The anniversary of the Wehrmacht’s capitulation is upon us. A state day of remembrance in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a one-off public holiday in Berlin—yet a political stepchild at the federal level. On the curious history of May 8th, the etymology of a slur, and the question of whether we would recognize the warning signs today.
A Date Between Defeat and Deliverance
There are days in history that acquire their true significance only in retrospect. May 8, 1945, is one such day. When Colonel General Alfred Jodl signed the unconditional surrender at General Eisenhower’s headquarters in Reims on the night of May 6–7—and the ceasefire took effect on May 8 at 11:01 p.m. Central European Time—scarcely a single German felt a sense of liberation. Cities lay in ruins; millions were dead, millions displaced; the Reich no longer existed. What played out in the minds of the survivors was a mixture of exhaustion, shame, and sheer existential dread—but certainly not the feeling of having escaped a tyranny.
Theodor Heuss articulated this four years later, on May 8, 1949, with his characteristic intellectual acuity: Fundamentally, he argued, this day represented "the most tragic and paradoxical irony in history for each of us. And why is that? Because we were, simultaneously, both delivered and destroyed." It is this deeply rooted ambiguity that continues to complicate public commemoration to this day. The Allies did not view themselves as liberators, but rather as victors and occupiers. It was only the perspective of subsequent generations that was able to distill a date of hope from the wreckage.
May 8th was, undoubtedly, a day of liberation for those whom the regime had imprisoned in concentration camps, forced labor camps, and prisoner-of-war camps. It was a day of liberation for the occupied countries of Europe, for the resistance fighters, and for the Jewish survivors whose families the Reich had annihilated. For the majority of Germans, however—who still believed they had fought for a righteous cause—it was a day of painful awakening. When Hannah Arendt traveled to Germany in 1949, she observed a disturbing phenomenon: Germans bustled busily through the ruins of their thousand-year history, offering nothing more than a shrug for their destroyed landmarks, and resenting anyone who reminded them of the atrocities that gave the rest of the world no peace. It was against this denial of reality—masked by feverish activity—that the first appeals for reflection rebounded ineffectually.
The East German Precedent and the West German Delay
Anyone reconstructing the history of this day of remembrance encounters an ideological asymmetry. The GDR declared May 8th a statutory holiday as early as 1950—designating it the "Day of the Liberation of the German People from Hitler Fascism." It remained a non-working day until 1967; thereafter, it reverted to a normal workday, albeit one marked by official ceremonies. In 1985, on the fortieth anniversary, it was once again declared a state holiday. Notably, the GDR largely avoided the terms "Nazi" and "National Socialism," as the suffix *–sozialismus* (socialism) carried a positive, affirmative connotation within that state. Instead, the regime spoke of "fascism."
In the Federal Republic of Germany, it took decades before May 8th found any place at all within the official culture of remembrance. It was not until 1970 that Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt mentioned the date in a government policy statement—a move that drew immediate opposition from the conservative Union parties: "One does not celebrate defeats." The breakthrough came fifteen years later, on May 8, 1985, when Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker delivered a speech in the plenary chamber of the Bundestag containing words that continue to shape the tone of Germany’s culture of remembrance to this day: "May 8th was a day of liberation. It liberated us all from the inhumane system of National Socialist tyranny." And, in the very same breath, he articulated the fundamental linkage that underpins every ritual of remembrance: "We must not separate May 8, 1945, from January 30, 1933."
The Geographic Mosaic of Remembrance
The map of European remembrance is a colorful and disparate mosaic. In France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, May 8th is observed as a statutory public holiday. Russia celebrates on May 9th—not out of defiance, but due to time-zone arithmetic: according to Moscow time, the surrender did not take effect until the following day. The Netherlands observes its "Bevrijdingsdag" (Liberation Day) on May 5th, and Italy on April 25th. In the United States and the Commonwealth, V-E Day—Victory in Europe Day—is observed as an official day of remembrance.
And Germany? Nationwide, May 8th remains to this day a non-public holiday. Since March 2002, however, it has been an official day of remembrance in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, designated by the somewhat austere yet precise title: "Day of Liberation from National Socialism and the End of the Second World War." Brandenburg followed suit in 2015, with Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, and Thuringia subsequently joining their ranks. Berlin has chosen to chart its own course: to mark the 75th anniversary in 2020, May 8th was designated a statutory public holiday there on a one-off basis—a precedent that will be repeated in 2025 for the 80th anniversary. A nationwide solution has yet to materialize, despite calls for such a measure in 2020 by Auschwitz survivor Esther Bejarano in an open letter to the Federal President, and ongoing advocacy for the cause by the DGB (German Trade Union Confederation) since 2018.
From Term of Endearment to Insult: The Etymology of the Word "Nazi"
Anyone who declares May 8th a "Day of Liberation" ought to know precisely what was being liberated from. National Socialism bore its name with a calculated ambiguity. The word fused the nationalism—which had been fermenting in the Weimar Republic after 1918—with a promise branded as "social," intended to appeal to the disillusioned masses. The National Socialist German Workers' Party—or NSDAP for short—founded in 1920 under Hitler’s leadership, combined two semantic spheres that are, in political terms, mutually exclusive. It was an ideological sham—and an extraordinarily successful one at that.
The abbreviation "Nazi," however, possesses a remarkably folksy backstory. Originally, "Nazi" was a diminutive form of the given name *Ignaz*—a name particularly common in Bavaria and Austria. In 1905, Ludwig Thoma premiered his rural farce *Der Schusternazi* (The Shoemaker Nazi) at Munich’s Gärtnerplatz Theater. In popular parlance, the word denoted a simple-minded, foolish person; during the First World War, it served as a nickname for soldiers from Austria-Hungary. In the early 1920s, opponents of the NSDAP in southern Germany seized upon this derogatory connotation, fully aware of the mockery it implied. Initially, "Naso" had circulated as an abbreviation for "National Socialist"; the journalist Konrad Heiden—or so runs the interpretation of American scholar Ron Rosenbaum—deliberately popularized the term "Nazi" in his articles. For a time, the NSDAP attempted to reclaim the label as a "word of defiance," but eventually abandoned the effort and subsequently avoided the term almost entirely. From the vocabulary of German exiles, the word migrated into other languages; it returned after 1945 and stands today as a synonym for the most horrific phenomenon German history has ever produced. February 1933—or the Overlookability of the Obvious
Anyone reading Uwe Wittstock’s chronicle *Februar 33: Der Winter der Literatur* (February ’33: The Winter of Literature) will be left in a state of utter astonishment. In the four weeks between Hitler’s appointment as Reich Chancellor on January 30, 1933, and the elections on March 5, the Weimar Republic transformed into a dictatorship with breathtaking speed. Decrees suspending fundamental rights followed one another in rapid succession, often accompanied by violence at the hands of the SA and SS. Joseph Roth boarded a train for Paris on the very day of the appointment. Heinrich Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Alfred Döblin, Else Lasker-Schüler—the literary elite fled in every direction. Others, such as Gottfried Benn, stayed behind and came to terms with the new reality. Wittstock recounts this like a thriller—one whose central twist lies in the fact that its protagonists, right up to the very last moment, refuse to believe what is unfolding before their very eyes.
Why did no one recognize it? This question is wrongly posed. Many *did* recognize it—Carl von Ossietzky, Erich Mühsam, Ernst Toller, Kurt Tucholsky (who, as early as 1922, had published an article in *Die Weltbühne* titled "The Nazis"). It was recognized by the Social Democrats, whose parliamentary group was the only one to vote unanimously against the Enabling Act on March 23, 1933—a vote during which Otto Wels famously declared in his speech: "They may take our freedom and our lives, but they cannot take our honor." Yet, to recognize is not necessarily to act. The majority hoped the nightmare would simply pass. The bourgeois parties believed they could "frame" Hitler—constrain him within a political structure. The elites imagined they could control him. The judiciary turned a blind eye to the Right; the *Reichswehr* remained entrenched in its tradition of unquestioning loyalty to state authority; and big industry donated generously. It was not a question of recognition, but rather one of will—of courage, and of responsibility.
How stable is a society that considers itself stable?
Democracies, write political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their 2018 book *How Democracies Die*, rarely perish today through coups, but rather through the slow erosion of their unwritten rules. They die in slow motion—through the shifting of the boundaries of discourse, the hollowing out of the separation of powers, and the normalization of the unspeakable. Anyone observing today how the downplaying of history becomes socially acceptable on social media platforms, how fantasies of violence against political opponents become a standard trope in the vocabulary of mobilization, or how the term "Lügenpresse" (lying press) is rehabilitated with a seemingly harmless gesture, finds little cause for complacency.
On the other hand: The Federal Republic of 2026 is not the Weimar Republic of 1932. There is no lost World War, no hyperinflation, no mass unemployment of six million people, and no paramilitary groups on the streets engaging in open gunfights. The institutions are more robust, European integration is more deeply entrenched, and the media landscape—despite all its upheavals—remains more diverse. And yet, a look back at 1933 teaches us that the tipping point is determined not by the stability of circumstances, but by the willingness of elites to defend them. It was not the weakness of the Weimar Constitution that brought Hitler to power—it was men like Hindenburg, Papen, and Hugenberg, who believed they could use the demagogue for their own ends. Friedrich Ebert’s famous maxim remains as true as ever: A democracy can only survive if democrats want it to.
The Legacy and the Responsibility
So, what remains of May 8th? More than just a public holiday—which, in Germany, it has not been until now. More than merely an occasion for ceremonial speeches. The Day of Liberation stands as an enduring reminder that civilization is not a natural state, but rather a fragile achievement that every generation must defend anew. In her report on the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt spoke of the "banality of evil"—not to excuse Eichmann, but to demonstrate how the monstrous can arise from the dutiful compliance of the mediocre. Evil is rarely brilliant; it is usually simple, obedient, and diligent. That is precisely what makes it so dangerous.
Anyone traveling through Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania who passes by its memorials, anyone in Berlin who commemorates the end of the war on May 8th, or anyone in Brandenburg who participates in one of the numerous commemorative events organized by dedicated citizens, should recall Bonhoeffer’s words from Tegel Prison: "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice." Not because people today are any stupider than they were in 1933—that would be a cheap gesture—but because mere recognition is not enough. What is required is the tenacious, undramatic work of democratic culture: patient listening, the tolerance of dissent, and a genuine engagement with argumentation. It requires citizens who know what they are talking about when they speak of freedom. It requires a memory that is not content with mere dates, but takes the pain of history seriously.
May 8, 1945, was not a victory for the Germans. Nor was it solely their defeat. It was the historic moment in which the civilized world was reminded of the price of civilization—should one ever abandon it through carelessness. Eighty years later, this memory is no longer a privilege of the elderly. It is a duty of the living—and our most important safeguard against that which must never be repeated, because it constantly seeks to repeat itself in new ways.
Sapere aude!
S.
Your support keeps ideas alive — and stories in motion. 👉 https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5NGG6XB67BZ4N 🙏
🇩🇪 My lyrical thoughts between two book covers: blau pause zimmerlautstärke - lyrik über die zeit - zurzeit
BoD Bookshop: https://buchshop.bod.de/blau-pause-zimmerlautstaerke-stefan-noir-9783695118779
Amazon-Shop: https://amzn.eu/d/1TvOBUO
🇺🇸 / 🏴 / 🏴 My lyrical thoughts between two book covers: blue pause room volume: poetry about time – currently
Amazon (English edition): https://amzn.eu/d/3b3GUF4
Comments