What is the villa and who owns it? There are other beautiful and pridefully-rich buildings close to it on the cape. However the villa distinguishes itself. It is the Waldermasunde Palace. It may be quite overstated to call it a palace as Russians have seen a lot of tsarist luxury that is superior to many royal buildings in the world. But in Sweden they call them palaces. Prince Eugen lived and worked in the palace. He was the fourth and the youngest son of King Oscar II and is known in Swedish history by his hobby which was untypical for royals. Do not imagine anything bad as he was simply an artist and one of the central landscape-painters of Swedish fine arts of the late XXI – early XX centuries. He was neither a genius nor an amateur but just a good artist.

There is nothing surprising in his artistic hobby as the education course of royal offsprings included at the time (and likely includes today) a set of esthetic disciplines, including music, dancing, handicraft and drawing. In most cases the training ended in nothing. They learned the course and would only sometimes remember it.

It was different with Prince Eugen who was a genuine artist. He was not the sharpest pencil in the box, by nevertheless. . . We can count only one or two professional artists of royal blood. Besides many paintings, the prince is also known as a patron of arts who did a lot to develop them. He used his money to buy paintings of other artists and had a big collection of them. He built a house on Cape Waldemarsudde and added a gallery to keep the paintings and one sculpture. But all in good time. . .

Between easel and crown

Prince Eugen Napoleon Nicolaus of Sweden and Norway was born on August 1, 1865 in Drottningholm Palace, the royal summer residence near Stockholm. Residents of the capital were informed about the event by a 42-gun salute. The parents were Crown Prince Oscar and Princess Sophia of Nassau.

Eugen was the youngest kid in the family to which only boys were born. In that sense the father and mother should have been happy as they produced more than enough resources for the family to continue and expand. In those times monarchs stuck to the old traditions when the crown was inherited exclusively by males. In 1980 the rule was abolished and current King Carl Gustaf XVI can be succeeded by any of his children – two daughters and a son. The senior one will be the heir .

As Prince Eugen had three elder brothers – Gustaf, Oscar, and Carl – and little chance to take the throne he was calm about it as his place among substitutes was the last. However it did not free him from the feeling of responsibility of a son of a monarch as anything may happen in life.

When Crown Prince Gustaf married Princess Victoria of Baden the second eldest son Oscar fell in love with her maid of honor Ebba Munk, a daughter of a military man. The law on royal succession said that if a prince of the blood marries a common woman he automatically loses the title to the throne. Oscar faced the choice and love took the upper hand. As for the duty to the crown there were two more brothers in the reserve and no major threat to the future of the royal family. As a result of Oscar’s left-handed marriage Carl and Eugen made one step up the succession ladder. Although the family reconciled with headstrong Oscar two other heirs swore not to marry a commoner in any case. And they stood up to the commitment. Carl married Princess Ingeborg of Denmark while Eugen remained single all his life.

As a prince of the blood Eugen had to participate in official life. He did it perfectly and attended numerous ceremonies, receptions, dinners, functions, and travelled abroad to represent the king and visited other monarchs. In 1894 he was in Petersburg as a representative of the Swedish Royal Court to attend the funeral of Alexander III. In the same quality he participated in festivities devoted to the 60th anniversary of the reign of Queen Victoria.

He was the fourth and the youngest son of King Oscar II and is known in Swedish history by his hobby which was untypical for a royals.

There was also military career. A prince is destined to be a military man. Eugen did everything necessary. He was a Hussar officer, wore the uniform when necessary, participated in exercises, but did not enjoy it all. He once wrote to his mother from maneuvers: “It is no pleasure to be a bad officer. To devote much time to military service means to abandon painting.” As a Royal Family member Prince Eugen could not sell his paintings like other artists. He was stripped of a major criteria of assessing works of art – public demand through market purchase- sale. The only thing he could do is to present his paintings to museums and various institutions.

His father Oscar II was also fond of creative activity. Hr wrote verses which were published under the pseudonym Oscar Fredrik. In 1857 at the age of 28 he was even awarded the second prize of the Swedish Academy (today it awards the Nobel Prize in literature) for the poem From Recollections about the Swedish fleet. The full collection of works by the king numbered seven volumes.

Paris universities of Eugen

Eugen early developed interest in drawing. Relatives played a major role in developing his artistic inclinations: uncle Prince Cark painted landscapes, Princess Eugenie wrote novels, composed music, and sculptured. She did a lot to make the prince love drawing and handiwork in the broad sense of the word. In 1886 after two years in the University of Uppsala the prince wrote to his mother that he had decided to study painting and the only place for it was Paris. It was a tumult for the conservative family to hear about Mont-martre which the prince would definitely visit despite his prudence. And how would they treat the prince? Can there be a scandal? It was no royal business for sure. . .

“Paris is dangerous and humiliating today for a prince in contacts with French artistic bohemia,” the king wrote to Kronoberg Governor Gunnar Wennerberg who supervised the prince during studies in Uppsala. Prudent Wennerberg tried to calm down the father-monarch saying idleness and entertainments do not know geographic boundaries. “Délice de Capoue is everywhere, and the prince is resolute to reject “everything vicious, ugly and rude”, he wrote adding there were many worthy teachers in Paris.

The monarch reconciled with his son’s wish in the final end. He confirmed it in a letter to Eugen when he was already in Paris: “My dear boy, much time has passed since you left from the Central railway station. Parents should not be egoists and should better think about their children rather than their own joy!” Sending his son to Paris the king asked his acquaintances, the Selsing couple to move there as well to “give shelter” to his offspring. Naturally the king was worried and wanted for somebody to look after the son. In France Prince Eugen lived under the name of Monsieur Oscarsson. It was a tradition for Royal Family members to change the name when departing from homeland. Travelling incognito also attracted attention. The new name was only logical – father Oscar, his son Eugen and all together it makes Oscarsson. It is noteworthy that the surname of a not distant relative of Eugen, the founder of the royal dynasty to which he belonged, was French. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte was the name of Napoleonic mrshall who was adopted by childless Carl XIII in 1810 and took the throne under the name of Carl XIV John.

Eugen’s teachers in Paris were artists Leon Bonnat, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, and Henri Jourdain. The prince studied art and led an active high life, visited museums, concerts, cafes and theaters. In 1888 Eugen was in Theatre Lyrique when a chandellier unexpectedly fell from the ceiling and crashed close to him. The prince was safe and sound.

In April 1988 revanchist General Boulanger revolted against the republic causing unrest in Paris. Eugen was not scared but curious about the developments. He wrote to his mother: “Naturally, I was in the streets and followed the unrest” although Selsing was not very happy about it. However it was a part of the basic education of the prince to experience public disorders himself.

In Paris Monsieur Oscarsson acquainted several Swedish artists – Gustaf Cederstrom, Anders Zorn, Carl Larsson, Rickard Berg, Per Ekstrom, and Dane Peder Severin Kroyer who comprised the zest of Scandinavian art. He naturally got acquainted with French impressionism which produced “a fresh and worthy impression” on him.

The prince was a decent student. During the first “Paris period” he mastered the basics of painting and achieved a certain level of skills. In 1889 two of his pastels were selected for the Swedish pavilion at the World exhibition in Paris which coincided with the centenary of the Great French Revolution. Sweden, as well as Germany, Turkey and Montenegro ignored the festivities.

Landscape – beloved genre of His Majesty

Eugen has been self-critical and soberly assed his abilities since young age. “Even if I do not become distinguished, and I am sufficiently critical of myself to understand that it is true, I will never regret the choice of my path and will be very pleased if I succeed to do honest work free of deception”, he wrote to the father in 1888. Professional career of Prince Eugen began at the time. In 1889 he was elected honorary member of the Swedish Art Academy and next year his pastel with a Stockholm view and The Summer Night in Norway painting were displayed in an art salon in Paris. The Academy included him with two other artists into the state commission in charge of acquiring works of art.

In 1893 Stockholm hosted an exhibition of artist Ernst Josephson, a talented, versatile (also a poet) and unbalanced man (he was sick with schizophrenia and died under the patronage of two noble ladies). It features his main painting Necken (nude young man as a spirit of water playing a harp at a waterfall). Despite all artistic merits the state commission refused to buy the painting. The decision of the National Museum w as also negative.

The prince was indignant at the decision as he could not understand how they failed to “comprehend” the outstanding masterpiece. He bought it himself and the painting was hanging in Waldemarsudde Palace. He ruled it can be removed only in one case – if the whole of the palace is evacuated.

Eugen’s teachers in Paris were artists Leon Bonnat, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, and Henri Jourdain.

In the first half of the ’90s the prince painted his most distinguished pictures: Old Castle, Last Sun Ray, Both Poplars (1893), Cloud (1895). They all reflect his deep mood and a feeling of internal dignity. They make you think and touch your soul. Before the death the prince left detailed instructions about the burial which also ordered that besides the national flag over the coffin with ducal crown placed in the big hall of the palace gallery there should be also Good Pastor painting by Juakim Skovgaard in the center and the Cloud and the Old Castle on the sides.

The genre of landscape was consonant to the internal world of the prince. Otherwise he would have hardly achieved such results. However I would dare suggest that despite all initial affection to the genre it contained something subconscious related to his duties imposed by origin. In contrast to portraits and genre painting the landscape and still life are devoid of “scandal virus” capable in favorable environment of instigating public opinion, scandalizing the author, and attracting attention of the public which enjoys gossip. Due to seeming neutrality and absence of conflict the genre mostly suited the artist of royal blood who in his creative activity had always to remember what he was, weigh all words and deeds to avoid unintentionally casting an imputation on crowned relatives.

Prince’s friend and genius of Swedish painting Anders Zorn also admired Swedish nature. Forest, water, and cliffs are its main symbols that were excitingly depicted on his canvases. On the background of the beauty the artist liked to place nude bathing peasant women – local beautiful, healthy, naturally tempting females with genuine femininity. The way he painted them produced a hymn to life which could be copied by a royal family member in the same free and reckless manner. Maybe today, but it was unlikely at the time. Noblesse oblige.

They often say that Prince Eugen painted in a manner close to impressionism. I am no art expert and cannot be sure about his style. However training in Paris and acquaintance with impressionists and their works could not but tell on his style and technique. The prince studied the basics of painting like all others – by classical canons. Later he began to search for his personal style and means of expression. It happened in the early ’90s. It is interesting to note that the brush of the prince produced an original painting – The Temple of Happiness in pointillism technique. Designed by the first neo-impressionist Georges Seurat the technique is also called divisionism. In contrast to its native France where it was used by numerous artists including Pissarro father and son the technique was rarely used in Scandinavia. Among the Sweden Anders Zorn seems to have come close to divisionism with his characteristic brushstrokes and love to instantaneous impression.

Color as felling of life

Like all major artists Prince Eugen studied the theory of color, including great Goethe who worked not only in literature and is known as the author of Faust and the Sorrows of Young Werther. The ideas of the prince were based on a symbolic postulate that each color correlates with the human soul and reflects certain feelings or their tints. Feeling, perception, mood. The notions were specifically important for the prince. It can be seen at first glance in his paintings. When you thumb a catalogue the absence of people strikes your eye. There are no people at all in most works. Only the artist and nature, sometimes also buildings and sculptures. Still landscape or landscaped still life. An object for attentive observation.

The prince was interested not only in easel painting. He was also distinguished as artist of monuments. When the construction of a new royal opera house was underway he expressed readiness to participate in painting its interior. His lot was the foyer. Eugen painted the Haga Moods triptych depicting a park with a royal palace in Stockholm. The town hall has his City at Water fresco. Two Stockholm high schools have the Bright Night, Summer, and Sun Over City panel pictures. In Kiruna Church he painted the altar. The concert hall in Goteborg has his wall painting Country of Recollections, while the antechamber of the Caroline hospital – the Copper Serpent alcove fresco. The foyer of the Royal Drama Theater (which staged plays by Ingmar Berger for a long time) welcomes spectators with his refined Frost-dew fresco.

In many cases, specifically when the talk was about decorating educational establishments, the prince participated in the project as an artist and patron of arts. He paid the work of his colleagues without remunerating himself. A son of the Swedish monarch, Eugen was no traditionalist although his origin demanded him to be. He was a self-made man. He lived by his own mind, acted according to his own perceptions of honor and decency, was not afraid of different opinions, including majority opinion and possible gossip, open criticism, and rumors. He was ready to struggle against the stream if it was necessary for his convictions.

I already said what he ordered to do with the painting of Ernest Josephson. The same happened with the Granddad sculpture by Per Hasselberg which depicts a nude boy on the knees of his grandfather. For many people it was insulting and newspapers demanded to move out “indecent rubbish”. However despite negative public attitude the prince defended the bronze sculpture of Hasselberg which currently stands in Humlegarden P ark close to the Roy al Library.

When August Strindberg (whom the prince liked and who was disliked by his royal parents for liberties in relation to crowned highnesses) and his partner August Falck decided to open the Strindberg Intimate Theater they lacked money for that. Eugen provided financial assistance to them and when the writer died came to bid him farewell. However no representative of the Swedish Academy or the Royal Court came to the funeral.

In contrast to many representatives of the right-wing circles in Sweden who advocated the ideas of Pan-Germanism, Prince Eugen rejected Nazism although Germany was perceived as a country of culture at the time. In 1933 he wrote to his friend Garry Fett that he did not want “to look for excuses and explanations of violence and breach of law.” The strict position of a representative of the royal court embarrassed many people.

Distinguished Swedish traveler, ethnographer, writer and public figure Sven Hedin who was a staunch supporter of Pan-Germanism and Hitler publicly asked whether the prince was “engaged in salon Bolshevism out of spite to the king and the foreign ministry.” The prince in the meantime signed an appeal to protect “German refugees” who included numerous Jews and then participated in the creation of the committee to assist refugees. The right-wing circles called the document “a scandalous appeal”. But the prince was not confused by it. He was a genuine free artist!

The prince lived over a half of his life in Waldemarsudde. Initially he came to the place to paint his landscapes and admired its picturesque views and loneliness. He later leased a part of a small yellow house on the cape which was called Old House after the construction of the villa. The house is still there. In 1899 the prince bought it together with the land plot and in 1905 there was a newly-built palace several meters away from it which offered an inexhaustible source of inspiration for Eugen.

It was there that he painted many of his works, big and small, completed and uncompleted, sketches and drawings. It seemed to him that Waldemarsudde was constantly turning a new facet to him and offering new light nuances.

In 1913 the prince added a gallery to the palace which he united with the main building by an underground passage. He displayed his big collection there which included both his own paintings and works by other artists: Anders Zorn, Carl Larsson, Ernest Josephson, Niels Kruger, Eugen Jansson, Bruno Lillieforce. . .

The genre of landscape was consonant to the internal world of the prince. Otherwise he would have hardly achieved such results.

Rodin’s Thinker sits with his back to the water on a steep bank in the park in front of the house. Nike of S a m o t h r a c e spreads the wings at the entrance to the southern facade. Hercules by Antoine Burdelle braces a bow in front of the northern entrance which cannot be seen from water and completely differs from the southern one. Carl Milles is represented best of all. The prince left it all to the people.

Today Waldemarsudde is one of the most beautiful museums in Stockholm. Prince-artist Eugen like they call him in Sweden was buried close to the Old House. His grave is inconspicuous – a small grey regular-shaped stone with a laconic inscription: Prince Eugen. 1865-1947.

Mikhail Busnyuk,

for Amber Bridge

What is Aurora Borealis festival , how did it emerge and how is it related to Aurora Karamzina?

The festival began in 2012 as a continuation of Christmas Candle Meetings project which the Litera studio has been organizing for five years jointly with ITAR-TASS bureau and bringing poets from Russia, Baltic countries and Northern Europe together. All the five years it was only enthusiasm but the project succeeded. In 2012 it was decided to change the format of Christmas Meetings into a festival and unite under its banner not only poets, but also playwrights, scientists, translators, and journalists. The project is implemented with the support of the Fund of Social-Economic Programs and personal support of S. A. Filatov. The organizers of the Aurora Borealis festival comprise the Russian Cultural-Democratic Union, the Russian Center of Science and Culture in Helsinki, the Litera Society, and the Runo bar-studio.

The idea enjoyed support in creative circles of Russia and Finland and has been successfully implemented for two years. In January 2012 our festival was attended by famous poets and writers from Ukraine, Russia, Finland, and Sweden. In 2013, besides winter events, the festival Aurora Borealis with participation of poet and translator E. Ioffe, bilingual writer A. Perttu, poet and translator K. Korto, Editor-in-Chief of Other Shores magazine O. Pussinen, as well as scientist and poet N. Perevezentseva from St. Petersburg held poetic evenings, literary seminars and master classes. Participants included V. Mesyats (Moscow), A. Korovin (Moscow) A. Gritsman (New York), N. Reznik (Colorado), A. Ostudin (Kazan), M. Garber (Luxembourg), A. Melnik (Liege), A. Radashkevich and G. Pogozheva (Paris) and other distinguished writers, translators and scientists form the whole world.

We decided to devote the festival to Aurora Karamzina and called it Aurora Borealis as Polar lights are also called. The name presupposes northern realities and simultaneously associates with Aurora Karamzina, an outstanding beauty of the XIX century to who Pushkin, Baratynsky, and other poets devoted verses. For organizers the role of Aurora Karamzina as public figure is also important. She was a maid of honor at the empress and advocated Finnish interests in the Royal Court and helped Finland join the Russian Empire as a Grand Duchy. She was a woman who did a lot for the country politically and as a charity provider.

We emphasize historic moments related to the history of Sweden, Russia, and Finland in order to deeply study historic processes and better comprehend modern facts.

Does the festival signify the beginning of major and long work?

Yes, we have big plans. On May 24-25 Helsinki will host a seminar of translators, publishers, historians from Russia, Finland, and Sweden. We want to create a network of translators, writers, publishers and historians. We want to promote cultural aspects which will help overcome intercultural stereotypes. It is not only belles letters, but also essays, research, etc.

We need a network of contacts which will help people better understand each other. We plan to plug organizations into the network which are experienced in the sphere, such as the Finnish literature fund (FiLi), Russian publishing houses interested in translations of Russian literature into the Finnish language and vice versa. We would like not only to unite all people engaged in the process but also to act as intermediaries between them and carry out both cultural and educational projects. The Russian side represented by Moscow project coordinator Yevgenya Dobrovoi helps us a lot as it is already launching its own educational programs in Russia and Poland. Our task is to raise the awareness of the Finnish public about modern Russian literature and introduce interesting modern Finnish poetry to Russians. Our days are the time of flourishing poetry in Finland and its golden age.

Still frame: Aurora Charlotta Karamzina (1808-1902, full name — Eva Aurora Charlotta Stjernvall, a daughter of Swedish nobleman Lord Carl Johan Stjernvall and Baroness Eva Gustava von Willebrand, came down in history as public figure and founder and supporter of various charities. She was a granddaughter of the last governor of Finland. From 1836 she had the surname of Demidova and from 1846 – Karamzina. In 1836 Aurora Charlotta became a maid of honor of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Together with sister Emily and Countess Musina-Pushkina she was considered the first beauty in the Royal Court in Petersburg. As a maid of honor Aurora was very influential and was among those who convinced Alexander III not to make Finland a province of the Russian Empire but preserve autonomy rights with it. Alexander, who as the crown prince stayed in the Finnish mansion of Aurora Charlotta, in the final end adhered to her advice and other supporters of Finnish autonomy and decided to create a commission for the convocation of Finnish Sejm and grant the duchy a wide autonomy and laws to ensure its financial independence.

A warship fighting in the Crimean War was named after her. It was sunk by the English and the name went over to the legendary Aurora cruiser. She had a reputation of femme fatale as her three lovers and the only son Pavel Demidov died. Aurora was the muse of many poets and artists. Pushkin and Baratynsky devoted poems to her and portraits were painted by Brullov and Gau. She was twice married. In 1836 she married one of the richest Russian men – Pavel Demidov, the co-owner of Ural enterprises, actual state counselor, and Royal master of the hunt. Legends claim wedding gifts to Aurora included not only the famous Sancy diamond but also a scarf which belonged to Napoleon’s wife Josephina Bogarne. Demidov died a sudden death in 1840 and left Aurora with a child. She got married again in 1846. The husband was Andrei, the son of distinguished historian Nikolai Karamzin. He was an outstanding officer who was considered a prototype of Mikhail Lermontov’s hero Pechorin. After eight years of a happy life Aurora again became a widow as Colonel Karamzin was killed in the Crimean campaign in 1854. After that she fully devoted herself to charities.

She went down in Finland’s history as a public and charity figure who created nursing homes, orphanages, and hospices. She donated practically all her income from Demidov’s mining enterprises to the poor. In Gelsingforce Aurora Charlotta Karamzina created a permanent nursing service. The Evangelic society of nurses which she founded yet in 1867 still exists. Aurora also opened hospices and hospitals. Children’s Home Street has been preserved in modern Helsinki.

By developing the ties we want to operate not on amateur but professional basis and produce high quality anthologies, as p r o o f – r e a d e r s say – very copy-read anthologies. We include into them only the names which are legends of the poetry of the XX-XXI centuries. We assess the authors by the text and everybody knows we shall reject bad texts.

Our festival is expanding. We now have partners in St. Petersburg and Stockholm. The Swedish friends we got thanks to Yevgenya Dobrovoi asked us to address the Swedish-language cultural center in March. St. Petersburg proposed to join the festival Petersburg Bridges in late May this year. Natalya Perevezentseva, the second Russian coordinator of the project, helps us maintain contacts with colleagues in Petersburg.

The main idea of the festival is to create international cultural space to develop projects related to translation and publishing. It also promotes preservation of the Russian language and literature abroad.

Interviewed by Yulia Andreeva,

for Amber Bridge

The 1914–1918 war radically changed the map of the world. It triggered major social, psychological and cultural processes that drew a line between the past and the present. Without exaggeration the XX century and all modern history began in 1914.

The Amber Bridge launches a series of publications devoted to the Great War.

The summer of 1914 was extremely hot. The spring was marked by the opening of the Peace Palace in the Hague while autumn demonstrated that peaceful coexistence ideas did not go beyond the Lowlands. No trace of quiet and happy Europe remained. It was surrounded by thousands of kilometers of trenches with bristling bayonets of millions of soldiers.

Hundreds and hundreds of volumes were written about the causes of the developments. However the history of the war still contains episodes unknown even to educated reader. For example, the fate of Russian tourists who found themselves in early August on the territory of Germany which was a beloved place for elite rest.

On July 15-16 (28-29) when Austro-Germany declared a war to Serbia while Germany and Russia were still engaged in diplomatic gambling German border guards became very captious to IDs. The last train via Eidtkunen on then Russian-German border (now Russian settlement Chernyshevskoe) freely passed at 17:00 hours on July 19 (August 1), i.e. on the day of the declaration of war. It departed at 12 hours on July 18 from Berlin and arrived in Konigsberg. Further developments were troublesome for Russian tourists. Soldiers entered the train in the capital city of Eastern Prussia and said each passenger who looks out of the train will be shot. Contradicting orders followed: first passengers were told to curtain the windows and then to raise curtains. When the train arrived in Eidtkunen the travelers were ordered out to line up on the railway platform. It rained and a passport check began. The gendarme looked in passports holding them upside down. There was chaos. The Germans evidently did not know what they had to do. They first said passengers will have to walk to Verzhbolov (then Russian border post 10 kilometers away, now Lithunian Verbalis). However when the passengers got into a column to march they were ordered back into the train and told they would go back to Berlin. But the train proceeded to Verzhbolov. “One has to experience it himself to understand our feelings. We arrived in Verzhbolov completely exhausted, hungry and nervous. From there we reached Petersburg with delay,” a Russian eyewitness said.

By midnight Russian border guards let in the last group of compatriots who arrived in Eidtkunen from Berlin at 19:55 where they were again told to leave the train and line up on the platform. The Germans suggested they either go back to Berlin or Konigsberg or walk to Verzhbolov. “You can go there but I cannot guarantee that Russians will not shoot you. If they do not let you in you can come back and we shall send you to Berlin,” a German colonel said. Several hundred people went to Verzhbolov and were stopped by six border guards on the bridge between Eidtkunen and Verzhbolov. They called for an officer when they learned the people were Russian citizens. The officer called gendarmes to check passports. It all lasted for four hours.

Another 300 travelers, including distinguished State Duma members Vasily Maklakov and Count Ilarion Vasilchikov, as well as Princess Trubetskaya departed from Berlin at 12 hours on July 19 and arrived next day in Stalluponen (now Russian Nesterov). Trubetskaya and her son decided to go and get a pass from the local boss. Maklakov and Vasilchikov followed her. There were German soldiers around who shouted that they nabbed spies. It was surprising but the officer quickly issued the pass. Other train passengers also received them soon. However for clear reasons they had to walk to Verzhbolov.

Royal family members also found themselves in the misfortunate and dangerous situation. Empress Maria Feodorovna had to go to Petersburg via Denmark. Great Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (distinguished poet who published his verses under K.R. pseudonym) together with his wife Grand Duchess Elizaveta Mavrikievna (born Princess Elisabeth Auguste Marie Agnes of Saxe-Altenburg), son Georgy and daughter Vera left for Eastern Prussia. On July 20 (August 2) their train passed through Gumbinnen (now Russian Gusev) where the grand duke got off for a walk on the platform. His adjunct Sipyagin and attendants were detained there. The Grand Duke was told they will be released with the luggage later. Princess Vera Konstantinovna recalled: “Germany was in war hysteria during the days. Everyone was looking for Russian spies and cars with Russian gold. They took our automobile for spying vehicle. While we waited for the train on the platform someone rudely said pointing at the brother that the boy could at least take off his Russian hat! (He had a sailor’s cap on with the “Funny” sign). The train stopped at the Russian border. We were ordered to keep windows and doors open. Windows were allowed to be curtained only in cabins with children. I was eight at the time and the brother was 11. I remember they gave us bread and milk. Lieutenant Muller was in command of our guards. He was very polite and gentle, but all of sudden turned rude and began calling my mother “Gnedige Frau” or “Lady” instead of her high title”. At 5 in the morning on August 3 all the detained were sent to Stalluponen. From there they were driven to the border and left there. Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich was ill and could not walk for long. A unit of mounted uhlans helped them. Count Gavriil Konstantinovich later wrote: “Head of the cavalry unit Captain Bychko recognized my father and helped us reach the nearest railway station. The father was seriously affected by the nervous strain, but he kept silent as usual and hid commotion in his soul.”

State Council member Gennady Kalachev was a less fortunate tourist on his way back home via Eastern Prussia. On July 19 he left Switzerland and arrived in Berlin. He took a night train that left at 23:45. Already before Konigsberg passengers began to doubt whether they would be allowed to go through Eidtkunen. At one stop Kalachev bought a newspaper which alleged that Japan had attacked Russia. In Gumbinnen the passengers were told the train would not proceed, but those who want back to Russia may go. All of a sudden soldiers surrounded a group of tourists, including adjunct Sipyagin of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich and declared them prisoners of war. They were put into a train and sent back to Konigsberg for interrogation. From there they were sent to Braunsberg (now Polish city Braniewo). The group included Counts Kankrins, Baron Kaulbars with his wife, Senator Ivanov and other travelers. They further went to Stettin and then Sweden.

Less titled tourists were less fortunate. Everybody noted a sharp and rude change in the attitude to Russians. Russian media published reports about the cruelty of the enemy and various infringements which Russian citizens were subject to. There was an hysteria about alleged German atrocities which paramounted into reports about a small Polish town of Kalisz (Russian media claimed the Germans massacred local residents).

Naturally, reports about misfortunes of Russian travelers fanned up anti-German sentiment and described the Germans as “cultural Barbarians” who rudely and immorally defied all laws of God. Arrogance, self-glorification, and rudeness were the main vice attributed to the enemy in the war years. Naturally, not everyone believed in hysteric propaganda. However distinguished art expert Baron Nikolai Wrangel (junior brother of future supreme commander of Russia Petr Wrangel) wrote: “Indignant at German atrocities everyone stubbornly repeated exaggerated rumors about brutality of Germans to Russians they held.”

What happened in reality?

The above said shows there was no major brutality in the first days of the war. There were adequate security measures and excessive suspicion to the adversary. Many German citizens were confused as they were unaware of what to do regarding travelers from hostile countries. Some diaries and articles published in post-war time confirm that rudeness and humiliation did take place. Many Russian tourists were used to another treatment and were shocked by the change. Chauvinistic rage seized Germany. Count Felix Yusupov who was in Berlin in those troublesome days recalled in his memoirs: “We went to the Russian embassy in early morning and from there to the Copenhagen train. There was no escort required for a foreign mission. We were put at the mercy of an outraged crowd. They threw stones at us and we survived by miracle. There were women and children from diplomatic families with us. Some of the Russians had their heads hit by a stick, others were beaten half to death. The crowd hit off hats from people and tore off their clothes.” However the Yusupovs who were initially arrested were later allowed to freely travel in Berlin and arrange for departure with the Russian embassy.

The Russian media in 1914 carried a lot of publications about misfortunes of returning tourists which reflected the fervor of the days. Eyewitnesses cannot be blamed for lying as too many people wrote in different outlets about the same. They all faced similar circumstances but described them through the prism of their personal suffering. It is not easy for an historian to separate reality from emotions and produce an objective picture.

By analyzing the Black Book of German Atrocities which came out hot on the trail in St. Petersburg on the basis of media reports the author arrived at the following conclusions.

If we drop expressive epithets and curses expressing human attitude (“beasts who lost any human dignity”, “animals”, “rude Barbarians”, “brutal Germans”) the rest (“brazen”, “militant”, “crazy”, “brutal”, “drunk soldiers”, “angry population”, “non-cultural”, “rude”, “Austrians were drunk”, “excessively rude”, “outraged people revenging for trifles”, “angrily mocking people or silly and indifferent”, “haughty Germans”) can hardly produce something more than an image of a crowd excited by patriotic moods and conviction that Russians are to blame for the war.

If we drop epithets and expressions which reflect the attitude of the narrator to the developments (“refined brutality”, “outrageous”, “humiliation”, “Barbarians”, “spared nobody”, “growing black pile of German brutality”, “terrorists”) and look for confirmations of humiliation we shall find out that many of them were oral and pointed at extreme rudeness. Here are some examples: ” they persecuted for trifles”, “cursed and sneered”, “hit the duchess with gun-butts and rudely searched her”, “brazen crowd shouted”, “insulting formalities”, “readily accepted bribes despite patriotism”, “insulted ladies”, “humiliating searches”, “extremely rude pronouncements about Russians”, “pulled through the whole city”, “rude and insulting tone”, “rude curses”, “excited laughter”, “rude and unscrupulous”, “said vulgarities”, “tried to kiss”, “viperous smiles”, “dishonest deception”, “specific Prussian stupidity”, “insulted and even beat”, “sneering”, “gave no food or water”, “there were no porters” (sic!)…

It is also to remember that tourists were in a suppressed mood as they were on hostile territory surrounded by hostile people. Disgust and fear promoted by unclear situation and danger dominated the conscience of misfortunate travelers making their perceptions subjective to the maximum. It is only natural that in such a situation the same actions were perceived differently by various people who were in different circumstances – Russian and German citizens. What a German could perceive as mercy to the enemy a Russian traveler considered utmost rudeness and injustice. Back home they did not spare colors to express their emotions. It backed military propaganda which worked to create the negative image of the enemy.

Definitely, there were cases of beating, looting, bad conditions for displaced people, and several tragic events. However, reports are based on rumors, e.g. “they said the workers were executed”. One and the same episodes are repeated (when the Germans shot dead a father who slapped an officer for rudely searching his daughter). It is an additional indirect evidence that such facts were rare. Episodes of Barbarianism are always distinguished on general background.

Despite hardships and adversities most tourists succeeded to safely get back home.

The conference moderator, Professor Heiko Droste, talks about how past and present connect on the Baltic coast.

Political changes since the early 1990s in Central and Eastern Europe resulted in a renewed interest in the Baltic Sea region, both as an important trade zone and as a historical region with a certain Baltic Sea culture. This culture, however, is not easy to define. Historians like to perceive the Baltic Sea in itself as a node and infrastructure, which for centuries enabled migration and encounters. The history of these encounters, however, is in many parts still to be written. We have pieces of a puzzle, but the cross-national and cross-cultural perspective does not come easily. On the contrary, after centuries of migration movements and encounters, the mental map of historians and societes alike is still shaped by the nation state. These nations are usually perceived as rather stable entities with homogeneous cultures and clear borders. Migration and cultural encounters have therefore mostly been discussed as disturbing and problematic. Two Swedish examples might illustrate this mental map.

Three years ago, the Swedish historians’ conference met in Gothenburg to discuss the guild’s understanding of its relation to the Swedish nation: ”Bound by the nation?” The question was rather rhetorical as the evident answer was: yes. Only few Swedish historians deal with non-Swedish subjects. Fewer still work on those foreign provinces and colonies that Sweden had during the so called great power era. There was also a debate on today’s historians’ language skills as a prerequisite to international and cross-border studies. There is a clear trend to a bilingual research culture, where English is not only the foremost foreign language in almost all countries. It tends to be the only one, due to a growing focus on other, more ”labour market” oriented subjects at school. This is by no way an exclusively Swedish trend.

In early April, Sweden was shook by a political scandal. The Social democratic party congress voted for a well known muslim, Omar Mustafa, to become a member in the party leadership. Omar Mustafa had just everything that made his entry meaningful from the party’s perspective. He was a young and successful immigrant; he had a long lasting engagement in public life and a background in the muslim community. Just a few days later, this election exploded right into the face of the very same party. It turned out that Mustafa not only was a muslim, he was religious. He was also less than clear in certain discussions concerning the equal rights for men and women, equal rights for homosexuals and the question of his alleged antisemitism. Mustafa explained himself poorly. However, the major problem seems to have been his engagement in a muslim community that did not concur with all those values and positions that the ethnic Swedish party organization deemed crucial. There was simply too much otherness, it would have meant too much trouble for the party to stand up for the right of immigrants in Sweden to disagree with the majority society’s values. The party was obviously washed with antimuslim sentiments both from within and outside of the party. A media hype had its share in a campaign that resulted in Mustafa’s forced retreat.

This case demonstrates that diversity even in modern democracies is not self-evident. On the contrary, the framework for what lies within the approved public discourse seems to be getting ever more tight. Several of the antisemites that Mustafa had invited for discussions and that were turned against him had previously been invited by other Swedish politicians, without causing a public uproar .

Whereas we often perceive cultural encounters as beneficial, part of migration movements diversity is often considered as a threat to prevailing ideas of national and cultural homogeneity in nation states.

The Baltic Sea region has since its historical beginnings been shaped by migration movements and cultural encounters. Some of its aspects have been understood as beneficial, not the least the trade in and out of the Baltic Sea region. Other aspects concerning cultural and political hegemonies, be it the Teutonic order and its heathen mission, which resulted in a predominant Baltic German culture for centuries, be it Danish, Swedish and Russian hegemonial positions due to warfare and oppression, are mostly deemed negative (with some interesting exceptions).

Our conference focuses on migration and cultural encounters in a long-term perspective with a starting-point in the middle ages. Historians from a range of different countries gather at Södertörn University in order to discuss different topics. Although most lectures clearly focus on specific subjects, they all open up for comparison. And comparison is needed, not the least as our mental maps seem to be hard to shake.

This conference is also part of a long series of Russian-Swedish historical conferences. The previous conference in Moscow in June 2011 opened this bilateral conferences for participants from other Baltic countries. The conference in Stockholm in 2013 took an even further step in this direction. The participants originate from Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Germany, the United States of America, Canada, and the not the least Russia and Sweden.

The Baltic Sea history is clearly in need of many studies on the perception of migration and cultural encounters. The political and economic aspects of this history are well analysed for the most part. What seems to be needed now is to examine, how societies reacted to change, how migrants and their culture were incorporated, transformed or rejected. The reactions to change often came from within society, with a limited influence from the part of the government. We also need more studies concerning the obvious fact that the national cultures we are used to think of are a conglomerate of different cultures. They, too, can be an expression for a majority culture that denigrated or neglected other, socially inferior cultures. The Finnish, Estonian and Livonian peasant societies of the early modern period are clear examples for that. There are many more.

The conference also showed that different perspectives are useful, combining economic, political, social and cultural aspects. The different lectures were often based on conflicts or forms of a cultural hegemony that in itself could be seen as an expression for political claims. In this respect, similarities and cross references between different lectures were obvious. Maybe, historians focus too much on conflicts – due to the simple fact that conflicts produce our source material. However, this focus possibly mirrors the prevalent negative perception of change in societies that tend to see themselves as stable.

A common Baltic Sea culture or ”identity” is not easy to grasp and shows itself most of all in the region’s important role for trade and commerce. Here, the Baltic Sea truely is a node, an infrastructure that connects. In cultural aspects, the Baltic Sea is probably more of a barrier. Communication s are often land – bound . In these matters, however, we need many more studies. We also need more conferences to gather and discuss these matters. I hope that this conference will be just one in a long line of discussions and meetings. We need to meet each other outside of our national communities, in order to experience those cultural encounters that shaped the Baltic Sea region in its long history. That these conferences most likely will have to be held in English – the modern lingua franca – might be perceived as ironic, with regard to the rather subordinate role of this language for the Baltic Sea countries until recently. It might also give all the participants a feeling for the problems of cultural encounters in previous societies. There was never just one language that all members of the society understood as its own.

As for the First World War, Russia has to restore memory about it. It was a deliberately forgotten war.
Ilmjarv. Naturally, it all has to be analyzed. But I doubt it would be of interest for current generations as it happened too long ago. The longer we live the close are the two wars to each other.
Estonia and Latvia were parts of the USSR for half a century. It is a long time for a human being. What imprint did it leave in the conscience of modern Estonians, Latvians and Russians in Latvia and Estonia? How much are they still Soviet? How does the Soviet epoch sprout in modern times?
Ilmjarv. When Baltic countries regained independence there were people who believed it was possible to return to 1939. They believed the Soviet period can be erased from memory and the lost paradise can be returned. Many nostalgic newspaper articles, movies and TV shows have until recently tried to describe the period between the wars as a time of general wellbeing with no problems. However a different reality appeared from under the nostalgic blanket. The problem was in limited historic landscape and non-critical reflection in self-conscience. It confirms the words by French historian Ernest Renan who said the wall of national identity is built, inter alia, with a good share of errors and dreams.
I have to say there were two Soviet Unions – one before 1956 and another one which was more vegetarian – after 1956. Estonian history science did not study the second one properly. The question about the perception of the Soviet Union by Russians in Estonia also demands major analysis. I believe they perceive it as their own country – “it was our state”. Naturally, Estonians are of a different opinion. But it is also impossible to claim that Estonians have absolutely no nostalgia about the Soviet Union. Sociological research is necessary. There is nostalgia about the time when everyone enjoyed free education and free medical aid…
Straube. It is difficult for me to say what various categories of Latvians think. In general there is a negative assessment of the Soviet times as they are associated with the loss of independence and other problems if we speak about political aspects of the past. It is different in private life. When people today encounter problems they can react were unexpectedly: it was better under the Soviet power. The spontaneous emotional reaction is often positive regarding the Soviet past.
It is clear for an historian that such perception of the past is natural for people in any time and in any society. People could react the same way when Latvia was within the Russian Empire or during a hundred years under the Swedish rule or under Polish authority or in the time of the Order and Bishop. It is all history and you cannot change the past. Its knowledge is valuable in itself because it allows to learn history lessons. History is full of mistakes, betrayal, and stupidity. My teacher Theodor Zeids said there is no logic in history, it is the most illogical science. But anyway for us to avoid stupid things today and tomorrow we have to learn the lessons of knowledge which history provides to us and thus comprehend opportunities for our development. There is always something good in all times, including the Soviet period. There are also positive examples of our coexistence with Baltic Germans: we learned a lot from them and they learned a lot from us. Years and centuries pass and negative perceptions disappear as people realize: yes, it was this way. School textbooks and scientific literature begin to provide more objective assessments. Time will come for a calm assessment of the Soviet period…
Soviet traits do exist in people. They lived with them, continue to live and will die with them.
Are there many Soviet-minded people among the Latvians who support nationalistic positions? By Soviet I mean simplified perception of the world.
Straube. Primitive perception of the world is characteristic also of the people in liberal-democratic societies, not only the Soviet Union. I believe it is less in societies with a long democratic history. The more they have democracy and the more they are used to resolving social problems themselves the less standard is the conscience of the people. There are numerous stereotypes about socialist society. If we look at northern countries which have much more socialism than in the Soviet Union the idea may not look that bad.
Do you agree that history teaches?
Ilmjarv. If we take Germany or Japan, for example, they have likely learned something. Finland is also an example. But we can hardly say each people learn the lessons of history. However when we pronounce the names of countries we do not distinguish between the state and the people.
Many modern Germans are ill at ease, to put it mildly, when they are blamed for the developments that took place seventy years go. The more time passes the more absurd it will be to remind modern people about the deeds of their predecessors. It turns out the loser is to blame. Only those who suffered a major defeat have to feel historic guilt. And the skeletons of the winners remain in closet and sleep well.
Ilmjarv. If we study the history of war losers we shall immediately discover it is a very delicate topic. In response you often hear arguments that you should not harrow feelings and pick in acute and dramatic moments of history. Nobody likes to be weak. History dislikes losers. It is written by winners.
Today it is yet impossible to write the history of the Baltic peoples so that it is equally acceptable for all. The history of any people and country has developments and periods which are viewed in a very contradicting manner.
How do you see the future of your country as a citizen and historian who went beyond its geographic and mental boundaries in his works? What would you predict to your country?
Straube. One can seriously speak about future only when present-day problems are overcome. One of them which we do not always perceive is a legacy of the Soviet epoch. At that time they often spoke about “the big brother” in Moscow who taught us how to live. We continue to live with the syndrome. It always seems to us that we do not know how to do something and that someone other knows and can do better. I clearly see it in my professional sphere – in science and education. It always seems to us that we are not that clever as our “big brothers” – now in the European Union. When travelling from one European country to another I do not see anything outstanding. The problems are the same everywhere. Both positive and negative experience exists everywhere. We should stop crying the blues and idealizing others. When we overcome it and convince ourselves that we are capable of resolving problems independently then there will be sense to look into the future.
If we overcome depressive self-conscience there will be hope that society will become better conscientious and honest and the law will become equal for everyone. There have always been dishonest people. If society is democratic and active in the fight against negative things the existing share of dishonest people who do not respect law will decrease. It would be easier for everyone to live in such predictable society.
We have also to understand that Latvia cannot limit itself to a transit bridge and has to produce something. It is ridiculous to hear constant deliberations about the necessity to build enterprises. Each time every option is opposed by irreconcilable greens. Next day they demand higher wages and pensions from the government. But that is impossible. If we want to live better we have to work hard and produce something rather than look at western commodities unloaded in Riga port and sent further east or vise versa. Or from north to south and back.
We have to reorient our patriotism towards rational and pragmatic course. Today it is sometimes destructive for the state itself. Time ago we were proud that the USSR collapsed and nobody was polluting our nature and rivers any longer and that there were no chemicals in agriculture. However modern realities do not make us happy about green grass and pure air. We have to think how to build up Latvia. Poor Latvians whether Latvian, Russian, Estonian or Jewish will not survive without industry.
Ilmjarv. I once heard interesting stories at a conference in Kharkov. They said it was good in Estonia and bad in Ukraine. I spontaneously responded: you number 47 million in Ukraine and we number one million and three hundred thousand in Estonia. Close to a million are Estonians. It is our main problem from the future point of view. There are no borders. Nobody in the EU knows how to cope with existing unemployment. Small Estonia is a tiny piece of the global world. If I were a politician I would definitely say how to resolve the problem. But I am historian and will not interfere in politics.

The conference was organized by Russian and Swedish academic institutions and non-governmental organizations. The topic was in the fairway of the Russian presidency in the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) in 2012- 2013. The forum was initiated by the General History Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Center for the History of Northern Europe and Baltic Countries, Sodertorn University, The Centre for Baltic and East European Studies, and the Baltic Civilization Institute founded three years ago by the Amber Bridge International Association.

Director of the General History Institute Academician Alexander Chubaryan sent a message of greetings to the conference in which he stressed the necessity to continue cooperation in the sphere: “History should promote rapprochement between peoples. Strict scientific analysis of past developments shall help design common denominators in assessing historic past,” Academician Chubaryan wrote.

The conference opened with a reception in the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. Besides hospitable host and Secretary Erik Norberg, present in the mansion of the Academy were President of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs Michael Sohlman, Director General of CBSS Secretariat Jan Lundin, Board Chairman of RusForest Company Sven Hirdman. Mats Hellstrom, who was Swedish ambassador to Germany in 1996– 2001 and Governor of Stockholm County in 2002-2006 also attended. The forum ended with a reception in the Russian embassy to the Kingdom of Sweden offered by Russian Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary Igor Neverov.

Addressing the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities head of the Northern Europe and Baltic Center of the General History Institute Alexsey Komarov offered his assessment of the Russian-Swedish academic contacts in the past decades. It is noteworthy that the first official Russian- Swedish symposium in 1976 opened in the same hall as the 2013 conference which was held in the format launched yet in 2011 when Moscow hosted international scientific conference Baltic Neighborhood: Russia, Sweden, Baltic Countries on the Background of Epochs and Developments, XVII-XX Centuries. In contrast to bilateral symposia the latest conference was attended by scholars from Russia and Sweden, as well as Latvia, Estonia, and Norway. The main part of the conference took place in Sodertorn University. Professor Vadim Roginsky, chief of the Department of Modern History of the General History Institute recalled in his speech that “there has always been resettlement of peoples in history.” World wars exerted specifically strong influence on it. Hundreds of thousands of people either emigrated or were expelled. Migrations changed the ethnic composition of the population specifically in the Baltic Sea region. Germans disappeared from some districts and were replaced by other nationalities. The current population of Kaliningrad region comprises descendants of the migrants who resettled there. Today migration has a different character which can be seen everywhere. The processes have to be anticipated and necessary measures taken to prevent major conflicts. The problem is vital for Baltic countries and Russia as well, he said.

Less than a month passed since the end of the forum when modern barbarians from immigrant youth caused chaos in several districts of the Swedish capital. The co-authors of the monograph is it Possible to Become a Swede? which is popular in Sweden participated in the conference – Professor Natalia Plevako from the Institute of Europe at the Russian Academy of Sciences and Professor Olga Chernysheva from the General History Institute. The book shows that even thoroughly elaborated immigration legislation and exciting tolerance of the Swedes do not guarantee successful harmony of interests and relations between indigenous population and immigrants.

President of the International Amber Bridge Association Yuri Sizov told the conference that in Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region mutual understanding is easier than anywhere else on the planet. The history of relations between peoples inhabiting Northern Europe is millennium old. They have much in common as well as differences. “The common and different traits mean nothing good or bad. They offer a chance for mutual understanding which, in its turn, produces trust and leaves no place for mentorship and schooling. Mutual trust is possible only through joint implementation of practical tasks,” Sizov said.

The forum will promote public perception of the fact that intercultural contacts enriched the peoples in the Baltic Sea region in previous epochs. As Jan Lundin was correct to say, “despite problems which sometimes emerged and keep emerging in the Baltic Sea region there is also a feeling of a family and community of peoples. Our mission is to enhance the feeling however so far we even failed to restore the freedom of travel which existed a hundred years ago.”

The Amber Bridge Association and the Baltic Civilization Institute will make the results of the Stockholm conference of historians encourage preparations of new fundamental works about the unique region of Europe so that the third decade of partnership in the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States is marked by a new quality of regional cooperation.

Over 68 years have passed since Soviet troops liberated the Nazi concentration camp which even today horrifies people by its name alone – Ocwiezim or Auschwitz. Built in 1940, it developed into a full-fledged death factory by 1942. The data on Auschwitz deaths differ but the average figure is over a million dead. In 1947, former prisoners established the State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau and became its first staffers and guides. UNESCO listed the memorial as a World Heritage Site in 1979.

German priest Manfred Dezelers has been living for over 20 years in Auschwitz at the doorstep of the former “death factory”. He welcomes guests in the Dialogue and Prayer Catholic Center and shares knowledge and considerations as the author of a thesis about God and the evil represented by Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp. However he has to listen a lot as visitors to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are usually inclined to speak out. Close to a million people annually visit the museum. .

What does the Nazi concentration camp reveal? What does it offer for culture and memory – global, national and individual? Manfred Dezelers told our correspondent about it.

How did you, a German, come to Auschwitz?

I went to Auschwitz for a week as a tourist. I got questions there which I try to answer up to now. Then I was a volunteer in Israel. I met those who survived the war and escaped the Nazis in Germany and in Europe and who were inmates of the concentration camp and had their number tattooed on the hand. I realized how deep their wounds were and how important it is to promote reconciliation.

I lived for some time in my native land and studied theology. I became a cleric of a parish near Munich. The community maintained contacts with Poles and travelled to Auschwitz. (The German Confederation of Catholic Priests initiated a dialogue between Germans and victimized peoples, and in 1970 an important political act took place: German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeled before the monument to the fighters of the Warsaw ghetto – ed.) I met a priest from Auschwitz and I still live at his place. I though it is more important to share life and promote mutual trust rather than to speak about reconciliation. I like the Polish saying “hear the voice of the land”.

In Auschwitz it is necessary not only to study history but to “read” the message of the victims and, naturally, hear the voice of your own heart. In Auschwitz your heart inevitably asks: “What would you do in such circumstances?

Does Auschwitz impress all visitors the same way?

Each person compares what he learned here with what his parents and teachers told him and with his belief. Various peoples have different perceptions. For the Germans memory about Auschwitz is memory about guilt. Not personal guilt as few people remained who were direct accomplices in the crime. The guilt means what other peoples think about us as a nation. It is senseless to say I was not personally involved in it. You have to work to promote trust.

In Auschwitz it is necessary not only to study history but to “read” the message of the victims and, naturally, hear the voice of your own heart.

Auschwitz for Jews means the collapse of the old world when they lived in Europe. They encountered manifestations of anti-Semitism but could never imagine the hatred would become overall and deadly. They could never imagine that Hitler would decide to “finally settle the Jewish issue” in Europe and that civilized and cultural Germans would begin to hunt them down and send in railway cars to death camps. Most European Jews were killed. Now Jews live mostly in the United States and Israel with fear the tragedy may reoccur. Their reaction to the challenge is the creation of their own state. All Israeli schoolchildren, police and army officers go to Auschwitz. Besides political aspect, there is also a religious one: how did God allow the extermination of Jews? It was worse than slavery in Egypt. One of the answers is that the State of Israel revived which means God did not forget his people. Another answer is that we cannot comprehend God, but only believe in him. Maybe he was crying. . .

The Polish vision of Auschwitz is unique. It is mostly related to the major role of the Catholic religion in public conscience of the people. The emergence of Poland as a state is tightly linked to its baptism. In late XVIII century the country disappeared from the map of Europe as it was divided into German, Austrian and Russian parts. Polish culture survived the hard times due to the Church. In 1918 Poland re-emerged and in 1939 was again divided. Hope for restoration of the state was defeated, but not religion. The idea of self-sacrifice for the sake of Motherland, for the preservation of religion, love and family values in the name of God strengthened in Polish Catholics who were sure it will give them their due sooner or later. The belief is still strong in Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe, a Polish Conventual Franciscan friar who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in Auschwitz, symbolizes such an attitude to life. He personifies the victory of belief and love over evil and hatred.

It is difficult for me to speak about Russian perception of Auschwitz as I am a westerner and until recently had a vague perception of the Soviet Union and Russia, of their understanding of war in general. The Russian display in Auschwitz-Birkenau speaks about the liberation of the camp by Soviet soldiers in the context of liberation of Europe from Nazism. In late January 2013 a new Russian display opened which speaks about Soviet inmates. Poland is so engaged now in criticizing Communism that it practically says nothing about war victims from the Soviet Union and expresses little gratitude to its citizens for liberation. I believe it is painful for Russian war veterans. Poland dislikes the Soviets, although they liberated Auschwitz.

Decades have passed, but hard feelings are still there.

We everywhere touch unhealed wounds related to our identity. We should not rub salt into wounds and ask whether it is painful or not. There are doctors to heal wounds. However it does not mean that all the rest should sit idle. Relations between peoples affected by Auschwitz are still healing and we would like trust to strengthen where it was undermined.

You mentioned how Jews respond to the question about God in Auschwitz. Do Christians have their own interpretation?

There is Cross and the experience of abandonment by God in the center of our religion. Remember the sigh of crucified Jesus: My God, My God, why hast though forsaken me? It is key to my hope: God sides with victims even if they do not see or feel him. Christ went to where people most needed him. Therefore, I am convinced that God was in Auschwitz. One Polish inmate scratched a cross on the wall before death. It was a small sign that even in that hell it was possible to find God.

Every person has dignity. It is impossible to see it under a microscope as Nazis tried to do when they studied racial differences. You have to believe in it. In Christian tradition such a belief is rooted in the biblical story about the creation of man after the image and likeness of God. God lives in each of us and loves each of us. The love can be betrayed if you become a criminal. However He would not stop loving and waiting for repentance. Therefore my answer to the question “Where God was in Auschwitz?” is: “In dignity of the victims”. He addressed the conscience of criminals through it. Including merciless Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess?

Yes. I traced what he felt and how he pushed the concern out of his soul. He was not born a monster of cruelty. It was an ordinary Catholic family, but there was no love in the house. The boy was afraid of his strict father and ran away at the age of 15 to become a hero soldier. Then he abandoned the Church and found the essence of life in pseudo-religion of National-Socialism. Since the First World War it was written on the belts of Wehrmacht soldiers: God is with us. When Himmler was asked whether it should be dropped he replied: “We believe in Providence and are its carriers”. The Nazis tried to establish “natural supremacy of the strong race” and “clear” themselves of everything which weakens the people beginning from mentally sick Germans who became the first victims of gas chambers and up to the influence of Judaism and Christianity with their traditions of forgiving sinful people.

By adopting the pseudo-religion Hoess abandoned human attitude to people: SS was allowed to feel only racial supremacy over inmates. Nevertheless, in his memoirs written in prison after the war there are scenes when Hoess looks at inmates like people. He stands on a platform where railway cars arrive with people doomed to death and sees a woman shouting at him and playing kids. The scenes began to reappear in his conscience at meetings with his own wife and children. To get rid of them he walked for long in the neighborhood and rode a horse. Actually, it was existence, not life. He killed his own humanness. God was in Auschwitz – in glances of victims at the camp commandant. He knocked on the heart of Hoess with a mute pang. But the man closed himself. By killing inmates he killed God in himself. This hardness is the nature of evil.

German philosopher Theodor Adorno is believed to have said: “You cannot write poems after Auschwitz”. Do you believe there are impossible things after such a horrifying experience?

As for poems… People who survived in the camp wrote verses for memory to acquire a form. Let’s take Paul Tselan, for example. If you surround a problem with silence it will once develop into emptiness. Auschwitz cannot be forgotten. The issue is in comprehending out responsibility and its scope. I am deeply convinced we cannot allow Hitler to “win posthumous victory”, as philosopher Emil Fackenheim said. He said: if after Auschwitz there is no sense to be a Jew, then the Jewish issue has been finally settled. Those people were doomed but they survived and have to go on. They were denied a place on earth, but now they have a whole state. Nazis wanted to eliminate their religion. It means it is specifically important to preserve Judaism. They wanted to bury them in oblivion – we have to remember them. They wanted to kill dignity in people – now they have to be full of it. I believe memory of Auschwitz should not kill belief in good. People should not come back home from a visit to Auschwitz in a suppressed mood with a feeling of evil and hostile world. Former inmates confirm that it would benefit nobody. The meaning of a visit to the memorial is to comprehend your responsibility for a better future world.

The Polish vision of Auschwitz is unique. It is mostly related to the major role of the Catholic religion in public conscience of the people.

There is a display of human hair of inmates in the museum. Sacks with cutoff hair were found after the liberation of the camp. There were many disputes whether to display them or bury. It was finally decided that hair is not a part of the body. The “exhibits” symbolize the attitude to people as material. The Nazis used both the physical force of inmates and their belongings, including golden teeth and even ashes from burnt corpses. When I look at the display of hair I always cry inside me: “You cannot treat people like that!”

Why do you think that despite numerous facts about Nazi atrocities the ideology still finds supporters also in countries that suffered in World War Two?

I believe Nazism is based, inter alia, on a strong human temptation: “I want to conquer the world, possess everything and have nothing in common with other people. If they are in my way I will eliminate them”. This temptation – in a reduced form – is known to everyone. It did not disappear with the collapse of the Nazi state. Therefore, it is very important to have a public system based on respect to dignity of any handicapped person regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with me. It is easy to do it in theory in the form of a general declaration on human rights. In reality people quickly forget declarations. If mutual respect becomes possible for a narrow circle of people they will be able to bring other people into their space. It is better to ask: “What do I have to do?” Otherwise all the talk about general issues allows each of us to idle.

Tatyana Tkacheva,

Rossiyskaya Gazeta – Amber Bridge

In Germany for example, the population traditionally marks the anniversary of liberation of the country from Nazism. Poland which suffered major losses in World War II, holds mass events devoted to the great victory. Elsewhere in Europe VE Day is not forgotten either, even in the states that took no military action against Nazi Germany. The military history of North European countries says there was everyday passive resistance to Nazi terror in Denmark and Norway during the occupation by Hitler’s troops.

According to an official historical concept, World War Two victimized many countries as they were dragged into the merciless mayhem against their will. How could small countries resist the overwhelming might of superpowers? They would have been crushed had they attempted. . .

However history proved that military intervention can be resisted not only by armed heroes, but also by each resident through his personal refusal to participate in the developments. We asked Professor Vadim Roginsky, PhD History and leading fellow of the General History Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, to tell how it happened in Scandinavia.

– It is important to remember that Scandinavian peoples occupied a high position in the “new order” hierarchy of the Nazi regime. Hitler did not plan to exterminate them. On the contrary, he wanted the relationship between new authorities and the people in occupied territories serve as an example for others. Therefore, regimes in Scandinavian countries were tolerant to local population. Still the Nazis enjoyed no gratitude from residents of the countries as collaboration with the occupants was inadmissible for most of them.

Denmark: leaflets were printed right under Nazi nose

It is clear that Denmark had no chance to defeat the overwhelming hostile forces. The official military doctrine of the country during the First and Second World Wars rejected military resistance in case of aggression. Although the potential adversary was not named it was clear the talk was about Germany. When on April 9, 1940 Nazi Germany invaded Denmark under the pretext of protection from Great Britain the armed forces of the country were ordered to capitulate. The seizure of Copenhagen in April 1940 was routine: several companies of Nazi soldiers marched in the central Lange Street of the capital city. Residents went to work and astonishingly looked at the march while policemen reacted professionally and began to regulate traffic. German units reached the palace and an officer began to open the doors. A shot was fired and one guard was killed. Brief negotiations agreed that weapons will no longer be used. Relations with England were banned. Danish banks were ordered to subsidize German economy. However the government refused to accept a completely puppet governance of the country and justice system similar to other occupied nations. The Danes stubbornly pushed their own policy up to August 29, 1943 when Gestapo units were sent to the country. The Germans wanted the Danes to “resolve the Jewish issue”. However the Jewish community in Denmark which included refugees from other countries escaped persecutions and reprisals which occurred in other occupied territories. King Christian X of Denmark visited a synagogue in 1942 and defended Jews in his speech. He promised, in particular , that if Jews are forced to wear a yellow star both he and the whole Royal Family will also wear it. Denmark remained the only country under Nazi control where the yellow star w as abandoned. In 1943 the Nazis began to prepare their own massacre of Jews. However there were people in German headquarters who warned would-be victims of upcoming deportation and on day X none of the listed Jews was at home. Danish resistance members helped 7200 out of 7800 Jews escape to neutral Sweden. Local residents sheltered nearly 500 people in their homes. 99 percent of Jews were saved.

An exciting example of solidarity of the people was the operation of an underground printing shop right under the very nose of the Germans in central Lange Street in Copenhagen. To silence the noise of the print several sewing machines operated on the ground floor. Practically the whole city knew where leaflets were printed but it remained a secret for the occupants. Underground committees met nearly openly but the Germans failed to arrest anyone for anti-Nazi propaganda. Any suspect was warned in advance and had time to escape. It is clear that such actions would be impossible without cooperation with the Danish police. The Germans realized that police were double agents and disbanded the force on September 19, 1944 and arrested many officers.

Such indirect resistance baffled the Nazis. To neutralize dissent they resorted to a tactic which was not used in other countries – secret killings of suspected anti- Nazi activists.

Norway: gold reserve and government in exile

The Oslo fjord cuts deep into the land and the Royal Palace and Norwegian parliament are located on its shores. The Nazis sent a warship to seize two strategic objects. The garrison opened fire at the enemy and succeeded to sink the Blucher cruiser with close to a thousand troops. The planned assault on the Norwegian capital was disrupted. The Germans had to change the plan and land their troops at an airfield.

The seizure of Copenhagen in April 1940 was routine: several companies of Nazi soldiers marched in the central Lange Street of the capital city.

The Norwegians won time, just several hours which were enough for the government and the Royal Family to flee from Oslo to Elverum locality. Lawmakers gathered for a session in a forest school and decided not to surrender until a single German soldier remained on the Norwegian territory. The government was vested with extraordinary powers for the whole period of war, but had to emigrate to England. The national gold reserve was also moved there in several train cars. The funds greatly helped Norwegians during the war.

The Nazis several times tried to convene Norwegian Storting (parliament) to resolve the main issue of legitimizing their authority. However there was no quorum as one or another lawmaker was absent for reasonable excuse of illness or travel.

Most Norwegians like Danes rendered considerable although unarmed resistance to Germans. The actions of occupation authorities were targeted at. . . emptiness. Teachers massively rejected the “honor” of joining the Nazi party. The occupants wanted to span bridges with genetically close people and organized sport competitions. However the integration effort failed. Photos of a football match between Norwegian and German teams clearly show an empty stadium.

The Nazis told local priests to pray for the glory of German arms and churches were immediately abandoned by parishioners. Cinemas had to show newsreels about victorious Third Reich army before movies and the art of cinematography immediately lost its popularity .

The Nazis were instructed to be extremely polite and ceded their seats to females in public transport. However women refused to take the seats and many passengers left the vehicle if there were Nazis in it.

There were camps for prisoners of war on the Norwegian territory. Any communication with the POWs was banned under the threat of execution. The Norwegians found a way out and send their children to give bread, fish, potatoes to the prisoners. The Nazis did not touch the kids as it would mean “aggravation” of relations which they were ordered to avoid. However, naturally there was a risk. . .

If POWs succeeded to escape the locals never let them down and helped them hide and then move to Sweden. Their solidarity made the escapees invisible although a huge Nazi army of 400 thousand men w as deployed in Norway.

In 1944 the Nazis prepared mobilization to the East front and suddenly all files of recruits were destroyed by fire. They had to begin listing them anew but had no time to complete the task. The mobilization failed.

Most Norwegians like Danes rendered considerable although unarmed resistance to Germans.

The Scandinavian experience shows you do not always have to risk your life if you refuse to collaborate with occupants. Sometimes you simply don’t have to hurry and show great zeal in fulfilling instructions. It’s better to keep mum…

Ksenia Zagorovskaya,

for Amber Bridge

“Finnish partners officially notified the Russian side that the wreckage of the Soviet S-2 submarine from the Baltic fleet which sank on January 3, 1940 presumably after hitting a mine near Aland Archipelago in the territorial waters of Finland has been included into the list of Russian (Soviet) military burials in compliance with the 1992 Russian-Finnish cooperation agreement on perpetuating the memory of Russian (Soviet) military in Finland and Finnish military in Russia who died in World War Two,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The list of burials comprises close to 90 objects in various parts of the country. The main ones are located in the towns of Mikkeli and Hanko. Most of them are common graves where numerous yet unidentified soldiers are buried. The work in archives continues.

The status of the burials is stipulated by the mentioned agreement which determines that all military monuments are protected in both countries. In Finland the interior ministry and partially the education ministry are in charge of the implementation of the agreement while in Russia it is the task of the defense ministry and partially of the foreign ministry .

“We are grateful to the partners for a positive resolution of the important issue for the Russian Federation. Respect to the memory of perished seamen is very important for their relatives and close kin and for all Russian citizens.

We are satisfied with the constructive cooperation with the Finnish side in the framework of the Russian-Finnish intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in perpetuating the memory of killed servicemen,” the Russian foreign ministry said.

Russia requested to recognize the place of the submarine sinking as a military burial in 2009 when a group of Swedish and Aland divers discovered the wreckage on the Baltic Sea bed.

Long way to the lighthouse

– It is a worthy end of the long story, said chairman of the St. Petersburg Club of submariners Retired Captain 1 Rank Igor Kurdin. The story was truly long. The S-2 shipwreck has been a mystery for long which historians worked to disclose in archives of various countries by comparing reports of Soviet and Finnish military, eyewitness reports and other evidence. Since late ’90s Aland historian Kenneth Gustavsson has been engaged in the search for missing Soviet submarine. After a many-year effort he established the coordinates of the wreckage and the likely cause of the sinking.

– Work with World War Two documents which I carried out from 1998 in archives of Russia, Finland, and Sweden helped me get a full picture of the developments at the Market Lighthouse in January 1940, Gustavsson said.

— For me it is a proven fact that S-2 hit a mine while sailing through Finnish mine fields and sank. It is confirmed by radio interceptions, Finnish military reports and other data. The mine blast detonated onboard torpedoes and the submarine broke down into three parts. The wreckage lies on the seabed this way. The submarine was discovered in area 8904 on Finnish Navy charts. It lies at a depth of thirty meters close to the wreckage of two XIX-century ships. After long research I know a lot about the S-2 story. There are various versions about the cause of the sinking but I am convinced that it hit a mine. The blast was seen from the Market Lighthouse and recollections of the light-keeper have preserved. He saw S-2 which first surfaced and then submerged. A powerful explosion followed sending a black cloud over the water surface.

Three long fog horns

After S-2 was discovered in August 2009 then Swedish military attache in Russia Christian Allerman proposed to the Petersburg Club of submariners which existed for 18 years to find the relatives of the dead Navy men. Since then the S-2 story developed into international cooperation of seamen, researchers, military, authorities and many others who were not indifferent to the fate of the perished submarine. St. Petersburg seamen found descendants of seven S-2 crewmembers from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, and Krasnodar. In August 2010 they visited the place of the wreckage to pay tribute to the deceased. The Russians brought a handful of Russian soil to the place and took home some sea water from Market Lighthouse. It is an old maritime tradition the water buried together with the dress coat of a perished Navy man symbolizes his new grave on land. The sea which is mostly used to Swedish speech this time heard Russian Orthodox Eternal Memory, Eternal Rest lity for the dead prayed by Archpriest Alexey Krylov from the Chesmen Church of St. Petersburg. A wreath with a Baltic fleet sailor hat was floated. Finnish seamen present at the ceremony breached the rules when the wreath was floated and sounded three fog horns and lowered the flag of Finland on the mast of the coast guard vessel which delivered the Russians to the burial place of the submarine.

From discovery to memorial

In the same year of 2009 the Russian side requested the Finns to recognize the place of S-2 sinking as an official military burial. The Finnish military inspected the territory around and said it was first necessary to defuse munitions found on the wreckage. Although a powerful explosion that ruined the submarine detonated most of munitions close to one ton of explosives in TNT equivalent were discovered onboard: torpedoes and artillery shells, as well as several mines close to the wreckage.

In May-June 2012 the Finnish police and defense forces carried out a unique operation in area 8904 to defuse S-2 munitions. The work lasted for over eight weeks and involved three vessels and 50 people. Munitions were lifted from a depth of 25 meters. Mines and torpedoes were destructed in a safe sea area, while grenades were withdrawn to a land range for elimination. After the operation a proposal was submitted to the defense ministry of Finland to ban the site of the wreckage for diving and swimming and mark it on charts. Access to the area is granted only to research expeditions upon a special permission of the Aland Board of Antiquities.

– We were the pioneers, said Aland police chief Teijo Ristola who headed the operation. It was the first demining of a wreckage in Finland. After the operation we checked the area to verify its safety. It was important also because it is now a part of a reserve and we had to comply both with general security requirements and nature preservation norms. During preparations and holding of the operation we maintained good contacts with the Russian consulate in Mariehamn, the capital city of Aland Islands. The operation was unique as it was carried out within the boundaries of the only fully demilitarized zone in Europe. Aland Islands which used to be the w e s t e r n m o s t foothold of the Russian empire were demilitarized according to the 1856 Paris peace treaty and the status of the territory remains the same up to now .

Those at sea

The operation to defuse S-2 munitions and subsequent proclamation of the place as an official military burial put an end to disputes about the future fate of the submarine and the possibility of lifting it and the bodies of the crew from the Baltic Sea bed. According to international maritime rules a perished submarine is a sacred and untouchable common grave. People on Aland Islands are convinced the issue has been finally closed: neither divers who discovered the submarine nor participants in the defusing operation discovered any human remains at the place of the shipwreck.

– It is hardly possible to lift any bodies for burial on land specifically because the blast that ruined the submarine was very powerful, said Teijo Ristola. – It may be possible to find some bones on the seabed, but nothing more. In this case the rules for their lifting will be determined in compliance with Finnish laws. Kenneth Gustavsson agreed:

– If we recall how powerful the explosion was that ruined the submarine it will become clear that lifting of bodies is unlikely. It is better to leave them on the seabed where they rest in a common grave. Therefore, Aland people suggest to leave it as it is and not to disturb the rest of perished seamen. A memorial plaque has been put on the Baltic seabed in area 8904 to commemorate the crew of the S-2. It was brought there in 2012 by relatives of the seamen from Russia. Aland divers mounted it soon after the commemorative ceremony.

End of story?

No new major turns are envisaged in the story of S-2 submarine. The relatives of the crew now have a point on the map of Europe where they can come to pray for the dead. The official burial status reliably protects the rest of Soviet seamen. All Finnish and Swedish participants in the research were thanked on behalf of the Club of submariners. In March 2011 the Russian defense ministry decided to award the medal for Merits in perpetuating the memory of perished defenders of the Motherland to Kenneth Gustavsson, head of divers Bjorn Rosenlef, Swedish Navy commander aide Christian Allerman, divers Morten Zetterstrem, Patrick Palm, Richard Juhanson, and Aland governor Peter Lindback. It was a decoration for their big personal contribution to determining the place of wreckage of Baltic fleet submarines S-7, Sch-305, and S-2 as well identifying the names of the submariners and the fates of missing Navy men.

Historians and seamen have still a lot to do in the Baltic Sea. Kenneth Gustavsson said several submarines have not been found yet.

– According to archive data which I collected three Soviet submarines sank there in 1942. Two of them were found: in 1998 S-7 was discovered and in 2007 – Sch-305, he said. They are all in Swedish territorial waters. The Sch-320 submarine has not been found. There are no German submarines there as during World War Two the German Navy carried out no operations in the area. Only by the end of the war after Finland concluded a truce with the USSR in 1944 the Germans planned to attack Aland Islands but dropped the idea. There can be a total of several hundred various shipwrecks in that area of the Baltic Sea beginning from the XVI century.

The St. Petersburg Club of submarines is now focused on the search of relatives of the crew of another submarine, S-6, which was recently found in Swedish territorial waters.

– Now we are looking for families and succeeded to establish seven contacts, Igor Kurdin said. We shall keep working, look for contacts, and help relatives of killed servicemen find their burial places so that they can come and bow to their memory like it happened with the S-2 crew .

Yulia Andreeva,

Helsinki-Mariehamn-St. Petersburg,

for Amber Bridg

KARI MYKLEBOST

SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW

UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ

VLADISLAV GOLDIN

PROFESSOR, NORTHERN (ARCTIC)

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY

The University of Tromse is the northernmost in the world. Arkhangelsk is located a little bit to the south. Both regions maintain long-standing relationship. Long distance from capital cities and location on remote borders of national markets encouraged “direct ties” mostly between Russian traders and fishermen from northern Norway.

A specific language even emerged – Russenorsk. In Soviet times the ties were disrupted and resumed only in the end of the 1980s. Episodic contacts between Norwegian and Russian historians became regular at the time. Kari Myklebost and Vladislav Goldin told Amber Bridge how academic cooperation is developing

Arkhangelsk was closed for foreigners when a Norwegian delegation arrived to attend a regular conference on Scandinavia. How did cooperation between Russian and Norwegian historians develop?

Cooperation between Arkhangelsk historians and Norwegian colleagues began on August 10, 1986 when the Pauline yacht docked at the Red wharf of Arkhangelsk with a group of historians and museum staff from northern Norway. The yacht sailed along the same route as Pomor vessels used to. To allow entry to the closed port of Arkhangelsk a special permission had to be obtained from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Historian and Director of then Arkhangelsk Pedagogical Institute and later the head of the Lomonosov Pomor Institute Vladimir Bulatov contributed a lot to the development of Russian-Norwegian academic relationship.

The first collection of articles headlined Historic Ties of the Russian North with Norway (devoted to the bicentenary of the town of Varde) came out in 1989 while The Arkhangelsk Pedagogical Institute hosted the XI Pan-Soviet conference to study Scandinavian countries and Finland in which Norwegian scholars participated.

A cooperation agreement between the Pomor University and the University of Tromse promoted the holding in November 1992 of the scientific conference Norwegian-Russian Relations in 1814-1917. At the same time in Tromse a special issue of the Otar museum magazine came out under the title Norway and Russia in the North with articles by Arkhangelsk and Norwegian colleagues. Later Norwegian historians arrived in Arkhangelsk to present their publication Pomor. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag,

1992 in the local university. It was devoted to relations between northern Norway and northern Russia and edited by University of Tromse Professor Einar Niemi. Russian-Norwegian relations were broadly represented in the first volume of Pomor Encyclopedia (History of Arkhangelsk north) which came out in Arkhangelsk in 2001.

The Arkhangelsk school of Scandinavian and Nordic research developed in close cooperation with Norwegian historians and leading Russian research centers, including The General History Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences headed by Academician Alexander Chubaryan and the Center for History of Northern Europe and Baltic Region under the leadership of Alexey Komarov. In close contact with the institute the Pomor University in Arkhangelsk held the XIV and XVI conferences on Scandinavian countries and Finland in 2001 and 2008. Alexander Chubaryan jointly with Norwegian Professor Olav Riste were initiators and co-chairs of the editorial board of the fundamental documentary Russian-Norwegian publication Soviet-Norwegian Relations in 1917-1955 which was a sample model of such publications.

The Kirkenes Declaration on cooperation in the Barents Sea will marked the 20th anniversary in January 2013. How did cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region promote academic ties?

Myklebost. The emergence of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region created a completely new atmosphere and trans-border contacts in the north. The BEAR ideology worked to revive and expand international ties of four countries in the northwestern corner of Europe. It is implemented both in the cultural-economic and regional-administrative aspects. Academic cooperation is clearly on the rise. In 1990-2000 historians from the University of Tromse cooperated with colleagues in Arkhangelsk and Murmansk in a series of research and publication projects and student exchanges. Other faculties and desks of the University of Tromse were also involved.

Major allocations have been provided for that since 1993 by the BEAR Secretariat in Kirkenes, the Norwegian foreign ministry and other national institutions. The main ground for cooperation was the declared will to develop trans-border contacts.

Research by historians helped form the region not only as a functional one due to political and business interests, but also as a historic based on millennium-long good relations between Norway and Russia and century-old traditions of Norwegian-Pomor trade.

In June 1993 Arkhangelsk hosted the first international scientific conference devoted to BEAR development prospects – Barents Sea Region: Cooperation in Education and Science. A chartered Tu-134 aircraft brought a big Norwegian delegation from Tromse to Arkhangelsk. It included representatives of science, education, and politicians. During the visit Foreign Ministers of Norway and Russia Johan Jorgen and Andrei Kozyrev opened on the basis of the Pomor University a Norwegian- Pomor Center which played a major role in the development of relations between the two countries. The Barents-Center information office was later opened.

In 1993 after the BEAR creation I made my first two trips to the University of Tromse. Two important projects were initiated at the time. The first one resulted in the publication in Archangelsk (in 1996 in Norwegian and in 1997 in Russian language) of a collection of articles by Russian and Norwegian historians Fears and Expectations. Russia and Norway in the XX Century. Its authors and editors were Jens Peter Nilsen and me. Also in 1993 a conference in Tromse initiated an international scientific project of northern universities in Barents Sea region called State, Religion, Ethnos in the North. 700-1990.

In 2001 when I was deputy director for scientific work in the Pomor University I began to publish an international historic and archive and public-political Barents-Journal (founded by the Pomor University and the University of Tromse with the support of BEAR Secretariat). The magazine was a place to discuss historic and modern problems in BEAR, including Russian-Norwegian relations. Besides, Vladimir Bulatov co-authored with head of the Barents information center Andrei Shalev a manual Barents Euro-Atlantic Region and Arkhangelsk Region: International Cooperation and Barents Euro-Atlantic Region: History and Modern Times. The Pomor University has created successfully operating research centers, such as the Center for comparative religious and ethno-semiotic studies of the peoples of the Barents Sea, the Training Center Ethnocultural and Humanitarian Geography of the Arctic and Sub-Arctic, the Center for traditional culture of the European North, the Gender Research Center, the Scientific and Education Center for fundamental problems of the history of cooperation and rivalry in the Arctic.

Research and publishing activities intensify as jubilees approach. They include the centenary of independence of the Kingdom of Norway (which the Russian Empire was the first to recognize) and the bicentennial of Napoleonic wars which resulted in major changes in Northern Europe. The bicentennial of the Norwegian Constitution is not far off.

First and foremost, it is necessary to remember the cultural-historic exhibition Russia-Norway. Through Centuries and Borders which was devoted to the centenary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Norway. Arkhangelsk historians participated in the project. A catalogue of the same name was prepared for publication with 500 pages explaining the main historic and modern problems in Russian-Norwegian relations.

The project was initiated by the Norwegian foreign ministry and the ministry of culture and mass communications of Russia. The exhibition was prepared for five years. We had to select, restore and receive a big number of exhibits from museums and other organizations of Norway and Russia. The e x h i b i t i o n opened in 2004 in the Folk Museum in Oslo. In 2005 it moved to the Ethnographic Museum in St. Petersburg. Exhibits demonstrated the history of versatile m i l l e n n i u m – long relations between Norway and Russia and what was more important the rapidly developing relations of the past 25 years. The project resulted in new initiatives – seminars, publications, and exchange of exhibitions. The exhibition and the catalogue undoubtedly promoted a better understanding of historic relations between Norway and Russia.

The positive experience is used today to prepare two-volume publication devoted to Russian-Norwegian relations which is to come out by the bicentennial of the Kingdom of Norway in 2014. The project was initiated in 2007 and called Asymmetric Neighborhood. Norway and Russia in 1914- 2014. In September 2008 at the XVI conference to study Scandinavian countries Arkhangelsk held a detailed discussion of the concept and contents of the first volume. In June 2012 the authors met again in Oslo.

The project involves close to 25 Norwegian and Russian scholars. They studied various dimensions of relations between the two countries in the past two centuries. The richly illustrated two volumes will tell the reader about interstate relations and people-to-people contacts. The publication will contribute to festive events in 2014. Until now there has been no full-fledged research of Norwegian-Russian relations in the last two centuries. The historic work will be useful not only for academic circles but for all Norwegians and Russians participating in bilateral cooperation. It pays specific attention to northern areas which is only natural as Norwegian-Russian relations were most intensive there both in history and nowadays.

The Asymmetric Neighborhood concept has two complementing and intercrossing perspectives. The first and most clear one is the role of Russia as a great power in contrast to the role of Norway as a small country which was the decisive factor for Norwegian choice of the security vector. If we move from interstate relations to civil society the picture will be quite the opposite: Russia was weak while Norway for historic reasons had a stronger grass-root organization of society and a more even distribution of social benefits.

In the XIX century the Norwegian-Russian border was the only place where Russia directly contacted Western Europe. During the Cold War it was the only place where the Soviet Union directly contacted a European NATO country without any buffer zone. The main intercrossing question is why long-term Norwegian-Russian stability could exist despite the double asymmetry?

The research also provides another guideline for reciprocal perceptions of each other. Russia as a great power bordering on Norway in the north played a major role in the development of Norwegian nation in the XIX century, but mostly a negative role. In Russia perceptions of the small country of Norway were peripheral in public discussion although we know that in some liberal circles of Russia Norway was considered a vibrant democracy which could serve as an example. In the second half of the XIX century the Finnmark province was considered to be an example to follow for the north on the Russian side of the border. After the Bolshevik revolution the wind changed and many Norwegians began to consider Soviet socialism as an example for Norway.

The project was headed by the history and religion faculty of the University of Tromse in Norway. It involved scholars from the institutes in Oslo, Bergen, Kirkenes, Moscow, St.Petersburg, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, and Petrozavodsk. The project thus balanced the central and regional perspectives. The Universities of Tromse and Arkhangelsk are the regional institutions of the North, while the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies in Oslo and the General History Institute in Moscow are central organizations.

The main aim of the project was to raise awareness about the significance of the historic past for the development of modern relations between Norway and Russia. Besides the two-volume publication the project is implemented also in several specialized publications. We have already published two collections of articles: Norway and Russia in the Arctic and Cautiousness and Benevolence. Russian-Norwegian Diplomatic Relations in 1814-2014.

In May 2012 the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund and the Norwegian Research  Council signed an agreement. Which cooperation prospects does it open?

As a researcher and expert of the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (RGNF) I can say the experience of such international projects stipulates joint academic activity. I hope research, publishing and other projects of Russian authors and joint projects with Norwegians colleagues would emerge and enjoy support of the RGNF. They will be devoted to the history and modern times of Norway, Russian-Norwegian relations, and the Barents Sea region. I can only welcome them.

The Norwegian side enthusiastically welcomed the agreement as it will simplify the launch of projects in which both parties participate on an equal basis. On behalf of my colleagues and me I can say that historic research is a tiresome process which demands long-term perspective. It takes much time to get access to foreign archives. It concerns both Norwegian scholars working in Russia and Russian scientists in Norwegian archives. The reciprocal research of sources is very fruitful. Detailed knowledge of Russian history helps Russian researchers find documents in Norwegian archives and systemize them in the correct context which helps evaluate their significance.

In recent years several collections on Norwegian-Russian relations came out, for example, the above mentioned book Soviet-Norwegian Relations in 1917-1955. New

collections are being prepared. The publications are of a vital importance for future research. They simplify access to primary sources of information about relations between Norway and Russia. It is necessary to implement the agreement on cooperation of archives. We hope the agreement between RGNF and the Norwegian Research Council will promote such initiatives.

In 2015 the town of Jinan will host a new world congress of historians. In September the assembly of the International committee for history science discussed its program in Budapest. Kari Myklebost represented Norwegian historians at the assembly. Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region are often called exemplary regions of the world. Can we hope North European historians and their works will be as convincing?

The University of Tromse works to deepen cooperation of North European historians, as well as historians from the Barents Sea area. The University plans to develop relations with the University in Umea (Sweden) and Arkhangelsk (Russia) and also establish contacts with institutes in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Murmansk and cities in Sweden and Finland. Thus, our University hopes to implement an ambitious plan of expanded research of the North in the North. Various faculties of the University of Tromse are designing a master plan of multi-faceted research of northern regions. An important part is to lecture history of northern regions.

Historians from the Barents Sea region have a common professional interest and so far we have only touched some archive materials of mutual interest. It gives hope for future academic cooperation. The same concerns the positive experience of the Asymmetric Neighborhood.

The last question is about personal creative plans.

There are over ten books in the plan, as well as a series of articles some of which are close to completion. The issues are different: history of Russia and international relations in the XX century, Russian military abroad, science studies. The conference held in Arkhangelsk in October completed the major international project which I headed – 1917-1922 in the Fate of Russia and the World.

The mentioned conference in Arkhangelsk created the Association of Russian Civil War Researchers and I was elected its chairman which adds duties, as well as the work in the Academic Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences on social reform, movements and revolutions in which I head the northwestern section. In the Asymmetric Neighborhood project I am in the editorial group that prepares the two-volume publication which is also a major responsibility.

In Asymmetric Neighborhood we progressed to the final stage of preparation – the manuscript will be submitted to the publishing house. Some project participants are engaged in a new and more specialized project – on academic relations of northern countries, including Finland with Russia and the Soviet Union in the past two centuries. The working name of the project is Science History in Extreme North. In involves historians from Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. We are currently in the embryo state and are looking for financing.

The joint record of academic cooperation, specifically in Arctic research of the XIX and XX centuries, is one of the topics of Asymmetric Neighborhood. Work with archives revealed that much has to be researched yet. In Scandinavia and Russia Arctic research was a national business and in the time of the Cold War it was also a secret national security guideline. Available literature offers numerous descriptions of rivalry between states in Arctic research and expeditions which enjoyed general respect.

However it is only a part of the general picture. Review of personal archives of distinguished Arctic researchers, such as Fridtjof Nansen, Harald Ulrik Sverdrup, Leonid Breitfus, and Vladimir Vise demonstrate a variety of personal approaches regardless of ethnic or national origin. There is no doubt that distinguished Arctic researchers from Norway, Russia and the Soviet Union believed in late XIX century up to the 1930s that they worked for the benefit of the science rather than national interests. Fridtjof Nansen corresponded with many Russian colleagues and exchanged experience and scientific data with them, provided and received advice and even logistical support in planning expeditions. The same relations existed between Arctic researchers of Sweden, Finland, and Russia. It is a part of Polar research which has not been paid sufficient attention so far as it demands the knowledge of languages and an understanding of the essence of Polar research during work in archives. Nansen, Breitfus and their contemporaries corresponded in various languages (English, German, French, Russian) on very specialized issues.

In the framework of the Science History in Extreme North project we discovered a multi-language network of historians who are keen in the history of Polar research. We hope to find financing. We want to describe cooperation history in natural sciences and in the sphere of culture, including transnational research of the Saami culture and border population of Fennoscandia and the Russian North.

Relations between Russian and Norwegian historians developed very favorably in the past twenty years. The main results of the cooperation are, firstly, the volume of archive documents Soviet- Norwegian Relations in 1917-1955 which triggered a major response. Secondly, it is a big cultural-historic exhibition Russia- Norway – Through Centuries and Borders and its unique catalogue. Cooperation with the Institute of History and Religion of the University of Tromse and the Institute of Defense Studies in Oslo is hard to overestimate. Thirdly, I want to recall the conference on Afghanistan organized by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in which Russians, Norwegians, and Americans participated. They all lay a solid basis for future Russian-Norwegian cooperation which forms a major part of our cooperation with countries of Northern Europe.

Academician

Alexander Chubaryan