Europe after 1989: Goodbye to Grand Narratives? Siobhan Kattago Winter School: Politics of Memory Tartu,

After 1989 reassessment of myths and grand narratives surrounding World War II (Judt, Davies, Appelbaum) East European narrative of return to the nation, Europe and the West

Why the popular interest in collective memory and in World War II in particular? Democratization of history Exhaustion of utopian projects Acceleration of time Generation change (communicative to cultural memory) Growing importance of the mass media (Nora, Koselleck, Huyssen, Assmann)

Should Soviet war memorials remain as places of memory and mourning or do they represent a false ideological interpretation of history?

War Memorials and Collective Memory Places of memory: memorial versus military cemetary Memorials as carriers of memory which also shape images of the past Memorials as artworks contain multiple (unintended) meanings

War Memorials and Social Cohesion “transfiguration of death” in the name of the nation (Koselleck and Anderson) the modern nation: from religious to national cohesion – the search for meaning (A. Smith) martrydom, victimhood, individual sacrifice

“Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning” Jay Winter and George Mosse After WWI, democratization of death and the unknown soldier as national shrine After WWII, moral trauma, counter- monuments, abstract designs favoring mourning and loss, rather than heroism

Soviet War Memorials Homo Sovieticus Anti-fascism as one of the ideological justifications for the USSR Figurative design combining heroism, mourning and liberation

Politicization of the Past in Estonia Lihula, 2004: how to compare fascism and communism totem and taboo: honoring an Estonian wearing a Wehrmacht uniform Bronze Soldier, 2007: relocation from city center to a military cemetery occupation or liberation Estonian versus Soviet-Russian memory of WWII

Lihula, 2004

Bronze Soldier: holy symbol of liberation and victory

Bronze Soldier: bitter symbol of occupation and Red terror

The conflict over Soviet war memorials is more than an internal problem between residents of Estonia, but is part of a larger reassessment of the meanings of World War II in Europe

Coming to Terms with World War II and Communism liberation from fascism occupation of Eastern Europe the complex role of the Red Army in World War II the criminal nature of Communist regime

Western Narrative National Socialism as main evil Uniqueness of Holocaust as primary trauma and victim May 8, 1945 as end of the war Germany defeated and divided Inability to compare Communism with National Socialism

Soviet-Russian Narrative Fascism (National Socialism) as main evil Victimhood of Russians as primary trauma against Nazi invasion Red Army soldier as hero and liberator of Europe Great Patriotic War forgotten May 9, 1945 as Victory Day

Post-Communist Narrative (Estonian) Two evils: Communism and fascism Communism as the main evil Estonian victimhood as primary trauma Red Army soldier as occupier End of WWII with Estonian re-independence in 1991 Return to history, return to Europe Truth of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

a grand narrative about World War II ( ) or the Great Patriotic War ( ) is neither possible nor desirable. May 8 or May 9 Red Army as liberator or occupier Perpetrator, victim, bystander

The role of the Holocaust as foundational memory in Europe The Holocaust as central collective memory (Judt, Diner, Dubiel) The Holocaust as “hot memory”; the Gulag as “cold memory” (Maier)

Europe after 1989 Can a plurality of memories of World War II respectively co-exist? Is there a way to respect historical difference without revisionism and a whitewashing of the past?