William Penn Life, 2016 (51. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
2016-06-01 / 6. szám
Tibor's Take with Tibor Check, Jr. A világháború, part 2 How we memorialize war says much about modern times LIVING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., I have had countless opportunities to visit the memorials and monuments that define the skyline and streets of our nation's capital. As I have grown older, I have begun to appreciate different aspects of these structures. Recently, I have come to realize that monuments like these make important statements about how societies view the past at a particular point in time. For example, the Vietnam War Memorial aptly commemorates the most politically-charged war in American memory by stripping the conflict of its context and honoring the service of the fallen soldiers alone. The World War II monument, in contrast, clearly exhibits the monumental scale of that conflict and its black-and-white, good vs. evil nature. The World War II memorial is also a product of American society at that time of its dedication (2004) which was proud of American military prowess in the defense of democracies. Now, a World War I memorial has been approved and will be constructed soon. It, too, is a symbol of not only modern ideas about World War I but also about contemporary American society in general. The structure is similar to the Vietnam memorial and is similarly apolitical, but that is because, I think, World War I is too far removed from modern memory to be truly controversial. The design, which emphasizes individual sacrifice and the unique fraternity among soldiers, is a product of an America that is less sure about its place in the world and its moral standing than the America that produced the World War II memorial. These artistic interpretations can be made beyond the United States. In Hungary, for example, the design for a recent World War II memorial stirred controversy because it seemed to minimize the role of Hungary's government in the Holocaust. The monument features a statue of St. Gabriel (representing Hungary) being harassed and attacked by a German Imperial Eagle. The implication is, of course, that World War II and Hungary's involvement in it were the product of manipulation and coercion from Nazi Germany. By my analysis, this planned monument says two things. First, it says that World War II can never be apolitical for Hungary, that unlike the United States (which can celebrate a righteous triumph and a noble sacrifice of its people), Hungary can neither claim a victory (righteous or otherwise) nor can it argue that its sacrifices were part of a doomed, noble fight against a greater evil. The Axis agenda was the greater evil, and commemorative art can provide no escape. Which brings me to my second observation: because Hungary cannot deny that its role in the war was morally reprehensible, absolution can only 6 0 June 2016 0 William Penn Life
