Discussion: Do we need a law on the denigration of historical memory?
From the editor: As we continue our discussion on draft legislation that would outlaw the denigration of historical memory, we present the view of those who favor its adoption. In this article, political analyst Mikhail Lavrov argues in support of the initiative.
Some time ago, after the memorable “bronze night” in Tallinn, I entertained the notion that Russia ought to impose criminal sanctions on those who question the results of the Second World War. Admittedly, on the wave of emotions I envisioned how some politicians and the current leaders in the Baltic region would feel knowing that any visit to Russia might threaten them with arrest and how they would anxiously have to wait for a visa with guarantees of their personal immunity (much like Iranian President Ahmadinejad probably felt as he was heading to New York for a UN session).
The real reason that prompted me to express my opinion was certainly not in this little bit of vindictiveness; rather, it is something that goes much deeper. I sincerely believe that the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War as its most important part, and especially the outcome, constitute the foundation of modern Russian identity. Even more, the dates of June 22, 1941 and May 9, 1945, as well everything related to them, are the only “points of reference” that allow the notions of “Russia” and the “Russian people” to be preserved in the political and historical space. Otherwise, there is nothing. Gagarin’s flight into space, the world's first nuclear power plant, the greatest attempt in world history to achieve the perennial ideals of social justice, the acts of tsars and emperors, and the militia of Minin and Pozharsky – none of this is absolutely indisputable and does not constitute the absolute and commonly accepted truth for all of Russia and the Russian world: the war of 1941-1945 and its most important outcome – the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.
In order to assure oneself of this, one only has to take note of the fact that up until now, the war has been referred to as “the War” and the victory as “the Victory.” If no further distinctions for these words are added (e.g., the first Chechen war or the victory over the French), then everyone understands perfectly well which war and which victory are being referenced.
This is fundamentally important. After all, in fact, those words “War” and “Victory” include each of the 1,400 days and nights between June 22, 1941 and May 9, 1945, each of the more than 20 million lives lost, all the suffering and hope, the hatred and heroism, the inescapable fear and grief, as well as the frantic joy, triumph, pride, happiness, and eyes filled with tears ... These two words have become the great characters, or, rather, the magical names that signify the most important events in the history of the people and the state, next to which all else pales in comparison. Through such events, the people discovered themselves in a way, discovered their strength and their will to live. They are well aware of their role in their own history and in the history of the world.
It was not by chance that I used the term “magical name,” for that was how the Russian philosopher Losev defined a myth. Yes, you have understood me correctly; I am saying that the Great Patriotic War and the Victory are the essence of the myth. These are the magical names that each of “us” (i.e., those who identify themselves as victors in this war) uses to refer to the totality of events that occurred in our country and for our people from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945. After all, the myth is not a lie or an empty fiction; rather, it is something even greater than the reality because reality is fluid, malleable, incomprehensible in its fullness, indigestible in its infinite complexity, as well as unsustainable and deadly in its inconsistency. The main thing is that it is reality stripped of intrinsic meaning. The myth, which joins reality with the plight of the people and its world outlook, is a powerful tool for understanding reality and distinguishing what is most important for the people.
With regard to reality, its destructive properties became apparent when attempts were made to “tell the truth” about the war. (I use quotation marks here not to imply a sense of “so-called truth;” rather, I use them to denote a certain trend in social and historical thought, in art, cinema, literature, journalism, etc.) The drive to demythologize the war and assign it some kind of objective picture could only be done by replacing the myth, whose truth is shared by practically everyone, with an infinite number of individual truths, scattered fragments of a once single mosaic. Curiously, almost all of these fragments immediately provide the basis for a new process of “understanding,” i.e. the mythologization of reality. But none of them will become full-fledged myths, save for fairy tales (like the works of Suvorov). In any case, the end result of all this can only be the total loss of meaning – the meaning of the War and the Victory.
The meaning is simple: victory in the war for survival – physical, historical, or something else. Simply for survival. We won, therefore, we exist – that is the formula. Remove this victory, and we cease to exist! No more, no less! Otherwise, I repeat, we, the people of Russia, the Russian world in general, do not have anything that affirms our existence in history: neither November 7 nor the November 4 that replaced it, none of our (real!) achievements, none of the wars and victories, save for that One, the most important.
Why it has turned out this way is another question, and one of the conclusions that can be drawn in this situation is the need to create new myths and new magical names in Russia. Perhaps in the future they will be identified and recognized by the people. But to date, May 9 is the real name of Russia – not Dmitry Donskoy, Stolypin, or Stalin (who, incidentally, could claim the championship only because he is traditionally associated in people's minds with this great date).
How would things be if it weren’t for the Victory? Here we have it: “We will give the indigenous people everything they need: plenty of food and cheap drink. If they will not work and tramp around in the camp, they will not have alcohol ... To maintain dominance in the lands that we have gained to the east of the Reich, we must make every effort to satisfy their desire for personal freedom, which only they can express, and thus deprive them of any forms of statehood and, to the extent possible, keep a low level of culture. Our guiding principle should be the following: These people have only one justification for their existence – their economic value to us. We need to focus on extracting from all of these areas everything that can be taken. In order to stimulate their supply of agricultural products to us and to work in our mines and military factories, we will open stores across the country where they will be able to buy those products that they want ... Every village will have a loudspeaker to broadcast the news, and, above all, to allow their minds to escape ... All the villages need is music, music, and more music. Uplifting music is a huge incentive for hard work ... What is important to establish in the Russian territories is an effective system of communication, which is vital for the rational economic exploitation of the country, for supervision and the maintenance of order.”
This is what would have happened to us had there been no victory on May 9, 1945. But what is most amusing is what waits for us right now, in 2009, if we betray this Victory, begin to doubt it, and to give in to the temptation of “objectivity” (or “so-called objectivity”).
Taking this step, with surprise we can find that “objective” history does not know the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against Nazi invaders. It only knows the “deadly battle between two tyrannical regimes.” For the rest of the “free” world it did not matter which side won and at what price, as the victory of one evil over another does not give rise to good. True victory of good over evil was only possible when the last of the “tyrannical regimes,” that is, Soviet communism, ceased to exist. By the way, quite a few American politicians and military men who were directly involved in World War II held a similar point of view.
“Objectivity” does not stop here, however. It requires that we admit the criminal nature of the Stalinist regime, which under the yoke of the Soviet people won a victory over the same crime of Hitlerism. It also requires that we recognize the criminal nature of our victory and the “Soviet yoke” it brought to the countries of Eastern Europe. And if one has at least a drop of “objectivity” remaining, one must admit the right of such viewpoints to exist in Poland and the Baltics, the Czech Republic and Romania.
After that one can try to escape from moral evaluations and turn the conversation to the topic of military prowess, which will lead to a recognition of victory of sorts. One’s “objective” interlocutor will then grin and bring up a whole host of “objective” evidence of the unsavory and inhuman nature of many of the decisions made during the Great Patriotic War, which, nevertheless, led to the final victory.
Are we ready to admit that the “objective” history of the period from 1941-1945 is correct? Personally, I am not! And I do not want my children and grandchildren to receive injections of such “objectivity,” until they have first learned the Our Father, what two times two equals and that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea. On May 9, 1945, the Soviet Union won the greatest victory in history over fascist Germany, which attacked it on June 22, 1941. If protection of the absolute truth means adding criminal sanction for calls to reconsider this historical fact, then I will certainly vote for it.
This doesn’t have to involve criminal punishment, and we are certainly not talking about long prison sentences and other “horrors of the Inquisition.” Not at all. But left unattended, an attempt to undermine the foundations of social identity, continuity, the people’s historical memory, the cultural, historical and moral code – this all seems unacceptable to me.
In response, I can already hear the outrage. What about the freedom of opinion? Everyone has the right to express and defend his or her point of view, including the history of the Great Patriotic War. This argument, of course, is “murderous!” Its supporters, however, do not take into account that many countries prosecute actions and statements that insult state symbols: the flag, coat of arms and higher officials. No international document states that the list of sacred, inviolable symbols is closed. I think that there are no formal (from the perspective of democracy) obstacles to adopting a special law on the integrity of the memory of the Great Patriotic War as one of the highest (and in my opinion, the best) symbols of the state.
Another objection concerns freedom of academic research: the rule I am allegedly defending will mean a ban on all historical research on this period or on its publication. I don’t think that this is the case, however. Instead, paradoxically, it may turn out that precisely the quality of research in this area will greatly improve, as historians’ responsibility will increase with respect to factual accuracy, precision, academic character and interpretation. I still believe that the curiosity of these historians is inseparable from their professional and ethical responsibility. It is unlikely that history conceals some facts that might disprove my basic conclusions regarding the Great Patriotic War and the role of the Soviet Union in the Victory. These charlatan “storytellers,” political muckrakers, authors of useless textbooks, and unscrupulous “popularizers” who are ready “for the sake of a witty remark to sell their parents” simply must be stopped. For them, neither history nor truth is important. They need only sensations, news and scandals. Or, they need very different myths, which are aimed at refuting and replacing our national memory and pride.
In short, there is no need to dramatize, and I want the principal facts to remain inviolable: that we were attacked by a strong enemy who intended to destroy us, that we stood up and defeated this enemy, that we won and, therefore, still exist and will continue to exist as a single people and as a great state. That is all. If someone in the Baltic or in America wants to believe in something else, that is his business. But for us, for Russia, for the Russian world, the truth may only be in our Victory. And as long as the victory is OURS, it is a VICTORY, and we are the essence.
