Page 41 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 41
2.4 Warfare Tourism
2.4 Warfare Tourism
As we can see in sub-chapter 2.2, ‘Dark Tourism Typology,’ warfare, war
or battlefield tourism is only one sub-type of the dark tourism family.
Many scholars, e.g. Stone (2012), Ryan (2007), Henderson (2000), and
Smith (1998) claim that warfare sites probably account for the largest
single category of tourist attractions dispersed all around the world.
Šuligoj (2017b, p. 441) highlighted some of the most prominent exam-
ples which have attracted the academic public: Gallipoli, World War
One’s Western Front battlefield, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Auschwitz-
Birkenau and other holocaust sites, Vietnam War sites, Civil War sites in
the United States, Balkan Conflict sites and Cambodia War sites. Some
globally recognisable events are missing, e.g. the Korean war, the con-
flict in Rwanda, and 9/11 in New York, whereas many are completely
forgotten. Although wars and human violence are as old as humankind,
a considerably increasing number of visitors to warfare sites began no
earlier than in 1816, after the battle of Waterloo and the inglorious fall of
Napoleon (Seaton, 1999; Smith, 1998).¹⁵ A much more intensive develop-
ment of warfare tourism was initiated one hundred years later, after the
end of w w i (Winter, 2009a; 2009b; Winter, 2011). If we take into con-
sideration the above-mentioned examples, then we see that w w i- and
w w i i-related sites in Europe and Asia, which heavily reflect the catas-
trophic consequences on humankind in general, are very attractive to the
academic, professional and general public; many others have regional or
local effects, although no less cruel and bloody.¹⁶ As a relevant example,
which confirms these claims, we expose statistics on visits to the most
recognisable and representative Nazi concentration camp in Poland; Fig-
ure 2.4 shows a distinct growth trend of the visits since 2001.
The first question is why such sites should be used for tourism pur-
poses and researched as such? Ryan (2007, p. 2) claims that ‘references
to silences, and to discourse, and the nature of that discourse, and the
relationship between agreement, disagreement, presence, and absence’
are central research issues in the war-tourism relationship. According to
Stone (2012) and Winter (2011), for example, all authentic sites have a dis-
tinct conservational, educational and commemorative meaning, which,
according to Miles (2002), Robb (2009, p. 56) and Kidron (2013, p. 178),
should foster empathy between the visitor and the victim, as well as ten-
¹⁵ The Battle of Waterloo was fought on 18 June 1815.
¹⁶ More can be found in Šuligoj (2016; 2017b).
41
2.4 Warfare Tourism
As we can see in sub-chapter 2.2, ‘Dark Tourism Typology,’ warfare, war
or battlefield tourism is only one sub-type of the dark tourism family.
Many scholars, e.g. Stone (2012), Ryan (2007), Henderson (2000), and
Smith (1998) claim that warfare sites probably account for the largest
single category of tourist attractions dispersed all around the world.
Šuligoj (2017b, p. 441) highlighted some of the most prominent exam-
ples which have attracted the academic public: Gallipoli, World War
One’s Western Front battlefield, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Auschwitz-
Birkenau and other holocaust sites, Vietnam War sites, Civil War sites in
the United States, Balkan Conflict sites and Cambodia War sites. Some
globally recognisable events are missing, e.g. the Korean war, the con-
flict in Rwanda, and 9/11 in New York, whereas many are completely
forgotten. Although wars and human violence are as old as humankind,
a considerably increasing number of visitors to warfare sites began no
earlier than in 1816, after the battle of Waterloo and the inglorious fall of
Napoleon (Seaton, 1999; Smith, 1998).¹⁵ A much more intensive develop-
ment of warfare tourism was initiated one hundred years later, after the
end of w w i (Winter, 2009a; 2009b; Winter, 2011). If we take into con-
sideration the above-mentioned examples, then we see that w w i- and
w w i i-related sites in Europe and Asia, which heavily reflect the catas-
trophic consequences on humankind in general, are very attractive to the
academic, professional and general public; many others have regional or
local effects, although no less cruel and bloody.¹⁶ As a relevant example,
which confirms these claims, we expose statistics on visits to the most
recognisable and representative Nazi concentration camp in Poland; Fig-
ure 2.4 shows a distinct growth trend of the visits since 2001.
The first question is why such sites should be used for tourism pur-
poses and researched as such? Ryan (2007, p. 2) claims that ‘references
to silences, and to discourse, and the nature of that discourse, and the
relationship between agreement, disagreement, presence, and absence’
are central research issues in the war-tourism relationship. According to
Stone (2012) and Winter (2011), for example, all authentic sites have a dis-
tinct conservational, educational and commemorative meaning, which,
according to Miles (2002), Robb (2009, p. 56) and Kidron (2013, p. 178),
should foster empathy between the visitor and the victim, as well as ten-
¹⁵ The Battle of Waterloo was fought on 18 June 1815.
¹⁶ More can be found in Šuligoj (2016; 2017b).
41
