My paper is about the phenomenon of historical memory of Joseph Stalin in the museums. The museum as an institution has a very important role in maintaining memory in the society. According to Marcin Kula's theory, the museum is a "carrier of memory".
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, 15 new countries had appeared. Each of its ex-republics have its own memory about the whole country and the role of the single republic. Of course there is also memory about Communist leaders, especially Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators of the XX century. His name is still connected with repressions, camps, occupation of the Eastern Europe. His figure is often presented and discussed at expositions about the history of XX century, especially on subject of times of Communist regime. Sometimes Stalin is one of the main perpetrations, sometimes just a symbol of terror.
Surprisingly, there are a lot of museums dedicated to Joseph Stalin in the ex-Soviet countries. Some of them had been opened in the Soviet Union and just never ended their work. The most well-known museum of that category is the Museum of Joseph Stalin in Gori town in Georgia. However, there are also some new Stalin museums. Usually these museums are playing the role of a temples as Duncan F. Cameron said. There are artefacts connected to Stalin which are used to show his way of making politics. These museums are not critical at all. Stalin is presented as a hero in these museums, the winner of the Second World War and a "great manager".
The important fact is that we have to deal with mix of different memories about Stalin. Sometimes there can be two different types of memories in one country. For example, there is the Museum of Baltic-White Sea Canal in Russia, which glorifies Joseph Stalin. At the same time, there is the Museum of Gulag history in Moscow, where Stalin is presented as the perpetrator. These tangled memories in the post-Soviet states make understanding of the common past complicated.
