What new holidays should be added to the Belarusian calendar and why shouldn't everything Soviet be condemned? Historian Timokh Akudovich explains

Historian Timokh Akudovich. Photo: facebook.com / cimafiej.akudovich

One of the topics of the conversation was the formation of a holiday calendar for a new Belarus as a foundation for national self-identification. When it comes to the true birth of the nation and the awakening of statehood, Timokh Akudovich advises to pay attention to January 28 — the day our ancestors approved the Third Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

«It seems to me that when we talk about positive examples, something that should be celebrated, it's this date. This is a huge success. The Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania lasted for many centuries in our land. The second edition of the Statute of the GDL became the basic law for Ukraine for many centuries. It was recognized throughout Europe. That is, from all perspectives, this is a huge, fundamental success,» — explains the historian.

As Akudovich argues, such a holiday is «deserved and more important» than the Day of Belarusian Book Printing, which is currently celebrated and is tied to the figure of Francysk Skaryna.

As Akudovich explains, the beginning of book printing in the Belarusian language is an event, but «it's not entirely clear what its local effect was». Now we understand its significance, but at that time «not many people, perhaps, understood».

As for events related to victories in battles, Akudovich does not undertake to name them. Victories in both the Battle of Grunwald and the Battle of Orsha were achieved by Belarusians jointly with others.

The problem lies in the significant temporal distance of those events. The historian believes that attempts to simplify the past, ignoring nuances for the sake of asserting one's own victories, look like self-justification.

As the historian explains, this is due to the fact that in the 20th century, a holistic national military history did not form in Belarus. Despite the heroism of Belarusians in the ranks of various armies, a unique unified military epic did not emerge. That is why, to compensate for this modern deficiency, society tries to find reasons for military pride in the events of past centuries.

What is the phenomenon of the Mogilev Uprising?

Nevertheless, if one is to look for examples of successful self-organization and the birth of an indigenous military myth in history, Timokh Akudovich advises turning attention to the phenomenon of the Mogilev Uprising of 1661.

The scenario was not unambiguously heroic: initially, the residents of Mogilev, guided by pragmatism, themselves allowed Muscovite troops in to avoid the destruction of the city. However, later, realizing the error of this decision, the townspeople by their own efforts expelled the occupiers.

«For me, this is precisely a story about a strong local community that makes its own decisions and takes risks for itself. It seems to me that this is what Belarusians should actively think and reflect upon now. About smaller communities, local but strong, strong enough to withstand great threats. And these communities must take responsibility for both these and those decisions,» — notes the historian.

Akudovich reminds that as a result of that risky strategy, Mogilev emerged victorious: the city suffered less than others and remained one of the largest in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And most importantly, the citizens received a unique coat of arms reflecting this success and created their own militarized legend, made possible by a strong, wealthy, and cohesive community.

Should Belarusians condemn everything Soviet?

Akudovich believes that it is impossible to draw a clear line between good and evil in Belarusian history, especially when it comes to the Soviet period.

Therefore, the historian proposes to evaluate the past on two levels:

«The first level is human history, specific human destinies. And there you evaluate, firstly, a person's desire to be useful to Belarus, and secondly, their moral choices. This is all evaluated normally. Although everything is ambiguous, these are understandable markers.

And there is a second level — the level of statehood. That is, to what extent certain actions of people or communities contributed to the preservation of statehood and, accordingly, the culture of the local people. Everything is ambiguous there too, but you measure by these two principles. And therefore, a single line of "all communists are evil, or all communists are good" does not form.»

This complexity of assessment, as Akudovich argues, also applies to partisans:

«We cannot label all partisans as criminals, nor can we make them an absolute good. This often hinders, it's often a big minus, because it's a constant situational analysis, which obviously expends a lot of effort. But, perhaps, there is also a plus in this, because it is a return to humanity.»

What about the stories of Belarusians who were loyal to the Nazis?

And what about those who, during World War II, found themselves on the other side and collaborated with the German administration, believing that in doing so they were serving Belarus?

Akudovich notes that the fate of these people reminds him of the fate of today's Belarusian officials, «who are ostensibly for Belarus, but are forced to sign all sorts of papers that clearly lead to crimes. But they sit there and think: well, this is for the good of the state.»»

As a way to comprehend the complexity of history, Akudovich gives the example of an icon prototype painted by Andrey Strotsau. On it, the artist placed side by side figures of religious opponents who died for their faith: the Catholic Andrzej Bobola, the Uniate Josaphat Kuntsevych, and the Orthodox Athanasius Filipovich.

«All saints who died around the same time for their faith in the first half — mid-17th century. And they all tried to draw local Belarusians to a different faith. But I really liked the idea that they could be placed together on one icon as martyrs who were enemies, but it was important for them to bring good to the local people, though each understood this differently,» — Akudovich argues.

The historian believes that a symbolic monument should be created where former enemies would sit side by side: partisan Dzed Talash and General Bulak-Balakhovich, Soviet leader Pyotr Masherov and collaborationist Vaclau Ivanouski. This, according to Akudovich, would demonstrate the entire complexity of the Belarusian fate.

«And let people argue, let people prove,» — adds the historian.

Akudovich emphasizes that society is afraid to touch upon the topic of collaboration with the Nazis, perceiving it as something exclusively «dirty». However, behind this lie real human destinies and survival strategies.

As an example, he cites the story of Mikalai Husieu — the author of the 1951 BSSR flag project, who during the occupation, for the survival of his family, was forced to paint portraits of German officers and Hitler.

According to the historian, the main filter in evaluating such events is morality and the absence of crimes against humanity. Endless punishment and condemnation do not provide an answer to the main question: why did this happen?

Akudovich is confident: if we do not understand the reasons for past mistakes, we risk repeating them, which is happening with part of modern society. History needs to be simplified for mass perception, but not through a primitive division into «us» and «them», but through the creation of images that explain the complexity and tragedy of the Belarusian path.

«The metaphor of seating Belarusian enemies of the 20th century on one bench and looking at them collectively — this is not a super complex metaphor. It is understandable, it seems to me. It is provocative, but it is quite clear, and one can try to go this way,» — Akudovich is convinced.

• 13
• 2
• 1
• 1
• 2
• 0
• 0
• 0