Memory Wars: The Construction and Contestation of Wartime History

Memory is not merely a passive reflection of past events; it is a dynamic, selective, and contested process that plays an indispensable role in shaping our understanding of history. Particularly in the context of war, memory becomes a tool not only for recalling events but for reconstructing them – often in ways that serve contemporary agendas.

The act of remembering is thus not neutral; it is fraught with tensions over which histories are included, which are erased, which have to be overstated, and which have to be underplayed. This piece seeks to explore how wartime memory is constructed and contested, examining the politics and ethics of how war is remembered and represented.

The Construction of Memory: Selective Remembrance and Historical Narratives

At its core, history is a continuous process of reconstruction, with memory playing a central role in this act. Memory is not just about recalling past events – it involves selecting, framing, and interpreting them in ways that create a coherent narrative. This selective process shapes not only an individual’s personal relationship with history but also how they understand the experiences of others.

Selective memory, in particular, is a tool employed both intentionally and unintentionally to shape narratives of the past. The active or passive downplaying of certain figures, events, or experiences serves to produce a homogenised and stable recollection of events, which can, in turn, justify present-day actions.

In this respect, selective memory resists the reconstructive nature of history, preventing new information and perspectives from emerging. This is particularly evident in how wartime history is often sanitised or mythologised, leaving little room for discussions that contradict the dominant narrative. The traumatic, destructive, and morally complex realities of war are frequently simplified or glossed over to fit a more palatable story of national pride, sacrifice, and heroism.

A clear example of this can be seen in the treatment of Black soldiers during World War Two by the US government. Segregated into all-Black units, they were often denied recognition for their contributions to the war effort, and their experiences were sidelined in the broader narrative of national victory. This is not simply historical oversight; it is a deliberate process that marginalises uncomfortable truths and distorts the collective memory of war.

Thus, selective remembrance does not merely omit inconvenient facts – it actively constructs a version of history that serves the interests of dominant groups. This constructed history becomes the ‘official memory’ of war, crafted by state-sponsored institutions, media, and cultural producers. Over time, these official narratives become hegemonic, shaping how future generations understand their past and national identity.

Memory Wars: The Politics of Remembering and Contested Histories

As selective memory takes root, it inevitably leads to what can be described as ‘memory wars’ – the ideological battles over how history should be remembered, represented, and memorialised (traditionally confined to Eastern European memories of World War Two). These memory wars are particularly intense in the context of wartime history, where various groups – governments, historians, media outlets, and interest groups—compete to define the ‘official’ account of past events.

However, these memory wars are not just struggles over the past; they are ongoing, dynamic conflicts that reflect contemporary political, social, and cultural struggles. These debates are not confined to the pages of history books but unfold in public spaces—through monuments, commemorations, and media representations of war. One vivid example is the contested memory of Japan’s involvement in the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). The Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Japan’s war dead, has long been a flashpoint in debates over how Japan remembers its wartime actions. The enshrinement of convicted war criminals, including those from the Class A war criminal list, has led to fierce domestic and international criticism, symbolising the tensions between memory, identity and history.

The Ethics of Memory: Whose History is Remembered?

Central to these memory wars are the ethical implications of memory construction. If history is not simply a neutral record of facts but is actively shaped by processes of selection and interpretation, the question arises: who decides which version of history becomes the dominant one? Whose voices are included in the historical record, and whose are marginalised or erased?

This question is particularly pertinent in the context of wartime memory. The ethics of memory, as discussed by philosophers such as Avishai Margalit, demand that we critically examine how collective memory is used to shape not just our understanding of the past but also our national identity, values, and public consciousness. Memory, in this sense, is a tool that can be wielded for both healing and harm.

However, as figures including Margalit have argued, whilst a framework of ethics exists when it comes to memory, there often appears to be an absence of morality—with broader political considerations dominating discussions over what should and should not be remembered. With this lack of morality when it comes to memory, history, as perpetuated by the dominant group, merely serves to replicate incomplete narratives of the past, often with the perpetrators themselves believing their own narratives.

A clear example of this can be seen in the state-sponsored attempts by the former Yugoslavian countries to solidify their national identities by shaping the historical memory of the conflict in ways that supported their political legitimacy. Most notable of these is that of Milorad Dodik, current leader of Republika Srpska (one of the two entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina), whose continued denial of the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995, contributes to a broader attempt to play down the notion of the “Greater Serbia” mission ever existing. This case illustrates the danger of selective memory, but also the role played by broader politics in shaping and reshaping memory over time.

Reconstructing Memory and Confronting the Legacy of Wartime Culture

Wartime memory is a construct—an ever-evolving narrative shaped by political, cultural, and commercial forces. The ‘memory wars’ we see today are the battlegrounds where these narratives are contested, debated and negotiated. Through selective remembrance and memory politics, history is not just remembered; it is framed, interpreted, and manipulated to serve the needs of the present.

To engage meaningfully with the history of war, we must resist the temptation to accept simplified, commodified versions of the past. The cultural products that emerge from wartime memory, such as films, books, and monuments, often reduce complex histories into narratives of nostalgia, triumph, and survival. While these representations can offer emotional comfort, they also obscure the more difficult, complex truths about the past.

As Marx stated, ‘History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.’ In the context of wartime memory, the ‘farce’ occurs when the tragedy of war is reduced to a spectacle, sanitised for mass consumption. The tragedy of war is replaced with nostalgic images of unity and survival, obscuring the deep trauma and suffering that underpinned these conflicts. By critically examining the politics and ethics of memory, we can begin to confront the real legacy of war—not as a series of glorified stories, but as an ongoing, contested process of remembering and forgetting.

Bibliography

Huyssen, Andreas, Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).

Imperial War Museums, ‘“They Treated Us Royally”: The Experiences of Black Americans in Britain During the Second World War’, Imperial War Museums, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/they-treated-us-royally-the-experiences-of-black-americans-in-britain-during-the-second-world-war [accessed 30 March 2025].

Marx, Karl, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York: International Publishers, 1994).

Margalit, Avishai, The Ethics of Memory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).

Portnov, Alexei, ‘Memory Wars in Post-Soviet Ukraine (1991–2010)’, in Memory and Theory in Eastern Europe, ed. by Uilleam Blacker, Alexei Etkind, and Jan Zielonka (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 233-254.

Stone, Dan, ‘Memory Wars in the ‘New Europe’’, in Dan Stone (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History (Oxford: Oxford University, 2012), 714-732.

Terdiman, Richard, Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993).

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Genocide Denial, Rising Tensions, and Political Crisis in Bosnia’, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/genocide-denial-rising-tensions-and-political-crisis-in-bosnia [accessed 30 March 2025].