"Kulturlager" Theresienstadt? Historischer Ort im Spannungsfeld von geschichtlicher Realität und stilisierter Präsentation

Although we cannot enable people to experience the past again today, contemporary witnesses, researchers, scientists, writers, filmmakers and exhibition curators attempt to create historical images. From these emerge historical figures, historical events or historical sites. With a section of the past such as the Holocaust, memory contributes to constructing the historical image which becomes a collective remembrance in the positive sense. The starting point for this analysis is a particular reconstruction of history – and a unique historical site as a research subject: the former Nazi concentration camp of Theresienstadt. As a part of the Holocaust, Theresienstadt is a memorial and at the same time a site with a paradoxical uniqueness, and is therefore now in danger of being immortalized in history in a stylized manner. The origin of this danger is its functionalization in the past by the National Socialists, as this gave Theresienstadt several faces which are now almost incompatible. First, there is the urban aspect; geographically, Theresienstadt was largely part of the small town of Terezín, in what was once Bohemia. Then there is the site’s model function in the terror system: Theresienstadt was presented as a Jewish “settlement area”, a showcase to allow those in power to deny the Holocaust to the world. This lie in turn resulted in the third aspect, the unique composition of the inmate community, as the majority of Europe’s Jewish artistic elite were deported to the supposed preferential camp. The prisoners’ reaction to this combination, based on the natural needs of civilized man, was to develop a kind of overseen private existence within the camp, with pronounced artistic and intellectual activity. And yet behind everything stood the reality of the Holocaust in Theresienstadt: hunger, fear, hard labor, sickness, deportation and death. Most of the victims wound up in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. This is Theresienstadt’s contrast, which has uniquely influenced its reception. Thus we now face the question of whether the historical image of Theresienstadt is inadvertently moving towards that of a culturally dedicated location, or even, as some suggest, that of a “cultural camp”? To be able to answer this question and also to illustrate the resulting dangers, we must itemize the stylization of the historical site of Theresienstadt as a phenomenon right up to the present day – and we must do so in all areas of historical construction. This analysis consequently extends from research into all areas of remembrance culture, as this is the only way to obtain a holistic impression and comprehensively raise awareness of the problems. The analysis pays particular attention to the adaption of cultural moments and documents, as these vividly reveal the significance of cultural life at the time to the inmates and those in power, as well as its importance in communicating history. Whether as a means of resistance, a tool for deception, a contemporary document or a work of art – this analysis reveals the multitude of ways in which Theresienstadt culture (essentially meaning the local “high culture”) was integrated into its reception, and the vivid and emotional insights into history it gives us. At the same time, it highlights the extent to which other aspects, including the reality of the Holocaust itself, were pushed far into the background by a constant emphasis on culture. The stylization of Theresienstadt is an inadvertent phenomenon with full historical justification – but one whose development should always be explained, understood and taken into account, for example with regard to the mindset of Holocaust deniers. This condition will allow the cultural achievements of the inmates of Theresienstadt, still fascinating today, to be appreciated and integrated without danger.