War Memorial - Controversy

Controversy

Unsurprisingly, war memorials can be politically controversial. A notable example are the controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, where a number of convicted World War II war criminals are interred. Chinese and Korean representatives have often protested against the visits of Japanese politicians to the shrine. The visits have in the past led to severe diplomatic conflicts between the nations, and Japanese businesses were attacked in China after a visit by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the shrine was widely reported and criticized in Chinese and Korean media.

In a similar case, former German chancellor Helmut Kohl was criticised by writers Günter Grass and Elie Wiesel for visiting the war cemetery at Bitburg (in the company of Ronald Reagan) which also contained the bodies of SS troops. Unlike the case of the Yasukuni Shrine, there was no element of intentional disregard of international opinion involved, as is often claimed for the politician visits to the Japanese shrine.

Soviet World War II memorials included quotes of Joseph Stalin's texts, frequently replaced after his death. Such memorials were often constructed in city centres and now are sometimes regarded as symbols of Soviet occupation and removed, which in turn may spark protests (see Bronze Soldier of Tallinn).

The Fusiliers' memorial arch to the Royal Dublin Fusiliers who fought in the Boer War, erected at 1907 in St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, was called "Traitors' Gate" by the Redmondites and later Irish Republicans, from whose point of view Irish soldiers going off to fight the British Empire's wars were traitors to Ireland. The sharpness of the controversy gradually faded, and while the term "Traitors' Gate" is still in occasional colloquial use in Dublin daily life, it has mostly lost its pejorative meaning.

In Australia, in 1981, historian Henry Reynolds raised the issue of whether war memorials should be erected to Indigenous Australians who had died fighting against British invaders on their lands.

"How, then, do we deal with the Aboriginal dead? White Australians frequently say that 'all that' should be forgotten. But it will not be. It cannot be. Black memories are too deeply, too recently scarred. And forgetfulness is a strange prescription coming from a community which has revered the fallen warrior and emblazoned the phrase 'Lest We Forget' on monuments throughout the land. o we make room for the Aboriginal dead on our memorials, cenotaphs, boards of honour and even in the pantheon of national heroes? If we are to continue to celebrate the sacrifice of men and women who died for their country can we deny admission to fallen tribesmen? There is much in their story that Australians have traditionally admired. They were ever the underdogs, were always outgunned, yet frequently faced death without flinching. If they did not die for Australia as such they fell defending their homelands, their sacred sites, their way of life. What is more the blacks bled on their own soil and not half a world away furthering the strategic objectives of a distant Motherland whose influence must increasingly be seen as of transient importance in the history of the continent."

Reynolds' suggestion proved controversial. Occasional memorials have been erected to commemorate Aboriginal people's resistance to colonisation, or to commemorate white massacres of Indigenous Australians. These memorials have often generated controversy. For example, a 1984 memorial to the Kalkadoon people's "resistance against the paramilitary force of European settlers and the Queensland Native Mounted Police" was "frequently shot at" and "eventually blown up".

With the advent of long war, some memorials are constructed before the conflict is over, leaving space for extra names of the dead. For instance, the Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial in Irvine, CA, memorializes an ongoing pair of US wars, and has space to inscribe the names of approximately 8,000 fallen servicemembers, while the UK National Memorial Arboretum near Lichfield in England hosts the UK's National Armed Forces Memorial which displays the names of the more than 16,000 people who have already died on active service in the UK armed forces since World War Two, with more space available for future fatalities.

It seems that in at least one country newly added names are dedicated each year at a special eucumenical service in the presence of family members, veterans and invited dignitaries; the historical and political issues that are involved are arguably numerous and complicated; they can certainly be said to include both the issue of whether it makes any historical sense whatsoever that the names of the dead in war can be added in this fashion into what seems to be intended to be an indefinite future while completely ignoring those of the military who died in what is effectively, from the point of view of nationality and politics, the same military actions over the period of all the previous centuries in which the country in question existed, and also an issue which is perhaps even more relevant from a personal and legal point of view, namely whether the relatives and others who should in principle, together with any others involved in point of law, be in some sort of control of the use of the names of the dead for commemorative purposes will necessarily be in accordance with the military decisions taken by the government, or the character of the government itself, it being the case that if they are not they may not wish the names to be included (this citizen right having it seems, on the record, been generally observed at the time of the erection of the war memorials after the First World War in particular in western Europe, if not it seems after the Second World War). This possibility can perhaps be said to relate to the perhaps rather complicated legal position (at least up to the First World War and the creation in the United Kingdom of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and as in record from the classical Roman times) that the bodies of the dead (and consequently also presumably the commemoration of their names?) are not apparently, in legal terms, within the normal law of property.