In recent years, collective memory has emerged as a vital factor that shapes national identity and historical interpretation. A groundbreaking cross-national study conducted by social psychologists has provided fresh insight into how citizens across eight European countries perceive their nations’ roles during the harrowing years of World War II under Nazi occupation. The study, led by Dr. Fiona Kazarovytska from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, in collaboration with scholars from both Germany and Israel, reveals profound psychological underpinnings behind the collective narratives that emphasize victimhood and resistance while downplaying voluntary collaboration with Nazi regimes.
The research involved an extensive online survey with over 5,400 participants drawn from Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Ukraine. The sample was meticulously balanced for age and gender distribution to offer a comprehensive snapshot of contemporary public sentiment about a highly sensitive and morally complex historical period. Respondents were asked to evaluate statements related to their nation’s actions and experiences during Nazi rule, ranging from active resistance to various forms of complicity, including systemic mistreatment of Jewish populations under existential threat.
A striking and consistent commonality emerged from the data: in countries with vastly different wartime histories and postwar cultural memories alike, individuals overwhelmingly perceive their compatriots as having been primarily victims or reluctant collaborators rather than willing perpetrators of Nazi policies. This “victim-hero” narrative encapsulates a collective identity in which the population suffered oppression but maintained moral integrity by resisting Nazi domination wherever possible. Importantly, the recognition of collaboration tends to be framed as coerced or forced rather than voluntary or ideologically driven.
This collective memory sharply contrasts with documented historical facts, which establish that various segments of the populations and governments in many countries actively facilitated Nazi goals. These acts included bureaucratic collaboration in deportations, passing anti-Jewish laws, and direct participation in violence. The psychological dissonance between documented historical events and prevailing public memory thus points to a complex interplay between empirical history and the moral frameworks through which societies process and remember traumatic pasts.
One of the most novel aspects of this study lies in its focus on ordinary citizens’ perceptions rather than official memorial cultures or state-endorsed narratives. By illuminating how laypeople grapple with morally fraught historical realities on a psychological level, the study provides crucial new understanding of the mechanisms that govern collective memory formation. This approach unveils recurring psychological strategies, such as moral disengagement and selective memory, that individuals and groups employ to maintain a coherent and positive national self-concept.
The tendency to reframe a nation’s past in ways that emphasize resistance and minimize complicity is not confined to any single country or cultural milieu. While previous research has extensively explored such dynamics within German society, this study demonstrates that similar patterns are pervasive across a diverse set of European countries. These morally protective narratives help individuals reduce feelings of guilt and shame associated with their nation’s historical actions, serving as coping mechanisms that safeguard collective self-esteem.
From a psychological standpoint, these findings underscore the powerful role of identity-protective cognition. When confronting historical periods marked by atrocities and wrongdoing, admitting complicity can fundamentally threaten a person’s or group’s integrity and self-worth. To resolve this tension, the mind often constructs narratives that prioritize victimhood, emphasize resistance, or invoke coercion as mitigating circumstances. Such narratives enable collective memory to function not only as a repository of historical knowledge but as a means of moral self-preservation.
The ideological selective memory illuminated by this research indicates a widespread societal phenomenon: the past is reconstructed not merely on the basis of evidence but is deeply influenced by emotional and identity-related needs. This dynamic complicates efforts to develop historically accurate public understandings of World War II, as the collective memory becomes filtered through psychological defenses. These defenses protect national pride and coherence but simultaneously obscure difficult truths, resulting in a fragmented and sometimes sanitized historical consciousness.
This insight has profound implications for historians, educators, and policymakers aiming to foster more nuanced and truthful confrontations with the past. Encouraging societies to confront uncomfortable historical realities requires addressing not only historical evidence but also the psychological resistance that these realities provoke. Understanding the cognitive and emotional undercurrents of collective memory is crucial for designing interventions that promote empathy, reconciliation, and critical reflection.
Moreover, the findings contribute to a growing interdisciplinary literature at the intersection of social psychology, memory studies, and political science. By empirically documenting how citizens evaluate their own ingroup morally across multiple national contexts, this study enriches our comprehension of memory politics in post-conflict Europe. It highlights the universal human tendency to negotiate collective guilt and pride, a process that shapes national identities and ongoing intergroup relations.
Ultimately, this research calls for a reconsideration of how societies engage with their historical legacies. Rather than treating collective memory as a static repository of facts, it should be viewed dynamically—as a socially constructed, psychologically conditioned narrative that evolves over time. This perspective invites open dialogue about the contested nature of national history and the role of memory in shaping contemporary political and social identities.
In a global climate where historical revisionism and nationalist narratives often gain traction, these findings stress the importance of critical historical engagement. They serve as a reminder that understanding the past cannot be disentangled from understanding the present psychological needs that shape its interpretation. Only by acknowledging these dimensions can societies move toward a more honest reckoning with history that fosters healing and prevents repetition of past atrocities.
The work of Dr. Kazarovytska and her colleagues thus represents a significant step forward in decoding the psychology behind collective memory. It opens pathways for more sophisticated approaches to historical education and memory policy that respect both the complexity of past events and the realities of human psychology. As Europe continues to navigate the legacies of World War II, such research provides an essential framework for reflecting on how nations remember and reinterpret history in pursuit of moral coherence and identity continuity.
Subject of Research: Psychological shaping of collective memory regarding national roles under Nazi occupation in eight European countries.
Article Title: Beyond victimhood and perpetration: Reconstruction of the ingroup’s historical role in eight Eastern and Western European countries under Nazi occupation
News Publication Date: 11-Jul-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.13037
Image Credits: ill./©: Fiona Kazarovytska
Keywords: Collective memory, World War II, Nazi occupation, national identity, victimhood, collaboration, psychological coping, historical narrative, moral disengagement, social psychology, memory politics
