The Guardian has an interesting article about a new book called Relics of the Reich: The Buildings The Nazis Left Behind. The question is should we preserve these buildings or destroy them? That’s a very good question and your first thought would be to obliterate them BUT is that the wise thing to do? What happens when there is a void? Something needs to take it’s place and that something will be (in all likelihood be a revised history devised by Holocaust deniers) something that glosses over Nazism.
Places like the Nuremberg stadium that was used (to great effect) by Hitler to rally the people and his troops is crumbling. Currently, the city is deciding whether to spend around €70m to prevent the grandstand from crumbling. Is the money worth it to keep this relic?
Personally I think we should spend the money and keep it – not to pay homage to a madman but to keep it in the public eye. You can’t obliterate historic places. As I mentioned above, if you remove places like these, you leave a void.
It’s why Auschwitz and other concentration camps need to be left as is – not for gawking tourists but as a historic places. We owe it to the millions who perished to stop a revision of what really happened.
One of the places that needs to be preserved is the place where Hitler killed himself. Like a coward – and unable to face what was coming to him, he killed himself and his wife Eva (and others who chose to take their own lives). Yes there is the possiblity (as the Guardian) points out that it may used a shrine for Neo Nazis but it’s far more important to keep it there for historic reasons.