Publication of Nikolai Epplee's book (An Inconvenient Past: Memory about State Crimes in Russia and Other Countries), about dealing with past repressions has become a cultural event widely discussed by Russian intellectuals. Not belonging to a community of Memory scholars by training, Epplee did not use the language of the rapidly growing discipline but dared to offer a broad comparative view of the problem and to suggest political steps to proceed from the current “inconvenient” situation. He aims to help create a common language for the national conversation about the legacy of the repressive Soviet regime that should open the door for the condemnation of state crimes and reconciliation.

The book consists of three parts. First, “Anamnesis” provides an exposition of the history of Russia's dealings with Stalin repressions and memory of Gulags in the USSR and in post-Soviet Russia. Epplee lists and describes the attempts of “reconciliation” from above and from below, and points out the problems of dealing with the difficult past from the contemporality where the state inherited a lot from that past.

In the second part, the author explores the cases of six countries that had to deal with their own difficult pasts, namely Argentina, Spain, South Africa, Poland, Germany, and Japan. The comparative perspective, which here also considers the Russian case, is especially important for the Russian debate, as it shows that some of the rhetorical constructions or real fears that the post-Gulag discourse produces in Russia are not unique, and many such problems have been successfully dealt with in other countries. Epplee demonstrates that the tactic of “forgetting the Past” did not work, that there is a difference between the guilt and responsibility, that the appeal of the comparison of the Russian case to the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis misses the point, and that there is no reason to be afraid of the conflict between the “grandchildren of victims and grandchildren of executioners.” In this part, Epplee provides details of the emergence and development of the political and social institutes dealing with the need to overcome the past of the criminal regimes that perpetrated torture and murder of political opponents and independent leaders, practiced segregation, abduction, and intimidation towards their own citizens.

The third part of the book, “Synthesis,” consists of the author's recommendations on how to deal with Russia's difficult past. He emphasizes the need to draw the line between today and the past; he uses the metaphor of “dead water” from the Russian fairytales, which can make zombie-like creatures existing between the two worlds finally dead, thus taking the first step toward its cure with the “water of life.” Russian society needs to look at the repressions as past that cannot and should not be forgotten, but also as a part of history that society has overcome. To do that, the whole truth of the past must be made available. Epplee also suggests starting “bargaining” about the past. Unlike in the “Nuremberg model,” the process must begin within Russia, focus on responsibility and not guilt, and should involve as many social and political actors as possible. To ensure wide participation, the process must include compromises and “bargains.” The best model, according to the author, is the South African “Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” The work of reconciliation should include opening all archives and the creation of a “memory infrastructure” comprised of social institutes and groups interested in ensuring the process's success. Even if some of the author's suggestions look hardly achievable, and some raises questions, this book offers a good starting point as it takes a first step from analysis to the discussion of possible steps forward.

Such an ambitious book inevitably leaves room for questions and doubts. I would be particularly interested to learn who would act on behalf of the victims in the suggested national bargaining about the past. Epplee demonstrated the existence of such societal groups in Argentina and South Africa, but it is unclear who in Russia could play a role similar to mothers and grandmothers demanding truth in Argentinian case. Moreover, the author correctly points out that in many cases in Russia descendants of victims and perpetrators are the same people. The distance of two generations made the Russian case different from most of the countries the author analyzes in the book. Indeed, it deals with the victims of the Soviet (mostly Stalin) regime, and Epplee seems to understand the difference between the task of immediately publishing the truth and the subsequent reconciliation after the fall of the criminal regime following the loss of past decades and generations. Incidentally, this is why the German experience seems relevant, since generations there have changed since the Nuremberg trials, and the contemporary dealing with the past is no more a result of foreign pressure.

This last comment also suggests another possibility: the more we know about the contemporary Russian state, the more we think that the models analyzed in the book could be used in Russia after the end of the current regime. The link between democratization and overcoming the difficult past was a key feature of all the cases in the monograph, with each process facilitating the other. Russia will face a double challenge of dealing with its past, and we will see whether this fact will weaken or empower its future democratizing surge.