Introduction The memory of many victims of war weights heavily on the minds of the living people. For German historians the memory of World War II and its victims is always present. This memory manifests itself in different ways and comes from different perspectives. Following the Holocaust memorial (German: Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas) a debate was held about the memory of the Nazi period. The establishment of the memorial has its own history. Germany still has one foot in the national socialist past and is trying to give this past a place in the present. Just recently, in November 2014, Germany was celebrating the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification at nine November 1989. Germany was forced to think about their national identity after the unification. In the nineties, they focused on the German past, including probably the blackest of German history: the Shoah. The Shoah was the systematic persecution of Jews by the Nazis before and especially during World War II. At least six million Jews were murdered. This took place mainly in concentration camps. Meanwhile, many books have been published about the way the German people are dealing with their violent past and different viewpoints emerged. This research will be limited to the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with particular interest in the period from 1989 until 2005. In this period the wall had fallen and there was a discussion going on about building a memorial for the killed Jews. Sixty years after the end of World War II, this memorial had been built. The debate about the memorial tells us something about the way the Germans are dealing with this violent past. Some years before the idea came up of building a memorial there was another discussion going on. Both in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic was the debate conducted by German intellectuals mentioning the Shoah and National Socialism in German history. This debate is known as the Historikerstreit and it was about the Nazi past, but was strongly influenced by contemporary developments.1 Resulting from the debate, the German historian Ernst Nolte wrote an article in which he claimed that the Holocaust was the result of the Russian Gulag, the previous class murder of the Bolsheviks. Nolte's opponent, Jürger Habermas argued that the assertion by Nolte affected the uniqueness of Auschwitz. The underlying theme of this debate was the desire to be free from blame. After Germany was reunited it could without (direct) influences of Nazism and Communism, engage in a "new" national identity. However, any new German identity had to confront the legacy of National Socialism. So did Wilhelm von Sternburg in 1996. Von Sternburg, a German journalist and author, wrote about the role of the Germans in the Shoah. He wondered how it had been possible that in Germany, one of the most modern countries in the world, the Holocaust happened and he discussed the role of the Germans in this. In the same year, there was some turmoil due to a publication of the American political scientist Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. He argued that there was a new understanding required on this subject: according to him, the perpetrators of the Holocaust were the Germans themselves. It was not merely the result of some deranged leaders, but Goldhagen argued that the majority of Germans acquiesced in the genocidal policies of the government. Besides, he contradicts the so-called secrecy for the general public. This work led to mixed reactions. Compared to international reactions, a group of German historians reacted critically. While the majority of the German people strongly sided with Goldhagen. This showed a certain willingness of the people to reflect openly this past. Bill Niven continued on this the Nazi past in 2001, in his work Facing the Nazi. He argued that with the end of a divided Germany, theories of National Socialism were outdated. A new interpretation was required. Further, he noted that it is important to remember that the Third Reich was the last period of a common history of the two Germanys.8 His central question focuses on how far the unification of the two Germanys in 1990 has had an impact on the collective memory of the past. After the union the mutual accusations among East and West had to end. The new Germany could no longer blame each other for the Shoah in a neighboring country, as in the time that an East and a West Germany existed.9 The authors agreed in general that the unification of Germany offers a new perspective to dealing with the Shoah. Partly because the group disappears which was present at World War II, it was possible to be more critical about the Holocaust. In this period the well-known holocaust memorial was built. From the moment journalist Lea Rosh wanted to establish a memorial in 1988, a fierce debate started. This memorial in Berlin (Denkmal für d