What history of Khatyn was not written about in Soviet textbooks?

Where and why did the authorities have a narrative about genocide?

Historians

Tatsiana Ostrovskaya

, who works at the Herder Institute of Historical Research of Central and Eastern Europe in Marburg, Germany, and sociologist and historian, researcher of historical memory, researcher at the "Political Sphere" Institute Alyaksei Lastovsky answer

.

Watch the full video discussion

Here are fragments of the conversation

"Lukashenka identifies himself with the Soviet army, with Belarusian partisans, and all those who criticize him become Nazis or fascists at the same time"

- Today is the 80th anniversary of the tragedy in Khatyn.

Alexander Lukashenko, a historian by education, used this date for statements in which the history of the Second World War and recent history sounded as follows.

Here are some quotes: "Most of the countries of Western Europe fell under the banner of Hitler's Germany, and world capital paid for this campaign."

"They replaced "Aryan standards" with liberal democratic values.

The filtering of peoples for compliance with the new standard has been going on for a long time through color revolutions, rebellions, proxy wars, sanctions, blackmail."

Lukashenko believes that modern neo-Nazism has risen in neighboring countries.

As historians, how would you comment on such interpretations?

Tatyana Ostrovskaya:

It must be said that Alexander Lukashenko is not a historian by education, but a history teacher, and he did not work as a specialist.

There is also a contradiction here.

It seems to him that what he offers will reach a wide consumer, but, in my opinion, this is not always the case.

And for me, a big question is how much we should comment on such statements, attempts to manipulate history, which are becoming more and more radical over time.

After all, our job as historians is to do research and do what we do best.

Do we not in this way legitimize such statements when we try to somehow understand them?

Alexey Lastovsky:

This is an attempt to radicalize what was before.

Lukashenko has been saying similar things since the mid-1990s, especially in the context of Victory Day, as he identifies himself with the main keeper of the memory of Victory.

This was used to legitimize his power at the time, to show that the Belarusian state is the successor of the republic that won the Great Patriotic War.

Gradually, it began to be used to justify the regime and in foreign policy opposition.

What we hear is explained by the current political situation and embedded in the context of confrontation with the West.

Accordingly, Lukashenka identifies himself with the Soviet army, with Belarusian partisans, and all those who criticize him become Nazis or fascists at the same time.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with history as such.

This is purely political manipulation.

"There is an obvious Russian trace in the initiative of "genocide of the Belarusian people""

- I would like to mention last year's meeting of Alexander Lukashenko with the youth and his dialogue with the young man, who told him, very worriedly, about Belarusian history and Belarusian heroes.

Then Lukashenka asked him only two questions - about the attitude to the "genocide of the Belarusian people" and about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Can you explain where and why the authorities got this narrative about genocide?

How do you assess attempts to convict the dead and collect compensation from them?

Alyaksei Lastovsky:

I asked myself this question, I tried to look for the roots of this initiative.

In my opinion, there is an obvious Russian trace here.

Much earlier, an initiative was formed in Russia to recognize the genocide of the Soviet people.

Books were already being published there, there were attempts to take it through the court.

And the people who took part in the creation of this initiative, such as the historian Aleksandar Dzyukau, are very active, including in Belarus.

They pushed this idea to the authorities of Belarus, contributed to its adaptation.

If we talk about any meaning in the definition of the genocide of the Belarusian people or any other genocide, then the designation of such initiatives is international recognition, which allows us to apply for compensation and other rights.

It seems to me that in the case of Belarus it somehow failed, because the topic of genocide, which is always used only in the international context, was used only for domestic use.

In the current situation, practically no other country will recognize the genocide of the Belarusian people.

And the Russian authorities are in no hurry to do it.

Tatyana Ostrovskaya:

These attempts to achieve international recognition cannot be called completely groundless.

Indeed, Western historical science and public discourse have no idea of ​​the number of victims, both Jewish victims and civilian victims, that Belarus suffered during the war.

Therefore, they have a rational basis.

In the official historical policy, in the policy of modern Belarus, there are two main goals.

The first is to see a threat in the West, to fight the West as a threat, to create this threat when it does not exist.

And the second, related to this goal, is an attempt to unite the nation.

All the while trying to somehow maneuver between these two goals, the historical policy was adapted, transformed, and the history of Belarus in the official version turned out to be very short.

Those who write this story have really trapped themselves.