Alexander Oganovich, listen to the Directors of institutes of history of CIS countries, which discussed online-the concept of the new General materials about the great Patriotic war, and it turns out that they are in different wars 75 years ago won?
Alexander Chubaryan: most General point of view. But, Yes, there are “nuances”. This primarily depends on the past of some countries, their position in the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. The approach to these issues, it seems to me especially important because it is reflected not only in academic literature but also in textbooks for schools and universities. This is what is called “historical memory”, which is laid in the minds of the younger generation.
Not in all but in many countries of the former Soviet Union when they were part of the Russian Empire, named the colonial. We historians of the CIS, recently discussed what the “Soviet period” and also revealed “discrepancies” and features interpretations.
it seemed to Me, and I was supported by colleagues, that the theme of the great Patriotic war and the 75th anniversary of the Victory for common benefits cause the largest number of matching assessments and approaches. Indeed, most countries have treated it with great interest. Now we have two of the draft concept of this book. One sent from Kazakhstan, the second from Belarus. We are now the texts are sent to colleagues from other “former Soviet republics” to discuss.
But I think you already know what are the notes?
Alexander Chubaryan: Yeah, when we talked online, and interesting discussion was with our Uzbek colleagues, while supporting the Russian point of view, offer their own methodological developments in vision the history of the Second world war.
In recent years the policy of historical memory in Uzbekistan has changed. Write about the winners of the Pushkin competition “RG” of this Republic. They cite as an example the story of the monument to the Hero of Soviet Union General Sobir Rakhimov. Under President Karimov, it was removed from the center of Tashkent. Now returned to the place…
Alexander Chubaryan: I know the current Director of the Institute of history of Uzbekistan, and the old. And I can say: “trends”, you are talking about, is not touched by historians. The new leadership of the Institute assured us that they are ready to participate in creating a common teaching tool. A “caveat” is the fact that our Uzbek colleagues are behind the more global issues, want more methodology – all of it, from their point of view, will allow us to collaborate with colleagues from countries outside the CIS. In General today I can say that Uzbekistan has taken a constructive approach to the joint work.
for Example, stands for more democratization and openness of our RA��comes in the framework of the Association of Directors of institutes of history. And I support it.
But, you see, the world, even among historians of the CIS, not to mention discussions with the Ukrainians or Georgians, no. At the last online meeting of the Association of all was struck by the statement of your colleague from Moldova, that do benefit in Moldova is simply nobody. There are no experts on the history of the war…
Alexander Chubaryan: Yes, there are some difficulties with Moldova. The fact that there is almost officially, at least at the leadership level of the Academy of Sciences, stated that Moldova did not take part in the great Patriotic war. As part of the territory, which was part of the USSR, as they write, “was occupied by the Soviet Union.” But this view does not refute the fact that thousands of Moldovans with the other citizens of our common at the time of the country victoriously fought against Nazism. And from the experience of our cooperation with the Moldovan historians I am sure that we will find acceptable to all wording given the “nuances”.
You think that’s possible?
Alexander Chubaryan: For me personally, the value of the work of finding a common position is that we are moving away from old established approaches in describing the history of the war: how many in one country of heroes, as in the other, who in what battles he participated, etc. in this manual more useful to move from the characteristics of just war to the problems of an anthropological nature. For example, “Man at war”. Or “War and society” in relation to each country. For example, Belarus would like to study the subject “Man in the guerrilla movement” and “Man underground.” Almost untouched textbooks Plast – attitude of various strata of society to the war: “Intellectuals and war”, “culture and war”. If we talk about the front, why not highlight the theme of “Soviet officers”. What was the mood of the officers who returned after the liberation campaign in Europe? It will be interesting to all republics. The study of such topics would be useful not only school teacher but also scientists of the CIS as an invitation to dialogue.
“Man in hiding” – “Young guard” in Krasnodon and the Contacts with Ukrainian colleagues do you have?
Alexander Chubaryan: We want to bring to discussion the upcoming of the benefits of colleagues from countries which do not participate in our work in the framework of the CIS. I mean first of all Ukrainians. Cautiously I will say that the contacts with the Institute of history of Ukraine of NAS to some extent resumed. We, along with the National Academy of Sciences are preparing an edition of one of the manuscripts of the XVII century from our archives. The Ukrainians agreed to publish it. I think that it will be possible to put before them the issue and participation in the works devoted to the history of the great Patriotic war.
are there scientific points of contact with the Baltic countries? Because of the bilateral Commission of historians has ceased operations.
Alexander Chubaryan: to Find a consensus here is very difficult. The Baltic States have their own point of view, as they say, the “occupation” of their countries by the Soviet Union in 1940. In 2020 – 80 years of the event, which affects the position of the historians. In Lithuania, for example, the General denial of the “occupation” can become the reason for criminal prosecution. But I want to offer to colleagues on the Russian-Lithuanian Commission, which resumes to join the creation of benefits. At the end of August scheduled an online”round table” with the Lithuanian historians on the theme “the Centenary of the Treaty of Lithuania with Soviet Russia”, why not try to discuss the topic of participation of citizens of the Baltic republics in the war against Nazism.
According to the Director of the Institute of state history of Committee of science Ministry of education and science of Kazakhstan Burkitbay Ayagan, the new tutorial it would be good to strengthen the theme of the contribution of the anti-Hitler coalition in the victory. And to expand your target audience, you need to print it in Russian, English and German. What kind of audience, from your point of view, this book?
Alexander Chubaryan: First of all the CIS countries. But I think that publishing in English would have a big public response. We could show the world our approaches to the history of the war. In particular, the contribution of allies to the Victory. I recall that recently, Russian historians very fruitful cooperation with the us on the subject of the Second world war. None of the overseas colleagues did not deny the decisive contribution of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazism. The only thing they were concerned that we would not forget their role. I hope to present it in a new tutorial, as suggested by the Kazakh and Uzbek historians. We have over the years discussed what percentage of military spending was lend-lease. Recently, the President again called the figure of 7 percent. It has not been disputed. And this is important to write in the General allowance.
Actually, lately, I see the desire of our colleagues from different countries of the CIS to expand cooperation with historians of States parties of the coalition, mainly from the U.S., England, France.
Noble. Especially against the background of the tweets of the White house, where the winners mentioned only the United States and the United Kingdom.
Alexander Chubaryan: Yes, I was surprised. But still they sent a letter to colleagues, offering to resume cooperation. Interested in this first, we and colleagues from the United States. In our textbooks for secondary schools�� General history describes the actions of the allied troops in North Africa, about the role of the us-British troops in the liberation of Italy. And, of course, about the second front in Europe. But I saw many American and European textbooks. And there is even about the battle of Stalingrad says nothing!
How do you assess the special theme, the individual contribution of the Union republics to the Victory? The thesis of “Victory of the Soviet people” for some historians, even in Belarus, is not obvious.
Alexander Chubaryan: there is This tendency. It stems from the fact that these countries are in search of their national identity and legitimize its States. Against this background, it is exaggeration of its significance in a particular historical event.
But the fact that Belarus and Ukraine have made much more than the other republics, contribution to the guerrilla movement, is undeniable. Nevertheless, the main hostilities took place on the territory of these republics. They also suffered the greatest loss of civilians in the occupation. Based on this and some peculiarities of the historical memory inherent in modern Belarus and Ukraine. This must be considered. But still, from my point of view, the search for its national identity need to build on the positive. Including cooperation with other countries, and not by opposing them. The theme of war with a global enemy like Nazism, is an inappropriate case for pedaling its exclusivity. This will be the main point of our training manuals.
Now about the German historians. They are in the best of their ability to confront politicians. I mean the Director of the Munich Institute of modern history Andreas Wirsing, which in collaboration with the Minister of foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas published in the journal “Spiegel” article on the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second world war. It said: “Germany is the sole responsible” for the outbreak of a terrible massacre of the twentieth century… There you have in common with German colleagues projects?
Alexander Chubaryan: Andreas Wirsing – co-Chairman Russian-German Commission of historians. In January of 2021 wait for his arrival in Moscow. Let’s cook a collection of documents on the history of the twentieth century, including the history and course of the Second world war. This is the Appendix to three volumes of the Russian-German textbook, which we presented not too long ago.
