“To ensure that current employees are not” published “
The longer the time that separates us from the Great Terror, the less accessible archives are accessible to researchers preserving data on Stalinist repressions, although in theory everything should be the other way around. Peter to explain this paradox.
At Solovetsky Stone on Remembrance Day Victims of Political Repression Photo: Gennady Cherkasov
The trinity protocols are not subject to publication because “they contain information, the dissemination of which may lead to the incitement of national, racial or religious hatred or hostility, “said Ivanov's representative. The FSB regional office said in court.
The process – more precisely the processes – was initiated by researcher Sergei Prudovsky, who had previously approached the regional department of Ivanovo and Tula of the Federal Security Service with a request for such data and in both cases was rejected.
The outcome of the trial is still unknown: in Ivanov, another trial of Prudovsky's claim will take place in mid-November, while in Tula the trial has not yet begun.
However, the case law is not very optimistic in such cases. In October, a Moscow city court upheld a decision by the Kuncevsky district court in Moscow, which allowed FSB archivists to hide the names of NKVD officers involved in political repression.
This trial was initiated by Moscow's Igor Yakovlev, whose wife tried to obtain documents about his oppressed relatives. The documents – copies, of course – were provided, but with significant cuts: the names of the Chekists involved in this case were carefully erased.
– The motive is obvious. Today, state propaganda tries to convince us that the security of the state comes first and that the bodies ensuring this security should be at the forefront of all social processes in the country. From here – reluctance to come to light, discuss topics related to repression, but in fact to mass killings. Firstly, what is called the honor of the uniform is protected, and secondly, the FSB's right to dispose of archival documents. Which, I note, do not belong exclusively to this department – they are an integral part of the state archives.
Therefore, contrary to the law on state secrets, secrets are sought and found where there is no trace of them. This fictional argument also appears – the publication of the trinity protocols allegedly incites national hostility. But such a confession cannot be recognized by any court as evidence. How can some kind of hostility be fueled by the publication of these documents? Among which nations? I am just curious. Many such protocols were published in the 1990s, and at that time no one saw any “incitement”. This is just an excuse.
– That's pretty reasonable. Behind what we call “uniform honor protection” is, among other things, a reluctance to create a situation where every special service employee today knows: my actions will be the subject of general debate tomorrow. In other words, information about those involved in the repression is hidden so that current employees can be sure that their names will not come out.
By the way, the big problem is that after 1991 there was no consideration of those crimes, those violations of human rights that existed in Soviet times. They thought, “Well, it was and was. We won't return this way.” But if historical trauma is not legally resolved, then history is guaranteed to repeat itself.
This is what we are seeing today: both the staff of the so-called law enforcement agencies and the judges who pass illegal convictions feel completely with impunity.
– The process of declassifying documents began to slow down somewhere in 1995. That's when the conversations began: “Well, you have to do everything gradually. Not everything can still be declassified.” But then there was still a lot to achieve. Some cases have even been won in court. Now, of course, this process has reached a whole new level. The Federal Archives Service and the Archives Department of Law Enforcement Authorities simply brazenly ignore questions about the history of repression.
It is an open disregard for the norms of our legislation: the law on state secrets prohibits the classification of documents related to human rights violations and crimes of power. And that is decided by the courts!
– That's a fabricated argument. I am willing to agree that the agency should protect information about its current staff. This is a special service. But when it comes to events many years ago, about people who not only are not on duty but have long since died, this argument simply seems ridiculous.
I will cite a case from my personal experience: about five years ago, I sent a request to the FSB's regional department – requesting the dates of the deaths of some security officials. This was necessary for the information and reference apparatus in the collections we publish. And the answer came to me: we do not provide such information because we cannot endanger the lives of our former employees.
Then I sent them another letter, in which I wrote that no one, no matter how he wanted, could endanger the lives of these employees because they had died.
– Common sense, say, has won: sent the information I requested. Obviously, employee death dates cannot be life-threatening information.
– If anyone really thinks so, it's their private opinion. There is a law “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression”, there is a decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (November 30, 1992), which lists crimes committed by the authorities against people. So it will not work to pretend that these crimes did not happen.
– And today, for example, the central archive of the FSB is closed for us, whose reading room has not been in operation for more than a year: in September last year it was closed due to a pandemic and there is no hurry to open. If we talk about specific materials, then many documents related to the activities of the highest authorities of the Soviet period are still closed. For example, working records from the Politburo meetings of the CPSU Central Committee are not published – for the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
And some documents, declassified in the 1990s, were later re-stamped. This was the case, for example, with the materials of the commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which investigated mass repressions, which are stored in the Russian Archive of Contemporary History. First they declassified and then decided: let the competent departments look at these materials. Well, of course, the resorts said: no, there is no need to open it now.
Many documents related to the activities of the Ministry of Defense also remain closed. Including – those that belong to the time of the war. For example, documents of the High Command have not yet been completely declassified. Our leaders talk a lot about preserving the memory of the war, that it is sacred to us. So open all these documents!
– Motivation may be just that, when in fact this fear is insignificant. In general, I am against the notion of “rewriting history.” History has already taken place – it is as it is.
All historians do is clarify events, add details. Perhaps those who try to restrict access to archival documents assume that their publication will make people doubt something. But most of the history of the Soviet period has already been very well researched and covered. I don't think there are any facts completely unknown to historians that, when published, will change the overall picture of the world.
