Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, the European peace order is once again facing a historic test. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the failure of international institutions and the growing pressure on democratic societies from the right make it clear that a reflective, responsible culture of remembrance is more urgent today than ever before. What is needed is a mature, historically conscious European civil society.

The alliance ‘Remembrance Against War’ calls for a renewal of remembrance of the Second World War – driven from the heart of society. At its core are narratives that have hitherto been suppressed and a critical engagement with both Soviet and post-Soviet interpretations of history. We call for a living remembrance that brings the repressed to light – including, and particularly, at memorial sites shaped by the Soviet era.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is not only a flagrant breach of international law, but is also accompanied by a perfidious instrumentalisation of history. The Kremlin is misusing the victory over Nazi Germany to militarise society and legitimise new violence. We wish to counter this with a contemporary culture of commemoration and remembrance that takes the lessons of the catastrophes of the 20th century seriously – against any form of historical distortion and in favour of a peaceful, democratic Europe.

Based on this conviction, the Alliance formulated guidelines in 2022 for a responsible commemoration of the end of the war. We also support the appeal issued by the German-Ukrainian Historical Commission on 10 February 2025 and call for the following points to be taken into account in the practice of remembering and commemorating the Second World War, with a particular focus on Soviet-influenced memorial sites:

1. De-Stalinisation through historical contextualisation

Soviet-style memorials – including those in the former GDR – often represent, quite literally, monumental propaganda set in stone. As long as the external appearance of these monuments remains unchanged, it is all the more important to place visual representations and inscriptions – such as quotations from Joseph Stalin – in their historical context, to explain them critically, and to contrast the propaganda with reflective historical narratives. A contemporary contextualisation can be achieved in memorial sites, amongst other things, through QR codes that link to digital content in which depictions and statements are commented on and placed in their historical context. Critical-historical guided tours also offer the opportunity to convey necessary background information and stimulate discussion.

2. De-imperialisation of remembrance

The Soviet narrative of the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945) attributed the victory over Nazism almost exclusively to the Red Army and the Russian people. In doing so, it systematically marginalised both the contribution of the Allies and the resistance and suffering of all others, including the non-Russian peoples within the Soviet Union. Today, the Russian state is once again exploiting this memory to serve a militaristic and neo-imperial domestic and foreign policy – including through war memorials abroad. It is essential to expose this imperialist-tinged discourse of memory – including in the symbolic language of memorials and rituals – and to highlight how the Soviet is falsely equated with the Russian. One possible approach: the public reading of historical testimonies and voices from diverse backgrounds – such as those of Ukrainian, Baltic, Central Asian or Jewish eyewitnesses – by people with and without a migrant background. In doing so, perspectives can be deliberately shifted and contrasts brought to life, in order to make the diverse, often suppressed heritage visible and to break through imperial narratives.

3. Demilitarisation – Commemorating Peace

For many of those who lived through the Second World War, resisted Nazi Germany or suffered under the occupation, the end of the war in Europe was above all a day to commemorate the enormous sacrifices made to restore peace – a day to remember the fallen, those who were murdered, and the immeasurable suffering. We therefore call for a quiet, dignified commemoration – without any glorification of war and without symbols associated with the militarised nature of victory celebrations in today’s Russia. Instead, we wish to create a visible, peace-oriented alternative that enables empathetic remembrance and commemoration and consciously distances itself from any form of glorification of war.

4. De-anonymisation – personalising remembrance

A forward-looking approach to remembrance requires that we restore the names, stories and dignity of anonymous victims. Personalising remembrance means complementing collective monuments with individual biographies, thereby bridging the historical divide. At sites such as the Soviet Memorial in Berlin-Treptow, where thousands of Red Army soldiers were buried anonymously, the public reading of their names can be a first step towards a humanised remembrance. The identification and clear marking of gravesites creates new forms of respect – across national and ideological boundaries. This makes remembrance tangible, comprehensible and accessible to future generations. The recognition of individual fates – even at memorial sites of a Soviet nature – opens up an empathetic approach to history. It stands for a culture of remembrance that places people at the centre.

5. Personalised remembrance – creating space for personal stories

A forward-looking culture of remembrance must make space for individual and family experiences. Beyond the abstract symbolism of official monuments, we need places where personal losses, stories of survival and memories spanning generations can be made visible and shared. The ‘Remembrance Against War’ alliance advocates for formats that honour individual testimonies and enable biographical remembrance. One example of this is the creation of a participatory memorial wall featuring names, photographs and documents from family archives – a living space where the personal stories of people who resisted Nazi Germany, suffered under Nazi occupation, or were persecuted in concentration camps or the Soviet Gulag are documented. At the same time, it is a space in which a certain stance is important to us, and that means that symbols associated with the current Russian aggression are unacceptable. Such places enable collective remembrance through individual perspectives – open, multifaceted and across borders.

6. Remembering through dialogue – creating spaces for exchange and discussion

A vibrant culture of remembrance is fostered through dialogue. That is why the ‘Remembrance Against War’ alliance focuses on dialogue-based formats that bring people together to discuss perspectives, historical responsibility and the significance of remembrance today. At sites such as the Soviet War Memorial, too, exchange formats are to be held in which activists, historians, human rights campaigners, psychologists, artists and politicians engage in dialogue with visitors. In discussion groups, open forums or themed tours, memories are collectively reflected upon, questioned and expanded. Particularly in times of growing polarisation, we need such places for listening, debating and understanding – so that remembrance does not divide, but unites.

7. Responsible remembrance – bringing repressed chapters to light

Responsible remembrance means bringing uncomfortable truths to light. This includes addressing Soviet crimes: collaboration with Nazi Germany under the Hitler–Stalin Pact between 1939 and 1941, the occupation of large parts of Eastern Europe, deportations and violence against civilians. These long-suppressed chapters are central to understanding today’s conflicts. Exhibitions such as “Forgotten Crimes – How the Current War Came About” by Demokratie-JA e.V. or a photo exhibition on Ukrainian cities destroyed in the current war, which correspond with images from the Second World War, forge links between the past and the present – and confront historical responsibility. This makes it clear: even the repressed stories are part of our shared European memory – and coming to terms with them is essential to understanding the present.

8. Inclusive and diverse remembrance – making remembrance accessible to all

A contemporary culture of remembrance of the Second World War must reflect the diversity of today’s society. Women, minorities, LGBTIQ people and those with a migrant background have often been excluded from official commemorations – even though they too have experienced forms of persecution, resistance or the impact of the war on their families. Many people living in Germany have family histories that, whilst not directly linked to Nazi persecution, are connected to colonial contexts, Soviet repression or wartime experiences in other parts of the world. These perspectives, too, deserve visibility and a place in public remembrance. Discussions about diversity at memorials, artistic contributions from migrant communities, queer walking tours or biographies of women in wartime can build bridges – between the history of the 20th century and the realities of the present. In this way, remembrance becomes an inclusive space for understanding.

9. Living Memory – Renewal and Participation

A vibrant, democratic culture of remembrance does not arise through state rituals alone, but through participation – through remembrance from the grassroots. When people share their family histories or perform their own poems or music in the context of remembrance, history becomes a personal experience; remembrance is not only brought to life, but shaped collectively. Such forms of lived memory make it possible to link individual experiences of the Second World War with current conflicts – such as the war in Ukraine. They make remembrance more diverse, accessible and relevant for future generations. Lived memory creates space for individual forms of expression within collective remembrance and commemoration.