On February 14, more than a dozen German scientists, representatives of historical memory foundations, signed an open letter in support of the historical, educational, charitable and human rights society “Memorial”, which the “Veterans of Russia” movement accused of “rehabilitating Nazism”. One of them is director of the Buchenwald-Dora-Mittelbau Historical Memory Foundation, history professor Jens-Christian Wagner.
In an interview with DW, he shared his memories of working with the archives of Memorial in Moscow and told what opportunities the German scientific community is considering today to support his Russian colleagues.
DW: Professor Wagner, how do you assess what is happening today with Memorial in Russia?
Jens-Christian Wagner: There is nothing new in the fact that Memorial is being pressured. For several years now, the work of the organization in Russia has been increasingly suppressed against the backdrop of trends towards restoration (of the former political system. – Ed.). A critical look at the period of Stalinism has long been much less desirable than it was in the 1990s. This is largely due to the authoritarian tendencies of the Putin government.
Jens-Christian Wagner
Over the years, we have been in close contact with our colleagues from Memorial and have seen for ourselves the pressure this organization is under. Assigning the status of “foreign agent” to “Memorial” significantly limited its opportunities for open and critical work in Russia.
Today there is a new round of escalation. On the one hand, we are talking about a court decision to liquidate the “International Memorial”, and on the other hand, about the closure of the organization’s central office in Moscow with a huge archive. I myself worked with him. It contains an incredible amount of material on the history of the persecution of people during the period of Stalinism in the USSR.
At the same time, for us, as a memory fund dealing with the history of National Socialism in Germany, the extensive archive of documents on the history of Soviet citizens sent to Germany for forced labor during World War II (the so-called “Ostarbeiters”) is of particular value. – Ed.), and those who, after the war, faced suspicions of collaborationism in the Soviet Union and for a long time were not recognized as victims of National Socialism either in the USSR or later in Russia and other former Soviet republics.
– Did you have the opportunity to study the archives of “Memorial” in Russia?
– Yes. My colleagues and I were engaged in scientific work in Moscow and worked closely with Memorial. A few years ago, our Buchenwald-Dora-Mittelbau Historical Memory Foundation prepared a large-scale international traveling exhibition on the history of forced labor during the period of National Socialism. In 2011, we presented it in Moscow.
Some exhibits from the funds of “Memorial” were also used in the exposition. It took place in the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War, that is, in the State Museum, and “Memorial” was our important partner in the presentation of the exhibition and organized, in particular, seminars for teachers who attended the exposition with their classes.
– In this light, the accusations of the rehabilitation of Nazism look at least strange.
– They are really absurd! I don’t know of any other organization in Russia that has the merit of developing a critical and dignified view of the crimes of National Socialism in the former Soviet Union.
– Are there discussions in the German historical and scientific community about the possibility of preserving the archive of “Memorial” in case the organization is liquidated? Maybe there are plans to transfer it to part of Germany?
– It wouldn’t be so easy. After all, we are talking about cultural heritage that would need to be taken out of the country. In addition, the fundamental principle of a free, history-conscious society is that historical documents are in the country, and researchers and people involved in educational activities have access to them.
That is why I really hope that the archive of “Memorial” will be preserved and available in Russia. Otherwise, you really have to think about the possibility of taking this extremely valuable archive abroad. However, this would be a last resort, and we have not yet discussed this topic.
It should also be taken into account that a significant proportion of the materials collected by “Memorial” have already been digitized, some of this data is also with us. For example, documents from Russia that we used for a large-scale exhibition on the theme of the Gulag. In 2010, it was demonstrated throughout Germany. It was a very detailed exhibition, in preparing it we reached the very depths of the archives.
– And what about concrete measures to support the employees of “Memorial”?
– We have already thought about how to save our colleagues, for example, by giving them the opportunity to continue working in Germany. After all, we are very worried about their fate. Everyone who is familiar with the situation in Russia knows that such things as a challenge (of the chairman of the board of International Memorial. – Ed.) Jan Rachinsky to the Investigative Committee in the case of the “rehabilitation of Nazism”, may well be dangerous. At worst, he could end up behind bars.
This is a real threat and must be taken seriously. Not only a threat to the personal freedom of our colleagues, but also an existential threat to the freedom of historical science and free historical and political education in Russia.
– Are there any discussions about potential employment opportunities for Memorial’s employees in other German historical funds?
– Yes. However, here – the same situation as with the archive. We hope that Memorial’s important educational work can be continued in Russia, and not in exile.
– Do you think that the liquidation of “Memorial” can still be avoided?
As they say, hope dies last. However, I cannot assess the chances for this, since I am too little familiar with the manner in which the Russian courts work. I hope that the liquidation of “Memorial” will still be prevented, but I cannot say that I am exceptionally optimistic in this regard.
– At the end of January, a group of Estonian politicians nominated Memorial for the Nobel Peace Prize. How do you assess the organization’s chances of receiving this award and what role it could play for civil society in Russia?
– I think it would be an outstanding support. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Memorial would be an amazing development, and I would highly welcome such a decision. Just as we welcome the nomination of “Memorial” for the German Booksellers’ Peace Prize (an award to figures of literature, science and art for their contribution to the development of peace and mutual understanding between peoples. – Ed.).
All this is an attempt to symbolically express support for “Memorial”, however, I think the symbolism should not be underestimated. I hope it will have an impact in Russia as well and will make those responsible in the political and institutional sphere think again.
See also:
