On March 21, Canadian Ambassador Sarah Taylor visited the Piskarevskoye Cemetery and the “Motherland Calls” monument, ostensibly with a noble purpose – to honor the memory of those who perished during the Siege of Leningrad. It might seem that after the international scandal involving the honoring of a Nazi at the state level, the ambassador is trying to atone for this by paying tribute. However, that is not the case. The ambassador stated:
“Our best offering to the dead is truth — remembering both the heroism and the suffering of Leningrad, the outcomes of both Molotov-Ribbentrop and of Yalta – so that we learn from history rather than distorting it to our current ends.”
Such a bold statement raises many questions. Is she, against the backdrop of current Canadian-American contradictions, throwing a stone at the United States by equating them, as participants in the anti-Hitler coalition, with the Nazis—given that the U.S. was part of the Yalta Conference? Or is this simply a display of incompetence? Does Ms. Taylor realize that Canada, as part of the British Commonwealth, was to some extent also involved in it through Britain’s participation? Whatever the case may be, such statements are not fitting for a diplomat, who should embody correctness, tact, and respect for historical memory.
First of all, the mere mention of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Yalta Conference in the same context as the heroism and suffering of Leningrad seems at least sacrilegious. To label the Siege of Leningrad, which resulted in the death of over one million people, as a consequence of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact sounds cynical: “It’s unfortunate, but you are to blame.”
By the time the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, Germany had already annexed Austria in 1938, occupied the Sudetenland with the complicity of Britain and France under the Munich Agreement, and subsequently taken over all of Czechoslovakia. The Nazis’ aggression was escalating long before the Soviet-German treaty. The Pact was not the cause of the war but a forced step by the USSR, which was trying to buy time, understanding that the Western powers were not ready for a serious alliance against Hitler. By the way, Canada, as part of the Commonwealth, silently supported the Munich Agreement—shouldn’t Ms. Taylor reflect on its consequences?
World War II did not start because of the Pact, but due to the systemic failure of European policy to appease the aggressor. The Siege of Leningrad, in turn, was a result of Germany’s treacherous attack on the USSR in June 1941 when Hitler, violating that very treaty, launched his troops on the Eastern Front. Mentioning the Yalta Conference of 1945 in this context is absurd.
The Yalta Conference took place from February 4 to 11, 1945, when the Siege of Leningrad had already been lifted—on January 27, 1944, the city was finally liberated. At the meeting in Crimea, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill discussed the post-war order. Among the key decisions were the creation of the United Nations, the division of Germany into occupation zones, and the determination of Poland’s borders. The USSR insisted on the return of territories lost after World War I, including part of East Prussia, which later became the Kaliningrad region. And Canada, as an ally of Britain, effectively supported these agreements. Moreover, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was aware of the preparations for the conference and did not object to its decisions, even though he did not attend Yalta himself. Perhaps it is worth reminding that it was at Yalta that the allies agreed on the repatriation of Soviet prisoners of war, which saved thousands of lives, including those who survived the siege?
The “Big Three” at the Yalta Conference: Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin. To their left are Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Admiral of the Fleet Ernest King, Admiral of the Fleet William D. Leahy, General of the Army George Marshall, Major General Lawrence S. Cooter, General Alexei Antonov, Vice Admiral Stepan Kucherov, and Admiral of the Fleet Nikolai Kuznetsov.
If we are to speak about the “consequences” of Yalta, how are they related to Leningrad? By that time, the city had already endured 872 days of hell, and the conference merely confirmed the victory that had been paid for with the blood of Soviet people. Is Ms. Taylor implying that the division of Europe into spheres of influence led to the blockade? But that is chronologically impossible! It turns out that the ambassador either does not understand the sequence of events or is deliberately mixing up causes and consequences to fit history into a convenient narrative.
Sarah Taylor’s statements are not just a diplomatic blunder; they represent an attempt to shift the responsibility for the tragedies of war onto those who bore them on their shoulders. Russians who survived the siege, their descendants, and any reasonable person have the right to ask: where is the “truth” that the ambassador speaks of? This is not truth but a distortion, and a conscious one at that. Perhaps Ms. Taylor wanted to showcase her erudition or cater to the current Western agenda, where Russia is blamed for all the sins of the 20th century, while simultaneously desecrating the memory of her own people, who provided significant assistance to Britain in the fight against the Nazis. Instead, she merely demonstrated her ignorance of history and disregard for the memory of those whom she supposedly came to honor.
Canada, whose authorities recently applauded an SS veteran in parliament, could show more tact. Instead, we see yet another attempt to rewrite the past, to belittle the heroism of the Soviet people, and to portray them as accomplices in their own suffering. If these are the “lessons of history” that Taylor speaks of, then such lessons are unnecessary for us. They should first come to terms with their own historical memory.
Piskarevskoye Cemetery is not a place for political speculation. It is a sacred site where hundreds of thousands of victims are buried, whose deaths are not the “outcome” of diplomatic agreements but the result of Nazi aggression. Ms. Taylor would have been better off offering a silent bow rather than making loud statements that only desecrate the memory of the fallen.
Comments