Notwithstanding the fact that the Nazi-Soviet war of 1941-45 was the centerpiece of the devastating aggression the Axis powers launched, conducting comparisons as well as suggesting facile equivalences between fascism and Soviet communism have become something of a commonplace within the European mainstream – first in Western Europe during the Cold War and then, in the post-Cold War decades, across Eastern Europe too. Such comparisons – as well as those facile equivalences – have often been suggested via regime typologies, especially through the concept of totalitarianism (Geyer–Fitzpatrick, 2009). Links between European colonialism, on the one hand, and fascist movements and regimes, on the other, have repeatedly been dissected as well, not least via studies on imperialism, racism, and mass violence (Mazower, 2009). Such links have at times become the subject of public debates too, primarily though far from exclusively in Germany (Zimmerer, 2025). European colonialism and Soviet communism have mostly been understood as antagonistic forces in history since Soviet communist regimes tended to be vocal opponents of West European colonialism and empires. At the same time, Soviet communism, and the Soviet Union in particular, have also been repeatedly critiqued as forms of imperialism (Slobodian–Mark, 2018). It might therefore strike us as rather ironic that memories of the two within current European memory regimes seem largely disconnected, or may even have become implicit competitors, with the “crimes of Soviet communism” entering the EU’s mainstream politics of history earlier than the memory of European colonial history and colonial crimes (Sierp, 2020).
A starting point for the planned discussions is indeed that the intertwined histories and memories of all three sides of this memory triangle have recurrently been discussed already, however, the triangle itself – its history and present shape – has surprisingly rarely been conceptualized and even less often studied. Centering this crucial memory triangle is precisely where our workshop intends to provide new impulses and launch more comprehensive explorations. To close the aforementioned analytical gap, we shall aim to combine approaches from intellectual and conceptual history with those in the interdisciplinary field of memory studies; further approaches, or combinations of them, are most welcome too. In terms of our temporal and geographic scope, we are primarily interested in memories under such rules as well as in liberal democratic environments, especially within the European Union, over the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
A special issue of a leading academic journal is being planned. Beyond the analytical and the critical, we also aim at developing policy-relevant insights.
Subjects of particular interest include but are not restricted to
- Studies of historical actors and memory activists who have interconnected memories of European colonialism, Soviet communism, and fascism – and may have personally experienced all three
- Studies of intellectual products, including works of professional historiography, that analyze and reflect on the histories and memories of all three
- Studies of artistic engagement with these pasts across the generations, especially in public spaces, i.e. through sites of remembrance, museums, monuments etc.
- Studies that compare bilateral memories, or how have memories interacted on a bilateral basis, and what do we gain by comparing those bilateral relations – i.e., the three sides of our triangle – to each other?
- Studies that analyze and compare memory regions in Europe, i.e., how have memories of the three interacted in different parts of Europe? What are specific issues of mediation or perhaps conflict between the three in various parts of Europe? How have – (post)colonial and post-conflict – migrations impacted memory narratives on the regional level and beyond?
- Presentations that offer policy-relevant insights responding to questions such as the following: how have debates on the European level been shaped by national and regional specificities and their interactions? What memory issues might need to be addressed in different regions of Europe first? How to deal with the memory triangle on the European level today, how could European remembrance include memories of all three in a equitable manner?
Conveners: Ferenc Laczó, Diana M. Natermann, and Aline Sierp (Maastricht University)
Date and location: June 3 and 4, 2027 at the Brussels Hub of Maastricht University combined with a public panel at the House of European History co-organized by the latter institution
Please apply by sending an abstract of 250 to 300 words and a brief CV of max. two pages to Ferenc Laczó ( f.laczo@maastrichtuniversity.nl ) no later than Friday, October 30, 2026.
We will make sure to notify all applicants before the end of November.
References
Geyer, Michael and Sheila Fitzpatrick (eds.). Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.
Mark, James and Quinn Slobodian. “Eastern Europe in the Global History of Decolonization.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Ends of Empire. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2018.
Mazower, Mark. Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe. London: Allen Lane, 2009.
Rothberg, Michael. Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization. Redwood City: Stanford UP, 2009.
Sierp, Aline. “EU Memory Politics and Europe's Forgotten Colonial Past.” In: Interventions – International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 22/6 (2020), 686-702.
Zimmerer, Jürgen (ed.). Germany's History Wars: Contesting Memory and Identity Today. Berlin: de Gruyter – Oldenbourg, 2025.