Tomas Sniegon
PhD in History (Lund University), Associate Professor in European Studies (Lund University)
I study historical cultures in post-communist countries, especially in Russia and Central Europe. At the center of my current attention are the efforts of the political elites who seek to strengthen authoritarian tendencies in these countries, to suppress the memory of the crimes of previous authoritarian regimes that affected the countries in question - primarily Communism. In this regard, such changes concern transformation of previous plans to build civil society in order to support the interests of advocates of "uncivil society" who strive to create alternatives to liberal democracy (such as illiberal democracy' or completely open autocracy and dictatorship) and use history in agreement with their current intentions.
During the last decade, I have devoted a large part of my research on the processes by which the history of state oppression in 20th-century Soviet society was adapted to serve the construction of a new, state-constructed ideology of "Russian patriotism." This ideology is based on the legitimization of a strong and centralized Russian state power and the suppression of Russian civil society. While the achievements of the Soviet system, especially the victory in the Second World War, were uncritically celebrated and used to support the new "war mentality" of the anti-liberal and anti-Western regime created by Vladimir Putin, but the oppression of Soviet people and even many citizens of other states becomes on the contrary, increasingly trivialized, marginalized and even denied.
I am currently completing a manuscript of a book based on a critical analysis of my own extensive interviews with Vladimir Semichastnyi (1924-2001), head of the KGB from 1961 to 1967, which I conducted in Moscow in the 1990s. The book confronts Semichastnyi's oral testimony with documents declassified in the archives of several countries.
During the last decade, I have devoted a large part of my research on the processes by which the history of state oppression in 20th-century Soviet society was adapted to serve the construction of a new, state-constructed ideology of "Russian patriotism." This ideology is based on the legitimization of a strong and centralized Russian state power and the suppression of Russian civil society. While the achievements of the Soviet system, especially the victory in the Second World War, were uncritically celebrated and used to support the new "war mentality" of the anti-liberal and anti-Western regime created by Vladimir Putin, but the oppression of Soviet people and even many citizens of other states becomes on the contrary, increasingly trivialized, marginalized and even denied.
I am currently completing a manuscript of a book based on a critical analysis of my own extensive interviews with Vladimir Semichastnyi (1924-2001), head of the KGB from 1961 to 1967, which I conducted in Moscow in the 1990s. The book confronts Semichastnyi's oral testimony with documents declassified in the archives of several countries.
Liberation from Konev the Liberator? Czech Historical Culture since 2014
My topic is about the analysis of the relocation of the monument to Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev from the Prague 6 district, an important part of the Czech capital. This monument was built during the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1980 and demolished in 2020. The main reason for the demolition was the dissatisfaction among the political actors of Prague 6 and the capital's leadership with Russia's policy towards Ukraine after 2014, but this step - for a part of Czech society very controversial - is accounted for mainly by other, indirect reasons. And as the monument's fate was decided largely by the representatives of only one district of the Czech capital, the focus here is on the interplay between local, municipal and national decisions. Additionally, we concentrate on the link between this object and the history of the city, the present-day Czech Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, a multinational state which, initially, held Konev in esteem and honored him. Of interest here is also the role of the newly discovered historical facts that became known only after the rigid, Communist treatment of history relaxed its grip; the ultimate decisions and to what extent the historical conscience of those who made these ultimate decisions was influenced by their post-war predecessors. Finally, one more, important thing: the conditions unique to the context of the Czech Republic are addressed from the point of view of their potential use in the discussion of issues associated with memorial sites in the post-war and Communist periods.
Tomas Sniegon
PhD in History (Lund University), Associate Professor in European Studies (Lund University)
I study historical cultures in post-communist countries, especially in Russia and Central Europe. At the center of my current attention are the efforts of the political elites who seek to strengthen authoritarian tendencies in these countries, to suppress the memory of the crimes of previous authoritarian regimes that affected the countries in question - primarily Communism. In this regard, such changes concern transformation of previous plans to build civil society in order to support the interests of advocates of "uncivil society" who strive to create alternatives to liberal democracy (such as illiberal democracy' or completely open autocracy and dictatorship) and use history in agreement with their current intentions.
During the last decade, I have devoted a large part of my research on the processes by which the history of state oppression in 20th-century Soviet society was adapted to serve the construction of a new, state-constructed ideology of "Russian patriotism." This ideology is based on the legitimization of a strong and centralized Russian state power and the suppression of Russian civil society. While the achievements of the Soviet system, especially the victory in the Second World War, were uncritically celebrated and used to support the new "war mentality" of the anti-liberal and anti-Western regime created by Vladimir Putin, but the oppression of Soviet people and even many citizens of other states becomes on the contrary, increasingly trivialized, marginalized and even denied.
I am currently completing a manuscript of a book based on a critical analysis of my own extensive interviews with Vladimir Semichastnyi (1924-2001), head of the KGB from 1961 to 1967, which I conducted in Moscow in the 1990s. The book confronts Semichastnyi's oral testimony with documents declassified in the archives of several countries.
During the last decade, I have devoted a large part of my research on the processes by which the history of state oppression in 20th-century Soviet society was adapted to serve the construction of a new, state-constructed ideology of "Russian patriotism." This ideology is based on the legitimization of a strong and centralized Russian state power and the suppression of Russian civil society. While the achievements of the Soviet system, especially the victory in the Second World War, were uncritically celebrated and used to support the new "war mentality" of the anti-liberal and anti-Western regime created by Vladimir Putin, but the oppression of Soviet people and even many citizens of other states becomes on the contrary, increasingly trivialized, marginalized and even denied.
I am currently completing a manuscript of a book based on a critical analysis of my own extensive interviews with Vladimir Semichastnyi (1924-2001), head of the KGB from 1961 to 1967, which I conducted in Moscow in the 1990s. The book confronts Semichastnyi's oral testimony with documents declassified in the archives of several countries.
Liberation from Konev the Liberator? Czech Historical Culture since 2014
My topic is about the analysis of the relocation of the monument to Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev from the Prague 6 district, an important part of the Czech capital. This monument was built during the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1980 and demolished in 2020. The main reason for the demolition was the dissatisfaction among the political actors of Prague 6 and the capital's leadership with Russia's policy towards Ukraine after 2014, but this step - for a part of Czech society very controversial - is accounted for mainly by other, indirect reasons. And as the monument's fate was decided largely by the representatives of only one district of the Czech capital, the focus here is on the interplay between local, municipal and national decisions. Additionally, we concentrate on the link between this object and the history of the city, the present-day Czech Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, a multinational state which, initially, held Konev in esteem and honored him. Of interest here is also the role of the newly discovered historical facts that became known only after the rigid, Communist treatment of history relaxed its grip; the ultimate decisions and to what extent the historical conscience of those who made these ultimate decisions was influenced by their post-war predecessors. Finally, one more, important thing: the conditions unique to the context of the Czech Republic are addressed from the point of view of their potential use in the discussion of issues associated with memorial sites in the post-war and Communist periods.