The transnational mythscape of the Second World War

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, the study of European Memory politics has proliferated, but has come to mean different things. It focuses either on the emergence of Holocaust remembrance as a shared cultural memory, disputes within European Union institutions over what the European collective memory should be, or diplomatic standoffs between Russia and its former satellites. I argue that while such complex multi-level memory politics defy an overarching theoretical categorisation, they can be understood through a comprehensive approach, which is achieved by considering the different narratives of the past to be interpretations of a common historical occurrence. This article argues that European Memory Politics as a whole occurs within a transnational mythscape of the Second World War, in which international actors promote their interpretations as simplified myths while warding off competing myths that negatively depict their mythical selves. An emergent narrative alliance between Russia and Israel, made in response to European memory politics, is used to illustrate the utility of the transnational mythscape framework for understanding memory politics beyond the national sphere.

Russia’s Night Wolves, Migrating Memory and Europe’s Eastern Frontier

“…However, remembering World War II and the defeat of Nazi Germany is not merely a Russian but a more expansive supra-national affair that involves post-Soviet and European societies, among others. Yet, while a broad consensus has gradually developed in Europe, and especially within the European Union, over a cosmopolitan memory of the Holocaust [Galai 2019;Kucia 2016;Levy and Sznaider 2002], the memory of World War II remains fragmented and fraught with political tensions among nations [Assmann 2014;Mälksoo 2009;Siddi 2017;Sierp 2014;Zubrzycki and Woźny 2020]. World War II memories have indeed become a discursive battlefield that amplifies tensions about current affairs, especially between Russia and post-communist countries in Eastern Europe [Siddi 2017].…”

The visual politics of the 2015 Iran deal: narrative, image and verification

“…The 'we' leads to an important distinction between inter-textuality, in which the meaning of one text is always generated in relation to others, and inter-visuality, in which the meaning of a visual image is considered through reference to others (Hansen, 2011). Galai (2019) argues that certain visual images may connect communities across cultural divides whereas inter-textuality renders such connectivity more difficult because of the denser layers of meaning involved. Thus, we expect to see political leaders try to use iconic visuals that may have (near-)universal meaning in order to support the logic of their strategic narrative.…”

The October revolution as a global media event: Connective imaginaries in 2017

“…However, in most countries the internet offers access to media resources from multiple countries, allowing for different ‘connective memories’ to form that actually offer rich, complex and ambiguous representations of the event and anniversary and what I call ‘connective imaginaries’ of future change. These imaginaries were produced through a ‘constellation’ of other ambiguous historical events – from colonial projects and totalitarian villains to Brexit and contemporary demagogues (we will come later to the notion of historical debris ) (Galai, 2019: 2). The argument of this article is that if a person chooses to exercise the capacity to be an active citizen to become informed about a global iconic event through digital media, then, in fact, media do provide a very useful set of resources.…”