Photo by Vitalyazub on Wikimedia Commons, CC-SA 4.0
This statue commemorates the Yalta Conference, a meeting of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin in February of 1945. Amidst the waging World War II, the purpose of this conference was threefold: “to consider the political problems arising out of the approaching defeat of Germany, to plan an occupation policy for the conquered nations, and to discuss the problems of the United Nations, Eastern Europe, and the Far East,” (Maddox & Sànchez, 2023). However, the resulting decisions and issues that developed post-conference between the Americans, the Soviets, the Middle East, and now the global community were defined by some outlines of the conference itself.
During the Yalta Conference, leaders from the Soviet Union, United States of America, and Great Britian met in Yalta Ukraine to discuss the fate of post-war Europe. Germany would be divided into four zones of occupation, with France, Russia, the UK, and US all influencing their own sector. Poland reopened, and communism was allowed, as long as Josef Stalin was to hold elections. Stalin also insisted on the release of Mongolia from the Chinese government. Additionally, Russia was to fight against Japan after the surrender of the Germans, and finally, the five permanent members of the United Nations were determined: the United States, France, England, Russia, and China (Office of the Historian n.d.).
This statue can be labeled controversial for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious being the dedication to Josef Stalin. Stalin was a critical member of the Bolsheviks, later Communist Party of the Soviet Union, run by Vladimir Lenin. After Lenin’s death, Stalin took control of the Party and the nation, rendering it a superpower by expediting industrialization. However, he also took part in massive purges of Russians, namely former Bolsheviks, intelligentsia, dissidents, and anyone else Stalin thought worthy of death. Purge lists with Stalin’s signature committed thousands to death; through his regime the death toll, combined with the forced famine in Ukraine, reached numbers of anywhere between 7 and 20 million dead under his hand, (Rubenstein 2014).
CC: Public Domain
Stalin also particularly targeted certain ethnic groups in his killings, what can be labeled as ethnocide. The Ukrainians and Kazakhs suffered under forced collectivization, where they would rather burn the grain they harvested than surrender it to the government. Stalin saw this act offensively, and in response, would not redistribute grain quotas to these regions. Millions of people starved for years due to Stalin’s inflated ego. He especially targeted Crimean Tatars, an ethnic group located in southern Ukraine, who were vocal about their resistance. (Ukraine 2003)
Winston Churchill is widely renowned as a man who wore many hats, but his most important role was that of Prime Minister of the Great Britain. His efforts in the war on Nazism saved London from the Blitzkrieg, and he is well-loved by many conservative politicians for his nationalism and defense of state. (Heydon 2015) This all being said, one must also acknowledge the racist and imperialist tendencies rampant in government at the time. One of the men who fell victim to this thinking was Churchill, and instances of racial superiority showed through his decisions presented in the conference and through many, many others, (Toye 2020 ).
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a revered member of the exclusive group of Presidents Elect for the United States of America. His presidency lasted an unheard of 12 years because of the instability that results when power is changed during a war. Often portrayed as a fatherly figure just like Churchill and Stalin, FDR also had a troubled view on race and struggled to create fair policies for Americans. FDR was responsible for the Japanese internment camps during WWII, or the forced removal of Japanese Americans (Dafoe 1942) to live on small, unkempt regions of land far from the areas they were localized in.
The decisions discussed at the Yalta Conference were also controversial. This conference pushed Stalin to aid the fight against the Japanese during WWII. Not only were Japanese-Americans mistreated during the war, but the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were decimated by atomic bombs dropped by the United States, the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons.
The monument was cast in bronze in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the conference. It was placed in Yalta, Ukraine in February of 2015 after being designed and built by artist Zurab Tsereteli. The timing and location were no accident. The Crimean Peninsula had been seized by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, just a year earlier. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s current leader, had an alternative agenda in placing this statue. His role of nationalism and inspiration of claiming Urkaine comes from the foggy, confusing history of the origins of the states. According to Putin, Russia’s territory extends further to the west, encompassing Ukraine. He needs his supporters to continue believing he is a great leader driving the country forward, and who was more nationalistic and pro-Soviet than Stalin? America was about to enter an unexpected Presidential election in the coming year, and the UK was struggling with Brexit decisions. Nationalism was needed to instill pride in our respective nations for the changes that were to come.
The statue itself shows the leaders sitting three in a row in conversation. Stern-faced and evenly heighted these statues seem to be strong but equal individuals. The position and material, prostrate in bronze, depicts the leaders in conversation with each other. No inscription or plaque is found, so the statue is up to interpretation by the viewer. These huge, looming figures represent strong, powerful, and thoughtful men. However, many take issue with the representation of these men because of their views.
There was a split divide on reaction to this statue: it was either hated, despised, and in need of immediate removal or replacement; or it was a lovely way to represent a former leader of the country (Former Stalingrad to erect monument to Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill 2005). This attitude is less pronounced in the West, but in Russia and the former Soviet nations, this divide is extremely apparent (Parfitt 2005). According to an article by the Times, UK, the creator of the statue said,
Remember, people did not like the Eiffel Tower when it first went up.
Not surprisingly, this statue of Stalin and others is not as ubiquitously known as the Eiffel Tower. A representative of the Crimean Tatars called it a “blasphemy,” likening the justification for Stalin’s seat to the same as a statue of Hitler in Germany. (Page 2005)
Today, the statue sits seemingly unnoticed in the Livadia Palace. Just like the quote we discussed at the beginning of class, it seems to be to commonplace for people to connect the statue to the past events. Especially now that statue removing protests have lightened, there is not much news about the statue itself. However, after studying Russian history, understanding the crimes and nature of Stalin’s regime, and learning the impact statues can have on collective memory, I think it is important to make an adjustment to the statue.
An adjustment could be as simple as adding an inscription. The events of the Yalta Conference were complex and detailed. An explanation of the events, the causes, effects, and responses could be a way to pay homage to the individuals that lost their lives under Stalin. Or, Stalin himself could be removed. It would be incredibly symbolic to have two leaders (controversial in their own right, just not as obvious) next to an empty chair. This would symbolize the proper remembrance of Stalin: a man who did so much to industrialize and pull his country to a superpower, at horrific costs. A final suggestion would be to add the statue to the Alley of the Leaders off the coast of Ukraine. Not only would it be close to its original location, but the symbolism would imply that this man does not deserve to be memorialized above ground.
In the grand scheme of studying this monument, it would be an offense to the Ukrainian population, currently invaded by Russia, to continue to impose the rule of a leader who stripped support from his subjects and actively attempted ethnocide of Crimeans, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, and other former Soviet people. By memorializing Stalin, the community comes closer and closer to forgetting the crimes he committed. Instead, by adding context, a counter memorial, or some sort of removal process will be necessary in the future.
What is the point of a statue if not to represent an event we are proud of? I continue to challenge the idea that Stalin, FDR, and Churchill’s good deeds outweigh the horrid, unacceptable parts of their lives. While a statue could be put in to memorialize the efforts by the leaders and the peace it brought, this event is one in history that could be memorialized in other ways. The deaths of millions would have been prevented had these men been checked for their racist ideas, something that still plagues our world today.
Works Cited
Dafoe, J. W. 1942. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Executive Order, The American Historical Review.
Heydon, Tom. 2015. “The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill’s career.” BBC News, January 26.
n.d. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf.
Page, Jeremy. 2005. “From evil tyrant to wartime saviour, Stalin’s political makeover divides Russia.” The Times, May 6.
Parfitt, Tom. 2005. “Tatar fury over Yalta monument to Stalin.” The Telegraph, February 5.
Rubenstein, William. 2014. Genocide: A History. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Sánchez, José M., and Robert Franklin Maddox. 2023. Yalta Conference. Salem.
The Canadian Press. 2005. “Former Stalingrad to erect monument to Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill.” May 13.
Toye, Richard. 2020 . “Yes, Churchill was a racist. It’s time to break free of his ‘great white men’ view of history.” CNN, June 10.
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia, and et. al. 2003. “Letter Dated 7 November 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General.” UN Report.
