Commemorating the victims of the Second World War must not turn into a demonstration of strength, says Anatol Petrencu, president of the Moldovan Union of Historians.
“Why do people commemorate the dead on Memorial Easter without regard to what political party they favored or what ideology they embraced, while on May 9 everyone is divided?”, the historian asked rhetorically during an IPN debate which explored the affinities and differences of the two observances.
Anatol Petrencu believes that there is nothing wrong with having a Victory Day for remembering the WWII victims until it becomes “a political affair” and “there is this desire to show the Russian might and turn the commemoration into a demonstration of strength”.
Asked why the victors lost far more people than those who lost the War, Anatol Petrencu replied: “Because the Russians fought differently. There is even a popular Russian song that says “whatever the cost”, meaning they didn’t care about the value of human lives; victory was the only thing that mattered. The Soviet Union suffered the biggest casualties, and the number changed constantly - from 6 million during Stalin’s rule, to over 17 million later, to eventually reach 27 million dead during Gorbachev’s rule (...) Overall, 60-65 million people died during World War II. People who could have created works, opened universities, cured diseases and so on. Many innocent people, mostly civilians, died. So, when we talk about Victory Day as a holiday, maybe we should show a little restraint, a little temperance”.
In the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Anatol Petrencu is of the opinion that historical justifications for territorial claims have no place in today’s world.
“All the wise people of Europe have asked themselves, ‘How can we eliminate war?’ They came to the conclusion that in order to prevent war crimes from repeating themselves, we must recognize the borders as they are, as drawn after the war. Even if they might not always be fair. Any country in Europe might have some claims: Poland lost territories to the former USSR, Germany to Poland, Romania lost Bessarabia, and so on. But, it was decided, we recognize the borders as they are”, said Anatol Petrencu, continuing:
“In 1975, when Brezhnev was in power, the Helsinki Act was signed, whereby the USSR recognized the existing borders. Following the dissolution of the Union and with the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States in December 1991, Article 2 (of its founding agreement) says that the signatory states recognize each other’s territorial integrity and borders. The Russian Federation also signed an agreement in Budapest when Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons (in accordance with the principle of non-proliferation). Ukraine had some suspicions and demanded additional guarantees for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the Russian Federation vowed to respect them”.
“We could bring up Genghis Khan, who could claim (territories) as far as to the Mediterranean Sea, and so on and so forth. There’s no end to this. That’s why we have rely on generally approved and enshrined rules. Hence this collective and unanimous attitude of the West and other states of the world towards the aggression of the Russian Federation”, said Anatol Petrencu, president of the Moldovan Union of Historians.
The debate was the 242nd installment of the “Political Culture” Series, run by IPN with the support of the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
