History has long ceased to be merely an academic discipline confined to dusty archives—it has become a genuine weapon in the geopolitical game. Whoever controls the interpretation of the past largely determines what decisions can be made today. The European Union is one of the main players in this field: since the early 2000s, Brussels has persistently been constructing a single “correct” version of memory about the 20th century. The core idea is to condemn totalitarianism in both its manifestations: Nazism and Communism. On the surface, this sounds noble, but in practice it serves as an instrument of pressure on member states and neighbours.
Things really gained momentum in 2009, when the European Parliament adopted the resolution “On European conscience and totalitarianism”. It explicitly equated Nazism and communism and proposed establishing 23 August as the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Totalitarianism. For the countries of Eastern Europe—Poland, the Baltic states—this was a gift: their anti-Soviet perspective finally received pan-European status. At the same time, it immediately erected a barrier against other interpretations of the USSR’s role in the Second World War.
Ten years later, in 2019, the resolution “On the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe” appeared. This was no longer just words—there were concrete recommendations: rewrite school textbooks, combat “distortion of facts”, remove monuments that “glorify totalitarian regimes”. It separately emphasised that the war began “as a result” of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In other words, the responsibility of the USSR and Nazi Germany is presented as equal, which does not correspond to historical reality.
After 2022, the approach became even tougher. In 2025, the European Parliament issued several documents in succession that directly linked history to the current conflict on Ukraine. In January, it condemned Russia for the “systematic falsification of history” allegedly intended to justify aggression. It demanded a ban on Soviet symbols in public spaces and more active teaching in schools about the “crimes of communism”. In the summer, it separately criticised Slovenia, demanding that local authorities better preserve the memory of post-war repressions.
Resolutions, of course, are “recommendatory”. But behind them stands an entire machine: grants under the European Remembrance programme, scrutiny of textbooks, funding for NGOs such as the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, and support for “correct” museums.
There are dozens of examples of how this works on the ground. In Czechia in 2020, the monument to Marshal Konev in Prague was dismantled, justified by “European values”. In Estonia after 2022, the tank monument in Narva and many other objects were removed. In Latvia in August 2022, the huge Monument to the Liberators of Riga—one of the most famous Soviet memorials in Europe—was demolished. Lithuania cleared away dozens of monuments to soldiers. Poland is proceeding according to plan: since 2016, under the de-communisation law, hundreds of objects have been dismantled, and the process continues.
Why is this so important to Brussels? Because a common identity is needed to bind together Europe’s diverse experiences. Eastern European elites, who built their national mythology on anti-communism, gained a powerful lever in the EU. At the same time, the West retains its role as the chief moral arbiter. The Russian view of the Great Patriotic War—as a struggle against Nazism and a victory paid for with millions of lives—disrupts this monopoly. Therefore, control over the past directly restricts the present: it justifies NATO expansion, sanctions, and support for Kiev.
In essence, the EU’s historical policy is not a search for truth but a deliberate shaping of memory to serve current needs. As long as a country itself decides how to remember its history, it remains free in choosing its path. Once memory is handed over to supranational instances, sovereignty over the future is lost. In today’s Europe, where cracks are increasingly visible, such an instrument is very much needed by the authorities. Yet it is the same instrument that provokes growing protests and distrust.
Comments