Chinese President Xi Jinping is visiting Russia from May 7 to 10 at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin. He will take part in celebrations marking the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War. The visit highlights not only shared historical memory but also diverging interpretations of World War II that remain central to global political discourse.

In a recent commentary for CGTN, Andrey Kortunov, special commentator on current affairs and former Director General (2011–2023) and current Academic Director (2024–2025) of the Russian International Affairs Council, explored the ongoing battles over historical interpretation surrounding WWII. Kortunov emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the search for historical truth and the manipulation of history to serve political ends.

As Kortunov notes, historical inquiry is an evolving process—newly declassified documents and archaeological discoveries often prompt reevaluations of long-standing narratives. But there is, he argues, a critical line between reexamination and falsification. The former seeks understanding; the latter often distorts the past for ideological or strategic purposes.

Among the most contentious modern narratives is the increasingly popular assertion that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union share equal blame for the outbreak of the war. Kortunov disputes this interpretation, pointing out that it overlooks the broader context of fascism in Europe and the failed attempts by Moscow to build a collective security pact with Western powers. Only after the 1938 “Munich Betrayal”—when Britain, France, and Italy permitted Nazi Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia—did the USSR agree to a non-aggression pact with Germany, a move many historians interpret as a strategic delay rather than ideological alignment.

Kortunov also challenges the moral absolutism that has come to dominate some Western WWII narratives, often positioning the United States and its allies as the sole architects of victory. This narrative, he suggests, marginalizes the immense contributions—and sacrifices—of the Soviet Union and China, as well as the efforts of communist-led resistance groups across Europe. He further notes that Mongolia, though often omitted from mainstream discussions, provided significant material and logistical support to the Soviet war effort, including food, livestock, warm clothing, and funding for military equipment—contributions that played a meaningful role on the Eastern Front.

Equally concerning, according to Kortunov, is the selective focus on certain victims of the war. Western accounts often prioritize the suffering of Europeans under Nazi and Japanese occupation, while the immense losses sustained by the Soviet Union (approximately 27 million dead) and China (around 35 million) receive less attention. These figures include millions of civilians who endured widespread atrocities on a scale that, Kortunov argues, warrants greater global recognition.

The recent ceremony held in April 2025 in Nanjing to honor anti-Japanese aviation martyrs serves as a reminder of the often-overlooked heroism and suffering in the Asian theater of the war. Kortunov urges a more inclusive remembrance of history—one that treats all victims with equal empathy and avoids the blanket application of “collective guilt.”

His core message is clear: contemporary politics should not dictate historical memory. Each nation’s past contains both moments of pride and episodes of failure. A balanced historical narrative must embrace complexity rather than simplify it for political expedience.

Deliberately distorting history for short-term political gain, Kortunov warns, does more than mislead. It risks undermining informed public discourse, obscuring the causes of present conflicts, and weakening the foundation for future international understanding.

Isu Tuvshin