Comment on Babylon Berlin’s Screening of Sergei Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky:
A Propaganda Remnant on WorldWar II Remembrance Day

From the Team of the Ukrainian Film Festival Berlin

May 14th, 2025

On May 10th and 11th, Babylon Berlin screened Sergei Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky with live orchestral accompaniment and a themed reception featuring kasha and vodka, presented as a celebration of the end of World War II.

While framed as a cultural event, this choice is troubling—especially in the current context of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine.

Alexander Nevsky is not a neutral contribution to film history. The film was produced in the late 1930s on behalf of the Stalin regime as a deliberate propaganda tool to glorify the military power of the Soviet Union. It portrays Russians as a nation threatened by the West – in the film by the Teutonic Order. At the time of its creation, this reflected the growing tensions between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The film served a clear political purpose at the time, and its narrative still resonates today in the imperialist rhetoric of the Kremlin.

Using historical films that depict Russia as a victim defending itself from the West has been a consistent propaganda tactic in Russia and the Soviet Union over the past century. It obscures the reality of Russia as an imperial power that has repeatedly invaded other countries—including today’s war in Ukraine. The same pattern was evident during World War II, when just a year after the film’s release, the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, allying with Nazi Germany—an inconvenient truth often erased in both Soviet and modern Russian narratives.

While some argue Ukraine was part of the USSR and its propaganda, it is essential to recognize that Ukraine was a colonized nation within that structure. Ukrainian language, identity, and autonomy were systematically suppressed. The imperial framework of Soviet propaganda—centering Russian supremacy and denying national diversity—persists in contemporary Russian narratives. This erasure is clearly reflected in Alexander Nevsky, where "Rus’" is rendered monolithically Russian.

Screening Alexander Nevsky during World War II remembrance days, without critical framing or context, risks reinforcing those same dangerous narratives—especially as they are actively used to justify current acts of aggression in Europe.

Particularly insensitive is the perpetuation of the myth that Russia alone defeated fascism. This erases the immense contributions and sacrifices of many peoples within the former Soviet Union—Ukrainians, Belarusians, Central Asians, and others—who suffered some of the highest losses during the war.

The themed reception with vodka and kasha added a celebratory, nostalgic layer that felt jarringly out of place. At a time when Ukrainian cities are being bombed and lives destroyed, such symbolic indulgence in Soviet aesthetics appears not only tone-deaf but disturbingly disconnected from today’s reality.

We acknowledge that Alexander Nevsky is a significant cinematic achievement. But the brilliance of its form must be met with responsibility: f.e. moderation and panel discussion with historians and film experts. Cultural programming—especially on commemorative occasions—requires historical depth and awareness of the political messages it may convey, both then and now.

We sincerely hope that future events of this kind are curated with greater sensitivity and thoughtful context. Memory is complex and cultural institutions should approach with awareness—not nostalgia.