From an article available to subscribers
“In May 1945, soon after Germany surrendered, the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) asked people which country they felt had contributed the most to its defeat. At the time, respondents were highly conscious of the millions of Soviet troops who had died on the eastern front and their decisive role in weakening the Nazi forces, as well as the United States’ late entry into the war: 57% chose the Soviet Union and only 20% the US. When IFOP asked the same question this year, the ratio was inverted: the US scored 60% against 25% for the Soviet Union.
“For many years, D-Day was seen as a relatively minor event… In 1964 De Gaulle himself refused to attend: ‘Why should I go and commemorate their landings when they were a prelude to a second occupation of France? I won’t do it!’
“That all changed in 1984 amid growing US-Soviet tension… The countries of the ‘free world’ made a show of unity, presenting themselves as defenders of democracy…” This year, “and for the first time since the end of the cold war no Russian representative was invited, not even an embassy counsellor.
“US president Joe Biden spoke of the sacrifices made by US troops: ‘There are things that are worth fighting and dying for. Freedom is worth it. Democracy is worth it. America is worth it. The world is worth it.’
“It’s hardly surprising that such commemorations give a distorted view of the past: they are after all a vehicle for a narrative that suits the organisers’ interests. But the rewriting of the history of the war goes far beyond D-Day celebrations: it extends to the media, school textbooks, museums and, in some countries, government policy.
“The idea that Moscow and Berlin shared responsibility for the war – previously found only among neoconservatives – has gradually gained traction throughout western Europe.
“The European Parliament’s 2019 resolution on European remembrance was not just the expression of a point of view: the MEPs rewrote history, eliminating anything that might contradict their new narrative. Blaming the Soviet Union for the second world war while ignoring the roles played by France and Britain is clearly hypocritical. Before Moscow signed the non-aggression pact in August 1939, the UK and Poland had torpedoed all attempts to negotiate a collective security agreement that would include it. The British elite were in favour of appeasing, or even making concessions to, the Nazis, whom they saw as far more respectable than the communists. The indulgence shown to Hitler by Britain’s politicians, City financiers, aristocracy and press played an important part in the march to war, yet it is ignored in political speeches, school textbooks and historical documentaries.
“And like his Western opponents, he has distorted the past to serve his own interests, banning any mention of links between the Soviet Union and Germany, and rewriting school textbooks, notably to justify ‘de-nazifying’ Ukraine, and to deny its historical legitimacy as a sovereign nation.
“Israel’s leaders often refer to the iron-age Israelite kingdom of Judah, founded in the 9th century BCE, and show off archaeological finds that supposedly demonstrate a continuous Jewish presence in the region. Coins, tombs and stelae several thousand years old are used to justify colonialism and oppression.
“History should help to explain the origins and motives of conflicts, but is instead used to fuel them.
“Rather than putting Hamas’s actions into perspective, the media have focused on the immediate past, disregarding the longstanding day-to-day harassment of Palestinians, the continual ID checks, the military occupation, the Separation Wall around Gaza, the demolition of Palestinians’ homes and the appropriation of their land. Thus, the 7 October attacks seem to lack a motive, unless it is ethnic or religious.
Thus, history is widely manipulated and used to justify wars, discredit opponents and cement collective identities. Anyone can deny, rewrite, distort or draw analogies or references from history to support their case… By framing and limiting the scope of the debate, the media strive to exclude anything that could tarnish the image of Western democracies.”
Related
The West’s selective reading of history
Comments