{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02627891877114445, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015514472200389571, 'mean_word_length': 5.289275736084247, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
War in the Museum: The Historial of the Great War in Péronne and the Military History Museum in Dresden

: This article examines how contemporary war museums represent war and war-making. It looks at and compares the ideas underpinning the permanent exhibitions of two museums – the Historial of the Great War in Péronne (France) and the Military History Museum (MHM) in Dresden (Germany) –, analyzing examples from the exhibitions to illustrate the argument. It also discusses the architecture of these museums and their respective horizontal and vertical configurations. Our analysis demonstrates that the Historial promotes an anti-war message in the name of European reconciliation whilst the narrative put forward by the MHM allows for the possibility of war. On a theoretical level, it shows that a cosmopolitan mode of remembering, although consensus-oriented, can create surprisingly different political positions whilst suggesting that an agonistic turn in representing war and war-making in the museum, with an onus on multiple, even conflicting, perspectives, can help respond to contemporary challenges related to difficult history.

Both the Historial of the Great War in Péronne (opened in 1992)  glance, their approaches appear related, yet they have produced different outcomes. In order to understand better their modes of representation, we draw upon the distinction between antagonistic, cosmopolitan and agonistic modes of remembering, and we consider the hegemonic dimension of victimhood-centred cosmopolitan memory discourses in recent decades (Cento Bull and Hansen 2016). In addressing which modes of memory they use, the similarities and the differences between the two museums become clearer as well as the tensions embedded in their approaches.
'Museum analysis', understood as case study analysis, can shed light upon 'general social, political and cultural relations', also considering that exhibitions 'stage orders, histories and identities and thus permanently convey particular interpretations of the world' (Baur 2010: 8;Baur 2013: 447). 2 War exhibitions 'are suitable to set down a political marker' (Thiemeyer 2010a: 20). Furthermore, looking comparatively at museums allows for the identification of contrasts and similarities and hence can enhance the value of critical interpretations (Tzortzi 2015: 6). This article begins by establishing the conceptual framework for the discussion. The ideas and processes leading to the opening of the two museums are then presented, drawing on specific 1 The research on which this article is based was made possible by the Horizon 2020 programme of the European Commission, which funded the research project 'Unsettling Remembering and Social Cohesion in Transnational Europe' (UNREST), that ran between 2016 and 2019. One of the empirical work packages of UNREST was concerned with the study of war museums and included the two museums which this article discusses as well as the Kobarid Museum (Slovenia), the German-Russian Museum Berlin-Karlshorst (Germany) and Oskar Schindler's Enamel Factory in Krakow (Poland). 2 All translations of direct quotations from German and French into English are by the authors of this article. examples from both permanent exhibitions. The implementation of these concepts is further studied through an analysis of the architectural redesign of the two buildings, and in particular their horizontal and vertical configurations. This discussion leads to conclusions about how each museum presents different attitudes to war, despite the fact that both are strongly indebted to the cosmopolitan-oriented cultural turn in the presentation of war heritage. The Historial promotes a strong anti-war message in the name of European reconciliation which ultimately loses sight of issues of power and politics and is therefore unable to address more radical perspectives on how to end wars whilst the MHM allows for the possibility of war through almost equating war with nature and through a more open attitude to military intervention. Thus, we show that differenteven contrastingpositions can be represented using a similar museological language, with a common conceptual origin. Our research is based on internal documents, exhibition catalogues and other official publications, interviews with relevant actors, as well as on several visits to the museums.

The Cultural Turn. Cosmopolitan and Agonistic Memory.
From the mid-1960s, the historiography of war started moving away from its traditional military history approach, with a focus on technology, battlefield tactics, and military leaders, towards an emphasis on war 'as a social and cultural phenomenon' (Evans 2007: 49). Such developments are part of the broader 'cultural turn' in historical analysis, which came to complement and supplant the previous shift towards social history typical of the first two generations of the French Annales school (Hunt 1989;Kühne and Ziemann 2000;Prost and Winter 2004). Furthermore, this cultural turn in historiography has been concurrent with the so-called 'museum boom' or 'museum phenomenon' (Beier-de Haan 2005). Historical anthropology, which examines 'the actions, the suffering, the feelings and the thoughts of the human being rather than abstract structures and processes' along with cultural history have left a significant trace on the configuration of exhibitions and museums about war in the past three decades (Thiemeyer 2010b: 125-127). As a result, there has also been a trend in war museums in Western Europe to go against more traditional modes of representing war and warmaking to do with military strategy, technological development, sacrifice and serving one's country, replacing them with an approach focusing on individuals, on their experiences, emotions, passions, and suffering.
We argue that this approach is also connected with the institutionalization of a cosmopolitan mode of remembering, which focuses on victimhood: 'narratives of the past take as their point of departure the experience of the suffering of the victim and his or her descendants, while the image of the "hero" in the traditional sense disappears from the stories' (Cento Bull and Hansen 2016: 391). Furthermore, this cosmopolitan mode of remembering is centred on the Holocaust, a central reference point 'in the global age', and aims to legitimize the expansion of a global liberal human rights regime (Levy and Sznaider 2006). Against this backdrop, national differences aside, the memorialization of the First World War, at least in the Western European context, has also tended to follow this trend, placing emphasis on victimhood and on the absurdity of war-induced human suffering. Yet the focalization on victims' memory also fosters de-politicization and the erasure of the social and political conflict underlying historical events and linked to suffering in the past (Wahnich 2005;Cento Bull and Hansen 2016). Particular tensions can be detected, between the focus on the individual making his/her way into war history and war museums and the often decontextualized, abstract, cosmopolitan memory mode, which highlights the victim experience: individuals are almost reduced to their status as victims. Moreover, these tensions can be conducive to an antagonistic backlash, embodied by a visible resurgence of nationalistic and xenophobic memory discourses throughout Europe and elsewhere, discourses which often also resort to victimhood claims (Cento Bull and Hansen 2016;Lim 2010a;Lim 2010b). The consensual cosmopolitanism promoted by liberal elites 'cannot grasp or give expression to average people's experiences of conflict and struggle, and therefore leaves dangerous gaps for extreme nationalism to fill' (Cento Bull et al. 2018: 3). Thus, the contemporary rise of radically conservative and far-right movements in both Western and Eastern Europe (e.g. France, Hungary, Poland, Germany, Italy, Austria) can be associated with a straightforward questioning of hegemonic memory discourses and practices.
One way to resolve such tensions and potential mismatches involves the reinstatement of politics and social conflict into the fabric of memory by enabling counter-hegemonic memory discourses to take part in these discussions and representations. The so-called 'agonistic mode of remembering' is able to encompass these differences: it does not look for consensus, and acknowledges the existence of a multitude of emotions and passions, as well as of conflict and strife, as underpinning the political. It recognizes the role that power, conflict, and antagonisms play in the shaping of memory discourses (Cento Bull and Hansen 2016). It 're-politicises the binary categories of good and evil' and thereby 're-politicises the relation of present society to the past' (Cento Bull et al. 2018: 4). Furthermore, accounting for conflict and socio-political struggles is not meant as a simple presentation of opposing sides, but should also open a space for contingencies and undecidability (Molden 2015: 128, 135;Cento Bull and Hansen 2016: 395;Cercel 2018: 7). Research on war museums has started to apply these theoretical elaborations to various case study analyses, including one on the MHM. Such research suggests that an agonistic turn in museum narratives could prove fruitful in order to better tackle contemporary socio-political challenges in representing difficult history (Clarke et al. 2017;Cercel 2018;Deganutti et al. 2018;Cento Bull et al. 2018).

The Historial of the Great War: Everyone Is a Victim
The initiatives towards the establishment of a war museum in the Somme can be dated back to the mid-1980s: they are connected with the decentralization process which took place under the presidency of François Mitterrand, establishing the framework in which initiatives at a local level could be implemented (Krumeich 2012: 645-646). It was Max Lejeune, President of the General Council of the Somme Department, who particularly pushed for the creation of a museum of the First World War in the region, drawing on the well-established 'battlefield tourism' in the area, but also in order to provide a counterweight to the preeminence of Verdun in French First World War memory.
Although often occluded in French memory by Verdun, the Battle of the Somme was a Franco-British offensive which mobilized the full force of the Commonwealth and with it the armies of no less than thirty nations. The proliferation of cemeteries and memorials dedicated to soldiers of the German and colonial allied armies in the Somme, along with the significance of the battle in the memories of the implicated nations, meant that any new development would need to be international in character.
A first report drafted in 1986 by consultant Elisabeth Ramus delineates the core principles that would underpin the approach of the Historial. The project was envisaged as international, through the presentation both of the daily experience of participants from all nations involved and of different explanations on the outbreak of the war, as conceived by historians of different nationalities. The institution was not intended to be a military museum in the style of the imposing Army Museum in Paris, displaying only arms, medals and strategic aspects of the battle; nor a memorial, disconnected from the present; nor a collection of curiosities. It was not meant to be a didactic museum, concerned with retelling the events of 1914-1918; nor a purely aesthetic space where objects were tastefully, but not thoughtfully, displayed. For Ramus (1986: 27), these hazards were to be avoided through the development of 'a dynamic scenario, which would sensitize the audience to the everyday life of the people of the different belligerent countries and allow for the simultaneous confrontation of their experiences'.
Hence, the exhibition was intended to break with the representations typical of military museums, proposing instead a focus on daily experiences related to war. Ramus also pleaded for the co-optation of an academic team to ensure credibility and quality.
In order to put these ideas into practice, an international group of historians, all specialists of the First World War, was brought together. Starting in 1987, they convened regularly and drafted the concept for the exhibition (Krumeich 2012: 647).
The core team eventually consisted of Jean-Jacques Becker, Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker (French), Jay Winter (American), and Gerd Krumeich (German). An architectural competition was won by Henri Ciriani, who was commissioned with the refurbishment and extension of the space of the Péronne castle.
The museum eventually opened in the summer of 1992. The important role played by historians in the conceptualization of the museum, albeit in close collaboration with a team of museographers and scenographers, immediately set the Historial apart from traditional war and military history museums (Sherman 1995: 53). A relationship of mutual influence ensued, between historical scholarship and the work of the museum.
The tight links between the two at the Historial are also illustrated by the establishment of an International Research Centre institutionally associated with the museum (Pursiegle 2008).
The central figure in the Historial is the poilu, the French civilian soldier of the First World War. Long revered in national memory, his experience was largely neglected by historians until the so-called 'cultural turn'. In a climate of renewed attention to the popular experience of the war, 'the Péronnistes felt that they were simply providing a corrective. Great War scholarship was in danger of fetishizing the poilu, memory was threatening to overwhelm history' (Farrugia 2015: 73). His fetishization during and immediately after the war is evident in several of the objects on display. Arguably he is de-fetishized in the present to the extent that his experience is represented alongside his British and German equivalents. The museum's most striking and iconic representation is that of the poilu lying recumbent in a shallow, marble-lined dugout, or fosse, in the floor of Room 1914Room -1916 The human aspect of the poilu and his vulnerability are foregrounded through this innovative presentation which runs counter to traditional martial display. The Historial chooses not to focus on individual acts of military heroism but rather tells a story of universal suffering and grief, experienced by soldiers and civilians alike, heavily indebted to a cosmopolitan memory mode. The horizontal display makes explicit reference to the soldiers' deaths and prevents visitors from reflecting on what these soldiers did when they were alive before, during and potentially after the war; instead their status as victims cannot be forgotten. This omnipresent reference to death also serves to erase any political divides between adversaries and allies. Furthermore, the absence of soldiers' individual identities and emphasis on their collective suffering depoliticizes these exhibits; the symbols that link them to particular nations no longer have meaning in this cosmopolitan context of shared suffering (Wahnich and Tisseron 2001: 65). Although exhibiting the German, French and British experiences on the military and domestic fronts, the Historial does not present a truly polyphonic approach.
Instead the pursuit of a common European experience and narrative provides a cosmopolitan consensus which drowns out multiple and dissonant voices.
The Historial illustrates the entanglement of war and society at large.
Throughout the permanent exhibition in Péronne, artefacts emblematic of the military and domestic fronts are featured with equal emphasis, a move that was very original in 1992. In its division of space between military and civilian society, the Historial challenges the myth of separation between the fronts, aiming to restore their connection.
As visitors weave between the two spheres their paths through the museum space retrace complex patterns of exchange between civilians at home and civilian soldiers in the trenches. Moreover, the museum stresses the pervasion of total war into every aspect of daily life through a focus on 'private, commercial propaganda' (Beaupré and Jones 2008: 143) drawn from the warring nations to include plates, teapots, figurines and Christmas decorations featuring heroic representations of national soldiers, generals and politicians, or villainous portrayals of their adversarial equivalents. The label display informs the visitor that this 'war kitsch' can be considered as an indicator of popular consent to the prosecution of the conflict.
The result is that the Historial is intended to be an 'anthropological museum of the First World War that favours a multiplicity of viewpoints' (Prévost-Bault 2008: 13), which in effect means paying equal attention to the experiences of soldiers and civilians of the three main belligerents (France, Great Britain, Germany). Yet this also indicates a tension best captured by the Historial's twofold objective: on the one hand, it aims to bring to the fore several national experiences, whilst on the other it aims to underline the shared character of these experiences. This tension is in effect at the crux of the Historial's cosmopolitan mode of remembering: the conflict implied by the objective of presenting a plurality of perspectives is mitigated by the quest for a locus where these perspectives meet. This locus is the trope of victimhood. In the Historial, the horrors of the First World War become a symbol and warning for the horrors of all wars. Its pacifism is constructed by de-emphasizing the political dimension underlying the conflagration and its aftermath. Any agonistic potential that could build on conflicting perspectives and on the complexity of human emotions and passions beyond compassion for the victim is flattened out by a cosmopolitan discourse whose multiperspectivism is carefully circumscribed through the victim experience.

Constant
The arsenal building in Dresden was erected in the second half of the nineteenth century, and served as an army museum from 1897, the only interruption occurring between the end of the Second World War and 1972. As a consequence of the unification of Germany and of the merger of the two German armies under the aegis of the Bundeswehr, the MHM was designated the Leitmuseum (leading museum) of the latter in 1994. In the 1990s, no radical changes were made to the permanent exhibition, although the first steps towards conceiving a new one were taken (Interview with W. Fleischer, 21 July 2017). In order to live up to its designation as Leitmuseum, the museum was in need of renewal. In this context, in 2001 an expert team was commissioned to draft a new concept, a process which was completed in the same year. Soldiers are also visually individualized, for example, through the display of dozens of small photographs taken before they were sent to the front, directly next to a large martial painting of Kaiser Wilhelm II. In comparison to the Historial, the MHM is more prone to recognizing the multiple facets of political and social conflict, staging them by means of such object juxtapositions. The display of biographies showing contrasting life trajectories, of political and military figures to more ordinary soldiers, has a similar function (Cercel 2018: 20-21). The desire to produce a multiperspectival exhibition was key to the MHM's renovation (Pieken 2013: 64). Yet the pluriperspectivism in the MHM is not made out of several national perspectives, but rather object juxtapositions which suggest there are severaleven conflictingways of approaching one and the same topic (Cercel 2018). If in the Historial the experience of the Western Front in the First World War is sufficient in order to build the case against war, the scope of the narrative proposed by the MHM is much broader. In the latter museum, the First World War is addressed in the same room as the Second World War; the two conflicts are presented together as a 'Thirty-Year War'. This also suggests a more complex engagement with the political dimension underpinning this period in German and by extension European history.
The presentation of the First World War in the MHM cannot be seen as detached from the broader narrative proposed by the museum, which is distinctly presentoriented and has a definite political dimension. The MHM bases its approach on 'a shared notion of the human capacity for destruction' (Heckner 2016: 366). If war, violence and destruction are constants of human history, the case for pacifism is much more difficult, if not impossible, to make. Against this background, also considering its section on contemporary challenges and other juxtapositions in the thematic circuit, the  (Sherman 1995: 69). In designing the Historial, Ciriani placed his bet on simplicity, on an intimate inscription in the surrounding landscape, and on 'a dialogue of reciprocity between the natural and the artefact'. Furthermore, the conversation he stages 'between a new building and an existing edifice' is a 'demonstration of appropriateness with respect to the scale of the ensemble' (Beaudoin 1992: 90). The new building is a modernist addition to a medieval castle, yet the fracture it creates is tempered using Corbusian principles. The space is open and continuous.
The two architectural forms merge and the contrast creates equilibrium. Furthermore, the separation between the central hall and the other galleries enables 'light to be captured and indirectly conveyed' into the former (Historial de la Grande Guerre 2016).
The Historial, therefore, stands both figuratively and literally under the aegis of light.
Paradoxically, this has negative consequences on the conservation of collections, as it can endanger the longevity of the exhibited objects.
The geometry of twentieth-century war memories is marked by the dichotomy (at times complemented by a dialogue) between horizontality and verticality (Winter 2017: 144). Through its architecture and spatial design, the Historial makes use of the former (Beaudoin 1992: 94;Fathi 2013: 51-69;Winter 2017: 165). One of its most surprising features, particularly striking at the time of its inauguration, are the dugouts (fosses), where objects used by German, French, and British soldiers are exhibited (Winter 2017: 165;Brait 2017: 193). As discussed earlier, the horizontal representation of soldiersvisitors are obliged to look down at the rectangular showcases which suggest a grave and a trench at the same timeindicates a break with the martial heroism implied by the verticality traditionally associated with heroic militarism. To the display cases in which verticality is supposed to stand for hope and peace, the exhibition design counterposes the 'horizontality of wartime cruelty and suffering'.
Altogether, the horizontal axis underlying (even literally) the spatiality of the Historial 'reinforces the view that the museum is pacifist in character'. Furthermore, blending in with its surroundings, the architecture of the Historial emphasizes unity and continuity.
It thereby posits the tragedy of the First World War as a key foundation of contemporary European identity. The pacifism of the Historial is that of European reconciliation (Winter, 2017: 162, 166-167).

The MHM. The Architectural Reinscription of Violence and War
In Dresden, Libeskind's project also involves an architectural extension to an existing building, but in the form of a steel and glass wedge which penetrates the imposing nineteenth-century arsenal. The architectural add-on is four storeys high, thus providing two more ( Consequently, 'the turn away from the vertical' signifies 'a turn away from war' (Winter 2017: 171). But this also implies that the symbolically violent inscription of verticality in the new architecture of the MHM can be connected with the reinscription of war onto the fabric of German politics and into Bundeswehr activities. This violence can be linked to the rejection of pacifism in the MHM's narrative, a rejection that becomes salient when the MHM and the Historial are compared. At the same time, Libeskind's verticality, marked by a deconstructivist vocabulary of dizzying angles, leaning curves and jagged edges, is also qualitatively different from verticality as 'language of uplifting sacrifice, of upright bravery, mostly masculine and in uniform, and of redemptive hope' (Winter 2017: 144). The latter verticality largely appertains in effect to the antagonistic mode of remembering.
Libeskind's architectural refurbishment generated the necessary spatial division for the introduction of a thematic tour as well as the more customary chronological one. In an interview granted on the occasion of the reopening of the museum, Libeskind (2011) argued that in a democracy wars can be legitimate, as they 'are not decided by a higher authority, but are a consequence of a public discussion'. Following reunification, Germany started to intervene militarily abroad, the Bundeswehr becoming a so-called 'army in mission'. Such interventions were presented in a framework which emphasized the country's international responsibility, but also the need to safeguard national interests (Thiemeyer 2010b: 15 The differences between the two museums also allow for questions about the limits of the cosmopolitan mode of remembering and the political stances with which it is associated. In effect, Western military interventionism in the late twentieth and in the twenty-first century has taken place mostly under the aegis of cosmopolitan legitimization related to the memory of the Holocaust (the imperative of 'Never again!') and the increased recognition of human rights globally (Levy and Sznaider 2006) As suggested in the introduction to this article, an agonistic mode of remembering, allowing for conflict and for the expression of counter-hegemonic positions, could represent a way out of this current situation. Despite their apparent role of (re)producing and stabilizing hegemonic master narratives and despite the commodification trend embedded within the museum boom of the past decades, museums might still be able to provide a setting in which debate and conflict are played out (Andermann and Arnold-de Simine 2012;Coleman 2013;Cameron 1971;Mouffe 2010;Pozzi 2013;Cento Bull et al. 2018). The representation of war and conflict in museums in particular can provide the opportunity for engaging with diverging positions, stances, ideologies, and worldviews. In doing this, it can and perhaps even should draw attention to the social, economic and political conditions behind war and conflict. The rationale for this is not to legitimize, but rather to explain (Cento Bull et al. 2018).
Considering that institutionalized cosmopolitan modes of remembering and politics of representation have come under attack mainly from nationalist and rightwing positions, it might be worth subjecting them to some more soul-searching. Are they anything other than a 'civil religion' trying to give a 'virtuous appearance' to the 'democratic vacuum' of the European Union and neoliberal regimes elsewhere (Traverso 2016: 33)? Have they contributed to what appears to be their own demise?
In a text written almost two decades ago, historian Sophie Wahnich (2003: 343) criticized the fact that European war museums are characterized by a 'general refusal to admit too much', suggesting that rather than being 'vectors for the democratic invention of a common future,' they are 'places where family secrets are shaped, well guarded vaults that can come to haunt future generations'. Wahnich's considerations also drew on her interpretation of the Historial, that to a large extent ties in with our own. The juxtapositions and the ambiguities addressed by the MHM provide a more complex image of war in comparison to the Historial, but this complexity is nevertheless circumscribed. There are definitely more aspects in the MHM than in the Historial that suggest a compatibility with agonism or a potential move towards agonism (Cercel 2018), yet both museums are largely indebted to the contemporary consensus-searching political project underpinned by the cosmopolitan memory regime, albeit in different forms.
Narratives centred on the imperative of 'Never again!' are just empty words if they do not tackle head-on the conditions for 'Yet again'. This in effect amounts to a critical engagement with the social, economic and political conditions and with the emotions and passions which led and lead to conflict and war. Opening up the museum space for debate, conflict and critique means repoliticizing the past in order to politicize the present. A concerted effort towards agonism in the representation of war in museums means extending the scope of perspectives, by including counter-hegemonic narratives: counter-hegemonic memories and interpretations of the past, counterhegemonic political projects for the present, counter-hegemonic visions of the future.
Presenting alternative pasts, as well as alternative presents and futures, can lead to a broadening of visions and to a democratic widening of the scope of the representation of war in museums.