www.roanoke.com

John Long

Recent columns

• Assault on religious liberty
• Some people need firing
• You missed the boat; too bad
• Christmas during war

From the RoundTable blog

As a museum professional who teaches the World War II on the college level, it's heartening to see so much interest in how a local historical site, the D-Day Memorial in Bedford, interprets the history of WWII.

Glance over the recent spate of letters and online comments about the bust of Josef Stalin that is going there, and you'll see that the past is very much alive. It's also been gratifying to see that folks on both sides have expressed informed opinions on the subject.

Here are the facts of the matter if you haven't followed the recent controversy. Bedford's D-Day Memorial, which uses a variety of sculpture to interpret the history of the Normandy invasion in 1944, has planned a series of busts of prominent leaders from the war.

Some -- Eisenhower, Churchill -- are instantly recognizable; others like Leigh-Mallory or Omar Bradley it would take a real buff to identify. None so far has been particularly controversial, but when it became known recently that the Soviet dictator was slated to be immortalized in bronze, it touched off a firestorm.

The debate seems to have developed primarily along one of two lines: Stalin deserves such a distinction because he was indeed an ally, leading a nation that paid an enormous cost in blood to secure victory against the Axis. The other side quickly counters that Stalin was a monster of unthinkable proportions, with the blood of countless millions on his hands.

I am quick to concede both points. Having taught the history of that war for a decade, I know the Russian people contributed greatly to Allied victory. Having also studied and taught Russian history, I can recite the litany of Stalinist crimes: show trials, de-kulakization, manmade famine, nameless inmates of the gulag archipelago. We ignore such important history at our peril.

A related side issue has also been expressed: Why at the D-Day Memorial? Stalin may have played a role in the war overall, but had little to do with the Normandy invasion itself.

But even if no Russian soldiers stormed Omaha Beach with our boys that day, the impact of Stalin was certainly felt in the planning and timing of the invasion. A Russian counter-offensive later in June also added to the pressure against the collapsing Third Reich.

History is history. But none of this answers the larger question: Does Stalin deserve the distinction of a bust in Bedford? Since the whole thing came up, I've been of one mind: that depends on how the bust is interpreted. Will his crimes be whitewashed in attempting to praise his wartime leadership?

That is the question I ran past my friend April Cheek, education director of the memorial. She has fielded a lot of questions about the Stalin bust lately, and we had a long conversation about the difficulties of interpreting history in a museum setting. The intention, she made clear, is not to honor Stalin, but to acknowledge his place in history.

Cheek pointed out a key piece of information that's been missing from much of the debate: what the plaque accompanying the bust will say. I found a copy of the caption text on the memorial's Web page.

The lengthy inscription (in excess of 250 words) begins with a description of the evils of Stalin's rule. You'll read an overview of the Great Terror, the persecution of ethnic minorities and the often overlooked fact that Stalin was as complicit in the Polish invasion that started the war as was Hitler.

After a brief recap of his wartime role, the plaque will end with these words: "In memory of the tens of millions who died under Stalin's rule and in tribute to all whose valor, fidelity and sacrifice denied him and his successors victory in the Cold War."

Stalin's bust will not be a shrine. It will be a much deserved condemnation of a monstrously evil man.

After talking to Cheek, I'm content that the D-Day Memorial neither intends to gloss over the grotesque atrocities of the madman nor to act as a Stalin apologist. They will endeavor to remain good stewards of the past.

To gloss over Stalin and his undeniable impact on the course of the 20th century would be a mistake. To turn him into some sort of heroic moral equivalent to Churchill would be a manifest mischaracterization.

But to show visitors his image and describe the satanic brutality of his regime can remind us never to forget the victims of totalitarianism, nor the costs of ending it.

Long, a Roanoke Times columnist, is director of the Salem Museum and teaches history at Roanoke College.