Belarus’s History: German Funding Ends, Narrative War Escalates

A recent decision by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to cease funding for the Belarusian Historical Research Forum in 2026 has ignited a fierce debate, underscoring the deep ideological divisions surrounding the very narrative of Belarus’s past. This seemingly academic matter has drawn sharp reactions from both pro-government analysts and exiled Belarusian intellectuals, each recognizing the profound power of history in shaping national identity and the country’s future trajectory.

Pro-government circles in Minsk have lauded Berlin’s move, with political analyst Pyotr Petrovsky hailing it as a ‘positive development.’ Speaking to the state news agency BelTA, Petrovsky asserted that the forum had long been a vehicle for disseminating ‘German narratives’ within Belarus, specifically accusing it of equating the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany and labeling Soviet power as totalitarian. He further suggested that the funding cut unmasks the beneficiaries of external support for ‘pseudo-historians’ who operated in Belarus before 2020 and are now abroad. Moreover, Petrovsky interpreted the cessation of funds as a symptom of a ‘deep crisis’ within the European Union, gleefully predicting that exiled figures reliant on EU budgets would soon feel the pinch, signaling the perceived exhaustion of the EU’s foreign and domestic policy model.

In stark contrast, the German Society for East European Studies (DGO e.V.) voiced strong concerns, deeming the decision ‘extremely problematic.’ The Society highlighted the Belarusian regime’s instrumentalization of history to legitimize authoritarian rule, pointing to laws like the one criminalizing critical research as ‘genocide of the Belarusian people.’ They specifically noted how the history of World War II is selectively employed to cultivate an adversarial image of the West. The DGO e.V. emphasized that independent historians challenging these state-sponsored narratives face severe repression, including lengthy prison sentences, making the Forum a crucial bastion for academic integrity, international collaboration, and public education amidst challenging political conditions, maintaining vital links with independent historians within Belarus and supporting persecuted scholars.

Amidst this contentious backdrop, the Belarusian Council for Culture, an opposition non-profit organization established in 2020 and registered in the EU with human rights status since May 2023, has released a comprehensive new study. Ironically, the Belarusian Ministry of Internal Affairs declared the Council an extremist formation in June 2022, underscoring the profound chasm between the authorities and independent civic initiatives.

The Council’s extensive research critically examines the state’s policies in constructing national historical memory across education, symbolism, and public and cultural spheres. Authors of the report expressed particular alarm over the Belarusian government’s portrayal of Poland as the ‘main geopolitical enemy.’ They noted a deliberate departure from past historical interpretations, particularly the reluctance to acknowledge the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) as a distinct and significant period in Belarusian national history. Conversely, the study highlights how new textbooks strive to depict life under the Russian Empire as more favorable for Belarusians, while anti-Russian uprisings are actively downplayed or reframed to present a less challenging historical narrative. This systematic re-imagining of the past, the authors warn, leaves graduates of Belarusian schools and universities largely oblivious to ‘the persistent anti-Russian struggles of their ancestors,’ confirming what opposition experts have long observed: the authorities are effectively winning the battle for the dominant historical narrative.

A particularly disturbing trend identified by the study is the ‘militarization of the educational and upbringing space.’ Experts from the Council contend that what is presented as ‘patriotic education’ in Belarus is, in essence, an indoctrination designed to instill personal loyalty to President Alexander Lukashenka amongst children. Intriguingly, the Council proposes a confrontational approach to counter these trends, suggesting that ‘crimes of officials contributing to the militarization of Belarus’s educational space should be documented for subsequent prosecution at the International Criminal Court.’ This proposition, while highlighting the severity of their concerns, also reveals a strategy that some might view as mirroring the very tactic of intimidation they accuse the authorities of employing against opponents.

As Germany withdraws its financial support from a key independent historical forum, the ideological contest over Belarus’s national identity only intensifies. The debates surrounding historical narratives are far from purely academic; they are deeply intertwined with the country’s political direction, its relationship with its neighbors, and the future minds of its younger generations, marking a crucial front in the ongoing struggle for Belarus’s soul.