Who Owns History? Timofey Bordachev: Russia and the West Are Creating Their Own Versions of History

Russian troops liberate Auschwitz Concentration Camp

Bordachev’s essay was published by Vzglyad on 7 January, and was eventually noticed and republished by RT after admittedly retranslating and editing it, while linking to the intermediate publisher’s, Russian International Affairs Council, site, not the original for some unknown reason. The translation that follows seems very correct and I found no need to alter anything, although all emphasis is mine. The plan to get this to readers earlier was preempted, but now is far better than never for this very important topic. Bordachev is the Valdai Club’s program director. Most readers are aware of the battle happening over historical interpretations, and not just over WW2, although it’s currently the most prominent. When the Big Picture of Humanity’s historical narrative is observed by those who have sufficient prior knowledge, it’s clear the Western narrative is incorrect as it seeks to justify the current state of power relations between peoples and institutions. The result is much of what we understand about the past is wrong, primarily when it comes to the relationship between Creditors and Debtors and the political-economic stability of nations and their inhabitants. But that discussion isn’t within this essay, although the rationale for both topics is the same—control over the Truth and the power that provides for those seeking to attain or extend hegemony.

Russia and the West Are Creating Their Own Versions of History

Now the fate of Ukrainian lands is at the epicenter of the confrontation between Russia and the West. However, there are more and more reasons to think that the ongoing confrontation is only the beginning of a new stage in a relationship that has never been particularly friendly. Several factors contribute to the return of Russia and the West to the familiar track of systemic confrontation for centuries: the inability of the Americans and their allies to recognize the reduction of their ability to influence the fate of the world, the general crisis of the global market economy, and the very independence of Russia, which has always remained a challenge for the United States and Europe.

What form this confrontation will take remains to be seen. It will certainly not be like the Cold War, when East and West were separated by the so-called Iron Curtain. It is unlikely that it will be as elegant as it was during the 18th and 19th centuries: times have come more prosaic. But we can be relatively sure that an important part of the relationship will be a completely different reading of historical events. Including those about which there seems to be no particular factual grounds for dispute. We can already see examples at every turn. Up to the point of curiosities, such as the recent statement of an elderly American politician that during World War II, Ukraine was liberated from Nazism by the United States.

In a sense, different peoples do have different histories, and it is extremely rare that the vision of individual events of the past on different sides of state borders is identical. History is the interpretation of facts, the determination of the importance of each of them, the placement of specific events in the general path traveled by the state over the entire period of its existence. Those who write textbooks and scientific monographs decide for themselves which fact deserves to become a historical event. And they proceed from their own considerations, which may be patriotic or subordinate to the current political situation. But in all cases where history is written independently, it is inevitably state-owned. [There are huge problems here. If a “historian” is Subjective, not Objective, then that person is merely a propagandist as genuine historians don’t twist the facts to fit a preconceived idea or agenda. The Objective historian doesn’t get to choose the facts, for the facts are what they are. Facts can speak for themselves and it’s the Objective historian’s duty to allow them to do so. The role of cause and effect is very important here.]

History can unite peoples only in two ways. First, if they are part of the same state-civilization and have a common historical destiny. This is characteristic of multinational countries, and in part even persists when new independent states arise in their place. A common history unites different peoples within such civilizational states as Russia, China, India or the United States. [The USA doesn’t have a “common history, nor is it a civilizational state aside from its populace living in cities.] From historical experience, there is an understanding that together it is easier for multinational peoples to ensure their survival in relations with more powerful and aggressive neighbors. [This is also disputable for the “historical experience” must be shared; otherwise, solidarity isn’t guaranteed allowing for the possible division of the people so one or more factions ally with those invading.]

Secondly, history unites if the basic interests and values of formally independent powers coincide. [The opposite of the above situation; all factions are allied.] At the same time, interests come first, since they create a solid material basis for rallying in relations with the outside world. The countries of Western Europe, despite their current insignificance in world affairs, are former colonial "empires." Therefore, it is important and natural for the French, British, Dutch or Spanish to develop a common vision of their history and major events in interaction with other peoples. [A distinction must be made between Elites and commonfolk as they usually don’t share the same opinions of the past because their histories differ.] They are walking this path together, whether it is glorifying geographical discoveries or exposing the crimes of the colonial past.

For Russia and the West, both factors – the unity of political civilization and common interests – have almost never worked. Their confrontation began literally immediately after the Russian state finally gained sovereignty at the end of the 15th century. Russia emerged as an independent power separate from the rest of Europe, and its fate never depended on domestic European politics. Russian political civilization is based on the idea of independence, and the most serious threats to this value have always been posed by the West. There, in turn, the foundation of political culture is based on the idea of one's own superiority. In this case, it was always Russia that became the challenge, because, while acknowledging the cultural and technical achievements of the West, it never wanted to turn it into recognition of its dominance. Several attempts to impose this on Russia ended in dramatic defeats for the Europeans, after which our power only increased.

Tactical interests sometimes coincided. Therefore, when the political confrontation was less fierce, different interpretations of history receded into the background. There was even a case when Russia and individual Western countries fought in the middle of the last century against a common enemy in the face of Hitler's Germany. And it even allowed us to create a general version of how we see individual events. At that time, the interests coincided so seriously that a relatively unified reading of the events of 1939-1945 lasted for a surprisingly long time: right up to modern times. Even then, however, the reading of individual details differed, often quite significantly. Moreover, after World War II, Europe lost its independence and had to accept the American version of history. This process was not instantaneous. Nowadays, it is taking on an increasingly complete form.

Now even partial unity in the understanding of historical events is a thing of the past. We are entering another period when their interpretation is playing an increasingly important role in internal consolidation in Russia and in the West. Since Russia, like the entire USSR, was the victor in World War II, the fundamental significance of this is undeniable in our history. Europe suffered a humiliating defeat in that war, and is it particularly surprising that attempts at consolidation there are based on denying the significance of the events of 1939-1945? For Americans, World War II is important not because fascism was defeated, but because they achieved almost unchallenged world domination. The interpretation of history thus turns out to be completely divisive as far as contemporary international politics is concerned.

Today, all globally significant civilizations are undergoing a stage of adaptation to profound social, economic and, as a result, political changes. There are no ready-made recipes, everyone learns from their own experience. As a result, history is important for us as a source of understanding the nature of our statehood. In a sense, it becomes one of the resources of development – this is the meaning of historiosophy as an understanding of the path of the state through its historical experience. And this means that it will be extremely difficult to share it. If at all possible. Therefore, we need to get used to the fact that in Russia and in the West, the understanding of even the most well-known facts of European and world history will differ. [Until Western denialists are ousted ending their totalitarian reign and commonfolk can relearn the facts that’ve been denied them for decades.]

The question remains as to how important a common historical memory is for the future of the international order in Europe. There is no answer to this question yet. On the one hand, the stability of security relations and respect for each other's most important interests do not require close views of the past. On the other hand, denying what is important to neighbors is itself in conflict with their interests and values. In Russia, this has already happened with the example of the West's attempts to impose its understanding of the main events of Russian history [which is false in relation to irrefutable facts]. It is possible that the past will be the only area of public interest where Russia and the West will not be able to reach a compromise in the future. Understanding the importance and correctness of our vision, we also need to be prepared for such a perspective.

A frank admission related to this issue was made at the WEF’s Davos Forum and reported here, emphasis original:

During a discussion titled ‘Defending Truth,’ The editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal admitted to Davos elites that the legacy media no longer ‘own the facts’ and people are much more likely to question what they report as truth.

Emma Tucker told a crowd at the World Economic Forum, “I think there’s a very specific challenge for the legacy brands, like the New York Times and like the Wall Street Journal.”

She continued, “If you go back really not that long ago, as I say, we owned the news. We were the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well.”

“If it said it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, then that was a fact,” Tucker further stated, adding “Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news and they’re much more questioning about what we’re saying.”

During the same discussion, Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the European Commission, complained about the rise of ‘disinformation’ being a “security threat,” noting “It was part of the Russian military doctrine that they will start information war, and we are in it now.”

“Disinformation is a very powerful tool,” Jourová continued, adding that “In the EU we are focusing on improving of the system where the people will get the facts right. We don’t speak about opinions. We are not correcting anyone’s opinions or language. This is about the facts.”

There’s a great deal of longstanding evidence regarding modern media’s manipulation of “facts to fit the story/narrative” whose roots are almost 200 years old. Wartime censorship is well known as is the propaganda aimed at dehumanizing the enemy. Yellow Journalism gets its name from that sort of manipulation. Within the Outlaw US Empire there’s the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that aimed to subvert all major media, while the term Mighty Wurlitzer was coined to provide an idea of how government propaganda via major media drowned out all other sources. One of the most notorious CIA Directors who reigned during Reagan’s presidency before he fortuitously died, William Casey, is famous for saying:

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Fortunately, we have yet to reach that point, thus the discussion at the WEF by those trying to perfect the CIA’s program. All of the above are reasons I try to rely on primary documents—the facts themselves—when writing and informing, In 1998, I wrote a short paper about historians needing to be as objective as possible for moral and ethical reasons—for reasons of Honor and Honesty—that my professor thought quite original, which for me was a very troubling reaction. Historical facts and the way they’re presented are very important. In closing, here’s an answer given by Dr. Hudson from a very recent podcast that encapsulates a great deal, and not just political-economy:

Q: What do you think could be some of the ways for the left in terms of at least have a vision of socialism for the 21st century?

MH: I think the question you’re asking is exactly the question that economists asked throughout the 19th century. It would help to study classical economics and realize how the whole question you’ve asked was framed in terms of value and price theory and rent theory. You want to increase wages and profits. You don’t want economic rent. You don’t want land rent, monopoly rent, or financial rent.

That was the whole issue that was discussed and that was what Marx wrote about in his theories of surplus value. He reviewed all of these and explained how to put the economic system together. You don’t just look at labor and employer relations. You look at the whole economy and how people get wealthy. The left does not look at how people get wealthy. I don’t see much concern at all with that. Wall Street is concerned with that, the right wing, not the left.

The left is concerned with how labor is getting poor. That’s very interesting. How are poor people being exploited and how are ethnic minorities being exploited? That’s very interesting, but I’m more interested in how does an economy get rich and how do they get wealthy in a good way as opposed to the bad way. The left says, oh, wealth is bad. I’m exaggerating. The left doesn’t care about the economy. The left cares about the victims. It doesn’t look at who’s doing the victimizing. How does the victimizing process work? That’s not in their agenda.

They’re looking at how do we describe the victims in the most heart-rending way and make money doing it, basically. In all the years that I was working, writing about imperialism and how finance capitalism was destructive, my intellectual market was the financial sector, the right wing, brokerage companies, wealthy people.

The left had no interest at all because they said, oh, you’re not interested in the minorities and the poor people. I wanted to say, what is it that’s making the poor people? I’m not interested in once they’re poor, how you wring your hands. I’m interested in what is creating all of this inequality in this economic polarization. I’m interested in the overall economy.

The left could say, well, we’re not interested in the economy. We’re interested in political science or whatever it is. The hope for the left is really what is happening outside of the United States and Western Europe because part of the American imperialism has been to promote a false left. When I’ve been criticizing the left, this isn’t the left of my generation that was concerned with what I’m talking about. This is the non-governmental organization left supported. This is the World Economic Foundation left. This is the Ford Foundation left. This is the bleeding-heart liberal left financed by the finance capitalists that the last thing they want them to do is to talk about how the economy is about finance capital at the top much more than the victims at the bottom. [My Emphasis]

As he declared, Hudson’s an “old school” Leftist whose revealed facts are ignored by the “limousine left” because they have no use for them as they have no interest in challenging the status quo. Facts. Reality. Honesty. Objectivity. Quest for Equity and Balance in Human Society. Removal of Conflict as the Main Tool of Control. To attain the latter goals, Objective History must be determined, written, provided and used to oust the false narratives of the past that are used to control the present.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!