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.