Wounded Red Army soldiers return home to Nizhny Novgorod during World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War.
Photo:
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Soldier-Liberator, Empire-Oppressor
// Lessons from the Mixed Legacy of the Soviet Union
"The sleep of the dead is troubled – how can I sleep?" These lines of Byron's come to mind today, now that the excavation of the remains of Soviet soldiers is going on in Tallinn. To destroy or remove from view monuments to the victors over fascism is an ignominious affair. Especially for countries that have joined united Europe.
In the wake of the war, medals were awarded for the liberation of Prague, Belgrade, Warsaw – the capitals of nations occupied by Germany – and for the capture of Berlin, Budapest, Vienna, Konigsberg – cities of Germany and her allies. In these cities, Soviet soldiers arrived both as liberators from fascism and as the vanquishers of armies in which young Berliner and Viennese men had fought. Monuments to the Soviet soldier still stand in all of these cities. The main thing that distinguishes them from Tallinn is that the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians have the tact not to touch the monuments to those who brought them not only liberation but foreign occupation, deprived them of free elections, and tore (with the exception of Austria) their countries away from Europe.
But that is the essence of European thinking: to approach a historical legacy with gravity and tolerance. Even those who do not like the presence of the foreign soldier in the center of their capital can see the main point: the liberator from fascism has his place in bronze in the national pantheon. The Estonians suffer from a lack of this European wisdom.
Short-sighted and narrow-minded thinking is a dangerous sickness in politics. But it would be even more short-sighted if we did not take some lessons away from these current events.
First, let's remember that Riga and Tallinn were not liberated by our troops so much as taken: far from all of the inhabitants of the Baltic countries liked the Germans, but few wanted to fall under the scepter of the Kremlin. Like Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries were deprived by us of their right to free elections, but Prague and Budapest at least got to be their own countries and have their own national flags and symbols; they were not settled by a massive wave of Russian speakers; and if someone there was repressed, at least they were sent to a jail near home instead of being exiled to Siberia. Should we really be surprised that there was more rage in the Baltic countries after the departure of Moscow, even if takes such uncivilized forms?
Second, it shouldn't be forgotten that, in the eyes of the majority of Central Europeans, the liberation from fascism and even the Cold War do not justify the fact that soldiers in a foreign uniform and under a foreign flag stood between them and Europe for half a century. We have been laboring too long under the impression that the Central Europeans liked being in the Warsaw Pact – despite the evidence of the events in Berlin in 1953, Budapest in 1956, and Prague in 1968.
Third, if we want good neighborly relations with Central Europe and the Baltic countries, we ourselves have to remember the lessons of history and rid ourselves of the rudiments of the imperial mindset that is leading some of us in the heat of the moment to call all Estonians fascists. Condemn the Tallinn gravediggers? Without a doubt. Defend our interests in these countries? Yes. But remember that if you do not respect your neighbor, if you do not attempt to understand your neighbor's feelings and interests, you are not likely to realize yours.
It is better to behave – unlike the Estonians – like Europeans.
Boris Makarenko, the first deputy director of the Center for Political Technology
All the Article in Russian as of Apr. 27, 2007
|
|
|
