As long as there is a substantial amount of people who think that Robert E. Lee should literally remain on a pedestal, who proudly call those who fought to maintain the system of slavery "rebels" defending "state rights", and who say that the Native American genocide was "manifest destiny", it's not all that surprising that President Donald "good people on all sides" Trump can blatantly ignore reality and lie all day long: If your version of history is a lie, how can you work towards a better future? In this mixture of memoir, interview protocols and historic investigation, American moral philosopher Susan Neiman discusses how Germany has been dealing with historical guilt, and what the US can learn from that for its own Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung (working off the past). Neiman herself is Jewish, she has lived, studied and taught in the US and in Germany (and also spent some time in Israel) and she is currently the Director of the Einstein Forum in Potsdam/Brandenburg.

Reading the title of the book, I (and with me some of my German Goodreads friends) was worried that Neiman might fail to discuss the many struggles that were fought within Germany before the country was willing to face its role as the nation that aimed to build a fascist Reich and that is responsible for the holocaust, and by that to deal with the guilt and the shame that comes with this part of our history. Fortunately, Neiman does elaborate on the fact that way too many Nazis managed to build careers in postwar Germany, and that large parts of society were trying to forget, ignore, and re-write what happened. But she also shows why and how Germany managed to face its crimes, what it did and still does to remember the past, and how attitudes within the population have changed (although there is still a lot of room for improvement).

Neiman compares Berlin to Mississippi in order to find out what differentiates the way (white) people deal with their histories, and what lessons the Germans have learnt could help the US to face its own racist history. It is very important to mention that her interest is "less in comparative crime than in comparative redemption" - again and again, Neiman underlines that comparing the holocaust, a singularly evil event, to other crimes is morally unacceptable in Germany: The holocaust is not "like" anything, the holocaust is the holocaust. (As an aside: I have a huge problem with Luiselli's Lost Children Archive because she parallels the Native American genocide with the migrant crisis; I was taken aback when I realized that in other post-genocidal nations, this is deemed unproblematic - and people from other countries aparently had a hard time understanding my indignation and suspected that I could be upset about "cultural appropriation", which was not at all my point - a classic case of different cultural perpectives in the context of historic guilt). Neiman's aim is to find ways to deal with guilt that derives from racist crimes, because the defense or re-writing of such a history usually cements racism for the future - if everything was great, why change it?

In Germany, there are no statues of Nazis, showing Nazi flags and symbols is illegal and hate speech as well as denying the holocaust are criminal offenses. Within society, it is a widely held belief that WW II and the holocaust are sources of national shame and you will hardly find people who defend their ancestors when they played a disgraceful role in WW II (and many Germans have ancestors who did and are still alive). If we can do it, why shouldn't the American South be able to face slavery, the civil war, segregation, and racial terror in order to become a better place? It is possible, and Neiman investigates how.

What bothered me a lot though was that Neiman is apologetic when it comes to the GDR and biased when it comes to the German party system. The problem with racism in East Germany did not start with the refugee crises; this problem has been obvious since the wall came down (see burning refugee asylums, the National Socialist Underground, the support for far-right-parties, you name it). It is very hard to maintain that the GDR was better at its Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung, as Neiman does, because racist attitudes are more widespread in the East. Neiman's is a minority opinion, as she herself admits (point in case: Umkämpfte Zone: Mein Bruder, der Osten und der Hass). Even some of her East German interview partners contradict her in the book.

The background for this claim is Neiman's generally rather positive portrayal of the GDR. She argues that it is silly to compare the Nazi dictatorship to the GDR, and I full-heartedly agree - but the GDR was not just a second German state, it was - and I can't believe that I even have to point that out - a dictatorship. Neiman advocates that the unified Germany should have adopted the GDR anthem for the whole state. Yes: We should all sing the anthem of a dictatorship that was, as we all know, so fun and appealing that people had to be kept from fleeing by shooting them at the Berlin Wall. Why not spit into the faces of the GDR's victims by venerating its symbols? Also, I was surprised to learn that the Stasi was "the best intelligence service in the world" and its ex-leader, Wolf, was a swell guy who wrote a "moving and thoughtful memoir of his extraordinary life" - oh yes, the Stasi, it was just awesome how they terrorized people into conforming to the state's objectives. The GDR was about power at the expense of the people. It is absolutely true that the West made grave mistakes when it comes to the reunification, but Neiman makes it almost seem like the GDR was the better German state, which is pure ideology. Do I really have to state the obvious, that this dictatorship, a satellite state of the Soviet Union with no free elections, no separation of power, no freedom of speech, no impartial court system, was not?

This kind of argumentation is very upsetting, because I share Neiman's belief that America needs universal healthcare and proper social legislation - more solidarity, less Ayn Rand. Solidarity between classes, ethnicities and religions, the belief in common values are important when it comes to fighting hate. But this will not be achieved by sugarcoating a failed dictatorship that advocated state socialism. Also, dear American readers, watch out for some other distortions:

Neiman has a clear social democrat (SPD) bias, interviewing and applauding all kinds of SPD politicians - the extent of her fangirling is sometimes a little embarrassing. It is true that the Social Democrats (SPD) made important contributions to the social system in Germany. It is not true though that when it comes to social laws and anti-fascism, Merkel's party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), where always the bad guys and the SPD always the advocates for change for the better - as usual, reality is a lot more complex (e.g.: The first welfare state in the modern world was created by chancellor Bismarck, a conservative; the guy who invented the social market economy was chancellor Erhard, CDU; and the chancellor who made the biggest cuts into the German welfare state ever was Schröder, SPD; And which European leader stepped up during the refugee crisis, while other countries flaunted their racism?). Plus: If the SPD was guaranteeing solidarity when it comes to the welfare state, why is no one concerned that we might lose it if the SPD looses all relevance, which is currently happening? Easy: Because the welfare state is based on a broad societal consensus, it's not a partisan issue - and it shouldn't be! Neiman pretends that there is neoliberalism and social democracy, period. That's complete nonsense. (On top of that, Neiman strategically omits the massive role of the Green Party when it comes to anti-fascism; in Germany, the Green Party is currently stronger than the SPD.)

I found this biased approach very annoying and misleading, especially for American readers who often lack the context to weigh her arguments - the bias undermines the many interesting and important points Neiman makes, which is very unfortunate. Still, I think this book is an excellent conversation-starter, and I would love to discuss it with some Americans.