The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1995: Myth, Memories, and Monuments by Lisa A. Kirschenbaum Pamyat o blokade. Svidetelstva ochevidtsev i istoricheskoye soznaniye obshchestva: materialy i issledovaniya by Marina Loskutova (review)

Abstract

152 SEER, 87, I, JANUARY 2OO9 Kirschenbaum, Lisa A. The Legacy of theSiege ofLeningrad, iQ4i-igg5: Myth, Memories, and Monuments. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006. xiii + 309 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Index. ?45.00: $75.00. Loskutova, Marina (ed.). Pamyat 0 blokade.Svidetelstvaochevidtsev i istoricheskoye soznaniyeobshchestva: materialyi issledovaniya. Novye materialy i issledovaniia po istorii russkoi kultury, 2. Evropeiskii universitet v Sankt-Peterburge. Novoye izdatelstvo, Moscow, 2006. 400 pp. Appendix. Bibliography. RB 250.00. These two books, written for those who have read memoirs by siege survivors and know at least some of themonuments and the literature, complement each other admirably, and suggest new ways of looking at one of the epic events of the Second World War. Although both focus on the theme of his toricalmemory (individual and collective), their authors approach the subject very differendy.Kirschenbaum ismore interested in the myths (collective memory is a term she eschews, preferring 'myth'),while the St Petersburg scholars' main focus is on the individual memories, and how they are passed on. The study of oral history and popular attitudes forms the backdrop to the St Petersburg collection; Kirschenbaum looks to the comparative literature on myths engendered by war-time traumas ? the London Blitz, for example ? and the contrasting strategies adopted by survivors to rebuild or remember the destruction of a city. At times the authors see things very similarly, at others they offer different interpretations, and this in itselfmakes the comparison between them interesting. Kirschenbaum, a historian, offers a clearer and more coherent narrative. Her aim is to trace how, between 1941 and 1995, thosewho lived through the blockade and the authorities 'remembered and recounted' (p. 3) the siege. She is interested in the relationship between individual recollections and official representations, between personal memory and myth, 'shared, simplified narratives' which may be fashioned by the state, but which cannot be 'clean ly separated' from individual memories (p. 9). Survivors needed (and adapted) the state's myths in order to organize or make sense of their memories. Kirschenbaum is in no way claiming that the twists and turns in official accounts, the shutting of the first siege museum, the downgrading of Lenin grad, the censorship of topics such as cannibalism, were accepted as 'right' by survivors.Olga Friedenberg's hostile analysis, written at the time, is given its place; she reminds us thatmany blokadniki felt (and continue to feel) that they never received compensation for their sufferings. But she wants to draw our attention to the search by themyth-makers (writers,poets, filmmakers, histo rians, artists) to produce canons thatwould work for the political leadership and for ordinary people. If, at the time of the blockade she suggests, quoting Ginzburg, a real grandmother could be heard talking like a granny in a story, something 'that has never happened before' (p. 46), both at the time and subsequendy 'the notion of heroic defense made sufferingmeaningful' (p. 178). Hers is a chronological account, strongest on the period of the war, post-war, and Khrushchev periods, although she takes the story up until the renaming of the city.This allows her to startand finish her account with the REVIEWS 153 myth of St Petersburg. She is good at drawing upon, and interweaving, a variety of sources? memoirs, including thosewritten at the time or shordy afterwards but only published much later, the poetry, the differentversions of the famous Blokadnaia knigaofAdamovich and Granin; she uses the archives to trace the fate ofmemorial projects. The storyofKaratygina's 'brigade' in the Public Library, working tirelessly to collect blockade memorabilia during the war, and the subsequent fate of itsmembers and their endeavours, seems worthy of an article in itsown right.Her account of the discussions over the design of, first,the Piskarovskoye cemetery and then theMonument to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad illuminates the political and architectural issues thatpreoccupied theparticipants. She sensitivelydraws attention to the way inwhich glasnost' allowed for the revelation of dark secrets of the past (an understandable surge of anger and disgust at the lies of the past) but, at the same time, revealed the need to insist that heroism, self-sacrificeand a communal spirit (seen to be so sadly lacking in the early nineties) had been the...