Read on Twitter
So, a quick take on Putin's long-delayed article on WWII, published (omg) by the National Interest: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/vladimir-putin-real-lessons-75th-anniversary-world-war-ii-162982. The overall conclusion is of course it's a piece of crude propaganda. I'll give a few examples, though won't attempt a thorough analysis here.
First, Putin argues that the USSR was "practically the last among the European powers" to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany. True? False. There was the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression pact. But otherwise I have no idea what he's talking about.
Then he goes into this bizarre discussion of how the Soviet Union had no other choice but to sign a non-aggression pact and carve up Poland etc. He does seem to say at one point that there was something wrong with this pact, e.g.
But he buries that admission in the conspirological rubbish about other countries also having signed secret protocols with Nazi Germany, which they are not declassifying.
Then he shamefully blames Poland (again) for having been carved up by the USSR and the Nazis.
Then he seems to claim that the Soviets didn't really plan to go into Poland but that Britain and France weren't doing much after Germany's invasion on Sept. 1, so in the end, the Soviets just sort of said, yeah, let's annex a half of Poland.
Just for Putin's benefit, here's a copy of the Secret Protocol, which stipulates the division of Poland. I mean, for god's sake.
Then there's this great line about the Baltics being annexed by the USSR "with the consent of the elected authorities." You just want to cry at this point.
But you see, anyway, the Balts "preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher state structures of the Soviet Union". Never mind that tens of thousands were deported to Siberia like cattle.
You get the idea. Ok, is there anything in Putin's argument that rings true? Well, he spends a lot of time on Munich. I agree (and most historians will agree) that Munich was a key turning point on the road to war. In this sense, Putin's criticism of Munich is totally mainstream.
Where he goes off the rails is where he equates Munich with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It is difficult to equate the two, because Britain and France did not help themselves to parts of Czechoslovakia.
In this sense, Putin's argument that everybody made mistakes obscures the fact that some made much graver mistakes than others.
I do not mean to argue that France and Britain were blameless. My own study of the subject left me convinced that London and Paris would have been overjoyed at the sight of Germany invading the USSR. By the same token, Stalin sought to push Germany westwards.
In this sense, Putin's claim that it was just the Soviet Union that sought to preserve peace in Europe in the 1930s falls flat. Stalin was a calculating realist who aimed for high stakes but played his hand badly in the end.
Putin concludes his historical observations with a call for objectivity. Well, this article is a far cry from objectivity. It papers over key events and misuses historical evidence to make far-fetched claims.
If Putin were a historian, this paper would never have passed the peer review. But he is not. He is just writing up historical narrative that would support his shallow claims to greatness as he seeks to perpetuate his rule. So, thumbs down from me, alas.
I've analysed some of the evidence Putin uses in this piece to "back" his claims in this earlier article for @ForeignPolicy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/21/vladimir-putin-wants-to-rewrite-the-history-of-world-war-ii/.
