12th European History Forum: When does contemporary history begin?

Over the past years, the European History Forum, an annual convergence hosted by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, has emerged as a crucial platform for diverse voices in historical discourse. This gathering brings together scholars, activists, artists, public figures, and experts to challenge traditional narratives, spark critical debates, and explore multifaceted perspectives on a range of topics including national and global historiography, memory politics, monument culture, and history education. 

The 12th Forum focused on the methodological and conceptual challenges of contemporary history, with particular emphasis on the transformative 1990s. This decade, marked by the Soviet Union's collapse, post-Communist transitions, regional conflicts, and societal upheavals, continues to shape our current political landscape. Over two intense days, participants grappled with crucial questions: 

• How can historians study and contextualize the 1990s? 
• What are the methods that allow scholars to gain perspective on contemporary events while acknowledging their own positionality? 
• Which sources are most reliable for analyzing recent events? 

These inquiries drove dynamic discussions, pushing the boundaries of historical analysis and setting the stage for innovative approaches to contemporary historical inquiry.
 

In her searingly honest autobiographical book, Freedom: Coming of Age at the End of History, Lea Ypi presents a riveting account of growing up under a totalitarian regime and the tumultuous transition to a supposedly 'free' society. This must-read account offers a profound understanding of the complexities of political and societal transition. Reflecting on Albania's relatively peaceful regime change in 1990, Ypi observes: “In any other revolution, there would have been oppressed and oppressors, winners and losers, victims and perpetrators. Here, the chain of responsibility was so intricate that there could be only one camp. ... The only wrongdoers it was legitimate to name were those who had already died; those who could neither explain nor absolve themselves. All the rest turned into victims. All the survivors were winners. With no perpetrators, only ideas were left to blame. … This revolution, the velvet one, was revolution of people against concepts” (151).

The historical narrative of peaceful regime changes in the 1990s is not unique to Albania but is a common thread that runs through the experiences and historical discourses of all former Soviet countries. Remarkable for its relatively peaceful nature, which avoided the brutal methods and human costs that often accompany profound political changes, the historical discourse surrounding the 1990s democratization events is described in contemporary historiography either as a testament to the power of popular mobilization or as a triumph of free-market economics and democratic governance over authoritarian rule. In either case, the victory of democracy over authoritarianism, of the free market over the command economy, and of peaceful regime change over violent ones persists. However, when viewed in a broader historical context and considering the ongoing political unrest in East and Central Europe, as well as the Caucasus and Russia, doubts persist about the genuinely peaceful nature of these regime changes and the lasting impact of transitional politics.

The evolving historiographical discourse surrounding the varied experiences of transitioning to the new political model of liberal democracy across different regions, societal groups, and cultural communities was the focal point of the 12th European History Forum. Organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin on May 21-22, 2024, the forum provided a dynamic platform for examining common societal processes, highlighting differences, facilitating comparisons, and fostering the exchange of opinions and experiences. It also promoted scientific and public debate on the pivotal decade of the 1990s, whose influences continue to shape the political trajectories in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, as well as in post-Soviet states. The forum's cryptic title, 'When does contemporary history begin? The historical-scientific examination of the 1990s in Europe,' highlighted the conceptual and methodological challenges to be addressed over the two days. Discussions focused on whether contemporary political shifts can be directly traced to the transitional events of 1990-1995, or if these should be considered as distinct phenomena. In light of the ongoing conflicts like Russia’s war against Ukraine and the armed disputes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over Nagorno-Karabakh, along with a reassessment of the societal and human catastrophes experienced during those years, participnts debated whether the commonly held view of the 1990s as a peaceful transition should be re-evaluated, and to what extent. 

A critical question was how to approach the sources, materials, and historical evidence that depict these events. What are the appropriate methodological and conceptual tools for studying contemporary history that can avoid the pitfalls of homogenization, simplification, or polarization in historical discourse?

Over two consecutive days, the forum brought together historians, activists, artists, experts from related fields and featured a range of panels, fishbowl discussions, and workshops. Day one opened with a panel on the concept of contemporary history, followed by fishbowl discussions on political change and gender. A book-talk and discussion with renowned German-Georgian writer Nino Haratischwili concluded the day. Day two began with a fishbowl discussion on the idea, spaces, and politics of Europe in the 1990s, followed by parallel workshops on history teaching, museums, geography, historical documentation, and archaisation.

Contemporary history as the method and the tool

The intricacies of contemporary history were laid bare in a thought-provoking discussion between Claudia Kraft from the University of Vienna and Andrii Portnov from the European University Viadrina (Frankfurt/Oder. The central question on the table was: how do we define and approach contemporary history, and when do past events transition into the realm of historical analysis? Moreover, how do we navigate the blurred lines between the past and the present, and what is the role of positionality in this context?

The conversation delved into the complexities of writing history from within, exploring how individuals who lived through dictatorships and oppressive regimes in the 20th century can shift from being subjects to actors, analyzing and studying these systems from both an insider's perspective and a critical distance. Experts discussed the methodological challenges of studying the 1990s when many historical sources were lost, destroyed, or never created. During the 1990s and later, there was great excitement among both experts and the general public regarding the opening of state archives. The availability of internal documents created opportunities for entirely new research areas such as the history of diplomacy or the study of intra-party processes. The general public was particularly intrigued by the opening of archives related to secret services.

A particular methodological challenge is how to gather sources and distinguish the significant from the insignificant, specificity in context of ‘post-truth’ society. For example, as an  Yugoslavian case illustrates, the period of 1990s were marked by the resurgence of propaganda, misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric, This makes it all the more difficult and important to precisely analyze and interpret sources in order to distinguish truth from falsehood.

After discussing the conceptual and methodological challenges, the discussion inevitably turned to current events, such as Russia's war against Ukraine, and the obstacles Ukrainian historians face in crafting critical, objective historical accounts of Ukraine's entangled history. Andrii Portnov observed that the central tension in writing contemporary history of Ukraine, in this case, lies not only in positionality but also in navigating the complexities of time, space, and context. To truly historicize contemporary history, he noted, one must strive to contextualize local materials within a broader framework, encompassing global events, such as the two World Wars, the Holocaust, the dissolution of the USSR and other all-encompassing events. Thus, the main argument Portnov addressed was that the contemporary history research demands not only self-reflection and positionality awareness but also a willingness to zoom out, temporally and spatially, to capture the intricate web of historical and spatial aspects that shape our understanding of the past.

The further discussion during the opening panel also highlighted the diverse historical experiences of East Central European countries in the 1990s. In particular, as the speakers outlined, the countries like Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia were driven by a desire to "catch up with the West," while Ukraine and South Caucasus countries remained under Russian influence, grappling with the delayed version of “velvet revolution” that unfolded in the form of "colored revolutions." Moreover, the former Yugoslav republics have also developed different narratives about historical experiences, posing an obstacle to mutual relations. This nuanced understanding of regional experiences, once again underscored the importance of contextualizing contemporary history within its unique spatial and temporal dimensions.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union: Post-Soviet perspective

The debates surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union and its aftermath ignited a critical examination of the 1990s - a decade that brought profound transformations to East and Central East Europe, as well as to the Caucasus. This period was marked not only by significant political and geopolitical shifts as new successor states emerged from the Soviet expanse and new borders were drawn, but it also heralded a new world order. Prior to the 1990s, the global political landscape was predominantly defined by the ideological divide between communism and capitalism, one-party politics and democracy, while peripheral societies navigated these tensions and had to assign themselves to one or another side. However, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the global landscape shifted dramatically. The most consequential divide now separated established democracies from countries striving to complete their democratic transitions. During these transitional years, the dominant economic model shifted towards liberalism or even neoliberalism, characterized by privatization, deregulation, and a preference for minimal state intervention. This economic regime radically altered the landscape of private ownership, social protection, cultural, educational, and housing policies, as well as the banking and financial sectors, transitioning them towards market-driven models. The transformations have been profound - reshaping not just political order but the very fabric of societies structures and everyday life.

During the first fishbowl discussion titled "What do we know and what do we not know? Research on the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Yugoslavia," an important disclaimer was made by the speakers that the 1990s remain one of the least explored and most politicized eras. This underestimation, as the speakers underscored, directly serves the current political shift towards illiberalism, right-wing political uprising, and de-globalization tendencies - a trend increasingly normalized under leaders like Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and others.

Reflecting on these developments, Corinna Kuhr-Korolev, from the Center for Contemporary History Potsdam, posed a critical question: What can historical research contribute in this context? What role should scholars, experts, and activists play in an era of raising illiberalism, neo-conservatism and populism? As Kuhr-Korolev emphasized, the most vital research strategy in this context is not to succumb to cryptic and simplistic narratives of the transitional years, but rather to embrace the complexities of the 1990s, with all its nuances and contradictions. Notably, this approach challenges the prevailing simplifications and seeks to provide a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the period’s events and their lasting impacts.

As the discussion evolved, focusing on the nuances of the 1990s, one crucial insight emerged: the need to debunk the widely accepted myth of a peaceful dissolution of the former Soviet Union.

Professor Giorgi Maisuradze from Ilia State University of Georgia emphasized the importance of revisiting and reassessing the commonly held belief in the non-violent nature of the transitional decades of the 1990s. Maisuradze noted that distinctions should be made when framing the historical events surrounding the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he identified two parallel processes: on the one hand, the relatively peaceful dissolution at the All-Union level, with Russian troops withdrawing from the territories of newly emerged independent states without major military intervention from Moscow, and on the other, numerous armed conflicts and violent episodes at the republic level that could not be avoided. These conflicts, stemming from ethnic, national, territorial, or cultural tensions, represented a continuation of the Soviet legacy that disrupted the peace process within the republics.

Among these events taking place on a republic-level, Maisuradze listed conflicts that scarred the region, including the civil war in Georgia, military conflicts in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia, the brutal suppression of peaceful protests on April 9, 1991, the first Russo-Chechen War, and numerous other violent episodes. Maisuradze argued that the lingering influence of the Soviet legacy, exposed by these conflicts, calls into question the notion of a non-violent transition from the Soviet to the post-Soviet order.

This two-layered analysis - the Union-level dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent eruption of tensions at the republic level - is an aspect less addressed in the current historiography of the 1990s. Maisuradze's contribution highlighted the importance of acknowledging and analyzing these complexities to gain a more nuanced understanding of the transitional period following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Besides, to gain a more profound understanding of the dynamics and power relations unfolding during the 1990s, Maisuradze also proposed contextualizing the post-1990 events not within the conventional timeline starting from the collapse of the Soviet Union but from the earlier years of the 1980s - the era of Perestroika politics, which, according to Maisuradze, catalyzed the Soviet dissident movement and thus paved the way for new political dynamics within the republic-level - the approach suggesting that a deeper, more nuanced examination of these years is essential for exploring the complexities of this transformative period.

The Soviet Union's indelible mark on the political and social fabric of post-Soviet states has been the focal point of debate in subsequent sessions as well. In the follow-up fishbowl, participants delved into the profound complexities of transitioning from Soviet to democratic rule - a transition that is still ongoing. The contributors emphasized that the Soviet Union's collapse did not instantaneously yield to a seamless adoption of democratic models. Instead, it necessitated a series of radical political reforms that unleashed a maelstrom of far-reaching consequences - aptly reflected in the very titles of these reforms, such as 'shock therapy,' 'structural adjustment' policies, and 'drastic transitions.' These reforms, marked by their harsh measures, proved to be painful and socially tone-deaf, sparking a cultural backlash and a wistful nostalgia for the socialist past. Shedding the light on these complex dynamics underscored the daunting challenges of dismantling deeply entrenched political system and the tortuous path toward democratic model in post-Soviet regions.

An important example that showcases the lasting effects of these transitional politics, as contributors highlighted, is the current event—particularly Russia's war against Ukraine—which directly continues these military-driven transitional dynamics. This conflict not only reflects ongoing challenges in the region but also significantly influences the political and geopolitical landscape across Europe and beyond.

The Complexity of Transition: Balkan perspective

The experience of the 1990s in the so-called Balkans, or Southeastern Europe, is complex. Even defining what constitutes the Balkans is complicated. This imaginary geographical region often refers narrowly to the less successful republics of the former Yugoslavia, but broadly it includes all countries between the Aegean Sea and the Alps. The experiences of these countries are very diverse.

Despite their different starting positions, all these countries embarked on the process of transition in the 1990s. Greece, a democratized state moving towards a market economy and European Union membership, contrasted sharply with its communist neighbors. Albania, until its regime's collapse in the early 1990s, was extremely xenophobic, isolated, and economically backward. Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary shared the experience of being Soviet satellite states until the 1990s, following Soviet political, economic, and social models, often by force.

Perhaps the most intriguing case was Yugoslavia, a multi-ethnic communist federal state. At the beginning of the 1990s, Yugoslavia could be compared to a character from Looney Tunes cartoons who has walked off a cliff and is momentarily suspended in the air before realizing their predicament and falling down. Yugoslav authorities sought legitimacy and survival through four pillars: non-alignment in foreign policy, decentralization internally, worker self-management in the economy, and the leadership of Tito, a celebrated wartime and post-war leader whose authority was unquestioned. By the early 1990s, Tito was gone, non-alignment became meaningless with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, internal decentralization led to separatism and governmental gridlock in favor of republics, and self-management drove the economy into hyperinflation, external debt, collapse, and strikes. The country disintegrated into bloody wars.

Despite these varied starting points, all these states moved towards a Western economic model, democratic society, and European integration, with varying degrees of success.

What Changed in the 1990s in Southeastern Europe?

The abrupt end of the socialist system and the beginning of the transition to a capitalist and democratic system fundamentally shook and changed Southeastern European societies as well. Changes occurred from top to bottom, elites were replaced, lifestyles changed, and worldviews shifted. Part of the Forum was dedicated to these questions, discussing changes in daily life, the role of women in society, and the everyday challenges of parenting and motherhood.

Memories of the 1990s are deeply imprinted on almost everyone who lived through them, often evoking beautiful or difficult memories. The challenge for historians today is how to explain, process, and present such images to society and what messages to send. This effort was discussed at the Forum in a panel presenting the concept of the "Museum of the 1990s" through the exhibition "Labyrinth of the 1990s" from Belgrade, currently on display in Sarajevo, touring the region, and raising many new questions about the reinterpretation of the 1990s. Colleagues had the opportunity to hear about the exhibition, how it was created, and what questions it tries to answer.

One significant change during the 1990s in Southeastern Europe was the perception of who "we" are and what Europe is, and the relationship between "us" and "Europe." The collapse of the Eastern Bloc was also a sudden encounter with the concept of a unifying Europe, which almost suddenly appeared as an ideal to strive towards.

Particularly tragic were the perspectives on Europe from wartime Sarajevo, also discussed at the Forum. Conversations touched on how besieged Sarajevo viewed Europe as a potential savior and how periods of hope and expectation often alternated with periods of bitterness and a sense of betrayal due to Europe's actions. The Forum addressed the constant re-examination of what Europe is and how much "we," as Southeastern European societies, are actually Europeans or foreigners to that Europe.

Special attention during the discussions was given to the position of Albanian women in Kosovo during the transition period. Although Albanian women theoretically had equal rights to healthcare services and other forms of support by law, in practice, they often could not exercise these rights due to the conservative society they lived in and various prejudices.

By focusing on Yugoslavia and the discussions at the EHF, we can better understand the unique and varied experiences of the Balkan transition during the 1990s.

New Approaches and Strategies in Teaching/Communicating the history of the 90s

The production and reassessment of historical knowledge extend beyond conceptual, methodological, and source-related considerations. A critical aspect is the effective communication and dissemination of this knowledge through diverse channels, including historical textbooks, classroom instruction, and public exhibitions in educational institutions like museums. The latter half of the Forum's opening day showcased innovative projects designed to convey and stimulate discussions on the complex legacy of the 1990s. These pioneering initiatives seek to bridge the gap between scholarly research and public discourse, ensuring that the newly gained insights are accessible to a broad audience. By presenting these history educational projects, the Forum underscored the importance of making historical knowledge not just accurate, but also resonant and relevant to contemporary society. This approach recognizes that the true value of historical scholarship lies not only in its creation but also in its ability to inform and inspire public discourse.

The panel 'How historical education can be different: Teaching/Communicating the history of the 90s' showcased four innovative history education projects. Among these, the Paradigma Foundation, presented by Yerevan-based historian and educator Narek Manukyan, stood out for its pioneering use of technology and novel approaches to history learning, teaching, and research. At the core of the Paradigma Foundation's methodology lies a commitment to interdisciplinary, international, and multidimensional strategies. These approaches aim to foster active, multi-perspective historical thinking among teachers, students, and researchers alike. Manukyan articulated the project's primary objective: to empower Armenian citizens with critical skills essential for navigating the complex landscape of historical narratives.

The panel also spotlighted another groundbreaking educational initiative: the Museum of the 90s, an innovative exhibition project based in Belgrade, Serbia. This dynamic, interactive showcase transcends traditional museum boundaries, offering a multifaceted exploration of the tumultuous 1990s. What sets this exhibition apart is its commitment to contextualizing Balkan history within the broader global landscape of the decade. By weaving together tapestry of key moments, influential figures, popular culture touchstones, and seminal social and political movements, the Museum of the 90s aspires to serve as a regional catalyst for historical reconciliation, education and critical inquiry.

The 'Pristina Initiative to Establish the Children of War Museum', presented by Bjeshka Guri from Youth Initiative for Human Rights Kosovo, shares a similar vision. This innovative museum project aims to harness the power of interactive, multidimensional, and cutting-edge technologies. It demonstrates the vast potential of technology-driven approaches in reassessing the past, supporting reconciliation narratives, and addressing protracted conflicts that have scarred the region for decades.

Lastly, the Forum featured the Transition Dialogue project, which focuses on a participatory exploration of the post-1989 transformation period through collaboration with partners from Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. This project, in partnership with various organizations, educational institutions, and experts throughout Europe, aims to develop materials for political education, enhance international awareness, and improve history education modules in schools. Nora Korte highlighted a key strategy for achieving these objectives: the development of the training curriculum "Teaching History of Transition in Europe" and a handbook for History and Civic Education. Both the curriculum and the handbook are tailored for education professionals, particularly teachers, professional institutions, and educational multipliers interested in delving into the topic of post-socialist transformations in Europe.

1990s Through a Personal Lens: A Literary Journey with Nino Haratischwili

The 12th European History Forum’s opening day culminated with an enthralling book discussion featuring the acclaimed German-Georgian author, Nino Haratischwili. At the heart of the conversation was her 2022 novel, The Lack of Light, a poignant exploration of Georgia’s turbulent 1990s.

Haratischwili's narrative weaves a tapestry of a nation and a generation consumed by self-destructive revolution, interlaced with themes of love, betrayal, and the indomitable bonds of friendship among four women. Through her prose, she offers a deeply personal and intimate portrayal of the decade, viewed through the prism of a young woman's experiences. This gendered perspective adds a profound layer of reflection to an era marked by street violence, harassment, and brutality.

The event transcended mere literary discourse, resonating deeply with the audience through Haratischwili's candid reflections on her own journey. Her migration to Germany and the liminal years that followed mirror the broader experiences of her generation, characterized by a surge in emigration from post-Soviet countries to Western Europe. These intimate anecdotes brought a compelling human dimension to the forum, anchoring the discussion in the lived experiences of those who navigated this formative period.

Haratischwili's book talk stood out not only for its literary merit but also for its power to humanize historical narratives. By intertwining personal stories with broader societal shifts, she illuminated the complex interplay between individual lives and sweeping historical changes. Her narrative approach served as a touching reminder that history is not merely a sequence of events, but a mosaic of personal stories, each contributing to our understanding of the past.

This session exemplified the forum's commitment to exploring diverse perspectives on historical events. By giving voice to personal narratives, particularly those of women, Haratischwili's work and reflections enriched the discourse, offering a nuanced and multifaceted view of a pivotal decade in European history.

The imagination of Europe in the 1990s and Now

The cataclysmic events of the 1990s - the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the regime changes in Balkan states - necessitated a radical redefinition of Europe as a geographical, cultural, and political entity. This ongoing process of reinvention continues to shape the concept of Europe, now more than ever.

During the second day of the forum, experts and scholars gathered to discuss the role of the European idea amidst the turbulent development of the 1990s. There was a widespread consensus that the political landscape in Europe has undergone a seismic shift. In particular, the notion of a unified Europe, founded on democratic values and progressive political agendas, has faced numerous challenges and fluctuations. But especially today, the resurgence of far-right ideologies and the shift towards illiberal governance across Eastern, Southeastern, Western, and Central Europe have transformed the European future into a fiercely contested battleground of power struggles. Nowadays, democratic systems no longer occupy the canonical status as the only model of political system. Instead, we witness an anti-liberal backlash, an inevitable response in a world that lacked political and ideological alternatives, as observed by Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes in their seminal work, The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy.

The discussion at the last fishbowl of the forum echoed this explanation, highlighting the complex dynamics at play. Florian Peters from the University of Jena argued that somewhat counterintuitively, when the spread of European values was at stake on the eve of EU enlargement, Western European liberal democracy revealed itself to be more insular and self-concerned than open and welcoming. Peters highlighted the example of Poland's "conditional" EU integration path, underscoring the lack of reciprocity between the West and the East in opening borders, introducing free trade, and guaranteeing Eastern countries' integration within European borders.

Peters cited complaints from Polish dissidents, who noted that just as the East began to open its borders to the West, the West started to close its own. Although this approach has since changed, and Europe as an idea and political model has become more inclusive, Peters argued that these early transformation years of the 1990s, marked by preservationist politics, left a lasting impact and had significant political consequences, translating into Euroscepticism and criticism. However, subsequent years and new experiences have brought a new horizon of reevaluating these policies, and today, we see the European Union embracing an inclusive approach, welcoming countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia into its fold.

In conclusion, despite being contested and challenged, the idea of Europe remains a vital political actor in fighting against illiberalism, authoritarian inclinations, and right-wing politics. As we approach the 20-year mark since Eastern Central European countries joined the European Union, the EU is once again negotiating accession policies with three new states and playing a crucial role in countering Russia's neo-imperialist actions.

Summery

The 12th History Forum, held under the auspices of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, spotlighted key themes and questions about exploring, writing, and teaching contemporary history of the 1990s. Over two intensive days, discussions fostered new insights and approaches to comprehending the past, interpreting it while considering the diversities, heterogeneities, and multivocality of shared experiences.

Forum participants emphasized several key considerations. They highlighted the importance of gaining historical perspective by "zooming out" to view events in a broader context, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the decade's place in the larger historical narrative. The discussions also stressed the necessity of diversifying historical sources by incorporating a wider range of materials. These include oral histories, personal testimonies, photo and video materials from private archives and media archives. Such non-conventional sources provide a more nuanced and multifaceted documentation of the era.

Moreover, the Forum underscored the importance of embracing the complexity of the 1990s rather than seeking oversimplified narratives. This approach encourages a more critical and nuanced understanding of the period's events and their long-term impacts. The event also showcased innovative teaching methods, including interactive exhibitions and technology-driven approaches, as effective ways to engage learners with the history of the 1990s. These methods aim to make historical learning more immersive and relatable.

In conclusion, the Forum emphasized that the idea of Europe as a progressive space standing in constant opposition to imperialist politics and authoritarian agendas constitutes the core of European politics and its progressive nature. This concept of Europe should not be taken for granted but defended, reinvented, and cherished as a contested terrain. It is not absolute but changeable in its progressive nature, existing in relation to other regressive forces that strengthen or weaken over time.

Authors:

Tamar Qeburia
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Eastern European History 
Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt International Doctoral Program
Ilia State University & University of Göttingen 
Associated Researcher at the Institute of Social and Cultural Studies

Dino Šakanović
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo