The position of Russia on the issue of the return of the \"Troy gold\" is not just a legal dispute, but a well-thought-out state strategy, supported by historical, legal, and political arguments. This case has become not only a museum problem but also a symbol of Russia's broader approach to the issue of cultural valuables moved during the war. Let's consider the main reasons why Russia does not return the treasures of Troy.

Key Argument: Military Trophy and Legal Compensation

The key position of Russia is that the treasures of Troy are a legitimate military trophy. They were taken by Soviet troops from Germany in 1945 as compensation for the colossal damage inflicted by the Nazis on the cultural heritage of the USSR. According to this logic, the return of the valuables would only be possible in the event of a comprehensive settlement of all claims and the provision of compensation by Germany for the lost Russian cultural heritage.

This argument is the main one in the dialogue with Germany. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that \"there can be no talk\" of return until the issue of cultural valuables moved by the Nazis during the war is resolved.

Legal Position: Status of Federal Property

In 1998, the law \"On Cultural Values Moved to the USSR as a Result of World War II and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation\" was adopted in Russia. This law confirmed the status of the majority of moved works of art as cultural heritage of the Russian Federation, which cannot be transferred to other countries. Thus, the legal basis securely protects the \"Troy gold\" from any attempts of restitution.

Political Aspect: International Game and Precedents

The return of the \"Troy gold\" would become a precedent that could open a \"Pandora's box\". Immediately after that, Germany and other countries could demand the return of tens of thousands of other trophy exhibits. Therefore, Russia views this issue as fundamental: to surrender means to put the entire system of protecting trophy heritage at risk.

Complexity of Determining the \"Legal Owner\"

The issue of ownership of the treasures of Troy is one of the most tangled. Three countries claim it:

• Turkey claims that the treasures were unlawfully exported from the country as early as 1873 by Heinrich Schliemann, and even provides evidence that he violated his obligations to the Ottoman government.
• Germany, in turn, claims that Schliemann gave the find to the \"German people\", which means it was legally exported from Turkey and stored in Berlin until 1945.
• Greece has historical and cultural claims, pointing to the Greek origin of ancient Troy.

Transferring the treasures to one of these countries would automatically spoil relations with the other two. This makes the decision extremely disadvantageous from a diplomatic point of view.

Symbolic Significance and Demonstration of Sovereignty

The \"Troy gold\" has become not just a museum exhibit but also a symbol. The 1996 exhibition at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts was not just a cultural event but a demonstration that Russia considers itself the legitimate guardian of this heritage. Refusing to return the valuables is an act of asserting sovereignty and historical justice as understood in Moscow.

Thus, the \"Troy gold\" will remain in Russia as long as the current political and legal field is maintained. The return of artifacts is only possible within the framework of a fundamental revision of the outcome of World War II, which seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Permanent link to this publication: