@Ivan le Fou &
@Picanha
Take this with a grain of salt – Germany's school system is federalised, so each state has a different curriculum and I'm obviously not acquainted with each and every one of them –, but I'd suggest the school system's stance on the Nazi era was the exact opposite from Ivan's perception.
The German Democratic Republic insisted on representing a watershed in German history – the land of the good and righteous Germans, wholly cleansed of Nazism. The de-nazification elements of their school system were largely ideologically motivated, not historically.
East German students were taught that Nazism was a logical consequence of Capitalism. Nazi crimes were covered, but in a manner designed to portray Socialism as superior, or to facilitate the persecution of dissidents. Alleged murderers are easier to hate than peaceful critics, after all.
As far as West Germany goes, the 1950's were an era of denial. Everyone and their dog wanted to enjoy their
Wirtschaftswunder and not be reminded of the past – or of politics in general. It's the only decade in which the old adage: "Don't mention the War!" holds some truth.
While the British and French turned a blind eye to that budging mentality, the American occupation authorities in a bid to boost the West German government allowed it to flourish. Publicly they declared that German civilians had not known the true extent of the Nazis' crimes.
The 1968 student revolt led to a new mentality (one of the few positive achievements of that movement), and the adoption of new curricula placing a great emphasis on de-nazification. Generally speaking, students have since been required to visit a KZ memorial at least once.
High school students spend up to an entire year of history class learning about Nazism. It's also a recurring topic in religious education or ethics class (widely mandatory for students who don't wish to receive religious education). Its easily the single-most covered subject.
(Having said that, students of lower-tier secondary schools receive less education on Nazism, which is in line with their lower quality of education in general. This has proved problematic as of late, failing to quell the rabid anti-Semitism of many Muslim immigrants.)
As far as the de-nazification of the political apparatus goes (or rather the lack thereof), I'd argue each Germany gave the other a run for its money. It's true many post-war West German officials had served in the Nazi state, ranging from nominal party members to war criminals.
But their tacit incorporation into the new administration was due to the very same necessities also faced by the GDR: There weren't enough other men left to do the job. The primary difference was East Germany's political leaders were, by and large, Socialists returned from exile.
This gave them a sense of superiority. But for the first two decades after the war, the administrative arm of their government was as "brown" as its Western counterpart. The regime was only quicker in removing the old Nazis once fresh functionaries had become available.
Anyways, many people argue the GDR's true mentality towards Nazism, and the quality of its de-nazification efforts, have been on full display ever since the Reunification. The eastern half of the country is a hotbed of neo-Nazism and, generally speaking, more apologetic of Hitler.
thepostmillennial.com
shop.shredzshop.com
www.stuff.co.nz
