Grenzen des Sagbaren. NS-Belastung und NS-Verfolgungserfahrung bei Bundestagsabgeordneten

In: Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen: ZParl, Volume 45, Issue 1, p. 128-140

Abstract

This contribution examines the question of to what extent individual experiences and exposures of by-standing, persecution and perpetration during the Third Reich affected what could and what was expressed by members of the West German parliament and what not. To date, political science has not explored this set of problems systematically, however a number of contemporary studies highlight the importance of distinguishing different communities of remembrances and of experience in order to better understand politics in West and East German postwar society. The samples examined in a study on the history of 'militant democracy' lay the groundwork for two hypotheses. On the one hand, individual experiences during the Third Reich influenced the way parliamentarians argued. On the other hand, they avoided to talk frankly about this influence's existence. Instead, members of parliament used more abstract topoi which reduced the political explosive force of the debate. Even when the Bundestag debated the 'historical lessons' to be drawn from '1933', the parliamentarians did not mention what they personally said and did before 1945. This 'dosage' of (auto-)biographical information avoided historical mudslinging and guaranteed constructive collaboration. Adapted from the source document.