Black Ribbon Day: A Quiet Struggle Over Historical Memory

On August 23, communities across Europe and North America observed Black Ribbon Day, also known as the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. The day seeks to commemorate the violence perpetrated by the twentieth century’s fascist and communist regimes.

Soviet and other communist crimes are part of our shared historical memory. Soviet and communist policies and actions killed millions in the last century. The conceit of Black Ribbon Day, which effectively blends Nazi and Soviet crimes, is counterproductive, however, because it waters down the historical specificity of each act of violence and each victim group in ways that may lead to less understanding.

On June 3, 2008, prominent former prisoners, historians, and politicians signed the “Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism.” Almost immediately, Sweden and Finland declared August 23 a day of remembrance for victims of communism and fascism. Then, in September, a proclamation to establish August 23 as a “Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism” was presented to the European Parliament – a measure it adopted in April 2009. That summer, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania began to mark Black Ribbon Day. Canada soon joined in, as did Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia.

Supporters of Black Ribbon Day see it as an essential recognition of the millions who suffered under Nazism and Marxism-Leninism. Critics see danger in commemorating them under a single framework.

Communist crimes differ from Nazi crimes in intent, scope, and outcome. Attempts to equate trivialize the Holocaust by suggesting that it was simply the result of a “totalitarian impulse.” They also open the door to providing an excuse for crimes against Jews, at least in some cases.

Consider debates that have been occurring in Hungary since at least 2002, when that country's government opened its House of Terror museum – an institution that simultaneously presented Nazi and communist crimes as alike, while contributing to the false impression that Hungarian Jews were communists. We see similar challenges elsewhere, but it is particularly acute in Ukraine where the search for anti-Russian and anti-Soviet national heroes has led to the whitewashing of some Nazi collaborators. Over the past two decades, dozens of streets, statues, commemorative coins, and public proclamations have praised such persons. Recently, the Ukrainian government reinterred the remains of the leader of one such organization and named a military unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a paramilitary that collaborated with the Nazis and was complicit in the murders of Jews and tens of thousands of Poles. Such decisions recently led to a diplomatic rupture with Poland, a country that has been a stalwart defender of Ukraine ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022.

How can a society come to terms with the actions of those who fought against one set of crimes while contributing to a different evil? Answering that question will provide an important pathway to responsible remembrance; and one that the USC Shoah Foundation seeks to model through our programs and our collection.

Recognizing the commonalities of authoritarian violence can deepen our understanding of history, but we cannot allow comparison to erase the realities that distinguish one atrocity from another. The Holocaust was unique, just as crimes like the Soviet-induced famine of Ukraine, the Holodomor, was distinct. Nazism sought to eliminate every Jew simply because they were Jewish. Stalinism utilized violence as a mechanism of control, to exacerbate class warfare, and to remake the state in accordance with the vision set forth by Marxism-Leninism. The challenge is remembering these histories together for what makes them similar and different.

As the number of eyewitnesses continues to diminish, our responsibility only grows. Remembering history faithfully means preserving the truths of the past. While we might hope for greater understanding, today’s “memory wars” grow more complicated and intense with each passing day. This is why our focus on survivors’ voices, on seeing the world through the eyes who lived this past is so critical.