A New Course in German Remembrance Policy - finally.

Sometimes you only realize in retrospect that you had almost grown accustomed to a political imbalance. That was exactly the feeling I had when I read the new memorial site program presented by Minister of State for Culture, Weimer (CDU). One senses in it a clarity that German remembrance policy had increasingly lost in recent years. Since the cabinet decision was issued in November 2025, it has become clearer than ever how strongly Weimer’s approach differs from the previously pursued course—and why this difference is not only politically but also culturally necessary.

Berlin, Holocaust memorial

Correction of course

Weimer’s concept builds on the basic idea that the historically authentic sites of Nazi terror and the SED dictatorship are themselves the most important bearers of memory. He places the structural preservation of these sites at the forefront, but complements it with modern digital forms of mediation intended to create a bridge especially for younger generations. At the same time, he relies on a scholarly commission that is to examine future funding independently and professionally. Many representatives of memorial sites considered this a long-overdue return to a sober, focused, and professional orientation of state responsibility—particularly since the sites of terror and dictatorship lie directly on our doorstep and are not merely museums, but places where the crimes were actually committed.

Perhaps the most important turning point in the new concept, however, is that German colonialism will no longer be part of the memorial site program. Weimer has repeatedly announced his intention to develop a separate concept for the colonial past instead of integrating it into the remembrance of the Holocaust. This serves a goal that is both correct and necessary: a clear separation of historical levels so that the singularity of the Holocaust is not blurred. The Central Council of Jews has also expressly welcomed this step—especially at a time when hatred of Jews is on the rise and the historical core of Germany’s responsibility must once again move into sharper focus.

Comparing this with the draft previously presented by Claudia Roth (Greens), the break becomes even more apparent. Her approach aimed to comprehensively expand the culture of remembrance and embed topics such as immigration society, the history of democracy, and colonialism within the same framework. This concept would inevitably have led to a dilution of memorial sites and of the culture of remembrance itself. The institutions originally created to keep the crimes of National Socialism visible would have become merely one among many.

The new concept addresses this very directly and draws the political consequence. That Weimer also set personal accents—such as through the dismissal of a key official from Roth’s tenure—was an additional signal that this was not just a change of concept but a correction of course.

Academic background - against postcolonial comparison patterns

What seems particularly important to me in this reorientation is the theoretical and ideological background. In recent years, postcolonial theoretical approaches have gained influence on (German) remembrance culture. Even though these debates take place primarily in academic contexts, they have societal effects. They shift the perspective away from a historically singular crime against humanity toward an equation of different historical constellations.

Anyone who knows me knows that I consider this approach completely misguided, historically incorrect, and fundamentally wrong.

There can be no relativization of the Holocaust.

The reason for this lies in the growing influence of postcolonial interpretive patterns. These seek to bundle very different forms of violence under shared categories and to place the Holocaust within comparative global narratives of oppression. Such a perspective may appear intellectually sophisticated at first glance, but it produces a dangerous vagueness: it levels historical differences that are indispensable for understanding the Holocaust. This becomes particularly clear in positions such as those of the “historian” A. Dirk Moses, who has argued that the Holocaust is “sacralized” in Germany and placed on an inappropriately high “pedestal,” thereby creating a distorted relationship to other histories of violence. In fact, such theses are neither new nor innovative. Similar claims were formulated decades ago in the context of political and ideological debates, then as now without convincing scholarly foundation and always with the risk of relativizing the uniqueness of the Holocaust. Moses also seems entirely unaware that exactly these theses appeared already 25 years ago in far-right and right-populist discourse—phrased almost identically.

In this light, Weimer’s memorial site program appears not only as a political correction but as a necessary protection of historical precision. It keeps the focus where it belongs: on the crimes of National Socialism, which are not merely a chapter of history but a rupture of civilization. That the new concept separates colonial topics from the concept does not devalue other victim groups, but expresses respect for the uniqueness of the Holocaust. And only if this uniqueness remains protected can remembrance unfold its enlightening, democratic, and moral power.

A positive signal

For me, this new program is therefore a very positive signal. It returns remembrance policy to its actual task and frees it from ideological currents that in recent years have often created more confusion than clarity. It is a step toward a culture of remembrance that is at once precise, responsible, and oriented toward the future.

It preserves the historical contours of the Holocaust, protects it from relativization, and relies on scholarly accuracy rather than ideological overlays. In a debate in which old theses are often presented as new insights, this is an important step toward a culture of remembrance that takes the complexity of history seriously and does not dissolve it into homogenizing narratives.