History is not astronomy
Historical experience rethinking is a natural process, if it is provoked by discovery of new sources and documents, representing events in the past in new perspective. The main thing is that evolution of historical memory might not depend on legal, mental, ethical, and above all political progress, appropriate to each age. For the past event is under the jurisdiction of only its contemporaries, guided not only by a paragraph, but also by legal culture of their age and not putting off their assessment. An example of that is the Nuremberg process that legally indisputably specified persons guilty of the unleashing of the Second World War and punished them.
Otherwise a detonating mixture of invariable yesterday's reality and today’s conjuncture will appear. Even repentances for the old own transgressions are evidence of not so much awaken conscience, as of needs of the current situation. The notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not an exception in this regard. The indisputability of the fact of its conclusion, implementation, as well as conviction of such a practice for the future, is though concealed by the doubtfulness of the time when the Russian copy of the document was presented at social court – the end of the restless 80s years of last century did not become the best period for that.
Even worse if historical versions rather alienate, than reconcile neighbors that even without that accumulated century compromising evidence on each other. For the universal history is identical to the military one in many respects. Is it any use continuing such in the present age, abounding in global risks as it is? It is equally true that the events happened within the lifetime of the last 2 or 3 generations, are perceived more sharply and politicized, than “the old times legends”. History is not astronomy after all. That is why protection of national and personal right to historical vision is necessary. In order that when aiming at “–isms” in any content, one might not “hit Russia” once again.
A political scientist supplements a historian
Generally speaking, the majority of serious researchers’ scientific assessments of the Second World War eve coincide. But on July 3 the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution, firstly, in essence equating Nazism with Stalinism, secondly, announcing the date of signing the Soviet-German Pact a day of remembrance of victims of totalitarian regimes - under the protection of a slogan of all-European consolidation. Thirdly, European politicians assigned August 23, 1939 almost “by a decree” as a date of the beginning of the Second World War, a very debatable date even among specialists. That is why a political scientist, not pretending to historical science enrichment, tries to include in it a little bit of analytical honesty.
We shall begin, so to say, with a general plan: any nation has the right both to be proud of its historical way, and to arouse sympathy for it. An image of so called fine year is suitable for pride, - the most-favoured-nation year, often territorial one, associated with nearly divine justice. It is opposed to national hard times, in which it is simpler to accuse a neighbor. Alas, a true history does not accept not only subjunctive mood, but also black-and-white gamut. Not long ago in Wroclaw, the former German Breslau that had gone to Poland after the Second World War, an exposition with maps was deployed, dedicated to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They showed how many acres the Soviet Union occupied in Poland. But on these maps Breslau itself was not mentioned. Whereas Lithuania just in the year of the Soviet “occupation” acquired about 13 percent of its current territory. And there are quite a lot of such examples. But it is just Lithuania - not without Poles’ sympathy – together with Slovakia, for whatever reason joined it, became initiator of the OSCE resolution. By the way, it is just with Lithuania, “profoundly concerned” about our “materialized” repentance, that one of the events is connected, which increased the martyrology of the Holocaust. The matter is that already on June 25, 1941 the marched into Kaunas units of the Wehrmacht found the local nationalists prepared for a “final solution of the Jewish question” – the result is 2 thousand killed for 2 days. It is hard to tell who then was more zealous – the Hitlerites or the “victims of Stalinism”.
We shall repeat: political scientist’s concern is provoked not by alternative versions of historians concerning the events of 70 years ago, but political speculations on them. Or rather – their single-vector anti-Russian set course. We shall explain by questions. Firstly, is contrasting of the then global players on the evidently modernized principle – democrats against totalitarists too stilted? While the anti-Hitlerite coalition that terminated not only Nazism, but also the war, was composed of the countries, quite mutually spaced by ideological and political wind rose: the “democratic” USA and Great Britain, occupied France and the Stalinist Soviet Union. By the way, methods of not only armed, but also political struggle, to which the then “democrats” resorted, hardly correspond to the present understanding of the good and the bad. We shall reasonably pass over in silence Dresden and Hiroshima. But also at the Yalta conference of the victorious powers in 1945 all three of the world leaders interestedly discussed a possibility of immolation of tens of thousands of Hitlerite officers for edifying eradication of German militarism. And nearly in the 90s of the last century the USA lifted the curse from their fellow citizens-Japanese, isolated in camps after Tokyo’s attack on Pearl Harbour. Not going into historical details, note that Germans were luckier in some way in the USSR.
Secondly, why is the beginning of the Second World War “assigned” leaving no alternative to the date of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Was that really in order to accuse Berlin and Moscow of unleashing of war “equally” by easily remembered list of memorable dates? But, there were no attacks on August 23. The fact that combat operations began a week later, indicates another date – the 1st September, 1939. If one insists on a political and diplomatic “incitement” to the beginning of the world war, then logically it can be the Munich agreement, signed by Germany, England, France and Italy in September, 1938. It provoked the German occupation of the Czech Sudeten and at the same time the Polish occupation of the Teshin Region being a part of Czechoslovakia. It is not least reasonable to consider the beginning of the war the Hitlerite Anschluss of Austria in March of 1938 – Hitler set to create with it “the Millenary Reich”.
As regards a secret protocol to the Moscow agreement that did not bring us more favor (this protocol is mostly called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), it really stipulated for an area of the USSR’s interests in the Eastern Europe and Baltic states. Moscow, not having alternative in form of an all-European anti-Hitlerite shield, partially availed of this protocol in full accordance with the then ideas about correlation of morality and political reasonability. We shall ask directly: if Rudolf Gess flew in May 1941 in England not for conclusion of the same "separate” treaty, why the information of this event is not to the last не disclosed? And are so conspirological the suspicions of murder of this Nazi criminal that was inside the five Hitlerite bonzes? While he was dead at the British guard in the Spandau prison in Berlin …
Thirdly, why is the journalistic “totalitarianism” associated with a wide range of modern sovereigns, so exclusively condemned with regard to the events of 70 years ago? Because this is neither “genocide”, nor “”Nazism” that had received a legal, but not a bureaucratic appraisal. Hence, fourthly, what is the Structure of the OSCE created in 1975 doing to make a compromise between the West and the East? Because it was established in addition to the bureaucratized UN and as a counter to the opposing NATO and the Warsaw Treaty. If the demand for a compromise and “co-understanding”, as a means of survival in the confrontational age, disappeared from the beginning of the 90s, what are we obliged for to this international institution that became not an intermediary, but an instrument of political pressure on us? What all-European consolidation is it appropriate to talk about? Fifthly, do counter reasons have any hidden claims to Moscow? - No. Russia has neither territorial, nor other international legal claims to neighbors and does not cultivate this subject. In the historical legal sense we rather proceed from a zero option: we transfer the past to historians, the present – to politicians amid hopes for their responsibility for the future. That is, do not wish us what we have experienced together, and we will wish you equally unclouded wellbeing.
That is why, sixthly, and this may be the main thing. What worst consequences are in store for the country, making no resistance to “directively founded” political chicaneries, looking like a diktat? - Above all, assignment of moral responsibility in Russia for victims of war time, as an antecedent of legal liability. Which in the worst case scenario for us threatens Moscow by power “argumentation”. In any event, multibillion actions against Russia of reparation of damages from the Soviet “occupation” in many East European capitals are already prepared. Lithuania was one of the first to prepare such an action (for 23 billion Euro) – author of the resolution on August 23. The matter depends on admission of the USSR as a criminal state, and Russia – as its heir at law. But for the beginning it is necessary to strengthen in mass consciousness Hitler's and Stalin’s identity and that of the Soviet Union and the fascist Germany.
The bench mark
Some historians believe that the “claim” process was initiated by Gorbachev’s too reckless admission of our responsibility for destruction of the captive Polish officers in Katyn. At least an interpretation of so called firing lists deserves an additional investigation. Were they such or did they represent an enclosure to the deed of conveyance of the captives from people's commissariat of defense of NKVD? - the questions is not only historical, but also political. It is not impossible that not knowing of future variant readings, Hitlerites made use of the situation in 1941 founding still living Poles in the abandoned camps. Maybe, efforts of historians of at least three countries interested in truth, should be focused just on this theme? However, the present Russian diplomacy’s efforts seem to be more significant than enquiries in interpretation of political scientists.
