“ANY POLITICAL MANIPULATION OF HISTORY IS UNACCEPTABLE”

In 2009, a presidential decree established the Commission to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia’s Interests. Business Mir asked Commission chairman Sergey Yevgenyevich Naryshkin to answer several questions related to his organisation’s activities. Mr. Naryshkin discussed Russian archive declassification, publishing scientific and educational literature, Internet projects and critical debates on modern Europe and Russian history.

Photo: Itar-Tass Mr. Naryshkin, could you describe the Commission’s work, the tasks it faces, what has already been achieved and what remains to be done? As an advisory body, the Commission is required to review and summarise attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russian interests as well as to prepare appropriate recommendations for adequate responses to such attempts. The Commission’s activities are also focused on promoting historical truth by analysing hard facts and documentary sources. I would like to emphasise that the Commission is in no way associated with any form of censorship but targets a true understanding of history. The Commission’s work is absolutely transparent. Its conference minutes and decisions are made public and the organisation has never had a secret agenda. History is a sphere of human knowledge, so it should not be written – or rewritten – based on instructions received from the upper ranks. This approach, which was quite common in the past, is unacceptable in a democratic Russia and the Commission strongly rejects it. I believe that even our opponents can not find fault with us in that regard. Countering moves aimed at falsifying history to the detriment of Russia is one of the Commission’s main tasks. That doesn’t mean that we should lead historical knowledge and thinking processes but rather primarily focus our efforts on providing assistance with organising the development of the process – from scientific research to education and the promotion of historical knowledge. One of the Commission’s meetings concerned analysing the current status of the national archives. In fact, the level of archival research affects the process of historical knowledge. Archives are bread and water to our historians. Archival institutions face a lot of problems stemming from low wages and inadequate basic materials as well as ageing archival staff and much, much more. Naturally, a single – or even several – Commission meetings can’t resolve the many problems that have been accumulating over the years. But the Commission addressed a number of serious questions to organisations involved in supporting the development of archive-keeping and we will definitely return to analysing their answers to our questions. National archives are a huge enterprise with over 13,000 staff members. The archives keep some 246 million records and 4.3% of them are classified. Hence there are hundreds of thousands of classified records which can be essential to truly understanding historical events. In my opinion, the problem of declassifying the national archives is being dealt with quite seriously and a lot of progress has already been made on the issue. We held a joint meeting with the Inter- Agency Commission for the Protection of State Secrets. More than 10 million records have already been declassified as a result of the joint decisions made at that meeting. These declassified documents have become a source for core academic publications such as “The Tragedy of the Soviet Village”, “20th Century Russia”, “A History of the Gulag” and “Nuclear Projects in the USSR”. A six volume edition on the history of the creation and development of both Russia and the USSR’s military-industrial complex is also based on declassified documents and was principally drawn from newly released documentation. We intend to continue declassifying and providing broad access – including over the Internet – to archival documents. On the one hand, it is necessary to remove superfluous barriers and restrictions on access to archival documents that have historical and scientific value while on the other, we must exclude any possible national security breaches. Every country considers national security in declassifying archived documents. The declassification deadline for the documents related to Rudolf Hess’ solo flight to England in May, 1941 expired not long ago. Hess was a very high ranking individual in the Third Reich and was privy to much valuable information, hence his interrogation records are enormously important to understanding the historical events that followed. The world community of historians had been eagerly awaiting the declassification of Hess’ records in the hope that they would shed some light on the shadowy areas of pre-WWII British politics. But what happened? The British then extended the declassification deadline for the documents. Some historians interpret this move to be motivated by British fears that declassification could potentially be detrimental to their national security. Russian scientific centres have prepared and published over 50 books on modern history’s most sensitive issues in cooperation with the Commission, which likewise provided organisational assistance. Many of the books are based on new archival documents that were released to mark the the occasion of the Great Victory’s 65th anniversary. The aforementioned books were supported by so many documents and such convincing arguments that they came as a surprise to the Commission’s opponents, who wish to promote an alternative perspective on the events of those years. These books have actually been applauded by both the scientific community and the general public. However, the print runs of these publications are small. They basically went to university libraries and there weren’t enough printed to supply them all. That is why we support the Federal Culture Ministry’s proposal to include these books in the list that is intended to be used to restock Russian libraries. I think it would be an interesting and rewarding gift to readers who are interested in modern interpretations of history. Who benefits from rewriting history today and why? It is instrumental for the development of general cooperation and collaboration at an international level to start from the premise that any political manipulation of history is unacceptable. The principle of manipulating history for political reasons being deemed unacceptable at the highest political and governmental levels is what determines a democracy’s maturity and the general civil development of any country. Manipulating history demonstrates a nation’s lack of political freedom and historical science’s subjugation to the powers that be. Today, rewriting history is beneficial for those who are not satisfied with Russia’s thriving development and its successful progress toward democracy. The path to historical truth is complex but it is the only way to establish trust and understanding on both bilateral and multilateral levels. A good example would be the progressive changes in our relations with Poland, which have passed the ordeal of veracity and are currently based on greater mutual trust and understanding. The lies that piled up around the events at Katyn were debunked by a public offering of archival documents dating back to those years on the Internet. And it is truth that really helped our nations endure the terrible tragedy of the Polish president’s deadly plane crash near Smolensk in April, 2010. Just 20 years ago, every secondary school and university student studied from the same history textbooks. Today we have neither a unified history textbook system nor a common approach to history itself. Does that mean that Russia doesn’t have a united view of its own history any longer? Issues related to teaching history and the lower school and university textbooks used to do so were repeatedly discussed during a number of the Commission’s meetings. Issues around education, historical and cultural enlightenment and relevant problems were hotly debated. History textbooks are subjected to severe criticism from the public in our country. Given the well-known saying that history is politics projected into the past, then education might justifiably be called the policy of shaping the future. And this is exclusively the province and function of the state. Therefore, working with the younger generation is one of the main components of combating historical distortion and the country’s future political and moral stability largely depends on finding the proper solution to this problem. Primary, secondary and high school history textbooks are the most important means for the state to implement its educational functions. Indeed, we are currently being subjected to a lot of criticism concerning the quality and the quantity of those very textbooks. However, the period of time between the changes that occurred in Russia and the present day is as yet insufficient to renew scientific, historical and ideological systems in order to present a guideline for community life, which of course includes textbooks. The passionate nature of the public debate on the subject demonstrates how seriously the issues raised are being taken. We are currently following the difficult and painful road to self-identification on a new cycle of socio-historical development. And it is impossible to blame textbooks for this. The textbook is a reflection of the historical moment which the country is facing at the time it was written. And it can not be better or worse than that very moment itself. I must say that efforts are being made to improve history textbooks. A new procedure of evaluating textbooks was created and approved, which primarily includes the involvement of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education. We managed to significantly reduce the number of textbooks submitted for expert evaluation. Between 2005 and 2008, 144 textbooks were evaluated. In 2009, the number significantly decreased, with just 130 textbooks included in the list of textbooks “recommended for use in educational institutions” for the 2011-2012 academic year. And I think that’s still too many. However, their number counted in the hundreds just a few years ago. Pupils study from between 12-14 textbooks on different eras of Russian and world history during their primary and secondary school years. Therefore, 2-4 ranges of textbooks are optimal for completely and objectively studying history in school. This kind of streamlining will assist in teaching children to think logically, enriching their intellectual perspective and personal vision. Writing new history textbooks is laborious work which is laden with responsibilities and can not be undertaken hastily. It is also worth mentioning the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation’s practical initiative to create an Internet site dedicated to history as well. The site is visited daily by numerous young people, students and schoolchildren. However, materials which shed light on the falsification of Russia’s national history are not regularly posted on this site. I believe that this inconsistency will shortly be rectified. Russia’s Culture and Communications and Mass Media ministries are currently working on the design of a history website, which is intended to become a social network as well as a mass-media tool. The idea is for history to become a topic of on-line discussion using feedback web debates with site contributors such as leading Russian historians. On-line interaction between academic institutions, professional historians and archivists will undoubtedly be useful for all those who are interested in various matters of a historical nature. The Commission is coordinating this work as we anticipate precisely such an outcome... Politicians often use historical facts taken out of context and partially interpret them to support their own ambitions. Does this mean that history is currently becoming a political resource? Through the late 1980s, history was considered to be a political science in our country, with all that implies. The new approach to Russian history is focused on understanding that this science should be freed from political pressure and its development must be implemented through free discussions on a par with freedom of speech. This is one of the conditions of shaping civil society to which we aspire. But to completely extract political content from history is objectively impossible. The result of any scientific research – be it in the field of chemistry, biology, medicine or another science – has always had political repercussions and history is no exception. In fact, historic knowledge of the world serves to educate future generations – as well as school children today – on not repeating past errors. It would be naive to believe that politicians will cease using historical parallels to defend their points of view and particularly now, when the world obviously lacks new ideas to shape a more fair and sustainable system of social organisation. And the public’s demands for a new world and new ideas are being heard in Western democracies’ top political circles. Interest in the past and history always intensifies on sharp twists and turns along the road to social development, noted outstanding Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky. Hence, history should obviously not stand apart from the pressing problems of civilisation. The highest mission of any science is to help society develop. Another issue is why some politicians resort to using historical examples. If they do so solely in order to advance their political careers, then it is immoral. Statements have recently been made implicating Russia as the aggressive party at the outbreak of WWII. Given the modern social and political essays on the subject, would it be possible to consider it a trend to revisit the outcome of WWII? In terms of historic veracity and scientific argument, making Russia the aggressor rather than the victor can only be motivated by selfishness. The reality is that today we are really faced with a distortion of history about WWII and its results, which later determined the post-war world order. In its position as a country that won the war, Russia played a leading role in establishing the current world order. And it is quite obvious that it continued to play one of the leading roles in the post-war system of international relations. These conjectures proved useful for beginning the Cold War but have become a source of anti-Russian propaganda for many events of the WWII years. One can find many examples throughout the course of history where ideologically vengeful versions of the past were used to fight objectivity in addressing political problems at a particular point in time. I think that the surest way to combat the falsification of national history is by creating new platforms for discussion, with distinguished scientists and representatives of leading national research centres acting as contributors. History today is not amenable to regulation from above. Its further development is determined by the system of democratic values itself. Just as with any other science, history is self-regulating and self-sufficient. Historical science should free itself from the blight of politicisation and dishonesty. Truth must be born of honest debate and free from political pressure. So-called “Memory Institutions” were created in several Eastern European countries to exhibit security service archives and various former party archives. Should Russia create a similar institution and how do you view the idea? Similar institutions have existed in Russia for a long time now. There are hundreds of military and historical museums featuring constantly updated, theme-based exhibitions dealing with the events of those years. Virtually every Russian town and village has memorials to soldiers who died in WWII and these monuments have already become culturally and historically symbolic. Federal government officials, local authorities and the general public naturally take part in the activities of the aforementioned memory institutions. Above all, the activities of these memory institutions are aimed at promoting historical veracity and not at settling accounts with other countries and peoples that participated in WWII. The Russian people and the other peoples of Russia cherish the memory of the hardships and tragedies of the war years. This memory is sacred to them. Time may have reconciled former enemies but it did not erase the great pain the war years left behind. In Russia, however, there is no sense of animosity, no desire to get even with former adversaries and subject them to social and moral condemnation by highlighting unsavoury aspects of their policies in the past. I can confidently state that our historical science follows along the same lines as those described. It is ready to fight uncompromisingly for historical veracity and an objective assessment of WWII based strictly on documented evidence of its findings. Russian historians are willing to selflessly share their knowledge and the newly discovered facts that shed light on the past’s dramatic events. Russian historical science is aware of its responsibility – not only in terms of fashioning historical thought in our country but also as to strengthening a sense of trust and morality in international relations, where the past has proven that the role of history and historians is far from negligible.