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

Primary Argument: Military Trophy and Legitimate 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 on the cultural heritage of the Soviet Union by the Nazis. According to this logic, the return of the valuables would only be possible in the event of 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 is no talk\" of returning the treasures until the issue of cultural values displaced by the Nazis during the war is resolved.

Legal Position: Status of Federal Property

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

Political Aspect: International Game and Precedents

The return of the \"Troy gold\" could 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 a principle: to surrender means to put the entire system of trophy heritage protection at risk.

Complexity of Determining the \"Legal Owner\"

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

• Turkey asserts that the treasures were unlawfully exported from the country by Heinrich Schliemann in 1873, 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,\" meaning that 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.

The transfer of the treasures to one of these countries would automatically damage 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 a symbol. The 1996 exhibition at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts was not just a cultural event, but a demonstration that Russia considers itself a legitimate guardian of this heritage. Refusing to return the values 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 persists. The return of artifacts is only possible within the framework of a fundamental review of the outcomes of World War II, which seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Permanent link to this publication: