Monday, February 13, 2012


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.
TEXT SIZE - +
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.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: gjdagis from: New York
August 23, 2009 13:33
As a leopard cannot change its spots, the Russians have never changed their sneaky, evil ways. As bad as Hitler was, he was a saint compared to Stalin, the cruelest man who ever walked this earth ! The nerve that the Russians wouldn't put him at least on the same low level as Hitler is disingenuous and should GREATLY concern all freedom loving, honest people. Because of their impunity, the Russians lose all credibility and prove that they are still not to be trusted!

by: Milovan Rafailovic from: Lake Placid, Florida
August 23, 2009 16:25
The pact was justified as a means of delaying the German invasion because the Soviet Union was not ready for the war. Didn't the all-powerful West open its major front in Europe only toward the end of the war? People of your likes hoped that the Nazis would destroy the Soviet Union, i.e. Russia in the meantime. And if you don't like the changed borders in Eastern Europe, why don't you ask the Poles and the Ukraineans to correct them now? Russians are not standing in the way.

by: Asehpe from: Netherlands
August 23, 2009 16:46
I don't think Russians are evil, or even that Stalin was worse than Hitler -- remember, some time ago people thought the Germans were the 'crazy people', but they apparently are now OK. The Russians will also eventually grow out of such things.

It will take longer than Germany, though -- not because of anything wrong with the Russians themselves, but they're being told lies by their education system now. More time will have to pass, less extreme people will have to come to power, and maybe as always in the history of Russia (and that's a possibly true generalization if you want one) progress will have to come from the top down.

This is where I pity the Russians -- the only people in Europe who was denied a real chance at organic growth (because of the Orthodox church and because of their particularly authoritarian leaders) and who now continues to do their leaders' bidding.

But I am sure that someday they will outgrow their problems, just as the Germans outgrew theirs.

by: Sergey from: Chicago, USA
August 23, 2009 17:45
"As bad as Hitler was, he was a saint compared to Stalin, the cruelest man who ever walked this earth !"

Nonsense,gjdagis and you should be ashamed of saying such things! Hitler and Stalin were twin evils of two versions of deadly totalitarian socialism--national/racial and international. Hitler systematic murder of 6 million Jews during WWII, usually with assistance of local populations, throughout Europe is the most terrible genocide that ever happened in modern human history. Stalin mass murder and enslavement and deportation of peasantry, intellectuals and numerous other groups also deserves unequivocal condemnation.

As terrible as Stalin was, it is simply preposterous to use Stalin as an excuse to downplay Hitler crimes.

by: Michael Averko
August 23, 2009 17:48
The author of the above article downplays another matter related to the discussed topic of Molotov-Ribbentrop (M-R) and muting out of certain aspects of the past.

The recent OSCE statement condemning M-R makes no mention of the earlier Western appeasement at Munich which encouraged Nazi Germany, Poland and Hungary to dismember Czechoslovakia.

The USSR played no role at Munich to this selling out of Czechoslovakia. The USSR was open to a Western alliance to defend Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia appears to have been sacrificed for three reasons.
- good relations with the USSR
- other nations seeking its territory
- the hope that an appeasement of Hitler on Czechoslovakia would either satisfy him, or lead to a Nazi-Soviet conflict, with the West left out.

On the last point, some in the West were hoping for a Nazi-Soviet conflict with the West left out. In turn, the Soviets felt a need to counter this with someone who they knew wasn't pro-Soviet.

The below comments from "gjdagis" are an example of the kind of bigotry which is tolerated against Russians unlike some others.

Stalin wasn't Russian and like Nazi successes, the Soviet advancements weren't the achievement of just one ethnic grouping.

Stalin was on the winning side unlike Hitler. Hence, the former gets better treatment on the saying that the winners get to greatly influence the historical accounting.

Post-Soviet Russia isn't actively promoting Stalin with holidays, towns and currency in his honor. The annual Victory Day holiday in Russia honors the heroism of a people defending themselves and their nation, as opposed to saluting one man.

by: rkka from: usa
August 23, 2009 23:30
I see that the West is still upset that the Soviets beat Chamberlain at his own game and prevented him realizing his concept of "Germany and England as two pilllars of European peace and buttresses against comunism".

by: J from: US
August 24, 2009 03:06
I wonder what map is this. It shows that the border between Germany and USSR passes through the Vistula river (the center of Warsaw). Yet this is not what happened in 1939: Soviets stopped on the Bug river (City of Brest), and not Vistula. USSR bought Vilno from Germany for 7 million dollars and 31 million marks and gave it to Lithuania as a capital. These borders actually are in force till today.

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.

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: 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...".
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Jolie Earns Serbian Scorn For War Film

Latest Comment (83 total)

writer: Serbians did not start the war in Bosnia but they were killed and ... More

Athens Mops Up In Wake Of Violence

Latest Comment (1 total)

Eugenio: Here is one of those countries - Greece - that joined the EU ... More

Azerbaijani Aviation Engineer Seeks Niche In Civilian Drone Market

Latest Comment (3 total)

ferrum: if i see a machine like this on the sky, i will surely ... More