Waiting at Tegel airport for a flight back
to London, at the end of a 10-day lecture tour that began last week in Essen
and ended last night in Berlin, I have a moment or two for reflection.
This is Spargel
Zeit, the Asparagus Season, which in Germany is enjoyed with wonderful
gusto. In NordRhine-Westphalia they call it Spargel-Fest,
and at Münster Haupt Bahnhof (Hbf)
I saw a train newly festooned with pictures of green and white asparagus, and
proudly calling itself the Spargel-
Express. Over the past week I have enjoyed, greatly, asparagus in all its köstlichsten Spargelvariationen: asparagus soup, asparagus quiche, asparagus and strawberry salad,
asparagus with schinkenteller plus Hollandaise sauce and boiled potatoes,
asparagus accompanying rump steak, and asparagus as a bed for salmon. I have
been served asparagus – usually long white, succulent spears laid side by side,
plain boiled or parboiled and then sautéed and served with melted butter – in restaurants, in a remote Pomeranian
schlosshotel to the accompaniment of the
theme music from Dr. Finlay’s Casebook and Desert Island Discs; in gardens, in
private homes with kindly hosts, on a lakeside terrace and beneath a grand Baroque
balcony where in past years (but no longer) statesmen and others waved at the
world.
But this tour has not been all about
asparagus. I have been in Germany at the invitation of the Deutsch-Britische Gesellschaft
to lecture on aspects of the Great War (“And why is it still called the Great
War in England?” I have been asked, often). I have been giving two lectures,
the first entitled ‘If Armageddon’s on
… British writers responding to the outbreak of the First World War’, and the
second, ‘Mixing Memory and Desire: Memorializing the First World War in Germany
and Britain’; the first, therefore, focusing on the start of the war, and the
second on its aftermath. I have given the first lecture in, successively,
Essen, Dusseldorf, Bonn, and Münster; the
second in Bielefeld, Schwerin and Berlin. My audiences have been interesting,
and interested, German and British, but all Anglophone – aged (I guess) between
16 and 86: students, teachers, art historians, academics, civil servants and
senior citizens among them. I have spoken in an 18th century Jägdschloß, a modern conference centre, a porcelain
showroom, an adult education college, a beautifully restored cultural centre,
the headquarters of an international Law firm and, finally, at the Humboldt
University in Berlin.
I have been travelling with my wife
throughout the tour, and our hosts have been unfailingly kind and generous with
their time. We have seen some remarkable places: not least the World Heritage
site Zeche
Zollverein, where on our first day in Germany we visited an exhibition
(‘1914 – Mitten in Europa’) that traced the
German response to the War - before, during and after - with a candour that
gave me valuable points of reference for my lectures and, especially, for some
of the questions and answers that followed.
Here’s an example. In the ‘If Armageddon’s on…’ lecture, I
discussed the British insistence that the German invasion of Belgium provided a
moral justification for entering the war. I quoted from a much-publicized Declaration
in August 1914 signed by fifty-three British writers (including Thomas Hardy,
Arthur Conan Doyle, G.K Chesterton, Rudyard Kipling, John Masefield and H.G.
Wells) which stated:
The undersigned
writers, comprising among them men of the most divergent political and social
views, some of them having been for years ardent champions of good-will toward
Germany, and many of them extreme advocates of peace, are nevertheless agreed
that Great Britain could not without dishonour have refused to take part in the
present war…..Great Britain was
eventually compelled to take up arms because, together with France, Germany and
Austria, she had solemnly pledged herself to maintain the neutrality of Belgium ….
When Belgium in
her dire need appealed to Great Britain to carry out her pledge, that country’s
course was clear.
Some among my
audiences found this hard to accept: was Belgium really the reason (they asked)
or just the pretext, for Britain’s entering the war? One questioner roundly
declared that Germany had never signed any treaty promising to respect
Belgium’s borders, and denounced the stories about German aggression in Belgium
as ‘mere propaganda’. Actually, such a Treaty did exist: the Treaty of London
(1839) signed by Prussia. But, somewhat unnerved, in case this treaty had
been revoked after German Unification, I consulted an English historian friend
who emailed back reassuringly that
in 1913 the German Foreign and War
Ministers each separately reassured the Reichstag that the neutrality of
Belgium as 'guaranteed by international treaty' would be respected.
And
even as I write now, my friend has just sent further evidence that when, on 4th
August 1914 (the day Britain joined the war) the German Chancellor
Bethmann-Hollweg addressed the Reichstag, he regretted the need to invade
Belgium which, he admitted, ‘was a breach of international law’.
As
for the ‘mere propaganda’ point, I felt at once on safer ground. One of the
interpretation panels at the Zollverein
exhibition I had just visited was unambiguous on the subject:
In Germany the many war memorials were
initially dedicated to the dead, but later “racially” co-opted through
jingoistic heroisation. Until long after 1945 Germans disclaimed their
responsibility for the war crimes committed against civilians when invading
Belgium and France in 1914.
(Essen, Zeche Zollverein: ‘1914 –
Mitten in Europa’ exhibition)
One
of the surprises of my second lecture was the discovery that even the
best-known German memorials were unfamiliar to nearly all my audiences. Was I
naïve to assume people would know the Magdeburger Ehrenmal,
by Ernst Barlach, or the Grieving
Parents by Käthe Kollwitz? Evidently yes.
But it’s always good to re-think one’s assumptions; and though I have lectured
on war memorials before, I have never encountered such thoughtful and
thought-provoking questions afterwards. And in any case, to speak of my
admiration for Kollwitz and Barlach in Germany to German audiences was a joy,
especially since – quite unexpectedly – in Bielefeld’s Kunsthalle, I’d
discovered a little-known but prophetic First World War work by Barlach; and in
Schwerin’s remarkable Museum I’d encountered a whole gallery of small-scale bronzes
by Barlach, including a touching dual portrait: Barlach and Kollwitz, two of
the finest and most humane artists of 20th century Europe, together.
Adrian
Barlow
The
English Association’s major international conference on ‘British Poetry of the
First World War’ Takes place at Wadham College, Oxford, from 5th – 7th
September 2014. For full details of the Conference programme, click here.
I
have written before about a previous lecture tour to Germany:
Anglo-German
(May 2012)
Also
about Berlin:
Adrian – What a wonderful time you have had! And how infused with life is your blog as a result.
ReplyDeleteI find it surprising that some among your audience asked if “Belgium was really the reason, or just a pretext, for Britain’s entering the war.” Just the pretext? This seems to me to raise the uncomfortable question, “Under what pretext did Germany invade Belgium?” It is certainly true to say that no nation on earth is guilt–free when it comes to the invasion of other countries for purely selfish and utterly unjustifiable reasons. So, If your questioners where disinterested, then that’s fine. Otherwise, the idea that old fires are being kept warm is disturbing to say the least. It seems that folk memory has a terrible tendency to harden into ersatz emotion. We try to justify the past acts of our own country when we cannot even justify all of the acts of our own personal history!
Fascinating as ever, Adrian - much to think about and reflect on, plus lots of vivid detail and new information. Thank you!
ReplyDelete