After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, "revisionist" museums about the Soviet era were eventually opened in many post-Soviet countries, showing off newly established tendencies in memory politics against the recent past. The narrative of a Soviet "occupation" played the crucial role in representing the Soviet victimhood, and as a main trend in the perception of the Soviet era especially during the 1990s. So-called "museums of occupation" opened in six post-Soviet countries and immediately became objects of heated debate about the appropriative way to exhibit the Soviet past. As a result of these discussions some museums of occupation (mostly those found in Baltic countries) recently went through substantial changes which revealed even more ambivalence and controversy of the "occupation" narrative.
This paper analyses "occupation" narratives of two Ukrainian museums: The Museums of the Soviet Occupation (2007) and The Museum of Kyiv Occupations. The main focus is on the creators of the museums exhibitions, the specifics of the narrative, as well as how the narrative is perceived by visitors. Using a comparative approach, the author compares these Ukrainian museums of occupation with those found in other post-Soviet countries, identifying the differences and similarities in the presentations of the "occupation" topic. This paper will also discuss the uniqueness of the Ukrainian "occupation" narrative in memory politics of the Soviet past.
The paper argues that in comparison with other post-socialist countries, the topic of "occupation" does not play a significant role in the museumification of communism in Ukraine. As a "memorial" existing in the private sector, the Ukrainian Museum of Occupation is not well recognized at the state level and therefore does not receive any state logistical or financial support. This tends to restrict its function to a rather simple "museum room." The Museum of Kyiv Occupations is a branch of the public-run Kyiv History Museum. Following the Decree of City Council, it appeared after a reconfiguring of the Museum of the Partisan Glory (2008) which originally provided a standard Soviet style narrative. The exhibition of the Museum of Kyiv Occupation was placed in a space not originally intended for an exhibit, without any special preparation or financial support; and as a result, it does not provide a professional narrative about the two occupations.
There is also an "internal" problem of "significance" when exhibiting the Soviet occupation in Ukraine, as there is a contextual issue. Whereas most Eastern European museums place a strong emphasis on the occupations, Ukraine's narratives tend to focus more on the Holodomor as being the primary example of Soviet victimhood. With the Holodomor being a state supported grand narrative, all other topics such as Soviet occupations get marginalized in importance.
