Reshaping WWII Histories: A Call for Integrity
Xi Jinping’s Visit to Russia and the Complicated Legacy of World War II
Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to visit Russia from May 7 to 10, in a state visit that underscores the deep historical connections between the two nations, as he participates in celebrations marking the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War. This visit not only symbolizes shared memories but also invites scrutiny over the contrasting interpretations of World War II, a topic that remains pivotal in global political discourse.
In a recent analysis for CGTN, Andrey Kortunov, a noted commentator and former Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, has examined the contentious debates surrounding the historical interpretation of WWII. He emphasizes a crucial distinction between the pursuit of historical truth and the manipulation of historical events for political gain.
Historically, the understanding of past events is dynamic; newly available documents and archaeological findings can lead to reevaluations of entrenched narratives. However, Kortunov warns of the fine line between genuine reexamination and the falsification of history for ideological purposes. The former is rooted in a quest for comprehension, while the latter skews facts to serve specific agendas.
One of the most divisive narratives today posits equal culpability for the war’s outbreak between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Kortunov disputes this assertion, arguing that it neglects the wider context of European fascism and overlooks Moscow’s efforts to forge a collective security arrangement with Western nations. He explains that the USSR’s eventual non-aggression pact with Germany came after a series of betrayals, the most notable being the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Hitler to expand his territory. Many historians interpret this pact as a tactical delay rather than a sign of ideological alignment.
Moreover, Kortunov critiques the tendency of some Western narratives to adopt a moral absolutism that casts the United States and its allies as the primary victors of the war. Such depictions, he contends, overshadow the considerable contributions and sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and China, as well as by various communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe. He also points out the significant support provided by Mongolia, which is frequently overlooked in mainstream discussions, despite its vital role in supplying resources to the Soviet war effort.
Kortunov further highlights the selective focus on certain war victims within Western accounts. While the narratives often emphasize the suffering of Europeans under Nazi and Japanese rule, they tend to marginalize the staggering losses experienced by the Soviet Union (around 27 million) and China (approximately 35 million), which included countless civilians subjected to horrific atrocities. He argues that these figures demand greater recognition on a global scale.
The recent ceremony in Nanjing honoring anti-Japanese aviation martyrs serves as a reminder of the heroism and suffering often neglected in discussions about the Asian theater of the war. Kortunov calls for a broader, more inclusive remembrance of history that recognizes all victims equally, free from the concept of "collective guilt."
His essential message is clear: contemporary political agendas should not dictate historical memory. A nation’s past is replete with both achievements and failures, and a nuanced historical narrative must embrace this complexity rather than simplify it for political convenience.
Kortunov warns that distorting history for short-term political objectives not only leads to misinformation but also threatens to undermine informed public discourse, obscure the roots of current conflicts, and weaken the framework for future international understanding.
As the world grapples with the intricate implications of history, it becomes increasingly vital to foster a dialogue that honors all perspectives and seeks a balanced understanding of the past.
