Irina Filatova has a new comment piece over on the Guardian about Dmitry Medvedev’s formation of a new commission to fight back against the “falsification” of history. She points out that despite some seemingly noble endeavours of the council (such as declassification of Soviet-era documents from the War), most observers and academics are quite leery of the proposal – beginning with the fact that there are only three historians on the 28-member commission. Filatova predicts that by early June the legislation will sail through the Duma, and the Kremlin will have a new instrument to imprison journalists and place sanctions on individuals in foreign states, such as the Baltics.
Every historian knows that history as an academic discipline can only exist when its contents are contested, challenged and renewed – it is a process of getting closer to the truth, but it can never be “the truth” itself. The moment the informed debate stops and one version is proclaimed to be “the truth”, history dies, and what emerges in its place is either ideology or “heritage”, or both. It is often called “the official history” – but this, of course, has got nothing to do with real, proper academic history. Russia is all too familiar with the notion of “official history”: in the Soviet era it was the only one allowed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union historical debate and research blossomed, but recently the government again started to take a great interest in history, prescribing textbooks and attempting to return to “the official history”.
Inthis light Medvedev’s commission looks much more sinister. Was, forexample, the Soviet army a liberator of the Baltic states or was it anarmy of occupation? Was Stalin’s collectivisation the reason for the Holodomor faminein Ukraine? And if Mededev’s commission does not allow one to debatethis issue, then would it allow historians to debate the nature ofStalin’s policy at all? Would it allow them to discuss Stalin’s terror?And what would be the punishment meted out for those who do, despitethe prohibition?
Subscribe by Email
4 Comments
What I would hope is that someone — say, a human rights or freedom of speech NGO in Russia itself, or elsewhere — starts a “counter-commission” with the mission of checking, verifying and criticizing what Medvedev’s commission will be doing. Say, a shadow commission, if you will.
medvedev absolutely needs to appear like an anti-fascist…but what did his army do in georgia last year?he can’t at the same time, be against revisionnism, and act like germany 1938: annexion of territories under the pretext of protecting his minorities there.the russians in the baltic states were nothing else than an occupation army.and in georgia : worst of all!!the values of 1945 are in georgia, not in russia.
To Christiane ,Why comparing Medvedev with Hitler ?I rather compare Medvedev with Bismarck who waited the first mistake of Napoleon III , often nicknamed in France as ” Badinguet ” to not mistake him with the Great ” Napoleon ” , to declare war to France in 1870 and size Alsace and Moselle provinces which were German speaking provinces or more precisely with a German related language .But you are true on one part .The contemporary problem of minorities in post soviet space is to link with the problem of minorities in Europe created by the Paris peace conference which celebrates ( really there is not many things to celebrate ! )its 90 th anniversary and the Us led commission of geographers known as ” The Inquiry ” which divided Europe on a ” Molotov-Ribbentrop ” scheme ( one more Reductio ad Hitlerum …. )On this point we should see that if ” Mr Hitler ” was indeed not a ” gentleman ” , Benes and the Polish generals were not the white lambs that ” official western history ” presents .Benes , and other CZ leaders , DID persecutate German and Hungarian minorities before the rise of Nazism .Polish officials DID try to wage separtism in USSR to their benefits .History backfired their policies and lead by some ways to WWII .I guess that we could speak of a ” Black falcon and a white lamb ” (c) case today only if Georgia had adopted since 1991 a federal structure like Russia on the issue of the minorities and if the Baltic States have adopted a policy comparable to Italy has with its German speakers in Adige , towards the Russian minority .But both of them behaves with their minorities like the ” democratic ” Benes did in the 30s , encouraging de facto the most extremists elements .And even a person like Natalia Vitrienko in Ukraine is far from being a female resurection o a Crimean Russian speaking Konrad Heinlein !Until when ?Even the ” democratic Ukraine ” is now balckmailing its minorities , Russian , Romanian or Tatar and it is not the ” Evil Russia ” which is the more active on this issue of providing passports but the ” democratic ” Rumania in Bucovina and Moldova.
” Was, for example, the Soviet army a liberator of the Baltic states or was it an army of occupation? Was Stalin’s collectivisation the reason for the Holodomor famine in Ukraine? And if Mededev’s commission does not allow one to debate this issue, then would it allow historians to debate the nature of Stalin’s policy at all? Would it allow them to discuss Stalin’s terror? And what would be the punishment meted out for those who do, despite the prohibition?”History doesn’t try to extract a ” Truth ” like in a process .It should be seen as a ” blueprint ” of a piece that is representated on the front view , the right view , the left view , the upper view ……………All the views , known as ” projections ” , are the different representations of the ” reality ” .So its not a surprise that the ” projection ” of the Red Army enterring the Baltic states is not seen in the Baltics on the same way it is seen in Russia .Here we are in the penomenon of the ” representation ” , how a people , a nation , sees the world ( ” Weltanschauung ” )http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=2582http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view