May 9th will be the mother of all celebrations in Moscow. The victory over Nazi-Germany 60 years ago will be commemorated and the human sacrifices to this end honoured. So far, so good. But some nations will be missing from the party. Two Baltic presidents have decided to stay home, because their hosts are not willing to concede that there is more to the history of WWII’s end than the victory over Hitler. Their peoples had to face half a century of occupation because of a deal struck before the war’s onset by Hitler and Stalin, the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 that divided Eastern Europe between Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union.
I have to admire the third Baltic president – Vaira Vike-Freiberga from Latvia – who decided to go to Moscow, honouring what should be honoured, and speaking aloud about what should not be hidden. By doing so she demonstrates the strong position her country has obtained as a member of NATO and the EU, and she will be the one riding the high moral ground.
It is a pity that the Russian leadership of today has chosen not to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that damaged the development of the whole Baltic Sea region for so many years – and still is a source of political pollution threatening to poison relations between neighbors around the Baltic Sea. I find it difficult to accept those who tend to describe the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as only a measure to build up Soviet national security.
In the Baltic Sea Region we have a particularly difficult history to deal with, if we look at the last 90 years. After the end of WWI and the old order – “Die Welt von Gestern” – the Baltic region saw bloody revolutions, terrible civil wars, fascism, communism, genocide, occupations, oppression, terrorism, deportations – you name it, in our part of the world we have indeed had our share of all the horrors of the modern history. When the Cold War ended, it seemed clever to say that this was “the end of History.” But if we believe that – if we put a lid on history and leave it behind us – we run a risk that history will resurrect itself with all its horrors.
Therefore we must come to terms with history, particularly in the Baltic Sea region, where such a reckoning is a fundamental precondition for building mutual confidence and cooperation. If you want to open “new chapters” in relations between old adversaries, you cannot simply close “old chapters” by denying or suppressing history. Nothing good comes out of doing so – and we have seen enough of that in the past.
For too many years the Baltic Sea was a blind alley on the political map of Europe – divided by the Iron Curtain. It was not a “Sea of Peace” – as the communist propaganda tried to describe it – it was a Sea of Threats, a sea of insecurity and lost opportunities.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
To my country – Denmark – WWII’s end meant a return to freedom and democracy, and we could use the rest of the 20th century to strengthen our freedom, bolstering it with affluence. But to the three Baltic countries the end of WWII led to half a century of occupation and lost opportunities.
We know to day the cause: the secret protocol to the Treaty of Non-aggression between the Soviet Union and Nazi-Germany, signed in 1939 – the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – defining the spheres of interest of the two dictatorships in eastern Europe which led to the war with Finland, the occupations of the Baltic countries, the assault on and division of Poland, and probably also the occupations of Norway and Denmark. In short, this pact with its excrescence had an enormous impact on the history of our region, right up to this day.
That it why it will continue to haunt us, continue to disturb normal relations between the countries in this region with so much unused potential, as long as we do not deal with it in a forthright manner. Debating, recognizing, denouncing – whatever…. anything but suppressing! You cannot build lasting future relations between countries that have each in their own way suffered so much, without coming to terms with the past. It was not until 1989 that the existence of this protocol was officially admitted, thanks to the Glasnost-policy of Mikhail Gorbachev. But too many people still have difficulties with acknowledging this pact for what it really was.
Such denial is in no one’s interest. Not in the kind of Europe we still have to build – a Europe where big and small countries are assured that they share the same rights and obligations, where minorities feel safe, where basic human rights are accepted as an inextricable part of our political system, and where neighbors are regarded with respect and expectations, not fear and anxiety.
But it is no surprise that coming to terms with history can be damnably difficult. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard put his finger on one of the more fundamental problems: “Life must be lived forwards – but can only be understood backwards”.
In order to look forward with confidence, you also have to look back – and understand what went wrong. Every leader in Moscow May 9th should remember this.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
In the United States and Europe, immigration tends to divide people into opposing camps: those who claim that newcomers undermine economic opportunity and security for locals, and those who argue that welcoming migrants and refugees is a moral and economic imperative. How should one make sense of a debate that is often based on motivated reasoning, with emotion and underlying biases affecting the selection and interpretation of evidence?
To maintain its position as a global rule-maker and avoid becoming a rule-taker, the United States must use the coming year to promote clarity and confidence in the digital-asset market. The US faces three potential paths to maintaining its competitive edge in crypto: regulation, legislation, and designation.
urges policymakers to take decisive action and set new rules for the industry in 2024.
The World Trade Organization’s most recent ministerial conference concluded with a few positive outcomes demonstrating that meaningful change is possible, though there were some disappointments. A successful agenda of reforms will require more members – particularly emerging markets and developing economies – to take the lead.
writes that meaningful change will come only when members other than the US help steer the organization.
May 9th will be the mother of all celebrations in Moscow. The victory over Nazi-Germany 60 years ago will be commemorated and the human sacrifices to this end honoured. So far, so good. But some nations will be missing from the party. Two Baltic presidents have decided to stay home, because their hosts are not willing to concede that there is more to the history of WWII’s end than the victory over Hitler. Their peoples had to face half a century of occupation because of a deal struck before the war’s onset by Hitler and Stalin, the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 that divided Eastern Europe between Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union.
I have to admire the third Baltic president – Vaira Vike-Freiberga from Latvia – who decided to go to Moscow, honouring what should be honoured, and speaking aloud about what should not be hidden. By doing so she demonstrates the strong position her country has obtained as a member of NATO and the EU, and she will be the one riding the high moral ground.
It is a pity that the Russian leadership of today has chosen not to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that damaged the development of the whole Baltic Sea region for so many years – and still is a source of political pollution threatening to poison relations between neighbors around the Baltic Sea. I find it difficult to accept those who tend to describe the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as only a measure to build up Soviet national security.
In the Baltic Sea Region we have a particularly difficult history to deal with, if we look at the last 90 years. After the end of WWI and the old order – “Die Welt von Gestern” – the Baltic region saw bloody revolutions, terrible civil wars, fascism, communism, genocide, occupations, oppression, terrorism, deportations – you name it, in our part of the world we have indeed had our share of all the horrors of the modern history. When the Cold War ended, it seemed clever to say that this was “the end of History.” But if we believe that – if we put a lid on history and leave it behind us – we run a risk that history will resurrect itself with all its horrors.
Therefore we must come to terms with history, particularly in the Baltic Sea region, where such a reckoning is a fundamental precondition for building mutual confidence and cooperation. If you want to open “new chapters” in relations between old adversaries, you cannot simply close “old chapters” by denying or suppressing history. Nothing good comes out of doing so – and we have seen enough of that in the past.
For too many years the Baltic Sea was a blind alley on the political map of Europe – divided by the Iron Curtain. It was not a “Sea of Peace” – as the communist propaganda tried to describe it – it was a Sea of Threats, a sea of insecurity and lost opportunities.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
To my country – Denmark – WWII’s end meant a return to freedom and democracy, and we could use the rest of the 20th century to strengthen our freedom, bolstering it with affluence. But to the three Baltic countries the end of WWII led to half a century of occupation and lost opportunities.
We know to day the cause: the secret protocol to the Treaty of Non-aggression between the Soviet Union and Nazi-Germany, signed in 1939 – the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – defining the spheres of interest of the two dictatorships in eastern Europe which led to the war with Finland, the occupations of the Baltic countries, the assault on and division of Poland, and probably also the occupations of Norway and Denmark. In short, this pact with its excrescence had an enormous impact on the history of our region, right up to this day.
That it why it will continue to haunt us, continue to disturb normal relations between the countries in this region with so much unused potential, as long as we do not deal with it in a forthright manner. Debating, recognizing, denouncing – whatever…. anything but suppressing! You cannot build lasting future relations between countries that have each in their own way suffered so much, without coming to terms with the past. It was not until 1989 that the existence of this protocol was officially admitted, thanks to the Glasnost-policy of Mikhail Gorbachev. But too many people still have difficulties with acknowledging this pact for what it really was.
Such denial is in no one’s interest. Not in the kind of Europe we still have to build – a Europe where big and small countries are assured that they share the same rights and obligations, where minorities feel safe, where basic human rights are accepted as an inextricable part of our political system, and where neighbors are regarded with respect and expectations, not fear and anxiety.
But it is no surprise that coming to terms with history can be damnably difficult. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard put his finger on one of the more fundamental problems: “Life must be lived forwards – but can only be understood backwards”.
In order to look forward with confidence, you also have to look back – and understand what went wrong. Every leader in Moscow May 9th should remember this.