History as a Diplomat: The Impact of Collective Memory and Shared History in Post-WWII Diplomacy
By Anay Sahu ’29
The immediate aftermath of World War II left the world in desperate need of rebuilding. After six years of war ravagingthe globe, continents were left fractured, cities left in ruins, and millions of lives lost. The Axis Powers, having surrendered, were left politically and economically isolated. The Potsdam Conference in 1945 established the decisions over the Axis Powers’ future, setting the geopolitical stage for the next few decades. Specifically, Germany and Japan, the two leading Axis nations, were stripped of sovereignty, with the Allies overseeing their redevelopment. Despite this dark history, both nations took contrasting approaches in their response after the conclusion of the war. This led to a clear disparity between the two countries in how the international community remembers their roles in WWII and its aftermath. As a result, the legitimacy and moral grounds of both Japan and Germany are vastly different in the modern world.
In the decades following the severe atrocities committed during the Holocaust, Germany has maintained a position of guilt on the global stage. The genocide of Jews, perpetrated by Nazi Germany, became a defining moment in the historical consciousness of both Germany and Israel, shaping the trajectory for the future of their relationship. After Konrad Adenauer became the first elected Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, he immediately recognized the significance of reconciling with Israel in order to rebuild the country's global image. In an effort to gain soft power, West Germany swiftly recognized its moral and historical responsibility publicly, delivering a speech on September 27, 1951 acknowledging that “unspeakable crimes were committed in the name of the German people.” [1]
The memory of WWII atrocities continues to shape Germany’s efforts to gain soft power well into the 21st century. Germany actively strives to maintain good relations with Polish leaders, assuring them that Polish suffering during WWII would never be forgotten. Government policies have emphasized the importance of Holocaust memory by providing monetary support for survivors and organizing official visits to concentration camps. The relationship with Israel has strengthened, with Germany pledging to stay committed to Israel’s security and promote peace between Israel and Palestine. [2] The influence of collective remembrance of the Holocaust also extends beyond Jewish victims of Nazi Germany. Germany draws two lessons from the Holocaust: nie wieder Krieg (never again war), and nie wieder Auschwitz (never again Auschwitz). While these lessons urge Germany to refrain from engaging in military engagements across Europe, they provide a moral obligation for the nation to take all measures necessary to prevent another Holocaust everywhere in the world. [3] These actions over several decades have positively contributed to the international community’s collective memory of Germany post-WWII, allowing it to hold moral authority and soft power in diplomacy today.
While Germany’s apologies have significantly rehabilitated its global image, Japan’s actions to address its history in WWII have often drawn further criticism and condemnation. At the root of the problem is Japan’s struggle with its own historical memory. After the end of WWII, Japan faced rising pessimism about its wartime actions, followed by attempts in the 1960s to view pre-war history in a more positive light. Thus, Japan’s attempts to grapple with its wartime past have instead served as a barrier to reconciliation. [4]
This struggle with national identity has affected Japan’s diplomatic goals in Asia. The Nanjing Massacre, one of the largest mass killings in the course of the war, sparked heated discussions between Japan and China regarding the true scale of the massacre. The 1990s saw talks between Japan and South Korea regarding the mass exploitation of comfort women in the war. Japan acknowledged its colonial aggression through the 1993 Kono Statement that later resulted in profound apologies to numerous Asian nations. However, Japan’s failure to implement legal responsibility or provide reparations drew condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite this backlash, Japan’s past national reconciliation must be upheld due to its intertwinement in history; backtracking would instead be perceived as a denial of wrongdoing to the international community. [5] For this reason, Japan’s collective memory of its wartime atrocities with much of Asia hinders its soft power in the region. In 2019, disputes over Japanese compensation for Korean victims of war crimes led South Korea to terminate an intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, exemplifying Japanese struggles on the continent. [6]
The post-WWII global image of both Germany and Japan has been profoundly affected by the international collective memory of the two countries. Their respective apologies for the atrocities have shaped diplomatic relations across the world. Germany’s recognition of Holocaust memory has provided the foundation of its reconciliation with Israel and with much of Europe. On the other hand, Japan’s national memory has hindered its soft power, influencing its foreign policy across the world. Together, Germany and Japan’s contrasting paths demonstrate that collective memory is not merely the past; it is a tool that continues to shape global relations today.
Footnotes
Bachleitner, “Diplomacy with Memory: How the Past Is Employed for Future Foreign Policy.”
Langenbacher, “Does Collective Memory Still Influence German Foreign Policy?”
Staun, “The Slow Path towards ‘Normality’: German Strategic Culture and the Holocaust.”
Togo, “Japan’s Historical Memory: Reconciliation with Asia.”
Togo, “Japan’s Historical Memory: Reconciliation with Asia.”
Bong-Kwan, “Japan’s Elusive World War II Apology Continues to Trouble Asia.”
References
Bachleitner, Kathrin. “Diplomacy with Memory: How the Past Is Employed for Future Foreign Policy How the Past Is Employed for Future Foreign Policy on JSTOR.” 2019. Jstor.org. https://doi.org/10.2307/26985254.
Langenbacher, Eric. “Does Collective Memory Still Influence German Foreign Policy? On JSTOR.” 2018. Jstor.org. https://doi.org/10.2307/24590974.
Jørgen Staun. 2020. “The Slow Path towards ‘Normality’: German Strategic Culture and the Holocaust.” Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 3 (1). https://sjms.nu/articles/10.31374/sjms.34.
Togo, Kazuhiko. 2008. “Japan’s Historical Memory: Reconciliation with Asia - Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. December 2008. https://apjjf.org/kazuhiko-togo/2997/article.
Bong-Kwan, Justin. 2019. “Japan’s Elusive World War II Apology Continues to Trouble Asia.” Modern Diplomacy. October 3, 2019. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2019/10/03/japans-elusive-world-war-ii-apology-continues-to-trouble-asia/.