13th European History Forum: Commemoration in Disruptive Times

Late in the evening of 8 May 1945, Nazi Germany signed its unconditional surrender. Due to the time difference, this event has traditionally been commemorated on 9 May in the Soviet Union and its successor states. Eighty years later, the question arises: how is the pivotal year of 1945 remembered across Eastern and South-Eastern Europe? Can this anniversary serve as a catalyst for renewed European unity, or are today’s geopolitical ruptures reinforcing old or creating new divisions in the continent’s cultures of remembrance?

In search of answers to these pressing and multifaceted questions, the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin convened the 13th edition of its European History Forum on 19th and 20th May 2025. This year’s theme, “80 Years of Narratives about the End of World War II,” provided the framework for a critical examination of shifting memory discourses across Europe.

In his opening address, Jan Philipp Albrecht, Executive Director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, stressed the continued and even heightened relevance of debates surrounding the war’s end. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, he argued, is also an attack on the European Union, and it is particularly those regions that had already suffered immense destruction and mass violence during the Second World War that are once again enduring extreme brutality. At the same time, the broad consensus around how the Second World War is remembered - especially within Germany and Europe - appears increasingly fragile. In light of these developments, Albrecht underscored the need for a critical, historically informed, and ethically responsible culture of remembrance - an ethos that has shaped the History Forum since its inception in 2011.

The opening panel emphasized how commemorative narratives around the war’s end are not static but subject to ongoing political, cultural, and generational reinterpretation. Walter Kaufmann, head of the Foundation’s Eastern Europe Department, invoked the landmark 1985 speech delivered by then German President Richard von Weizsäcker on the 40th anniversary of the war’s end. In that address, Weizsäcker famously declared 8 May a “day of liberation,” despite the widespread suffering among the German population. This speech, Kaufmann noted, was a watershed moment for both German and broader European cultures of remembrance and served as a reference point for decades.

However, in today’s shifting political climate, such consensus statements are no longer guaranteed. Kaufmann reminded the audience that Heinrich Böll himself had taken Weizsäcker’s interpretation seriously, advocating for the speech’s inclusion in German school curricula as a vital component of civic and historical education.

Ukraine and the Politics of Remembrance - In the Shadow of a New War

How has Russia’s current war of aggression shaped the way Ukraine commemorates the end of the Second World War? Yaroslav Hrytsak of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv provided a nuanced reflection on the shifting landscape of memory in his country. Historically, he explained, the end of the Second World War has received relatively little attention in Ukrainian public discourse. “Our collective memory,” he noted, “is shaped primarily by the ongoing war.” Each day at 9 a.m., the country pauses for a minute of silence - traffic halts, activities cease - in a national ritual of remembrance for lives lost in the present conflict.

A symbolic yet significant shift has also taken place in how Ukraine marks the legacy of the Second World War. The official day of remembrance was moved from 9 May - still observed in Russia and other post-Soviet states - to 8 May. While 9 May remains the traditional "Victory Day" in the Soviet canon, Ukraine’s decision to commemorate on 8 May reflects a deliberate alignment with European memory culture and a distancing from Soviet-era symbolism.

Hrytsak described the current conflict as a “Zeitenwende”, a decisive rupture in Ukraine’s historical trajectory: the post-war era has ended, and a new wartime period has begun. Central to this rupture is what he called Russia’s “monopolisation” of historical memory. On 9 May, Russian President Vladimir Putin once again presided over a grand military parade to mark Victory Day. However, the symbolic message of the event has shifted. Whereas previous commemorations focused on the victory over Nazism, the dominant narrative now casts Russia as embattled against the West, with Ukraine framed as part of that perceived enemy. This year, Putin was flanked by leaders Xi of China and Brazil as representative of the BRICS nations - signaling the emergence of a new geopolitical alignment. In this context, Hrytsak concluded, Ukraine’s most pressing concern remains security.

Professor Claudia Weber of the European University Viadrina echoed Hrytsak’s observations, emphasizing that the 2025 anniversary was marked by a unique sense of historical urgency. The current war, she argued, has reawakened Europe to the visceral realities of warfare: “death, horror, violence.” In recent years, the culture of remembrance had become somewhat formulaic, shaped by ritualized narratives and static symbolism. Now, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has unsettled these conventions and raised urgent new questions: How should Europe engage with Russia? How should the legacy of the Soviet Union be approached? And critically, how should Ukraine’s historical role be understood within this broader framework?

In response, Weber called for a more confident and open engagement with the complexities of wartime history. Only by confronting these intricacies, she argued, can propaganda be effectively challenged. Putin, for example, continues to instrumentalize the memory of the Second World War, glorifying figures such as Stalin - whose statue was recently erected in the occupied Ukrainian city of Mariupol. Weber provocatively asked: “Why is our response not: There are no heroes?” She underscored the ambivalence inherent in war, where one can be a hero in the morning and a perpetrator by afternoon. “That,” she concluded, “is the brutal reality of war.”

Remembering Anti-Fascist Resistance - Amid Political Contestation

What role did resistance movements play during the Nazi occupation of Eastern and Southeastern Europe? And how is this anti-fascist resistance remembered today? A panel discussion addressed aspects of this legacy that have, until now, received limited attention in broader European discourse. 

Elma Hašimbegović, Director of the Historical Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, highlighted the significance of key battles that took place on Bosnian territory during the Second World War - particularly the Battle of Sutjeska, a turning point in the struggle of the Yugoslav partisans under Josip Broz Tito. The museum itself was founded shortly after the Nazi surrender, in November 1945, as a site to support the construction of a new socialist society and has since remained committed to remembrance work. However, following the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the wars of the 1990s - especially the Bosnian War (1992–1995) - commemoration of the Second World War, and particularly the anti-fascist resistance, was largely expelled from public discourse. Hašimbegović lamented that although there is no overt political repression, the museum is effectively silenced through chronic underfunding. This marginalisation undermines efforts to remember a shared heritage rooted in common values and collective resistance. The museum strives to counter nationalist fragmentation by reviving the memory of the multiethnic Yugoslav partisan movement. This approach is currently reflected in an ongoing exhibition at the Sarajevo History Museum as part of the Wer ist Walter project.

Andi Pinari from the University of Tirana highlighted the intricate composition of resistance movements in Albania during the Second World War. He underscored that interpretations of the conflict - especially regarding the issue of collaboration - remain contentious even among historians, let alone the general public. This ongoing lack of consensus reflects the broader complexities of Albania’s memory landscape.

The legacy of the Stalinist-influenced dictatorship under Enver Hoxha, and the consequences of its collapse, continue to frame the discourse surrounding wartime resistance. While the Socialist Party tends to foreground the anti-fascist credentials of the communist-led National Liberation Front of Albania (LNÇ), presenting it as a foundational force for national sovereignty, the political right highlights the continuity between wartime resistance fighters and the structures of the later totalitarian regime. However, Pinari warned against the reductive conclusion that all wartime participants supported authoritarianism. The resistance, he argued, is a chapter of Albanian history that should inspire pride. Yet, this positive aspect remains largely absent from the country’s contemporary culture of remembrance. 

The ambiguity surrounding national memory is visibly embodied in the treatment of war memorials, many of which remain neglected or in limbo. As Pinari noted, these sites “are waiting for us to decide what to do with them,” encapsulating the broader uncertainty about how to commemorate this legacy.

A similarly complex dynamic exists in Belarus, as explained by Iryna Kashtalian of the Buchenwald Memorial in Weimar. She pointed to the dual structure of the wartime resistance in Belarus: on one side, Soviet partisan units; on the other, independent underground groups that opposed both the Nazi occupation and Soviet domination. This duality has made the task of remembrance especially fraught.

As in Albania and Bosnia, communist partisans emerged as the dominant political force in Belarus following the war, laying the foundations for a Soviet-style authoritarian regime. According to Kashtalian, the legacy of this period remains politically charged and subject to ongoing instrumentalisation. The Belarusian government continues to uphold Soviet-era narratives, and critical engagement with more controversial aspects of this history—such as the crimes committed by the communist regime against Belarusian society - is largely absent from public discourse.

For further context on the complexities of memory in Belarus, see particularly the contested legacy of the Armia Krajowa.

Complex Memories: Narratives and Myths of Liberation and Occupation

A subsequent panel addressed the complex and often contested layers of memory surrounding liberation and occupation from 1945 to the present. What does remembrance look like in the post-Soviet space and in South-Eastern Europe? Are there efforts to disentangle memory cultures from their Soviet legacy?

Sergej Rumyantsev of the Centre for Independent Social Research in Berlin provided insights into the commemorative practices in Azerbaijan and Georgia. He noted that the end of the Second World War is marked modestly in both countries, primarily by veterans and their families who visit monuments. Unlike in Russia, where war memorials have become national symbols, in Azerbaijan and Georgia, remembrance has become increasingly localized and shaped by national frameworks.

A key question in this evolving culture of memory, Rumyantsev argued, is who or what is credited with securing victory. In Azerbaijan, the contribution of oil to the war effort is emphasized, while in Georgia, Stalin remains the central historical figure. Changes in public space reflect these changing narratives: statues of Stalin, once prominent in cities such as Baku and Gori (his birthplace), were removed after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Nevertheless, debates like the one currently unfolding in Azerbaijan - where there is public support for awarding Baku the Soviet-era title of “Hero City” - highlight the unfinished process of decolonising historical memory. As Rumyantsev provocatively asked: Why should Russia bestow such a title on the capital of an independent state? This ongoing debate exemplifies how commemoration remains tethered to Moscow’s symbolic authority.

In Ukraine, the transformation of remembrance culture has accelerated since the 2014 Maidan Revolution of Dignity, as outlined by historian Oksana Khomiak from the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. She referenced the country’s ongoing process of historical decolonisation, particularly in relation to Soviet narratives. One example is the 2015 renaming of the National Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War to the Museum of the History of Ukraine in World War II. Accompanying this symbolic shift, the museum’s Soviet emblem was recently replaced by the Ukrainian Tryzub (trident), following extended public debate - underscoring the temporal and emotional depth such transformations require.
Khomiak also pointed to the revision of key dates: a central memorial now marks the beginning of the war not as 1941, but as 1939. This change serves as a corrective to Soviet historical interpretations and underscores the role of the Hitler-Stalin Pact and the subsequent partition of Poland. She invoked the work of historian Timothy Snyder, who famously described Ukraine, Poland, and Belarus as “Bloodlands” - regions where civilians experienced catastrophic violence at the hands of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Vjeran Pavlaković of the University of Rijeka portayed two principal sites of memory in Croatia. The first is Jasenovac, the former concentration and extermination camp established by the fascist Independent State of Croatia (NDH, 1941–1945), where Serbs, Roma, Jews, and political dissidents were murdered. 

The second is Bleiburg, Austria, where retreating Ustaša troops and civilians were killed by Yugoslav partisans. These two sites anchor competing narratives within Croatian society - one linked to fascist crimes, the other to postwar retribution - complicated further by memories of the 1990s wars and ongoing debates about the legacy of communism. Pavlaković cited the sale of T-shirts referencing the Ustaša movement at commemorations of the "Homeland War" as one example of how fascist symbols continue to circulate in public discourse.

The once-dominant Yugoslav narrative of “brotherhood and unity,” which framed Yugoslavia as having liberated itself from fascism without significant Allied or Soviet assistance, is losing prominence in Croatian public memory. While Croatia has increasingly nationalised its remembrance culture, Pavlaković noted that Serbia appears to be undergoing a “re-colonisation” of memory under President Aleksandar Vučić, where Tito’s partisan legacy is reinterpreted as a Soviet - rather than Yugoslav - achievement. He emphasized that this shift should be understood primarily as a political maneuver.

Pavlaković also discussed the appropriation of Bleiburg by far-right Croatian actors, who construct a victim narrative divorced from the historical context of Ustaša atrocities. The Austrian government has banned the annual commemorations in Bleiburg, which has contributed to the decline of this particular strand of remembrance.

Overall, Pavlaković observed a gradual reduction in societal divisions over Second World War remembrance in Croatia. The government officially commemorates Jasenovac with an emphasis on the Holocaust, though crimes against Serbs are often omitted. As such, the Croatian state’s engagement with this history represents, in his words, a “watered-down version” of commemoration.

Educational projects on 1945: new forms of presentation and perspectives

In light of the historic watershed of 1945, a central question emerged: how can the complexity and multiplicity of historical experiences be effectively communicated through historical education? At the History Forum, four projects were presented that exemplify innovative approaches - combining dynamic forms of presentation with interactive, learner-centered concepts aimed at fostering critical engagement with the past.

1. The online platform dekoder.org disseminates expertise on Russia and Belarus through media reports and translations. In 2024/25, it also published a large number of texts and documentaries on perspectives of the Second World War that had previously been largely marginalised, such as the women’s perspectives on the war. The documentary feature "The War and Its Victims" offers new insights into interpretations of the Second World War and is aimed at a young audience, explained journalist and project manager Peggy Lohse. The motivation for the project was the "significant lack of awareness" about the realities of the war on the territory of the Soviet Union, which has been exploited by pro-Russian propaganda in the context of the current attack on Ukraine, Lohse explained.
2. The Copernico portal of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg uses a variety of text contributions to illustrate the end of the Second World War, especially for a non-academic audience. Anne Kluger explained that the project managers wanted to develop these texts not only "about the region" but also "with the region."
3. The digital remembrance project "Light of the Fireflies" involved young people from Belgrade and Berlin visiting places where victims of Nazi persecution were held, including the former concentration camps Staro Sajmište and Topovske Šupe in Belgrade and the former forced labour camp for Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Marzahn. Branka Pavlović from the NGO Free Zone Belgrade and Nikola Polić have developed a film and an app that allow users to interactively visit the memorial sites.
4. Daria Reznyk and Anna Yatsenko from Leipzig and Lviv respectively also presented their initiative "After Silence," which includes interviews, exhibitions, summer camps and digital educational offerings. The focus is on Ukrainian experiences during World War II and the current Russian war of aggression. One of the main areas of the project's activities is the fate of Ukrainian forced labourers, such as the story of Hanna Pastuch, who was a minor at the time and was forced to work in Gelsenkirchen from 1943 to 1945. https://www.ub.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/kurse-und-veranstaltungen/ausstellung…

Female perspectives on war and resistance

How did female perspectives and lines of memory gain ground, and how were they integrated into historical interpretations? Two publications from the Balkans were presented at the History Forum:

1. Ethnologist Jana Kocevska, who works for the NGO Cinik in North Macedonia, presented the publication series "Makedonka" – an organ of the Anti-Fascist Women's Front (AFZ) that was published from 1944 to 1952. Female authors wrote for this publication and contributed their perspectives to the discourse, drawing on their roles as mothers, housewives and workers. According to Kocevska, sexual and reproductive rights were limited to motherhood. One of the main goals of the AFZ was to create educational opportunities for women. The term feminism, on the other hand, was characterised as bourgeois, as an import from the West, Kocevksa emphasised. The aim of the NGO Cinik is to digitise the magazine as an example of a feminist journalistic platform and to make it accessible to readers outside the former Yugoslav context.
2. In Albania, the women's magazine "Shqiptarija e Re" (The New Albanian Women) existed from 1943 Albanian Women), which was published until 1991. Unlike in the rest of the Balkan states, women were not portrayed in terms of their femininity, but rather masculine forms of representation dominated. In addition, the magazine underwent an ideological change: during the phase in which Albania initially aligned itself with the Soviet Union, Soviet female fighters were featured in the publication; later, the communist regime turned to China, and as a result, the focus of the magazine shifted to the Cultural Revolution, explained sociologist Ermira Danaj from the American Graduate School of Paris. This was also reflected in the magazine's visual appearance: earth tones predominated, and motifs from the Cultural Revolution – women in the countryside – were prominent. Danaj emphasised that even during this phase, women were still subject to the morality imposed on men, and there was no emancipation. The example of the well-known Albanian writer and author Musine Kokalari, who had supported the anti-fascist movement, clearly showed how ruthlessly the communist regime in Albania later dealt with those anti-fascist forces who advocated a different vision of society. Kokalari had campaigned for free elections among the Allies, but this endeavour was rejected. After the Communist Party won with more than 93 per cent of the vote, Enver Hoxha was able to secure his power. Kokalari, who had criticised the patriarchal traits of Albanian society, was sentenced to 20 years in prison as an "enemy of the people".

Return and its consequences: soldiers, refugees and prisoners of war

Two projects from Armenia and the former Yugoslavia deal with another facet of remembrance: this thematic focus shed light on the end of the war from the perspective of soldiers, refugees and hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war. What were the aftermath of the war for these groups? 

In this context, Armenian filmmaker Seda Grigoryan presented her documentary "Home soon": a film about prisoners of war who were sent to Soviet Armenia by the thousands after the war. "Home Soon" tells the story of Anton Limmer and Konrad Lorenz, the animal researcher and later Nobel Prize winner. In the film, Limmer's son Franz returns to the Armenian town of Tumanyan, where his father had to perform hard physical labour under the most adverse conditions. The film deals with the universal scars left behind by war, upheaval and trauma. Grigoryan's documentary "Home soon" aims to create understanding and empathy, revealing the different layers of history and memory. In this context, an aspect that has been repeatedly discussed at the History Forum as a building block of a larger mosaic of memory became clear: that criminals and soldiers can also become victims.

Korab Krasniqi from the NGO Pro Peace in Pristina presented the book project "Resistance - Women of Peace and Justice in the Former Yugoslavia and Albania": It highlights the lives of eleven women who played a significant role in the resistance against the violence of the 1990s and who continue to work for justice and reconciliation to this day, including Vesna Teršelić (Croatia), who received the alternative Nobel Peace Prize in 1998. Sonja Biserko of the Helsinki Committee in Belgrade has repeatedly been subjected to public defamation and threats because of her work on Serbian war crimes. Stanislava Staza Zajović established a strong voice in the region against murderous ethno-nationalism with the organisation "Women in Black". Among those portrayed are Ajna Jusić, the daughter of a war rape survivor who has influenced legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in favour of survivors of sexualised violence, and Kosovar doctor and human rights activist Feride Rushiti, who calls for the investigation of war crimes in order to build a future in which "all voices are heard". The lives and families of these women reveal continuities of war experiences. All of these women have endured challenges and suffering and proven that justice and peace are not just abstract ideals, according to the foreword to the book presented by Krasniqi. Looking at the women's family histories, it becomes clear that traumatic experiences, despite social and political resistance, can lead to the formation of a culture of remembrance and ultimately to a form of resistance that can be seen as a building block of social resilience.

In a third workshop, Nare Sahakyan from the Johannissyan Institute in Yerevan used a contemporary example to show how the Soviet regime under Stalin influenced art – and thus the memory of the World War: A depiction of heroes with religious and Armenian references was altered by the artist after massive criticism – a vivid example of politically enforced dominance of memory in art. Eva Yakubovska, from the Pilecki Institute in Berlin, also analysed three Soviet memorial sites in Berlin (Tiergarten, Treptower Park and Pankow) and outlined the different lines of interpretation, ranging from the spirit of the coalition against Hitler's Germany to Soviet heroism and Russian dominance of remembrance since the 1990s. Today, Russian narratives are dominant – even though a quarter of those buried in Treptower Park are Ukrainians. The discussion raised the question for memorial culture: "How should we deal with these complexities in the future?"

The pursuit of justice

Back to the End of the Second World War: When did efforts to address the Holocaust and other war crimes begin? Who pushed for legal accountability, and who was involved in these efforts? These fundamental questions - still highly relevant today - were explored through the lens of the formerly occupied countries.

Dominika Uczkiewicz from the Pilecki Institute in Warsaw explained that the Nuremberg Trials, in which leading figures of the Nazi regime were prosecuted, became almost iconic. They were closely tied to the narrative of establishing justice and marked a major milestone in the development of international law. However, Uczkiewicz also pointed out that the creation of the Nuremberg Trials was shaped by a predominantly Western perspective. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal (also known as the London Charter) was signed by the Allied powers. The occupied countries were not formally involved in drafting the charter, yet they made valuable contributions through their work in conceptual development, documentation of crimes, and preservation of evidence.

A crucial step toward post-war justice had already been taken with the establishment of the United Nations War Crimes Commission on 20 October, 1943. Even before the war ended, resistance fighters in the occupied territories were collecting evidence and compiling specific case files. Their efforts were vital for the tribunals that followed: by 1945, thousands of Nazi perpetrators had been identified, and over 8,000 cases documented, according to Uczkiewicz. Despite the growing tensions of the emerging Cold War, cooperation under the umbrella of the War Crimes Commission continued.

Sabina Ferhadbegović, a historian at the Leibniz Institute for European History in Mainz, focused on the prosecution of war crimes in socialist Yugoslavia. The country had launched early and comprehensive efforts to prosecute crimes related to the Holocaust. Survivors played an especially active role - many of them became “activists and educators,” contributing not only as witnesses but also as participants in the legal process. Their survival took on a new dimension: it became a form of resistance through the pursuit of justice. According to Ferhadbegović, the prosecutions in Yugoslavia served a dual purpose: to punish the perpetrators and to legitimize the post-war socialist regime under Tito. However, she also noted that justice was selective. Crimes committed by Yugoslav partisans were deliberately not prosecuted.

Janine Fubel of FernUniversität in Hagen used the example of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp to show that, despite growing divisions between East and West, the Allied powers continued to collaborate closely in prosecuting Nazi crimes. This cooperation included the transfer of documents, as well as the exchange of witnesses and survivor testimonies. The camp’s last commander, Anton Kaindl, was initially held in British custody, testified at the Nuremberg Trials, and was later handed over to the Soviet authorities, who sentenced him to life imprisonment in a military tribunal. Fubel noted that witnesses even traveled from Israel to the GDR to provide testimony.

One focal point of the investigations into Sachsenhausen was the so-called "evacuation" of the camp - a euphemism for the death marches during which thousands of prisoners perished. Fubel highlighted that the Allied powers pursued different investigative priorities: while France focused on reconstructing the evacuation and its impact on prisoners, the Soviet Union concentrated on crimes committed within the camp itself.

Fubel also observed that the death marches remain under-researched to this day - likely because these crimes implicate ordinary German society, placing them in close proximity to the brutal events. In this context, the issue becomes one of direct German involvement. Reflecting on the process of coming to terms with these crimes, Fubel concluded: “There is still much work to be done”

Summary

The concluding discussions consistently underscored the significance of engaging with the complexity of history and cultures of remembrance. Central to the debate was the persistent tension between resistance, heroism, and collaboration, as well as the multifaceted nature of individual biographies that defy simplistic, binary classifications. Participants highlighted that former perpetrators can, in certain contexts, also become victims - an apparent contradiction that must be acknowledged and critically examined within historical scholarship.

Moreover, the complexity of historical memory is often shaped by the influence of propaganda and the politicisation of narratives related to the Second World War. A critical historiographical task is to interrogate the origins of the images and discourses that have come to define collective memory. Participants warned that one-dimensional forms of commemoration risk fostering new forms of exclusion or even inciting future violence.

One of the closing appeals emphasized the need for an intersectional approach to remembrance. This involves consciously incorporating the perspectives of marginalized social and ethnic groups whose voices have historically been overlooked or silenced in dominant memory discourses.

Throughout the History Forum, the shadow of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine loomed large. In this context, the commemoration of the end of the Second World War in 1945 has acquired new layers of meaning. Accordingly, many participants stressed the urgency of a dynamic and contemporary approach to historical education - one that fosters critical engagement and contributes to the prevention of future atrocities by facilitating "learning effects for the present."

This translation was created with the help of artificial intelligence