With all the stuff in the news about taking down Confederate war memorials , wanted to ask if this is unique to the U.S. ? Do other countries around the world have similar numbers of public displays that celebrate the losers in historic wars?
At one point or another, you've probably seen [this statue of Leonidas, forever guarding the pass at Thermopylai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#/media/File:%CE%98%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%82_-panoramio(1).jpg).
The statue was funded by Greek Americans, sculpted by Vassos Falireas, and set up in 1955. It stands in a long line of monuments to the Greek defeat at Thermopylai that started the year after the battle and continues to recent times. In 1997, the Greek government added a further monument to celebrate the 700 men of Thespiai who stayed behind and fought to the death with Leonidas.
What are all these people doing, celebrating an unmitigated disaster? Because make no mistake: the battle of Thermopylai was a crushing defeat for the Greek alliance. At minimal loss of troops and time, Xerxes dislodged the Greek army from the strongest position in their land, killing a Spartan king and 4,000 of his men. Leonidas had thrown away his life and that of 300 Spartan citizens, achieving literally nothing. On the face of it, there was no reason for the Greeks to celebrate. Our sources give no hint of the popular idea that the last stand of the 300 Spartans was a moral victory that united and galvanised the Greeks. Herodotos simply refers to the battle as "the defeat at Thermopylai" (8.27.1) and "the defeat of the Spartans" (8.66.1). Even after the battle, he stresses the constant disappointment of the Athenians at the Spartans' timidity and lack of commitment to the cause (8.40.2, 9.6). Thermopylai was the closest they came to losing the war altogether.
Of course, we know that the Greek allies came back from the brink and eventually defeated the Persians. But this happened in later battles - Salamis, Plataiai and Mykale - with their own separate ancient and modern monuments. The eventual Greek victory against Xerxes doesn't explain why they built all these monuments to their greatest failure.
These monuments started early. Already in Herodotos' day there was a stone lion on the hill where Leonidas fell, and several epigrams to honour the men who fought and died there. Herodotos would have lived long enough to see the tomb of Leonidas that the Spartans built back in Sparta, after they solemnly conveyed his bones home for reburial. Every year they organised a festival and held games in his honour; he was the only Spartan to receive heroic cult. Why all this effort to commemorate defeat?
The answer is simple. Monuments don't immortalise facts; they immortalise heroes. Monuments don't serve historical truth but political agendas.
We have no evidence that the Spartans had a reputation as skilled or courageous fighters before Thermopylai. They didn't tell the kind of stories about themselves that we now tell about the Spartans. But after their defeat at Thermopylai, they badly needed such stories. The rest of the Greeks were stirring; they no longer showed much respect for their supposed hegemon and leader, Sparta, now that it had proved slow and noncommittal and ineffective against the Persian threat. Several states refused to join the fight; others, like Athens, threatened to sail for Italy and leave Greece to its fate. In short, Sparta had fucked up, and desperately needed to change the narrative to show the rest of the Greeks that the Spartans were still worthy to lead them.
So they unleashed what we should probably imagine as a massive propaganda campaign. Through careful management of the information others learned about the battle, the invention of numerous details and prophecies, and by recruiting the legendary poet Simonides of Keos for their cause, they took complete control of the way people remembered Thermopylai. The story of an inexperienced king who led a deliberately understrength force to its pointless destruction was transformed into a heroic narrative of sacrifice for a higher cause. Where the Greeks had accused the Spartans of committing only the bare minimum of troops, the Spartans retorted that none had brought a greater sacrifice: every last one of their men had chosen to stay and die! In fact they had refused to let their allies fight at all, they were so eager to commit themselves to the cause! Their king had fallen bravely in the face of the enemy, in accordance with the eternal laws of Sparta and the oracle that foretold it was the only way to save the rest of Greece! Who would not be inspired by such selfless courage? You know the rest.
Monuments to the bravery of the dead were a crucial part of this propaganda campaign. Simonides' epigrams were set up on the site of the battle so that everyone who passed through would read them. The stone lion for Leonidas made a similar point. Later on, for reasons to do with internal politics at Sparta, the remains of Leonidas were "found" and transported back to Sparta for further monumentalisation and celebration. By that time there was no longer much dissent against the official Spartan story of Thermopylai.
Through the centuries, people all over Europe and the wider world have been inspired by that official story. It is, of course, mostly a lie - but one that people find irresistible. They would much rather hear of men stoically embracing their fate and fighting to the death for a higher purpose than of a small rag-tag army ineffectively skirmishing with a vastly superior force over questionable political stakes until they are inevitably overrun and slaughtered. The notion of grimly holding one's ground in the face of impossible odds speaks to our most primal notions of heroism. Modern people still reflect on this story, pursue the glory in it, and seek to connect themselves to it. So they continue to add their own monuments to the pile, advertising how much they are like these imagined Spartans (and Thespians), and so perpetuating the most successful propaganda coup in history.
The state of Leonidas at Thermopylai is hardly the only example of a monument celebrating defeat. There are many of them all over the world. If you want to explain them, you simply need to ask: what cause do they serve? What story are they telling, and who gains when that story is told?
In India, we do have memorials, museums and statues for the INA (Indian National Army) which fought on the Axis side during World War 2. It was an armed force created by Indian nationalists in 1942 in Southeast Asia. Its purpose was to secure Indian independence from British rule with Japan's support.
After Japan lost the war, the British Indian army decided to court martial a number of INA officers. They hoped that by exposing the reported stories of torture and collaboration, they could turn the public opinion against the INA.
The first and most widely known court martial was that of Prem Sahgal, Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon and Shah Nawaz Khan. The three accused men belonged to the three major religions of India: Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism. Indians felt that the INA represented a secular national army when judged against the British-Indian Army, where caste and religious differences were preserved amongst ranks. In a matter of weeks, the INA officers were acclaimed heroes who fought for the freedom of India. The two major political parties in India, the Indian National Congress, which was majority Hindu but officially secular, and the Indian Muslim League found common cause in supporting the defendants.
In spite of the popular support, the three officers were sentenced to deportation for life. But the immense public pressure, demonstrations and riots forced the British to release all three defendants. Within three months, 11,000 soldiers of the INA were also released although barred from joining the newly created Indian Armed Forces.
In India, the INA continues to be a popular and widely celebrated organisation. There are several museums dedicated to it which display the uniforms worn by the soldiers, post stamps released by the INA during WW2, photographical material, etc. There is also a memorial in Singapore dedicated to the INA. The INA's battle cry, Jai Hind (glory to India), remains a popular nationalist greeting. It has been used by all Indian Prime Ministers to conclude their Independence day speeches. Every aspect of the INA has also been the subject of a vast collection of literature, music and visual art. There are numerous movies, television shows and documentaries which have been made on it, and in many languages.
Hi there-- not discouraging further responses, but you may be interested in these two older posts regarding Confederate (and other) monuments:
and
The 1891 Chilean Civil War saw a conflict between supporters of the Chilean National Congress and supporters of President José Manuel Balmaceda. In 1891 the Congress refused to approve Balmaceda’s proposed budget (the Ley de Presupuesto) and Balmaceda responded by approving, de facto, the budget from the prior year, and declared himself the only national authority. On January 7, 1891, civil war broke out.
After learning of the defeat of his forces at the Battle of Placilla, Balmaceda left the government palace in Santiago (La Moneda) and took refuge inside the Argentine Embassy. He stayed there for twenty days. On September 19, 1891, the day after his presidential mandate ended, he commited suicide.
He continues to be a controversial figure; supporters of his presidency see him as a “visionary statesman who represented the social and economic changes of the last years of the 19th century” and the person “responsible for the changes that were necessary [for Chile] to achieve greater industrial development.” His detractors see him as “the dictator and tyrant who overrode Chile’s institutional order and was responsible for the civil war.”
Today, while he lost the war and committed suicide, his mixed legacy (Carlos Tromben, who wrote a fictionalized account of Balmaceda, stated in 2016 that he “went from being hated to being almost a saintly layman”) means that he still has many monuments throughout the country. For example:
(Interestingly, Balmaceda Park’s northern terminus is next to Baquedano Plaza, named after Manuel Baquedano, the military general who succeeded Balmaceda as provisional president after Balmaceda sought refuge in the Argentine Embassy).
Sources:
“Balmaceda, su Gobierno y la Revolución de 1891.” Julio Bañados Espinoza. Centro de Estudios Bicentenario, 2005.
“José Manuel Balmaceda,” Memoria Chilena (a project of the National Library of Chile). http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3-article-662.html
“La Guerra Entre Chilenos,” Ch. 13 of “Breve Historia de Chile.” Alfredo Sepulveda. Penguin-Random House, 2018.
They are reasonably common.
Canada for example has many statues dedicated to Louis-Joseph de Montcalm, a French General who was killed at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in the Seven Years War, a war that would end in French defeat and the British annexation of what is now Quebec. Similarly, there are many statues to Louis-Joseph Papineau and the patriotes of the Lower Canada rebellion of 1837-1838, a failed uprising by French Canadians against the British. The rebels had varying motivations ranging from demands for greater autonomy within the British Empire, to annexation to the United States, to the creation of an independent French-Canadian republic, but ultimately it was crushed, even as some demands for autonomy would be eventually granted in stages leading up to creation of the Dominion of Canada a few decades later in 1867.
Statues to either are common and there is a very prominent Montcalm statue built into the facade of the National Assembly of Quebec, the provincial legislature, alongside an equally prominent statue of General Wolfe, the British General during the Plains of Abaraham who also died in that same battle. These statues serve both to commemorate history and as expressions of French-Canadian identity that persists despite being on the "losing side" of both the Seven Years War and the Lower Canada rebellion. The statues on the facade of the National Assembly serve an additional purpose of trying to foster reconciliation between French-Canadians and Anglo-Canadians by paying equal respect to both Wolfe and Montcalm, and emphasizing their shared soldierly virtues as opposed to the antagonism between them and the two linguistic groups they represent.
Elsewhere in the world, there are many statues to Giuseppe and Antia Garibaldi in Brazil, in honour of their leadership in the failed Ragamuffin War in that country. Giuseppe Garibaldi was an Italian revolutionary most famous for his efforts to forcibly unify Italy into a modern-nation at the head of the so-called Redshirts volunteer armies in the 1850s, but he also in earlier years fought alongside the would-be Riograndese and Juliana republics that attempted to secede from the Empire of Brazil in 1835. Anita Garibaldi (née de Jesus Ribeiro da Silva) was Garibaldi's eventual wife and Comrade-in-Arms, of particular reverence as she was a native-born Brazilian from Laguna, in the territory of the proclaimed Juliana republic.
Again, although the Ragamuffin War ended in failure for the separatists, and Brazilian control was eventually reasserted, many statues to the Garibaldis and the revolutionaries in general exist, especially in the South of Brazil. They were erected to commemorate history, to celebrate the liberal, republican ideals that the separatists embodied during their war with the Brazilian royalists, and lastly as expressions of Southern Brazilian identity and pride. This regional identity is strongly felt by some in those states because of a differing socio-economic make-up. Unlike the rest of Brazil the south was more influenced by German and Italian immigration, as well as its Uruguayan and Argentinean neighbors, and because of economic disparities between North and South, with the southern states being considerably wealthier.
In many ways, these statues are similar to Confederate statues, or at least what people who defend Confederate statues claim they represent: benign expressions of regional identity and pride despite failed attempts at independence. They differ in one crucial aspect though: they aren't associated with systems of white supremacy, but rather generally progressive movements, and so there is generally little controversy surrounding them and their "treason" against the country they attempted to break away from isn't seen in a negative light.
In Germany, there are many memorials for the fallen of the world wars. Basically every town or village has at least a tablet with the names of those who fell, most have some kind of statue depicting not a great general or politician but what is supposed to represent either the common soldier or the general suffering of the population, sometimes quite abstractly. In recent years, more and more streets are being named after resistance fighters or people who otherwise opposed the Nazis. Under the street sign, you will often find another, smaller sign with a short (1-2 sentences) biography of that person.
There are also the Stolpersteine (stumbling stones), which are cobblestones made out of metal placed in between the normal pavement. They name the people who used to live in that house before their deportation and, in most cases, death. They are also placed in front of houses where the occupants had to flee. In front of some factories, you will find larger versions commemorating the forced labourers. The action is not without its critics, since in German there is a proverb (Mit Füßen treten), literally to kick with your feet, which expresses disrespect and therefore memorials which you walk across might express disrespect. Others find it too minimalistic.
Then there are more "creative" forms of memorial. For example, in the Moselle Valley, there's a town called Bullay, which has a railway bridge across the river. During the war, that bridge was subjected to several level bombing attacks which did not yield results. To protect the bridge, AA batteries were placed, one on one of the ridges called Prinzenkopf (near Zell/Mosel)*. The bridge was repeatedly attacked and eventually destroyed by a low level attack by P-47s and rebuilt after the war (and later used by the USAF to practice attacking bridges during Vietnam). There is a soldier graveyard a few hundred metres from it for the fallen for the fighting which took place in March 1945 and in 2009, a observation deck was build there, standing above nearby trees. There are a few signs which remind people of the history, and you can visit the slightly overgrown Graveyard there, but it is not advertised far away or promoted widely. In my opinion, that is pretty representative for a lot of German war memorials and graveyards. They are not mentioned as tourist sights, there are a few subtle signposts and information boards, but I think a lot of people do not pay much attention to them after an initial glance or do not notice them at all. Usually, the municipality or state places flowers there on anniversaries like the end of the first world war, but that is the extent of most festivities and memorial service.
/* I cannot find an online source for the presence of said FlaK battery, but I have talked to several eye witnesses who claimed that it was there. And given that there are only 1000 feet between the ridge and the bridge it overlooks, it would have been a sensible place to place AA guns.
Answering from the Brazilian perspective, it is not unique to the US and I’ll give two examples that seem similar, but are actually ractified by the memory constructed around them.
The territory which is now the country of Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese and during the colonial times communication or any kind of relationship between the captaincies were not stimulated by Lisbon, where all the affairs were centralized. Brazilian Independence was declared in 1822 and it became the Empire of Brazil. After the abdication of the first Emperor in 1831, the throne was left to his underage son who would only come of age (by a coup) and take the throne in 1842. This interregnum is known as the Regency and is mostly remembered as a time of turmoil and chaos because the Nation of Brazil was only so in name. The provinces had their own local elites, never had much to do with each other, and were now tied under the Court in Rio that mostly didn’t care for their local affairs, situation aggravated by the difficulty of communication and transport within the country. Local movements, riots and revolutions for political reform and even emancipation sprouted in the 1830s, most famously in Pará, Maranhão, Pernambuco, Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul. They lasted for years and were only squashed in the Second Empire as a step in the direction of a real unification. I can’t say it is the case for all of them, but Rio Grande do Sul has a collective memory strongly tied to this era’s movement, the Farroupilha (Ragamuffin) Revolution. All through the state there are monuments commemorating its heroes or cities named after them, e.g. Farroupilha, Garibaldi and Bento Gonçalves. The current flag of the state carries the Farroupilha’s colors and bears the inscription “República do Rio Grande do Sul” with the date of the start of the Revolution, which is now a bank holiday in the state.
The state of São Paulo has a similar construction of collective memory derived from its revolt against the Federation in 1932. During the First Republic (1889-1930), the State rose economically and politically within the Nation, leaded by the oligarchy party of São Paulo, P.R.P.. This period was characterized by elections being rigged with the presidency being rotated between candidates of a few states, an equilibrium that lasted until 1930, when the victory ofJulio Prestes, the P.R.P. candidate, led to a Revolution organized by states who were being deprecated in that system. A provisory regime was put into place with Getulio Vargas (from Rio Grande do Sul) as president and promises of a new Constitution. A part of São Paulo’s intellectual and political figures linked to the Democratic and the Constitutional Parties and to the Law School had participated in 1930 but their support was not rewarded with the command of the state, which they thought was their due, was put under a military “interventor” (interventioner?). In May 23, 1932, four students, Martins, Miragaia, Dráusio, and Camargo, a.k.a. M.M.D.C., were killed by troops linked to federal forces. This episode, the authoritative intervention and the feeling of betrayal, in spite of the economic power São Paulo felt was unparalleled, are among the causes of the Revolution declared in July 9th, 1932 demanding a new Constitution, but they were defeated in October of that year. Getulio’s provisory term became a dictatorship and he stayed in office until 1945 but landmarks remembering the war started appearing even before his leaving. In the city of São Paulo, the Julio Prestes station was built in 1938 and the July 9th Avenue was inaugurated in 1941. The construction of the Ibirapuera Obelisk Mausoleum to those who had fallen in 1932 started in 1947, shortly after the fall of Getulio, and the monument is now bypassed by the May 23 Avenue. Other street names in the city are related to facts and people involved in the events of 1932, e.g. the M.M.D.C. Street. In 1934, the elite of Sao Paulo also founded the University of São Paulo which brought together schools that had been under the federal jurisdiction up until that point, a move regarded as a show of power and independency of the state. In 1935, three monuments were inaugurated in memory of the students who died fighting in the war, one in the Law School, one in the Medical School, and one in the Polytechnic School. These monuments have a representation of the head of a soldier that was modeled after Carlos Lacerda, Getulio’s biggest political enemy during his dictatorship. The persistency of this memory is shown by the fact that July 9th was also declared a state holiday in 1995, fifty years after Getulio stepped out of office as a dictator.
Although defeated, like the Confederacy, these two examples are generally well regarded by the public and the monuments aren’t subject to major debates about their existence. In the first case, because when Brazil became a Republic, the memory had to be constructed as showing how the country was destined to be a Republic, so episodes against the monarchy were exalted as exempla of the fight for more rational and fair regime, even if that wasn’t their original motivation.
In the second case, Getulio’s dictatorship was brutal against its opponents, with rampant use of violence and torture. The regime is usually used as an example of populism at its finest and it also had sympathy for some fascist ideas, even deporting people to Nazi Germany, like the infamous case of Olga Benario Prestes. The Revolution in 1932, although prior to these developments, is usually seen against this background, and therefore is justified and worthy of remembrance. It is also seen as one of the symbols of the independence and entrepreneurship of São Paulo within the Nation, contributing to the invention of tradition that began in the First Republic that draws back from the actions of the Bandeirantes in the 17th century. These Bandeirantes are the ones that are being subject to debates about their memory and the pertinance of landmarks and monuments with their names are being questioned since their role in the enslavement of native americans were brought into discussion.
Here in my home country of the Philippines, technically any war memorial before WWII are all war memorials for the losing side, since before that war our armed forces under a united Philippine identity hadn't won any war, only singular actions.
For example, we have a memorial for the Battle of Tirad Pass, where although Aguinaldo and the revolutionary forces experienced a numerical victory (~300 killed Americans vs. ~60 killed Filipinos) it is considered to be an overall defeat as Aguinaldo had lost two powerful forces under two skilled generals, Gregorio Del Pilar (who died covering Aguinaldo's retreat in Tirad Pass) and his forces, and Manuel Tinio (who was cut off from Aguinaldo because of his retreat) and the elite Tinio Brigade.
In this, I side more with respected author Nick Joaquin in speculating why the battle was celebrated nonetheless. Even if he did say that the battle was an exercise in futility (Aguinaldo managed to escape but without any substantial forces left), it is the heroism despite the odds experienced that is to be celebrated.
In fact, I sense a certain similarity in /u/Iphikrates ' argument for the celebration of the battle of Thermopylai by the Spartans. The Philippines in the 1950's needed to galvanize behind heroes, and with the recent liberation of Manila and the Philippine islands as a whole a costly liberation, too costly and still too recent in fact to be even considered for celebration, they chose a far less recent conflict (Philippine-American War) instead to celebrate and galvanize the country behind, along with other bungles of Aguinaldo and of course the pre-colonial victory of Lapu-Lapu.
