The essay denies the possibility of a transnational European culture of remembrance, for though it is repeatedly sought, the search must fail due to differences between national cultures of memory. Those involved are, however, not conscious of national peculiarities; their own culture of memory is understood as the only possibility. This corresponds to “thinking-as-usual,” coined by Alfred Schutz, which denotes never questioned thinking in our society of origin, of which we only become aware when we are abroad, where its self-evidence is challenged. The essay develops the concept of “thinking-as-usual” into a “remembering- as-usual.” This could be the basis of a conversation by explaining your own “remembering-as-usual” to others, but is only possible when one has recognized its relativity. In such a conversation, a translational memory would be established, whereby translation would not mean the transfer of meaning from one language to another, but-based on the considerations of the sociologist Andreas Langenohl-the creation of a “target context.” In translating conversation, there would be no common memory, but a polyphonic, always new translation. The commonality of Europe would therefore be based on the will to enter into a translating conversation and to remain in this conversation.