Introduction
CollectiveMemoryinInternationalRelations
‘Memory whatastrangethingitis! ...Wecan onlythinkofit,inthelineof anabstracttimethatisdeprivedofallthickness ...Memoriesaremotionless, andthemoresecurelytheyare fixedinspace,thesoundertheyare’,writesthe philosopherGastonBachelardin ThePoeticsofSpace (1958).¹
Memory whatastrangethingitisindeed!Itisalwayspresentyetforever inthepast.Initsuniquetemporalcharacter,ittraversestime.Itisknowledge from thepast,butitisneitherhistory,nornecessarilyknowledge about the past.Itisinsteadthe ‘activepast’.Initscontemporarypresence,memorylooks backwardsandforwards.Itbuildsabridgeovertime,andthusconnectspast, present,andfuture.
Memory itiseverywhere,yetnowheretangible!Initsideationalnature,it toucheseverything.Itisaproductofcognition,butitisnotsolelyidea, thought,orknowledge.Rememberingisrelatedtobutnotthesameas thinking.Insteaditis ‘beingintime’ : werememberthereforeweare.Inits manifestation,memorythusbecomesidentity.Itinterweaveswhowewereto whoweareandwhowewillbe.
Memoryisprivate,personal,yetsocialandpolitical!Itisafunctionof individuals’ mindsand,equally,aproductoftheirworld.Whilepeople rememberinthelonelyspacesoftheirheads,theirmemoriesarebut echoes fromthebusysocialspheresoftheirsocieties.Memorycanbethoughtonlyin time-contextsandrememberinghappenswithinsocialframes.Assuch,memoryisalwaysalso ‘collective’ .
Inattemptingtograspthe ‘strange’ natureofmemory,thisbookfocuseson collectivememoryandsetsoutto finditsimprintsoninternationalpolitics. Theconcept ‘collectivememory’,asitisusedthroughout,impliestwobasic notions: first,thatnotonlyindividuals,butalso acollectivecanremember.
¹Citedfromthe2014PenguineditionofGastonBachelard’ s ThePoeticsofSpace,whichisa translationofhisoriginal LaPoétiquedel’Espace, firstpublishedinFrenchin1958.Thequotecanbe foundonp.31ofthe2014edition.
CollectiveMemoryinInternationalRelations.KathrinBachleitner,OxfordUniversityPress(2021). ©KathrinBachleitner.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192895363.003.0001
2
Inthecaseofthisbook,thecollectivethatremembersisthe ‘country’,used synonymouslywith ‘state’ andsometimes ‘nation’.Countriesareviewedasthe bearersofcollectivememory,whichinthiscontextisalsocalled ‘national memory ’ or ‘nationalnarrative’.Importantly,eithertermreferstothe national interpretation ofacountry’ s ‘history’ or ‘historicallegacy’ .
Theattribute ‘collective’ precedingthenoun ‘ memory ’,however,implies notnecessarilythatthesubjectwhichremembersisacollective,butit, secondly,meansthat theprocessofrememberinghappenscollectively,thatis withinsocialframeworks.ThisideagoesbacktotheFrenchsociologist MauriceHalbwachs,whoisconsideredtobethefoundingfatherofthe collectivememoryconcept. ‘Itisinsocietythatpeopleacquiretheirmemories’,suggestedHalbwachs(1992,38)withaneyetoindividuals’ facultyof memory.Whatappliestoindividualsisequallyapplicableforcollectives:they toorememberwithinsocialframes.Translatedintothedisciplineofinternationalrelations(IR)andthisbook’sfocusonstatesastheprimarylevelof analysis,collectivememoryisassumedtobeconstitutedinthesocialframesin whichcountriesoperate.InIR,theseincludeadomesticandaninternational dimension.Inglobalpolitics,Halbwachs’ societalspacethusreferstothe entireworld.Itisinthe ‘societyofstates’ thatcountriesacquiretheircollective memory.
ToanalysetheimpactofcollectivememoryonIR,thisstudyallows memorytotravelbetweentheinternationalanddomesticspheresofcountries. However,importantly,theconceptofcollectivememorynotonlyneedsa designated socialspace,butalsoa certaintimespan tounfold.Accordingto Halbwachs,collectivememorydescribestheprocessthroughwhich ‘thepastis notpreservedbutisreconstructedonthebasisofthepresent’ (1992,40).The conceptthuscontainsnotonlyaspatial,butalsoauniquetemporalcomponent.Thishastwoimplicationsforanyresearchagendaontheinfluenceof collectivememoryonpoliticaloutcomes.First,itmeansthat memory ’scontent andnaturechangeswithtime asthepastisreconstructedonthebasisof ‘differentpresents’.Furthermore, memoryalsoshowsachangingimpact on these ‘presents’ asthecountrymovesfurtherawayfrom ‘itspast’ alonga temporalline.Anyresearchagendainterestedintheinfluenceofcollective memoryonpoliticsthusmustcentrallyaccountfortime.
IntracingtheimpactofcollectivememoryinIR,thisbookthereforestarts fromthepremisethat(a)countriesarethecollectivewhichremembers. Furthermore,(b),theprocessbywhichcountriesrememberhappenswithin thesocialframeworksinwhichcountriesinteract.InIR,thesesocialframeworksrefertoboththedomesticandtheinternationalenvironments.
Moreover,(c),toaccountforcollectivememory’simpactonIR,memoryas theexplanatoryvariablemustnotonlytravelthroughspace,butcruciallyalso throughtime.Thepresentstudythereforenecessarilyadoptsalongertimeframetounderstandmemory’svaryinginfluenceoverworldpolitics.
TheArgument
Thisbooktracestheinfluenceofcollectivememoryininternationalrelations. Tothatend,itaskswhereacountry’scollectivememory firstemergesandhow itguidescountriesthroughtimeinworldpolitics.Forthatpurpose,thisstudy challengesexistingaccountswhich findtheoriginsofcollectivememoryinthe domesticsocietalsphere.Instead,itlocatesthebeginningsofacountry’ s memoryinforeignpolicystrategywithintheinternationalenvironment. Oncememoryhasformedinternationally,theanalysisreturnstothedomestic landscape.Amongacountry’spublic,it findsmemoryasthecarrierof collectiveidentityovertime.Fromthere,collectivememory,however,returns totheinternationalsphere:inthemediumterm,itbeginstochannela country’sinternationalbehaviour,whereas,inthelongrun,itcircumvents alsoitsnormativehorizon.Withtime,acountry’scollectivememorytherefore isassumedtomanifestinworldpoliticsinfourvaryingforms:asits political strategy,asits publicidentity,asunderwritingitsinternational statebehaviour, and finally,asasourceforits nationalvalues.Thisbookthusnotonlyexplores whether collectivememoryhasaninfluenceonpoliticaloutcomesbutalso how and why itmattersforIR.
ResearchDesign
Collectivememoryorthe ‘politicsofmemory’ hasnotreceivedmuchsustainedattentioninacademicinternationalrelations.Theconceptisregarded as ‘toomessy,illusive,andvague’,therefore,oflackinganyexplanatorypower atall.Particularly,thosescholarsembracingthetenetsofbehaviouralpolitical sciencehavebeenillequippedtodealwiththemultifarious,yetsubtleroles thatmemoryplaysinpoliticalprocesses.Itfollowsthatthediscipline’ s mainstreamhasavoidedintegratingtheconceptintoitsparsimoniousmodels ofutilitymaximizationandinstrumentalrationality(Bell2009,349).Even constructivistscholars withsomeexceptions havepredominantlynotput
4
collectivememoryatthecentreoftheirresearch.²ThesameappliestoIR’ s ontologicalsecurityliterature.Despitetheessentialrolethatconstructivists assignto ‘identity’ anditsnexuswith ‘statebehaviour’,thefunctionof collectivememorywithinthisprocesshasrarelybeenexplicitlyhighlighted.³
Asaresult,neitheraunifiedempiricalnoracommontheoreticalattemptto tacklecollectivememoryexistswithinIR.Instead,thereareseveraledited volumespresentingvaryingapproaches,cases,and ‘collectivememories’ (e.g. Müller2002;Bell2010;ResendeandBudryte2013;LangenbacherandShain 2010).These ‘collectedapproaches’ proposeamultitudeofwaysbywhich memoryplaysaroleinglobalpolitics.Thisbookisacontributiontothose attemptstointroducetheillusiveandseemingly ‘ungraspable’ conceptof collectivememoryintothevastspaceofIR.Yetitalsoaimstodevelopa commoncollectiveapproachforIRtounderstandandtracetheinfluenceof memoryonworldpolitics.
Inthatregard,thebookstartswithatheory-buildingeffort.Guidedbythe overarchingquestionofhowcollectivememorycanimpactstatebehaviour,it borrowsfromtheassumptionsmadebyontologicalsecurityscholarswhoposit thatstatesinIRactinaccordancewiththeiridentities.⁴ Inthisbook,theirnotion of ‘stateidentity’ willberefinedbycombiningitwiththeinsightsofferedbythe interdisciplinarycollectivememoryconcept.BasedparticularlyonthesociologicaldescriptionsofcollectivememorymadebyMauriceHalbwachs(1992) and,later,JeffreyK.Olick(1999),thedefinitionofidentityinIRwillbeamended withuniquecollectiveandtemporalcharacteristics.Infusingtheontological securityscholarshipanditsinsightsonstatebehaviourwiththeinterdisciplinary findingsoncollectivememory,thebookwillthusdevelopitsownapproach termed ‘temporalsecurity’.Itpositsanexusbetweencollectivememoryandstate behaviourinIR:countriesarenowassumedtosituatethemselvesintimeand thusestablishanintegritywiththeircollectivememoryintheircoursesofaction. Throughtheontologicalsecurityscholarship,thebookgainsauseful frameworkfortransportingcollectivememoryintoIRandconnectingit
²ExceptionsareCruz(2000),Lebow(2008),andZehfuss(2007),aswellasIRscholarswhouse termsrelatedtocollectivememory,suchaslegacy,historicalanalogy,historicalidentity,myths,and trauma.
³ExceptionsareInnesandSteele(2014)andMälksoo(2015),whoexplicitlytalkaboutmemory withintheontologicalsecurityliterature.
⁴ Scholarsworkingwithintheburgeoningontologicalsecurityliteratureinclude,amongothers, McSweeney(1999);Steele(2005,2008);Mitzen(2006,2018);Zarakol(2010,2017);Suboticand Zarakol(2012);Rumelili(2013,2017);Mälksoo(2015);Subotic(2016,2018);KinnvallandMitzen (2017,2018);Kinnvall,Manners,andMitzen(2017);Ejdus(2018,2019).
withstatebehaviourinparticular.However,establishinganexusbetween collectivememoryandstatebehaviourdoes not helptoanswer where thecollectivememoryofastateoriginates.Neitherdoesittellus how memory ’ simpactcanchangeovertime.Thus,thisbookdepartsfromthe ontologicalsecurityliteratureinthreesignificantways. First,itspecifiesthe originsofstateidentityincollectivememoryinpreciseandreplicableways insteadofassumingitispre-existent. Secondly,itaccountsforthepossibility ofchangeascountriesmovethroughtime,contexts,and domesticand international spheres.Withthedynamiccollectivememoryconceptatthe basisofstateidentity,thisstudycanthereforenotonlyaccountfortransformationsin memory ’scontent,butit, thirdly,alsofactorsin memory ’ s nature thatchangeswithtime.Importantly,thesetransformationsinmemoryalsosignificantlyalteritsimpactoverpolicyoutcomes.
However,howpreciselyiscollectivememory’sinfluencerenderedmanifest incountries?Inthisbook,collectivememoryisassumedtoconveyitselfin statesinthefourformsdescribedearlier:asacountry’spoliticalstrategy,asits publicidentity,initsinternationalstatebehaviour,and finally,asunderwriting itsnationalvaluesystem.Memorythusinitiallybecomesmanifestindirect, deliberate,andinstrumentalwaysasapoliticalstrategy.However,withtime,it mayalsounfolditsinfluenceoverinternationalpolicyoutcomesinunexamined,constructivistwaysasunderwritingacountry’sidentity,aschannelling statebehaviour,and finally,asformingthenormativemindsetofacountry, thatis,itsvalues.
Thecorechaptersofthisbookthereforemovecollectivememorythrough timeandexploreitsvaryingimpactonIRasacountry’sstrategy,asits identity,asmanifestedinstatebehaviour,and finally,asasourceforits valuesystem.Thechapters,however,illustratememory’sinfluenceonpolitical outcomesnotonlytheoretically,butalsoempiricallythroughacomparative studyintwoselectedcasecountries:GermanyandAustria.
CaseSelection
BothGermanyandAustriahaveahistoryofNationalSocialismbutvery diversecollectivememoriesthereof.Howdifferentlytheirmemoriesplayed outintheirpoliticallandscapesafter1945becomesapparentfromthefollowingtwo,historicallysignificantacts:
15May1955,12:00am.TheAustrianForeignMinisterLeopoldFigl,together withhiscolleaguesfromthefourAlliedPowers,appearsonthebalconyof Vienna’sBelvedere.Likeatrophy,hewavestheAustrianStateTreatywhich theyhadjustsigned.Smilingproudly,hepresentsproofthat ‘Austriaisfree’ to thegatheredcrowds,whobegintocheerloudly.Therejoicingistrumpedonly bythesimultaneousringingofallchurchbellsinthecity.AwaveofenthusiasmelectrifiesthemassesandtheAlliedrepresentativesalike.TheSoviet MinisterofForeignAffairsMolotovcannotresistblowingkissestothehappy crowds.Peoplestarttowaltz.⁵
7December1970,10:35am.OnagreyDecembermorning,theWestGerman ChancellorWillyBrandtisonhiswaytosignthetreatyofWarsawwiththe People’sRepublicofPoland.Beforethesigningceremonybegins,heaskstolay awreathatthemonumentdedicatedtotheWarsawGhettoUprising,which tookplaceduringtheNaziera.Atthememorial,Brandtsuddenlyand spontaneouslysinkstohisknees.Withhisheadbowedlow,hefreezesin thispositionforhalfaminute.Thegroupofofficialsandjournalistswho accompaniedhimremaininthebackground.Awe-struck,noonedaresspeak aword.Lostinthethoughtofmillionsofmurderedpeople,Brandtstays kneelinginsilence.⁶
Whatthesetwoof fi cialactshaveincommonisthattheybothtookplaceon apost-WorldWarIIinternationalstage.Furthermore,theywereboth performedbyrepresentativesofpeopleswhowere ‘ defeated ’ ratherthan ‘ liberated ’ in1945.Itfollowsthatthetwoheadsofstateledtwoformer Nazi-perpetratingcountries:AustriaandWestGermany.Apartfromthat, thesescenescouldnotbemorediffere nt.Oneportraysagroupofhappymen infrontofcheeringcrowdslookingforwardtoapromisingfuture,whilethe othershowsamanalone,distancedfromsuspiciousbystanders,looking backtoashamefulpast.Onestatesmangivesapictureofhiscountry ’ s innocenceandliberationfromundeservedvictimhood,whereastheother statesmanportrayshimselfandhiscoun tryasaguilty,morallyresponsible, andremorsefulperpetrator.
Fromthesetwoacts,itisclearthathowtheNazilegacywasrememberedin WestGermanyandAustriadifferedfundamentally.Yet,WestGermansand AustrianshadthesamehistorywithNazism:bothcountriesformedthe
⁵ BasedonSteininger(2005,142–4).SeealsoLukasZimmer, ‘AlsFiglÖsterreichfreisprach’,14May 2015,availableat:http://orf.at/stories/2278432/2278433/(accessed:13April2020).
⁶ BasedonBrandt(1976,398–9).
imperialcentreoftheThirdReich,andtheirpopulationsservedinthe German Wehrmacht andheld toanequalextent high-rankingpositions intheNaziregime.Theywerenotonlybrothers-in-armsbutalsothesame countrysinceAustria’svoluntary Anschluss (merger)withGermanyin1938. Needlesstosay,theyalsohadanequalpartintheNaziextermination machineryandtheensuingHolocaust.Asaresult,afterNaziGermany’sdefeat in1945,bothwereoccupiedanddividedupamongthefourAlliedPowers. Theirpost-warsocietiesthusconsistedofNaziperpetrators,victims,and manybystanders(Hillberg1993).⁷
WiththeirsharedhistoricNazilegacybutdiversecollectivememories thereof,GermanyandAustriaform ‘naturalcounter-cases’ forcomparative study.Theempiricalqualitativeanalysisofthisbookthuscentresona comparisonbetween(West)Germany⁸ andAustriainthepost-WorldWarII era.Thebookemploysacase-studytechniquebecauseitisparticularlywell suitedfordeterminingcausalmechanismsbetweencollectivememoryand policies(GeorgeandBennett2005).Understandingthemultipleeffectsof collectivememoryonIRrequiredselectingcaseswithstrongbutvaried collectivememoriesvis-à-visthesamehistoricalevent.Inthecaseof (West)GermanyandAustria,thelegacyinquestionisNationalSocialism, WorldWarII,andtheHolocaust.Whilebothcountriesweretheimperial centreoftheThirdReichbefore1945,they,howeverandcruciallyforcase selection,haveformedverydifferentcollectivememories/narrativessince then.Theadvantageofthiscaseselectionisthatthecountrieshavethesame historyandroletherein,thusonlyshowingvariationintheircollective memory.Inthat,theyformidealcounter-casestodemonstratetheimpact ofdifferentcollectivememoriesoveracountry’spoliciesinIR.
Intermsofcollectivememory’scontent,thecasestudiesofthisbookfocus ontheNazilegacyasthecornerstoneofGermanandAustrianmemory.The timeframefortheempiricalanalysesbeginswiththeendofWorldWarIIin 1945and finishesin2015.Todojusticetothealternatingimpactofcollective
⁷ Hillberg(1993)originallymadethisclaimforGermany.However,thehistoricnumbersrelativeto countrysizealsorenderitvalidforAustria.Around700,000AustriansweremembersoftheNSDAP, 90,000ofwhomhadalreadybeenillegalmemberspriorto1938.Oncewarbegan,morethanone millionAustriansservedinthe Wehrmacht (1,126,000AustriansaccordingtoJagschitz2000,80)and 60,000Austriansbelongedtothe WaffenSS. Asaresult,around250,000Austriansdiedincombator becameprisonersofwar(seeHanisch1994,380;Manoschek/Safrian2000,125;andRathkolb2010, 249).Atthesametime,AustriansalsohadleadingpositionsintheNaziexterminationmachinery,most prominentlyKaltenbrunner,Globocnik,Murer,Stangl,Brunner,Lerch,andBurger.Notleast,Adolf HitlerhimselfwasAustrian,borninthecityofBraunauamInn(Hilberg1985;Reiter2001,21–2).
⁸ Between1949and1990,GermanywasdividedintoWestandEastGermany,theFederalRepublic ofGermany(FRG)andtheEastGermanDemocraticRepublic(GDR),respectively.Thisbook’ s empiricalcasestudybefore1990refersonlytoWestGermany.
8
memoryindifferentpointsintimethatareeithercloserorfurtherawayfrom WorldWarII,theempiricalscenariosmove(West)Germany’sandAustria’ s collectivememoryofNazismthroughthedecades.First,asstrategyduringthe 1950s;thenasidentityinthe1960s,asbehaviourduringthelate1960sand early1970s,and finally,asvaluesinthenewmillennium.Withinthese decades, ‘criticalsituations’⁹ wereselectedtohighlightthepresenceofcollectivememoryinthesediverseforms.Theystartwiththequestionofreparation paymentstotheStateofIsraelin1952,thenthetrialofNaziwarcriminal AdolfEichmanninJerusalemin1961,theoutbreakofwarintheMiddleEast in1967and1973,and finallytheEuropeanrefugeecrisisin2015.The advantageofcomparingthereactionsof(West)GermanyandAustriatothe sameeventsisthatsuchananalysisrevealstheimpactofdifferentcollective memoriesinthesamesituation.Furthermore,thiscaseselectionallowsfora longertimeframeandthusassessescollectivememory’salternatinginfluence onpoliticsovertime.Ifcollectivememoryisindeedatthebasisoftheidentity, behaviour,andvaluesystemofthecasecountries,then(West)Germanyand Austriamustnotonlyhaveformeddifferentcollectiveidentitiesbutasa result andovertime musthavealsodevelopeddiversestatebehaviours andvalues.
ResearchMethods
Thebookemploysacombinationofcomparativecase-studytechniqueswith historicalprocess-tracinginarchivalresearch,content,anddiscursiveanalysisaswellaseliteinterviewing.Process-tracingisusedtoexaminecausal mechanismsatworkbetweenvariationsincollectivememoryandoutcome (GeorgeandBennett2005;BeachandPedersen2012).Inapplyingthis method,Itriangulateacrossmultipledatapools,includingprimaryarchival sources,newspaperandothermediareports,publicopinionsurveys,inpersoninterviews,andsecondaryliterature.Iemployprocess-tracingto ascertaintemporallinkagesnotmerelybetweenbutalsowithinthecasesas theymovethroughtime.
Collectivememorynotonlyhasadifferentcontentinthetwocasesand thusshowsadifferentcomparativeimpactontheirpolicies,butitalsochanges
⁹ Thisbook’sselectionofcriticalsituationsfollowstheresearchdesignoftheontologicalsecurity literaturewhichtoofocuseson ‘criticalsituations’ tounderstandacountry’sidentityneeds.Critical situationsforSteele(2008)andEjdus(2018)areeventsthatdisruptorbearthepotentialtodisruptselfidentities.
itsformovertime,andwithit,itsinfluenceonpoliticaloutcomes.Asa consequence,collectivememorycanbedirectly/activelyandindirectly/ passivelyimpactingpolitics.Wheretheinfluenceofcollectivememoryis direct/active,memoryislikelytobeverballyexpressed.Ontheotherhand, whereitsinfluenceisindirect/passive,itremainssubconsciousand,therefore, unmentioned.Thisphenomenonhasobviousimplicationsformethods, requiringtheempiricalcasestudiesofthisbooktoeachfollowtheirown, adaptedmethodologicalapproach(TashakkoriandTeddlie2003).
Equally,aswitchinmethodsisrequireddependentonwhothe ‘bearers’ and ‘makers’ ofmemorywithinacollectiveare.Inthechaptersofthisbook,they rangefrompoliticalelitestothebroaderpublic,situatedintheinternationalor thedomesticenvironmentofcountries.Furthermore,Chapters2and3assess theofficialandpublicdiscoursesurroundingcollectivememoryinmatters directlyrelatedtotheNazipast,thatis,reparationpaymentsandthecaseof AdolfEichmann.Incontrast,Chapters4and5dealwithlessobviousconnectionsbetweenthememoriesofNazism,withtheeventsinquestionbeingthe MiddleEastconflictandtherefugeecrisis.Duetothechaptersexploring varyingpointsintime,eachempiricalanalysisisfurthermorebuiltondiverse datasources.Whileforthehistoricalchapters,officialdocumentswereavailableinthestatearchives,thelastchapterreliesmoreheavilyonnewmedia sources.Totacklememory’sactiveandpassive,expressedandsubtle,influencesonpolicyoutcomes,eachempiricalchapterthuslaysoutatthebeginningthemethodologicalapproachmostsuitablefortracingtheimpactof collectivememoryasstrategy,identity,behaviour,orvaluesindiversecontexts andpointsintime.
StructureoftheBook
Thebookhastwomaingoals.The firstistocontributetotheorybuildingto linkcollectivememorywithIR.Thesecond,interconnectedgoalistotrace howcollectivememoryinfluencesacountry’sinternationalcourseofaction throughtime.Thebook’sprincipaltheoreticalcontributionistoyieldthe insightsfromtheinterdisciplinarycollectivememoryconceptandtoaddits uniquetemporaldimensiontospecifythenexusbetweenidentityandbehaviourpositedbyIR’sontologicalsecurityscholarship.Fromthis,itcontributes toourunderstandingofontologicalsecurityas ‘temporalsecurity’.Withthis newconcept,itdefinestheoriginsofacountry’sidentityanddescribeshow memoryguidesinternationalstatebehaviourthroughtime.
Chapter1establishesaconceptualframeworkthatconnectstheIRliterature withtheinterdisciplinarycollectivememoryconcept.Itdoessobylookingat IR’ sburgeoning ontologicalsecurityscholarship,startingwithextrapolating theconcept’scorecomponents,particularlyitsunderstandingofthe ‘self ’ or ‘identity’ ofacountryanditspositednexustostatebehaviour.Inasecond step,itthenexplores thenatureofcollectivememory,andestablishesits unique,temporal,andsocialconnotationsasthegroundsofitsowndefinitionofstateidentity.CombiningtherevisedinsightsofIR’sontological securityscholarshipwiththeinterdisciplinarycollectivememoryconcept,a noveltheoreticalframeworktermed temporalsecurity isdeveloped.It describescountriesastemporalsecurity-seekerswhichoutoftheurgeto ‘be-in-time’ establishcontinuitieswiththeircollectivememory,thatis,with their ‘narratedselfinthepast’.Thereferencepointforthisunfoldingprocess isalwayscollectivememory,whichmanifestsitselftwofold:inspecific memorycontentreferencingthepastbutalsointhefourformsrelatedto memory ’ stemporalnature:politicalstrategy,publicidentity,statebehaviour, andnationalvalues.Ineachoftheseforms,collectivememoryaffects countriestoeithermoredirectormoreindirectdegrees.
Chapters2to5pickuponhowcollectivememorymanifestsinglobal politicsthroughthesefourforms.Eachchapterstartswiththeorizing ‘ memory aspoliticalstrategy’ (Chapter2), ‘memoryaspublicidentity’ (Chapter3), ‘memoryasstatebehaviour’ (Chapter4),and ‘memoryasnationalvalues’ (Chapter5)inIR.Indiscussingthesevariousforms,thechaptersplace memoryintime,alternateitbetweencountries’ internationalanddomestic spheres,andrecordthevaryingdegreeoftheirimpactonpolicyoutcomes. Followingthetheoreticalconsiderations,Chapters2–5thenillustratetheir pointsviathecasesof(West)GermanyandAustria,highlightingthevarying impacttheirdiversecollectivememorieshavehadontheirpolicies.To accountfortime,thechapterstracecollectivememoryinthecasecountries chronologicallyfromtheendof1945tothepresentinselected ‘critical situations’ .
Theimmediatepost-warperiod,thelate1940sand1950s,iswhenWest Germany’sandAustria’sofficialmemoriesabouttheNazilegacyformed.In comparingWestGermanandAustrianpost-warpoliciestowardsIsrael, particularlywithregardstothequestionofreparationstotheJewishstatein 1952,Chapter2illustrateshowthefoundationsfortheircollectivememories werelaidintheinternationalsphere.Inmoredetail,thischapterspellsout howpost-warinternationalconstellationsandforeign-policyinterestsframed thebeginningsoftwoverydifferentnarrativesofthesameNazipast. 10
Oncethesetwocontrarycollectivememoriestookshapeinternationally, theybegantocarrydiversenationalidentitiesforWestGermanyandAustria inthedomesticsphere.IncomparingWestGermanandAustrianreactionsto thetrialofNaziwarcriminalAdolfEichmanninJerusalemin1961,Chapter3 demonstrateshowaselectivenarrativeoftheNazipastbegantounderliethese countries’ senseofself.Alreadyadecadeaftertheirstorieswereforgedinitially forforeignpolicypurposes,theseprovidedthelensesthroughwhichthe publicanditsrepresentativesperceivedtheEichmanntrial,theNazicrimes, andtheirownroleinthem.
Withrobustnationalnarrativesinplaceonlytwentyyearsaftertheendof WorldWarII,Chapter4illustrateshow inthemediumterm thesebegan toshapetheinternationalbehaviourofWestGermanyandAustriaindiverse ways.Theempiricalscenarioanalysedinthischapteristheoutbreakofwarin theMiddleEast.IncomparinghowWestGermanyandAustriacametotake sideswitheitherIsraelortheArabsduringtheSixDayWarof1967andthe YomKippurWarandinternationaloilcrisisof1973,thischapterexplains theirdiversecoursesofactionwiththeirdifferentmemories.
Lastly,ourframeworkalsosuggeststhat overthelongrun collective memoryformsnotonlyacountry’sidentitybutalsoitsvaluesystem.As such,GermanyandAustriamustkeepidentifyingdifferentversionsofhow theyoughttoactintheircurrentpolicies.Thisbelatedinfluenceofcollective memoryisillustratedinChapter5anddrawsontheexampleofthediverse GermanandAustrianresponsestotherefugeecrisisof2015.Triggeredbythe Syrianwar,largenumbersofrefugeesstartedtomarchalongtheBalkanroute towardstheEU.However,therefugeesarrivedincountrieswhich ifour theoryholds lookedbackindifferentwaysand,therefore,musthaveidentifieddiverseversionsofhowtheyoughttoactvis-à-visthispressing,normativematterinworldpolitics.
