Alexander Chubaryan: From my point of view, published in “RG” article is interesting not only for the assessment of the Second world war, but more generally, from the point of view of the approach to historical phenomena at all. After all, look at the comments abroad. The origin and the beginning of the war is estimated in a very narrow sense, it only addresses some specific facts, in particular the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact as a trigger, and this world’s tragedy. But such a global event of the 20th century, as world war II, needs a broader, multi-faceted, multi-factor analysis. Need to know the historical background. In the article, President shows understanding of the course of history since the First world war. It seems to me, is appropriate as given in the text the remark of the French General Foch who said that Versailles (1919) – a truce for 20 years. And so it happened: after 20 years, the Second world war. The League of Nations created by Versailles and designed to provide collective security, failed to prevent the conflict, because the mechanism worked badly.
the emphasis in the article is Munich. Unfortunately, even my colleagues – historians, almost not responded to the recent anniversary of this important event. Not to mention the fact that no new serious monographs on the subject. In the West don’t want to think about this, I would say, not very beautiful page in European history.
And this despite the fact that his “Covenant”, and even classified material to him in Russia is not to ignore…
Alexander Chubaryan: Yes, here placed all points over “i” concerning the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact and Protocol. By the way, the President referred to the decision of Congress of people’s deputies in 1989 that condemned the secret Annex from the perspective of the principles of morality and law.
let me Remind you, no Parliament in Europe has spoken about Munich. If you remember the Resolution of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe about the truth in history, it turns out that it concerns only 1939 and the position of the Soviet Union, but says nothing about the 1938 Munich agreement, which most of my colleagues in the West judge very negatively.
not Even all historians, not to mention the laymen, know that paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the nonaggression Pact between Germany and USSR on 23 August 1939 reads: in the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of the two countries should “take place approximately on the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San”. This means that in the Soviet sphere of influence were not only the territory inhabited predominantly Ukrainian and Byelorussian population, but the historic Polish lands between the rivers bug and Vistula. But The Red ��rmiya so far not gone…
Alexander Chubaryan: For me, the coverage of the events of September 1939, the whole story associated with the movement of our troops to Poland, are of special interest. Let me remind you about the positive reaction of the Western world, especially Britain and France, our main at that time allies on a possible Eastern border of Poland, which would coincide with the Curzon line (which was set in the First world war). I worked a lot in the British archives, studied the documents and I can say: the Kingdom at the governmental level have agreed that the Soviet Union was. The President in his article calls for further work in the archives. It is important the following. We know in General about Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in July-August 1939. It would be good to explore in more detail, as discussed in London, Paris and the Kremlin, to see the “kitchen” of these meetings. Of course, if there are such documents.
there are Many other unexplored questions, to answer which it is the duty of historians. For example, the trip of Hess, the second man in Germany, in London. He flew back in 1940. This story is still locked in the British archives.
the President stressed – designing historical events, it is necessary to rely on the archives. But neither the historians nor the public and government officials in the West, criticizing and condemning the Soviet Union will not take as argument a single new document. I would understand if they said, “Here open the archives, found some documents that indicate…” we have Nothing. Why it is so important archival collection, which now began to put on the website of the Presidential library Boris Yeltsin.
Foreign scientists and archivists gather in this sense, to follow the example of Russia?
Alexander Chubaryan: just last week, we agreed with my German colleague, co-chair of the Commission of historians Andreas Wirsing, on that July 16 will hold an online”round table” dedicated to the origins of the Second world war. And next year we will begin preparation of a joint collection of Russian-German documents on the history of the 20th century.
In his article, the head of state reminded that the historical discussions should be engaged in academic science. I am sure that this view is shared by the overwhelming majority of historians in the world.
Big point in the article is the connection of history and modernity. But as there is no policy?
Alexander Chubaryan: today is Indeed a very noticeable tendency of some to belittle the importance of the agreements that were reached during the Second world war, the heads of state anti-Hitler coalition. Quite obvious, I try not to quote not to take into account the statements of Rooseveltand and Churchill. Meanwhile, during the war had a great historic compromise. All known positions and the leader of the UK, and the US President regarding the Soviet experiment. All had their obvious years of geopolitical interests, but a common danger United all. And not only to defeat Nazism but also in order to lay the Foundation of the Yalta – Potsdam system, which existed for many years after the war. It was a lot of that later drew criticism, but in the main it has fulfilled its role: prevented large post-war conflict and have laid some rules of the game, the mechanisms of the system of the security Council.
And this is the connection of history and modernity. Then there was a global challenge to the security of mankind from Nazism, today – from the nature of the virus, climate, terrorism… the Realization that there are countries and people who can agree on some shared steps, I think, is very important.