Magazine / Culture / Controversy over Soviet Monuments / Debate | 30/05/2007

The Controversy over Soviet Monuments in Eastern Europe

The relocation of a Soviet monument from the centre of the Estonian capital Tallinn to another site has led to serious rioting and a diplomatic imbroglio. The controversy over the bronze statue in Estonia provides an illustration of Eastern Europe's approach to history and of relations between Russia and Europe.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union well over fifteen years ago, communist-era monuments were toppled all over Eastern Europe, including in Russia itself. Everywhere statues of Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and other leading Soviet figures disappeared; only a few of these monuments survived.

Members of the Kremlin-influenced Nashi youth movement demonstrate against the relocation of the Soviet soldier's memorial in Tallin.
Photo: AP

One relic of the Soviet era was the so-called bronze statue – a monument more than two metres tall depicting a Soviet soldier bowing his head in mourning for those killed in the war. It was erected in a rather inconspicuous place in the centre of Tallinn in 1947 and for a long time received little attention. That only changed after Estonia became independent, when an increasing number of the Russian minority in Estonia began laying flowers at the statue every year on 9 May, Soviet Victory Day. For a long time this did not particularly bother anyone. As Kalle Muuli wrote in the Estonian newspaper Postimees in May 2006: "...although this is not a pleasant sight for most Estonians, it's not so unbearable that they can't put up with it for a couple of days each year for the sake of peaceful coexistence. Moreover, Estonians, too, have come to the statue to mourn."

But in May 2006 Estonia's prime minister, Andrus Ansip, declared that the monument symbolised the occupation of the country and should therefore be removed. A few months later a law to this effect was passed, even though there had been repeated warnings that Russia would regard this as a provocation. "We will be exposed to a propaganda attack from Moscow in the coming weeks," Postimees wrote on 11 January 2007.

When the decision went into effect on 27 April 2007 and the bronze statue was removed from the city and taken to a cemetery on the edge of town, riots that went on for several days broke out in Tallinn. Thereafter the Estonian embassy in Moscow was besieged by youth groups loyal to the Kremlin, relations between Estonia and Russia deteriorated dramatically and Estonia called on the EU and NATO to show solidarity.

A Second Iconoclasm?

There have been discussions about Soviet monuments in other East European countries as well. In Hungary, for example, there is a debate going on about whether the monument near the Hungarian parliament in Budapest should be dismantled. The Soviet memorial in Warsaw is also the subject of a controversy. In fact, the Polish government is even considering getting rid of all monuments commemorating the victory of the Red Army.

The Russian philosopher Boris Groys explained this second iconoclastic wave in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 11 May: "Every upheaval leads to a certain period of iconoclasm. It comes in waves. For a while people tolerate certain symbols, but these too will be destroyed. During the communist iconoclasm the destruction of churches and monuments continued for many decades after the October Revolution. And the current destruction of images will go on as well."

Different Views of History

But why are these monuments still a bone of contention even today? There is hardly a subject on which there is such a clash between Russia's view of history and that of the other former communist states as their evaluation of the 9 May 1945, the day, according to Soviet history, when the Second World War ended. For Russia this date is synonymous with liberation from Fascism and the victorious end of a war that brought heavy losses. The states of Eastern Europe, by contrast, see it as the beginning of a new occupation.

The Russian civil rights campaigner Boris Timoshenko explained in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita on 21 June 2006: "People in Russia can't understand it when the Baltic states and Poland compare the Soviet occupation with that of the Nazis. The Russians are still expecting the discussion about the past to end with a 'thanks for liberating us'."

But in the Baltic countries the trauma of occupation is still alive today. In an article in the Voix du Luxembourg on 4 May 2007, the Luxembourger Laurent Moyse tried to understand why the past is a subject that comes up time and again all over Central and Eastern Europe: "More to the west, we have at times taken a lot longer to look back on painful episodes of History. ... National reconciliation has always been a painful ordeal in countries that have experienced trauma. Europe has indeed been living at peace with itself for 60 years, but in many cases, it maintains the hypersensitive memory of someone skinned alive."

The Dispute over Symbols

The different views of history in East and West are evident not only in the dispute about monuments: the Baltic States, for instance, found the German occupation during the Second World War less ruthless and bloody than the Soviet occupation that followed. To this day, they accuse the West of making light of the crimes of communism. In Estonia it recently became a punishable offence not only to wear or show Nazi symbols but also to publicly display the hammer and sickle. Politicians and historians from Eastern Europe have demanded time and again that, as well as denials of the Holocaust, denials of the atrocities of communism should be outlawed throughout Europe.

New Solidarity between Eastern and Western Europe

All over Europe addressing the past is increasingly being seen in the context of the current tensions with Russia. These conflicts are fuelled by the authoritarian regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin, by the controversy over the USA's plans to install a missile defence system with bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and by Europe's energy dependence on Russia.

Seen in this light the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad of 9 May 2007 thought Estonia's relocation of the statue in no way constituted an excessive provocation of Russia. Indeed, it praised the Estonian prime minister for his exemplary behaviour: "The Estonian Prime Minister has set an example by placing a bouquet at the foot of the displaced monument. This contrasts with Putin who, prior to the commemoration of the Liberation [The Russians celebrate victory over fascism on May 9th] indirectly criticised the relocation of the monument."

Writing for Delfi on 2 May 2007, the Latvian Aris Jansons accused Russia of using the controversy over monuments simply as an excuse to intervene in Estonian affairs. He pointed out that a memorial had also recently been removed in Chimki, near Moscow, without any major protests.

The Swedish journalist Tobias Lindberg also accused Moscow of double standards in Sydsvenska Dagbladet on 2 May 2007: "Russia is frequently and rightly criticised by the rest of the world for things like its democratic deficits and the war in Chechnya. The Kremlin rejects these accusations as attempts to interfere in Russia's internal affairs. But Moscow obviously has no reservations about interfering in something that is clearly an internal affair for Estonia."

A New Understanding

Estonia's call for the EU and Nato to assume a clear position in Estonia's favour vis-à-vis Russia in the monument controversy has apparently led to a fresh understanding of the EU's new north-eastern member-states in Western Europe. As the French daily Le Monde wrote on 10 May, this understanding could broaden Europe's view of the world: "As for these countries, they have brought to the Union an experience of Russian relations marked by more than half a century of domination. This experience, that the western European countries lack, makes them more mistrustful, or less naive, regarding Russian intentions."

The Hungarian Gábor Miklós argued along similar lines in Népszabadság on 28 April 2007 and brought up a further point as well: "The riots in Tallinn and the criticism from Moscow show that politicians want to manipulate not only images of history but also people's feelings … On the one hand you have a huge country on the offensive, on the other a little republic getting moral support from the West. But the real victims of the dispute are the Russians in Estonia."

Reconciliation within Estonia

But Estonian commentators believe that ultimately the conflict might be an opportunity for Estonians and the Russian minority in Estonia to learn to coexist; after all, the dispute has resulted in forums for dialogue and round tables being established. "Naturally, we could go on commemorating the victory of our grandfathers forever, but nowadays there are plenty of other things to do, and we shouldn't regard all Russians as occupiers," Delfi wrote on 2 May 2007.

In an optimistic commentary that appeared in Eesti Päevaleht on 8 May, Vallo Tomet wrote: "The dispute about the bronze statue is forcing Estonians and Russians to speak to one another from the bottom of their hearts and their souls. It would be good if this dialogue continued and a fresh wind sweeps through the area and blows out the stale air. We now need to speak openly about historical events like the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet occupation".

Berthold Forssman

Dr. Berthold Forssman studied Scandinavian, Slavic and Indo-Germanic languages and literature and now works as a freelance journalist, translator, language teacher and author in ...
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Enlargement / Neighbourhood Policy, » History, » Russia, » Europe, » Baltic States
More from the press review on the subject » EU Enlargement / Neighbourhood Policy, » History, » Russia, » Europe, » Baltic States