next - main - previous
The Eurasian Politician - Issue 1 (May 21st, 2000)
Summary: By the scandal caused by the electoral victory of Jörg Haider’s right-wing populist party in Austria, fourteen European Union member states have pushed themselves into a seemingly troublesome and inconsiderate mess by starting boycott against Austria as a whole. Questions of the connection between Haider’s populism and national socialism have brought the "shadow of the Swastika" back into European discussion – in a way that shows many absurd features, as the author, Aki Pulli, reminds with examples taken from the history of the WW II. He also points out that the Western politicians, making big deal of WW II related dishwashing in the Baltic States, while showing no signs of recognising the responsibility of Russia in the horrible crimes of the communism – and the most cruel crimes still being committed by Russia and certain other states against ethnic or religious groups – have shown narrow historical comprehension, double morality, and lack of ability to understand the difference between Western and Intermediate European historical memories.
By Aki Pulli
On the threshold of enlargement and after ten years of calls to build "New Europe", the major European powers within the European Union, and the EU itself, are still fighting the wrong enemies – both those from the past and the ones existing. It is a result of broad political misconception that may lead in the long run into misery and havoc – at least in some parts of Europe. The biggest threat, though, will be the annullation of the positive achievement EU has reached so far both within itself and in the immediate vicinity of its borders and eventually even a dissolvement of the Union itself.
The politicians in Western Europe often – either on purpose or due to their narrow comprehension of history – fail to understand that Europe as a whole has entirely different problematics than Western Europe. On the other hand, how could it be expected when the West is unable to solve even its own self-made problems that have been a major cause in the current flaming discussion about Nazi Germany’s ideological inheritance in today’s Europe.
The turn of the second into third Millennium has seen in Europe unprecedented backlash into the event that had its 60th anniversary just before the Millennium party – World War II – and together with it the unavoidable fosterchild, the Holocaust. Stockholm hosted a major anti-holocaust meeting in early 2000 and almost simultaneously after a four-month dead end, Austria got its new government, seeing as a junior partner a populist party that has been accused to advocate, if not directly national socialist values, at least xenophobia and national extremism, and whose leader was considered an open sympathiser of Hitler.
In the Stockholm conference one of the major discussion issues of current affairs was a recent decision of the Latvian government to give semi-official recognition to Latvian veterans of Waffen-SS. The public outcry was another indication of how little there is ability and will to understand different heritages of West and East of our continent. In Latvia, Waffen-SS veterans are generally considered as patriots that took of the very few available options to fight the worst enemy of Latvian nation – Stalin’s bolshevist Soviet Union, dominated by forces that aimed to supremacy of Russian language and culture with most brutal means of destruction of conquered minorities. Latvia had been ruthlessly put under Russian rule only a year before German forces marched in, so it was understandable Germans were partly taken as liberators from the worse oppression and even if Germans did not restore Latvia’s statehood, they allowed civil affairs be headed by locals and did not pursue to annihilate the entire nation as it had seemed Russians were determined to do in regard of massive executions and deportations.
Truth is, Waffen-SS was no Sunday school organisation and even if it was largely only a combat outfit, parts of it were active in the holocaust and all members of it took an oath of loyalty to essential principles of Nazi ideology – in which holocaust was not a direct part. So we might say every Waffen-SS soldier is guilty of Holocaust roughly to the same extent as the abdicated King Edward the VIII – better known as Duke of Windsor. Also many other countries than Latvia – even Western countries – had considerable amount of volunteers in the Waffen-SS. Even neutral Sweden, hosting the conference, had its citizens fighting in Waffen-SS as volunteers, not to mention of occupied Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway. Also Finland had one battalion there, which was considered to be a bail of brotherhood in arms between Germany and Finland.
So when talking about Waffen-SS veterans it is essential to clear each and every individual’s possible guilt to actions against humanity or participation in the Holocaust, not to condemn people that were also largely victims of the circumstances. Holocaust was largely executed by civil service officials and German security organs (SS, Gestapo, RSHA etc.) in occupied countries, and regular armed forces as Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht were used mostly as combat units and in only for a small part they directly participated in atrocities. Units and individual members from the combat forces of both innocent-held Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS did participate in Holocaust, but main responsibility lies on the Nazi party leadership, SS and local administration. That is why blaming people collectively of something they necessarily did not participate directly is not very fruitful. Collective guilt can be applied only towards initiator people of such unprecedented cruelties. In regard of the Holocaust, these are Germany as a whole, and Austria.
Countries and people located between the two evil powers, Germany and Soviet Russia, were essentially victims instead of criminals. Each of them had individual ways to preserve self-determination and be saved of annihilation. Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary played ball with Germans but left the sinking ship at the last moment. Baltic States gave in to Russia’s demands to have military bases, welcomed Germans as liberators, were mildly disappointed as full independence was not restored and then were fiercely fighting a doomed battle against re-occupation of their countries by Russian war machine in 1944-45. Finland fought three separate wars to preserve its independence and finally succeeded, one of them included over a three-year-period of "co-warring" with Germany. Czechoslovakia subjugated peacefully to German occupation and Slovaks even got their nominal independence both from Germany and from Prague. Croatians did the same thing in regard of Belgrade. Both Slovakia and Croatia lacked international recognition and were integrated back to their former entities Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia after Germany’s support faded. They could re-emerge as independent countries only in the early 1990s after the totalitarian rule was abolished.
At the same time with the outcry against Latvian Waffen-SS veterans from Stockholm, Russia started a serious political and diplomatic attack against Latvia and Estonia, as those countries dared to prosecute and sentence into prison people, who had served victor of the World War II, the mighty Soviet Union. Soviet Union a.k.a. Red Russian Empire, after a futile attempt to conquer Finland in the 1939-40 Winter War, occupied all three Baltic states in the summer of 1940. Within a year in each country, dozens of thousands of people had been killed by Soviet executioners, or deported to Siberia. When the Baltic states were re-occupied in 1944-45 the same fate was to happen to dozens of thousands again. Altogether these countries lost almost one third of their population in the 1940s and Nazi Germany was responsible of less than half of that in Lithuania and less than 10% in both Estonia and Latvia – these were mainly the Jews. Truth is, massive Jewish community of Lithuania was destroyed and annihilated, and Riga concentration camp was a place that will and should remain in the history books about the Holocaust. Still, in the collective memory of these nations there has been much worse evil than Hitler’s Germany, there even the fate of local Jews fades in regard of atrocities these countries had to see before emerging again. Baltic countries are not the only example. All of Europe given to Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam was subjugated to totalitarian dictatorship for decades after Hitler had died and the Nazi power with him.
The reason why in Central Europe there are not so many negative emotions towards communist atrocities is that those atrocities were largely made not by Russians as in the Baltics and in parts of Poland and Romania, but by local communists. That makes it a painful national matter in these countries and that is why especially in Czech Republic it is convenient not to go too deep into history.
From the point of view of Western Europe the Holocaust is the most outrageous example of the 20th Century cruelties as it is the only one that has touched those countries otherwise living in safety and prosperity without any direct enemies. It cannot be denied it is a most horrifying, directly inhuman feature to pursue total annihilation of representatives of certain religious groups or according to ethnic background. Observing the matter distantly as facts, it is clear that it is by far not the only and probably not even the worst atrocity in the 20th Century. Also Germans have taken full moral responsibility to what took place – even if GDR ducked and Austria was given sort of a free ticket. On the other hand, in the Europe of 20th Century we have powers that still use methods known to most only from Holocaust movies or cruel science fiction films. In those countries there has been no processing of history, neither any serious acknowledgement of material or moral guilt to any wrongdoings of the past. Most significant of these historical "amnesia patients" is Russia, whose historical cruelties amount to directly gargantuan proportions even if almost every other country has some minor skeletons in the cupboard as well.
By forgetting the things Russia has done or is currently doing, Europe is making a favour neither to itself nor to Russia. In Western Europe extreme right and those, who want to underestimate the cruelties of the Nazis, can always pinpoint to a fact that only the Nazis are being taken as a scapegoat. If it is easy to prove that other horrifying atrocities took place before, during and after WW II than those of the Nazis, it is easy to believe the Nazis were not that bad at all or out of historical convenience have been selected to take the patsy’s role.
In "Zwischeneuropa" besides having the same effect than in the West, there are other consequences as well. Many people who suffered under Bolshevik yoke, feel historical injustice done by not paying enough attention to what happened in those years of indirect or direct Russian occupation. Those again, who were part of unjust system in respective countries, are only subject to local prosecution instead of international one. There has not been and it seems there will not be any "Red Nuremberg". That gives for instance weapons to current Russian administration to advocate to those people prosecuted perfectly legally in the Baltic States by organising public international outcries, granting citizenship to those prosecuted and even using diplomatic pressure and trade embargoes to free those people. Who could imagine Germany would use any such means to defend people prosecuted in Israel, Poland or Russia for atrocities done in service of Hitler’s Germany? As long as there is that kind of discrepancy, Western Europe is not ripe to take responsibility for Europe as a whole.
Policy towards Russia is intermingled with the same problematic, as Russia has never publicly and irrevocably denounced the unjust done during bolshevist dictatorship. There was a time, last two years of Gorbachev and first year of Yeltsin administration, when there was certain progress done and probably even Yeltsin sincerely those days represented a view there would be a need of historical review or examination of the past. Later on he got intoxicated of his own might and omnipotence and took the stance similar to his predecessors. His long and successful career inside communist party could well be one reason that influenced the development. Still today, having a new, young and dynamic president, Russia still elected not only a former member of communist party, but a representative of huge and most cruel oppressive organisation the world has ever known, the KGB. Russian development is equivalent that instead of Konrad Adenauer, Rudolf Hess had become the first Federal Chancellor of Germany and instead of Ludwig Erhard, Heinrich Himmler had become his successor. Would the world welcome such development? At least it has done so when Russia is in question.
Western stance towards Russia is as hypocritical as it is wrong. Russia follows its own logic, different from European and one essential part of that logic is respect of power. Somehow Ronald Reagan is the most successful U.S. president in regard of relations with Russia. Some might say it is not because of him, but because of "progressive" Gorbachev. As a matter of fact, even Gorbachev was indirectly Reagan’s creation as the arms race he had forced Russia to was going way beyond that conglomerate’s liquidity and new ideas were needed. That is why Gorbachev became number one in Soviet Union. Nowadays and actually since late Bush administration Western policy is that of appeasement towards Russia instead of that of a power. Russians have no respect for such. Al Gore and Javier Solana – and George Robertson as the latest example – are constantly making fools of themselves in front of Russians by trying to "understand" and "develop good relationships" no matter what Russia does. It is very unlikely there will be a real reform of Russian political principles of imperialism and centralism unless there is pressure from outside. Currently neither the EU nor the U.S. is exercising it. Economy of Russia may slowly improve and create wealth to Russians, but a wealthy Russia without any changed principles of ruling it is even more dangerous than Russia on the verge of bankruptcy.
In order to reach some new vitality in the integration process and win the hearts of Europeans both for the expansion of the Union and the Union itself, European politicians need to have a thorough look in the mirror and think how many of the problems they are facing are partly self-created and how many real problems of the future members have really been recognized. In order to become European, a politician has to leave besides national passions, also his/her cultural background, whether it is Scandinavian, Mediterranean or whatever, in order to learn to understand and deal with a part of Europe that has been away from the rest for too long.