The Legal Heritage of the Atom 161
Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that the legal acts for many victims constituted a means to receive a certain recognition inside the homeland
society. For some victims of Nazi crimes (e.g. former forced laborers), who
had been stigmatized for decades as “homeland traitors” according to the
Soviet narrative of World War II, this aspect of public acknowledgment of
their suffering was even more important than the material benefits. Those
who received compensation payments often gained recognition on two levels: within society, as the injustices they had suffered were finally publicly
acknowledged; and within their family circles, as they were now able to
contribute significantly to the family budget. 109
Conclusion
Comparing the developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan,
we can conclude that the national legislations took place in a larger post-Soviet
space, influencing each other in various ways and coinciding with state- and
nation-building as well as with processes of social and economic transformation. Differences between the countries become visible: while the acknowledgment of victims of radioactive contamination played a central role in
the nation-building in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan since the 1990s,
this was not to the same extent the case in the Russian Federation. While
Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakh laws (to different degrees) attempted to
settle accounts with the deleterious Soviet past in a retributive process, the
developments in Russia took a different path. Dissimilar to the Chernobyl
victims in Ukraine or Belarus and Semipalatinsk victims in Kazakhstan, the
Russian victims of the Chernobyl and Chelyabinsk disasters were not an
integral part of the Post-Soviet Russian nation-building process. Moreover,
they were not perceived as victims of an inhuman Soviet system, but rather
as individuals who happened to be in the “influence zone of unfavorable
factors.” This might be due to still prevailing views that these inhabitants
were bearing the consequences of the Soviet nuclear shield, thus protecting
Soviet citizens as a whole. Today, the Russian state’s dominant history policy
under Putin, focusing entirely on Russia’s heroic past (including renewed
admiration of Stalin) leaves little scope for considering victims of this past.
Post-Soviet historiography and remembrance cultures have developed differently in the successor states of the Soviet Union, and today there is a lack of
a common narrative on the history of the Soviet era. This is precisely why
competing images of history are repeatedly used by all actors as a “weapon”
against the respective enemy and legitimize their own political actions. 110
Compensation and social protection laws for victims of radioactive contamination as well as for other groups of victims (e.g. victims of Stalinism
or Nazi crimes) overlapped with nation-building and general political, economic, and social transformation processes in the post-Soviet states. For parts
of the population, they represented a means of alleviating their economic
plight and at the same time addressing past injustices.
Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that the legal acts for many victims constituted a means to receive a certain recognition inside the homeland
society. For some victims of Nazi crimes (e.g. former forced laborers), who
had been stigmatized for decades as “homeland traitors” according to the
Soviet narrative of World War II, this aspect of public acknowledgment of
their suffering was even more important than the material benefits. Those
who received compensation payments often gained recognition on two levels: within society, as the injustices they had suffered were finally publicly
acknowledged; and within their family circles, as they were now able to
contribute significantly to the family budget. 109
Conclusion
Comparing the developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan,
we can conclude that the national legislations took place in a larger post-Soviet
space, influencing each other in various ways and coinciding with state- and
nation-building as well as with processes of social and economic transformation. Differences between the countries become visible: while the acknowledgment of victims of radioactive contamination played a central role in
the nation-building in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan since the 1990s,
this was not to the same extent the case in the Russian Federation. While
Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakh laws (to different degrees) attempted to
settle accounts with the deleterious Soviet past in a retributive process, the
developments in Russia took a different path. Dissimilar to the Chernobyl
victims in Ukraine or Belarus and Semipalatinsk victims in Kazakhstan, the
Russian victims of the Chernobyl and Chelyabinsk disasters were not an
integral part of the Post-Soviet Russian nation-building process. Moreover,
they were not perceived as victims of an inhuman Soviet system, but rather
as individuals who happened to be in the “influence zone of unfavorable
factors.” This might be due to still prevailing views that these inhabitants
were bearing the consequences of the Soviet nuclear shield, thus protecting
Soviet citizens as a whole. Today, the Russian state’s dominant history policy
under Putin, focusing entirely on Russia’s heroic past (including renewed
admiration of Stalin) leaves little scope for considering victims of this past.
Post-Soviet historiography and remembrance cultures have developed differently in the successor states of the Soviet Union, and today there is a lack of
a common narrative on the history of the Soviet era. This is precisely why
competing images of history are repeatedly used by all actors as a “weapon”
against the respective enemy and legitimize their own political actions. 110
Compensation and social protection laws for victims of radioactive contamination as well as for other groups of victims (e.g. victims of Stalinism
or Nazi crimes) overlapped with nation-building and general political, economic, and social transformation processes in the post-Soviet states. For parts
of the population, they represented a means of alleviating their economic
plight and at the same time addressing past injustices.