The Second World War: Collective Memory and History- Historiographical Essay:
Judt, T. “The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-War Europe.” In Memory and Power in Post-War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past, edited by J.W. Muller, 157-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
First Paragraph- Judt’s Main Arguments:
Tony Judt’s essay The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-War Europe details the immediate post-war European past that failed to face the various problems associated with the devastating effects of World War Two. His insight and research Judt offers a pan-European interpretation of how different countries in both western and eastern Europe “had a movement for a trans-national unification...and …show more content…
These salient factors highlight examples of how official versions of war memory shaped the memory narrative of not only the immediate post-war era, but also throughout the period between 1950 and 1989, which of course, is in the context of the Cold War. Within the context to the Cold War, the division between eastern and western Europe became more pronounced and distinctions in war memory narrative emerged that Judt addresses in the second part of his argument. But it must be noted that official versions of World War Two memory, as presented in both in eastern and western Europe were based on a foundation of misinformation and started in the period of post-reconstruction. The second part if Judt’s argument can be broken down into wider topics that incorporate a multitude of contested issues. One such issue is the arguments resulting from the Nuremberg …show more content…
However, the collective amnesia that occurs is also a result of the unstable narrative that was left in the wake after the end of World War Two. The unstable narrative was immediately replaced by the Cold War, meaning that a time of ‘reconstruction’ did not take place without national interests shaping war memory. As a result of the factors Judt mentioned and the unstable times Europe faced after the war, has now resulted in state of war memory where Europe, after the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War in 1989, is in a state of Limbo between the old deconstructed myths and the novel ideas that have relatively little support. So was Judt right to be so critical about western and eastern Europe’s failure to address national war memory issues? In one aspect yes, it is obvious from a close reading of Judt’s essay and a comparison of ideas of other writers on the topic, that eastern and western Europe deliberately chose to form a memory that did not deal with the problems of the war; and the myths created impacted greatly on the next 45-50 years of the European war memory. But, I do not think that full blame can be attributed to Europe. The mass instability that the war created gave opportunity for states to form their own war memory. Yes, in hindsight it is seen as false and misinformed, but both east and west Europe had a “desire… to
Judt, T. “The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-War Europe.” In Memory and Power in Post-War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past, edited by J.W. Muller, 157-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
First Paragraph- Judt’s Main Arguments:
Tony Judt’s essay The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-War Europe details the immediate post-war European past that failed to face the various problems associated with the devastating effects of World War Two. His insight and research Judt offers a pan-European interpretation of how different countries in both western and eastern Europe “had a movement for a trans-national unification...and …show more content…
These salient factors highlight examples of how official versions of war memory shaped the memory narrative of not only the immediate post-war era, but also throughout the period between 1950 and 1989, which of course, is in the context of the Cold War. Within the context to the Cold War, the division between eastern and western Europe became more pronounced and distinctions in war memory narrative emerged that Judt addresses in the second part of his argument. But it must be noted that official versions of World War Two memory, as presented in both in eastern and western Europe were based on a foundation of misinformation and started in the period of post-reconstruction. The second part if Judt’s argument can be broken down into wider topics that incorporate a multitude of contested issues. One such issue is the arguments resulting from the Nuremberg …show more content…
However, the collective amnesia that occurs is also a result of the unstable narrative that was left in the wake after the end of World War Two. The unstable narrative was immediately replaced by the Cold War, meaning that a time of ‘reconstruction’ did not take place without national interests shaping war memory. As a result of the factors Judt mentioned and the unstable times Europe faced after the war, has now resulted in state of war memory where Europe, after the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War in 1989, is in a state of Limbo between the old deconstructed myths and the novel ideas that have relatively little support. So was Judt right to be so critical about western and eastern Europe’s failure to address national war memory issues? In one aspect yes, it is obvious from a close reading of Judt’s essay and a comparison of ideas of other writers on the topic, that eastern and western Europe deliberately chose to form a memory that did not deal with the problems of the war; and the myths created impacted greatly on the next 45-50 years of the European war memory. But, I do not think that full blame can be attributed to Europe. The mass instability that the war created gave opportunity for states to form their own war memory. Yes, in hindsight it is seen as false and misinformed, but both east and west Europe had a “desire… to