Recent News - Detail

Gabriele Woidelko:
Which current tendencies do you see in dealing with 20th century history in Russia?

Irina Shervakova:
The Second World War and the Stalinist dictatorship are the two pivotal events that shaped the history of Russia and the Soviet Union in the 20th century. Naturally, the debate about remembrance circles around these two big topics. However, there has been a distinct shift in their importance and meaning: Since the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in 2005 which was staged as "Victory Day" by the government, the perception of Stalin as the great leader who brought victory to the Soviet Union in the Second World War, again increasingly dominates the public conception of history. Thus, the critical handling of Stalinism and its consequences for the Soviet Union which started with Perestroika in the 1980s and 1990s is partly brought to a halt or is even being reversed. If victory is in the centre of the official narrative it is much more difficult to talk about its price. By that I do not only mean the millions of Soviet war dead and invalids, prisoners of war and forced labourers, but also the heritage of the war of the succeeding generations that had to live with the injuries and traumata of their parents and grand parents. And if the official narrative emphasises the role of Stalin as the winner of the war then it is very hard to talk about the millions of people who fell victim to Stalinism by expatriation, shooting, collectivisation and in the GULAG. There is practically no family in today's Russia that has not been affected by the heritage of the Second World War and Stalinist terror. That was the reason why we at MEMORIAL - in the late 90s when everything seemed possible and the archives were opened – launched the annual Russian history competition for pupils entitled "Man in History – Russia in the 20th Century". Since the first competition round in 1999, more than 37,000 young people from all over Russia have participated. Their works give unique insights from familial and local perspectives into the history of Russia and the Soviet Union. This is a huge treasure, a kind of alternative historical narrative "from below."

Gabriele Woidelko:
In what way has the changed official dealing with the Russian and Soviet history of the 20th century become noticeable in the works of the pupils and in everyday school life?

Irina Shervakova:
What is clearly noticeable in their works is that many of the youth evaluate the 20th century a lot different than pupils did at the end of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s respectively. While during the first years of the competition pupils were often very critical in their coming to terms with Stalinism and the history of the Second World War, many pupils today adopt the official conception of history. They write about Russian patriotism and the "Great Patriotic War" from which the Soviet Union emerged as the winner. In contrast, during the first years, pupils were quoting poems in their works of Boris Pasternak and Anna Akhmatova who memorialised victims of war and repression. Such references are almost completely missing today.

Today's youth is the youth of the 21st century. For most of them, the coming to terms with history will be dominated by history lessons at school and by the official conception of history on television and other media. The history lessons in particular have changed significantly since the introduction of new history books and a generational change among history teachers in the mid 2000s. In the Soviet Union the job of history teacher served as a niche for those who, for political or ideological reasons, were refused access to other professions. In villages and small towns in the provinces in particular there were many well educated teachers who gave their students an understanding of the spirit of Humanism. This generation of teachers has mostly retired now. With them the spirit of Enlightenment and Humanism has largely disappeared from the classrooms in Russia. The immediate experience and the immediate memory of the 20th century have also vanished with them.

Gabriele Woidelko:
Which role do you think does the coming to terms with Stalinism and its victims play in Russia today?

Irina Shervakova:
The memory of Stalinism is still very prevalent in families. We notice it at MEMORIAL where we are getting requests from relatives and descendants of prisoners, exiles and other victims on a daily basis. They would like to know what happened to their family members. They hope to get help from us when looking for files, court decisions and protocols. Others bring parts of their family archives to us: letters, diaries, drawings, everyday life objects that were left from the time of arrest and exile. What has changed compared to the 90s and 2000s is the fact that there is a growing timidity again to publicise family histories.

The need for acknowledgement and appreciation of millions of people who became victims of Stalinism is still prevalent in the Russian population. We see that, for instance, in our annual action entitled "The Return of Names" which we hold every October at the memorial stone which we erected in front of the Lubyanka, the former headquarter and prison of the Soviet secret police NKVD. There, each year volunteers read out hundreds of names of victims of Stalinism and light a candle for the dead. The numbers of volunteers who want to participate in the reading out of the names is growing and growing. In October 2014, people were queuing up to two hours before it was their turn to read out a name. Of late there are efforts for the first time at the official level to create an official place of remembrance for victims of oppression. In early 2015, the government published a call for application to construct a monument that is going to be erected in Moscow. MEMORIAL, whose main aim to date is a dealing critically with the heritage of totalitarian regimes cannot, on principle, close its mind to the idea of this monument. That is why we are a member of the council of experts who will give advice and support to the call for application and the development of this monument.