You are on page 1of 2

Curmei Marian Istorie, Anul II, Grupa B, Licență Zi

The Soviet Story
The Soviet Story is a 2008 documentary film about Soviet Communism and Soviet– German collaboration before 1941 written and directed by Edvīns Šnore and sponsored by the UEN Group in the European Parliament. The film features interviews with western and Russian historians such as Norman Davies and Boris Sokolov, Russian writer Viktor Suvorov, Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, members of the European Parliament and the participants, as well as the victims of Soviet terror. The film argues that there were close philosophical, political and organizational connections between the Nazi and Soviet systems before and during the early stages of World War II. It highlights the Great Purge as well as the Great Famine, Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Katyn massacre, Gestapo-NKVD collaboration, Soviet mass deportations and medical experiments in the GULAG. "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems. The Soviet Story makes a significant contribution to the establishment of a common understanding of history and brings us closer to the truth about the tragic events of the 20th century. A common understanding of history among the member states is crucial for the future of the whole EU. The film prompted negative reactions from Russian organizations, press, and politicians. According to the "European Voice" newspaper, Russians are infuriated by the film which reveals the extent of Nazi and Soviet collaboration. Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ījabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and "effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word", whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ījabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors.

Ījabs states that. Although sometimes translated as "racial trash".] at the very least a kind of cultural genocide. is in question. "In late 1930s Hitler did not yet plan a s ystematic genocide against the Jews". those left behind (discarded) by the dominant civilizations. Ījabs comments on the notion in the film voiced by the British literary historian.. liberal and former political activist George Watson that Friedrich Engels is "the ancestor of the modern political genocide". other translations include "residual nations" or "refuse of nations". the use of the term Völkerabfälle in Marx's newspaper to describe several small European ethnic groups." Furthermore. that is. . arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is [. Ījabs says: "To present Karl Marx as the "progenitor of modern genocide is simply to lie". as it is suggested in the film. at least from Watson's citations." The film has attracted praise and criticism from academic historians and political commentators. that actual mass killing. however.For example.. rather than (to use their phraseology) mere absorption or assimilation. "Everybody knows that this decision was made in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin. but it is not obvious. Watson views have been also criticized by reviewer Robert Grant as ideologically biased and for citing evidence that "seems dubious". Ījabs admits.