The history of the famous treasures of Troy, discovered by Heinrich Schliemann and evacuated by Soviet troops from Germany after the war, has been the subject of an intense international dispute since their appearance in Moscow. For decades, Germany has made successive diplomatic efforts to return the collection, insisting on its illegal transfer. However, these efforts have always encountered Russia's position, which considers the \"Troy gold\" to be legitimate military compensation for the colossal damage inflicted by Nazi Germany.

Diplomatic struggle and legal arguments

Immediately after the end of the Cold War and the recognition of the fact that the collection was in Moscow, Germany intensified its claims. The key argument of the German side was bilateral agreements, in particular, the 1990 Friendship Treaty signed with the Soviet Union and the 1992 agreement on cultural cooperation with Russia. Both documents contained provisions on the mutual return of displaced cultural objects.

However, in Russia, these obligations were perceived differently. In April 1995, the State Duma adopted a moratorium, effectively freezing the return of war reparations until a special federal law was adopted. German experts and politicians, including Chancellor Helmut Kohl, tried to influence Moscow at the highest level, but their appeals did not lead to a breakthrough, according to witnesses of the negotiations. The Yeltsin government and subsequent administrations have taken a hardline position: the return of valuables is possible only in the context of a comprehensive solution to the entire issue of war reparations, where Germany must compensate Russia for the damage, including the destruction of cultural monuments.

The Russian perspective: the right of the victor

The Russian position, most prominently voiced by the long-time director of the GМИИ im. A. S. Puskin Irina Antonova, is that the treasures of Troy are a legitimate military trophy. In response to Germany's claims, a counterargument about the fate of the Amber Room, taken by the Nazis from Russia, was often cited. The Soviet authorities and their successors regarded the displaced cultural heritage not as \"trophy\" in the classic sense, but as an act of historical justice, partial compensation for the destruction caused by the war. As a result, all negotiations have reached an impasse, and no previously concluded diplomatic agreements have been implemented in terms of returning Schliemann's gold.

The episode of declassification and the 1996 exhibition

The first step towards public recognition was made in 1993, when Russia officially confirmed that the collection was in its possession. In October 1994, German experts were allowed to inspect the treasures, confirming their authenticity and good condition. However, the key event was the exhibition \"Troy Treasures from the Excavations of Heinrich Schliemann,\" which opened at the GМИИ im. Puskin in April 1996.

This exhibition was perceived by Germany as a provocation, intensifying diplomatic pressure. The German side claimed that the exhibition was organized unilaterally without consultation with the legitimate owner. Despite protests and diplomatic notes, Moscow demonstrated that it considered itself the full-fledged custodian of the collection, and its display was seen as a demonstration of this right.

Interests conflict: the role of Turkey

The situation is complicated by the presence of a third claimant — Turkey, which claims that the treasures were illegally evacuated from its territory by Schliemann himself. In 2012, inspired by the successful return of a number of other artifacts from the US and Germany, Turkey also claimed its rights to the treasure of Priam. However, the Russian side consistently ignores Ankara's claims, considering the issue of the evacuation by Schliemann to be part of the history of the 19th century, irrelevant to contemporary legal disputes between Russia and Germany.

Prospects for return

In spite of years of efforts by German diplomacy and periodic tensions (including individual incidents when German politicians used cultural events to express protest), the \"Troy gold\" remains in Russia. The main part of the exhibits remains in the permanent exhibition of the GМИИ im. Puskin, while a number of other finds from the same hoard are in the State Hermitage. The prospect of returning the collection to Germany remains extremely unlikely: the position of Russia, supported by the majority of the museum community and politicians, remains unchanged.

Permanent link to this publication: