![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been following the news from Estonia with some interest, particularly since it has joined the European Union. I've a long-standing interest in Estonia, in fact--witness this 2300AD RPG setting for a future/alternate-historical Estonia. This interest of mine forms part of my general fascination with small plucky nations, like Slovenia, I suppose. Regardless of this interest's origins, I was interested to come across the Baltic Times article "Monumental needs and rethinking Estonia's past" by Aleksei Gunter. This article examines the question of how officially sanctioned memories of the Second World War are changing, particularly in light of Estonia's embrace of those Estonian soldiers who served under Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. I've reproduced the article below.
( Why did the Estonians ally with Nazi Germany in the Second World War? )
( The great divergence. )
Estonia's interpretation of its history can and should be blamed, of course, for overlooking the atrocities committed by Estonians serving in the SS, and in Estonia by Nazi Germany. The real problem, though, is that Estonia's historical experience doesn't fit into the general western and central European experience of horrific Nazi rule followed by more-or-less beneficent liberations, whether by the Western Powers or by the Soviet Union. It's difficult if not impossible to view the Soviet reconquest of Estonia in 1944 as initiating a period of peace and prosperity in the country, even of relative peace and prosperity as in central Europe. Soviet rule was significantly worse for Estonia than Nazi rule, and remained so for a much longer period of time.
Certainly, a place should be saved in Estonia's history books for the Soviet soldiers who destroyed the Nazi presence in Estonia (even if that meant the installation of a worse and more destructive tyranny for a much longer period of time, and despite the various atrocities committed against Estonians in wartime). I'd also think, though, that a place should be saved for the Estonian soldiers who fought for the independence of their homeland against the Soviet Union (even if that meant that they were complicit in Nazi German war crimes, against Jews and against Soviets). The relative importance of the Soviet soldiers and the Estonian soldiers should be weighed carefully, though I can't say I'd be opposed to a reading that placed more importance on the latter group than the former.
In the end, what the debate over the Estonian experience of the Second World War does is demonstrate that it's impossible, in Europe in the time of the Second World War as in the wider world throughout history, to come up with a clean, coherent, and inoffensive history of any nation. There may be good guys (relatively speaking) and there may be bad guys (again, relatively speaking), and the degree to which they are good or bad can be impressively stark in many occasions.
Of course, my reading may be quite wrong. Thoughts?
( Counter )
UPDATE (10:17 PM, 18 June) : Crossposted on Living in Europe.
TALLINN - The Soviet T-34 tank in Narva, parked a few meters from the bridge that spans the river between Estonia and Russia, was put there in the 1950s. There is no sign on the pedestal, as the monument needs no explanation: It is one of hundreds spread across the Soviet Union to remind everybody of the country's victory over fascism and the millions of war casualties.
To be sure, the tank has never been a major topic of discussion in Estonia - unlike many other monuments commemorating Soviet, German and Estonian soldiers who fell during World War II - even though, ironically enough, its cannon points toward Tallinn.
( Read more... )
( Why did the Estonians ally with Nazi Germany in the Second World War? )
( The great divergence. )
Estonia's interpretation of its history can and should be blamed, of course, for overlooking the atrocities committed by Estonians serving in the SS, and in Estonia by Nazi Germany. The real problem, though, is that Estonia's historical experience doesn't fit into the general western and central European experience of horrific Nazi rule followed by more-or-less beneficent liberations, whether by the Western Powers or by the Soviet Union. It's difficult if not impossible to view the Soviet reconquest of Estonia in 1944 as initiating a period of peace and prosperity in the country, even of relative peace and prosperity as in central Europe. Soviet rule was significantly worse for Estonia than Nazi rule, and remained so for a much longer period of time.
Certainly, a place should be saved in Estonia's history books for the Soviet soldiers who destroyed the Nazi presence in Estonia (even if that meant the installation of a worse and more destructive tyranny for a much longer period of time, and despite the various atrocities committed against Estonians in wartime). I'd also think, though, that a place should be saved for the Estonian soldiers who fought for the independence of their homeland against the Soviet Union (even if that meant that they were complicit in Nazi German war crimes, against Jews and against Soviets). The relative importance of the Soviet soldiers and the Estonian soldiers should be weighed carefully, though I can't say I'd be opposed to a reading that placed more importance on the latter group than the former.
In the end, what the debate over the Estonian experience of the Second World War does is demonstrate that it's impossible, in Europe in the time of the Second World War as in the wider world throughout history, to come up with a clean, coherent, and inoffensive history of any nation. There may be good guys (relatively speaking) and there may be bad guys (again, relatively speaking), and the degree to which they are good or bad can be impressively stark in many occasions.
Of course, my reading may be quite wrong. Thoughts?
( Counter )
UPDATE (10:17 PM, 18 June) : Crossposted on Living in Europe.
