Political Influence and German Holocaust Memory: A Historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way the world remembers the Holocaust has been ever-changing since the end of the Second World War. Throughout Holocaust discourse, the word “memory” takes on many different meanings. From cultural memory to public memory, there are many subcategories that break down the meaning of memory and how it functions as a conceptual lens to understand how societies remember their histories. Memory is used for many different roles including serving the past and the present, and for political interests. With such an all-encompassing topic, its scholarship is certainly brimming with information and ideas amongst scholars of various disciplines. Through their work, they have established endless ways in which memory is utilized and defined for individuals, the public, political actors, for commemoration, and memorialization. This essay analyzes the work of scholars of Holocaust memory in Germany who largely focus on the sites and expressions of memory in Germany’s capital city, Berlin. Scholars such as James E. Young, Jeffrey Blustein, Jan Weiner Müller, Mark Callaghan, Aleida Assmann, Siobhan Kattago, and Jennifer Jordon address the connectiveness of German national identity and political involvement. They stress that German collective memory related to the construction of national identity in the postwar era and that the erection of Holocaust memorials in Berlin and throughout the country was an attempt to consolidate and address national guilt. As Germany worked to face Nazi history through memorialization, it becomes abundantly clear that there are many layers of heavy political involvement in shaping German memory on both national and international levels. This article will discuss the work of sixteen books that examine political involvement in memory work in Germany.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".