around ca. 60% through the middle of the decade. The steep rise

-+- Weat Germans -.- Foreigners . -- Total Visitors

Figure 9.5. Graph of visitors to the Dachau concentration camp memorial site, 1950­1996, with breakdown of German and foreign visitors. (Harold Marcuse)

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 137

gregate number of visitors to the memorial site shows a jump around 1960 from roughly 160,000 visitors per year to about 360,000 visitors per year (Figure 9.5). Then from 1975 the curve of total visitors climbs steeply to about 900,000 per year in the early 1980s, where it oscillates sharply before falling off slightly to a new plateau of about 700,000 in the mid-1990s. (The 1990s plateau may actually be 20% or more higher, because the head counts as visitors enter the museum have given way to hourly estimates.Additionally, during the most crowded times both individual and group visitors often do not enter the museum at all, and are thus not included in the counts.)The sharp oscillations ofthe 1980s are due to events such as the closing of the memorial site on Mondays for maintenance since 1983; the upsurge of interest during the anniversary years 1985 and 1990; and a falling off of foreign, especially American, visitors at the time of the Gulf War in 1991. Nonetheless, the plateaus of the 1950s, 1960s, later 1980s and later 1990s are clearly visible, as are the periods of change in the early 1960s and later 1970s.

A closer look at the breakdown between German and foreign visitors allows a more precise dating of transitions (Figure 9.5). The two curves do not begin to di­verge until after 1965, when the number of German visitors falls off slightly and does not begin to pick up again until 1974, 5 years later than the climb in the number of foreign visitors. Thereafter the number of Germans climbs more steeply until 1979, when it again begins to level off in comparison to the more constantly rising number of foreign visitors. Looking at yet another level of detail within the German visitors, we can see that the proportion of Germans coming to the Dachau memorial site in organized youth and school groups increased dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s, from ca. 2.5% in 1965 to 14% in 1970, to 21 % in 1975, and 42% in 1980 (Figure 9.6). The proportion rose much more gradually to 50% in 1990, after which it jumped to and then oscillated around ca. 60% through the middle of the decade. The steep rise

-+- Weat Germans -*- Forelgnerl . - Total VIII torI

Figure 9.5. Graph of visitors to the Dachau concentration camp memorial site, 1950-1996, with breakdown of German and foreign visitors. (Harold Marcuse)

138

Thoulande400

soo

200

100

Thoueanda

H. Marcuse

- Dacha", Weet Germane ~ Dachau, youth In grp

Figure 9.6. Graph of visitors to the Dachau concentration camp memorial site, 1950­1995, with bars indicating of the number of those visitors arriving in organized schooland youth groups, 1961-1995. (Harold Marcuse)

from the late 1960s to 1980 reflects the generational transition in interest in theNazi past during the 1970s. Even if most of these groups of young Germans came toDachau at the initiative of their 1968 generation (born ca. 1937-1953) teachers, thesubsequent plateau indicates that interest in the memorial site was strong enough tobe self-sustaining.

It is difficult to assess the effects of other factors on the number of visitors to

Dachau, such the rising standard of living, which increased leisure and travel time,and the role of improved transportation infrastructure (availability of buses, qualityof autobahns, construction of a commuter railway to Dachau, etc.). A comparisonwith two other major Bavarian tourist attractions, the Deutsches Museum of Scienceand Technology in Munich, frequented primarily by Germans, including especiallyschool groups, and Neuschwanstein Castle, equally popular among foreigners, canhelp to answer this question (Figure 9.7).The relatively steady upward climbs (witha slight steepening in the late 1960s) in these curves indicate that the sharp climbsand plateaus for Dachau depended on variables other than those determining visitsto sites of educational and recreational tourism. However, the parallel rises and pla­teaus in the German Museum and Dachau curves after the early 1970s may indicatethe effect of visits by school groups.

Reconstruction Versus Preservation:Changes 1996-2003

Not until the mid-1990s, when members of those younger, more interested genera­tions had acceded to positions of political power in Germany and in Dachau, weresubstantial changes to the memorial site considered. In 1988 the Bavarian ministryof culture proposed convening a panel of experts to draw up guidelines for a majorrenovation, but it waited 7 years before assembling this "advisory council" in 1995.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

138 H. Marcuse

T .~h~ou=.~a=nd=. ___________________________ ~ __ u_._an_d-ra 400 ...

soo

200

100

- Dacha", Weat Germani ~ Dachau, youth In grp

Figure 9.6. Graph of visitors to the Dachau concentration camp memorial site, 1950-1995, with bars indicating of the number of those visitors arriving in organized school and youth groups, 1961-1995. (Harold Marcuse)

from the late 1960s to 1980 reflects the generational transition in interest in the Nazi past during the 1970s. Even if most of these groups of young Germans came to Dachau at the initiative of their 1968 generation (born ca. 1937-1953) teachers, the subsequent plateau indicates that interest in the memorial site was strong enough to be self-sustaining.

It is difficult to assess the effects of other factors on the number of visitors to Dachau, such the rising standard of living, which increased leisure and travel time, and the role of improved transportation infrastructure (availability of buses, quality of autobahns, construction of a commuter railway to Dachau, etc.). A comparison with two other major Bavarian tourist attractions, the Deutsches Museum of Science and Technology in Munich, frequented primarily by Germans, including especially school groups, and Neuschwanstein Castle, equally popular among foreigners, can help to answer this question (Figure 9.7).The relatively steady upward climbs (with a slight steepening in the late 1960s) in these curves indicate that the sharp climbs and plateaus for Dachau depended on variables other than those determining visits to sites of educational and recreational tourism. However, the parallel rises and pla­teaus in the German Museum and Dachau curves after the early 1970s may indicate the effect of visits by school groups.

Reconstruction Versus Preservation: Changes 1996-2003

Not until the mid-1990s, when members of those younger, more interested genera­tions had acceded to positions of political power in Germany and in Dachau, were substantial changes to the memorial site considered. In 1988 the Bavarian ministry of culture proposed convening a panel of experts to draw up guidelines for a major renovation, but it waited 7 years before assembling this "advisory council" in 1995.

Figure 9.7. Graph of annual visitor statistics for Dachau and two comparable touristdestinations in Bavaria: the German Museum of Science and Technology in Munich,and Castle Neuschwanstein, 1946-1990. (Harold Marcuse)

Composed of seven historians and four Dachau survivors, the council solicited inputfrom local, regional, and national groups interested in the educational work takingplace in the memorial site. In May 1996 it released its draft recommendations, whichit summarized in six guidelines (Fachbeirat, 1996). Most of them addressed whatshould be done with the site. They stipulated that the planned visitor tour shouldretrace the path that entering inmates followed, starting at the entrance gate andcontinuing into the service building where the initial registration took place, thenproceeding to the barracks area and crematorium (Figure 9.1).The few other remain­ing historical buildings would be used to house exhibitions relating to those build­ings' original functions (most had been empty or inaccessible since 1965).Thus, theSS"day house" (the entry gate building) would house an exhibition about the SS,thecamp prison ("bunker") would contain documentation about the inmates held andpunishments performed there, the crematorium would give more information aboutmurder in the camp, and the reconstructed barracks would house exhibits aboutinmate groups and daily life in the camp.Additionally, ca. 33 explanatory panels wouldbe erected throughout the terrain. Finally, the main museum exhibition would bemodernized to incorporate the latest historical findings and multimedia technology,and a new exhibit about the postwar history of the camp would be included.A morespecific 1998 plan specified further that every room would also contain some docu­mentation about its original function (Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1999).

One guideline, however, transcends the "what" and addresses the "how" of rede­signing the site. Instead of positive goals, it lists several prohibitions (Fachbeirat,1996): a) no reconstructions or stagings will be implemented; b) the watchtowers

139

1000

400

800

600

400-

I J I -\200

200 r .1-....... / DaChau

ovil ( . ; I Iii' . III ; : : I . : I : ill: : : . , • : : I . , : ! : II 1110

year4648 50 5254 5658606264 86 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 868890

1600

OllMuseum1-400WftO

Neu~Ch"'anSlejn

1200 r1000

Chapter 9

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9

16oor---------------------------------------~1000

OI,!.4USeUm

1400/Ufto NeU~Ch"'anSlejn

1200r

1000

800

600 400

200

aChau

~~++rH~++rH~~~HH~~~~~~~~HO

year46 4850525456586062648668707274 76 78 80 82 84 868890

139

Figure 9.7. Graph of annual visitor statistics for Dachau and two comparable tourist destinations in Bavaria: the German Museum of Science and Technology in Munich, and Castle Neuschwanstein, 1946-1990. (Harold Marcuse)

Composed of seven historians and four Dachau survivors, the council solicited input from local, regional, and national groups interested in the educational work taking place in the memorial site. In May 1996 it released its draft recommendations, which it summarized in six guidelines (Fachbeirat, 1996). Most of them addressed what should be done with the site. They stipulated that the planned visitor tour should retrace the path that entering inmates followed, starting at the entrance gate and continuing into the service building where the initial registration took place, then proceeding to the barracks area and crematorium (Figure 9.1).The few other remain­ing historical buildings would be used to house exhibitions relating to those build­ings' original functions (most had been empty or inaccessible since 1965).Thus, the SS "day house" (the entry gate building) would house an exhibition about the SS, the camp prison ("bunker") would contain documentation about the inmates held and punishments performed there, the crematorium would give more information about murder in the camp, and the reconstructed barracks would house exhibits about inmate groups and daily life in the camp.Additionally, ca. 33 explanatory panels would be erected throughout the terrain. Finally, the main museum exhibition would be modernized to incorporate the latest historical findings and multimedia technology, and a new exhibit about the postwar history of the camp would be included.A more specific 1998 plan specified further that every room would also contain some docu­mentation about its original function (Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1999).

One guideline, however, transcends the "what" and addresses the "how" of rede­signing the site. Instead of positive goals, it lists several prohibitions (Fachbeirat, 1996): a) no reconstructions or stagings will be implemented; b) the watchtowers

140 H. Marcuse

will not be accessible (avoidance of the perspective of the perpetrators); c) outsideof the main exhibition the history only of KZ Dachau will be addressed (no refer­ences to the situation in other KZs); only texts and pictures of KZ Dachau will beexhibited.

While the other guidelines attempt to maximize the Dachau site's ability to pro­mote experiential learning, the last guideline sharply limits the possibility of usingsensory experiences to foster emotional connections between visitors and the his­tory of Nazi Germany. Such connections are the source of experiential learning'spower, and distinguish it from intellectual approaches. The prohibitions unwittinglyperpetuate the streamlined "clean camp" image, and thus replicate some of the short­comings of the old memorial site.As I will show, these prohibitions are a didacticallymisguided attempt to avoid potentially powerful but controversial aspects of thesite's presentation.

First of all, reconstructions at sites of atrocities area sensitive issue because theycan appeal to visitors' lurid interests, as opposed to creating a space for respectfulcommemoration or historical learning. Max Mannheimer, one of the Dachau survi­vors on the advisory council, stated this position concisely when he told a reporterin 1996 that the memorial site "should not become a horror story," as one might find"recreated at Disneyland" (Sing, 1998).Additionally, because people who deny thatthe Nazi government practiced systematic genocide claim that concentration campcrematoria and gas chambers are postwar fabrications, any actual postwar construc­tion could support their arguments. These are valid concerns, but presumably a greatmany aspects could be reconstructed before there was any danger of the Dachaumemorial site becoming a historical "chamber of horrors." Also, to allow deniers'pseudoarguments to determine crucial didactic decisions grants them victory.

A survey of the elements of the camp that were destroyed and already reconstructedunderscores the irrationality of prohibiting additional reconstructions. From the in­scription "Arbeit macht frei" on the camp gate, which was removed during theAmeri­can occupation, to the wall, ditch, barbed-wire barrier, and two watchtowers demol­ished in the 1950s, to the barracks bulldozed in 1964, important features of the con­centration camp have already been re-created. Prohibiting further reconstructionswould merely allow apologetic past visions of the "clean camp" to determine thefuture appearance and impact of the memorial site. The real question is not whetherthere should be reconstructions, but what should be reconstructed, and how it shouldbe reconstructed.

Let us examine pros and cons of reconstruction in a few specific cases. The mostsalient feature of the present camp terrain is the rows of poplar trees lining the centralcamp street.The original trees were planted during the expansion ofthe camp in 1938.They were felled in the 1960s and replanted in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Especiallywhen they are in full foliage, these" second-generation" trees dominate the barren campterrain and make a strong impression on visitors. Why, of all of the original elements inthe barracks area, were they alone reconstructed? Without competition from otherreconstructions, they help to create a serene atmosphere appropriate to the commemo­rative function of a memorial site. It would be quite different if, say, the barbed wirefencing that once surrounded some barracks, isolating some groups of prisoners fromothers, was reconstructed.Those interior fences would reinforce an experience of the

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

140 H. Marcuse

will not be accessible (avoidance of the perspective of the perpetrators); c) outside of the main exhibition the history only of KZ Dachau will be addressed (no refer­ences to the situation in other KZs); only texts and pictures of KZ Dachau will be exhibited.

While the other guidelines attempt to maximize the Dachau site's ability to pro­mote experiential learning, the last guideline sharply limits the possibility of using sensory experiences to foster emotional connections between visitors and the his­tory of Nazi Germany. Such connections are the source of experiential learning's power, and distinguish it from intellectual approaches. The prohibitions unwittingly perpetuate the streamlined "clean camp" image, and thus replicate some of the short­comings of the old memorial site.As I will show, these prohibitions are a didactically misguided attempt to avoid potentially powerful but controversial aspects of the site's presentation.

First of all, reconstructions at sites of atrocities area sensitive issue because they can appeal to visitors' lurid interests, as opposed to creating a space for respectful commemoration or historical learning. Max Mannheimer, one of the Dachau survi­vors on the advisory council, stated this position concisely when he told a reporter in 1996 that the memorial site "should not become a horror story," as one might find "recreated at Disneyland" (Sing, 1998).Additionally, because people who deny that the Nazi government practiced systematic genocide claim that concentration camp crematoria and gas chambers are postwar fabrications, any actual postwar construc­tion could support their arguments. These are valid concerns, but presumably a great many aspects could be reconstructed before there was any danger of the Dachau memorial site becoming a historical "chamber of horrors." Also, to allow deniers' pseudoarguments to determine crucial didactic decisions grants them victory.

A survey of the elements of the camp that were destroyed and already reconstructed underscores the irrationality of prohibiting additional reconstructions. From the in­scription "Arbeit macht frei" on the camp gate, which was removed during theAmeri­can occupation, to the wall, ditch, barbed-wire barrier, and two watchtowers demol­ished in the 1950s, to the barracks bulldozed in 1964, important features of the con­centration camp have already been re-created. Prohibiting further reconstructions would merely allow apologetic past visions of the "clean camp" to determine the future appearance and impact of the memorial site. The real question is not whether there should be reconstructions, but what should be reconstructed, and how it should be reconstructed.

Let us examine pros and cons of reconstruction in a few specific cases. The most salient feature of the present camp terrain is the rows of poplar trees lining the central camp street.The original trees were planted during the expansion of the camp in 1938. They were felled in the 1960s and replanted in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Especially when they are in full foliage, these" second-generation" trees dominate the barren camp terrain and make a strong impression on visitors. Why, of all of the original elements in the barracks area, were they alone reconstructed? Without competition from other reconstructions, they help to create a serene atmosphere appropriate to the commemo­rative function of a memorial site. It would be quite different if, say, the barbed wire fencing that once surrounded some barracks, isolating some groups of prisoners from others, was reconstructed.Those interior fences would reinforce an experience of the

Chapter 9 141

isolation and harshness of life in the camp, while the trees provide a space of emo­tional respite for reflection about the historical events.

In contrast to the trees, only two barracks of originally 34 have been reconstructed.They were built in 1965 after the extensively modified originals from 1938 weretorn down. However, as mentioned above, they were built to a much higher standard,with concrete slab floors and reinforced concrete supports. Whereas most of theoriginal barracks had been subdivided into four sections, each consisting of one dayroom and one dormitory room (Figure 9.2), one of the new barracks was furnishedwith a single day room and three different dormitory rooms, each representing thedifferent bunk bed configurations that accommodated increasing numbers of inmates.And not only that: the two barracks that originally adjoined the roll-call square werenot dormitory barracks. They housed the camp infirmary and the canteen, whereprivileged prisoners could purchase food, tobacco, and some personal items.

Instead of reconstruction, the other 32 barracks, most of which were dormitorybarracks, were marked by low cement walls, which many visitors mistakenly assumeare remnants of the original barracks. Neither the two reconstructed barracks northe low cement rectangles convey an impression of the daily lives of the inmates.The hierarchies among the prisoners, and their segregation in different barracks ac­cording to nationality, religion, degree of severity of punishment, and health are neu­tralized. Nothing conjures up the advantages of living in a barrack closer to the kitchen,which, for example, not only shortened by up to 500 meters the distance the largevessels of broth had to be carried, but lengthened the time one had to eat it as well.How would kitchens, showers, a library, canteen, brothel, rabbit hutches, and green­houses fit into most visitors' preconceived notions of Nazi concentration camps? Inthis case the reductive reconstruction dispenses with features that are crucial bothto forging an experiential connection to the historical events and for understandingthe moral and physical complexities of the Nazi system of oppression and murder.

The watchtowers at Dachau were similarly reconstructed and restored withoutimportant elements such as gun emplacements or searchlights. They are now alsodirectly accessible from the prison camp grounds without the intervening barbedwire barriers and deep ditch. In fact, a passageway was broken through the base ofthe north tower, while other towers now have new doorways from the grass stripthat has replaced the ditch.These iconic buildings have thus lost much oftheir formerthreatening appearance. What effects do these distortions have? For camp survivors,omitting such details helps to avoid traumatic reminders ofthe horrors of the camps.For postwar pedagogues, it helps to ensure that visitors will not be tempted to slipinto the "perspective of the perpetrators." In the words of advisory council memberHans Gunter Hockerts, a professor of contemporary history at the University ofMunich:

There will be no theatrical stagings. Visitors will not be allowed to go into awatch tower, because then they might slip into the role of a perpetrator. Noone will be allowed to playa virtual SS-man-there is enough of that in thoseawful video games. (Sing, 1998)

Some German educators thus fear that young Germans, some of whom harborarrogant attitudes, will identify with the power of the SS in the camp. Instead of

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 141

isolation and harshness of life in the camp, while the trees provide a space of emo­tional respite for reflection about the historical events.

In contrast to the trees, only two barracks of originally 34 have been reconstructed. They were built in 1965 after the extensively modified originals from 1938 were torn down. However, as mentioned above, they were built to a much higher standard, with concrete slab floors and reinforced concrete supports. Whereas most of the original barracks had been subdivided into four sections, each consisting of one day room and one dormitory room (Figure 9.2), one of the new barracks was furnished with a single day room and three different dormitory rooms, each representing the different bunk bed configurations that accommodated increasing numbers of inmates. And not only that: the two barracks that originally adjoined the roll-call square were not dormitory barracks. They housed the camp infirmary and the canteen, where privileged prisoners could purchase food, tobacco, and some personal items.

Instead of reconstruction, the other 32 barracks, most of which were dormitory barracks, were marked by low cement walls, which many visitors mistakenly assume are remnants of the original barracks. Neither the two reconstructed barracks nor the low cement rectangles convey an impression of the daily lives of the inmates. The hierarchies among the prisoners, and their segregation in different barracks ac­cording to nationality, religion, degree of severity of punishment, and health are neu­tralized. Nothing conjures up the advantages of living in a barrack closer to the kitchen, which, for example, not only shortened by up to 500 meters the distance the large vessels of broth had to be carried, but lengthened the time one had to eat it as well. How would kitchens, showers, a library, canteen, brothel, rabbit hutches, and green­houses fit into most visitors' preconceived notions of Nazi concentration camps? In this case the reductive reconstruction dispenses with features that are crucial both to forging an experiential connection to the historical events and for understanding the moral and physical complexities of the Nazi system of oppression and murder.

The watchtowers at Dachau were similarly reconstructed and restored without important elements such as gun emplacements or searchlights. They are now also directly accessible from the prison camp grounds without the intervening barbed wire barriers and deep ditch. In fact, a passageway was broken through the base of the north tower, while other towers now have new doorways from the grass strip that has replaced the ditch.These iconic buildings have thus lost much oftheir former threatening appearance. What effects do these distortions have? For camp survivors, omitting such details helps to avoid traumatic reminders ofthe horrors of the camps. For postwar pedagogues, it helps to ensure that visitors will not be tempted to slip into the "perspective of the perpetrators." In the words of advisory council member Hans Gunter Hockerts, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Munich:

There will be no theatrical stagings. Visitors will not be allowed to go into a watch tower, because then they might slip into the role of a perpetrator. No one will be allowed to playa virtual SS-man-there is enough of that in those awful video games. (Sing, 1998)

Some German educators thus fear that young Germans, some of whom harbor arrogant attitudes, will identify with the power of the SS in the camp. Instead of

142 H. Marcuse

allowing young people to confront and overcome that identification, the pedagoguesare attempting to predetermine the outcome. There is a danger here: as we haveseen, past attempts to shape visitors' experiences through omissions and prohibi­tions have had little effect. Creating dissonant impressions and raising difficult issuesis a more promising way of fostering the development of an emotional connectionthan an attempt to administer the most straightforward anti-Nazi message possible.

For young people with little foreknowledge of the history, such graphic elementsas machine guns, or the possibility of mounting the stairs and surveying the terrainmight be an effective means of evoking an experiential sense of the oppressivenessof the original camp. Indeed, the entry watchtower of Auschwitz-Birkenau is an al­most mandatory first stop on tours of that site.As the demographic balance shiftsfarther away from groups with personal connection to Nazi-era events, it is becom­ing increasingly necessary to strike a new balance between the sensibilities of emo­tionally primed visitors and the needs of naive tourists.

Exhibits in several recent Holocaust museums confirm that graphic elements areindeed effective means of connecting with the experiential senses of their visitors. Inthe United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC,visitors ascend in adungeon-like elevator, pass through an original deportation boxcar, and walk throughan arrangement of decaying survivors' shoes. In the Simon Wiesenthal Center's BeitHashoah-Museum ofTolerance in LosAngeles, the tour ends with visitors filing throughtwo narrow tunnels into a simulated gas chamber. Many visitors report that these arepowerful experiences. In these US museums, the setting makes clear that these areonly simulated experiences. At an actual concentration camp site, that distinction isnot as clear, and it is much more important to explicitly distinguish reconstructionsfrom original remains.At original sites such potentially tasteless or traumatizing detailsmight better be replaced by adequate previsit preparation or other on-site documenta­tion. Still, that is no reason not to allow visitors to enter the towers.

Another problematic area of reconstruction is the bridge over the ditch and throughthe barbed-wire fence that connects the prisoners' compound and the crematoriumarea. This 1960's bridge misrepresents the complete physical isolation of prisonersin the camp from the murder and corpse disposal installation. During the concentra­tion camp period the crematorium compound was concealed and strictly off limitsto all but the few prisoners who worked there.

There are reasons for connecting the two in the memorial site. From a practicalstandpoint, the bridge allows visitors to walk directly from the barracks area to thecrematorium compound. Additionally, as historically distorting as this direct accessmay be, it does illustrate the close functional connection between persecution andgenocide that evolved in the concentration camps in 1941-1942. However, otherways of achieving these practical and symbolic ends might distort the original situa­tion in the camp less. For instance, a clearly modern ramp or catwalk over the barbed­wire barrier, moat, and wall would allow visitors to physically experience their privi­lege of being able to transcend the prisoners' compound and examine the cremato­ria.A separate, ground-level bridge farther north along the wall could provide accessfor disabled visitors and maintenance personnel.

How to present surviving buildings poses additional problems. Most camp-era build­ings were repeatedly modified during the half-century since 1945, and they still bear

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

142 H. Marcuse

allowing young people to confront and overcome that identification, the pedagogues are attempting to predetermine the outcome. There is a danger here: as we have seen, past attempts to shape visitors' experiences through omissions and prohibi­tions have had little effect. Creating dissonant impressions and raising difficult issues is a more promising way of fostering the development of an emotional connection than an attempt to administer the most straightforward anti-Nazi message possible.

For young people with little foreknowledge of the history, such graphic elements as machine guns, or the possibility of mounting the stairs and surveying the terrain might be an effective means of evoking an experiential sense of the oppressiveness of the original camp. Indeed, the entry watchtower of Auschwitz-Birkenau is an al­most mandatory first stop on tours of that site.As the demographic balance shifts farther away from groups with personal connection to Nazi-era events, it is becom­ing increasingly necessary to strike a new balance between the sensibilities of emo­tionally primed visitors and the needs of naive tourists.

Exhibits in several recent Holocaust museums confirm that graphic elements are indeed effective means of connecting with the experiential senses of their visitors. In the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, visitors ascend in a dungeon-like elevator, pass through an original deportation boxcar, and walk through an arrangement of decaying survivors' shoes. In the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Beit Hashoah-Museum of Tolerance in LosAngeles, the tour ends with visitors filing through two narrow tunnels into a simulated gas chamber. Many visitors report that these are powerful experiences. In these US museums, the setting makes clear that these are only simulated experiences. At an actual concentration camp site, that distinction is not as clear, and it is much more important to explicitly distinguish reconstructions from original remains.At original sites such potentially tasteless or traumatizing details might better be replaced by adequate previsit preparation or other on-site documenta­tion. Still, that is no reason not to allow visitors to enter the towers.

Another problematic area of reconstruction is the bridge over the ditch and through the barbed-wire fence that connects the prisoners' compound and the crematorium area. This 1960 's bridge misrepresents the complete physical isolation of prisoners in the camp from the murder and corpse disposal installation. During the concentra­tion camp period the crematorium compound was concealed and strictly off limits to all but the few prisoners who worked there.

There are reasons for connecting the two in the memorial site. From a practical standpoint, the bridge allows visitors to walk directly from the barracks area to the crematorium compound. Additionally, as historically distorting as this direct access may be, it does illustrate the close functional connection between persecution and genocide that evolved in the concentration camps in 1941-1942. However, other ways of achieving these practical and symbolic ends might distort the original situa­tion in the camp less. For instance, a clearly modern ramp or catwalk over the barbed­wire barrier, moat, and wall would allow visitors to physically experience their privi­lege of being able to transcend the prisoners' compound and examine the cremato­ria.A separate, ground-level bridge farther north along the wall could provide access for disabled visitors and maintenance personnel.

How to present surviving buildings poses additional problems. Most camp-era build­ings were repeatedly modified during the half-century since 1945, and they still bear

Figure 9.8. Nazi-era inscription discovered on a wall of the west wing of the Oachauservice building in 1998. Removal of the neighboring coats of paint revealed the text"Rauchen verboten" (smoking prohibited). (Courtesy of the Dachau Memorial SiteArchive)

traces of each new use. We have already seen that there are cases where reconstruc­tions may be desirable or even necessary, and that it may be better if the reconstruc­tions do not attempt to replicate or simulate the exact camp-era. Questions of his­torical and didactic importance must be considered, as well as issues of sensitivityand taste, and less invasive alternatives should be explored. These considerationsalso apply to the presentation of coincidentally preserved remains. There is a broadspectrum of possibilities, ranging from displaying only the surviving elements of theremains, stripped of all later additions and bearing the scars of time, to restoring theoriginal appearance of those remains, to preserving also the later modifications, evenif they conceal features of the original situation. The key is to find the most effectivemeans of connecting visitors with the history of the site. Let us examine two cases,both in the service building that houses the main exhibition: the decision to stripthe walls down to the remnants of the first layer of paint and leave them in thatcondition, and the decision to destroy a postwar interior wall with decorative muralsfrom the period of US occupation.

In 1998 part of an original inscription" ... verboten" ("prohibited") in Gothic.script was discovered behind a cabinet in the long-empty west wing of the servicebuilding (Marcuse, 2001, p. 400f) (Figure 9.8). Some advisory board members be-

143Chapter 9

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 143

traces of each new use. We have already seen that there are cases where reconstruc­tions may be desirable or even necessary, and that it may be better if the reconstruc­tions do not attempt to replicate or simulate the exact camp-era. Questions of his­torical and didactic importance must be considered, as well as issues of sensitivity and taste, and less invasive alternatives should be explored. These considerations also apply to the presentation of coincidentally preserved remains. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities, ranging from displaying only the surviving elements of the remains, stripped of all later additions and bearing the scars of time, to restoring the original appearance of those remains, to preserving also the later modifications, even if they conceal features of the original situation. The key is to find the most effective means of connecting visitors with the history of the site. Let us examine two cases, both in the service building that houses the main exhibition: the decision to strip the walls down to the remnants of the first layer of paint and leave them in that condition, and the decision to destroy a postwar interior wall with decorative murals from the period of US occupation.

In 1998 part of an original inscription" ... verboten" ("prohibited") in Gothic· script was discovered behind a cabinet in the long-empty west wing of the service building (Marcuse, 2001, p. 400f) (Figure 9.8). Some advisory board members be-

Figure 9.S. Nazi-era inscription discovered on a wall of the west wing of the Dachau service building in 1998. Removal of the neighboring coats of paint revealed the text "Rauchen verboten" (smoking prohibited). (Courtesy of the Dachau Memorial Site Archive)

144 H. Marcuse

came very excited about the power of this original relic, and decided that all walls inthe west wing should be stripped down to the remains of the first coat of paint andleft that way as the backdrop of the exhibition. Subsequently, Nazi-era inscriptions orgraffiti were discovered in only a very few places. This decision has already beenimplemented in the exhibition in the "bunker," which opened to the public in 1anu­ary 2000. Visitors must view the documents on display in a distinctively dirty andunpleasant setting, resembling a construction site more than any situation that wasever present in the concentration camp. The dirty, peeling, blotched walls do notconvey an impression of the original building (which, as one of the most modernprisons in its day, was probably kept spotless), although they do convey a sense ofthe building's age. Critics call this a "brick fetishism" that overcompensates for thedestruction of historical relics elsewhere, while giving the historical exhibition acheap, unfinished, and unserious character.

The future main exhibition will thus also be housed in rooms that appear run­down and dirty, thereby debasing it and distracting from its message. As an alterna­tive, it would be possible to highlight the inscriptions of interest by exposing onlythem, while restoring the rest of the walls as nearly as possible to the original ap­pearance.This would create a tension between concealment and discovery, height­ening visitors' emotional experience and evoking a feeling for the historical "layer­ing" of the site.The power of this sense is graphically illustrated by this very inscrip­tion. When the paint next to "verboten" was stripped off, the entire inscription wasrevealed to be the unexpectedly banal" smoking prohibited." Because this prohibi­tion implies that some inmates could and did smoke in other areas, and that new­comers assumed that they could smoke in the camp, it provides an ideal opportunityto discuss visitors' preconceptions of concentration camps. Furthermore, becausesmoking prohibitions are widely regarded as beneficial public health measures to­day, the inscription could be used to raise the question whether Nazism containedprogressive as well repressive features. Whether this inscription will be interpretedso as to explore such issues, however, is still unclear. In any case, it will foster thecognitive dissonance that undergirds complex learning.

Secondly, the decision to remove all postwar additions to the interior of the westwing necessitates the destruction of US-era murals painted on a wall constructedafter 1945 (the murals are too fragile to be removed and displayed elsewhere). Instark contrast to the harshness of the concentration camp, the murals depict peace­ful scenes: a tropical sunset, a city silhouette, and a snowy mountain valley (Marcuse,2000). Because the murals document the US army's use of and attempt to take sym­bolic possession of the site after 1945, they would provide a powerful backdrop forthe planned exhibition on the postwar history of the site. In this case it is necessaryto balance, on the one hand, how much the wall would impair the experience of theNazi-era admitting room's original function, which is already diminished by the lackof reconstructions and by the exhibits the room will contain. On the other hand, themurals would help younger generations to understand and come to terms with theirown mediated relationship to the Nazi era, which is the biographical equivalent ofthe aforementioned "layering" of the site. This is another case where the originalsite's primary advantage over the classroom, its ability to use auratically heightenedsensory experiences to forge connections between visitors and history, could be

L ~

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

144 H. Marcuse

came very excited about the power of this original relic, and decided that all walls in the west wing should be stripped down to the remains of the first coat of paint and left that way as the backdrop of the exhibition. Subsequently, Nazi-era inscriptions or graffiti were discovered in only a very few places. This decision has already been implemented in the exhibition in the "bunker," which opened to the public in Janu­ary 2000. Visitors must view the documents on display in a distinctively dirty and unpleasant setting, resembling a construction site more than any situation that was ever present in the concentration camp. The dirty, peeling, blotched walls do not convey an impression of the original building (which, as one of the most modern prisons in its day, was probably kept spotless), although they do convey a sense of the building's age. Critics call this a "brick fetishism" that overcompensates for the destruction of historical relics elsewhere, while giving the historical exhibition a cheap, unfinished, and unserious character.

The future main exhibition will thus also be housed in rooms that appear run­down and dirty, thereby debasing it and distracting from its message. As an alterna­tive, it would be possible to highlight the inscriptions of interest by exposing only them, while restoring the rest of the walls as nearly as possible to the original ap­pearance.This would create a tension between concealment and discovery, height­ening visitors' emotional experience and evoking a feeling for the historical "layer­ing" of the site.The power of this sense is graphically illustrated by this very inscrip­tion. When the paint next to "verboten" was stripped off, the entire inscription was revealed to be the unexpectedly banal" smoking prohibited." Because this prohibi­tion implies that some inmates could and did smoke in other areas, and that new­comers assumed that they could smoke in the camp, it provides an ideal opportunity to discuss visitors' preconceptions of concentration camps. Furthermore, because smoking prohibitions are widely regarded as beneficial public health measures to­day, the inscription could be used to raise the question whether Nazism contained progressive as well repressive features. Whether this inscription will be interpreted so as to explore such issues, however, is still unclear. In any case, it will foster the cognitive dissonance that undergirds complex learning.

Secondly, the decision to remove all postwar additions to the interior of the west wing necessitates the destruction of US-era murals painted on a wall constructed after 1945 (the murals are too fragile to be removed and displayed elsewhere). In stark contrast to the harshness of the concentration camp, the murals depict peace­ful scenes: a tropical sunset, a city silhouette, and a snowy mountain valley (Marcuse, 2000). Because the murals document the US army's use of and attempt to take sym­bolic possession of the site after 1945, they would provide a powerful backdrop for the planned exhibition on the postwar history of the site. In this case it is necessary to balance, on the one hand, how much the wall would impair the experience of the Nazi-era admitting room's original function, which is already diminished by the lack of reconstructions and by the exhibits the room will contain. On the other hand, the murals would help younger generations to understand and come to terms with their own mediated relationship to the Nazi era, which is the biographical equivalent of the aforementioned "layering" of the site. This is another case where the original site's primary advantage over the classroom, its ability to use auratically heightened sensory experiences to forge connections between visitors and history, could be

Chapter 9 145

intensified. If the modifications are implemented as planned, however, that uniquepower will be lost.

Conclusion

This overview of the winding path between the Dachau concentration camp andits successive recreations as a memorial site reveals that the site was never opti­mized to respond to the educational needs of visitors. Instead, it was continuallyredesigned according the representational desires of those in charge of it. First, USoccupation authorities used it to punish former Nazis, and presented only the mostbarbaric aspects of the camp's past use as a prison and "death mill." Even before theformer concentration camp was returned to them in 1948, Bavarian authorities triedto turn the camp into the correctional institution portrayed by Nazi propaganda.Economic and political constraints prevented them from realizing that goal. Instead,rapidly changing exigencies at the beginning of the Cold War prompted them toconvert it into a residential settlement for refugees by the end of the year.

By the end of the 1950s that solution proved to be a source of increasing embar­rassment, so Bavarian authorities reluctantly yielded to camp survivors interested increating a memorial site. Still, the authorities were able to shape the site in such away that the horrific events of the Nazi period were represented in an abstract,minimalist, "clean" way. Especially in the 1950s and early 1960s German officials suc­ceeded in removing most traces of the everyday life in the concentration camp, leav­ing only a few icons of a clean, streamlined murder factory: a wall with watchtowersand a gate, two nondescript barracks, and a gas chamber/morgue/crematorium build­ing. Survivors successfully thwarted attempts to plant the entire site with trees, al­though, in keeping with their own focus on commemoration, they allowed sometrees to be planted where originals had stood in the camp, and they permitted theconstruction of new religious buildings.

The analysis of visitor statistics over a 45-year period reveals the ebb and flow ofGerman and foreign interest in the former Dachau concentration camp. In general,rising interest meant increased pressure on those in power to preserve and docu­ment the history of the camp. They reduced the former camp to a symbolic mini­mum that balanced pressure from both sides. On the one hand, the former concen­tration camp had to appear "clean" enough to mollify local constituencies. On theother, it had to contain enough trappings of the camp so as not to draw criticismfrom disappointed visitors.A generational change beginning in the late 1960s andcresting in the 1980s prompted a series of augmentations to the didactic infrastruc­ture of the site. With increasing distance from the events and a shift toward visits byorganized groups of young people, however, more and more visitors began arrivingwith less and less foreknowledge about the camp. It was not until the late 1990s,however, that further-reaching changes to the appearance of the site were consid­ered. By that time the political will to confront the complexities and ambiguities inthe concentration camp's history was beginning to materialize.

A younger generation of politicians and pedagogues developed guidelines to re­store greater historical authenticity to the Dachau memorial site. These guidelinesfocus on the preservation and accessibility of the few authentic relics that coinci-

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 145

intensified. If the modifications are implemented as planned, however, that unique power will be lost.

Conclusion This overview of the winding path between the Dachau concentration camp and

its successive recreations as a memorial site reveals that the site was never opti­mized to respond to the educational needs of visitors. Instead, it was continually redesigned according the representational desires of those in charge of it. First, US occupation authorities used it to punish former Nazis, and presented only the most barbaric aspects of the camp's past use as a prison and "death mill." Even before the former concentration camp was returned to them in 1948, Bavarian authorities tried to turn the camp into the correctional institution portrayed by Nazi propaganda. Economic and political constraints prevented them from realizing that goal. Instead, rapidly changing exigencies at the beginning of the Cold War prompted them to convert it into a residential settlement for refugees by the end of the year.

By the end of the 1950s that solution proved to be a source of increasing embar­rassment, so Bavarian authorities reluctantly yielded to camp survivors interested in creating a memorial site. Still, the authorities were able to shape the site in such a way that the horrific events of the Nazi period were represented in an abstract, minimalist, "clean" way. Especially in the 1950s and early 1960s German officials suc­ceeded in removing most traces of the everyday life in the concentration camp, leav­ing only a few icons of a clean, streamlined murder factory: a wall with watchtowers and a gate, two nondescript barracks, and a gas chamber/morgue/crematorium build­ing. Survivors successfully thwarted attempts to plant the entire site with trees, al­though, in keeping with their own focus on commemoration, they allowed some trees to be planted where originals had stood in the camp, and they permitted the construction of new religious buildings.

The analysis of visitor statistics over a 45-year period reveals the ebb and flow of German and foreign interest in the former Dachau concentration camp. In general, rising interest meant increased pressure on those in power to preserve and docu­ment the history of the camp. They reduced the former camp to a symbolic mini­mum that balanced pressure from both sides. On the one hand, the former concen­tration camp had to appear "clean" enough to mollify local constituencies. On the other, it had to contain enough trappings of the camp so as not to draw criticism from disappointed visitors.A generational change beginning in the late 1960s and cresting in the 1980s prompted a series of augmentations to the didactic infrastruc­ture of the site. With increasing distance from the events and a shift toward visits by organized groups of young people, however, more and more visitors began arriving with less and less foreknowledge about the camp. It was not until the late 1990s, however, that further-reaching changes to the appearance of the site were consid­ered. By that time the political will to confront the complexities and ambiguities in the concentration camp's history was beginning to materialize.

A younger generation of politicians and pedagogues developed guidelines to re­store greater historical authenticity to the Dachau memorial site. These guidelines focus on the preservation and accessibility of the few authentic relics that coinci-

146 H. Marcuse

-

dentally survived the destructive impulses of past generations. Still, in their reluc­tance to recreate important but incongruous features of the concentration camp,and in their willingness to destroy evidence of postwar uses, these guidelines runthe risk of past unsuccessful attempts to shape visitors' experiences without consid­ering their needs. A memorial site must be designed to meet visitors half way, ad­dressing their interests first, before attempting to infuse them with the views thesite's designers wish to convey.

Note

IPersonal interviews by author were with (1992-1993): Belinda Davis (b. 1959),interiewed March 2, 1992 ,Ann Arbor, Michigan; Irene Marcuse-Silver (b. 1953), visit inSeptember 1981, interviewed March 1,1992; Diana Saso(b. 1971), visit in 1991,inter­viewed May 10, 1993; Kevin Wong (b. 1967), visit in 1985, interviewed March 12,1993.

Bibliography

Abzug, R. (1985). Inside tbe vicious beart:Americans and tbe liberation of Naziconcentration camps. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bayern schliesst Dachauer KZ-Museum. (1953,]une 6). Rbein-Neckar-Zeitung.Berning, C. (1964). Yom 'Ltbstammungsnacbweis"zum "Zucbtwart":Vokabular des

Nationalsozialismus. Berlin: de Grutyer.Bettelheim, B. (1956). Returning to Dachau:The living and the dead. Commentary,

21,144-151.Blaha,E (1946).Testimony about Dachau. In Trial oftbe major war criminals (vol. 3,

pp. 201- 203, 208f, 213 - 215). International Military Tribunal.Bringmann, E, & Roder, H. (1987). Neuengamme. Verdrangt-vergessen-bewaltigt?

Die zweite Gescbicbte des Konzentrationslagers Neuengamme. Hamburg:VSA.Brink, C. (1990). Visualisierte Gescbicbte: Zu Ausstellungen an Orten

nationalsozialistiscber Konzentrationslager. Master's thesis, Universitat Freiburg.Brink, C. (1998). Ikonen der Vernicbtung: OJJentlicber Gebraucb von Fotografien

aus nationalsozialistiscben Konzentrationslagern nacb 1945. Berlin:Akademie.Bronstein, C. (1988, September).A bridge out of darkness. Seventeen, 47, 166-168.Coblentz, G. (1954, March 8). Dachau crematorium is kept as memorial. New York

Herald Tribune, p. 1.Dachau kampft gegen die Schatten derVergangenheit: Unkontrollierbare Propaganda

auf dem ehemaligen KZ-Gelande trieb mit dem Entsetzen Missbrauch. (1953, May30).Milncbener Merkur.

Dacbau! Bin Tatsacbenbericbt in Bildern (ca. 1945-1946). Dachau Memorial SiteArchive.

Dann, S. (Ed.). (1998). Dacbau, 29 APril 1945: Tbe rainbow liberation memoir. Lub­bock: Texas Tech ..

Decter, M. (1967, May). Germany 1967: Nine American writers and editors, back froma tour to Berlin and major West German cities, give their personal impressions ofGermans today. Atlantic, 219(5), SO-53.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

146 H. Marcuse

dentally survived the destructive impulses of past generations. Still, in their reluc­tance to recreate important but incongruous features of the concentration camp, and in their willingness to destroy evidence of postwar uses, these guidelines run the risk of past unsuccessful attempts to shape visitors' experiences without consid­ering their needs. A memorial site must be designed to meet visitors half way, ad­dressing their interests first, before attempting to infuse them with the views the site's designers wish to convey.

Note

IPersonal interviews by author were with (1992-1993): Belinda Davis (b. 1959), interiewed March 2, 1992 ,Ann Arbor, Michigan; Irene Marcuse-Silver (b. 1953), visit in September 1981, interviewed March 1,1992; Diana Saso(b. 1971), visit in 1991,inter­viewed May 10, 1993; Kevin Wong (b. 1967), visit in 1985, interviewed March 12, 1993.

Bibliography

Abzug, R. (1985). Inside tbe vicious beart:Americans and tbe liberation of Nazi concentration camps. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bayern schlie sst Dachauer KZ-Museum. (1953,]une 6). Rbein-Neckar-Zeitung. Berning, C. (1964). Yom 'Ltbstammungsnacbweis"zum "Zucbtwart":Vokabular des

Nationalsozialismus. Berlin: de Grutyer. Bettelheim, B. (1956). Returning to Dachau:The living and the dead. Commentary,

21,144-151. Blaha,E (1946).Testimony about Dachau. In Trial oftbe major war criminals (vol. 3,

pp. 201-203, 208f, 213 - 215). International Military Tribunal. Bringmann, E, & Roder, H. (1987). Neuengamme. Verdriingt-vergessen-bewiiltigt?

Die zweite Gescbicbte des Konzentrationslagers Neuengamme. Hamburg:VSA. Brink, C. (1990). Visualisierte Gescbicbte: Zu Ausstellungen an Orten

nationalsozialistiscber Konzentrationslager. Master's thesis, Universitat Freiburg. Brink, C. (1998). Ikonen der Vernicbtung: OJJentlicber Gebraucb von Fotografien

aus nationalsozialistiscben Konzentrationslagern nacb 1945. Berlin:Akademie. Bronstein, C. (1988, September).A bridge out of darkness. Seventeen, 47, 166-168. Coblentz, G. (1954, March 8). Dachau crematorium is kept as memorial. New York

Herald Tribune, p. 1. Dachau kampfi gegen die Schatten derVergangenheit: Unkontrollierbare Propaganda

auf dem ehemaligen KZ-Gelande trieb mit dem Entsetzen Missbrauch. (1953, May 30). Milncbener Merkur.

Dacbau! Bin Tatsacbenbericbt in Bildern (ca. 1945-1946). Dachau Memorial Site Archive.

Dann, S. (Ed.). (1998). Dacbau, 29 April 1945: Tbe rainbow liberation memoir. Lub-bock: Texas Tech. .

Decter, M. (1967, May). Germany 1967: Nine American writers and editors, back from a tour to Berlin and major West German cities, give their personal impressions of Germans today. Atlantic, 219(5), SO-53.

Chapter 9 147

Distel, B., & Jakusch, R. (1978). Konzentrationslager Dachau, 1933-1945. Munich.Eine so pittoreske kleine Stadt. (1966, February). Blatter fur deutsche und

internationale Politik, 157.Fachbeirat. (1996, May 23). KZ-Gedenkstatte Dachau: Empfehlungen fur eine

Neukonzeption, vorgelegt vom wissenschaftlichen Fachbeirat. Copy in DachauMemorial Site Archive.

Gun,N. (1966). The day of the Americans. New York: Fleet.Hagn,H. (1947, November 21). Proposal for "Freimachung von Lagern zur Benutzung

alsArbeitslager fur asoziale Elemente."Archive of the Bavarian Parliament, minutesof the Ausschuss fUr Sozialpolitik.

Halperin, I. (1971). Here I am:Ajew in today's Germany. Philadelphia:Westminster.Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte. (1999). Kolloquium zur Neugestaltung der KZ­

Gedenkstatte Dachau. Augsburg: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte.Also availableonline: http://www.bayern.de/HDBG/projekt-kz/en/b/b.htm

H-Holocaust. (1994, June). Descriptions of nine visits from 1966 to 1994. http://h­net2 .msu.edu/ - holoweb/logs/June94 .html

Hoffmann, D.(Ed.). (1998).Das Gedachtnis der Dinge:KZ-Relikte und KZ-Denkmaler,1945-1995. Frankfurt: Campus.

Holzhaider, H. (1985,ApriI27). Reitmeier zur KZ-Gedenkstatte: Hier geschieht Grosses/Sondersitzung des Stadtrats zum 40.Jahrestag der Befreiung.Suddeutsche Zeitung/Dachauer Neueste.

International Information Office. (1946).Album. Dachau Memorial Site Archive.International Military Tribunal. (1947-1949). Trial of the major war criminals be­

fore the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 -1 Oc­tober 1946. Nuremberg.

Knigge, V. (1996). Vom Reden und Schweigen der Steine: Zu Denkmalen auf demGeHinde ehemaliger nationalsozialistischer Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager.In S. Weigel & B. Erdle (Eds.), Funfzig jahre danach: Zur Nachgeschichte desNationalsozialismus (pp. 193-235). Zurich: Hochschulverlag.

Landrat schlecht beraten. (1955,July 21).Abendzeitung.Lehrke, G. (1988). Gedenkstatten fur Opfer des Nationalsozialismus: Historisch­

politische Bildung an Orten des Widerstands und der Verfolgung. Frankfurt: Cam­pus.

Marcuse, H. (1999). Dachau: The political aesthetics of Holocaust memorials. In P.Hayes (Ed.), Lessons and legacies III:Memory, memorialization, and denial (pp.138- 168,278- 287). Evanston, IN: Northwestern.

Marcuse, H. (2000). Dachau Web page. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/dachau.htm

Marcuse, H. (2001). Legacies of Dachau: The uses and abuses of a concentrationcamp, 1933-2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, O. (1959, December 1). Letter to Leonhard Roth, Dokumentationsarchiv desdeutschen Widerstands, Frankfurt, Oskar Muller papers.

Philipson, M. (1957, March), Pilgrimage to Dachau. Commonweal, 65,657-659.Prittie, T. (1954, December 16). Dachau revisited. Manchester Gardian Weekly.Ragins, S. (1992, Summer). How I resolved my German problem. Reform judaism,

30f.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

Chapter 9 147

Distel, B., & Jakusch, R. (1978). Konzentrationslager Dachau, 1933-1945. Munich. Eine so pittoreske kleine Stadt. (1966, February). Blatter fur deutsche und

internationale Politik, 157. Fachbeirat. (1996, May 23). KZ-Gedenkstatte Dachau: Empfehlungen fur eine

Neukonzeption, vorgelegt vom wissenschaftlichen Fachbeirat. Copy in Dachau Memorial Site Archive.

Gun,N. (1966). The day of the A mericans. New York: Fleet. Hagn,H. (1947, November 21). Proposal for "Freimachung von Lagern zur Benutzung

alsArbeitslager fur asoziale Elemente."Archive of the Bavarian Parliament, minutes of the Ausschuss fUr Sozialpolitik.

Halperin, I. (1971). Here I am:AJew in today's Germany. Philadelphia:Westminster. Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte. (1999). Kolloquium zur Neugestaltung der KZ­

Gedenkstatte Dachau. Augsburg: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte.AIso available online: http://www.bayern.de/HDBG/projekt-kz/en/b/b.htm

H-Holocaust. (1994,June). Descriptions of nine visits from 1966 to 1994. http://h­net2 .msu.edu/ - holoweb/logs/June94 .html

Hoffmann, D. (Ed.). (1998).Das Gedachtnis der Dinge: KZ-Relikte und KZ-Denkmaler, 1945-1995. Frankfurt: Campus.

Holzhaider, H. (1985 ,April 27). Reitmeier zur KZ-Gedenkstatte: Hier geschieht Grosses/ Sondersitzung des Stadtrats zum 40.Jahrestag der Befreiung.Suddeutsche Zeitung/ Dachauer Neueste.

International Information Office. (1946).Album. Dachau Memorial Site Archive. International Military Tribunal. (1947-1949). Trial of the major war criminals be­

fore the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 -1 Oc­tober 1946. Nuremberg.

Knigge, V. (1996). Vom Reden und Schweigen der Steine: Zu Denkmalen auf dem GeHinde ehemaliger nationalsozialistischer Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager. In S. Weigel & B. Erdle (Eds.), Funfzig Jahre danach: Zur Nachgeschichte des Nationalsozialismus (pp. 193-235). Zurich: Hochschulverlag.

Landrat schlecht beraten. (1955,July 21).Abendzeitung. Lehrke, G. (1988). Gedenkstatten fur Opfer des Nationalsozialismus: Historisch­

politische Bildung an Orten des Widerstands und der Verfolgung. Frankfurt: Cam­pus.

Marcuse, H. (1999). Dachau: The political aesthetics of Holocaust memorials. In P. Hayes (Ed.), Lessons and legacies III: Memory, memorialization, and denial (pp. 138- 168,278- 287). Evanston, IN: Northwestern.

Marcuse, H. (2000). Dachau Web page. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/ dachau.htm

Marcuse, H. (2001). Legacies of Dachau: The uses and abuses of a concentration camp, 1933-2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, O. (1959, December 1). Letter to Leonhard Roth, Dokumentationsarchiv des deutschen Widerstands, Frankfurt, Oskar Muller papers.

Philipson, M. (1957, March), Pilgrimage to Dachau. Commonweal, 65,657-659. Prittie, T. (1954, December 16). Dachau revisited. Manchester Gardian Weekly. Ragins, S. (1992, Summer). How I resolved my German problem. Reform Judaism,

30f.

148 H. Marcuse

Reichel, N. (1960,August 1). Mahnung fUr die kommenden Generationen: Er6ffnungdes Dachauer KZ-Museums/Eine internationale Gemeinschaftsarbeit. SilddeutscheZeitung (Landkreis).

Reitmeier, L. (1970). Ansprache des 1. Biirgermeisters der Stadt Dachau Dr. LorenzReitmeier anlasslich des 25. Jahrestages der Befreiung des KonzentrationslagersDachau (gehalten in der Sondersitzung des Stadtrates yom 29.4.1970). DachauMemorial Site Archive.

Reitmeier, L.(1985,ApriI27). Dachau, 29 April 1945. Silddeutsche Zeitung/DachauerNeueste.

Richardi, H.-G. (1983). Schule der Gewalt.Das Konzentrationslager Dachau, 1933­1934. Munich: Beck.

Rost, N. (1962). Quelques Remarques suite a ma visite au musee en Novembre 1962.Forschungsstelle fiir die Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus, Hamburg, HS 13-4-3.

Schubert, D. (1976). Das Denkmal der Marzgefallenen in Weimar.]ahrbuch der Ham­burger Kunstsammlungen, 21, 199ff.

Sing,A. (1998,April 17). Zwischen Gedenkstatte und Lernort-eine neue Ausstellungiiber das KZ Dachau: Das Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte gestaltet dieGedenkstatte des Konzentrationslagers Dachau neu. Bayerische Staatszeitung.

Smith, M. (1972). Dachau: The harrowing of hell. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico.

Steinmayr, J. (1952a, January 12). Wenn das Grauen zur Sehenswiirdigkeitwird .... Sieben Jahre nach der Befreiung ist das KZ Dachau ein diistererAnziehungspunkt fiir Fremdenverkehr. Silddeutsche Zeitung.

Steinmayr, J. (1952b, January 25). Was der Jude 27660 erlebte: Auch unserBerichterstatter besuchte die Verbrennungsofen in Dachau. Ruhr Nachrichten.

Steinmayr,]. (1952c, February 22).An der Statte des Grauens: KZ Dachau lockt dieFremden an/'Hangetanne' alsAndenkenfoto. Grenz Echo.

Steinmayr,]. (1952d, July 15). Konzentrationslager Dachau heute: GedachtnisstatteoderTouristenattraktion?-Sonderstempel aus dem Krematorium. Nordpress-Stan­dard, Milnchen.

Stokes, K. (1999). A trip in the German countryside. http://www.remember.org/educate/stokes.html

Tennenbaum, S. (1976, December). Return to Germany. Midstream, 22,39-45.Tuchel, J. (1991). Konzentrationslager: Organisationsgeschichte und Funktion der

"Inspektion der Konzentrationslager" 1934-1938. Boppard am Rhein: H. Boldt.Verhandlungen des Bayerischen Landtags. (1947 -1948). Vote on 21 November 1947,

vol. II,pp. 587 and 589 with supplement No. 871.Wakin, E. (1964, September 5).Visit to a Munich suburb:The railroad now used daily

by commuters once carried human cargo to Dachau.America, 111, 235f.Warman, C. (1968, September 9). Cleaned-up Dachau disappoints survivors. Times

(London).Werner,A. (1951, December). Return to Dachau. Commentary, 542 -545.Whitlock, F.(1998). The Rock ofAnzio-from Sicily to Dachau:A history of the 45th

Infantry Division (pp. 359-382). Boulder: Westview.

Marcuse, Reshaping Dachau..., 1933-200 (2005)

148 H. Marcuse

Reichel, N. (1960,August 1). Mahnung fUr die kommenden Generationen: Er6ffnung des Dachauer KZ-Museums/Eine internationale Gemeinschaftsarbeit. Silddeutsche Zeitung (Landkreis).

Reitmeier, L. (1970). Ansprache des 1. Biirgermeisters der Stadt Dachau Dr. Lorenz Reitmeier anlasslich des 25. Jahrestages der Befreiung des Konzentrationslagers Dachau (gehalten in der Sondersitzung des Stadtrates yom 29.4.1970). Dachau Memorial Site Archive.

Reitmeier, L. (1985,ApriI27). Dachau, 29 April 1945. Silddeutsche Zeitung/Dachauer Neueste.

Richardi, H.-G. (1983). Schule der Gewalt. Das Konzentrationslager Dachau, 1933-1934. Munich: Beck.

Rost, N. (1962). Quelques Remarques suite a rna visite au musee en Novembre 1962. Forschungsstelle fiir die Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus, Hamburg, HS 13-4-3.

Schubert, D. (1976). Das Denkmal der Marzgefallenen in Weimar.jahrbuch der Ham­burger Kunstsammlungen, 21, 199ff.

Sing,A. (1998,April 17). Zwischen Gedenkstatte und Lernort-eine neue Ausstellung iiber das KZ Dachau: Das Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte gestaltet die Gedenkstatte des Konzentrationslagers Dachau neu. Bayerische Staatszeitung.

Smith, M. (1972). Dachau: The harrowing of hell. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Steinmayr, ]. (1952a, January 12). Wenn das Grauen zur Sehenswiirdigkeit wird .... Sieben Jahre nach der Befreiung ist das KZ Dachau ein diisterer Anziehungspunkt fiir Fremdenverkehr. Silddeutsche Zeitung.

Steinmayr, ]. (1952b, January 25). Was der Jude 27660 erlebte: Auch unser Berichterstatter besuchte die Verbrennungsofen in Dachau. Ruhr Nachrichten.

Steinmayr,J. (1952c, February 22).An der Statte des Grauens: KZ Dachau lockt die Fremden an/'Hangetanne' alsAndenkenfoto. Grenz Echo.

Steinmayr, J. (1952d, July 15). Konzentrationslager Dachau heute: Gedachtnisstatte oderTouristenattraktion?-Sonderstempel aus dem Krematorium. Nordpress-Stan­dard, Milnchen.

Stokes, K. (1999). A trip in the German countryside. http://www.remember.org/ educate/stokes.html

Tennenbaum, S. (1976, December). Return to Germany. Midstream, 22,39-45. Tuchel, J. (1991). Konzentrationslager: Organisationsgeschichte und Funktion der

"Inspektion der Konzentrationslager" 1934-1938. Boppard am Rhein: H. Boldt. Verhandlungen des Bayerischen Landtags. (1947 -1948). Vote on 21 November 1947,

vol. II, pp. 587 and 589 with supplement No. 871. Wakin, E. (1964, September 5).Visit to a Munich suburb:The railroad now used daily

by commuters once carried human cargo to Dachau.America, 111, 235f. Warman, C. (1968, September 9). Cleaned-up Dachau disappoints survivors. Times

(London). Werner,A. (1951, December). Return to Dachau. Commentary, 542 -545. Whitlock, F. (1998). The ROck of Anzio-from Sicily to Dachau:A history of the 45th

Infantry Division (pp. 359-382). Boulder: Westview.