This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 08 June 2015, At: 03:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International Journal ofHeritage StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Collective Amnesia and theMediation of Painful Pasts: therepresentation of France in theSecond World WarKevin WalshPublished online: 12 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Kevin Walsh (2001) Collective Amnesia and the Mediation of PainfulPasts: the representation of France in the Second World War, International Journal ofHeritage Studies, 7:1, 83-98, DOI: 10.1080/13527250120043366

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250120043366

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

ISSN 1352-7258 print; ISSN 1470-3610 online/01/010083-16 � 2001 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/13527250120043366

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 83 ± 98

Collective Amnesia and the Mediation ofPainful Pasts: the representation ofFrance in the Second World WarKevin Walsh

Abstract

Museums and interpretation centres are one of the elements that contribute to the

structuring of communal memories within societies. This article considers these processes

through the specific study of the ways in which the collective memory of the Second World

War in France has evolved. Emphasis is placed on an analysis of the representation of

resistance in French museums and interpretation centres. An historical and spatial study of

the development of these museums is also developed. This shows how the collective memory

has been restructured in recent years as more and more people realise the need for a more

`honest’ approach to the mediation of this difficult period in French history; a period that

many would like to forget . . .

Key words: Memory; Museums; France; Second World War

The analysis of the relationship between museums and the need to promote certain

types of memory within various societies is one element in an approach to the

history of museums. We can consider that museums, along with archaeology andhistory, were important tools in the construction of national identities during the

19th century. Museums have had, and will always have, a role in the creation and

maintenance of memories and identities.

This is not the place to outline a history of the development of museums; such

accounts are more than plentiful.1 Most authors quite naturally promote a

particular explanation for the evolution of what is undoubtedly one of the most

successful, and globally prolific, Western institutions. There can be no single

definitive account explaining the success of museums. However, we can confidently

assert that museums do emerge within quite a specific spatial and temporalcontext Ð Europe and North America during the 18th and 19th centuries. The

1. See for example: T. Bennet, The Birth of the Museum, London: Routledge. 1995; E.

Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the shaping of knowledge, London: Routledge, 1992; S. Pearce,

Museums Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study, Leicester: Leicester UP, 1992; K. Walsh, The

Representation of the Past, London: Routledge, 1992.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Figure 1. Simplified hypothetical model that illustrates some of the processes that have influenced the

development of museums.

84 Kevin Walsh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 85

origins of each museum system and, indeed, each museum, are related to a set of

specific circumstances and influences. We can try to identify a series of general

processes that give rise to these institutions, but such an enterprise can only aspire

to limited success. Rather, we should attempt specific studies of particular cases or

trends within this web of processes.

In this contribution, a fluid model is proposed (see figure 1), that offers one very

generalised approach to the understanding of the development of museums and the

control of memory and identity. This is followed by a specific case study that

analyses the selection and representation of one particular theme of the recent past

in a specific region Ð that of the role of France and, in particular, the resistanceduring the Second World War.

Memory, Museums and ModernisationThe dramatic changes caused by the Industrial Revolution during the 18th and 19th

centuries had profound consequences on the ways in which many people in the

industrialising world perceived the past and their sense of place. We can argue that

a sense of rootlessness took hold during this period. However, once the second and

third generations of industrial workers and urban dwellers appeared, we cannot

necessarily argue for rootlessness as such, but rather the evolution of different waysof perceiving the past. As Bowler argues, despite the fact that the Victorian period

was dominated by industrial and scientific progress, it . . . was also an age

dominated by a fascination with the past’ .2 We can suppose that pre-industrial

societies had a more profound attachment to their immediate locality, and contact

with other places (through people and objects) was relatively limited. In the rural or

pre-industrial context, there seems to have been an appreciation of the processes

that had shaped, and still did affect, daily life. The past was something that was

present in the construction of the sense of place. This may be considered as a more

organic form of memory, one that recognised the crucial contingency of past

processes on present places. Places, natural and human-made features, acted astime-marks’ , physical phenomena which exist in the present but possess, for those

who know them, a temporal depth which gives them a special meaning.

For the UK, the origins of museums have been well documented elsewhere, but

here a model that attempts to identify some of the principal processes that

influenced, and still influence, the development of museums (see figure 1) is

introduced before moving on to consider a similar model for France. Museums

developed at a time when Britain and France were the two major imperial powers;

the great national museums such as the Louvre and the British Museum were

repositories for collections pillaged from around the respective empires andelsewhere. These national museums were an articulation of imperial power Ð the

world perceived, represented and owned by these two nations. In France there was

also a need to construct a new national identity based around the Republic. Schaer

2. P.J. Bowler, The invention of progress: the Victorians and the past, Oxford: Blackwell, 1989, p. 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

86 Kevin Walsh

argues that the Republic needed to create a neutral space where national

achievements in the fields of architecture could be celebrated and that such a space

should ensure that these achievements had their religious, monarchical and feudal

connotations removed.3 Consequently, the museum, through its appropriation of

royal and ecclesiastical belongings, represented the Revolution and the Republic.

When looking at the proposed models for museum development it should be

borne in mind that the structuring, or restructuring, of the collective memory can

be affected by a number of processes, none of which is really divisible or which

operates in isolation. Broadly speaking, there are psychological and structural

influences. The order in which these phenomena appear is almost impossible todefine; they are part of structuration and have a mutually enhancing effect.4

In the French model, the Revolution is obviously the most important element both

in terms of structuring institutions in society, and also in terms of psychological

influence. The Jacobin paradigm was, and still is, the primary influence on the

development of government and quasi-governmental institutions, such as the

education system and the curation and presentation of culture. The strong centralised

state that embodies the Republic and protects and guarantees citizens’ rights through

its institutions undoubtedly promotes a certain form of republican psychology and

collective memory. Within these new contexts, identity and memories were mediatedby new institutions including museums and education systems.

After the Revolution, the creation of the notion of the `nation/republic’ was

imperative. The need to create an identity was important during the period of post-

Revolutionary instability, and has been vital during several periods of France’s

recent history due to the instability caused by three German invasions, the collapse

of empire, and then finally the need to come to terms with a post-war world

dominated by les anglo-saxons. On the other hand, despite this, France in some ways

benefited from the limited impact of the Industrial Revolution and the maintenance

of a large rural population with its traditions, thus maintaining a certain level of

cultural stability.All of these historical and psychological factors have had an influence on the

development of French museology, and also the structuration of the collective

memory. After the Revolution, the state obtained many religious and bourgeois

buildings and ultimately established the MusÂee des Monuments français in 1796. The

appropriation of bourgeois and ecclesiastical property was evidently a crucial tactic

within an overall strategy designed to create a republican identity. The Louvre was

established as a part of la Convention Nationale (1792± 1795) along with the MusÂeum

Nationale (which became the MusÂeum central des arts), the MusÂeum d’Histoire Naturelle

(developed under Napol Âeon III), and finally, the Conservatoire nationale des arts et

mÂetiers (1794). In some ways the Louvre played a role similar to that played by the

British Museum in London as a collector of world antiquities. The Louvre also

3. R. Shaer, L’Invention des musÂees, Paris: Gallimard, 1993.

4. A. Giddens, The constitution of society, Cambridge: Polity, 1984.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 87

fulfilled a role as an icon for the Republic, representing its success and its power; plus,

the appropriated classical and Egyptian material allowed the state to enhance the

Republic’s historical pedigree through direct reference to the great civilisations.

The prominent French museologist Georges-Henri Rivi Áere considered that

towards the end of the 19th century there was a trend towards the regionalisation of

museums in France.5 Prior to this, regional museums in France were essentially

imposed on the principal French towns by the state. Jean-Antoine Chaptal

instructed certain towns, such as Marseille, Dijon, Nantes, Lyon, to take collections

that were imposed on them by Paris.6 However, even at the turn of the 19th and

20th centuries, regionalisation of museums was still an element within a nationalagenda. And even during the second half of the 20th century, these national agendas

still had a profound influence on the types of museum that were officially

sanctioned, and consequently on the memories that were curated.

The Representation of France and her Role in the Second WorldWarThe struggle over the curation of memories associated with the role of France

during the Second World War has been a long, and sometimes bitter, experience for

some people. Such a process reveals how the role of museums in any situation hasa profound and lasting effect on what societies choose to remember and choose to

forget.

This is obviously not the place to detail the role of France in the Second World

War and the reader should consult the wide range of publications that deal with

this.7 However, what does require development here is an account of the evolution

of the memory of the role of the French resistance during the war and, by default,

the nature and level of collaboration, not just within Vichy, but throughout France

as a whole.

The Memory and the Representation: resistance and deportationThe fact that there is a large number of museums that deal with the Second World

War and, especially, resistance and deportation, is important in itself. Traditionally,

museums of history or archaeology have attempted a totalising, event-based

approach to the presentation of the past; the fact that a relatively large number of

museums dealing with a specific topic (i.e. resistance etc.) reflects a need to mediate

this difficult period in French history. If we compare this with the representation of

the war in Britain, there are some obvious differences. The British have the Imperial

War Museum with its `Blitz Experience’ , and museums up and down the country

will often have a section that represents the role of that place in the war effort, often

5. G.-H. Rivi Áere, La musÂeologie, Paris: Bordas, 1989, p. 53.

6. Shaer, op. cit. (note 3), p. 72.

7. Most notably, Ousby’s recent and most readable and balanced account of the occupation, I.

Ousby, Occupation: the ordeal of France 1940± 1944, London: Pimlico, 1999.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

88 Kevin Walsh

with some emphasis on the Blitz and the subsequent bombing campaigns. The

underlying themes of such representations often revolve around typical’ British

characteristics Ð stoicism and strength in the face of absolute adversity. Obviously,

these displays also merit a certain level of critique, but our principal aim here is to

consider the French experience in particular.

A geographical analysis can help us understand the evolution of museums that

deal with resistance. Geography in this instance means the study of phenomena

across time and space; therefore, we must consider both the chronology and the

spatial distribution of these representations. Also, such an analysis includes the

study of landscapes of memory which, in the French context, must include theassessment of the importance of Lieux de MÂemoire as defined, for example, in the

multi-volume work edited by Nora.8

On the face of it, one of the most surprising characteristics of the 25 or so

museums in France that have resistance’ or `deportation’ in their title, is the fact

that the majority opened after the mid± 1980s. There are, of course, exceptions, and

these are essentially comprised of the small private museums that were set up by

individuals who had usually been in the resistance. More recently, we have

witnessed the creation of museums established by regional, communal, as well as

private bodies. The state, through its national museums, appears to be reluctant forone reason or another to involve itself in such representations, although its presence

and role in the development of a certain type of memory of the war is important.

Two major institutions that deal with the resistance, both as museums, or display

centres, as well as acting as documentation centres and research sources, are located

in Lyon and Grenoble, the first having opened in 1992 and the latter in 1996.

Another major museum that opened during the late 1990s is that at Venissieux, in

the Vercors (an area of the pre-Alps to the south-east of Lyon) not far from a private

museum that also deals with the resistance at Vassieux-en-Vercors, which has been

open for about 20 years. These examples are representative of the general

chronological development of museums and display centres which representresistance. Apparently for some time after the war the need or desire to discuss and

represent this subject was either not required by society or, rather, the state felt that

judicious amnesia might be the order of the day. This desire to forget, or to omit

certain elements of the nation’s past, should be seen in the light of the guilt

associated with collaboration and the mechanism developed for mediating this guilt.

De Gaulle seems to have created a myth that France as a whole resisted and,

therefore, it was expedient to leave the story of the real resistance untold. Such a

strategy was in fact quite logical, as any investigation into, or representation of, the

role of genuine resistance may by default have revealed the true level ofcollaboration.9 De Gaulle was also obliged, for practical reasons, to include a large

number of high-level civil servants who had collaborated during the war, in his own

8. P. Nora (ed.) Les lieux de mÂemoire (Vols 1, 2, 3), Paris: Gallimard, 1997.

9. Ousby, op. cit. (note 7), p. 310.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 89

post-war administration Ð Maurice Papon being the most infamous of these.

Unsurprisingly, those who had been active in the resistance were upset by the notion

that their behaviour during the war was placed on a par with millions of compatriots

who had either collaborated passively, or actively. The refusal of the state to

recognise both the true level of collaboration, or the real nature of resistance was

reflected by the virtual absence of historians or state museums that honestly dealt

with these issues. For this reason the earliest museums representing the resistance

tended to be those owned and run by private individuals who had been active in the

resistance. Ultimately, their struggle to inform the collective memory received its

greatest boost not from a Frenchman, but from an American Ð R.O. Paxton, who in1972 published Vichy France with the French translation appearing in 1973.10 The

impact of this book, which for the first time revealed the truth about the level of

collaboration in France, is almost unquantifiable, although even today there are

many French people who are blissfully ignorant of the role played by their country

during the war. Within France the establishment of the Institut d’histoire de temps

prÂesent (CNRS) in 1979 was the next important step towards a more open and

honest analysis of France’s recent past.

By the 1980s, the resuscitation of the collective memory was underway, with new

museums dealing with the role of the resistance opening every year. However, thespatial distribution of these museums (the second element of our geographical

analysis) across France was not even.

A study of the distribution of museums and interpretation centres (see figure 2)

that deal directly with resistance and deportation reveals how the majority of these

institutions fall within the area that was known as Vichy or `Free France’ . This

distribution can be interpreted in a number of ways. First, we can argue that the

distribution is stronger in Vichy as this is the region that would most like to forget

its real role during the war. This was the region that directly collaborated with the

Nazis and, therefore, the over-emphasis on the role and relative importance of the

resistance allows the development of an alternative memory. The second inter-pretation of this distribution might consider that this is the region where genuine

resistance, especially in the Vercors, was in fact quite strong, and there is, therefore,

a natural desire to maintain and develop an accurate memory. What such an analysis

reveals is that it is very difficult to discuss national memories, and in fact a regional

approach to the study of identity is the only valid and useful approach.

The RepresentationsLe Centre d’Histoire de la R Âesistance et de la D Âeportation: un lieu

d’Histoire et de MÂemoire, Lyon

One of the most important representations to deal with resistance is Le Centre

d’Histoire de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation.This centre, as with most of the others

around France, was not established with direct funding from the state. In this

10. R.O. Paxton, Vichy France, New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

90 Kevin Walsh

instance, the centre in Lyon is a Local Authority initiative (Ville de Lyon). The state’s

interest in this project is indirect, but we can argue that it does exist, as the deputy-

mayor of Lyon is the ex-prime-minister, Raymond Barre.

Le Centre d’Histoire de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation is located in the building

used by the Gestapo in Lyon, Klaus Barbie being the most infamous agent based

here. The choice of locality is important for the preservation of memory. This

building is undeniably a Lieu de MÂemoire.

The centre at Lyon is not just a museum or representation; it also serves as an

archive, and possesses conference/audio-visual facilities and an area for youngpeople to come and study. In this essay we are essentially concerned with a

description and discussion of the permanent displays, as it is through these that the

development of popular memory is often most profoundly influenced.

A theme present in the representation at Lyon, and also in many of the other

similar institutions around France, is that of deportation; many of the representa-

tions around France (see table 1) include the word `deportation’ in the title. Here

we can consider that the development of the theme of deportation is useful for the

redefinition of memory, it allows the promotion of the idea that the French were

victims in the same way as were Jews and other persecuted groups. The choice of theex-Gestapo headquarters as the building within which the centre is located clearly

perpetuates this theme, as it was here that resistants where tortured and

murdered.

The first noteworthy element of the display is the decor itself. The display is

centred around reconstructed streets from wartime Lyon, with sombre lighting and

anti-Nazi graffiti that is designed to represent oppression and the darkest period of

Figure 2. Map of France (during the Second World War) with the distribution of museums and

interpretation centres that have resistance’ and/or deportation’ in their title.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 91

French history. Here we see how an emotion can be successfully engendered by a

careful choice of museographic format.

Obviously, metaphor is important in any museum, and one of the first displays

that we come across uses the speech made by de Gaulle after the liberation wherehe refers to Lyon Capitale Gauloise’ . This imagery is quite important, the image of

the Gallic warrior and resistant, in the form of Vercingetorix who resisted the

Romans, has been and still is important to the French. Today, this image still exists,

not just through Vercingetorix but also represented through Asterix, and has become

an important symbol for the construction of French identity, especially within

nationalist milieus. This historic thread of French freedom fighters continues

Table 1. A list of museums that deal with resistance and deportation in France

Town/village Name of museum

Auch MusÂee de la RÂesistance

Auvers MusÂee de la RÂesistance du Mont Mouchet

Besançon MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la d Âeportation

Bonneville MusÂee Haut-savoyard de la RÂesistance

Bordeaux Centre National Jean Moulin

Brive-la-Gaillarde Centre Nationale d’ ÂEtudes de la R Âesistance et de la

DÂeportation Edmond Michelet

Champigny sur Marne MusÂee de la RÂesistance Nationale

Denain MusÂee de la RÂesistance en Zone Interdite

Estivareilles MusÂee de l’ArmÂee SecrÁete et de la RÂesistance

Fargniers MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation en Picardie

Forge les Eaux MusÂee de la FaÈõ ence et MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la

DÂeportation

Grenoble MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation de l’ Is Áere

Hennezel MusÂee du Verre, du Fer, du Bois et de la RÂesistance

Izieu Maison des Enfants d’Izieu

Lorris MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Lyon Centre d’Histoire de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Manneville-sur-Risle MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Nantua MusÂee d’Histoire de la R Âesistance et de la DÂeportation (1986)

Natzwiller MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Neuvic MusÂee de la RÂesistance Henri Queuille (familly home)

Saint Brisson MusÂee de la RÂesistance en Morvan

Saint Marcel MusÂee de la RÂesistance Bretonne

La Teil MusÂee de la RÂesistance

Thionville MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Thones MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Vassieux-en-Vercours MÂemorial de la RÂesistance du Vercors

Venissieux MusÂee de la RÂesistance et de la DÂeportation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

92 Kevin Walsh

through to the Second World War where the most obvious candidate is Jean

Moulin.11 No museum display that represents France in the Second World War is

considered complete without some kind of reference to Jean Moulin.

Unsurprisingly, one of the most important sections within the museum is that

which deals with civil resistance and military resistance. Obviously a lot is made of

the French role in fighting the Nazis, both in terms of resistance within France, and

the role of the Free French forces around the world, especially in North Africa and

in the invasions of Normandy and the C Ãote d’Azur. Even today, the role of the

French is exaggerated; we are sometimes told how Paris was liberated by the French

with the help’ of the Americans.12 For the representations concerning D-Day, thereis little or no mention of the role the French militia (French who actually fought

alongside the Nazis), whereas the role of the resistance is highlighted.

Other themes that are pursued in this museum include, engagement, where we

learn how people joined the resistance and how they carried out their struggle

against the Nazis. This is followed by a chronology of the resistance in which the

evolution of the various groups is detailed. In another section we learn about the

Jews who were saved by the French, but this is balanced by another section (which

is in smaller print) on how the Vichy authorities, plus members of the French public,

helped send 70,000 French Jews to the death camps. However, all these subjects fallwithin the rubric of France as a victim and the fact that many French people were

deported. These deportations were essentially related to forced labour, where

French workers were sent to Germany in exchange for French soldiers captured and

held by the Germans.

An obvious reaction to the occupation and collaboration is to distance one’s self

by creating the myth that those who collaborated were part of a system that was not

really France or French; part of the creation of memories includes the rejection of

truths through the use of scapegoats. Vichy is often portrayed as being an aberration,

and other non-republican structures are blamed, including the Catholic Church.

Other themes covered in the display include the role of women in the resistance,then a section on the extent and nature of collaboration. Here, at least, there is some

attempt to strike a balance Ð a balance almost entirely absent even ten years ago.

Understandably we want to see the liberation for all of its positive aspects; however,

this museum, and others like it, does tend to gloss over the blood-letting and the

internecine struggles that occurred subsequent to liberation.

The Vercors: a landscape of commemorationThe Vercors is recognised as being one of the few regions where the resistance was

genuinely active and supported by the majority of the population within the area.

11. One of the most important figures in the French resistance who was caught, and then identified

by Klaus Barbie, and ultimately died in the hands of the Gestapo in July 1943.

12. French troops under Leclerc did march in to Paris, largely because the allies realised that this was

important for French morale and national unity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 93

During the summer of 1944 there was an impressive mobilisation of the resistance

within the Vercors, but for a number of reasons the Nazis quickly and effectivelyrendered this military action ineffective. The German army not only defeated the

military elements within the Vercors, but also murdered and tortured a large

number of civilians. For this reason the Vercors holds an important place in the

construction of memories both regionally and nationally.

Even from the autoroute, which does not directly cross the Vercors, the exit to this

area is signalled by a brown, `heritage’ panel composed of a simple image of faces

of resistants’ with the title `Le Vercors, Haut-Lieu de la Resistance’ (see figure 3).

In order to appreciate the importance of this area for the collective memory, one

needs actually to visit. The history and importance of the Vercors in the maintenance

of memories becomes all the more meaningful when one encounters the physicalgeography of this hidden and naturally protected region. This topography, as much

as anything else, explains the relative strength of the resistance in the Vercors. In

many ways the Vercors is a landscape of memory. The collective memory is

conserved and mediated by several types of representation. There are two museums,

but there is also the cemetery, numerous plaques commemorating particular events

and people, there are the villages themselves with their monuments to the different

groups of victims. All of this is set within a very particular landscape that itself

represents for many people the essence of resistance.

The two museums that deal with the resistance in the Vercors include a privatemuseum, established by an ex-member of the resistance, at Venissieux, and is called

the MusÂee de la RÂesistance’ (see figure 4). This museum was originally established

in 1973, much earlier than many of the other museums of this genre that have

sprung up over France since the 1980s. The museum is dedicated to the fighters of

the resistance of the Vercors and comprises displays of photographs, paintings plus

various objects. This museum is clearly a very personal attempt by someone who

Figure 3. Heritage panel on the autoroute indicating the Vercours Haut-lieu de la resistance’ .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

94 Kevin Walsh

was directly involved in the struggle to ensure that people do not forget. There was

genuine fear amongst some French people that the desire to forget about the war

also meant not only forgetting Vichy, the collaboration and occupation, but also

forgetting the role played by the small proportion of French citizens who did directly

resist the Nazis.The second museum, which is in fact referred to as a `memorial’ , is the recently

opened M Âemorial de la R Âesistance du Vercors’ at Vassieux-en-Vercors (see figure 5).

This centre is representative of the relatively recent trend of establishing

commemorative centres that discuss the Second World War. These establishments

are sometimes funded directly or indirectly by government or local government; for

example, the memorial museum at Vassieux is jointly funded by the Parc naturel

Figure 4. `MusÂee de la RÂesistance’ at Venissieux.

Figure 5. `MÂemorial de la RÂesistance du Vercors’ at Vassieux-en-Vercors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 95

rÂegional du Vercors, the Conseil GÂenÂeral de l’ IsÁere, Conseil GÂenÂerale de la DrÃome and the

RÂegion, RhÃone-Alpes.

First, we should appreciate its geographical situation; set high on a steep hill

overlooking the plateau, this centre possesses an architecture that is clearly designed

to reflect a military presence. In the form of a large bunker, this building shocks us

with its stark concrete aspect, and its dowdy grey colour. Its physical appearance

alone seems to be effective in creating a sober and oppressive ambience. This is quite

different from the converted farmhouse with its mural at the private museum at

Venissieux.

As with the museum at Lyon, there is an attempt to create a sombre anddepressing ambience with low lighting; however, the display media are not as

homogeneous as in the Lyon display. At Venissieux we enter a large room with a

series of displays, one of the introductory elements being a series of signposts that

point to the various displays and themes dealt with in the museum (see figure 6).

These include the following: artistic collaboration (the role of actors etc. in the

collaboration) (see figure 7), represented by theatre seats, a Nazi cap plus other

objects all within a cage. Gestapo interrogation is represented by a desk with a

swastika flag, a lamp, and a chair with handcuffs attached. Deportation is, as with

many other similar displays across France, one of the principal themes in thedisplay; a house door with the yellow Star of David represents this.

One of the most effective elements within this museum is the section where

personal accounts of actions and events during the struggle in the Vercors can be

listened to. This section is dominated by a bunker-type structure, the openings of

which look out on to the final part of the museum where large panels and videos

detail the battle for the Vercors that took place during the summer of 1944. This

section includes sculptures that represent the personalities from the resistance (see

figure 8).

Figure 6. Introductory signposts in the `MÂemorial de la RÂesistance du Vercors’ at Vassieux-en-

Vercors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

96 Kevin Walsh

Figure 7. Display representing artistic collaboration in the MÂemorial de la RÂesistance du Vercors’ at

Vassieux-en-Vercors.

Figure 8. Sculptures representing personalities’ from the resistance collaboration in the MÂemorial de

la RÂesistance du Vercors’ at Vassieux-en-Vercors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

Collective Amnesia 97

On the whole this museum attempts a balanced and critical representation,

detailing the specificity of the struggle within a particular area rather than

attempting a totalising narrative which attempts to represent the French experience

during the war at a national level.

13. In 1945 French forces put down a demonstration in the Algerian town of S Âetif, killing 5,000

civilians.

14. D. NicolaÈõ dis (ed.) Oublier nos crimes: l’ amnÂesie nationale, une spÂecificitÂe française?, Paris:

Autrement, 1994.

15. Ph. Joutard & J. Lecuir, `Les palmar Áes de la mÂemoire nationale’ , L’Histoire, No. 242, April 2000,

pp. 32± 39.

Collective Amnesia and the Resuscitation of Memory. . .One question that we do need to ask is why most of these museums are recent

undertakings. Does this mean that the events represented therein are now far

enough back in time that they are no longer directly contingent on the present? Can

we argue that such displays mediate and relegate past events to a completed past, i.e.a problem that is dealt with and finished Ð the objectification of historical processes

and the truncation of the past from the present?

We often talk about the preservation of memory, keeping alive an identity that has

never died, but with this example of the representation of France during the war, we

are almost dealing with the resuscitation of memory. The collective French memory

of the war (beyond those who had actually witnessed the events) was somewhat

blighted by a collective amnesia, an amnesia that the nation (through the state,

through historians and the media) had sanctioned. For those who do not directly

witness the past, forgetting is often easier than remembering. One of the reasons forforgetting’ is that the French had a long and serious debate surrounding the

problem of collective responsibility and the idea of guilt as relating to both German

and French roles in the Second World War. We also have to consider the impact on

the collective memory of the French atrocities in Algeria not so long after the war

and, in one case, during the war.13 Obviously it was expedient for French society to

support and promote the idea of non-collective responsibility and emphasise the

guilt and faults of individuals rather than groups or collective bodies. This attitude

is reflected within the French legal system, where the principal of vicarious liability

is almost entirely absent and where overt critique of the Republic seems to beunacceptable, as it is the Republic that guarantees and protects its citizens. Vichy, as

de Gaulle argued, was a digression in France’s history, it was not the real France.

However, some have argued that `national amnesia’ is a French speciality.14

Part of the construction of any national memory includes the use of certain

important’ individuals as heroes or role models. What is interesting is how the

category of hero or role model varies from country to country, and also how the list

of popularity of these figures from the past changes over time. A recent survey in the

popular French history magazine L’Histoire15 is discussed under the heading `Le

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5

98 Kevin Walsh

palmarÁes de la mÂemoire nationale’ . The poll suggests that the French feel more

attached to political and military figures from the past (Charles de Gaulle and

Napol Âeon occupying the first two positions in the list) than other nationalities. For

example, the British place Shakespeare at the top of their list, and the Italians give

Leonardo de Vinci their vote. What is interesting in the French example is that the

popularity of Charles de Gaulle and Napol Âeon has risen since the 1980s. In fact, in

1948 de Gaulle received only 1% of the vote, whilst in the new poll the figure stood

at 29%. What is most interesting in the context of the discussion surrounding the

resuscitation’ of the collective memory and the role of France during the war is the

fact that Jean Moulin, one of the key figures in the French resistance, has enteredthe list for the first time. This entry was within the category where the following

question was asked: `who is the person for whom you have the greatest sympathy?’

In 1980 Moulin did not figure in this list at all. This category is still headed by Marie

Curie. Moulin has jumped straight to second place, having displaced Jeanne d’Arc

from this position and relegating her to number 3. This reflects the continued

rationalisation of the memory of the war and the need for the French to retrieve a

positive memory from this difficult period in their past. The presence of Jeanne

d’Arc and VercingÂetorix in the list, two figures who also represent resistance against

foreign occupation, is also noteworthy. Philippe PÂetain makes an appearance atnumber 12 in this poll. As the two authors note, the appearance of Jean Moulin in

this poll shows how he is participating in the reorganisation of the history of France

during the Second World War’ .16

ConclusionThis brief study of the evolution of the memory and the representation of the role

of France during the Second World War shows us how all memories are contingent

upon an infinite number of factors. These include the media, education systems,

museums, and popular memory passed down from one generation to another. No

matter how hard the state tries, popular memory at the local or regional level cannotalways be subsumed by a crafted national memory, constructed through national

ideology. In particular, the example of the Vercours shows us how regional identity

and memory can be preserved, and can evolve to the point where it is sanctioned by

the establishment of a public, or semi-public, funded museum. Memories are not

static; they develop and change with each generation and museums and other forms

of representation must respond to and nurture this process.

L’objectivit Âe n’existe pas. Surtout quand il s’agit de souffrance et de mort, de victimes

et de coupables.

16. Ibid., p. 35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

3:44

08

June

201

5