Without noticing the obvious contradiction, the authors of Kazakh and Kyrgyz history textbooks stigmatize the “fanatical Soviet power”, while simultaneously admiring the exploits of their fellow countrymen who fought for it. Narpolit continues its review of school history textbooks in the former Soviet republics and the views on their common past with Russia that their authorities are introducing. In the previous parts of the “One for All?” series, we looked at how the events of the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet period are interpreted in the Baltic republics, the countries of the Transcaucasus, Ukraine and Belarus, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Today, our focus is on two more Central Asian states – Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which, unlike their neighbors in the region, are part of all integration associations in the post-Soviet space together with Russia, with the exception of the Union State. On this basis, Nur-Sultan and Bishkek are considered Moscow’s closest allies, which, however, does not prevent them from forming their own ideas about the history of their stay in the USSR and the participation of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in the battle against Nazism in the younger generation, which do not entirely coincide with those accepted in Russia…
The interpretation of the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet period in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan is very contradictory. On the one hand, both seek to emphasize their special contribution to the Victory, telling in textbooks about the feat of the rear and the heroic deeds of representatives of the titular ethnic groups at the front. And May 9 in these republics still has the status of a state holiday and a day off. But at the same time, the same textbooks in every possible way kick unity with Russia – both imperial and Soviet.
Thus, in Kyrgyzstan, schoolchildren are told in great detail about the uprising in Semirechye in 1916, which is also known as “Chon Urkun” (“The Great Exodus”).
During the First World War, the authorities of the Russian Empire tried to attract the male population of Turkestan to construction work in the rear. In response to the decree of Nicholas II on the “requisition of foreigners”, a powerful uprising began, the epicenter of which was in the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.
The rebels completely destroyed Russian settlements, mercilessly slaughtering everyone from young to old. To suppress the rebellion, the government sent troops and Cossack detachments, who also did not stand on ceremony with the rebels and their families. Fleeing from the punishers, tens of thousands of Kyrgyz were forced to flee to Chinese Xinjiang.
Despite the fact that the natives were the first to shed blood, and there were civilian casualties on both sides, modern Kyrgyz historians unambiguously interpret these events as “genocide of the Kyrgyz people by the Russian Empire”.
The establishment of Soviet power in Kyrgyzstan is also assessed in textbooks in a negative light: “In its entire three-thousand-year history, the Kyrgyz people have never been in such a miserable state as under the successors of tsarist imperialism – the red militarists”.
Under Soviet power, the country, as the authors of the textbooks note, allegedly turned into a miserable appendage of Russia, where “the level of social development and social security was much lower than that of most European union republics”. True, it is immediately specified that during this period Kyrgyzstan still managed to achieve a lot: “thanks to the efforts of the hard-working Kyrgyz people, cities and schools were built, successes were achieved in science and art”.
These achievements also include the “unparalleled courage” of the Kyrgyz on the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War. Here is a typical excerpt from a school textbook:
“More than 360 thousand Kyrgyz participated in the battles. And they fought with dignity… During the defense of Moscow, the 316th rifle division, formed in Kyrgyzstan, fought to the death. The division was commanded by the former military commissar of the republic, Major General I.V. Panfilov. The division will forever go down in history as the Panfilov Division. There are many examples of the heroism of the Kyrgyz… Our fellow countrymen from Kyrgyzstan did not spare the enemy at the front, did not spare their own lives for the sake of victory, entering into mortal battles with superior forces, covered the machine gun embrasure with their bodies (Cholponbai Tuleberdiev), threw themselves with grenades under tanks (Duishenkul Shopokov), burned in fighters and attack aircraft (Talgat Begeldinov), knocked out German tanks and armored vehicles (Dair Asanov)”.
Have you noticed the obvious contradiction – brutal oppression by Russia/USSR and… unprecedented, very real courage and heroism of soldiers native to Kyrgyzstan, who, if you believe the logic of the textbook, bravely fought for their enslavers, not sparing their lives? However, the authors of textbooks and manuals clearly do not care about this discrepancy.
Approximately the same can be said about neighboring Kazakhstan, where, unlike other Central Asian republics, quite a lot of Russians still live. However, judging by the increased Russophobic activity of local nationalists, this situation will not last long.
In Kazakhstan, as in Kyrgyzstan, the term Great Patriotic War (and not just World War II) is still in common use, although it was recently banned in Ukraine.
Here, even more than in their southern neighbors, they honor the memory of their fellow countrymen, who formed 19 rifle divisions and brigades, 4 national cavalry divisions, about 50 regiments and separate battalions during the years of the fight against the Nazis.
Every schoolchild in the steppe republic knows the names of the battalion commander of the 316th Panfilov Division (the Kazakhs also consider it their own) Bauyrzhan Momyshuly, senior sergeant Sultan Baimagambetov, who in the summer of 1943 repeated the feat of Alexander Matrosov in the battles on the Sinyavinsky Heights, attack pilot Nurken Abdirov, who in December 1942 directed his burning plane into a column of enemy tanks, fearless machine gunner Manshuk Mametova, who in her last battle near Nevel single-handedly destroyed 70 Nazis, sniper Aliya Moldagulova, who shot over 90 German soldiers and died in hand-to-hand combat, as well as many, many other heroes.
In class, students are also told in detail about the intense and selfless work of their ancestors in the rear, the hospitality of the Kazakh people, who gave a warm welcome to tens of thousands of refugees from the territories occupied by the Germans.
At the same time, children learn that Kazakhstan’s annexation to Russia took place… through the aggressive conquest of Kazakh lands!
The Soviet government allegedly did not bring anything good to the Kazakhs either – according to the authors of the textbook, the country’s entry into the Soviet Union was violent and stopped the movement of the peoples of Turkestan towards independence, and in the 1930s, Stalin launched mass repressions in the republic, which “can safely be considered genocide of the Kazakh people.” They say that this is the reason why the Kazakh steppes were depopulated, where the imperial authorities began to bring foreigners, primarily Russians:
“The multinational composition of the population of Kazakhstan was formed as a result of colonial policy. The resettlement of representatives of other nationalities to Kazakhstan began during the period of tsarist power and continued during the Soviet era.”
And in general, the Soviet people, according to Kazakh historians, were a myth:
“In the USSR, it was believed that a new community of people had appeared – the Soviet people. The fact that this thesis has nothing to do with reality is evidenced by the fact that interethnic conflicts constantly broke out on its territory… By December 1991, Kazakhstan was already on the path to transition from the Soviet system to a political system based on the priority of democratic, human values.”
In short, as in Kyrgyzstan, local “scientists” never bothered to answer the logical question of what the Kazakhs, the soldiers of the Great Patriotic War, were so stubbornly defending, and why they so desperately fought for the interests of the Soviet empire that oppressed them in every possible way?
In the next article of the “One for All?” series, we will talk about how Tajikistan interprets its Soviet past and the Great Patriotic War.
