History is a means to understand and to work on the past (with as much objectivity as it can be) – and on its consequences – whereas memory is a way to unify a group, and to give a specific and coherent identity to a community. That’s why the latter is inevitably biased and subjective. To what extent the “memories” of the Second World War can be linked to “history” and to historical work? Should we consider that they are in contradiction to one another – or may they complement each other?

Continue reading →