Since at least February 2022 the figure of the Aggressor gained an unforeseen awareness in European public as Russian troops embarked on a third phase of the war against Ukraine, culminating in a full-scale invasion. While the concept of the Aggressors appears at first straightforward as an agent in foreign policy who determines the necessity of attacking another state, a deeper investigation into its perception, interpretation, and role in (bi-)national historical narratives reveals a more complex picture, particularly amid the ongoing memory wars of the 21st century. The Daimler und Benz Stiftung funds a broad international Research Network that is headquartered in Heidelberg and will study such phenomena until 2026 (https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zegk/histsem/forschung/project_aggressor_en.html).
At their first conference in Ladenburg, the participants of the Research Network set out to investigate this intriguing figure and concept.

THOMAS MAISSEN (Heidelberg) commenced the conference by examining the persona and concept of the Aggressor. As a secular and legal concept with moral implications, the Aggressor emerged in Europe with a hostile meaning in concrete military conflicts between European states from the late 16th century onwards. In his following case study, Maissen illustrated his findings by examining the perceptions and interpretation of Napoleon. During the 19th and 20th century and with highly conflicting (regional) memories, he was regarded not only as an individual agent of nationalist aggression, but also as a creative destroyer and renewer with pan-European dimensions, not least during the Nazi regime.

The conference’s inaugural panel explored “Aggressors in Museums,” emphasising these institutions as spaces for the presentation of collective memory. This was highlighted by ALEXANDRA BOUNIA (Mytilini), who posited that historical museums in South-Eastern Europe often narrate tales of aggressions against their own country in a biographical approach towards their own heroes, whereas the enemy is rather described as an aggressive collective with little individual agency. Similarly, ILARIA PORCIANI (Bologna) discussed the tendency of Italian museums to de-individualise and dehumanise aggressors and emphasise the proper heroes and victims in narratives. This reveals a link between contemporary developments as background and past narratives, which are selectively displayed in museums or stored in archives.

The second panel was dedicated to representations of the Aggressor across media. CORD ARENDES (Heidelberg) provided insights into memes as reflections of popular culture, values, and norms, while PHILIPP-THOMAS WEHAGE (Heidelberg) connected Cultural Studies, Video Games and Aggression. As a relation between player and avatar develops, this also can be true for the repercussions of violent and aggressive acts, often not reflected by game developers or gamers themselves. In her analysis of the depiction of Hitler as a humour symbol in popular film and television from 1940 to 2015, KATHARINA FRIEGE (Oxford) demonstrated how, through incongruous displays, humour disproportionally contributed to the abstraction of the real person to an abstract concept. In his examination of the state-sponsored version of historiography through social media, particularly YouTube, DANIEL WEINMANN (Heidelberg) focused on the activities of Russian propagandist and “History Maker” Vladimir Medinsky. By presenting historical figures like Ukrainian Cossack leader Ivan Mazepa as an aggressor, Medinsky seeks to establish a distorted present-day analogy to discredit Ukrainian political and national historical figures, reiterating Russian imperial/Soviet tropes.

At the end of the first day, VILMA VASKELAITĖ (Heidelberg), BALÁSZ TRENCSÉNYI (Budapest) and MAREK TAMM (Tallinn) engaged in a roundtable discussion moderated by Thomas Maissen. The discussion centred on the potential of a comparative and transnational study of Aggressor Images in Central and Eastern Europe. Tamm highlighted the risk of romanticizing historical figures in Eastern European memory cultures. As a general characteristic of Eastern European memory cultures, Trencsényi pointed out that these national canons were fixed in the international romantic context of the 19th century and are still in use as reference system for national identity. The historical figures can be subject of conflicting interpretations in different national narratives.

The conflicting interpretations of historical figures were illustrated by the third panel on the following day, which focused on early modern and modern Aggressors. STAMATIA FOTIADOU (Thrace) compared perspectives on Byzantine Emperor Basil II. Hailed as a hero in Greek narratives, in Bulgarian and Macedonian he’s seen as an oppressor. Examining a broad source of materials, Fotiadou analysed these contrasts and their role in shaping collective memory, as the current use of Basil’s image by Greek right-wing nationalists. ANTI SELART (Tartu) presented a short overview of the historiography and popular picture of Ivan “the Terrible” in Russia. His image has undergone a process of rehabilitation, especially since the 1990s, per example by relativization of his atrocities by referring to those of historical Western rulers. The repertoire of media has been further expanded by BENEDEK MARTON VASY’s (Madrid) comparative analysis of aggressor-victim narratives in secondary school history textbooks from England, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Vasy revealed several (selective) narratives used to construct national enemy images of historical figures as aggressors or victims. For instance, by emphasizing previous aggressions of the victim or by blaming the victim of over-representing the damage. Lastly, MACIEJ GÓRNY (Warsaw) discussed images of Mikhail Muravyov-Vilensky and Benjamin Franklin Butler, focusing on how contemporaries compared these figures primarily because of their well-documented atrocities against women.

The fourth panel looked at historical individuals from the 19th century. DOMINIK SZCZĘSNY-KOSTANECKI (Warsaw) identified various types and subtypes of perception by Polish soldiers fighting for Napoleon, which oscillate between absolute justification and absolute condemnation. Discussions about the heroism of Polish soldiers fighting on the Iberian Peninsula persist in Poland, with Napoleon fading into the background. PIOTR KULIGOWSKI (Warsaw) proceeded to examine the construction of Aggressor images of William I, King of Belgium, and Nicholas I, as King of Poland, in political discourse during the revolutions of 1830/31. He especially emphasized that, despite their dethronization, both continued to pose a significant threat in parliamentary discourse. LUIGI CAJANI (Rom) compared the image of Josef Radetzky in Austrian and Italian history textbooks from the 19th century onwards. As General Gouverneur of Lombardo-Veneto (1848 to 1857) in Italy, he rigidly repressed the population. In Austrian memory, first Radetzky as a person and later his aggressive acts were rehabilitated on the eve of the 20th century, whereas he fades into the background nowadays. However, in Italy, memories of the victims of his oppressive policies remain vivid. The panel was concluded by ANDREW MYCOCK’s (Leeds) insights into the role of Cecil Rhodes in the changing Imperial History Discourse in Great Britain, particularly in Scotland, and South Africa. The legacies are not only represented in culture but also on university campuses in the form of statues and memorials which are highly contested nowadays.

The fifth panel of the conference was dedicated to aggressors of the 20th century. XOSÉ MANOEL NÚÑEZ SEIXAS (Santiago de Compostela) examined war propaganda material from the Spanish Civil War. Both factions mobilised participants by invoking historic narratives of liberation from foreign aggression. Examples included the comparison of Mussolini to Napoleon and the use of racist stereotypes such as “Moors“. With reference to the inter-war period, STEFAN BERGER (BOCHUM) considered a focus on individual aggressors to be problematic, because he regarded to be a relic of 19th century historicism with its individually defined agents. Comparing historiographical nationalisms, especially in Germany, France, and Great Britain, he observed a shift after WWI towards collectively defined aggressors, whether it were “the Jews“, “the people“, or the ‚bourgeoisie/capitalists‘. NADA BOŠKOVSKA (Zürich) and MARTIN VALKOV (Sofia) both analysed the figure of Bulgarian tsar Boris III. Boškovska focused on the ongoing dispute between Bulgaria, where recent historiography and history politics intent to uphold a positive image of the tsar and pressure neighbouring North Macedonia to do the same, accusing it of rewriting history in an anti-Bulgarian manner. Boris is depicted as Bulgaria’s unifier and liberator of its Jews, despite his alliance and collaboration with the Axis during WWII. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to challenge the official narrative in Bulgaria, as Valkov exemplified with two open letters from February 2023. One extreme faction is denying Boris’ collaboration, the other one complains about its nationalistic political instrumentalization.

The sixth panel addressed aggressors of the Second World War. As multiple conflicts with poorly trained and equipped volunteer aggressors arose, their improvised violence led to a new form of “male aggression”, according to MARTIN CONWAY (Oxford). Instead of focusing on discoursive analysis, Conway pleaded for a deeper consideration of real experiences of aggression, its psychological and physical roots and painful impact on perpetrators as well as victims. The lines between resistance, criminality, and aggression were often hardly distinguishable. EFI GAZI (Kalamata) presented 20th-century Greece depiction of Mussolini in caricatures of Kostas Bezos and the “soundscapes of resistance and memory” by singer Sofia Vembo. The 28 October 1940, when Greek Prime Minister Metaxas rejected Mussolini’s ultimatum, is nowadays still commemorated in Greece as the “Ochi” Day, the day of “no”. MARJA JALAVA (Tampere) concluded the second day by focusing the figure of Risto Ryti, Finland’s Prime Minister during the Winter War and President from 1940 to 1944. Jalava observed a “Ryti boom” since 1991, noting a trend of “whitewashing of Finland” particularly in popular historical narratives. The self-perceived collective victimhood among Finns has overshadowed any acknowledgment of guilt or responsibility regarding the country's WWII history and collaboration.

Starting the last day of the conference, the seventh panel delved into Cold War aggressors. CORINE DEFRANCE (Paris) compared cartoons depicting aggressors during the Berlin crises of 1948−49 and 1958−61. Whereas the narratives of the first crisis mostly lacked personified enemies, during the second one images of prime aggressors (Kennedy, Khrushchev) and secondary (Adenauer, Ulbricht) aggressors circulated on both sides. ADÉLA GJURIČOVÁ (Prague) and IVAN SABLIN (Heidelberg) jointly presented Brezhnev’s image in Czech, Slovak, Afghan and Russian contexts. Soviet leader’s depictions as a puppet master were popular during the Prague Spring and the Afghan War. However, these depictions were soon replaced by signs of a senile decay. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the alleged resemblance to Brezhnev is said to be highly offensive to the current Russian dictator, Putin. FRANK BÖSCH (Potsdam) elucidated the reasons behind the cordial relationship between West Germany and Libya under the rule of Gaddafi in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite being repeatedly compared with Hitler in the German embassy reports, the dictator played his trump card – oil export – to retain acceptance. Associations with fascism permeated representations of another non-European political leader, Indonesia’s Sukarno, in the Dutch public discourse, as CHRIS LORENZ (Amsterdam) demonstrated. Sukarno gained the nickname as “Quisling of the Far East“ for his role in the demise of the Dutch Empire. This was reflected in a popular Dutch song for children from the 1940s, which called for him to be “chopped up“. These two case studies prompted discussions about the impact of the colonial legacy on the European perceptions of aggressors and underscored the limitations of a Eurocentric approach to memory studies. In response to the assumption that analysis of the Cold War aggressors’ images generally lacks innovative insights, panel speakers stressed the value of comparative methods in determining breaking points in perceptions of various enemies. The understanding of the dynamics of vilification, toleration and tacit acceptance becomes even more pertinent in the context of the resurgence of certain Cold War tropes in contemporary political discourses.

The final panel dealt with the post-Cold War era. KATJA MAKHOTINA's (Göttingen/Bonn) presentation dealt with the post-Soviet remembrance of Stalin by the Russian state and society, spanning from anti-Stalinist traditions of the 1990s to the emergence of increasingly prevalent neo-Stalinist attitudes. FLORIAN BIEBER (Graz) traced the developments of memory of the Yugoslav Wars in Serbian public discourse. While figures such as Clinton and Blair were prominent aggressor figures back in the 1990s, two decades later collective aggressors like “the West”, NATO or the Kosovo Liberation Army have become dominant in narratives. Following a brief period of tentative attempts at reconciliation in the 2000s, two antagonistic tracks of memory are now visible in Serbia. One denies the war crimes, while the other one glorifies them. FATIH DURGUN (Istanbul) explained opposing trajectories of remembering Saladin and Richard the Lionheart in modern Turkey and post-Brexit Britain. The assessment of Richard still causes unease among the British public, despite occasional reinvigoration of crusading rhetoric (after 9/11 or during the debates about Brexit). Conversely, Erdoğan’s Islamic-nationalist government increasingly favours Saladin’s image, partly due to his Kurdish origins, which allow turning him to be symbolised Turkish and Kurdish unity. The ensuing discussion highlighted the difficulty of identifying individual aggressors in power-sharing democratic systems, the failure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to influence regional narratives, and strategies of forgetting and remembrance in secular and religious nationalist milieus.

As a conclusion of the three-days lively discussion, Thomas Maissen as the speaker of the project emphasised the analytical benefits of bi- and multinational comparisons for antagonistic memory studies. By placing the aggressor at the cornerstone of research, details are highlighted and stimulating questions arise, precisely because an aggressor is not simply an enemy or an oppressor. It was demonstrated that the manner in which those who violate a collectively recognized legal system are remembered in the shaping of collective identities can provide insight into the process of mapping a “self“ and the “other“ in our conflict-ridden world.

Conference Overview:

Welcome Adress

Lutz Gade / Jörg Klein (Daimler and Benz Foundation)

Thomas Maissen (Heidelberg): What is an Aggressor? The Emblematic Case of Napoleon

Panel 1: Aggressors in Museums
Chair: Ilaria Porciani (Bologna)

Alexandra Bounia (Mytilini): The “invisible” and other Aggressors. Historical Museums and their Refusal to name the Aggressor

Ilaria Porciani (Bologna): Commentary

Panel 2: Aggressor Memories across Media
Chair: Ivan Sablin (Heidelberg)

Cord Arendes (Heidelberg): “The Aggressor ‘Light’? Internet Memes as Form of Communication in Popular Culture”

Philipp-Thomas Wehage (Heidelberg): Overcoming the Aggressor with Ease? Considerations between Aggression, Play, and Cultural Studies

Katharina Friege (Oxford): The Hitler Taboo: Laughing at the Führer in Popular Film and Television, 1940–2015

Daniel Weinmann (Heidelberg): History Makers. Aggressor Images of Digital Historical Propaganda in Putin’s Russia on YouTube

Roundtable: „Our Favorite Enemies“: Towards a Comparative and Transnational Study of Aggressor Images in Central and Eastern European Historical Cultures
Chair: Thomas Maissen (Heidelberg)

Vilma Vaskelaitė (Heidelberg)
Balász Trencsényi (Budapest)
Marek Tamm (Tallinn)

Panel 3: Premodern and Modern Aggressors
Chair: Diana Mishkova (Sofia)

Stamatia Fotiadou (Thrace): Unraveling Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer: Multifaceted Perspectives on the Byzantine Emperor

Anti Selart (Tartu): Ivan the Terrible: The Rehabilitation of an Aggressor

Benedek Marton Vasy (Madrid): Cromwell, William III and Beyond: A Comparison of Secondary School History Textbook Narratives across England, Ireland, and Northern Ireland

Maciej Górny (Warsaw): The Disappearing Giants: Muravyov the Hangman and Beast Butler

Panel 4: The Nineteenth Century
Chair: Thomas Maissen (Heidelberg)

Dominik Szczęsny-Kostanecki (Warsaw): Between Justification and Condemnation: Polish Perceptions of Napoleon’s Invasion of Spain 1808–1813

Piotr Kuligowski (Warsaw): “A Lesson to All the Bad Kings”: The Perception of William I and Nicholas I in Belgian and Polish Parliamentary Discourses, 1830–31

Luigi Cajani (Rom): Josef Radetzky through Austrian and Italian History Textbooks

Andrew Mycock (Leeds): Cecil Rhodes and the Imperial History Wars

Panel 5: Interwar Aggressors
Chair: Balász Trencsényi (Budapest)

Xosé Manoel Núñez Seixas (Santiago de Compostela): Napoleon and the Moors are Back! External Aggressors and National Narratives of the Spanish Civil War, 1936–1975

Stefan Berger (Bochum): Historiographical Nationalism in Inter-War Europe: The Use of Aggressors in Comparative Perspective

Nada Boškovska (Zürich): Boris III, “Tsar of the Bulgarians”: Aggressor or Liberator and Unifier? History Politics in the Balkans

Martin Valkov (Sofia): King Boris III of Bulgaria in the Competing Memory Discourses about the Holocaust

Panel 6: Aggressors of the Second World War
Chair: Stefan Berger (Bochum)

Martin Conway (Oxford): The Male Aggressor in the Era of the Second World War

Efi Gazi (Kalamata): Perceptions and Images of Mussolini in 20th c. Greece

Marja Jalava (Tampere): The Convicted War Criminal as a Sacrificial Victim of the Nation: The Postwar Reception of the Former President of Finland Risto Ryti

Panel 7: Cold War Aggressors
Chair: Tanja Penter (Heidelberg)

Corine Defrance (Paris): When the Bear and the Dog meet the Bourgeois and his Social-Democratic Lackey. The Aggressor during the Cold War: the two Berlin Crises (1948/49 & 1958/61)

Frank Bösch (Potsdam): “The Dictator”. German and International Reactions to Gaddafi’s Regime

Adéla Gjuričová (Prague) and Ivan Sablin (Heidelberg): The Aggressor on the Phone. Brezhnev in the Context of the Prague Spring and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

Chris Lorenz (Amsterdam/Bochum): Soekarno as an Aggressor? On the Political and Historiographical Representations of Soekarno in the Netherlands

Panel 8: Current Developments
Chair: Ivan Sablin (Heidelberg)

Katja Makhotina (Göttingen/Bonn): Stalin – “Father of Fatherlands” and People’s Henchman: The Mute Stories of the Repressed in Post-Soviet Russia

Florian Bieber (Graz): New Narratives of Victimhood and Aggression during the Yugoslav Wars. The Case of Serbian Narratives

Fatih Durgun (Istanbul/Bochum): The Crusaders in Contemporary Memory: Diverse Representations of Saladin and Richard the Lionheart in the Age of Brexit and Religious Nationalisms