Rusnė Marija Poligaitė (Vilnius University)
The presentation introduces a case of transformation of Soviet heritage in Kopūstėliai village (Ukmergė district), which has not yet been explored in academic discourse. From 1958 to 1988, one of the four Soviet missile bases in Lithuania operated here. After the withdrawal of the Soviet army and failed attempts to repurpose the former military site, Kopūstėliai became an abandoned borderland zone. On the one hand, it reflected the new state’s desire to turn away from a painful period of occupation; on the other, it mirrored the social, economic, and political turmoil that followed the restoration of independence in 1990. However, 2012 marked a turning point in the history of this territory – a club of partisan history enthusiasts called “Forest Brothers” settled here, revitalizing and restoring the former missile base. They repurposed it not only to commemorate the former military unit but also to promote knowledge about the resistance struggles of 1944–1953. This (re)shaping of Kopūstėliai is striking in its unexpected hybridity: by preserving its past, the site also becomes a storyteller of the partisan war against the occupation regime – the very regime whose security forces once operated in the area now taken over by resistance narratives. As a result, this once-unwanted Soviet legacy has turned into a representative site of the Ukmergė district and a location of historical memory – a status now reflected on the official city tourism website.
This transformation – combining seemingly incompatible elements: the legacy of a Soviet missile base and the revitalization of resistance history – raises broader questions about how the long-marginalized and controversial material culture of the Soviet occupation period can be reinterpreted to meet contemporary needs. The presentation analyzes the transformation of Kopūstėliai through the memory work carried out by its main actor – the “Forest Brothers” club. The study is characterized by the innovative use of analytical and methodological approaches. Instead of relying on traditional concepts typically associated with state-driven memory studies – such as “heritage” and Pierre Nora’s notion of “sites of memory” – the concepts of “legacy” and “memory work” are proposed, highlighting the role of personal initiative in memory processes. Additionally, the study employs an ethnographic method rarely used in memory studies. The presentation is based on fieldwork conducted in Kopūstėliai, where data was collected through (non-)participant observation – describing and visually documenting various memory-related activities (children’s and youth groups focused on the partisan movement, a guided tour about the Cold War and the site’s past, etc.) – and through semi-structured in-depth interviews with members and staff of the “Forest Brothers” club.
The research reveals several aspects relevant to the conference’s themes. First, by showing how civil society actors can participate in (re)shaping and nurturing collective memory, the case of Kopūstėliai encourages us to think of memory not only as a hegemonic structure but also as a democratic and pluralistic process open to (re)interpretation. Second, the activities of the “Forest Brothers” reflect a contemporary need for inspiration and symbols of freedom. One of the key motivations for developing the narrative of freedom struggles at the former Soviet missile base is the perception that, at the state level, the memory of the partisan war is not sufficiently acknowledged—especially in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. In this context, the aggressor is identified as a historically unchanged existential “Other” that still poses a threat to Lithuania, and the example of the postwar partisans is seen as a vital link connecting the past, present, and future. Finally, it is suggested that the microcosm of Kopūstėliai functions as a unique reflection of broader macro processes. Although the condemnation of the Soviet occupation as a painful traumatic experience remains a firm axiom, the radical erasure of this period from memory—common in the first decades of independence—is no longer seen as a sustainable way to build the future. On the contrary, in light of current geopolitical realities, the duty to remember and preserve Soviet heritage, which distinguishes the former occupier from the occupied, becomes a symbolic victory and a demonstration of strength of the powerless.