David McDuff has discovered an RIA Novosti report called "Hitler’s Ally Should Not Correct Textbooks". It reports of the Russian Government’s deep offense that Finland is attempting to revise history textbooks to portray its involment in World War Two in a more favourable light. Finland must bear its share of responsibility for causing the war, Russia says.
David points out the obvious problem with Russia’s indignation:
This view of the "historical truth" excludes completely, of course, an
awareness or admission that in 1939 Soviet Russia concluded a military
agreement with Nazi Germany, and that the invasion, occupation, and
partition of Poland and much of the rest of Eastern Europe in that year
was conducted according to a secret joint Nazi-Soviet protocol. It
misses out the fact that in the Winter War of 1939-40, launched by
Stalin against Finland, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were on the same
side. It also omits any mention of the massive and crippling
reparations that Finland was forced to pay to the Soviet Union after
the end of the war.It’s clear that the Kremlin authorities are now reverting to a view of
World War II deriving from the hardline, Stalinist approach to its
history that characterized the early years of the Cold War.
It is a very sad thing to see on the eve of the 60th anniversary of VE Day. Although most countries try to forget, or gloss over the less glorious aspects of their history, most democratic countries at least have a sensible public debate about the issues. The bombing raid on Dresden by the British RAF for example. Many people think it was necessary, many don’t. But the debate is a lively one, and it is covered in the mass media. People can make up their own minds.
I’ve never seen or heard of a real debate in Russia about their alliance with Hitler in the early years of WW2. As far as most Russians are concerned, Hitler was always their enemy. Far too many don’t even know that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact ever existed.
- What next?
Stumble it
Digg it
Save to Delicious
Leave a comment
Subscribe
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments }
David McDuff 03.04.05 at 7:06 pm
Sorry about the last sentence in that post - it should read: “It’s clear that the Kremlin authorities are now reverting to a view of World War II deriving from the hardline, Stalinist approach to its history that characterized the early years of the Cold War.” Now corrected.
Actually, even RIAN’s notion that the Finnish government “is attempting to revise history” is simply propaganda. The history of the Continuation War, when Finland fought alongside German forces, but not with German forces, has been taught in Finnish schools since the Kekkonen era.
As for the likelihood of the facts about the Nazi-Soviet Pact ever being taught in Russian schools - the upcoming May 9 “celebrations” are probably meant to make a final and definitive contribution to rendering that impossible.
Andy 03.04.05 at 7:24 pm
I’ve updated my original post to reflect the change.
Alexei 03.05.05 at 8:28 am
I have no ethical problem whatsoever with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. After Munich, ethics was dead in Europe. The relevant question is whether it helped Moscow to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany. Soviet propaganda billed the pact as giving the Soviet Union much-needed breathing space, and that much seems true, although it remains unclear whether Stalin wanted it to get ready for a defensive or an offensive war.
The notion that the pact was not mentioned in Soviet textbooks is wrong. It was, although not the secret protocols; so was the fact that the USSR annexed Eastern Poland and the Baltics. Note also all these areas were parts of the Russian empire before 1917.
For McDuff (to be honest, I cannot stand his views, so my bias against him must be enormous), it was OK for Finland, but oh so wrong for Soviet Russia, to fight “alongside” Nazi Germany. I admire the patriotism and stoicism of Finns in the Winter War and the aftermath (Finnish residents were expelled from the Vyborg isthmus); I am grateful for their reserve during the “Continuation War” (as they call it), but it does not change the fact they fought on the side of our enemies in the War of German Aggression (which is how I prefer to call the subset of WWII that is relevant to Russians). They had good reasons for teaming up with Hitler, and we had good reasons for what we did. That’s fine with me, but don’t tell me they were right and we were wrong.
People like McDuff misunderstand the nature of WWII as perceived by most Russians, and by doing so and indulging in diatribes in defense of various small nations that were not exactly anti-Nazi during the war, he is playing right into the hands of Russian imperialists. (Note that I am an anti-imperial nationalist as it were.) The war of German Aggression was a war of survival for Russia (and Belarus, and large parts of Ukraine). We paid a huge price in blood (partly, but not entirely because of Stalin’s and his generals’ massive errors) but we survived as a people and, moreover, destroyed the enemy. May 9 is the day of remembrance of this epic struggle, and of commemoration of the fallen. The memory of the war is one of the very few bonds that still hold together what remains of the nation. Seen in this light, McDuff’s enclosing “celebrations” in quotation marks is so offensive to the common Russian that it automatically disqualifies the author from any meaningful discussion of WWII. It may be “celebrations” for the Latvian and the Finn but it’s Celebrations for the Russian.
I wish McDuff would never again utter a word of support for the Russian opposition.
Alexei 03.05.05 at 9:29 pm
Regarding public debate, the pact was much discussed in the Soviet press during the perestroika, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (The Soviet government admitted the existence of the secret protocols in 1989 or 1990 if memory serves me right.) There was little left to debate after that.
Also, those Russians who say Hitler was always the enemy are right in principle, although not technically. Those who lived though those times remember that, despite Moscow’s conciliatory rhetoric, the country was getting ready for war. (The war with Finland was probably a test of the Red Army’s fighting capability.) Strategically, Moscow continued to view Hitler as the long-term enemy. It could be that Stalin hoped to attack Hitler while Germany was busy conquering France and Britain but we migh never find out.
What I do feel bad about is my having referred to David McDuff in the third person here instead of addressing him in the second person on his blog. That might be unethical indeed, unlike the 1939 pact.
Ma r t i n @ b l o g b a t 03.06.05 at 2:47 am
Not much fun for Finland to have the Nazis and Russians in a race to see who first could cross the *ahem* finish line. But at least by such review of history the same reader may just as well as a peripheral result come to the conclusion that the French were not truly surrendering to the Nazis during the onslaught of the German occupation of Vichy-France in that same period, rather declaring their solidarity with the poor fins as each man dropped his rifle and declared, “suis finis”…
Of course, I’m only being comical, however in all seriousness I do think the fins had a very tough set of options during that time. It was very unfortunate and tragic.
P Nykänen 03.06.05 at 6:39 am
May I ad some facts concerning the relations between Germany Soviet Union and Finland during 1932-1955.
1932-1939 Soviet Union and Finland had non-aggression pact
1939-1941 Soviet Union and Germany had military alliance
1941-1944 Germany and Finland had a military alliance
In 19.9.1945 made Finland piece with Soviet Union, Great Britain and other allied forces.
1944-1945 Finland and allied forces (Soviet Union, Great Britain etc.) had a military alliance
As far as I understand history books Finland was forced to take her own way to survive between two dangerous dictators Hitler and Stalin.
Life was not easy in those days. Ordinary people in Russia, Germany and Finland had a lot of suffering.
Alexei 03.06.05 at 8:11 am
Exactly, Pekka: each of these peoples had a hard time and has its own vision — I would say a sense of its own history. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is but doing its job voicing concerns over President Halonen’s downplaying (as Moscow sees it, which may well be incorrect) the role of Finland’s temporary alliance with Germany.
Note also that back in 1939, few people saw Hitler for what he would become to us. Come to think of it, the number of Hitler’s victims from 1933 to August 1939 was miniscule compared with that of the Stalin regime in the same years, to say nothing of the Bolsheviks in general. Quite a few influential Europeans had admired Hitler before WWII began.
P.Nykänen 03.06.05 at 7:04 pm
Alexei. Marshal Mannerheim ordered 1941-1942 that military operations against Leningrad were stopped. He saw that Germany will lose the war. In summer 1944 Finland got anti-tank weapons from Germany and partly these weapons in the hands of finnish soldiers helped to stop the invasion of Stalin’s troops in Tali-Ihantala.
After 60 years those events we all can be wise.
Because of Generalissimus Stalin’s aggression against Finland 39-40, Finland was forced to ask military support from Germany.
I am sure that Stalin’s military attack against Finland in 30.11.1939-13.3.1940 (Winter war) was the main reason to the unfortunate events in 1941-1944 between Soviet Union and Finland.
Fortunately after WWII the relations between these two nations developed favourably. Why not continue these good relations between neighbour countries.
Matt 03.17.05 at 5:36 pm
I’ll add that a very large number of Russians, even well educated, college graduates, know nothing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I lived there for a few years and visit regularly, as my wife is Russian. I discussed WWII on many occasions. Only a tiny minority had even heard of it. For them, WWII started in ‘41. And, while text books sort of mentioned it, it usually went something like this, “In ‘39 Hittler invaded Poland in an act of agression. In response, the Soviet Union extended its sphere of influence into Eastern Poland.” Not, exactly, how the Poles saw it! More like how the US has “extended its sphere of influence” into Iraq.
Comments on this entry are closed.