J.D. Bindenagel on the AfD’s Threat to Germany’s Culture of Remembrance

Ambassador J.D. Bindenagel, a fellow at the Global Ideas Center (GIC) in Berlin, is considered to be one of the most accomplished experts on Germany in U.S. diplomacy. Having negotiated the “Washington Principles of 1998 on Works of Art Confiscated by the National Socialists” on behalf of the U.S. government, he has been personally involved in the restitution issue for over a quarter of a century.

In 1999, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton as U.S. Ambassador and U.S. Government Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues. He, Bindenagel also served as deputy head of mission at the U.S. embassies in East Berlin and Bonn.

Bindenagel warns that the AfD’s political attack on Germany’s impressive culture of remembrance may gain further buoyancy after the recent Saxony-Anhalt state elections. In our conversation, the ambassador also explains:

– how the AfD is sidling up to Putin’s Russia on its perverted culture of remembrance
– what Germany can learn from the deplorable democratic decline inside the United States under the Trump administration
– and what personal lessons he draws from his work on remembrance and restitution.

Mr. Bindenagel, you see an acute threat to Germany’s culture of remembrance. How does that manifest itself in the current Saxony-Anhalt election campaign?

We see that far-right extremist forces are deliberately reinterpreting the memory of the Holocaust. In their eyes, the laudable and self-critical confrontation with the dark chapters of Germany’s history must be ended because it has supposedly turned into a “cult of guilt.”

What do you find particularly telling in an international context?

The AfD’s strategy mirrors Putin’s approach of whitewashing history.

How so? Is the AfD really sidling up to Putin on his perverted form of dealing with the Russian culture of remembrance?

The AfD aims to draw a firm line under the past. That reflects Putin’s approach to Soviet history. The Russian President does not confront the memory of Stalin’s victims.

Instead, the suffering of Stalin’s victims is downplayed, their history is manipulated through distorted facts and their memory is suppressed. Memorial sites are being torn down, and the work of “Memorial,” the Russian human rights organization that co-won the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, was banned.

Ok. Where is the connection to Germany?

This same attitude is also evident in the historical revisionism most prominently exhibited by Björn Höcke and Alexander Gauland, two key AfD leaders. They downplay Nazi crimes as a defense against collective guilt.

What’s new about it?

What is new is that this narrative no longer plays out on the fringes of politics, but in the middle of the election campaign.

When a party like the AfD speaks like this while also campaigning for government responsibility in Saxony-Anhalt, it attacks the moral core of Germany’s Basic Law.

Why does this make Saxony-Anhalt more than a regional case?

Because here it becomes visible whether Germany defends its culture of remembrance even if it is politically inconvenient. The state is becoming a test of how resilient the promise of human dignity is in practice.

Why was this state election so important?

Such an election decides not only on coalitions, but also access to institutions. A far-right extremist party could help shape cultural, educational and remembrance policy in everyday life. This changes the character of the country.

So it’s not just about majorities in the state parliament?

Exactly. It is a question of whether a party that relativizes the Holocaust and ethnically narrows affiliation will be in a position to shape the state from within.

You speak of the term “cult of guilt.” What’s behind this formula?

The term is a battle cry. It is intended to create the impression that German remembrance is not democratic self-assurance but national humiliation.

The aim is to devalue the “Never Again” manifesto. They aim to replace historical responsibility with resentment. This is a very dangerous step.

They hold that human dignity in the country should be limited to an ethnically defined in-group. What does that mean in concrete terms?

It is said that universal rights are suddenly tied to origin or ancestry. Anyone who operates with terms such as “bio-Germans” shifts the meaning of the Basic Law away from a promise that applies to all Germans.

What would be the consequence of such a postponement?

An open constitutional democracy could gradually be transformed by ethnically charged nationalism.

Some say that Germany has dealt with its past long enough. What do you reply?

Remembrance culture is not a project with an end date. As soon as a society thinks it has worked off its responsibility, it becomes open to relativization and trivialization.

How does a society decide whether the memory is still valid?

It keeps the memory alive in its teachings — in curricula, institutions, parties and everyday language. When that stops, memory becomes a backdrop.

What would change in concrete terms if anti-democratic forces in Saxony-Anhalt took over government responsibility?

The question becomes a matter of personnel, budgets and mandates. Public institutions are not necessarily abolished immediately but politically reinterpreted and weakened.

Which institutions are you thinking of?

For example, the German Lost Art Foundation in Magdeburg or the new Federal Arbitration Court for Nazi-Looted Art.

When such mechanisms come under pressure, the rule of law loses credibility both internally and externally. And Germany sets the bar for other European countries, notably those earlier under Soviet control.

Are anti-democratic forces the main obstacle to the restitution of looted art in Central and Eastern Europe?

Anti-democratic forces oppose restitution, framing art seized by the Soviet Army from the Nazi regime as “spoils of war.”

This position complicates the return of works held by public museums in Eastern and Central Europe when they were under Soviet control, turning it into a political issue.

Why are spoils of war a hindrance to restitution?

The debate over spoils of war leading to ownership of Nazi-looted art risks countries failing to address issues of Nazi collaboration.

Reluctance to return art conflicts with national property claims, leading to financial and cultural costs that fuel anti-democratic sentiments even when keeping looted art perpetuates Nazi looting.

Do you have an example of the reluctance to return Nazi-looted art eroding democracy?

Several countries, such as Belarus, Hungary, Poland and Russia, have called for the repatriation of national property held abroad. However, they have returned relatively little looted property from their own collections.

Is Hungary a good example?

In illiberal Hungary, for instance, the family of David de Csepel has advocated since 1945 to recover their historically important art collection, which includes paintings by El Greco, Monet and Renoir, as well as tapestries and Renaissance furniture looted under Adolf Eichmann’s orders.

These items are now housed in public institutions in Hungary, including three museums and the University of Budapest, which have refused repatriation of Nazi-looted art.

Why is it so difficult for countries to confront their pasts?

The debate over war spoils and ownership of Nazi-looted art prompts those countries to address their own set of issues related to various forms of collaboration — not an easy matter to deal with even many decades after the end of World War II.

What is the goal?

They seek to establish an alternative historical remembrance, rewriting their histories to emphasize their victimhood and rejecting any complicity with Holocaust-era crimes.

Does Germany‘s example help?

They see Germany and the West imposing a remembrance culture that undermines nationalism. They also play down the Soviet communist dictatorship. As with the AfD, they use history to mobilize voters, as in the campaign against Nazi-looted art restitution.

What is the record of these countries on looted art restitution?

On the one hand, these countries seek to take on the role of victims by calling for the reparation of lost national property held abroad. On the other hand, they have returned very little looted property to the rightful owners of Nazi looting from their own collections.

The countries also see what is happening in the United States up close. What warning does the democratic decline there give to Germany?

The most important warning is that democracies often erode quietly. Not with a big bang, but with the slow erosion of norms and trust.

How is this particularly evident?

In the systematic delegitimization of institutions, in the moral devaluation of political opponents and in the relativization of historical truths. Anyone who underestimates this is at the beginning of a deep democratic rupture.

What role does JD Vance play in this development?

The U.S. Vice President exemplifies the radicalization of a significant part of the American right. He embodies the path from a conservative critic to an actor who fits into an increasingly illiberal power politics and accepts democratic procedures only tactically.

Why is this relevant for Germany?

Because it shows how quickly political expediency can displace principles. And because such figures are also read here as role models for an aggressive, resentful nationalism.

What are the parallels between the anti-democratic activities of the AfD and the Trump administration?

The Trump administration wants to reinterpret the core message of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, according to which all human beings are created equal.

It wants to replace that message with one that says Americans are “all created in the image of an almighty God.” This is of course rooted not in U.S. history, but a bible verse from the Book of Genesis.

What is the purpose of such a change in interpretation?

It detaches the concept of human rights from a universal, secular equality of all human beings and links it directly to a form of religious nationalism. This can then be further manipulated to apply only to a limited group of Americans.

What is the philosophical link between the U.S. and German efforts?

The acceptance of the culture of remembrance and the principle of “never again” are both rooted in the belief in universal human dignity. The AfD and its U.S. heroes, Elon Musk and Vance, all firmly reject this.

Musk goes so far as to reject the value of empathy, claiming that it is the biggest mistake of Western civilization.

What does the AfD hope to achieve by challenging this belief structure?

By restricting the concept of human dignity to what it jarringly calls “bio-Germans,” the AfD wants to weaken the concept of human dignity so that it no longer serves as a cornerstone of the Basic Law.

In sum, it would seem like there is a civilizational struggle to define basic values within these countries.

That is a reasonable framing. The German Basic Law directs the state to ensure respect for human dignity as a matter of priority. And the universalism expressed in the American Declaration of Independence is a radical Enlightenment idea.

On the other hand, ethnonationalism views the nation as a community passed down through family, religion, and cultural customs. It emphasizes the importance of politics in protecting this heritage from supposed civilizational erasure.

What role do cities, municipalities and civil society play in this situation?

A decisive one. Democratic resilience arises where people learn to endure differences and negotiate conflicts democratically — in schools, clubs, municipalities and at memorial sites.

Why there and not only in Berlin or Brussels?

Because that is where the everyday experience of democracy takes place. When these spaces weaken, those who work with enemy images and exclusion quickly gain the upper hand.

Saxony-Anhalt is structurally weak. To what extent is the success of the extreme right related to this social situation?

Structural weakness does not automatically create extremism, but it does create vulnerability. Those who feel economically left behind and culturally disregarded are more receptive to exclusive offers of belonging.

What would be a democratic answer to this?

Democracies must improve opportunities while also drawing clear boundaries against hatred. It is not enough to just talk about programs when, at the same time, language and symbols are charged with anti-democracy.

Their core argument is that human dignity must apply to everyone. Why is this universality so contested?

Because it has very concrete consequences in everyday life. It decides who belongs, who enjoys protection, who can claim equal rights.

Why does this principle come under pressure, especially in times of crisis?

In crises, the temptation to “shun others” according to one’s own political discretion grows. According to the motto: first us, then maybe the others. Anyone who starts this way ends up damaging the legitimacy of the state itself and losing the trust of many, if not all, people.

You were U.S. Ambassador and Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues. What personal lesson from this work is particularly important for Germany today?

Restitution work was never only about assets or works of art. It was always about recognition and the willingness to name injustice clearly. In this respect, Germany can claim that it has made courageous and relatively consistent progress in this area by international standards, albeit with occasional cutbacks.

What does this mean for the present?

Credibility arises only where responsibility is institutionally anchored — in laws, procedures, budgets and education plans. As soon as responsibility is presented as a burden or imposition, the democratic regression begins.

What do you say to young people who ask why they should still deal with the Nazi past today?

That this past shows how quickly a society can tip over when human dignity becomes negotiable. A culture of remembrance is not a ritual of self-accusation but a protective mechanism for democracy.

So not a look back, but a lesson for today?

Exactly. “Never Again” is not a historical final sentence, but a political mandate for every generation.