Conclusion

   Clearly the visits to the two museums were different experiences. 

   Meaux, even with the language difference, had a somewhat more personal experience. That was probably due to the personal letters used in conjunction with the pre-war build-up. That is not to say Kansas City was not personal, there was a different feel. 

   The French versus the American view of the political history was evident. In France, Alsace-Lorraine was important in the pre-war displays and also at the end of the war when part of the territory was returned to France. Alsace-Lorraine was not mentioned in Kansas City. 

   The question of neutrality is open. The presentations of both museums had uniforms, personal items, and artifacts from all the entangled nations. Yet what would someone who had lost a grandfather, a great-grandmother, a family business or is from another country think. Is the distance, one hundred years, enough for neutrality?    

   The arrival of the AEF was another main difference. In Meaux there was a sizable, but not dominant display. In Kansas City, half of the museum was the story of the AEF. 

   The depiction of trench warfare was decidedly different. In Meaux, it took center stage and one of the side galleries. In Kansas City, the trenches were along one side, visible through viewing holes.

   The legends of the Parisian taxis and Joan of Arc had more space dedicated to them in France, than they did in Kansas City, which is understandable. And conversely, Uncle Sam and other American motivational posters and messages had more space in Kansas City.

  Neither museum cast the war as redemptive, that the sacrifices were worth some greater good, nor was there any indication of political triumph. To the contrary, in both museums the catastrophe of the war was made clear, not only in the casualties, but the aftermath.

  To that end they would meet Jay Winter's criteria as a place for  "moral witnesses" to gather. Yet either museum, in a limited visit of a day or so, would be a hard place to reflect, much less to absorb a dissenting story

  Peter Beck in Presenting History speaks of the documentaries of Ken Burns, which are another avenue of public history. Beck contends television histories do not do what a book can do. They are not a medium for complex meanings. The critical debate of issues, the analytical consideration of history are not suitable for television documentaries and by extension, museums (90). Again, challenging mythologies and conventional thought would be difficult at best in a day or so visit by an amateur historian. That is not to say that museums cannot promote other scholarship through  other avenues, such as libraries, conferences, symposiums, and other collaborations. 

  The path of this project has been a journey through previously unknown concepts. Just some of these are the study of the presentation of history, the consumption of history, the history of memory, the ethics of memory, the mythology of history, the history of commemorations and the role of the personal voice. To great satisfaction, all are now available for discerning visits to other sites, and can readily be applied to other public history venues.