下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
This brief review of the difference between formal history and collective memory has several implications for understanding the transformation in the Russian view of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As will become apparent，most of what I have to say about this view reflects the pressures of collective memory.
However，the key to overcoming some of the problems that emerge from these pressures may lie with formal history.
Formal history and collective memory must be kept distinct for several reasons. Collective memory tends to reflect a single，subjective，committed perspective of a group in the present，whereas formal history strives to be objective and to distance itself from the present and any particular perspective currently in favor.
I begin my analysis of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the official Soviet account from that period. From the perspective of this account，there is nothing to say about the secret protocols of the pact since they simply did not exist：the fact that the Baltic countries became part of the USSR had nothing to do with spheres of influence or any other form of external coercion. Instead，their annexation grew out of uprisings by the workers and peasants in these countries who desired to be part of the Soviet Union. In A Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union （1970），for example，the “nonaggression pact” was presented as follows：
In August 1939 Hitler’s government proposed a non-aggression pact to the Soviet Government. The Soviet Union was threatened with war on two fronts—in Europe and the Far East—and was completely isolated. The Soviet Government，therefore，agreed to make a pact of non-aggression with Germany. Subsequent events revealed that this step was the only correct one under the circumstances. By taking it the USSR was able to continue peaceful construction for nearly two years and to strengthen its defenses.（p.247）
Given that there were no secret protocols in this version of the events of 1939，the subsequent inclusion of the Baltic countries in the Soviet Union was not treated as being part of the story of the non-aggression pact. Instead，it was an event that arose due to a completely independent set of forces grounded in quite different motives. As outlined in that same text：
In 1940，when the threat of German invasion loomed over Lithuania，Latvia，and Estonia，and their reactionary governments were preparing to make a deal with Hitler，the peoples of these countries overthrew their rulers，restored Soviet power and joined the USSR.（p.247）
From this perspective，the fact that the Baltic countries became part of the USSR in 1940 was part of a Marxist-Leninist story of class struggle，a story that ended with the restoration of Soviet power. Indeed，this passage suggests that the period of independence in Estonia，Latvia，and Lithuania in the 1920s and 1930s was somehow unnatural and that once oppression had been removed，the people in these countries returned to their natural progressive path，joining the international march of socialist countries.