The "Battle of the Bulge" in Anglo-American historiography is considered one of the longest and most costly conflicts at the end of the Second World War on German soil. The dogged defensive will of hastily assembled Wehrmacht troops in the far west ensured that the war dragged on even though defeat was foreseeable. The killing and mistreatment in concentration and extermination camps also continued, not least because of the resistance in the densely wooded west. The commemoration of the fighting, which dragged on for months and was often wrongly described as a separate "battle" according to military historians, is as varied as possible - from sober, factual and reserved to transfiguring, even vociferous and, despite all social developments, in some places still characterised by false hero worship today.

The men and women in their camouflage uniforms move through a forest area that, strictly speaking, no longer has much in common with the scenario almost eight decades ago. Due to weeks of shelling, but at the latest due to a wildfire in 1947, the forest has changed its appearance. Most of the trees were planted after the war. The weather in the northern Eifel, however, with rainy autumn weather, rapid darkness towards evening and the sudden onset of fog, still offers an impression of the conditions under which the advancing US Army met the Wehrmacht, which had taken up positions in the forest.

A later mystification was also fuelled to no small extent by the Allies

Visible signs of the war can still be found in many places today. Trenches and foxholes are sometimes clearly visible. Experienced eyes recognise larger depressions as command posts, ambulance stations or grenade launcher positions. Last but not least, numerous bunkers of the "Westwall", which was stylised by Nazi propaganda as a supposedly insurmountable obstacle, bear witness to the status of a former war zone. Preserved and blasted concrete buildings suddenly appear off the paths, as do memorial stones and crosses. Tons of ammunition still rest in the ground, and a systematic removal of explosive ordnance has so far only taken place on a part of the former war site.

When the Americans finally advanced into the forest in October, Operation Market Garden had failed further north. So the symbolic leap across the Rhine was to be made via the north of the Eifel, according to the plans of the not always unanimous Allied high command. Yet "the" Hürtgenwald did not actually exist. It was only in the post-war period and in the course of a territorial reform that the municipality with its present name came into being. The name is actually said to have come from the US Army, whose maps showed the state forest as "Huertgen Forest". The proximity to the word "Hurt", i.e. pain, is likely to have fuelled the oddity.

Later mystification was also fuelled to no small extent by the Allies - sometimes factually sober, but also literarily. While the events in the densely wooded, unclear and hilly north of the Eifel are largely forgotten in Germany, places like Vossenack, Schmidt or Hürtgen are considered much more familiar in the culture of remembrance in the USA. Historian Peter Quadflieg sees the commemorative value on the other side of the Atlantic in the fact that the battles in the "Huertgen Forest" are said to have been the most costly battles of the Second World War for the Americans on the European continent. He cites the current state of research as representative of his guild: it is assumed that around 30,000 people were killed, wounded and captured on both sides between October 1944 and February 1945.

At this point, however, the struggle for interpretive sovereignty begins, often based on information from earlier decades, when the participants in the battle themselves determined the memory. For example, the figure of "68,000 victims" was circulated for a long time. The figure is misleading for the historian because it suggests that there is talk of dead bodies. "Such number games have helped shape memory for decades," says Frank Möller. The Cologne-based publicist and historian has been critically examining the Hürtgenwald and the diverse memorial structures on site for years. Most recently, he has intensively studied the role of militaria literature, "which helped shape the understanding of history in the region until the early 2000s", he says. Möller's analysis of the dubious tenor of several Hürtgenwald publications has just been published as a book.

Again and again Möller seeks confrontation with those who adhere to outdated narrative patterns and historical myths when it comes to the "battle". The Cologne-based author initiates debates for change, for example when the supposedly honourable struggle of soldiers in the name of the Nazi regime is trivialised as merely the fulfilment of duty. A dispute that lasted for years ignited at the now disappeared memorial of the 116th Panzer Division, where heroic commemoration could be practised almost unfiltered for decades, for a long time also with the support of local politics and parts of the population. According to historian Quadflieg, in the past as well as today, there was "no such strong effort for remembrance at the local level“.

"We have decided to go a new way"

Möller is assisted by academics and researchers, but also by representatives of the municipality of Hürtgenwald, which belongs to the district of Düren. Especially the museum "Hürtgenwald 1944 and in Peace" in Vossenack and with it the history association of the municipality are repeatedly the focus of criticism. "Despite some improvements in the recent past, an understanding of remembrance that is no longer compatible with today's standards continues to be disseminated in the museum, during guided tours in the Hürtgenwald and at memorial sites in the countryside," says Möller, who now also advises the district of Düren on questions of commemorative culture. "To equate the Wehrmacht and the US Army, for example, as soldiers who dutifully fought in the forest is neither in keeping with the times nor with the truth.“

A current position of the Hürtgenwald Historical Society must be left out at this point. The acting chairman, Rainer Valder, did not want to comment - according to his own statement, he is giving up his work on the board at the end of the year. In the past, he had repeatedly shown himself open to input from outside experts, also in regional media. Möller, on the other hand, says he has not perceived a real will to change towards a contemporary orientation of the museum from Valder or from the association and the volunteer museum team to date. A timely question from the GA about the attitude and orientation of the association and the museum went unanswered by the acting deputy Albert Trostorf. In this context, Möller, a "memory worker", also criticises the municipality that provides the museum with rooms: "The demand for a comprehensive reorientation should come from the town hall, quasi as a condition for use." Möller hopes for corresponding impulses from the new mayor. He is convinced: "A revised museum with a differentiated presentation of events and contexts would certainly attract a larger and more diverse audience than before.“

Konrad and Benedikt Schöller repeatedly experience how much the traditional ways of telling stories still have an effect in everyday life in the northern Eifel. Father and son, who have been committed volunteer local historians for years, repeatedly put their fingers in obvious wounds when it comes to the Nazi period in their region. Be it the topic of forced labour or the handling of a questionable memorial stone in their hometown of Schmidt, which in the past put the motivation of the armies of the USA and Germany in World War II on a common level: "We notice again and again that some people stick to myths that have long been disproved," says Benedikt Schöller, who works as a history teacher at a secondary school. His father puts it even more bluntly: "We are called nest-destroyers, often on the internet, but also in direct exchanges." But the Schöllers' commitment is also appreciated and recognised, with awards and invitations to give lectures.

Memory in the Hürtgenwald should change

The Hürtgenwald March, which was quasi-renewed only a few years ago, shows how remembrance can visibly change both externally and internally. Re-enactments of soldiers' lives during the war, cooperation with the regional militaria scene or even with right-wing extremist entrepreneurs by a former reservist comradeship belonging to the organisers - all that is a thing of the past. Instead, an educational, cultural and informational programme is now part of it. "We decided to take a new path," says Lieutenant Colonel Frank Böllhoff, who is organising the march for the Bundeswehr's NRW Regional Command. "A path that includes a differentiated examination of history, free of heroic remembrance or military transfiguration." The sporting programme of the cross-country marches continues to be an important component, "it is simply part of it“.

Böllhoff is even more explicit: "The Bundeswehr also has to position itself again and again in matters of remembrance culture. Especially when it comes to the injustices caused by Germans in the name of National Socialism. We no longer wanted a pure feel-good weekend with bratwurst and beer, even if some people don't like that.“

Since the "reconstruction" of the march, the history association and the museum are missing from the list of cooperation partners. However, Böllhoff says that they can be dispensed with. "Unless something comes up in the future. We want partners who take a serious look at the situation and also question previous images of history. Transfiguration of the cruel battles in the Hürtgenwald is not one of them."

(Original text: Alexander Barth; Translation: Mareike Graepel)