The Karlshorst museum was erected in
1935 as a part of a bigger investment program to have a military college for
military engineers. It was formerly used as German officer barracks as a
casino, a dining hall and meeting place for the officers. On May 8, 1945, the
building was used to sign the unofficial surrender of the Germans, officially
marking the end of World War II, the biggest and most cruel world war in human
history. This event occurred in this building for the most part since it was a
building which still had running water and working electricity. The Soviets
eventually took over the building and opened up a museum in 1967, of which some
pieces still exist. A German-Russian museum of war was opened in 1994 after the
Russians handed over the building upon the agreement that the museum, or at
least parts of it remained. Today, the
museum still stands and takes a much different perspective of World War II than
most of the other museums that exist today. I was particularly impressed about
the “Photography in the War” exhibit, which discusses the use of photography
during the war. Most of the pictures of war crimes were taken by the
perpetrators themselves. This shows that the perpetrators accepted their
crimes, justified them and did not try to hide them. This contrasts the Soviet
mindset since the Soviets forbid pictures to be taken of war crimes. Most of us
don’t think about the camera and the photographer that took the war crime
pictures, which is yet another problematic aspect.
 |
|
The outside of the German-Russian
Museum as it appears today.
|
 |
| An exhibit from the former Soviet War Museum attempting to depict the conditions of World War II. Many problems with this exhibit exist since the accompanying sound is too quiet, the streets contain too many people and the Reichstag takeover was not an important victory since it was not used by the Nazi’s during the war. |
 |
|
The
reconstruction of the room in which the signing of Germany’s unconditional
surrender of World War II took place on May 8, 1945.
|
 |
|
An explanation of the
“Photography in the War” exhibit which discusses the reason behind the
photography of war crimes taken by the perpetrators.
|
9 comments:
You mentioned that the photographers exhibit really impressed you. Was there any photo or thing displayed in that exhibit that really struck you?
I see that you posted a picture of the Reischtag diorama. When I go to museums I like to see some dioramas and I remember the guide saying that this is the scene which the Russians are most familiar with, the burning of the Reischtag. I'm glad that they kept this diorama as it gives quite a contrast to the way the rest of the museum is laid out, as well as to how the war was viewed by other people.
Vince, I really liked the idea behind the exhibit. I found it very interesting that we tend to forget about the context of who and why the photograph was being taken. Typically, I take pictures during exciting or happy times during my life such as birthdays, weddings etc. but I don't take pictures at funerals. The fact that the Nazi's did take pictures of their war crimes astounded me. I have seen pictures of the war but had never thought about the photographer or why the picture was being taken. It seemed as though the Nazi's were proud of what they were doing, and wanted to document these important times. So to answer your question, it wasn't necessarily the photographs that impressed me but more the idea behind the photographs taken by the perpetrators that got my interest.
Amanda, I find it interesting that you liked the Reichstag diorama! Do you think that the Russian parts of the museum make sense? I tended to get lost sometimes when we bounced from German museum to former Soviet museum parts during the museum!
Amanda, I find it interesting that you liked the Reichstag diorama! Do you think that the Russian parts of the museum make sense? I tended to get lost sometimes when we bounced from German museum to former Soviet museum parts during the museum!
I agree Keir! I thought that this topic was also present in the Wannsee Conference exhibit as we saw many photographs and discussed the fact that photography of war crimes and brutality was in fact allowed. I agree, before this Field Trip to Berlin I really had no idea that so many interpretations of history exist! One interpretation is the reason behind the Holocaust, if it was a political attempt to lessen starvation and poverty or simply racial genocide. I believe it was both!
I found it a bit difficult as well to go between Russian and German parts of the museum. However I think that you have to look at it like a movie that has two different story lines going on.
I found it refreshing to have both German and Russian parts at the museum. Wars are always viewed so differently from country to country especially from opposing sides. While obviously Germany recognizes the horrible things that happened during WW2 I think having two sides provides a less bias and a more comprehensive understanding of events.
Post a Comment