Memotransfront - Stätten grenzüberschreitender Erinnerung
   
    Complete introduction (PDF)    
   

Rainer Hudemann (translation: Andrea Caspari, Princeton)

Saar-Lor-Lux: Linkages in a European Core Region

Contents
1. Foundations for linkages in a region rich in conflict
1.1 Shifting borders in the German-French border region
1.2 Luxembourg: a sovereign state amidst European linkages
1.3 Interregional and international superimpositions
1.4 Networks and interregional identity
2. Patterns of interpretation
2.1 “Cross-border memory”
2.2 The search for categories of sites of memory
2.3 Factors that play a role in cross-border linkages
3. Structure of the publication
3.1 A map of memory
3.2 How to use this presentation
3.3 The team
Further reading

 

1. Foundations for linkages in a region rich in conflict

The Saar-Lor-Lux region has for several decades asserted the claim to be a pioneer in terms of cross-border linkages in Europe. This is precisely because borders here have, over the last two centuries, repeatedly functioned as particularly sharp lines of demarcation. The fact that these borders were shifted again and again was the cause of conflicts that were all the more acute. At the same time, however, through the years they also gave rise to diverse processes of cultural layering and the creation of linkages, some of which illustrate more general regional interactions in Europe.

The term “Saar-Lor-Lux” was only coined at the end of the 1960s. Given the wars and occupations in this border region over the course of the last two centuries, many observers considered the term a politically generated, artificial construct. This term has since become a slogan that has proved to be a useful and innovative political tool. This is evident also in the expansion of its use and the current inclusion in the term of, variously, Westphalia, Northern Alsace, Wallonia, the Trier Region or the entire Federal State of the Rhine Palatinate, depending on the political context. In accordance with the framework of the EU’s Interreg projects, the context within which this presentation evolved, we will concentrate on the core composed of the Lorraine region, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Federal State of the Saarland, with occasional forays into neighbouring regions.

Yet the key phrase “Saar-Lor-Lux’ is not an artificial creation that describes a new state of affairs. One does not even need to go back as far as medieval “Lotharingia” with its central position at the heart of Europe as proof of this. Since the French Revolution, conflict and co-operation have given rise to a great variety of new cross-border structures. These are the object of our enquiry. Some of these are today firmly established in the general consciousness, many are not. Within this area, perceptions are very varied – national, regional and interregional structures are also superimposed within the different and sometimes contradictory perspectives and expressions of memory.

Such are the traces explored here. The thread being followed in this research is the architectural objects – topographical, tangible, visible traces which reflect cooperation and contrasts, neighbourliness, friendship and tensions. These include traces which are closely tied to the recollection of suffering as well as to the recollection of achievements. Above all, however, these are traces whose cross-border dimension is less apparent without an in-depth knowledge of the historical background. It is precisely these traces which are today frequently buried in the depths of “collective memory”. This is why, in choosing objects for study, an emphasis has been put on these. Even though the structures of the regions which together constitute the Saar-Lor-Lux triangle have historically developed in very different ways, they can be used to demonstrate basic arrangements for processes of cross-border demarcation and linkage.

1.1 Shifting borders in the German-French border region

Many sites of cross-border memory have actually grown out of contacts and conflicts across borders, while others are the result of the multiple shifting of borders that occurred in the region. In the course of the Coalition Wars after 1792, the left bank of the Rhine was initially occupied by French Revolutionary troops and annexed in the Peace of Lunéville in 1801. In the peace treaties of 1814 and 1815, the Saar region – Saarbrücken only in 1815 – went to Bavaria and Prussia. The annexation of Alsace Lorraine by the German Reich followed in 1871, and the return of both regions to France in 1918. At the same time, the Saargebiet (Saar Territory) was created, which in turn came under the international mandate of the League of Nations, with a predominant French role, until 1935. In that year, the first Saar referendum restored the Saar – rebaptised as the Saarland – to Germany, which had meanwhile become the Third Reich. A new French occupation followed in 1945, which was changed to an economic union with a limited and unclearly defined political autonomy in 1947. The second Saar referendum, in 1955, laid the basis for the final political and economic reintegration of the Saar to the Federal Republic in 1957/59.

1.2 Luxembourg: a sovereign state amidst European linkages

In the nation state of Luxembourg, the context for cross-border influences is different from that of Lorraine or the Saar; these influences are less well known and will therefore be described here in somewhat greater detail.

In the 19th century, the century of the formation of nation states in Europe, the process of nation building became a central part of Luxembourg’s position as the interface of Europe: the adoption, whether deliberate or not, of other countries’ models became a significant part of what finally became valued in the country itself as an expression of its own identity in the 20th century. These interwoven layers of influences are still in evidence today at various levels, from the education system to the judicial system and from the external morphology and inner structure of the cities to economic ties; their greater or lesser capacity to have this impact depends on the country’s specific development patterns.

The old aristocratic ruling class had largely died out in Luxembourg in the 18th century, or had moved the core of their professional and private lives to other countries. These patterns of behaviour, even though they resembled those which were typical of the aristocracy at the beginning of modern times, were already a manifestation of the country’s diverse ties, which then became international ones in the 19th century. Thus, the formation of the elites in the newly developing nation state also proceeded under different conditions than those in many other countries in Europe. The conflict or even partial cooperation between the rising middle class and the old elites, which was in some countries a dynamic element in the process of nation-building, played a different and less fundamental role in Luxembourg. There, the bourgeoisie had to develop in a more independent fashion.

Because it had been under foreign rule for centuries, especially that of the Habsburg Netherlands under Spain and then Austria, it could only make reference to its own specific traditions to a limited degree. There were few of those conflicts, such as the wars of liberation against Napoleon in Germany or the struggle against Habsburg in Italy, which acted as catalysts of national consciousness; towards the end of the Ancien Regime, the Luxembourg aristocracy still counted among the Habsburg crown’s most loyal supporters despite its strong differences with the crown which had continued throughout the whole 18th century. Conflicts with rulers who were perceived at the time or retrospectively as foreign took a different and distinctive form.

Especially complex, multi-layered forms of influences developed from this in the 19th century, influences which, for the most part, did not become genuinely “foreign” until the period of the formation of the nation state between 1815 and 1839:

• the old traditions of a France-oriented culture among the upper class until the 18th century;

• the traditions of the Spanish and then, after 1714, Austrian Netherlands, after the French occupation of 1684–1698 and the rule of Philip of Anjou from 1700–1711, as well as the Bavarian interlude from 1711–1714;

• the revival and reinforcement of French influence, with lasting and long-term structural effects, accompanying the revolutionary annexation in 1795 and under the influence of Napoleonic institutions in the Département des Forêts until 1814 – Institutions which were in some cases identical to those introduced in what was to become Belgium;

• the renewed ties to the Netherlands of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, newly created in the Vienna Congress of 1815 with a personal link to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and which at the same time, as a member of the German Confederation, was strongly influenced by the processes underlying the formation of the nascent German nation state;

• the beginning of independence, in a kind of limited sovereignty, with the partition, along the linguistic border, of the Province of Luxembourg between Belgium and the Netherlands, after the Belgian Revolution of 1830 – an autonomy as the personal Grand Duchy of the House of Orange-Nassau, which was however only implemented in 1839, and which, in retrospect, can be considered the year of the beginning of the nation state;

• the economic upswing following the entry to the Customs Union in 1842, the political neutralization of the country after Napoleon III’s 1867 attempt – foiled by Prussia – to buy Luxembourg, and the German Reich’s taking control of the management of the William-Luxembourg railroad in 1871.

The influences and cultural transfers which resulted from this complex layering of traditions had effects which worked in entirely contradictory ways. Thus, William I of Orange-Nassau’s inadequate implementation of the special rights for Luxembourg that had been agreed in 1815, intensified rather than reduced the centuries-old tensions with the Netherlands, but at the same time further consolidated close ties with Belgium. Joining the Customs Union, and the political as well as economic importance of the Reich in Europe after 1871 increased German influence. However, at the same time – and the Prussian and German envoys often complained about this – as an expression of a counter-reaction the new, rising elites, soon followed by large parts of the German-speaking middle and lower classes, turned increasingly towards French culture. This was not an act of political identification, rather an element of “self-assertion” by Luxembourgers. Conscious orientations, like those expressed by the architecture of the Bourbon Plateau, played a role as much as did, for example, the cross-border migrations of servants or artisans.

The reorientation to the Luxembourgish language, which had gained in importance alongside French and German in the second half of the century, represented the growing efforts for the independent development of the new nation at the interface of these diverse spheres of influence. In this process, influences were consciously or subconsciously embraced or rejected, in order to integrate elements of the cultures and traditions of the many countries with which Luxembourg had had political and institutional ties, into what was regarded as a particular, eclectic Luxembourg identity. In this way, in contrast to many other nation states, the search for a connection between the most varied influences became a key element of the process of nation building in Luxembourg.

The First World War, and even more so the Second World War with its de facto annexation of Luxembourg by the Third Reich, its incorporation into the Gau Moselland and persecution by the German SS apparatus, led to a more permanent orientation of the country to France than to Germany. Hinzert, the special SS camp near Hermeskeil in the Hunsrueck in which the majority of Luxembourg Resistance fighters were interned, has become a symbol of this resistance. Luxembourg had the highest proportion of Resistance fighters per capita among the occupied countries in Europe. Numerous sites such as the Villa Pauly, Gestapo headquarters in the city of Luxembourg, today bear witness to these experiences.

Nevertheless, several figures eminent in 20th century European domains of economy, culture and politics have embodied the country’s position as mediator, which had evolved before the advent of the nation state with its complex web of interactions and effects. One of these, in the interwar period, was Emile Mayrisch, the Director of ARBED, with his ideas of creating cross-border economic cartels and his impressive role as cultural mediator in the German-French Studies Committee, which was moreover largely based on his analysis of the economic interests of the participating countries. Some of his ideas were taken up again after the Second World War by Robert Schuman, who, as French foreign minister, linked the representation of French interests in modernisation with the initiative for a functional, partial European integration in the European Coal and Steel Community. In the 1950s, another important role in European integration was played by Luxembourg’s prime minister Joseph Bech. These public figures, who realistically assess nation states’ future cross-border perspectives, are an expression of the culture of their country of origin, in which they are not dissimilar from a number of other Lothringians, like Robert Schuman, born near Metz.

1.3 Interregional and international superimpositions

Thus, Lorraine, the Saar region and Luxembourg reflect diverse forms of interactions, the creation of linkages, and cultural layering, derived from cross-border relationships and the shifting of borders. The lines of contact and confrontation which can be observed often mirror national differences. However, the more research on these processes of interference progresses, the clearer it becomes that it is precisely the most complex, and therefore the most interesting, processes that cannot be satisfactorily explained by national categories. One of the key characteristics of the processes of superimposition seems to be that, over the course of years or decades, new, independent forms develop. This can be clearly observed in the example of Luxembourg.

This is even more striking in the Alsace than it is in Lorraine. It provides a great deal of rich and relevant material for the systematic analysis of this phenomenon. It is specifically because of the tension that often exists between border regions and their respective central governments that a reversion to the regional heritage acquires a special political significance and – In often paradoxical ways – sometimes even entails adopting traditions of the “other” side in order to affirm these regions’ own identity. The “droit local” exemplifies this in many ways. In Alsace as in Lorraine this is a combination of German and French elements, for example in church laws, social security legislation or in building regulations. In Luxembourg, it appears that especially the French, Belgian and German influences, themselves sometimes a product of assimilations, which were taken up and blended with each other, in turn became key elements in the building of the nation state. In the case of the urban development of Strasbourg after 1871, which we will not describe in greater detail here, the indigenous population for a long time fought the “Prussian”-seeming new city, even though it was, for its part, not so different from the contemporaneous redevelopment of cities in France, along the lines of Baron Haussmann’s Paris. In Strasbourg at the turn of the century, ideas and arguments were used which had been developed by the movement to protect German patrimony, and which adopted ideas about “aesthetic urban development” – a school of thought developed in Vienna which will be expanded upon under the rubric of “urban development”. To put it another way: the indigenous population of Alsace used German ideas to fight against German ideas and against the “Haussmannisation” under the German government during annexation. The fact that the alternative ideas were derived from German debates was soon forgotten – the ideas became part of the regional heritage. This is evident to this day if you venture into the streets of the Neustadt of Strasbourg. The complexity of the processes of cultural layering is by no means limited to the region we are focusing on here. Rather, we can suppose that we will find similar patterns in other European border regions; the structure of the cities in the Eupen-Malmedy region seems to be a further example of this.

Some cross-border linkages are specific to the Saar-Lor-Lux area, while others reflect an interplay of forces typical in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, the many buildings in this border region which adopted “Historicism” – a style drawing on numerous European architectural traditions – were only following a trend that was already widespread throughout Europe at the end of the 19th century. That said, it was this tendency that strengthened linkages especially in this area. This historicist style assumed different forms that dominate architecture in many respects – up to the buildings which, like the Meder-Haus in Esch-sur-Alzette, specifically attempt to go beyond this Historicism. Certain features of the train stations in Metz and Strasbourg display strong historicist elements, even if in Metz, Romanesque is dominant. Compared with this, the excessive Historicism of the ARBED administrative building, visible also in numerous other buildings in the same residential area on Luxembourg’s Bourbon Plateau, really stands out. This is a fusion of 19th century, European-wide Historicism with the specific characteristics of its border location. Thus, the combination of different stylistic tendencies is not in any way random, as will be demonstrated.

Certain regional patterns can also reflect international influences directly, which can be seen in the modest example of the renovation of the old Hennesbau Mill in the town of Feulen in Luxembourg. Transformed into a cultural center, it is part of the German Bauhaus tradition which Mies Van der Rohe continued to develop in the United States. Ieoh Ming Pei’s Museum of Modern Art in the old fortifications of Luxembourg combines international design principles with elements that are typical of the region, which have themselves been forged by French, Spanish and Austrian foreign rule since the 17th century.

Likewise, the architecture of the Kirchberg plateau in Luxembourg, as a site at the confluence of cross-border influences which reflects the global trends of the second half of the 20th century, symbolises not the Saar-Lor-Lux area, but Europe. The fact that these public and private European institutions chose to establish themselves in such large numbers in Luxembourg has very much to do with its centuries-old position at the crossroads of Western and Central European influences, which predestined it to become a site and symbol of European cooperation. As such, Kirchberg itself also belongs at the heart of our project’s problematic, as an emblem of the international function of this border area.

1.4 Networks and interregional identity

The term “identity”, whether regional or local, is seldom used in this exploration. Yet this notion is useful as a tool, insofar as the German and French border regions repeatedly attempted to assert their autonomy in the context of the tensions which set them against their respective national centres. Regional traditions could provide the basis of or reinforcement for this assertion of autonomy. The term is useful also insofar as patterns of behaviour that were subconscious but significant in terms of social history and the development of patterns of thought very soon crossed the region’s borders to give rise to shared characteristics, as the example of the structure of workers’ migratory movements at the height of industrialisation illustrates.

However, the term is used here only sparingly. Especially when used as a slogan, it threatens to distort the varied and contradictory interpretations of shared or similar experiences in a region, and thereby to conceal rather than reveal the many layers of interferences and processes of demarcation. One of our main objectives is precisely to bring to light this profusion of relationships in all their variety and complexity. In Luxembourg, the diversity of influences has itself actually become an element of identity – but of national identity. Crossing borders, the patterns that remain, in the context of the tensions that set the regions against the national spheres, are different. The examples presented in this study aim to heighten awareness of the problem and to refine the perception of this diversity. In the present stage of our study, we do not wish to go beyond the objectives which we have set ourselves and which consist of delivering partial results for a systematic analysis. These results often raise as many questions as they provisionally answer. From this perspective, the project we present here continues to have the character of a work in progress. It provides us with building blocks for research on regional identity, without aspiring to give a conclusive answer to the question about its origin and development.

The concept of linkages, or “Vernetzungen” in German, proves to be more viable. Our presentation brings to light a multitude of forms of these linkages. These linkages are important components in the development of an identity, a cross-border sense of belonging, while at the same time they testify to an actual belonging together in many domains, even though these may be little noticed. >> Second part of the introduction

 

Contents
1. Foundations for linkages in a region rich in conflict
1.1 Shifting borders in the German-French border region
1.2 Luxembourg: a sovereign state amidst European linkages
1.3 Interregional and international superimpositions
1.4 Networks and interregional identity
2. Patterns of interpretation
2.1 “Cross-border memory”
2.2 The search for categories of sites of memory
2.3 Factors that play a role in cross-border linkages
3. Structure of the publication
3.1 A map of memory
3.2 How to use this presentation
3.3 The team
Further reading

 

>> Top of the page

   
   
   
Memotransfront - Stätten grenzüberschreitender Erinnerung Rainer Hudemann unter Mitarbeit von Marcus Hahn, Gerhild Krebs und Johannes Großmann (Hg.): Stätten grenzüberschreitender Erinnerung – Spuren der Vernetzung des Saar-Lor-Lux-Raumes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Lieux de la mémoire transfrontalière – Traces et réseaux dans l’espace Sarre-Lor-Lux aux 19e et 20e siècles, Saarbrücken 2002, 3., technisch überarbeitete Auflage 2009. Publiziert als CD-ROM sowie im Internet unter www.memotransfront.uni-saarland.de.