During its 28-year existence, the Berlin Wall was a very real site of separation and suffering.  At least 136 people are confirmed to have died at the Berlin Wall between 1961 and 1989.  Dr Pertti Ahonen, is the author of the recently released book, ‘Death at the Berlin Wall’, which details the major role the victims played in the intense propaganda battle played between East and West Germany and how their deaths were politicised during the Cold War to suit their respective agendas.  For example, in West Germany, the Wall represented Communist tyranny and evil at its worst; a grim concrete edifice built to stop the drain in population of East Germany as its citizens desperately fled through the open plughole that was West Berlin. In East Germany, on the other hand, it was depicted as the 'anti-fascist protection rampart', a defensive structure supposedly built to prevent imperialist saboteurs from entering the workers' and peasants' paradise.

One particularly high-profile death was that of Peter Fechter who was shot and left to bleed to death in the shadow of the Wall in 1962. Taking these deaths at its point of departure, ‘Death at the Berlin Wall’, reconstructs twelve individual tragedies, including deaths of escapees from the GDR, by far the largest sub-category of the Wall's victims, as well as those of West Berliners who made an unauthorized entry into the border zone and – more controversially – of East German border guards killed in the line of duty.

As their stories became politicised, the impact of the Wall upon the ordinary Berliner has often been overlooked and for this reason Dr Ahonen says that he is seeking to redress the balance: ‘There are popular accounts that talk about particular incidents but they tend to be really quite sensationalist or condemnatory of the former communist state.  The most significant legacies, however, really are the personal ones.  People [the families of the victims] have this kind of irreplaceable loss and there is nothing they can do about it; the grieving goes on.’

Thus, with his even-handed approach, Dr Ahonen provides a fresh perspective to the study of the period, giving a face and voice to the often anonymous victims of the Wall.  In doing so, he provides a welcome change to the often partisan nature of much of the scholarship. Asked if his impartiality as a non-German was helpful in avoiding the pitfall of bias, he says, ‘I think that does help.  I don’t have a personal stake in it as I’m not from Germany.  As an outsider as well it is clear that there are a lot of political divisions in terms of party political affiliation…but they can’t really put me in those kind of brackets so that helped in getting access and having people talking to me.’

The inclusion by Dr Ahonen of the East German border guards is for many a contentious issue.  So, I asked, does their inclusion mean that he considers the East German border guards to have been victims? ‘It’s a difficult one.   On the one hand they were performing duties that put them in a position of using their weapons against their fellow citizens in this really quite questionable context of what exactly is freedom of movement.  So, in the one sense they were working for the regime and were part of the regime.  However, at the same time, the majority – including I guess the three I talk about in the book – were draftees doing their military service.  Therefore, in many ways they were also victims of the circumstances.’

Despite this, post reunification, a significant number of the former East German border guards went on trial charged with manslaughter.  Considering his affirmation of the victim status of the border guards, does Dr Ahonen, therefore, think that such a move was fair?  ‘It was probably fair yes but it would not have been if they had only tried the guards themselves.  They were the ones at the bottom of the command chain; they were ‘following orders’.  But yes I do think it was fair because in most cases they were tried for manslaughter and not murder.’

The trials, themselves, were blighted by a flood of petitions from the defence and cases against some of the ‘big names’ were dropped due to the ill health and old age of the defendants.  Arguably, as a result, the trials did not result in sufficient closure for the families of the victims.  Dr Ahonen agrees saying: ‘People thought that it was a victor’s justice; that is, mostly just going after the little man rather than those higher up.  But I think it was still better to do that than not do anything.  I think that would have been much worse.’

More recently, the election of an the East German Angela Merkel as Chancellor and Germany’s hosting of the 2006 World Cup have provided a salve to the wounds of a nation still unsure of how to deal with the legacies of both the Nazi and Cold War eras: ‘The 2006 World Cup was seen as a turning point in Germany.  Thereafter, it was acceptable to bring out flags and so on, which had up till then been quite controversial.’ So, the perceived connection between Nazism and nationalism is less distinct now? ‘They are certainly less self-conscious about it now.  It is like, in 2006, there was a bit of this flag-waving and no-one really took offence.  So, yes it is just normal now.’

Of course, this does not mean that the memory of the Wall has been politically neutralised.  Checkpoint Charlie remains something of a Cold War relic with its crusading anti-Communist rhetoric whilst urban renewal continues apace.  Memorials have been moved, scaled back or removed altogether causing consternation amongst the older generation.  Does, he believe then that Berliners have started to move on? ‘I think that is definitely the case.  There are already changes happening now as it is more than 20 years since unification, and in the younger generation there are many that don’t really remember much prior to the fall of the Wall.  There were again reports in the run up to the August 13^th anniversary, about how it seems that amongst the younger generation in Berlin, the divide between East and West isn’t such a big deal anymore.  However, the older generation do still think very much in these kinds of terms.’

The ‘controversy’ over the U2 concert held at the 20^th anniversary celebrations in 2009 highlights this generational shift and the subsequent lessening of tension.  Inexplicably, a 2 metre high barrier was erected around the Brandenburg Gate to keep out people without tickets to the show.  A move that was, according to Dr Ahonen, met with a mixture of bemusement and indifference.  Clearly, the irony of marking the fall of the Wall by constructing another one was lost on the event organisers.  Moving forward, given the iconic status of the Berlin Wall and its continued importance for a generation, ‘Death at the Berlin Wall’ is unlikely to represent the last word on the subject but Dr Ahonen has presented the stories of those who died there, stripped of political bias, in their truest possible form.