Nadezhda Vasilyeva GAUGN;

Mikhail Chernysh, Ph.D. (Academic Advisor)

Felix: The Bloody or the Iron – on the Dzerzhinsky monument:

General information

The Dzerzhinsky monument is a statue of Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, a Soviet statesman, a member of the Soviet government heading several commissariats and the founder of the Emergency Commission – Soviet State Security forces (Cheka).

Today the monument is situated in the Muzeon park of Sculptures near the Central House of Artists on the edge of the Moscow River. The monument was originally was put on Lubyanskaya square, which was renamed Dzerzhinsky Square for many years (1926–1990).

The weight of the sculpture without pedestal is 11 ton.

The statue was created by prominent Soviet sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich, who also created such monuments as Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park, Berlin (1946), Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares in the United Nations garden (1957), The Motherland Calls! at Mamayev Kurgan (1967). The architect of the statue was Sergei Speransky.

The idea to erect a monument to Dzerzhinsky was set fourth ten years after his death in a Political Bureau of the CPSU decree from July 19, 1936: “Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky‘s 10th death anniversary prescript” № 41, p. 1841. The decree established:

1. For “Pravda”, “Izvestiya” “Za Indusrializatsiyu”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda” and other papers to report in details on life and work of Felix Dzerzhinsky, one of the closest associates of Lenin, the unswerving defender of unity amongst the party ranks, the Founder of the Emergency Commission – Joint State Political Directorate and the facilitator for the Party’s first big accomplishments in the sector of industry and transport.

1 http://www.muzeon.ru/articles/116-dzerzhinskii-pamyatnik-i-chelovek 2. To set the monument to Felix Dzerzhinsky on the Dzerzhinsky Square in Moscow.

3. To rename after Felix Dzerzhinsky: a) Tagil Carriage Works b) Krasnopresnenskaya Manufacturing Works c) Kurskaya Railway line d) Lyuberetskaya Working Commune

4. To cause a municipal Party core group and NKVD members meeting in the Memory of Felix Dzerzhinsky to be organized by All-Union Communist Party Moscow Committee in NKVD club.

The unveiling of the monument was held on December 20, 1958, at 41st anniversary of the creation of the Emergency Commission.

The monument was dismantled on August 22, 1991, during the Soviet coup d'état attempt, also known as the August Putsch. A huge crowd of people gathered at Lubyanskaya square and had attempted to demolish the statue of its own accord, so the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Council Sergei Stankevich had to decide forthwith and to pass a verdict for the statue to be toppled by a crane on that very night.

After the removal the monument was moved to the Muzeon park of Sculptures near the Central House of Artists on the edge of the Moscow River, where it remains at the present day.

Social and historical background

The decision to erect the monument was taken in 1936, during the Joseph Stalin’s reign. The USSR was forcing the process of socialist construction and tightening the political regime in the 1930s. The creation of the new type of society required not only changing the sociopolitical image of the country, but also ideological influence on the county’s population, on its world view. The influence on the population was being exerted via culture and art. The ideological pressure had a tangible impact on architecture and urban development of Moscow in the 20s and 30s: many streets and squares were renamed, a lot of churches and monasteries were destroyed, the monuments for idols of czarist regime were demolished and replaced with the monuments for Marx, Engels and Lenin. Theatre Square became Sverdlov Square, Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street was renamed in honour of Alexander Herzen, Varvarskaya Square – in the name of Nogin, Tverskaya Street – in the name of Maxim Gorky, Znamenka street was renamed after Mikhail Frunze, the Patriarch's Ponds were renamed Pioneers' Ponds, and this list can go on for very long. Among the demolished memorials were monuments to Alexander II and Alexander III. Such monasteries as Strastnoy Convent, Nikitsky Convent, Zachatyevsky Convent, Zlatoustovsky and Sretensky Monastery were destroyed. The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was exploded in 1931 initially in order to build the huge Palace of the Soviets in its place2.

Felix Dzerzhinsky was an outstanding Soviet statesman. Best known for establishing and developing the Soviet State Security forces, Dzerzhinsky was also very active in other spheres: he was the Chairman of the Committee for juvenile delinquency and homelessness, soviet minister for Transport Systems, the Chairman for Supreme Soviet of National Economy, and the founder of Dinamo Sport Society. It is worth noting that all of these institutions were working very efficiently. Dzerzhinsky was also a professional revolutionist and contributed significantly to the Soviet regime establishment. So after the main communist ideologues, such as Marx, Engels and Lenin, and also reining ruler at the time – Joseph Staling, it was Felix Dzerzhinsky who was the worthiest to be commemorated as a bronze figure. For the Bolsheviks he was the ideal embodiment of the Soviet regime, the manifestation of its power and efficiency. Apart from building the monument, on 1936 the Political Bureau of the CPSU made a ruling for the biggest media to report in details on life and work of Dzerzhinsky, and he was described as a “one of the closest associates of Lenin, the unswerving defender of unity amongst the party ranks, the Founder of the Emergency Commission – Joint State Political Directorate and the facilitator for the Party’s first big accomplishments in the sector of industry and transport”. Dzerzhinsky was a very multi- faceted state figure, and the Soviets obviously made an effort to memorialize all of his accomplishments.

2 http://мировая-история.рф/otrazhenie-novoj-ideologii-v-oblike-moskvy-sovetskaya-arxitektura-20-30-x- godov.html But the monument was actually erected much later, in 1958, during the period known as the Khrushchev Thaw.

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 may be considered the beginning of the Thaw. At that Congress Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party at the time delivered the speech criticizing the personality cult and repressions of Joseph Stalin. The Congress had ushered in drastic changes in the country’s social and political life. The official Soviet censorship were had weakened, so-called “iron curtain” (a symbol of Soviet Union’s tendency to block itself the west and non-Soviet- controlled areas) was risen a bit. Khrushchev initiated a wave of rehabilitations that officially restored the reputations of millions of innocent victims who were convicted in the times of Stalin, also a lot of political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps. As a result of loosening the ideological control, Soviet art and literature found themselves on the uprising.

The 22nd Congress of the Communist Party adopted the Third Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which declared that Soviet Union had entered a new stage of development, the stage of the completion of the building of a Socialist society and the gradual transition to Communist society.

Nevertheless, despite the loosening up, art and culture were still under government and Party control. The Ministry of Culture of the USSR was established in 1953. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was still setting the guiding principles in the sphere of art. In the context of adopted the Third Program of the Communist Party the creative intelligentsia of Soviet society was once again given a task to draw a positive appearing image of socialistic reality and Soviet economy’s achievements and to animadvert upon bourgeois culture.

The Felix Dzerzhinsky figure fit very well into country’s declared course: he was an active politician with a strong commitment to communist idea, not sparing himself for the sake of the country. His position of the Cheka founder was not also forgotten, of course, but it was unlikely to be in the center of attention taking into consideration the criticism of repressions and massive innocent victim rehabilitation that Khrushchev proclaimed. The government’s idea for the erected monument wasn’t to symbolize the all-might of Soviet State Security forces, at least officially. The “bloody” reputation of Felix became the main discourse decades later.

Demolition of the monument

The monument was removed from Lubyanskaya square on the night August 22, 1991, after the failure of August Coup – an attempt by members of the Soviet Union’s government to take control of the country from Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev.

A group of high-level officials within the Soviet government had created the State Committee of the State of Emergency (GKChP) on 18 August 1991 in order to preserve the integrity of the Soviet Union and building the constitutional order. But within two days the attempted coup collapsed, the Gorbachev, who was arrested by GKChP returned to the government. By the August 22 most of the GKChP members were arrested and from the morning that day victorious Russian were parading in the center of Moscow with Russian national flags.

According to eyewitness accounts, a crowd of people gathered in the center of Moscow was initially planning to take the KGB and the CPSU Central Committee headquarters by storm3. (The KGB headquarters was also situated on Lubyanskaya square, and the Central Committee building was very nearby). It was more than somewhat risky idea open to many hazards and great loss of life, since the security staff member who remained in the building were capable of making a stout resistance, not to mention there were snipers on roofs all around the place, ready to open fire in case of combat assault.

It was a narrow pinch, but the crowd’s rage was successfully redirected onto another object – the Dzerzhinsky monument. It is hard to say who can take credit for that: whether it was a wise move from someone directing the actions and trying to prevent fatal casualties, or a self- defense act from officials left in the buildings, or a spontaneous idea of a crowd itself, or maybe it was all of that at once. But the point is that the crowd’s rage was flopped over onto the Dzerzhinsky monument which at that moment became the embodiment of Soviet regime and all of its crimes in people’s minds. The regime was crushing right in front of their eyes, and so should have the monument.

The size of the crowd at Lubyanskaya square was variously estimated at from 7 to 15 thousand people. They flocked around the monument and demanded its immediate dismantlement. On the statue and its pedestal they daubed such inscriptions as “antichrist”,

3http://www.rulife.ru/mode/article/801/ http://lll22021918.livejournal.com/330490.html http://www.mhg.ru/publications/E3FCEA4

“bloody executioner” and “shit in a leather coat”. The crowd was chanting “Down with the tyrant!” and “Freedom!”. Someone managed to climb onto the statue and wrap a rope around its neck, like a noose, and attempted to topple it with the help of a small bus. But they didn’t manage to throw it down that way – the statue was too heavy.

Sergei Stankevich, the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Council, was hastily summoned to the scene of action. He claims that had the crowd succeed to topple the statue with the help of a bus, it would have led to major human losses, since the bronze tends to cleave into many pieces when fallen from height. Furthermore, there was an imminent risk to damage the voltage cables from a subway station right under the square. He tried to tell all that to the crowd with a megaphone, but the crowd didn’t want to listen. So the urgent solution to dismantle the monument had to be taken by Moscow City Council, and the officials were able to calm the crowd down a little bit only by promising that building crane to dismantle the statue is on its way. They officials managed to cordon the monument off until the arrival of the crane, although the crowd tried to break the cordon few times while waiting.4 When the building crane arrived it was saluted with cheers from people. The statue was lifted and safely put on the ground. It was placed near the Central House of Artists on the edge of the Moscow River, since later that location became the Muzeon park of Sculptures where many other former Soviet monuments were kept.

Modern political context

The Dzerzhinsky monument is still a very topical issue for Russian society, media and politicians. The main discussion revolves around the subject of whether the monument should be returned to its original place at Lubyanskaya square or not. The main supporters of the idea to return the monument are, first of all, The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and unions of ex-members of various Soviet organizations, such as Komsomol or Security Services. Also amongst the supporters are: The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and A Just Russia party and some civil activists and officials. Against the return: The Russian United Democratic Party “Yabloko”, Union of Right Forces Party, Russian Orthodox Church, Russian historical and civil rights society “Memorial”, and a number of other authorities and social movement (for more detail see Table 1).

4 http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/15387/ The central issue in the debate is what is it that figure of Felix Dzerzhinsky symbolizes in history and for modern-day Russia. Dzerzhinsky played a big role in the history of our country and his work is closely related to one of the most hellish and bloody chapters of our history – the Civil War and the so-called Red Terror – a campaign of mass killings, torture, and systematic oppression conducted by the Bolsheviks during period of the Civil War. But Dzerzhinsky was also one of those who worked very hard to restore normal life in desolated country. In particular, he summoned up state forces in the campaign against child homelessness, he restored the country’s transport systems, he acted as a vigorous fighter against corruption and abuse of privilege in power.

All of these topics, especially the mass killings in time of Civil War, are quite complex and sensitive for Russian society and cause stormy emotional response. The monument has become a controversial symbol that polarizes Russian society. Different sociopolitical forces emphasize different sides of Dzerzhinsky’s occupation, and depending on that gauge his activity in different ways, and, thus may perceive the idea of the monument’s return on Lubyanskaya square diversely.

The discussion reopens every time media reports of some initiative concerning the monument, whether it is placing the question on the agenda for the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma, or a press statement of some official to support the monument’s return. It is exactly the idea of monument’s return that sparks public outcry – while placed in Muzeon park, the monument causes no resentment whatsoever and actually draws almost no attention. The monument becomes a symbol only in a certain context: when placed in the center of Lubyanskaya square, in front of the building that used to be KGB headquarters and where now the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) headquartered. The thing is, Lubyanskaya square has become a kind of a symbol itself, and its vernacular name – Lubyanka – can be used to designate the Soviet Security forces. So when it’s placed on Lubyanka, the symbolism of the monument goes beyond the Dzerzhinsky character, it spreads further and reaches the whole image of powerful KGB that long outlasted its founder.

So the topical issue is not only the idea to return the monument on Lubyanskaya square, but also various meanings it conveys: different values the monument may designate and what its return to Lubyanskaya square may symbolize it people’s eyes. There are several distinctive contexts in regard to the monument’s symbolism. The first major division lies here:

1. Dzerzhinsky monument 2. Dzerzhinsky monument = a work of art = a monument to historical figure

The debates mainly focus on the historical sense of Dzerzhinsky character and it’s gonna be explained in details further, but the first context also exists. For example, former mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov put a focus on it when speaking in favor of the monument’s return in 20025. It is also often being mentioned by many “arts personalities” in Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma – painters, fine art experts, sculptor. In this contest the monument is usually called a great work of art of genius sculptor Vuchetich, and also a brilliant architectural and town-planning solution, since it was holding the whole square together and without it the square doesn’t look that good at all6. The sculptor-creator’s son, writer Victor Vuchetich told that from the very beginning on the stage of designing the monument his father and his colleagues were given a very important task: “to put up a center spot on the square that didn’t exist”, since the frame of the square was only starting to be built. According to him, even many prominent foreign artists admit that in terms of architecture the solution is simply brilliant.7

But a monument to historical figure always coveys not only esthetical, but also symbolical, and that perspective is impossible to ignore. In terms of subject matter the discourse may turn into two paths:

2. Dzerzhinsky monument = a monument to historical figure

2.2. the monument as an embodiment of 2.1. the monument to work of Felix Soviet Security forces’ work and even of Dzerzhinsky personally Soviet regime

5 http://lenta.ru/culture/2002/09/13/felix/ 6 session of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma on February 11, 2014 7 http://www.5-tv.ru/programs/broadcast/504971/ Any monument is always a symbol that carries certain later of historical and social memory, but in case of a monument to a specific personality who actually excited, a monument may be view in a narrower connotation – exclusively in terms of this very personality and its activity. In the case of Dzerzhinsky monument both positions encounter in general debate and both may have positive as well as negative evaluation.

We begin from approach that restrains the monument’s symbolism to only Felix Dzerzhinsky personally. It also divides into two ways, with the “+” and “-” signs:

2.1. the monument to work of Felix Dzerzhinsky personally

2.1.1. Dzerzhinsky as defeater of juvenile 2.1.2. Dzerzhinsky as Cheka founder, mass homelessness and fighter against corruption, killings and summary executions initiator his achievements is transport and economics (-) (+)

This division into positive and negative terminals is not about the same person being judged differently, but about choosing different phenomena, different parts of his work, each of which is quite unambiguous. There is no real doubt that defeating juvenile homelessness is good and mass killings are bad, so those with different attitudes towards Dzerzhinsky just pick different sides of him and use them as arguments.

Usually the positive arguments (marked 2.1.1) are used primarily by those who somehow bear a relation to aftermath of Dzerzhinsky activity in those spheres, such as “State Security Veterans” society members, one deputy who was brought up in an orphan home and exemplified by Dzerzhinsky’s personality, and the Communist Party members. They also usually speak of such qualities of Dzerzhinsky as professionalism, total dedication to work, honesty and decency, and hold him up as an example for today’s bureaucrats8. It is worthy of note that their opponents sometimes also admit some good parts in Dzerzhinsky’s work, but

8 http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=209955 they do not consider them justificative enough: for example, the “Memorial” society members admit his merits in defeating juvenile homelessness, but they claim this homelessness to be the result of mass killings on Dzerzhinsky orders in the first place.9

As for negative part of arguments against Dzerzhinsky – their point seems to be quite obvious. And this is the way there are usually used – par for the course, as this allegation is self-evident, plus it’s very emotionally coloured. Unlike the positive arguments that are sometimes used as counterargument in debates, the negative ones go first and foremost.

And here’s an interesting moment about counterarguments: not only Dzerzhinsky’s merits are used as arguments in his support, but also the whole approach that restrains the monument’s symbolism to only his personality (marked as 2.1), and not the more far-reaching embodiment (marked 2.2). But this is clearer compared with 2.2 discourse.

The Dzerzhinsky monument, especially in the context of Lubyanka, is for some people the embodiment of the whole Soviet State Security machine, with all the consequences and characterizations that come with it. While the State Security machine in its turn may also represent the whole Soviet government, which draws its own senses into the discourse. This context may also be used in both positive and negative senses:

2.2. the monument as an embodiment of Soviet Security forces’ work and even of Soviet regime

2.2.1.State Security apparatus as a non- 2.2.2. State Security apparatus as a symbol corrupted structure, an example for today’s of the “bloody regime”, the root of all evil in bureaucrats (+) Soviet Union (-)

As any kind of organization, the Soviet State Security forces had their beneficial and negative impacts. And the benefits are usually being pointed at by those who had something to do with them, such as “State Security Veterans” society members and Communist Party members. In

9 http://polit.ru/article/2002/09/16/611780/ their opinion the Dzerzhinsky monument can be a strong emotional charge for those who work at Lubyanka now on very important jobs.

But unlike the positive far-reaching contest of Dzerzhinsky figure, the negative expanded associations are used commonly by any kind of people, from online-discussant to statespeople. For example, famous Russian politician, Soviet dissident and former political prisoner Valeriya Novodvorskaya associates the monument, or, to be more precise, its removal with “all that dark, bloody, villainous dull Soviet past” that they aiming to get rid of in August 199110. Russian statesman and liberal politician Boris Nemtsov even called the idea of monument’s return a “large-scale provocation aimed to split Russia apart”11. It is clear that such statements have very little to do with the Felix Dzerzhinsky personally. The monument is being called “the symbol of the bloody regime” 12,, and its potential return – “a callous disregard of memory of millions of victims of political repression” 13. And here’s the moment mentioned previously: restraining the monument’s symbolism works in Felix’s defense. “What bloody regime are you talking about? It began in 1937!” 14 – that was an argument adduced by one of the members of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma at the session on February 11, 2014. Considering the fact that Dzerzhinsky had died in 1926 he can hardly be held fully liable for all the crimes committed by Soviet machine. Although the objection lodged here it was Dzerzhinsky who created the institution responsible for all the followed repression and therefor he is to be held accountable for them to. But that is a question for historians, what matter to us is that one of the meaning it conveys is being the whole Soviet State Security machine, all of the repressions conducted by Soviet system and all the negatives of the system.

That very context is may considered to be the reason for so much conflict around the monument, and even the reason it was dismantled back in 1991. It worked as a kind the lightning rod on which the people’s fury was unleashed, while the people were clamouring against the state in the whole. Sergei Stankevich who was directing the demolition said than

10 http://www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/1908555.html 11 http://www.newsru.com/russia/16sep2002/pamyat.html 12 session of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma on February 11, 2014 13 http://polit.ru/article/2002/09/16/611780/ 14 session of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma on February 11, 2014 on that August day people had no plan, no intention to throw down this monument in particular, it’s just the crowd’s energy needed some tangible symbol to pounce at 15

Therefore, the perception of the Dzerzhinsky monument in minds of the Russians mainly shuttles between two images, which are preserved in Russian language in for of two conventional epithets: “the Bloody Felix” and the “Iron Felix”. The “Bloody Felix” is a bloody executioner and KGB founder. And “the Iron Felix” had been working selflessly for the sake of the country and helped it achieve great triumphs. Both of these appellatives have been given to Felix within his lifetime and depict the lively public perception of his figure supremely well.

Another interesting moment is that the monument’s symbolism consists not only of the sculpture itself, but also the lettering daubed on it before its removal in 1991 may be included. The inscriptions such as “Away with the executioners” and “Thank you, Borya” [meaning Boris Yeltsin, the first Russian president] still remain in the statue. The Muzeon park administration has kept them on purpose, since they consider them to be the historic material as well, just as the sculpture itself16.

As it turned out to be, Moscow authorities take the same attitude: in April 2014 a delegate from Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow, which is now responsible for the monument, informed the public that not only they intend to keep the inscriptions, but also to make them a subject matter of protection.

Such decision was met with a mixed reaction even among the art historians: some of them consider these inscriptions to be the key artefact and a symbol of very important events in Russian history; while some say that “handwriting on the monument is not the history of art, but the history of vandalism”17.

The return of the monument is among the most burning questions for Russian general public and media. Amongst 6 items placed on the agenda for the latest session of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma in February 2014 it was the Dzerzhinsky monument that caused the most media hype. The Commission chairman Lev Lavrenov even decided to bring in up for discussion in the first instance because of that, even though this topic was originally listed №3. There were 13 different media representatives

15 http://www.5-tv.ru/programs/broadcast/504971/ 16 http://www.muzeon.ru/articles/23-kollektsiya-muzeona 17 http://ria.ru/culture/20140404/1002551606.html present at the session, and 11 of them have left the conference room after the decision concerning Dzerzhinsky monument was taken.

Such great interest was also mentioned by the Department of Culture representative18. According to him, each time this topic is brought up in a press somehow, they instantly receive a huge amount of letters from concerned citizens, and numbers of letter “for” and “against” the return is pretty much the same.

All in all, those responsible for making a decision of whether or not the monument should be returned to Lubyanskaya square tend to take a neutral stance and indicate that the society hasn’t arrived at a common view on the topic yet. They prefer to put a question away for later, to let the future generations judge and make the decision19.

It does seem fair, since public disputes on the monument are still very controversial and emotionally coloured. Such epithets as “murderer” and “bloody executioner” are of frequent occurrence in online-discussions, alongside even with Hitler and Stalin parallels.

Although public opinion poll conducted by Russian Public Opinion Research Center in December 2013 reveals that almost half of Russians (45 %) support the initiative to return the statue of Dzerzhinsky to Lubyanka. One-quarter of respondents oppose them (25%). Those who support the idea to restore the monument say that we should remember our history (46%). They also say that Dzerzhinsky was an important public figure (23%), that we should preserve the memory of this person (13%, and that statues should not be dismantled (10%). Those who oppose them believe that Dzerzhinsky does not deserve it (29%). Some say that the restoration will take lots of money (15%); others say that the restoration is pointless (16%)20.

These results somewhat discord with the position expressed by Russian authorities, political figures and social entities. From 2002 to 2014 the support for the idea to restore the monument was expressed 6 times by various officials, while the protest – 9 times. And every time matters came to the actual decision making, the negative answer was given (for more detail see Table 1).

18 session of the Commission for art in architecture attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma on February 11, 2014 19 same 20 http://wciom.com/index.php?id=61&uid=891 Table 1 – Activity around Dzerzhinsky monument

Type of actions number actors Year of cases

Resolution to dismantle the 1 the Moscow City Council 1991 monument from Lubyanskaya Square

Resolution to return the monument 1 State Duma 1998 on Lubyanskaya Square - made default

Filing an application to restore the 6 civilians 2001; monument to the Commission for 2004; art in architecture attached to the 2005; Moscow Municipal Duma 2013

International union of Soviet Army 2002 Officers, a group of WWII veterans

party organization of CPRF «Komsomol 2002 veterans»

Filing an application to restore the 2 The Union of Right Forces political party 2002 monument to the Moscow “State Security Veterans” society 2008 Municipal Duma

Rejecting of application to return 8 Commission for art in architecture 2000; the monument on Lubyanskaya attached to the Moscow Municipal Duma 2001; Square 2002; 2004; 2005; 2014

Moscow Municipal Duma 2002 Attempt to challenge the resolution 1 civil activist Lebedeva 2001 to dismantle the monument in Moscow City Court

Filing an application to restore the 1 civil activist Lebedeva 2004 monument to Supreme Court of the Russian Federation– claim dismissed

Expressing the initiative the idea to 6 Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov 2002 restore the monument by The Communist Party of the Russian 2007; competent authorities Federation 2008; 2009

The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia 2009

A Just Russia party 2014

Expressing the protest against the 9 The Russian United Democratic Party 2002 idea to restore the monument by “Yabloko” competent authorities The Union of Right Forces political party 2002

A Liberal Russia Party 2002

Administration of the President of the 2002 Russian Federation

“Memorial” society 2002; 2008

Russian Orthodox Church 2002; 2008

“Human Rights Watch” organization 2008 Moscow office

Проведение общественной акции 1 “Labour Russia” movement 2000 за восстановление памятника

Holding a campaign for restoring 1 Political parties: Union of Right Forces, 2002 the monument Yabloko, A Liberal Russia; “Memorial” society

Collecting signatures against 1 The Union of Right Forces political party 2002 restoring the monument

Fund raising for restoring the 1 “Strategical Security Foundation” society 2009 monument

An open letter with a proposition to 1 Stavropol Territory deputy Andrei Razin 2002 buy the monument

Condition survey of the monument 1 Department of Cultural Heritage of 2011 Moscow

Developing the monument’s 1 Department of Cultural Heritage of 2012 restoration plan Moscow

Appendix 1: Photographs

1. Dzerzhinsky monument on Lubyanskaya square in 1959 (Yuri Batuyev, http://oldmos.ru/old/photo/view/12938)

2. The monument’s dismantle in 1991 (RIA Novosti/Boris Kaufman, http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/statue-dzerhinsky-russia-soviet-kgb/25136433.html)

3. The monument’s dismantle in 1991 (RIA Novosti/Igor Mikhalev, http://ria.ru/culture/20131205/982110531.html)

4. The monument in the Muzeon park in 2013 (Muzeon collection, http://www.muzeon.ru/articles/23-kollektsiya-muzeona)

Project supported with the grant of National Science Foundation NCN 2011/01/D/HS6/01971