Putin proposes to enshrine the falsification of history in law: that is what God himself wants

Yelena Jampolskaya, chair of the Russian Duma’s cultural committee, drafted a law last year that prohibits publicly equating the actions of the USSR with those of Nazi Germany during World War II.

“Public statements that equate the actions of the Soviet and military leadership of the USSR with those of the German Nazi leadership during World War II are prohibited,” a Duma spokeswoman said in January last year. The amendment proposed by J. Jampolskaya to the Law “On the perpetuation of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”. The law was passed in 1995, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin was replaced by 4 Corners. It is true that last year’s consideration of the amendment to consolidate the rewriting of history was hampered by more important issues, first of all, the coronavirus pandemic.

But a year later, Putin, who was actively exploring historical problems during the period of the causes and consequences of World War II, returned to this topic. What would such an amendment mean?

The second attempt by a Stalin fan

It should come as no surprise that Jampolskaya accepted the amendments to the law last year. This politician from the “united Russia” is a great admirer of both Putin himself and the Russians, as an exceptional nation, supposedly protected by the worshiper of God.

He is infamous for his statements in which he was able to reconcile respect for God, specifically the Orthodox Church, and the regime of Joseph Stalin, who systematically destroyed the same church. She openly praised the last dictator in a 2013 article, “It’s Hard to Be a God,” which said that Stalin had been “sent from heaven to save Russia on the world map.” Earlier, he said in an interview that “Russia can be saved from the abyss by two forces: God and Stalin.”

Last year’s version of his proposed amendment was further justified as one of the tentative options, which did not actually seek to introduce censorship of historians, writers, or journalists who wrote about the WWII era, its causes and specific events. It is said that “the aim is to leave room for serious historical debate” in response to the European Parliament resolution tabled and adopted at the initiative of Lithuanian MEPs in late 2019, which angered Putin.

“The PE resolution actually blames the USSR, along with Germany, for the outbreak of World War II. As if they had forgotten who attacked Poland in 1939. September 1 And the Soviet Union in 1941. Putin was outraged and even he baffled his allies with promises to write angry letters and articles to the West.

Censorship, who does God want?

The latest version of the proposal leaves no room for doubt. The draft amendments to the law propose “to prohibit speeches or publications that compare the objectives, decisions and actions of the political or military leadership of the USSR and Nazi Germany and the Axis states.”

“If our editors or editors don’t have enough mind, conscience and disgust to avoid similar passages, they need help with legislation,” Jampolskaya scoffed. Putin agreed and apparently took over his religious rhetoric.

“If the denial of genocide is criminalized in some countries, our god himself probably wanted appropriate mechanisms in place to protect our recent past,” Putin said. He tasked Pobeda, with the participation of his own organizing committee, Pobeda, to approve the relevant amendments to the law before May 1, which could come into effect before the start of the 80th anniversary of the war between the USSR and Germany.

Try to undo what you can’t

It is not specified how such statements would be prohibited and what the punishment would be. However, in 2016, the Russian Supreme Court punished blogger Vladimir Luzgin from the city of Perm just for remembering the joint Soviet and Nazi aggression against Poland.

Luzgin pointed out in a VKontakte account that the Kremlin was silent on this historical fact, but the Supreme Court of Russia evaluated it as a denial of Nazi crimes and the decisions of the Nuremberg tribunal.

It is the historical events pointed out by V. Luzgin that in recent years have been a particular obstacle for Russia and the Kremlin itself. In 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR not only cooperated in the economic, commercial and military fields, but also coordinated their aggressive actions against neighboring states.

In 2005, after publicly acknowledging at a press conference that the Kremlin had condemned the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which had led not only to the German and Soviet invasion of Poland, but also to the occupation of that country and other neighboring countries, including the Baltic States, the words themselves and this condemnation.

And the Russian Duma has taken the initiative to lift the condemnation of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. The author of the initiative is Alexei Zhuravliov, a parliamentarian famous for his nationalist statements, who has brought together a group of several dozen “scientists, officials and public figures” and stated in a joint letter that “this document is not in line with historical justice “. and it was adopted in the face of political instability. “

In 1989, the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR formed a commission in 1939. August 23 to evaluate politically and legally the non-aggression pact, of which Aleksandras Jakovlev assumed the presidency, and among the commission members were also representatives Lithuanians: Vytautas Landsbergis, Justinas Marcinkevičius, Kazimieras Motieka, Zita Šličytė. After long discussions by resolution of December 24, the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR declared the secret agreements legally unfounded and invalid from the moment they were signed. Putin also noted this in his 2007 speech.

Even if this bill were passed, its legal force would be null and void and would not pose a direct threat to Lithuania. The secret protocols of the annulled Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact cannot be validated retroactively. It is true that Russia has shown more than once in recent years that the Kremlin is spitting on international law and agreements, and such a rewriting of history could lead to territorial claims.