Culture of remembrance 80 Years After: War Memories Fading?

What lessons can World War II still teach us today and how can a lively culture of remembrance help prevent future wars? Author Elisabeth Luft explores these questions in conversation with political scientist Herfried Münkler.

Mr Münkler, what are the most important lessons to be learned from the end of the war in 1945?

It is a complex learning process and its impact is steadily diminishing. After all, 80 years is a long time. Eyewitnesses are no longer around, or their ability to remember has become fragile. The most significant outcome of this learning process has been the transatlantic West as a geopolitical and economic force. However, this alliance is now being seriously threatened by Donald Trump. Another key lesson is that the costs of redrawing borders by military means far outweigh any benefits.

The Yugoslav Wars already challenged the lessons we believed we had learned, when some voices declared “never again war”. In response to Srebrenica and other atrocities committed during the Bosnian War, Joschka Fischer famously invoked the phrase “never again Auschwitz”. Today, however, the situation is quite different. Only recently, Baden-Württemberg’s Minister-President Kretschmann was quoted as saying: “Pacifism today means rearmament”. It seems, then, that there is no historically stable lesson to be learned.

Can we draw parallels between the challenges of peace-making after 1945 and current efforts to resolve conflicts like those in Ukraine or the Middle East?

It is very difficult to draw parallels because, from 8 May onwards, it was a case of unconditional surrender for Germany. Germany was not a participant in the political discussions and peace negotiations of the victorious powers. We can only hope Ukraine does not face the same fate, as that would be the complete opposite of the situation in May 1945 – essentially, as if Hitler had won and annexed the territories occupied by the Wehrmacht.
In this sense, it is difficult to make comparisons with the end of the war in 1945, but much easier to do so with the events leading up to the war. In an interview with Fox News journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin claimed that if the Poles had been willing to cede the corridor around Danzig to Germany in August 1939, instead of being so stubborn, World War II could have been prevented. In other words, the Poles were to blame because they did not submit to the aggressor.

This is also Trump’s stance on Ukraine: the Ukrainian government is to blame for the war because it did not immediately surrender when the Russian army invaded. I see no other similarities. The efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine are efforts towards a negotiated peace – something Germany could not achieve after 1945 because it was no longer a negotiating power.

How have memories of World War II and the end of the war changed over time?

At least three distinct stages can be identified. The first stage, at least in the West, was marked by a focus on defeat; there was a fixation on the unconditional surrender. At the same time, there was a sense of relief, because bombing raids had ceased, and people no longer had to fear being sanctioned by the regime, or even hanged for cowardice, for making demoralising remarks or refusing to join the Volkssturm. A turning point then came in 1985 when Richard von Weizsäcker, a former lieutenant colonel in the Wehrmacht and thus a participant in the war, described 8 May as a day of liberation. This marked a shift away from the focus on defeat and towards the 12 years of the regime and liberation from it, because those who still clung to their wartime actions and admired their medals every evening no longer played a significant role.

Now, another 40 years on, we find ourselves facing the reality that the very idea of the West – once seen as the key legacy – is being dismantled by Trump. The pressing question is whether we are not only heading towards war again but also sliding into a form of authoritarianism in the guise of populism. In just a few years’ time, it’s possible that the hard-won lessons of World War II may be all but erased – because the West, as we know it, no longer exists.

What role do memories of the end of World War II play today?

I believe they are playing an increasingly small role in this country, because direct memories of the war are fading, simply because today’s generations did not experience it themselves. However, by continuing to keep these memories alive, we encourage younger people to reflect on the role their grandparents and great-grandparents played at the time, to ask whether they were complicit in the regime or part of the resistance, and more crucially, to consider what lessons can be learned from their actions to inform our responsibilities in the present.

What I find remarkable is that the phrase “never again war” is sometimes used today to morally justify a usually pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian position. There is no meaningful reflection on the Munich Agreement of 1938 and its pivotal role in paving the way for World War II. Otherwise, one would have to acknowledge that, in some ways, the Minsk II Agreement, negotiated by France and Germany in 2015 with Russia and Ukraine, serves the same function as the Munich Agreement, yet it has proved equally ineffective. In other words, there has been no genuine engagement with the war’s background, the war itself, or its end. Instead, the memory of these events has become a token that is invoked when it can be used to support pre-existing beliefs. This is not especially surprising, because this is how both individual and collective memory often works.

How can a lively culture of remembrance help prevent future wars and promote peace?

We should not overestimate the role of remembrance because this would imply that Germany plays a leading geopolitical role, and this is not evident. The fact that conversations involving Europeans take place either in Paris or London rather than in Berlin has both practical and symbolic reasons. But it is also due to the continued reluctance of German politicians to take a clear and visible stance on international conflicts. And this is certainly also linked to Germany’s historical guilt over National Socialism.

An active culture of remembrance can be educationally and psychologically meaningful for individuals, since it may later foster a heightened sensitivity to a specific form of German responsibility and potentially prevent them from following certain antisemitic slogans. In this sense, it can contribute to the development of critical political judgment. Even more important, however, would be to understand the origins and decisions that led to World War II – because only in this way can we learn how to prevent conflicts in the future.