Monument with a tyrant

In the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people, they are offended by the gift of Zurab cerethes

In Yalta, where celebrations are held on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the conference of the heads of the three union powers of the anti-Hitler coalition , on February 5, a monument of the so-called "Big Three"-Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin was opened on February 5. A ten -ton bronze composition four meters high was created by the sculptor Zurab Tsereteli. His creation from now on decorates the entrance to the Livadian Palace.

Ten years ago, Zurab Tsereteli was already trying to give Crimea his “big three”, but in the year of the 60th anniversary of the Yalta conference the gift was rejected. The public was indignant, considering the perpetuating of Stalin's perpetuating , since it "embodies for Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and other peoples a criminal terrorist regime, which destroyed millions of people." But this was before the capture of Crimea by Russia and the decision was made by another state. Then the prolific sculptor tried to attach his creation in Volgograd and on Poklonnaya Gora in Moscow. It did not work out. But these were slightly different times.

And here is the sculptural group, which includes the leader of the peoples, no longer languishes in the workshop of Tsereteli. Deputy Head of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people Nariman Jeel is outraged by what happened:

Crimean Tatars even after 70 years are very painfully worried about such a distant event as total deportation

-I personally and in general, the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people repeatedly convinced and stated that it would be wrong to erect any monuments with such historical personalities in Crimea that are ambiguously perceived by part of the Crimean community. In particular, the role of Stalin personally in the fate of the Crimean Tatar people and many other peoples, primarily the small peoples of the former Soviet Union, is known to everyone, and it wears a bright negative color. Crimean Tatars, even after 70 years, are very vividly, very painfully worried about such a distant event as a total deportation, which, I want to remind, is recognized by the Soviet Union by the Soviet Union. So to establish monuments to Stalin, any other public images of this historical personality-this is perceived by the majority of Crimean Tatars as some kind of insult.

In the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people, they are offended by the gift of Zurab cerethes

I personally, as a person who knows a story who taught children a story, in no way want to detract the role of the Yalta conference during the Second World War, the role of the agreements that were achieved by the leaders of the three fear of the anti -Hitler coalition, for the post -war world. We all well remember the positive and negative aspects of this event. However, it is possible to note the Yalta conference, its importance can be much less offensive to someone than the installation of this monument, which, from my point of view, has no artistic value. This is such a time of Soviet realism, a sculpture that they tried to establish for a very long time.

A special imprint on this situation is imposed by the fact that we know very lively, reverent, somewhere even excessive attention in Russia to the events of the Great Patriotic War. But at the same time, do not forget that the events of the Second World War, the events of the war directly in the Crimea are caused by a very serious discussion in the interethnic sphere. In particular, in relations between the Crimean Tatar indigenous population and other residents of Crimea. Therefore, it is very, very neatly necessary to relate to any monuments, to some events that are associated with these events and specific historical personalities.

None of the Crimean Tatars will argue that international conferences dedicated to the Yalta conference can be held. In addition, there is a whole museum - the Livadian Palace, which, in fact, is dedicated mainly to this event. There are many paintings, photographs, much other that reminds of this very important event in the history of the 20th century. But the desire of some people to note a memorable date in such a way as the installation of this monument, we cannot welcome.

-The Majlis of the Crimean Tatar people or its individual representatives are going to somehow respond to the installation of this monument?

- We always tried to act exclusively in peaceful, human rights methods. We never declared war on the monuments. Even during the period of the Ukrainian Maidan last year, namely, on February 23 last year, we gathered a rally on the central square of Simferopol, where the monument to Lenin is located, and at that time in Ukraine, as you remember, was Leninopad. Even then, we were able to say to separate hot heads that we should not solve issues in this way. Mutual understanding must be achieved. And then we were able to convince that the monument to Lenin should not be demolished by a way that looks like vandalism, but we need to convince the authorities that, perhaps, this monument is already a place somewhere in the museum or in some specially created Park of Soviet history, and the central square should decorate something else, for example, some beautiful fountain.

We do not require the installation of the monument to Khan Devlet-Girey, because there could be objections, because he once burned Moscow

Here, unfortunately, we see a different approach. The initiators of the installation of this monument in the Crimea, apparently, wanted it so much that their desire prevails over the understanding that this can offend anyone. Many of my colleagues suspect even a conscious intentional wound. I would not want to believe it, but, unfortunately, I also cannot completely abandon this thought. Moreover, I expect that soon the next celebration of the decree of Empress Catherine the Second on the accession of Crimea, Taman and other lands to Russia will be. Again, such actions can be expected. At the same time, they will not pay attention to the fact that the attitude of the Crimean Tatars, which, as a result of that decree of the empress, have their own statehood, is completely different.

When we are urged to be tolerant, we are called to be understood and so on, I would like to turn to the rest with the same call. There are historical personalities whose role is ambiguous, let's say. We do not require the installation of the monument, for example, to Khan Devlet-Girey , because there could be objections, because he once burned Moscow . We have quite a lot of other people, to perpetuate the memory of which we could and who would not cause any serious disagreement, ”says Nariman Jelal .