DIMITRA KIZLARI
archaeologist-museologist current position: Doctoral Researcher at University College London Diploma Thesis: The ideological use of war and war museums in the rhetoric of the nation-state. The case of World War II in Greece. The present dissertation discusses the representation of World War II in the war museum of Athens and the war museum of […]
archaeologist-museologist
current position: Doctoral Researcher at University College London
Diploma Thesis: The ideological use of war and war museums in the rhetoric of the nation-state. The case of World War II in Greece.
The present dissertation discusses the representation of World War II in the war museum of Athens and the war museum of Greece’s second largest city, Thessaloniki; it examines how museum narratives get incorporated into the rhetoric of the nation state and promote nationalism. This kind of rhetoric is being expressed through a variety of official state institutions such as the museum and the school. However, it can also be expressed by unofficial non-state media such as songs, books and films. The representations all the former suggest shape decisively what the citizens think of national history and their national self-image; consequently, they determine to a great extent their political choices.
World War II is the first great war that its consequences affected more the millions of civilians at the back line of the war and less those who were fighting at the battlefront. Moreover, WWII has shaped today’s social and political context, consequently it is considered to be the greater of the two world wars since we still live in the reality it has established.
In the Greek war museums, the nation is presented as a hero in the Greco-Italian war that marked the beginning of WWII in the country and overall as a victim of the political decisions of the Great Powers. The main national narrative presents a self-glorifying myth in which the nation is endowed with an amazing resilience that enables it to withstand adversities caused by outside forces. Moreover, the nation is always eager to offer help to the “right” side of the war defending thus its long-established tradition of democratic ideas.
War exhibitions in Greece support traditional historical narratives and neglect or contempt other types of historical narrative such as history from below and oral history. Axiomatically, they present historical events by citing dates, places and names like a school textbook without taking advantage of the benefits of material culture. Objects function as witnesses of a “history as it happened” presenting patriotic views on history as canonical and legitimate.
Creating a war museum in Greece is a monopoly that belongs to the Hellenic Army Forces over the past forty years. It is a difficult paternity to handle to be honest, but it poses interesting questions on how we can produce balanced interpretations of what happened. As Whitmarsh underlines “taking a critical attitude towards past wars may therefore provoke accusations of being unpatriotic” [1]. How can we produce war exhibitions that take into account all the aspects of historical truth and not only the winner’s side but also avoid historical revisionism and negationism?
In this dissertation we also examined how British war museums present WWII focusing on exhibitions launched by the Imperial War Museum. We analyzed WWII exhibitions of the Imperial War Museum London and the Churchill War Rooms, both situated in the city of London. The British paradigm is more receptive towards the concept of the cultural “other” and presents aspects of European history rather than presenting facts that matter solely to Britain. This museum policy can be attributed greatly to EU economic interests as well as to deeper understanding of historiography issues. However, traces of self-glorification are evident even to these museums.
As Gillis notes “identities and memories are not things we think about, but things we think with” [2] therefore we should stand critically towards any interpretation of history presented publicly especially by state institutions.
To conclude, museum representations on war are a powerful tool with which any group or even political party can control the memory of the war by propagating false ideas over what happened. Whoever holds the knowledge of how to use such ideological tools holds the key to exert influence on matters of domestic and foreign policy. War still is the most irresistible news and it is highly unlikely that this will change in the near future since as Sontag proposes “pathos, in the form of a narrative, does not wear out” [3].
[1] Whitmarsh, Andrew, “We Will Remember Them”. Memory and Commemoration in War Museums, Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, No.7 (Nov., 2001): 2.
[2] Gillis, John R., ed. Commemorations: The politics of national identity, Princeton University Press, (1996): 5.
[3] Sontag, Susan, Regarding the pain of others, Penguin Books, New York (2003): 74.
Keywords:
war museum; war exhibitions; World War II; military artifacts; nationalism; historical revisionism; national imaginary; politics and museums; national identity; narrative theories; national myths