Authors

Discussion

This paper examines the 2003–2004 controversy surrounding Igor Dolutskii’s History of Russia, 1945–2003, a textbook removed from schools after its criticism of President Putin triggered a political scandal. Drawing on interviews with historians, State Duma materials, and media archives, it reassesses this episode and its significance for memory politics. The paper argues that, rather than a straightforward success of textbook censorship or a conservative turn, the episode reveals political polarisation between the more liberal educational establishment and the conservative stance of the security establishment.

First, the paper challenges interpretations portraying Putin and his administration as pioneers of textbook censorship. Using State Duma stenograms and media sources, it highlights the influence of the pro-communist lobby in parliamentary debates on history education. With the appointment of Vladimir Filippov as Minister of Education in 1998, dialogue on history education between the Ministry and communist deputies in the Duma intensified. Therefore, discussions on history textbooks should not be seen, as Vaillant (2004) suggests, “as the actions of politicians on the extremes,” but rather as an institutional attempt to reach a workable consensus with a major political force in parliament. Second, this paper expands on Sherlock’s (2007) notion of the rise of siloviki-affiliated groups in memory politics by examining the role of veterans’ organisations in the Dolutskii affair. The Dolutskii affair demonstrated Putin’s alignment with their interpretation of history. Third, the paper contends that attempts to censor anti-communist textbooks before and after the affair produced ambiguous results. Textbook reviewers from the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Education continued to legitimise critical views of the Soviet past despite political pressure. Moreover, interviews with historians and press debates show that the academic and pedagogical consensus explicitly favoured “textbook pluralism” over the state-imposed “unification” of history. 

In conclusion, the paper develops Gjerde’s (2015) argument that memory politics in the 2000s oscillated between praising liberal democracy and glorifying the Soviet past. It explains this ambiguity by showing that the educational establishment remained distant from the conservative position of the security establishment, creating constraints on a conservative turn in history education during the 2000s.