Section 1 - History and memories of conflicts

Conflicts and their history leave a lasting impact on collective and individual memories.

• Conflicts often give rise to an official memory promoted by governments to suppress anything that could divide their population.
• They also result in repressions, where certain memories are obscured because they do not align with the official narrative.
• Tensions between different memory groups emerge, such as veterans versus civilians.
• Additionally, international tensions can arise, as seen in the case of Turkey's dispute with Western countries over the recognition of the Armenian genocide, which Turkey denies. The work of historians is crucial in providing an objective account of conflicts and mitigating the passions associated with memories. The question is: How do conflicts and their history shape collective memories?

#1. A historical debate and its political implications: the causes of the First World War

The aim is not to pinpoint the instigators of a conflict, but to examine how the understanding of this matter has evolved:

• How has the quest for accountability for the outbreak of WWI progressed since its inception?
• How did it influence collective memory and political dynamics? Historiography is the study of the development of historians' interpretations, and the study of the application of historical narratives.

#A. During the conflict, the question arose: who wanted the war?

#a) A variety of factors

The causes of the First World War were complex, rooted in a combination of geopolitical tensions, nationalist aspirations, and intricate alliance systems.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, acted as a catalyst for the eruption of deeper-seated conflicts.

These included colonial rivalries, exemplified by competition between Germany and France in regions like Morocco and Alsace-Lorraine, as well as nationalist tensions, particularly concerning minority populations within Austria-Hungary, such as the Serbian desire for independence.

Additionally, the intricate network of alliances formed by European powers further escalated tensions, with the Triple Entente pitted against the Triple Alliance.

The era was characterised by a dangerous arms race, leading to what was ironically termed an “armed peace.” The staggering toll of the war, with approximately 10 million military deaths and 9 million civilian casualties, stands as a sinister testament to the devastating consequences of these interwoven factors.

#b) The question of responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict emerged right from the beginning of the war

At the outset, no State claimed responsibility. As the conflict persisted, each belligerent justified the sacrifices demanded by attributing blame to the enemy and presenting themselves as the aggrieved party, waging a “just war.”

This narrative resulted in the widely held belief that the fault for the war lay with the other party

#c) Focus point during the 1919 Paris peace conferences

Germany was excluded from the peace talks and compelled to accept the Treaty of Versailles (1919). The treaty included Article 231, assigning guilt for the war to Germany and imposing substantial reparations (equivalent to three times its 1913 GDP). The treaty enforced a specific narrative regarding the causes of the conflict, effectively allowing politics to dictate historical interpretation. This allegation was vehemently opposed in Germany, both by politicians and the public, who viewed it as a war guilt lie (Kriegsschuldlüge in German).

The treaty was widely denounced as a diktat. The outcome was a simplistic understanding of History shared by the people, the military, and the leadership, placing blame squarely on the Other.

#B. The contribution of historiography to the debate since the conflict

The memory of the responsibility for WWI evolves throughout the 20th century thanks to the work of historians, and changes in the context. They influence public opinion and policies.

#a) Interwar historiography contributions

During the interwar period in France, historians faced numerous challenges, including limited access to sources such as military archives and the overwhelming abundance of memories from various perspectives.

In the 1920s, there was a prevailing belief in Germany's guilt for the war, with political figures, military personnel, veterans, and historians all contributing to this narrative. Historian Pierre Renouvin argued that Germany, along with Austria-Hungary, bore responsibility, while absolving France of culpability.

However, in the 1930s, a minority of pacifist and Marxist intellectuals began to attribute blame to the broader concept of imperialism, suggesting that it was the desire for domination by European powers that led to the conflict.

By this time, Germany was no longer seen as the sole culprit, as highlighted by historian Jules Isaac's 1933 work. He sparked controversy by saying that while Germany was guilty, France also bore responsibility for not preventing the conflict, particularly due to its response to Russia's declaration of war in July 1914. This diversity of perspectives reflected ongoing debates within both academic and public spheres about the origins and responsibilities for the war.

#b) Post-WWII: a favourable context to debate in Germany

Before 1945, there was unanimous denunciation of the “war guilt lie” by German historians, in line with the Nazi regime and the general population. The Franco-Russian responsibility narrative was prevalent: Germany was portrayed as encircled by the Entente powers (Russia, France), framing the war as a defensive action.

However, in the 1960s, there was a rupture in this consensus, sparked by the significant “Fischer controversy.” This shift was influenced by two main factors: the acknowledgement of German guilt for the Nazi atrocities and the ongoing European integration efforts. Fritz Fischer, a German historian, published Germany's Aims in the First World War in 1961, attributing primary responsibility to Germany. Fischer argued that German imperialist policies had driven Austria-Hungary into conflict with Serbia, as part of a long-standing plan for war dating back to the early 20th century. He also suggested a historical continuity from Bismarck to Hitler, implying that Nazism was not an aberration but a natural progression of German imperialism.

The controversy surrounding Fischer's work revealed the political and geopolitical implications of assigning blame for World War I. The debate spread in the media. The West German government even cut funding to Fischer in an attempt to prevent him from travelling to the United States in 1964. In response, American historians barred the West German foreign minister from visiting the US, leading to a minor diplomatic crisis between the two countries.

#c) In the 21st century, a more objective approach by historians

In the 21st century, historians like Christopher Clark have made a more nuanced picture, emphasising the collective responsibility of European leaders who, like “sleepwalkers,” unwittingly steered their nations towards war. These reinterpretations have influenced public perceptions, with a majority of Germans now believing in the absence of a single culprit for the war.

Such historical debates also carry political implications, notably contributing to the reconciliation efforts between France and Germany.

Since the beginning of WWI, the question of the responsibility for triggering the war continues to be written. Influenced by the contexts and nationalities of historians, by the types and choices of archives consulted, and by the historiography developments that prioritise military, diplomatic, economic, social, and cultural history, the debate is going on. The causes of the war seem to remain uncertain, as German historian Joachim Käppner writes.

#C. Evolution of historical perspectives on World War I: historiography of research topics

Before WWII, the focus of historical research on the First World War was primarily diplomatic and military, with historians often being veterans themselves, exemplified by figures like Pierre Renouvin.

From the 1950s, there was a shift towards the social history of the soldiers' experiences, examining the war from this angle. This change was facilitated by the availability of new sources and the individual memories of veterans eager to share their testimonies. For instance, Antoine Prost's work focused on the experiences of former combatants.

In the 1980s, there was a development towards cultural history, exploring the wartime violence and the “culture of war,” including its effects on civilian populations. Historians like George Mosse highlighted the concept of "brutalisation," suggesting that the war normalised mass destruction and both physical and psychological violence, perpetuating a cycle of violence that persisted into the interwar period and contributed to the rise of fascism and WWII.

Today, new research avenues have emerged, such as gender history, investigating the relationships between men and women during WWI, and transnational history, where scholars from different countries collaborate on topics like strikes during WWI.

#2. Memories and History of a colonial conflict: the Algerian War

Benjamin Stora, a French historian, wrote that without being stated or acknowledged, this Algerian era constantly overwhelms the daily lives of the French today.

#A. A decolonisation war that opened many wounds

#a) An eight-year decolonisation war that encompasses multiple conflicts

From the 19th century, European countries built their power on their colonial possessions. In the 20th century, it was difficult for governments and public opinion to accept decolonisation as a decline.

Decolonisation is often accompanied by violence, although not all are wars. For example, India peacefully gained independence. Among these difficult decolonisations, France waged a war in Algeria (a French colony since 1830) from 1954 to 1962.

The war began in 1954 when Algerian nationalists formed the FLN (French acronym for National Liberation Front) and fought for independence, carrying out attacks targeting civilian Pieds-Noirs (1 million French citizens in Algeria, alongside 9 million Muslim Algerians without French nationality). For instance, on November 1st, the Toussaint rouge saw 70 simultaneous FLN attacks.

The French governments of the Fourth Republic refused to negotiate, instead escalating the conflict by sending more and more French soldiers: career military (paratroopers, legionnaires), conscripts (young Frenchmen doing their compulsory military service), and auxiliaries (young Algerians enlisted for French Algeria, known as "Harkis", numbering 70,000).

Both sides committed atrocities in this irregular war, including bombings, assassinations of FLN fighters and civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions by the French army, notably during the Battle of Algiers in 1957.

The war also affected mainland France, with independence protests harshly suppressed, such as the peaceful demonstration on October 17, 1961, in Paris, resulting in 200 deaths at the hands of the French police under the orders of Papon.

The Fourth Republic governments failed to resolve the conflict, leading to a coup by paratroopers in Algiers on May 13, 1958, demanding De Gaulle's return to power to address the Algerian issue. De Gaulle established a new political regime, the Fifth Republic. While his initial declarations, such as "Je vous ai compris" on the 4 of June 1958, in Algiers, seemed to embody the values of French Algeria; by 1959, De Gaulle proposed self-determination. De Gaulle was then seen as a traitor by some of the population.

Divisions emerged among the French, between FLN supporters and those of French Algeria. In 1961, the OAS (French acronym for Secret Army Organisation) was created, a terrorist militia rejecting Algerian independence and De Gaulle's policy, carrying out attacks, including an attempt on De Gaulle's life in the “Petit Clamart” incident in 1962.

The war ended in 1962 with the Evian Accords between the FLN and the French government, leading to Algeria's independence on July 5, 1962.

There were 3 wars in 1:

• An asymmetric and irregular warfare between the French army and the Algerian FLN.
• A war dividing the French: OAS and Pieds-Noirs against De Gaulle's conciliatory policy.
• A war dividing the Algerians: the FLN assassinated Harkis, seen as traitors to Algeria.

#b) The political significance of the challenges in assessing human losses

Since 1962, the human losses in the Algerian War has been a subject of both memory and political contention. Each involved party, be it nation or faction, has sought to either amplify or diminish its significance for various reasons. The task of accurately tallying the casualties among Algerians is complicated due to the clandestine nature of the FLN and the chaotic conditions of the conflict.

Even today, the debate over the true losses persists. The Algerian government claims a figure of 1.5 million “martyrs,” while historians tend to estimate around 30,000 French victims and 300,000 Algerian casualties. This discrepancy underscores the ongoing complexities surrounding the historical narrative and commemoration of the war's impact.

#c) The deep wounds of separated memory groups

The aftermath of the Algerian War is marked by deep wounds and lingering divisions among various groups with separate memories.

Approximately 1.5 million French conscripted soldiers returned from the conflict traumatised by the violence they were compelled to carry out, often remaining silent about their experiences. Moreover, the amnesty granted for crimes committed during the conflict in 1962 allowed torture to be glossed over, further complicating the reckoning of the war's toll.

Meanwhile, around 40,000 Harkis fled Algeria due to threats to their lives, finding themselves relegated to camps in France and separated from the French population.

Additionally, the repatriation of 1 million Pieds-Noirs to France saw them forced to abandon their lives in Algeria, breeding resentment towards De Gaulle, whom they blamed for the loss of their homeland.

The formers OAS members embodies a lingering bitterness towards De Gaulle, whom they perceive as having “betrayed” them by granting Algeria independence.

Meanwhile, the FLN fighters, having established a new State, shaped an official memory that justified their power while obscuring internal Algerian divisions.

#B. History and memories of the conflict in France

#a) "The war without a name": a difficult oblivion until the 1990s

The organised silence by the French State from 1962 was motivated by several factors. Firstly, France resisted labelling the conflict as a “war,” preferring terms like “pacification” or “events in Algeria” as Algeria was considered an integral part of France. Secondly, there was a desire to forget a series of French defeats, including those in 1940, 1954 in Indochina, and 1962 in Algeria, as well as the dissolution of the French colonial empire.

Additionally, there was an attempt to mitigate the trauma experienced by soldiers, who had been involved in violence sanctioned by the State in the name of its interests. Finally, the silence served to conceal internal divisions within France and project an image of national unity, exemplified by the amnesty granted to members of the OAS in 1966.

However, historians have delved into the conflict, particularly focusing on the issue of torture. For instance, Pierre Vidal-Naquet's publication in 1972 titled La Torture dans la République shed light on the systematic use of torture, with his investigations dating back to 1956. This book sparked outrage among French officers. In 1958, Henri Alleg published La question detailing various methods of torture, such as the gégène, sleep deprivation, truth serums, etc.

Contrasting and concealed memories were voiced. In the 1970s, the offspring of Harkis began to rebel, aiming to shed light on their dismal living conditions and to demand official acknowledgement, particularly due to the delayed repatriation by the army in 1962, which led to many being massacred by the FLN. Meanwhile, career military personnel offer justifications for their actions, exemplified by General Massu's 1971 book La vraie bataille d’Alger, which acknowledged the use of torture. Conscripted soldiers, on the other hand, advocated for veteran status, achieved in 1974, and contributed their testimonies to the works of historians and documentaries, such as La déchirure, released in 2012 and co-directed by historian Benjamin Stora. Additionally, associations representing Pieds-Noirs have emerged, like nostAlgérie since the 1980s, as seen in Alexandre Arcady's 1979 film Le Coup de Sirocco. They demanded financial compensation, which was obtained in 1970 but deemed inadequate.

Memories of the Algerian War often surfaced through various mediums such as literature, film, and historical research. Despite efforts to suppress or distort certain narratives, these memories persisted, shaping public speeches and influencing perceptions of the conflict. Through cinema, directors like Gillo Pontecorvo (La Bataille d’Alger, 1966) and René Vautier (Avoir 20 ans dans les Aurès, 1972) have shed light on the complexities of the war, depicting the use of torture and the experiences of conscripted soldiers. However, the reception of such films has been met with controversy, reflecting the ongoing tensions surrounding the memory of the war. As these memories continue to be expressed and explored, they contribute to a broader understanding of the Algerian War and its enduring impact on society.

#b) Since the 1990s, awakening of the memories and official recognition

From as early as 1983, the teaching of the Algerian War had become part of school curriculums. Recognition came under President Jacques Chirac, himself a former conscript in Algeria. In 1999, there was official acknowledgment of the term "Algerian War." Then, in 2002, a memorial was erected in Paris honouring French soldiers and Harkis who died in North Africa.

However, conflicts persist between memory groups. For instance, in 2005, a law proposed by the Pieds-noirs electorate aimed to have school programs recognise the “positive” role of French presence overseas, particularly in North Africa. This proposal was withdrawn under pressure from historians who rejected an “official” version of history.

Since the 2010s, there has been a gradual recognition of the violence suffered by all memory groups:

• In 2012, President Hollande acknowledged the State's responsibility in repressing the October 17, 1961 demonstration.

• President Macron initiated efforts to address all memory groups' concerns. With the 60th anniversary of the Evian Accords (1962), he aimed to “build a reconciled and shared memory”:

  • In 2018, Macron acknowledged that pro-independence activist Maurice Audin was “tortured to death by the French army.”
  • In 2020, Macron commissioned historian Benjamin Stora, an Algeria specialist, to produce a report with recommendations.
  • In 2021, Macron offered “apologies” to the Harkis who were “abandoned” by France.
  • Also in 2021, Macron authorised the opening of police archives on the Algerian War, facilitating historians' work.
  • In 2022, Macron acknowledged an "unforgivable fault of the Republic" in the “massacre” of pro-French Algeria demonstrators (Pieds-Noirs pro-OAS) in Rue d'Isly, in Algiers in 1962. The toll: 60 dead, 200 injured, as French soldiers opened fire for 15 minutes.

In France, while memories of the Algerian War are increasingly expressed and recognised, they are still not appeased and continue to provoke regular debates even today. Historian of the Algerian War, Tramor Quemeneur, questions: How can recognition reconcile? This policy can indeed be ambiguous as it seeks to appease all memories, which are antagonistic. In doing so, it inevitably exacerbates tensions.

#C. History and memories of the conflict in Algeria

#a) Memory as a factor of national identity: a challenging History to write

In instances such as Algeria's transition to independence in 1962, the narrative was carefully curated to serve political objectives. Here, the military regime, born out of the FLN, sought to justify its authority and promote national cohesion through a selective retelling of history. Algerian historians were constrained in their work, pressured to align their narratives with the regime's agenda, emphasising unity and heroism while downplaying internal divisions and alternative movements. This controlled narrative suppressed the plurality of memories, stifling dissent and shaping a collective memory that serves the interests of those in power.

Since the war, Algerian historians have faced significant challenges in their efforts to study and understand the country's independence. Figures like Mohammed Harbi began this work early on, but political circumstances, such as the military coup of 1965, forced him into exile in France. The political control over historical narratives has been a major obstacle, with all presidents hailing from the FLN, shaping the speeches. Additionally, the scarcity of sources posed a significant challenge, given the high illiteracy rates among Muslims in the 1950s and 1960s. Much of the available information came from colonial sources, further complicating the task of piecing together an accurate historical account. Compounding these difficulties is the continued restriction of access to archives within Algeria itself, hindering historians' ability to conduct thorough research and contributed to a comprehensive understanding of this critical period in Algerian history.

The official narrative of the war no longer resonates in the 21st century. Since the 1990s, the younger generation, who did not experience the conflict firsthand, rejects this official memory that legitimised the dictatorship. For instance, during the anti-Bouteflika protests in 2019, they adapted the slogan from 1962 ("one single hero: the people"), chanting it in French to symbolise a united people against Bouteflika's regime. This shift in the use of historical slogans reflected a broader rejection of the official narrative and a desire for change among Algerian youth.

#b) Geopolitical impact of the memories

France and Algeria have engaged in economic and military cooperation since 1962, driven by various factors including the Algerian-origin community in France (approximately 3 million) and shared economic and military interests. For instance, in 2012, Presidents Bouteflika and Hollande signed a declaration of "friendship and cooperation" as both countries faced a common enemy: Islamist terrorism. This collaboration underscored the importance of bilateral relations in addressing mutual security concerns and fostering stability in the region.

However, enduring memorial tensions persist between France and Algeria, highlighting the weight of unresolved memories and their significant political implications. For example, Macron's remarks suggesting that Algeria has built its identity on a "memorial rent," perpetuated by the "political-military system," and his assertion of an "officially rewritten history" based not on truths but on "a discourse rooted in a hatred of France," led to the summoning of the French ambassador to Algeria. Despite official recognitions by France, Algeria continues to demand apologies and reparations. In 2005, Algeria demanded France acknowledge the "genocide" of colonisation. Additionally, the challenge of selecting a common commemorative date that resonates with both countries and all memories remains difficult: 19 March 1962, in France (ceasefire with the FLN but still marked by violence, like the Isly massacre), and 5 July in Algeria (independence, making it challenging to commemorate a defeat in France).

The role of historians in fostering a common memory is not guaranteed in spite of the initiatives. For instance, Benjamin Stora (France) and Mohammed Harbi (Algeria) published La Guerre d’Algérie (1954-2004), La fin de l’amnésie in 2004, the first binational work on the Algerian War. Another example is the report by Stora commissioned by Macron, aimed at facing history with recommendations for reconciliation and recognition of all memories. He proposes establishing a "Memory and Truth" commission to promote joint commemorations between France and Algeria, establish a network of memorial sites, etc.

History is the core of multiple issues, including geopolitical, social, and memory-related ones. When explaining the origins of WWI, the historical debate, influenced by politics, long focused on responsibility and thus the guilt of the defeated. After WWII, in a context of Franco-German rapprochement, the question became less political, and historical research shifted to new topics. The example of the Algerian War highlights how history and memories intersect. In France, from the 1970s, the State's silence did not prevent the resurgence of suppressed memories. Faced with these competing memories, the opening of archives allows historians to establish verifiable facts. These parallel developments (memory and history) prompt the French State to pursue a policy of recognition of the memories of the conflict. However, in Algeria, this recognition remains stifled by an official history imposed by the State.