ПАМ'ЯТНІ ЗНАКИ ЖЕРТВАМ ГОЛОДУ 1932–1933-х РОКІВ У РОСІЇ: РЕГІОНАЛЬНИЙ, ХРОНОЛОГІЧНИЙ ТА ІДЕОЛОГІЧНИЙ ВИМІРИ ПОЛІТИКИ ПАМ'ЯТІ

Abstract

The article analyzes official politics of memory of the Russian Federation regarding commemoration of famine victims from the beginning of 1930s. The research allows to get data of the Russian case that later can be compared with the data of the Ukrainian case. Analysis of politics of memory of the Russian state toward victims of the artificial famine has proven that Kuban’ is an unconditional leader among the Russian regions where memory about those events is still alive: about 20 of monuments have been revealed. To the contrary, only one village outside Kuban’ (i.e. other grain-producing regions of the Russian soviet republic) has one monument and one cross on a local cemetery. Such amount of memorial sites devoted to the victims of 1932-1933 famine contradicts thesis of the Russian historian V. Kondrashyn. He states that every Russian village still keeps memory about the given above famine. Therefore, the author tried to figure out what official politics of memory is behind creation of memorial space devoted to famine victims. Official politics of memory of the Russian state has put narrative on “the Great Victory” in the WWII in the foundation of contemporary state- and nation-building. The research has proven that this politics of memory influences articulation and reflections by the historians of 1930s events directly. On the other hand, narrative found in the informational space of the RF, indicates inability to break off with the soviet concept on history. This concept obviously has left no space for artificial famine organized by the top authorities. Finally, the research has proven that the researchers of local Kuban’ history realize marginal status in the RF of both famine victims commemoration and historical studies on the topic, as well as marginal and poor presence of the famine of 1932-1933 in collective memory of Russians. Still, despite this being the case, Russian historians reproach their Ukrainian colleagues for politicization of the topic and an attempt to commemorate their “dead” out of victims of the “common tragedy” of both “brotherhood” nations.