map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Features

Molotov-Ribbentrop: 70 Years On, Russians Loyal To Their Version Of Events

German and Soviet troops at the so-called ''Border of Peace,'' the demarcation line set up by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in September 1939.

August 23, 2009
By Kevin O'Flynn
MOSCOW -- The past is a controversial subject in Russia. And the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is no exception.

The nonaggression pact, signed on August 23, 1939, by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and his German counterpart, Joachim von Ribbentrop, included a secret protocol that divided up Northern and Eastern Europe into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence."

In the run-up to the anniversary, Russia's state television and newspapers pushed a version of historical events that saw the pact as a logical extension of the pan-European negotiations that preceded the start of World War II in 1939.

It's a bitter anniversary for the Baltic states, Poland, and the other countries where peoples' fates were committed overnight to decades of Soviet domination. But on the streets of Moscow, the pact is seen differently.

Many people say the pact was necessary to buy the Soviet Union time to prepare for what was seen as an inevitable war with Hitler. Many are unaware of the secret protocol that divided up Eastern Europe between Russia and Germany.

'It's Political Intrigue'

Soviet officials refused to acknowledge the secret protocol until 1989. However, even those who know about the deal -- like 32-year-old Aleksei -- feel little sympathy for the people caught in the middle.

"If the Baltics think that we are invaders, it's a mistake," he said, "We saved them. They were a poor country that we raised up from nothing. It's political intrigue. You can't listen to that seriously."

Map of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact area, in Russian (click to enlarge)
Resentment over the pact and its secret protocol remains vivid in the former Soviet "sphere of influence" -- particularly in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, where relations with Moscow have grown increasingly antagonistic in recent years.

Estonia in 2007 sparked a diplomatic row with Russia by relocating a World War II-era Soviet monument away from a central Tallinn square. The Soviet Union suffered staggering losses in the war, and authorities in Russia today staunchly reject any assault on the USSR's role in defeating Nazi Germany.

Continued anger in the Baltics over Molotov-Ribbentrop is a sore point for Tatyana Nikitina, a 55-year-old music editor, even as she concedes those countries should have been consulted in 1939.

"I think the way they're acting now isn't right," she says. "It's very narrow-minded and egotistical."

Polls reguarly show that close to half of all Russians remain unaware of the secret protocol. In a July survey by the Levada public opinion center, 61 percent of Russians said they did not know that Soviet troops invaded eastern Poland in September 1939.

Ignoring History

Denis Volkov of the Levada center say such figures show a tendency among Russians to willingly ignore awkward chapters from their Soviet past.

Pensioner Rufina Galiullina said she doesn't know the full details of what was agreed 70 years ago.

Soviet originals of the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (click to enlarge)
"I don't know how they took half of Poland. We were small then,|" said Galiullina. "When the war started, I was only 3 years old. What could we understand? It was only later that the papers started to write and write and write about it."

Nowadays, most Russians get their news from state television, which is rigorously controlled and steers clear of negative aspects of the country's Soviet past.

On the occasion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop anniversary, TV stations began promoting a view of the pact as a rational and defendable move by Soviet policymakers eager to postpone a conflict with Germany.

A news show recently reported that the pact was similar to how Western countries dealt with Germany at the 1938 Munich Conference, when Czechoslovak territory was offered to Hitler for annexation by British and French leaders seeking to appease the Nazi leader.

"In 1938, the leaders of Britain and France -- [Neville] Chamberlain and [Edouard] Daladier -- came to Munich to give Czechoslovakia away to Hitler," said the program,

Historians from Russia's foreign intelligence service, or SVR, this week released a book defending the pact.

One of the authors, Major General Lev Sotskov, told the "Komsomolskaya pravda" newspaper that Moscow "had no other way of delaying war."

He also said the governments of the Baltic states at the time invited Soviet troops into their countries, but made no mention of the fact that pro-Soviet regimes had been forcibly installed in those countries before the request was made.

Kremlin officials in recent years have made a priority of burnishing the nation's history, ordering an overhaul of academic texts and using the media and state events to glorify even dubious chapters of Russia's past.

'Why Are We Defending Stalin?'

Opposition politician Vladimir Ryzhkov says he finds the current revisionism baffling.

"I don't understand why we are defending Stalin, why we are debating the fact that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact played a key role in the start of the Second World War," he said, "I don't understand the motivation, apart from maybe a personal sympathy to Stalin and the Stalinist regime."

Twenty-two-year-old Vadim Veterkov is a member of Nashi, the nationalist Kremlin-backed youth group. He says he sees the pact as an admirable attempt to prevent a Soviet-German war, even if it ultimately failed.

"[The pact] was in some ways the only way out after the Munich Agreement," he said. "But as history has shown, no matter how positive its intent, [the pact] proved ineffective, for understandable reasons."

Only 6 percent of Russians in the Levada poll in July condemned the pact outright.

Valery Volkov, a 36-year-old musician, said he supports the nonaggression pact itself but criticized the secret protocol.

"The pact should have taken place in any case, but the conditions in the agreement weren't right," he said. "It gave Russia an imperial aspect to its future development. That, in my view, wasn't right. We needed to be a different kind of country."
This forum has been closed.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
by: Yakov from: Virginia
August 31, 2009 14:36
Of course Stalin was not Russian. He was Georgian (Sakartvelo), but that didn't deter that monster from murdering thousands of innocent Georgians in his political so-called chistky. What more proof of evil does one need than the killing of ones own brothers?

by: Michael Averko
August 26, 2009 12:17
As is true below, there's ongoing BS elsewhere about the USSR benefitting Russia and Russians at the expense of others.

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
August 26, 2009 03:04
It is true that West more interested in western vew of history, however West didn't deny the truth as it was published in the East, till Russians took over USSR, smeared non-Russian nations and Stalin and started to destroy books...

At this point British co-conspirators of Russian usurpers supported Russian smear in the West that included also a new interpretation of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and number of other imperial incinuations of the Russian Chauvinists-usurpers...

West was confused to such degree that French went on national strikes against USSR interests...
Finally, West, being told by the British, let the Russians to pervert history as they were pleased...

Vitali, however, still pownding imperial Russian versus that covers-up the largest known at the time truth:

1. USSR, moraly lead by Parliament of Nations and Stalin, supported by some normal Russians, had only in part legislature and moral intellectual leadeship, not the executive power.

2. USSR, usurped by Russian Chauvinists controlled executive government, diplomatic core, bureaucracy, army and KGB, most of industrial build-up by USSR nations (for strategy reason) on territory of Russia and Siberia.

Stalin and Parliament of Nations advised and consent positive mode of events, like a "God's Law", including related public documents, that included the positive versus of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to defend national integrity of number of asking for it old friends and relatives of CIS nations, like Baltics, West Ukrainians, Bessarabians, local Jews and so on...

Russian chauvinists added to it secret amendments, like The "Devil's law", and exersised it as much as they could and were pleased, that included secret papers of imperial devils, pushed by Russians like Molotov and their wish to occupy Europe - it makes it at least a "forgery in making" by Molotov himself and Russian conspirators that at present turning it into pseudo-legal papers to annex Eastern Europe and Poland!

Vitali?

Konstantin.

by: J from: US
August 25, 2009 23:09
to Vitali: Sept. 28? But they were done with military operations 2 weeks before that. Soviets never reached Warsaw, so couldn't have surrendered it. As far as I know Vilno was taken by USSR in exchange of 7 million dollars and 31 million marks, so I don't understand why Soviets didn't reach Wisla river, if they were dividing Poland according to this pact.

by: Vitali
August 25, 2009 15:06
Regarding the map above:
This was the original agreement. The Secret Protocol of Sept. 28 then surrendered Warsaw and much of Poland to Germany in exchange for Lithuania. This could have possibly had the effect of saving Leningrad...

by: Vitali
August 25, 2009 14:59
Averko is absolutely right.
Furthermore, let us not forget that Stalin had tried to negotiate with the French and British prior to signing the pact. However, the delegations the West sent had little authority and were little more than a farce! With Western abandonment and betrayal, Stalin had very little choices remaining. Many prominent historians support this view. Wayne Dowler to name one.
It is unfortunate that American academia often overlooks many of the significant facts and events surrounding a particular situation.
By having the mandatory paragraph about "vigorously controlled Russian media" it is as though Western media justifies its own revisionism.

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
August 25, 2009 00:40
The map is a forgery - probably forged by ethnic Russians to pin crimes of Russia of last 11 Centuries of history on non-Russian nations (victims of Russia), Parliament of Nations, specially Stalin and Georgians - victims of Russian betrail and genocide for many centuries.

For the same reason the end of "secret part" of the pact is a forgery - at best it was secretly signed as secret wish of ethnic Russians and their Molotov and saduced by him Ribbentrop (not unlike a TV documentary, when Ivanov saducing NATO Secretary to grab with him a globe, sadusivly danceling and gigling), secretly from Stalin and Parliament of nations - secret Russian Imperial wish never materialized before WW2, but now they trying it again, using the forged "map" and "document" as a presedent!
That "secret" forgery gives no right to Russia use it as presedent to invade Eastern Europe or former USSR!

Stalin was never evil.
But evil empires, like imperial Russia, always make look evil their victims - if one protest their lies - they kill them or shut them off, even in the West, as they doing it to me...

Konstantin.

by: J from: US
August 24, 2009 15:57
to DKC from Cracow: no, it is you who should look closely. The thick double line top to bottom passes through Warsaw (Wisla river). The legend on the left refers to double line as 'demarkacionnaja linia etc...".

by: DKC from: Kraków, Poland
August 24, 2009 08:50
J - look closely, the border isn't on Vistula river. Vistula is much to the West. That line is basically the Eastern border of Poland now.

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
August 24, 2009 07:44
I agree with you Asehpe.

The Russians still need some time to discuss and judge their own history.

Just like the Western colonialist powers as Spain, France or Great Britain.

Were they better than the Stalinist Soviet Union?

When Spanish massacred the American civilizations. The Incas, Mayas and Azteks were killed and their cities demolished.

Or the French who as a truly imperialist state do not want to let their former colonies like Vietnam or Algeria. And in both cases they waged bloody wars on them killing thousands of innocent civilians.

France which was just a few years earlier occupied by nazi Germany do almost the same against Algeria.
France have the right not to be occupied by foreign forces but Algeria was denied this right.

And finally the British who killed thousands of aboriginals in Australia and on their colonies in sub-saharan Africa.

Every imperialist power including Russia behaved the same cruel way. But Russia was not worse than their counterparts.

All of them behaved as an evil.

And as France, Spain and Britain closed their past Russia will do the same. But Russia lost its former glory just 20 years ago while France and Britain did the same 30 years earlier.

Russia still need some time.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
TEXT SIZE - +

Editors' Picks

President Van Rompuy

'How's That Again?!' Audio

Karzai Inauguration

The Anticipation Of Change Video

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile