The Plan to Pull Down the Orthodox Cathedral of Tallinn in 1928 - Religious Oppression Or "National Therapy"?

The Alexander Nevsky cathedral in Tallinn was built in the 1890«s. Estonia was then part of the Russian Empire and had to suffer from severe russification measures, of which building new orthodox churches was one. The cathedral was built on the highest position of Tallinn, Toompea, in order to emphasize the victory of orthodox Russia over lutheran Estonia. This angered the Estonians, for whom Toompea was a symbol of their national self-respect.

After Estonia had declared its independence in 1918 Toompea became a government center. In the immediate vicinity of the cathedral were the Estonian Parliament (riigikogu) as well as the house of the premier (riigivanem). Also nearby was the lutheran cathedral, which had been built already in the 1200«s. Although the Alexander Nevsky cathedral was to the nationalist-minded Estonians like a red rag to a bull, public debate about its fate did not start until 1928.

In October 1928 four Members of Parliament presented a private bill, which stipulated that the cathedral should be pulled down. The work was to be carried out by the Ministry of Transport by 1 May 1929. The movable property of the cathedral was to be handed over to the Synod of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC), and the Russian congregation worshipping in the cathedral was to be allotted another church to use. The MPs' main justification for all this was the fact that the cathedral had originally been built for strictly political purposes, and also the view that the cathedral did not blend into its environment architecturally.

The EAOC was since 1923 an autonomous church under the jurisdiction of Constantinople comprising 154 parishes and over 210 000 members (19% of the total population) of whom more than half were ethnic Estonians. The Russian parishes (about 30) of the EAOC were situated mainly in the eastern parts of the country, near the Russian border. Head of the church was Metropolitan Alexander (Paulus), who was also Estonian.

The signatories of the private bill had obviously expected that the bill would not encounter any major obstacles on its way to rapid execution. They had counted on the wholehearted support of the population, but in this they erred. The bill did not receive unanimous support in any sphere of society. The only group that showed any real enthusiasm for it were representatives of the armed forces. Politicians, architects, artists and academic circles all expressed their doubts and reservations about the rationality and profitability of the bill, although a few of them accepted the idea quite readily.

The most ardent opponents of the bill were found among the orthodox, the lutherans and the national minorities; the Russians and the Baltic Germans. Metropolitan Alexander and other representatives of the EAOC stressed that the cathedral had from the beginning served also religious purposes, and that pulling the cathedral down would deeply hurt the believers' religious feelings. About 70 orthodox parishes, most of them Estonian, protested against the bill by sending written complaints to the premier, the parliament and the government. An orthodox delegation appealed directly to the premier and notified him of the possibility of turning to foreign churchleaders for help. There was also talk of national and religious oppression. The Baltic Germans who had had to give up the lutheran cathedral to the state a year ago, regarded the bill as a further manifestation of the "bolshevist mentality" of the Estonian government.

In the Parliament the matter was delegated to a committee, which then heard various experts, and representatives of the Synod and the congregation. The committee convened four times before the end of 1928, during which time it did not come to any conclusion. All the while the realization of the bill grew more and more unlikely. The bill had originally been timed rather unwisely politically, having been presented only a few months before the election of the new parliament in March 1929. The parties were therefore not inclined to support any radical measures for fear of losing the orthodox electorate. The greatest loser in the election was the Workers' Party, to which the first signatory of the bill, Mihkel Juhkam, also belonged. Metropolitan Alexander was elected to the Parliament from the ranks of the People's Party.

In the end the demolition of the cathedral was linked up with drawing up a new plan for Toompea. It was the only chance to have the cathedral pulled down, as it had become evident that it could not be achieved through political manoeuvres. Even this failed. The government had proposed a new government building that could house all ministries to be built upon Toompea. After the Ministry of Transport had conducted some investigations into the matter the impossibility of this plan became obvious. Thus Toompea would stay the way it was.

It might seem that the signatories of the private bill failed miserably. They had miscalculated the public support the bill would get, and had not paid enough attention to the political, economic, juridical, national and religious aspects of the matter. Nevertheless, they didn't seem to mind. In any case, they had got publicity, and the matter had been widely discussed. Perhaps all that had been enough to improve the Estonians' national self-esteem.

For the Estonian orthodox the private bill was undoubtedly a shock. It is no wonder that they felt they were victims of religious oppression accepted and even supported by the Estonian government, even if this was not the case. In some way, however, the crisis may have been a positive experience to the Estonian orthodox; in connection with it they got a chance to correct some common misconceptions, the gravest of which was the idea that every orthodox believer was Russian, if not by nationality then at least by mentality.

All things considered we can conclude that the the plan to pull down the Alexander Nevsky cathedral had turned out to be more like "national therapy" than religious oppression.