Transcripts For CSPAN3 Global Perspectives On Commemorating World War II 20161231

Genetically predisposed to commit violence. They are savage. You also see though as we it it into the mid1880s, becomes a symbol of what is wrong with appalachia. These coloradoans are going to say the reason why appalachia people live in squalor and ignorance and uneducated is because of geographical isolation. It is because they are savage people. It is because genetically they are predisposed to committing violence. So the moonshiner demises what is wrong with mountain society. Watch the entire program tonight at 8 00 and midnight eastern on lectures and history. American history tv, only on cspan3. Coming up next, a panel of historians explore the ways of germany, china, japan and the United States remember and commemorate their involvement in world war ii. This roundtable discussion as part of a multiday conference at the National World war two is a menorah lens, called 1946 year zero triumph and tragedy. It is about one hour 15 minutes. As we get ready, this is our second to last session, the last of our banquet session. I think everyone knows that. It should be terrific. Before i get started i would like to give a shout out to mark powers, where are you . And jeff bloom. Give them a big hand. All of our speakers. Supportreciative of the of jeff bloom over the years. Bringing speakers to this congress and the sponsorship to the museum brings high school and College Students down here for field trips. Even for a weekend. And we provide special programs for them. This session today is a little different. It is about how people remember world war ii. And specific events around world war ii. I will speak for 10 minutes and everyone else, about the same. Designed to be provocative and think about memory in a different way. We have been talking about the history of europe and asia, from the best professional historians. And we still do that and we love to do that. But this memory study is something different. As we go through this today, you will begin to understand that. The public or at national memories, primarily. That is a whole promising new area of study. It gets to what we do in museums, commemorations, memory and says, film, media, and even going back to the war itself. We talk about the propaganda, the posters. You start to see a public memory that may not be the memories or the best history of the war. To the largerck issues of the war, how it is perceived. Answering the question, so what . In a public sense, you try to give meaning to those events. The origins of the war, how wars start and how they end, how they are going to be remembered, is the work of the museums. We are going to continue to delve deeply into the subject with professional historians in all of our conferences. We even talked about doing an entire conference or symposium sometime just on the memory studies. Our museum is a case in point. We are the curator of one of the major one of the major curators of world war ii, for , fore portray dday example. Or september 11, 1941, the attack on pearl harbor. The commemoration, we will have 90 of our people on a tour out there in a few weeks, december 1 through seventh, a number of our historians. That event will be palpable in our memories. General public thinks about hear the goodou war. People refer to it to justify it. But the american view is a result of media and even the War Information Department during present then to rationales for why we were fighting. We contracted with hollywood to fight, series. But there is a bit of a spin. That whole effort was headed up by one of our National Poet laureates. We think we will not get too far off base from history when youre talking with somebody like that heading up the effort. Developments during the war and after the war shaped our memories of what happened. Not necessarily what did happen. Sometimes it is what we wanted to have happened. Occasions are events that help to shape those memories. This museum, just to bring it home to the National World war ii museum, which is to be the National Dday museum, was founded by Stephen Ambrose, my dear friend. Collection and others in the same school of thought. Some people thought of it as the sian view. D ambro the boy scouts versus the nazi youth. Ambrose love the to talk about that. Even moralistic overtones that oftentimes communicated through , theooks and on television g. I. The difference between right and wrong and did not want to grow up in a world where wrong prevailed. Notions and other things he said often times, a squad of 18yearolds walking weapons destroyed a concord town or village anywhere in the world , those soldiers from other pillage,it meant rape, and wanton destruction. When those 18yearolds came through with weapons, it meant cigarettes, chewing gum, and rations. There is a very colorful, viewpoint. Brosian museums, what you going to do with that . We do not try to interpret that. We have more of a dragnet approach. Viewpoint. Just the facts, nothing but the facts. We stick to historical narratives based on personal accounts, the most authenticated history we can. We have a point of view and our museum, just like the museums in england and france and other countries, have a point of view in their countrys role in the war. We celebrate the american spirit. Mission, part of what we do. We think the american spirit made a difference. In the outcome. I will not go to the boy scout. Azi youth thing we do not want to go to american exclusion of them, but that is part of our story. Who dive historians deeply into that on one side or the other. Thoughtavis hanson through the last 2000 years of history, the armies of democracy have all prevailed. Others will tell you the red army won world war ii, and it was not the armies of democracy. And it takes on ambrose quite directly in his first book. Museums have to parse these things out and stick to narratives in our chronologies. It is how we tell the story. Provinces like these help to parse and dissect and debate the various interpretations and controversies of the war. Rememberore thing to with these commemorations, i is that public memories through museums and and variousns, remembrances depend at least on a national level, depend on whether or not those involved ended the war as victims, victors, or vanquished. Your perspectives there makes a great deal of difference. We will do today is talk about some of those national perspectives. And i just want to point out, his book is out there, but i dont think theyre selling any. Michael dolski i know is around here somewhere. He wrote a book on dday, wrote it with a number of chapters and Different National perspectives in history and memory. I encourage you all to buy it. Its very, very provocative. And is it uses the prism of the dday commemorations and celebrations by themselves the u. S. , canadian, british, french, german, austrian and russian all different views. ,and of course, on the enemy powers, germany and austria, they founded their democracies on the ashes of the defeat in normandy in 1944. So, its tough to develop your commemorations in your museums around that kind of defeat. How do you commemorate that . But commemorations and memory studies often focus on the issues of sacrifice and redemption. And those are the broader subthemes that are part of these memory studies. But the memories of the past over time are linked oftentimes to presentday needs. And alexander is going to talk about how that is being shaped by a significant World War Ii Museum in poland thats been much in the news lately here, and theres even some latebreaking news that shes going to share with you about a museum thats as large as our museum here on world war ii, due to open next spring. But memories of dday, of course, diverge over time, based on the place and national culture. And National Identity tends to get tied up with these commemorations and museums. For example, in france, if you go to the great museum in cannes, you will feel that the French Resistance gets a lot more credit sometimes than the people hitting the landing beaches in omaha and utah beach. And then there is the politics le back in the earlier years or some years ago, where he seemed to use the opportunities for the dday landings, as they called them. They didnt call them an invasion. He didnt call them liberation. They called them the landings. He influenced the postwar era of antiamerican speeches because he stirred up french nationalism and talked about French Resistance being so important. You have already heard in our earlier discussions yesterday about the different elements of french nationalism and the communist or left wing of that. So there was an example there. And in the broadest sense, the idealized treatment of the , a goes interpretation into our very dna as a country. When you think about the american spirit. Dday reflects much of our own thoughts going back even to the writings of our Founding Fathers or lincoln at gettysburg or roosevelt for freedom speech and then the Atlantic Charter that followed that. So there is a contextual continuity in the very spirit and soul of america that we try to capture in our Museum Without being overblown or trying to overreach. So this is a dday and world war ii becomes a pivotal part of our national dna, and it carries forward with it, as we tell the story, the values and sense of resolve that are part of our entire history. Now, if you go to the dday museum in Great Britain and portsmouth first time i went there in the 90s, i noticed they had a higgins boat, and the tour guide said this was our higgins boat our boat they didnt say higgins boat. They said this is our boat that we took over to the beaches, and there wasnt a whole lot of information good n there about their allies. The yanks werent around very much in that museum. Was more the british. So, you have the british view and then you have the french view. Now, you remember, in russia, stalin was pushing and pushing for the western front to open up and called it the most monumental invasion of all of history. But in recent years, its more dismissive about the effect, because you heard the max hastings, or the view that the red army really won the war after all and probably didnt even need that western front. So and if you go to the museum of the great patriotic war, i think, theres a little poster or something at end of this great museum about their allies, the United States. Nothing much about the attack thereto. And then the german and the austrian viewpoints on dday are kind of interesting to deal with, because they have a war that they lost, and yet, they were brought for, whether cold war purposes you all heard all the reasons. Marshall plan was developed. But theyre being brought into the community of civilized nations through the defeat of their country. So its a struggle there to bring their commemorations and museums into the public arena. And austria, as gunter bischoff, who wrote one of the articles in this book, talks about austrias peculiar post war victims doctrine, and that produced the very silence and stunted memory of world war ii. So and other germans, you would just say that their collective memories of the war, some germans would say that this was an aberration from our true culturally rich history. Others take a harder look at it. But youve got to understand that in terms of creating the public memory from one of the axis powers, youre trying to salvage meaning and a sense of National Identity from the moral rubble of the third reich. And thats always going to be a problem for the defeated countries. But the dday book and other books that look at memory of world war ii have a prism in a different way through these public remembrances to examine and to illuminate our National Identities and trying at the core of what happens on those events and in those occasions and in these museums to find the authentic truth. Now, in a totalitarian or authoritarian system, you dont have the freedom as we do in this country to develop a more authentic story, because those museums become part of the propaganda in those countries. So, im going to conclude by turning to our next speaker, alexander richey. But what ive been talking about here is whats going on in poland right now to their great museum i mentioned earlier thats due to be open. And its been kind of a political football. And the leaders of that museum were here two or three years ago developing a very interesting story and exhibit line, which we were very, very impressed with. And for them, of course, going back to National Stories the war didnt end in 45. They just exchanged, as they told me, one dictator for another. So, their war ends in world war ii in the museum as it was being developed and designed, ends in 89 when the wall comes down. So, its very different. Now we have a new cultural minister, new government, and were trying to close it or change it, and its made the new york times. So what museums do is very important to the National Cultures and identities and to the national memory. So im going to turn you over to Alexandra Richey to give you a little bit about that. Thanks very much. Thank you. I wanted just to start a little bit, back up a little bit as to why im interested in this subject in the first place. There are a lot of reasons, but one of the most important for me was that my great grandfather was a general in the First World War. And after the war was over became one of the founding members of what became the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and was very moved by and determined that the memory of those who had fought and died in First World War shouldnt be forgotten. And he worked with, obviously, many other people, to figure out how to commemorate this terrible event. Of course, at the time, it was seen to be the war that ended all wars. It was the great war. And i followed, in a sense, his path through this, through his letters and diaries and some of the other things that they produced, and i always founld it very moving how they were faced with this enormous number of dead and this earthshattering, worldshattering experience. How do you try and make sense of it . How do you commemorate it every year . And i think that in a way, they were very successful. The commemorations every year in england and throughout the commonwealth are very, very touching. And indeed, even my own Little School in canada, every year we have a commemoration for the end of the First World War. And with the names listed in the very small school, 12 names of world war i dead. And its something that became very profound, important part of my own life. I then moved into working in both east and west germany before the wall fell down and was very touched by this idea of memory and how do you commemorate, how do you remember. And this, of course, is very important in both halves of germany. I spent a lot of time in west berlin, 1985, 86, 87. In those years it was interesting because it was the time of the historian strife, fight between historians about how to remember the past. Today that site is now, i think, the most Important Museum in berlin at the topography of terror. The reason i think its so important is because its the only museum in germany of that size thats dedicated to the perspective from the perpetrators. In other words, its not saying what a terrible thing it was and we all feel dreadful. Its listen, we did this. Lets look at the guys who did this. How did they create the terror . How did they take peoples names . How did they manipulate it . Its a very i think it was a tremendously courageous thing for the germans to do, and its a Marvelous Museum when it comes to remembrance. But generally speaking, i would have to say that the germans were really extraordinary after the war, and particularly in the last three, four decades, and the courage that theyve shown in coming to terms with confronting, commemorating and dealing with their past, its a lesson that an awful lot of other countries in Central Europe, and indeed, further east, could learn a great deal from. I also lived in east berlin, which was quite unusual at the time. And one of the things i learned about living under a communist system was that history was completely controlled by the state. This was true in east germany. It was true all over the eastern bloc and in the soviet union as well. And this accounts for some of the problems we have talking about the polish situation now. In east germany, for example, i remember being very amused as i lived there at watching how new figures were rehabilitated. So, first of all it was martin luther. You could talk about him. Then frederick the great was absolutely taboo. And all of a sudden, frederick the greats statue appeared and, no, thats okay. Now you can talk about him. And gradually, new figures would be added to the list. Well, the wall collapsed before we got to the more difficult eras in history. So we didnt have to figure out if theyd ever let anybody talk about hitler or whatever. But as it was, we didnt get that far. I also, of course, then spent much of my life in russia, in ukraine and now in poland, and have been very, very involved in history and historiography and commemoration in poland as well. And one of the things that i have to say generally speaking about the region is that history and historiography was completely skewed by the fact that it was controlled for so long by the communists. And ill just take one example, because i wrote a book about the warsaw uprising. I was talking about it a little bit earlier today. The soldiers of the underground polish home army were simply not allowed to talk about their past. In was simply officially taboo. The fact that the home army had existed and had fought at the end of the Second World War, the fact that the warsaw uprising took place, this was just simply not an official subject of discussion. And so, what happened was that when the wall collapsed and the collapse of communism came along, the pendulum swung almost completely the other way. Nothing that they did could ever be wrong. Every single thing that had been done was wonderful, and it was, in a sense, an outpouring of a kind of reaction to having not been allowed to talk about this history for so long. It swung rather the other way. And over the last decade or so, weve seen something of a stabilization, an actually very, very interesting debate between different groups of historians that in a sense have come of age. In this museum we were just talking about briefly is a product, in a sense, of this new way of looking at the polish past. It was founded in 2008, started by donald tusk, who was the head of the previous government. And there has been controversy and debate along the way. Its director, pavel, is a wonderful director. And at the concept of the museum is extraordinary, because unlike what youre talking about with a lot of the national museums, the idea of this museum was to be really the First International museum of the Second World War in the world. In other words, taking everything from soviet union, normandy, United States and india and the experience of people from all over the world. We ran into a few problems with the change of government which happened last year, and there was some criticism of the museum and the director. Part of it is simply politically motivated. I mean, this person was appointed by the previous government, you know, revolving door, we want to move things along, but there was also a tendency to and its not through just in poland, but i would say a tendency in Central Europe and in europe in general, to a sort of more provincial nationalism, which is i find very unpleasant. And this was the tendency that sort of came out in poland a lull bit as well so that there were some fights between the government that had given the land and the National Government that was funding the project, and this debate went back and forth until yesterday. Im very happy to say that a court case that had been mounted to try and stop the museum has been overturned, and it looks as if, if were lucky and there are no other little incidents along the way, that this Marvelous Museum should be opening in either january or february of next year. But it is very interesting to see how, particularly in the communist, former communist countries, how the struggle with history and historiography has been somewhat different from that in the west. And i just want to finish off with one more comment about russia. I lived in russia for quite a few years off and on in the 1990s when things under Boris Yeltsin had opened up. Archives were open, and there was very open debate and dialogue and discussion about history, including about stalin. And unfortunately, weve seen that reversed in the last few years with a great deal of restriction on historians, for example. This wonderful Organization Called memorium, which was founded about 15 years ago to try and commemorate and look at the stalinist crimes and other human rights abuses in the soviet union and later on in russia, is constantly threatened with closure, and there are a great many other restrictions as well. So, its wonderful to live in a country where, generally speaking, the impetus is to openness and dialogue and debate about history, but its always worth remembering that there are quite a few places in the world where thats simply not the case, and we have to keep fighting for this openness and dialogue in terms of history. [applause] i just have a few discordoned thoughts. Im not sure theyre coherent. These are ideas that came up as i was thinking about this question over the last couple of days. Sort of what you were saying undermines the first thing i was going to say, but im going say it, nonetheless. My first phrase was going to be that memories are relatively safe in europe, but in east asia at this point theyre being weaponized. The idea being that memories, all the trauma of war is made safe in museums, in commemorative events, Remembrance Day events, things like that, places like this. But clearly, in eastern europe, that is still not really the case. But it is certainly the case that in east asia, the memory battles are only intensifying. It is a source for the continuation of a set of sort of legacies of hatred that are deeply problematic. What i will do is ill say a few things about a statement that shinzo abe made in 14 august 2015. Then i will Say Something about the history of public commemoration in china. And the statement that abe made, shinzo abe, was very important. It was very deliberate. It was discussed by his politicians, but also by historians for over a year, very intensively. So it was a very serious statement. It does a number of things, a number of interesting things. It is interesting, i think first of all, it repeats again that japan apologizes. China keeps going on and on, but japan has never apologized. That really isnt the case. You fight about the words, but i wrote an op ed at some point in hong kong no matter what the statement would have said, no matter how they had apologized, the chinese would never have accepted it. It also abes statement also thanks gives thanks for the repatriation of 6 million japanese people from across china and southeast asiana, and i think thats an important statement, an important largely thanks to the United States. And he goes on to thank china for having taken care of 3,000 children that were left behind in china, grew up there, and then were allowed finally to go back to japan after shinzo abes rise to power. There is no mention in this statement of all the japanese who were taken away by the soviets, the soviet union, nor of the use by the Chinese Communists by lots of japanese specialists and various things from doctors and so on. So, it draws a veil of silence about that. Then he says and im going to quote and i think its interesting. I will say why i think its important. He says the following in japan, the post war generations now exceed 80 of its population. We must not let our children, grandchildren, and even further generations to come who have nothing to do with that war be predestined to apologize. Still, even so, we japanese across generations must squarely face the history of the past. We have the responsibility to inherit the past in all humbleness and pass it on to the future. And that statement struck me, because it is a clear echo of the president s statement in 1985 in which he says that germans most germans are, of course, born after the war, and they should not be expected to go around europe apologizing the whole time, but they must also carry the responsibility for this history for generations to come. And of course, germany is doing exactly that. And i think that is a very positive statement. And i think there is this responsibility of generations after something that is so traumatic, so horrible, and certainly for my generation almost beyond imagination that suggests that sort of working through Something Like that, it does take generations. And when i was traveling through eastern germany a year ago, two years ago, with my family, retracing the last days of my grandfather who was on the death marches and so on, my cousin quoted to me a piece of the bible which speaks to this. And growing up in a catholic family, you will apologize for me for never having read the bible, but it goes Something Like this god is a roughful god, and god will wreak revenge for three or four generations. And i think thats absolutely right. And we have had one generation. Were moving into a second generation. And how this will go on in further generations i think is for anybody to guess. I dont know. But there is this clear sense of responsibility of various generations to come as we carry these traumas into the future. So, thats one reason, almost a personal reason why abes statement and vewitsechers statement. They were important, particularly in holland, to move towards, reconciliation thats probably not the right word. Acceptance is better. I dont really like the word reconciliation reconciliation. Let me turn to china. China began in an almost christian way. After the emperor, emperor hirohito made his famous radio address to end the war, a few hours later, kaishek ii made a speech which was broadcast across the nation and he quoted from the bible and so on. And it came down to a statement, and its better in chinese than in english, of course [speaking chinese] let us repay evil with kindness or generosity or anything like that. Now, it served his purposes, of course it did. But that became the initial response of china. And it was politically motivated in the sense that that same speech was picked up by general okamura who then decided that working with the nationalist was probably a good option. So it was political as well. But nonetheless, there is that kind of and i think jan kaishek was a christian and i think this was hard for this is meant and it is still a version of response to this that has a lot of mileage in taiwan, where it was brought forth recently at a commemoration. At the beginning of the Second World War when the president tried to use this and had his own parades and his own way of showing, we have to have this kind of response to what has happened. But of course, as i try to explain, john kaishek and the nationalist did not survive in china. In mainland china. They did survive in taiwan. And in china itself, the communists took over. And i think up until the death of mao, the most important narrative was not, of course, that of the Second World War, but the narrative was of communism. And again, there must be similarities to russia and eastern europe. And so, it was in public commemorations were the various steps of the Chinese Revolution that were most important. And if many people, if you go to the central monument to war at the tiananmen square, it is a monument to the peoples heroes who all look great and overaisle and strong and have weapons. And i think there is an underlying message there that what china didnt want to do after 1949 was commemorate or think about trauma or acceptance that china was a victim. China had proven now that it was strong and powerful. They had kicked out the nationalists they had overcome the americans. It had redressed humiliation dating back to the first opm war of 18381842. So, in that kind of iconography and that kind of commemoration, victimization, trauma and so on had no place. That changed after 1978, and its part a Global Change when victimization and so on becomes much more accepted. And it is true, as somebody said, that when Prime Minister tanaka came to china, reestablished diplomatic relations, mao was simply saying things like, well, you dont have to apologize because it is only because of the Japanese Invasion that the communists won, which is of course true, but only mao in triumph will Say Something like that. But, so, in the 80s, this began to change. And here, this, interestingly and i think here probably is a difference this change began at a local level across china but including in nanjing, where various scholars, historians, began to, and as the archives opened up, began to collect material that talked about the Second World War, the war of resistance, a great deal. And this was very, very important in a chinese context because it allowed the creation of a narrative in which the nationalist and the communist fought together against the invader. It was therefore also a way for reconciliation between various classes who had been at war with each other in china itself. So, the Second World War, and to see this as a giant chinese effort, became a way of ending almost civil war in china. So, it was very important to endure. And out of that came sort of this outgrove of research, of commemorations at various local levels across china. And in fact, the Central Government was very hesitant to turn this into a national a series of national events. That only happened a year ago when the National Peoples Congress Finally adopted september 3 as well as december 13, september 3, the day of victory, the day at the end of the war, december 3, the day of the nanjing massacre, a commemoration of the mannanjing massacre to a national day of commemoration. So, its only just happened. And that i think one of the consequences of that is that the focus is entirely on what happened at nanjing. There is a numbers game going on. I can talk about it but i wont. But that ignores lots of terrible things that happened across, as you pointed out yesterday, across southeast asia, but also in china. It privileges nanjing as the one plagued. And of course, lots of other things happened, actually by both sides. Theres a slight twist to the tale that in recent months, the Chinese Communist party has returned to commemorating the long march as exemplifying the great chinese spirit of overcoming all trouble and so on. And chinese journalists are contenting the specialist that came in oxford to have them say things like that. My response is, well, yes, one of the things that happened during the long march is that they trained leadership. Would you like me to put that into an account . And the answer is clearly, no. That is not quite the comparison they wish to draw. So, again, my sort of generational analysis i think is true. Well, how does the world develop in the future . Who knows . Theres so much history there that needs to be digested and is not going to end any time soon. And thank you. [applause] in germany, not surprisingl4 proportion of the population at first, and to some extent, small numbers still think of themselves as victims of the war. But increasingly they came, and interestingly enough, this was the direction the government in west germany pushed as the doers of horrors. And began and increasingly discussed the reality of the horrors that germany imposed, carried out in the countries of its neighbors. In the process, they even began to rethink their own history. The garbage of the memoirs of german generals began to be replaced and continues in our time to be replaced by a recognition that these selfappointed geniuses were, in fact, blockheaded morons, who in about the same number of months of fighting managed to get three times as many of their soldiers killed as the german generals of world war i. We always think of that war as the time of great slaughter. It is the one area in which it turns out germanys world war ii generals managed to surpass those of world war i. And it has been an increasing recognition of the horrors that the germans impose on others. They do commemorate their own damages suffered in the war and in not only berlin, but some other german cities, you will see ruined churches that are maintained quite deliberately in that format to remind people that if you do not want your house to burn, it is best not to set the world on fire. And in the process, there has been an increasing effort to recompense victims outside germany, and to a lesser extent, inside. And that process involves an acknowledgement of responsibility. Everybody knows that if someone was murdered in 1943, there is nothing you can possibly do to bring that person back to life, but you can acknowledge that it was murder. And in this regard, there has been and continues to be a dramatic difference between germany and japan. The other side of this same thing is that in spite of deficiencies here, there, and the other place, the germans have periodically and today are still involved in the last of these, conducted trials of germans who committed the horrors in the war. If you were to suggest to anyone in japan today that japanese officers involved in the nanjing massacre or in horrors in singapore, manila or elsewhere ought to be tried, you risk being taken to a mental institution. The other side of this, i would suggest, is a public reconciliation in europe which has gone very far indeed. The hatreds of people for each other, of those the germans occupied in world war ii for the germans have very, very largely disappeared disappeared. There is a public recognition. I could give examples of the opposite, where the failure, the deliberate refusal of the japanese Government School system and texts to acknowledge, and where possible, recompense for the horrors they imposed has led to the inheritance of hatreds, rather than the reconciliation. I dont want to take the time, unless you ask, to give examples of this, but the reality is that these are reciprocal processes. In the germany of today, one has and sees not only war memorials, monuments, but theres also a monument, a big one, in the capital of berlin to the murdered jews, and there are other such indications and signs that you can find elsewhere in germany. The efforts are not always in every way successful. I dont want to suggest that. But the reality is that there has been a major and consistent effort to engage the realities of the past honestly. And since dwd day was mentioned, there is a relation to something we often dont hear about so youre all too polite to walk out on me, i will suggest it to you now. One of the reasons that the top German Military were reasonably convinced or had convinced themselves that they would do well in crushing an invasion in the west was that because of weather conditions, it would have to take place in the summer. And in the summer, there would be lots of grass for the horses on which the german army depended. But those idiots on the other side in britain and the United States would never be able to train their tanks and trucks to eat grass. It never occurred to anybody i mean this literally to anybody in german headquarters in world war ii that the british and americans were aware of the fact that their trucks and tanks and ambulances did not eat grass, and therefore, they developed pluto, the pipeline under the ocean, and pumped the oil across the bottom of the English Channel to the other side. This notion of intellectual, racial superiority, which affected world war ii germany, which i could give you many additional examples, has, it seems to me, to a very large extent, disappeared. And that, too, has, i would suggest, contributed to a reconciliation in europe which does not have a parallel in east and southeast asia. Yes, it rains and snows in germany, and their current problem is to maintain the ruined buildings that they have kept as memorials from collapsing further. Big surprise. But there is a degree of honest engagement that i would suggest contributes to the essential solidity of a new parliamentary democracy in germany that, unfortunately, did not develop after the First World War and that makes for a situation where germany plays a constructive, rather than a destructive, role in europe, and that while there are problems and i do not want to suggest that there are not the general willing nessness to face the past honest lyly, to commemorate not only the german victims of the war, but the victims of german actions in the war means that in many ways, germany has become a european country, friendly and on good terms with its neighbors, who today do not feel threatened by germany. They may not approve of every policy and action, but you will not find people in western, eastern, or Southern Europe worried that the german army is coming. This is simply a dramatic change which on the whole i would suggest is a positive one, as people on both sides of the world war ii fronts in europe think back to the events of those times, whichever side their country was on at that time. Thank you. We will have some time for questions. Well start in the center, halfway back. To anyone what do you think caused the germans to finally kind of change their minds, their attitudes, where they would go ahead and look at themselves and the things they had done, such as even the generals who were involved in valcary. For years they were treated as traitors. Then suddenly, okay, they understand perhaps they were trying to help the german population. I mean, in the 60, 65, 70 years its taken for this change of attitude what did that . Well, i would suggest that there was a very deliberate effort in this direction on the part originally of the west german government, while in japan, those who argued more moderate ly moderately have their books suppress ed suppressed. In germany, the political education of the various states quite deliberately and consciously took another view. The leadership in this regard played, i would suggest, a very important role. Conrad augneur, who was not just chancellor of germany, but in a number of ways one of the most influential people in the country, had been in the 1920s an advocate of reconciliation with france, which was about the least popular view you could take in the germany of the 1920s. And in that area, in the area of compensation for jewish victims and other such areas, a man who not just led the country, but to many in the country symbolized it are led not just in the traditional political sense, as the chancellors, the executive, but also pushed the thinking of the society in a direction. And in their integration into western europe and nato, the german public came to accept this. They also came to realize that the leadership they had followed before before, who had promised them wonderful times and control of the whole goal, had not proved quite as successful as they once might have expected, but had, in fact, led them not just through horror, but to total disaster, and that the others, and for most germans, the others meant the americans and the brits seems to have some idea of how to go about things. Maybe that is the thing we should do. Maybe that is the direction we should go. And there was at least an increasing, and more lately a continual increasing recognition that the action of other europeans, both west and east europeans to german actions was reasonable and legitimate. They did not appreciate having their families slaughtered. Theyre going into hospitals, killing all the patients and tossing them out the window is not necessarily such a brilliant way to move. And to make friends and influence people. So you have from that perspective not just a change in the leadership, but an increasing rethinking on the part not of everybody in the country, but of very large numbers of people in the country in other directions and a willingness to make adjustments to admit past mistakes and to make some efforts to compensate people who had suffered as a result of those mistaken policies. There has been, if you will, a degree of reeducation as it was originally called that was not so much imposed by the winners of the war on the german losers, but rather a kind of reconsideration under a leadership that wanted to go in that direction and which seemed to increasing numbers of germans to make sense. I agree. Also, i have the benefit of having lived in east germany and west germany. And the thing is that west germany did go down that route and the east germans didnt. So it was also to do with the leadership, loss to do with the fact that it was western democracies that took over and built up germany so that the institutions and so on, including education, became important in the country itself in the west and so that you have the chance with the 1968 generation to question their parents and grandparents. And this wasnt just a question of leadership. It was also a grassroots movement. Yes. Yes. It was also a reaction of a generation that wanted to question. And in the end, nothing like that happened in east germany because the system wasnt in place that allowed such questioning. And so, when the wall collapsed, there were a great many people in east germany who didnt understand some of the things that west germans simply took for granted in terms of cultural, historical norms that had become very gradually into place into west germany. Yes, i would agree that it took east germans a little longer because they had been exposed to other kinds of nonsense for a good many years, but the integration process within germany, between east and west, has not only been an economic one, which the west germans sometimes complain about because they are having to pay for it, but there has also been, i would suggest, a reintegration not just along west german economic lines, but i would suggest also along west german ideological, International Orientation and views of the past. Absolutely. I think also the younger people in germany and munich i was at the university of munich once in the mid80s. We were talking about world war ii, and i was there with Stephen Ambrose ambrose. And they said, you know now, this is a different generation now already. They said, you know, you liberated us, too. Steve was talking about liberation of germany from the third reich, and they were empowered and feeling that empowerment. And i guess they were the 20somethings of that time, you know, mid20s, young people. And they have grown older. And there is an acceptance there to look at that past, not to feel the same sense of burden that their parents may have had. But it was very interesting spirit that they had. They felt very positively about the fact that the war ended, they lost. They didnt have the victim mentality anymore. Just to add to some of it. I think the role of government political leaders is all very important, but so was sort of peopletopeople diplomacy. All the twinning arrangements were hugely important. Sports groups were sent certainly from holland to germany. And i must admit, we did not hold back in facing any german team. They faced us at our most ferocious ferocious, but these things helped. I think that kind of local stuff was very important. So was football. Football became one of the great european football, not your football. Became one of the great integrating forces but also a way in which things could be expressed. And for all, sort of we can celebrate reintegration, but i remember i think it was in the 1990s when holland finally, finally beat germany. What did the dutch population do . They trashed german villages on the border. And that was sort of a way of ventilating these angers. The same way that germany for the first time won the European Championship was in the 50s, i think. Ive seen only the movie. I dont know if its true, but its symbolic of this. The germans didnt know the german audience, the german public, didnt know what to do to celebrate. In the end, they did celebrate, and that was accepted. So, i think these kinds of Symbolic Communications were actually also very important. And as sort of one aside to this, i think the things that you outline actually help us explain why things have played out so differently in the case of memories between japan and korea and china, where the political situation is very different. Theyre on opposite sides of the cold war. Germany had to integrate. It is the only way to survive. It was bloody necessary. Japan was just not the case. It had to integrate with the United States, which it did. So, i think that is not to excuse what you say, mention that as reality, but i think we have to be alert to these differences and understanding these differences. Were going to go over time so we can get one more question in here. Thank you,. Professor, you sort of broached this, but you never actually said it, and i may be wrong. But i understand that in chinese schools schools, Chiang Kaishek is now taught as a hero. And id like to hear your comment on how that manage edd to that transformation was accomplished. Well, thank you. Youre quite right. Chiang kaishek is seen as a very important historical figure, a National Hero in the way that he is not in taiwan, where he is now seen as having led a rather vicious occupation force with some justification. The reason this comes out fof the construction of a new narrative about china in which it emerges in world war ii and which clearly Chiang Kaishek and the nationalists did most of the fighting. And now that is seen as its not even simply beating back imperialism and the japanese. It is the reemergence of a new china. Its the saving of a civilization that was a great risk of being utterly destroyed. It was a real possibility of asia becoming asia dominated by japan. It would have been a very different asia. And you know, these crises in the last two centuries in chinese history were real. That is simply no longer possible. If thats if the emergence of this new china is in the Second World War, which, you know, if that is the argument, then Chiang Kaishek suddenly, or certainly becomes the man who held together a group of generals who were fighting with each other, who steered a country through a war with japan at a time that there was also civil war, and who emerges as a country that is recognized by the allies as an equal, despite a great fury of churchill, who clearly did not want that. Going to cairo to do that. But that is a greater so, hes you know, and so on, i think, yeah. I think that there are two brief comments i want to make on this. I have recently been asked to contribute, and i have contributed, to a memorial that is being developed by the chinese outside jung king in honor of an American World war ii general. That i thought was an interesting indication of change that follows along the same line. The other side of this is that after i mentioned the problem of public reconciliation at a lecture for institute of defense analysis in tokyo, two of the younger faculty members at that institute came up to me afterwards and said that they understood what i was talking about, the failure of reconciliation, because when they go as tourists to manila, the capital of the philippines, or seoul, the capital of south korea, they do not dare chat with each other on the sidewalk in japanese for fear of being physically assaulted. A year after this, at a seminar a break in a seminar at northwestern university, a bunch of us at lunch were talking about the difference between europe and east asia, and i mentioned this. And a lady sitting at the table proceeded to tell us about her and her husband having to rescue two young japanese women, wives of american officers stationed in south korea, rescue them from being beaten by a bunch of people in seoul because they had obviously not been warned not to talk to each other in japanese. And she and her husband had pulled off the people beating on them, pushed them into a taxicab to go elsewheres. And after this, i talked to the lady who had had this experience and told us about it about what she thought were roughly the age group of the people beating up on these women whose husbands were there to defend south korea. And it was very clear from her description that not one of these people beating up on the women had been born when the japanese controlled korea. The hatred was clearly being passed from generation to generation. And when the following year, 50th anniversary of the state of israel, big conference there im invited. Three of the people on the program are from germany. I thought that was kind of interesting. And when i asked one of them, are you ever concerned about speaking german on the streets of tel aviv, she looked at me. The notion had never occurred to her. Shes guest professor at bar elan, the only Major University with an orthodox connection. The reconciliation in the one hand and the passage of hatred from generation to the other is really a very intriguing, and i would also argue, important issue in the memories of Second World War. You are wanting American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook. Talks aboutj. Hess the different maneuvers used during the civil war. He also discusses how weaponry impacted the soldier experience and compares it to later wars. This is one hour, 15 minutes. Speaker is not a stranger to the historical park. Earl j. Hess has been with us before. I thought that maybe with robs presentation i would agree earls books up to show them, but i would need an army of assistance to do that. Earl j. Hess is not only one of the best historians working today and one of the most prolific. Im not sure how he does it, it seems he is able to give us a months andery 1218 they are all good ones. And he does have a real job in