Russia to create the Ministry of Truth?
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.
There seems nothing more important for the Russian government than correct interpretation of history. The crisis, oil and gas prices, businesses coming to a halt, etc., appear to concern the Kremlin rulers less than the correct understanding of history. Most importantly, it should not damage Russia’s interests. There will be a commission tasked with monitoring the process and preventing such damage. Only a commission so far, but it is likely to be followed by something akin to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak. Anyway, the foundation is in place.
The edict establishing the commission was made public knowledge shortly after Dmitry Medvedev declared in his blog on the eve of May 9 that of recent falsifications of history had become increasingly “cruel, hostile, and aggressive.” Now it was necessary to defend the historical truth, which is “hard and, to be honest, at times even disgusting… We will not allow anyone to cast doubt on the heroic accomplishment of our nation.” No sooner said than done.
This commission includes Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Presidential Administration; Ivan Demidov, head of the Department for Humanitarian Policies and Public Relations of the Domestic Policy Directorate of the Presidential Administration (secretary of the commission); Alu Alkhanov, Deputy Minister of Justice, ex-President of Chechnya; Natalia Norochnitskaya, president of the Foundation for Historical Perspective Research; and Nikolai Svanidze, member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. This kind of commission, of course, could not do without Russian MPs Konstantin Zatulin and Sergei Markov, but it does not include Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the Presidential Administration, who has for the past several years been in charge of domestic policy. Now history will be handled by his boss, Sergei Naryshkin.
Even without reading the tasks of the commission listed in the decree, its very composition is proof of many things. It is supposed to deal with history, but there are only two experts in the field who hold administrative posts: Aleksandr Chubaryan, director of the Russian Academy’s Institute of General History, and Andrei Sakharov, director of the Academy’s Institute of Russian History. Zatulin and Markov, as well as the journalist and TV host Nikolai Svanidze are historians by training, but none has made a mark in the scholarly world. Commission member Natalia Narochnitskaya holds a Ph.D. in history; she is into anti-West historical journalist — in other words, she is not a practicing scholar, either. On the other hand, some the commission members represent authorities that are, no doubt, highly competent in history: the Ministry of the Internal Affairs, FSB (secret police), Foreign Intelligence Service, Ministry of Regional Development, General Staff of the Russian Army, and so on.
One of the tasks assigned to this commission is to “generalize and analyze information concerning falsifications of historical facts and events aimed at belittling the international prestige of the Russian Federation.” If such a falsification means deliberate replacements of truth with falsehood or distortion of facts, how can this be proved? There are countless examples of many historical facts that were considered falsehood but then turned out truthful. For decades the Soviet propaganda machine worked to prove that there were no secret protocols attached to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Then it was proved differently. Who was the deliberate falsifier in this case?
“Or take the Katyn massacre. There are official findings of the Burdenko Commission to the effect that the Polish officers were shot by the Nazis, but then it transpired that this was done by the Soviet authorities in 1940. However, following the logic of [Medvedev’s] edict, any quotes from Beria’s letter to Stalin, requesting permission to execute the Polish officers, would damage the Russian Federation’s prestige and should be criminally prosecuted.
It is very hard to define the meaning of the word combination “falsification of facts and events” because historical knowledge is biased. Historical methodology distinguishes between two types of historical facts: source facts versus research facts. The first is an actual event set in time and space limits; it is objective and inexhaustible. The Act of Capitulation of Nazi Germany is an undeniable historical fact. There is no point denying it, so no one has ever tried to do so.
“A historical research fact is a historical fact as it is studied by a scholar. Such facts reflect the researchers’ stand on the matter and their professional level. For example, the French scholar and politician Louis-Adolphe Thiers and the Soviet Russian historian Yevgeni Tarle offered discrepant interpretations of Napoleon’s activities. A source fact is something reflected in a historical source. The historical science cannot exist without using source facts. If you study Nazi ideology, you can’t do without quoting from Mein Kampf or Benito Mussolini.
Finally, what are Russia’s interests? Who has determined them and where are they spelled out? One has to assume that the president, prime minister, Minister for Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, and the newly established commission know them. What about others? What about people in Russia and in the former Soviet republics and other countries?
Commission member Andrei Sakharov at one time wrote a sizable monograph in which he tried to prove that the “Great Patriotic War” ended in 1944, when the Soviet troops crossed the [old] Soviet border. What followed was occupation of European countries. Now he will try to prove that this did not run counter to Russia’s interests at the time, but now it does and very much so.
During his presidency Vladimir Putin referred to Stalin as an effective manager. One ought to assume that this is the historical truth and that this answers the interests of Russia. If the Medvedev’s successor says to the contrary — as was the case with the leader of all working people — will this serve or damage the interests of Russia?
One is left to assume that this commission is being established in order to adopt the only correct view on history, as the highest instance, so to say, and that this view will be compulsory. This is nothing new in history and we all know the outcome of this practice. One is reminded of what Karl Marx had to say about tragedy and farce in history. In historical context, the Russian president’s edict obviously belongs to the latter category.
History is, most likely, just a pretext, a coverup for carrying out entirely different tasks. Sergei Markov said so in his well-known straightforward manner.
This Russian MP believes that the commission has to become a foreign political tool; that the role of major falsifiers of history is being played by the Ukrainian Orange leaders, Saakashvili’s regime in Georgia, and the governments of Estonia and Latvia: “Whereas the Ukrainian government is making every effort in its struggle for historical falsehood, we can’t direct our poor, miserable historians to the front lines of struggle for historical truth.” According to Markov, history is a matter of [Russia’s] national security and requires government intervention. Sounds like a bad joke.
Zatulin goes even further: “We must define what an attempt to falsify Russian history actually is. There is no private ownership of Russian or Ukrainian history. We cannot look on silently as they are proceeding to revise the Nuremberg judgments, trying to portray the USSR’s victory in the Second World War as a sad event marking the beginning of occupation of the Baltic countries and Ukraine.” He says that Russia must show its response on the government level and not only by taking educational measures. Then what measures? “This commission will be able to coordinate the efforts of ministries and agencies to draw attention to the glaring facts of distorted history, discuss various response measures, including special economic measures against countries where falsification of history has become the official policy.”
In other words, if Moscow decides that the wrong kind of book has been published or a television program broadcast in a neighboring country, it should cut off gas supply, recall the ambassador, sever air, motor, railroad and postal connection, or detect pesticides in the mineral water, wine or candies [imported from that country]. No such actions are envisaged with regard to Japan that claims a part of Russian territory and whose authors often challenge the results of the Second World War. Russia doesn’t seem to have problems other than the content of textbooks and scholarly publications in Ukraine and the Baltic countries. No one in Moscow cares about what is being published in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Romania. Whence this selectivity?
In all likelihood, the newly established commission has to address also purely domestic tasks. Russia’s troglodytic anti-Americanism has exhausted itself and there is nothing more it can do. Besides, the image of treacherous Yankees looks a bit too far-fetched. But there are Ukraine and the Baltic countries right next door. Portraying them as enemies is much easier. Moreover, there is just a short distance between the Soviet-time friendship between brotherly peoples to officially promoted hostility.
The population of Russia is being convinced that their enemy is close by, right outside the state border, and it is the source of all the problems this big country is experiencing. The idea is being instilled in Russians’ minds that the country’s ill-wishing neighbors refuse to recognize its grandeur, past, present, and future victories, thus encroaching on its national security. Hence Russia must respond, and it does within the limits of its understanding and capacity. However, the question is, What if this response backfires?
