On Monday, March 10, The Center for German and European Studies hosted Wellesley College Professor Ivan Kurilla to discuss “The Use and Misuse of History in Russia and Everywhere Else.” After departing from European University At St. Petersburg, Kurilla is serving as an International Scholar in Residence at Wellesley College for the Spring 2025 semester. While he was still in Russia, he had been outspoken against Moscow’s full-scale invasion of  Ukraine in 2022. According to Bowdoin College, where he was the Visiting Tallman Scholar in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, just before his departure, university authorities in St. Petersburg informed him that they would not approve his academic leave. Kurilla decided to leave and was fired from European University for absenteeism.

Kurilla’s research primarily focuses on the history of Russian relations and the uses of history by politicians to support their rhetoric. He started his lecture by showing a picture of a Feb. 8, 2024 meeting between Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and right-wing media personality and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in Moscow. Kurilla discussed how Putin used claims of a shared history between Russia and Ukraine to justify his invasion of Ukraine. Putin published two articles focusing on this topic: one on the unity of Russia and Ukraine during World War II and one on the unity of Russians and Ukrainians as part of the Russian Nation in 2021. 

Kurilla then spoke about the intersection of history and politics and how it leads to an evolution of political views. He used the example of historical monuments, which present a specific version of the past. Shortly after the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, there was an onslaught of instances where monuments of King George III were taken down by revolutionaries. Kurilla also pointed out that toppling monuments is a common practice during coups, as it publicly symbolizes a new government’s rule. Additionally, sentiment around monuments is often used as a reference to public beliefs about the past. For example, southern states defended Confederate monuments under the belief that they represented their states’ rights while others believed they represented slavery and racism. 

Kurilla added to this point by explaining that the variation between schools’ history curricula in different states plays a role in political views that vary by region. He referenced an example in West Virginia where, after the Civil Rights movement, concepts of injustice and racism started appearing in textbooks. This new material caused some parents to keep their children home from attending school. States give different historical narratives depending on where they are located in the country due to the United States’ highly regional democratic system. Kurilla then mentioned former President Joe Biden’s criticism of states banning books due to containing critical race theory and President Donald Trump’s accusing Democrats of limiting free speech in his inaugural address. These differences in accessing ideology and history highlight the modern debates that are being seen today.

Kurilla also spoke about how history museums can provide differing perspectives. For example, the Canadian conservative party prioritizes heroes and historical figures such as soldiers and politicians while other historians focus on immigrants and Indigenous peoples such as the many different museums of the Smithsonian Institutions.

Kurilla referenced how artifacts collected from colonial holdings, especially in Africa and South Asia, create conflicting claims. Since several countries feel that the artifacts rightfully belong to them, debates have ensued about how to handle such artifacts. For example, Former French President Emmanuel Macron said he would return artifacts to the nation they belonged to before colonization. Other nations, such as India, are still in the process of campaigning for national artifacts to be returned from Britain. These kinds of debates highlight how the politics of the past still impact the present.  

 Kurilla then highlighted the idea of memory laws, which are created for the purpose of changing the public view of a country’s history. For example, in Germany, Holocaust denial is illegal, while Putin changed the Russian constitution to defend Russian and Soviet History. These states wanted to ensure that only mainstream versions of their histories were present rather than ideologically extreme ones. 

Kurilla argued that history is a dialogue between contemporary and past societies. Scholars create this discourse by asking questions and using primary sources. In addition, he explained that history was used to build nation-states and that minorities based on class, race and region have their own versions of history. Conservative groups and nation-states often push back on these opposing histories to maintain control of the narrative. Kurilla finished his lecture by stating that multiple versions of history are always debated.

Kurilla then opened the floor for a question and answer section. The first question concerned the comparison of Germany’s version of Nazis to Russia’s claims that Ukraine is a fascist regime. Kurilla answered by saying Russia fighting Ukrainian Nazis is propaganda that takes advantage of collective memory from World War II. He said that Russians have family in Ukraine and know this difference. 

Kurilla was then asked why history museums in Russia primarily have multimedia content instead of “historical objects” or “primary sources.” He answered that children or other people who visit the museum don’t know the difference between multimedia and artifacts. The next question asked whether different actors should address different narratives of history. Kurilla said that people have different political agendas, and that dialogue between opposing views is very important. Another participant asked if historical trauma was active discourse or collective memory. Kurilla answered that memory is a new field of history, since historians have traditionally failed to recognize the traumatic past and its specific effects on the present. The last question asked was about Russian literature being weaponized. Kurilla said that this weaponization has created a division in Russian history and allowed Russia to intimidate citizens into supporting Putin’s narratives despite there being quiet resistance.