Great Dates, or How State Policies of Remembrance Construct History

Abstract

The main patron and actor in the politics of memorials is the state. It is the state that takes care of compiling a standard list of significant historical events and significant historical figures.In this regard, the following questions arise. How did the set of historical events that were to be perpetuated and propagandised look in Soviet and post-Soviet times? How and by what criteria was the selection of historical personalities and events made? What features of state policy put the emphasis on these images? How did this memorial policy express the attitude of the authorities to the role of individual and collective in history? How did they reflect the gender element? Finally, what influence did the attitude of the authorities to religion have on the process of memorialisation?Vivid examples of the official policy of memory are the gazebo in Neskuchny Gardens, which was erected in 1951 in honour of the 800th anniversary of Moscow, and the design of Borovitsky Square with the adjacent Alexander Gardens, which appeared already in the 2010s. What are the similarities and differences between these two examples of memorial policy? It is shown that they share an emphasis on solving political problems with the help of the armed forces (war or revolution), a pronounced masculinity and emphasis on great military victories. This, of course, indicates the government’s positive attitude to war, the military, and the militarisation of history. These monuments are distinguished by their respective attitudes toward history, religion, revolution, war and the role of the masses in history as well as how exactly this characterises the politics of these two different states. These examples serve to explicate Soviet and post-Soviet memorial cultures. Emphasis is placed on the archaisation of thinking and public discourse characteristic of the post-Soviet period.