5. Public memory policies often create tools and spaces to help shape and strengthen civic values based on past struggles. But have these spaces fulfilled their purpose in such a digital, changing and diverse world? Should memorials be spaces for preventing democratic crises and possible rises of the extreme right?
A number of European countries are exemplary in this area. I am thinking of Germany and France in particular. Yes, memory policies have created a large number of instruments( especially commemorations) and memorials. However, in these very countries, we have witnessed the rebirth of an extreme right that sometimes aligns itself with Nazism. And above all, social networks divide society and disseminate hate speech and“ fake” histories at great speed. It might be worse without public policies!
6. Based on your experience, do you believe a genuine interaction between memory and citizenship, academia and political institutions is possible?
At least that is what is attempted in democracies. But the“ goodies” aren’ t on one side – that is, academics, the teaching world, political institutions –, and“ baddies” – racists, anti-Semites and haters – on the other. There is a certain porosity between these stakeholders. And we have seen, with Poland and Hungary, how judicial or political institutions could topple. In Poland, our fellow historians – I am thinking of Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski in particular –, who have carried out considerable
7. In September 2019, the European Parliament adopted the resolution on“ The importance of European historical memory for the future of Europe”( 2019 / 2819( RSP), a text which sparked great controversy, in particular between Western European memorial associations and academia because of the assimilation it makes between Nazism and Communism. What is your opinion on this subject?
Political resolutions, even European ones, do not intend to write history. When I vote for a member of parliament, whether French or European, or for the French President, I do not expect them to deal with history! Absolutely not! We have come up against this problem in France with memory laws. Putting Nazism and Communism on the same footing in the declaration disregards history. It is asserted that the German-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 was the root cause of the war. This is nonsense. Any secondary school student who has studied the march to war knows that this was one of Hitler’ s goals and that it stemmed from the Nazi plan for the conquest of“ living space” and world dominion. Generally speaking, the writing of history is only a matter of democracy because it requires freedom and access to archives, which is generally a matter of law. Yes, it is important that organisations dedicated to history and memory, such as the Memorial in Russia, are able to work. That’ s not the case today. I also notice that in certain countries with former popular democracies – I am thinking of Poland and Hungary – the denunciation of communist crimes is accompanied by anti-Semitism. historical work on the past of their countries, have just been taken to court for one of their books. Luckily, they won their appeal. While we believed that Poland had faced its past, that it had eradicated anti-Semitism, we have seen that this was not the case. But the work undertaken cannot be completely erased.
26
Observing Memories Issue 5