Ms. Hager, there are fewer and fewer contemporary witnesses. What impact will it have when the people who experienced the horrors of the Nazi era are no longer around?

First of all, I would like to point out that there are still quite a few contemporary witnesses alive today. And since they themselves were still very young eighty years ago, they have a very special connection and access to the younger generation. They can tell us what it was like to be deported as a young person or to lose one’s parents. But of course, the loss of contemporary witnesses is an inevitable process. The shift towards treating the Nazi past as “history” in a more distant sense will certainly confront us with new challenges. Other sources, such as objects and places like archives and memorial sites, will play an increasingly greater role.

What does this mean for remembrance work?

Visitors to memorial sites have high expectations when it comes to authenticity. We see this clearly in our current study, “MEMO Deutschland – Multidimensional Memory Monitor,” in which we regularly survey citizens aged 18 and above. As contemporary witnesses become fewer and, eventually, are no longer available, the memorial sites move more sharply into focus. At the same time, it is important to remember that these places, too, have a history beyond the Nazi era. Many were put to different uses; objects were removed; parts of buildings were demolished. Survivors had to fight for these places and transform them into sites of remembrance. From a historical perspective, they are therefore relatively young. Many visitors feel a strong need to establish a personal connection to the past at these locations.

Yet remembrance, of course, not only takes place at memorial sites. Traces of the Nazi era can be found in everyone’s family history, place of residence, and perhaps even workplace. The topic of forced labor is often neglected in Germany’s culture of remembrance, even though it took place in the very midst of society. For example, only about twelve percent of German companies that existed at the time have faced up to their past. One task of remembrance initiatives is to keep making it clear, again and again, that the terror of National Socialism was not limited to the camps. And in the present, the Nazi era can suddenly reenter everyday life when certain things become acceptable to say in public debate and resistance becomes increasingly uncomfortable.

What are your thoughts on the use of virtual reality and artificial intelligence in this context?

Both come with risks and opportunities. Using virtual reality in remembrance work can be highly worthwhile. In the project “For Real – A Virtual Encounter with Contemporary Witnesses of the Nazi Era,” run by the Brandenburg Society for Culture and History, testimonies were made immersively accessible via VR headsets. The project toured Germany by bus, especially visiting regions where memorial sites are difficult to reach. VR is particularly appealing to young people, and this combination of a mobile exhibition and modern media attracts many visitors. But of course, VR also has its limits. How “real” should an experience be allowed to feel when it takes place at historical crime scenes, such as former concentration camps? Where do we draw ethical lines? Archives and museums wrestle with these questions as they strive to make their content as comprehensible and tangible as possible.

With artificial intelligence, the challenges are even greater. Information generated by widely used large language models such as ChatGPT and Gemini is not reliable. Historical photographs can be altered in ways that untrained viewers can no longer detect. Sometimes they are shown without the context that is crucial, for instance, photos from the camps are often perpetrator images created with propagandistic intent. Since photographs are usually perceived as authentic at first glance, this confronts our work with entirely new challenges. This is, therefore, a very important issue in memorial work. Still, AI also offers opportunities. A well-programmed chatbot for a specific site can provide answers that are easily accessible for interested visitors or guide them through a large exhibition to the installation that best fits their question.

In what ways can academia contribute to preserving memory in public discourse?

I see a great opportunity to not only communicate research findings, but also to share the methods historians use. While not all methods are easy to grasp, some are and can be learned. This would enable non-experts to become active themselves, for instance by exploring and coming to terms with their own family history, if they wish. This kind of work does not have to begin in archives. Most families have diaries, letters, or photographs that provide the first clues. Talking openly about historical methodology also strengthens trust in scholarship. This is particularly important at a time when history is being instrumentalized in public debate, such as by distorting facts. It is encouraging that our 2023 MEMO youth study clearly showed that the younger generation is interested in the history of National Socialism. They do care about what happened back then. So, if remembrance work offers new perspectives and new ways in, we will meet an audience that is ready and curious.

About Veronika Hager

Veronika Hager serves as a research advisor to the board of the EVZ Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future. The historian, who holds a Ph.D. in Southeast European history, previously headed the education department at the Sachsenhausen Memorial for several years. While working as a research assistant at the German Historical Museum, she co-curated the “Democracy Lab” in 2019 and was involved in several specialized exhibitions.

Further information

EVZ Foundation

Lecture “The (Im)mediacy of Memory: Remembrance Work Between Historical Distance and Urgent Proximity” on January 27, 2026