The conference “Herschel’s Legacy,” which took place at Bielefeld University on October 31, 2023, was innovative in two respects. First, it is the first academic conference devoted exclusively to the biography of Herschel Grynszpan. Second, it aimed to combine academic research with public commemoration. The goal of the conference was to discuss a draft for a museum exhibition on the biography of the German-Polish-Jewish teenager with scholars from various disciplines. Grynszpan's name is inextricably linked with the assassination of German diplomat Ernst Eduard vom Rath in Paris on November 7, 1938, and the pogroms that followed throughout the German Reich.

A few days before his assassination attempt, Grynszpan’s parents, along with 15,000 to 17,000 Jews of Polish nationality, were deported to the German-Polish border. This so-called Polenaktion of October 1938 was a pivotal event that preceded Grynszpan’s assassination of vom Rath and had a direct personal impact on him and his family. The curators argue that looking at Grynszpan's biography not only reveals the dramatic increase in anti-Jewish violence and how it affected the Jews. This approach also sheds light on the way in which hatred of the Jews functioned as a central factor in the politics of the National Socialists.

On the evening of the assassination attempt, the first riots against Jews began, which were still limited to certain regions. However, two days after the shooting, when vom Rath succumbed to his wounds, the violence escalated. From 9 November 1938, the German leadership unleashed a series of pogroms against the Jewish population in Germany, in annexed Austria, and in areas of the recently incorporated Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. The German government wanted to make clear from the outset that vom Rath’s assassination was not simply an attack on Germany due to its increasingly brutal policies toward the Jews. Rather, according to Nazi propaganda, it was a plot instigated by the world's Jewry against all the gentiles in order to take over the world. The assassination provided the German government a convenient pretext to retaliate against the alleged global Jewish conspiracy that was accused of coordinating Grynszpan’s act. Nonetheless, the perception of Grynszpan as the catalyst for the pogroms persists to this day.

The November pogroms marked an important turning point for the Nazi state. There had been physical attacks on Jews before, but from now on the violence was to be directed by the state. Thus, it was only the alliance between the Nazi state and the mob in the streets that made possible the greatest act of public violence against all Jews in Germany and the annexed territories before the Shoah.1 For the Jewish community, this was an existential shock that led to an unprecedented wave of emigration. Described by Dan Diner as “the catastrophe before the catastrophe,” the November pogroms heralded the end of the German-Jewish era that dated back to the Enlightenment.2

The “Hershel’s legacy” conference was opened by CHRISTINA MORINA (Bielefeld), who hosted the event as Chair of the Faculty of Contemporary History at Bielefeld University. She stressed the importance of finding new perspectives at the intersection of historical research and remembrance, all the more so after the massacres of October 7. The introduction was followed by a keynote address by JONATHAN KIRSCH (Los Angeles). Kirsch provided an overview of the current state of research on Herschel Grynszpan, highlighting his role as a controversial figure in the past and present. Throughout his lecture, Kirsch explored the complexity of Grynszpan's motivations. The young man closely followed events affecting Jews through the Yiddish press and explained his motive as resistance to the atrocities being committed against his people.

Finally, despite his role as "perhaps the most enigmatic" and "best documented" victim of the Shoah, Kirsch emphasized the need for further research. Although Grynszpan's story has faded from public memory, his significance as a symbol of Jewish resistance is relevant. Both his own motives and the Jewish reactions to his actions are important subjects of study. His biography also serves as an example of the experiences and limits of belonging of Eastern Jews in Germany.

After the keynote, the curators presented a current draft of the exhibition concept. The curatorial team consists of four students from four different disciplines and is a collaboration between the Liberal Jewish Community of Hanover and Bielefeld University. The multi-layered and complex biography of Herschel Grynszpan – a German-Polish, working class, Zionist, and religiously observant young adult – poses a huge potential for an exhibition on Jewish resistance and how it can be remembered publicly. The planned exhibition tries to explore the issue from different perspectives, using a variety of sources and illustrative texts.

The personality of the young assassin was judged and evaluated very differently at the time and in historiography after 1945. To what extent can the historiography be linked to contemporary judgments about Grynszpan, and does it itself now qualify as a historical source? Dealing with the abundance of materials and possible topics, the curators propose to highlight two particularly important contours: the understanding of antisemitism and the challenges of public remembrance. The goal is to reflect thoughtfully on Grynszpan’s biography without over-identifying or heroizing him. Following the presentation of the exhibition concept, the curators asked the experts in history and museum education present to share their insights and engage in discussions to enhance the proposed project with their input.

The lively and controversial discussions drew on many of the curation team's ideas. The first panel focused on the exhibition in the mirror of historiographical debates with NICOLAS BERG (Leipzig), ISABELLA DILL (Munich), and KATRIN STOLL (Warsaw). The panel was moderated by Gaëlle Fisher from Bielefeld. In his presentation, Nicolas Berg discussed an article written in 1957 by the West German historian Helmut Heiber, entitled "Der Fall Grünspan," which was published in the renowned "Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte" of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. In this context, Isabella Dill clarified which documents Heiber relied on when researching his article. By using the exact same title, Heiber directly quotes a report from “Der Völkische Beobachter”, published by Goebbels in mid-November 1938. It is also noteworthy that Heiber, in the course of his research on the “Grynszpan case”, exclusively interviewed former perpetrators such as propaganda officer Wolfgang Diewerge or the National Socialist lawyer Friedrich Grimm. This documentation of the early historiography of the Federal Republic thus serves as an example of the first attempts to study recent German history, while avoiding notions of responsibility and guilt. This is all the more remarkable given that Jewish historians of the Holocaust have been accused by the same people of lacking objectivity. The decision to use former Nazi Functionaries as a reference for the reconstruction of the events surrounding Gynszpan deserves closer examination, as Berg argues.

Throughout Heiber's article, Grynszpan is referred to by his full name, "Herschel Feibel Grünspan or Grynszpan". The use of his full name emphasizes his Jewishness, which in turn attempts to imply a criminal nature. It reads as if the "real causes" of the November pogroms were already contained in the name: Grynszpan himself, not German antisemitism, was to blame for the outbreak of violence. Thus, Heiber's presentation of Grynszpan's case seems to divide Jews into innocent victims and those who deserved their fate, failing to recognize the irrational nature of the insidious defamations. Rather, Heiber suggests that there were indeed criminals who deserved to die, ignoring the fact that Jews, regardless of who they were, were viewed by official propaganda as enemies of humanity who had to be destroyed.

As an intervention, Katrin Stoll points out the importance of including Polish historiography: Antisemitism in Poland and the complex background of the Polenaktion must also be taken into account. As a German-Polish Jewish teenager who took up arms in protest against his parents' deportation to Poland, Grynszpan's story is an important gateway to a more empathetic understanding of the context. The different spellings of the surname and the name changes not only shed light on the limits of acculturation in Western European societies. Like Grynszpan, many Jews were forced to flee to neighboring France after their situation in Germany rapidly deteriorated. Pressuring neighboring countries with forced emigration was also intended to export Jew-hatred, since the stateless and dispossessed newcomers were seen as a burden.

The second panel approached the exhibition concept from a curatorial and museum educational perspective, and included RANDI BECKER (Passau), JENS BINNER (Hannover), and JANIS LUTZ (Berlin). Konstantin Seidler served as moderator. The panel’s observations touched upon several critical aspects of Erinnerungskultur, narrative construction, and the role of museums in educating and engaging the public. The consensus from the various contributions to the curational concept underscores the complexity involved in curating exhibitions, especially when dealing with historical content. As Randi Becker pointed out, this complexity is rooted in the need to find a balance between idealism and pragmatism, ensuring that the exhibition planning is not constrained by practical limitations such as space, funding or resources. Moreover, these discussions highlight the importance of engaging with history in a manner that is both accessible and resistant to misinterpretation or instrumentalization.

Above all, the question of re-contextualization and re-problematization arose in this context. The November pogroms and their significance for the fate of German Jews should play an important role. Nevertheless, the exhibition needs to emphasize that Grynszpan’s action was prompted by the Polenaktion, as Janis Lutz agreed with the curators. Thus, biographical stages should be presented less in chronological order and more attention should be paid to how personal experience intersects with historical events. Jens Binner emphasized the relevance of the biographical approach for the recipients of the exhibition. The following question is therefore of central importance: What was the motive behind this young man’s plan to murder a German diplomat?

Finally, LAURA CAZÉS (Frankfurt am Main) and VERA KALLENBERG (Bielefeld) provided a critical commentary on the symposium Laura Cazès pointed out, the exhibition project ties in with the present development of more self-determined Jewish representation in public discourses. Grynszpan is just one example of many Jewish resistance fighters who have always played a role in Jewish historiography, but have long gone unnoticed outside of that context. Cazés emphasized that Jews were by no means defenseless victims, without overestimating the scope for action in the face of the catastrophe. The challenge of balancing the presentation of Grynszpan as an individual with the collective experience of Jewish resistance and persecution remains a central concern, as Vera Kallenberg highlighted. Another challenge is to present his actions and life story without falling into the trap of over-identification or heroization. This requires a careful approach that honors Grynszpan’s personal history and choices while also considering the broader historical context.

By inlcuding expert voices from various fields and critically discussing their concept on various levels, the curators were able to create a remarkable foundation for further examination of the topic. The conference provided a thought-provoking platform to gain a deeper insight into the historiography of Herschel Grynszpan and to engage with a promising exhibition concept in the making. Both the complexity of the exhibition concept and the controversial nature of the subject matter were reflected in the lively discussions. In particular, the complexity of Grynszpan's life and its significance for Shoah education were highlighted in both the historiographical debates and the curatorial perspectives. The conference aimed to not only initiate further research projects but also to enrich the discussion on Erinnerungskultur within the specialized field of museum education.

Conference overview:

Christina Morina (Bielefeld): Greetings and introduction to the keynote

Jonathan Kirsch (Los Angeles): On the Historiography of Herschel Grynszpan

Yevgen Bruckmann (Bielefeld) / Jasper Köster (Bielefeld) / Moritz Y. Meier (Bielefeld) / Vanessa Walter (Bielefeld): Herschel’s Legacy. An exhibition concept

Panel I: The exhibition in light of historiographical debates

Nicolas Berg (Leipzig) / Isabella Dill (Munich) / Katrin Stoll (Warsaw)

Moderation: Gaëlle Fisher (Bielefeld)

With an open discussion

Panel II: The exhibition in light of historical-political education, museum education and curation

Randi Becker (Passau) / Jens Binner (Hanover) / Janis Lutz (Berlin)

Moderation: Konstantin Seidler (Hanover)

With an open discussion

Concluding comments

Laura Cazès (Frankfurt am Main) / Vera Kallenberg (Bielefeld)

With an open discussion

Notes:
1 Raphael Gross, November 1938. Die Katastrophe vor der Katastrophe, München 2013.
2 Dan Diner, Die Katastrophe vor der Katastrophe. Auswanderung ohne Einwanderung, in: Dirk Blasius / Dan Diner (eds.), Zerbrochene Geschichte. Leben und Selbstverständnis der Juden in Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main 1991, S. 138–160.