Ledarbloggen
Claes Arvidsson
Claes Arvidsson
Sammanfattning av föredraget Separate historical memories som Ronaldas Racinskas höll vid UOK:s seminarium Kriget efter kriget 15/11 2007.
Racinskas är executive director of International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania
During the first half of the 20th century two totalitarian regimes emerged and sought to alert the political structure of the world thought universal imposition of their ideologies. The first, and longest lasting, Soviet Communism was based on pseudo scientific theory of class struggle; the second, Nazi Germany was based on racialist ideology. Lithuania and whole Central and Eastern Europe suffered from both. Repressions and losses befell all its peoples. However, differences between the two affected ethnic, social and political in differed ways. Collective memories have been shaped accordingly.
The victory over Nazi Germany led to universal condemnation of that regime and its ideology. In democratic world, a broad evaluation of that system and its crimes, especially the Holocaust (or Shoah), was adopted. Very clear attitude regarding Nazi ideology and crimes of the regime lie as a foundation-stone in the system of values of democratic stares. It has universal meaning.
The survival of the Soviet totalitarianism decades into the post – war period precluded an analogous assessment of its role in the start of bloodiest conflict in human history and in repressions of its own population as well as those occupied nations. The transformation and breakup of the Soviet system was followed, in a way, by selective amnesia.
That are the reasons of so different perception of these two totalitarian regimes, and their crimes? Firstly, political, because history is the politics of yesterday and politics of today is the history of tomorrow. History is always written by conquerors and winners. And they present historical events in a way they would like. That is way history was, is and will be field of manipulation, subjective evaluation, interpretation. Even if there is an agreement concerning facts, there always will be controversy about interpretation. Secondly, difference in collective memory, because it always involves emotions and we see surrounding world through “color glasses”. And the “color” depends on our education, objective knowledge, system of values, belonging to certain social, ethnic or political group, collective memory and discourses in these groups also personal experience and believes.
“Russian factor”. Today prevailing pro-Soviet (or pro-Russian) discourse concerning reasons and results of WWII. It seams that it is deliberately forgotten that in 1939 Soviets started WWII as Nazi allies. In 1945 Nazi Germany was defeated by joint efforts of Western Allies and Soviet Union and Europe was again (in Teheran, Yalta and Podsdam) divided – now between Western democracies and totalitarian Soviets (and in case of Baltic countries these agreements just enforced and legalized Molotov – Ribbentrop pact legacy.
Yes, Europe was liberated from Nazi regime, but very differently in its West and East. Western part was really liberated, but in Eastern – one totalitarian regime was changed by another, one occupation by another, one type concentration camps by another. But the myth that Soviet army liberated Europe is still very popular and by all means is strengthen by Russia – the successor of USSR. To say more: our days Russia is more and more affiliated with Soviet past: the ideas of “glories soviet past” become consolidation factor for Russian nation. That become a fundamental ideological ground of new Kremlin political platform, and all attempts at least to open dialog and discussion are obstructed by Russia.
Ambiguous position of the West. Western democracy and Western civilization rests on fundamental principals of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundament freedoms – on moral grounds and system of values. But in regard to Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes we clearly see double standards. In relations with Russia and crimes of Soviet regime these fundamental grounds are not so strong. The so cal real politiqe is dominating in the relations with Moscow and we often hear about “necessary” concessions. The typical example is celebration of 60 anniversary of the end of WWII in Moscow (there actually this war started in 1939). By participating in the Putin’s propaganda show respectful leaders of the World show their agreement to Kremlin position, which humiliate victims of soviet totalitarian regime.
Concept of Genocide. In 1948, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide excluded, at the last moment under Soviet pressure, enumeration of the Soviet acts of genocide from the list of such crimes. Does that render the suffering of the millions of victims of the Soviet regime any less painful? Can Soviet totalitarian regimes just on these formal grounds therefore be regarded as lesser evil? In my view victim is victim, murder is murder, torture is torture, and rape is rape. Starvation, pain, disease, and humiliation are the same, no genocide is more important than another one; no one is more victim than another one.
Ambiguous situation in post communist countries is also among the reasons why Soviet communist ideology was never condemned. In these countries former communist leaders still hold a political and economical power.
Left wing political parties of Western democracies usually not support the idea to condemn Soviet Communist system because of their ideological proximity.
Lack of the will and political leadership based on moral grounds. Politics that are not based on moral considerations are, at the end of the day, not practical politics at all.
How to change situation of double standards in perception of totalitarian regimes?
* Clear political will
* Moral grounds for political decisions
* Open dialog
* Legal framework
* Institutional framework
* Modern education