One Example the 1989/1991 Revolution could not Change the Historical Assessment, Although we did Hope So
Abstract
On the socialist period the Past was painting by ideology and History swerved as communist's propaganda mean. Thus, we had the dream to know the historical truth after the socialist system collapse.
It would also mean the similar assessment of significant historical events. But it didn't become so.
From the different perspectives there are the contrary opinion about the same things. One example is the opposition in determining the 1968 invasion in Czechoslovakia from Czech and Russian/(post)Soviet point of view.
My oral history research shows the tendency for Russian/(post)Soviet narrators to deny term "occupation" as the definition of events, that is in generally in opposition of Czech point of view. Does it mean the Russian/(post)Soviet narrators are communist or support the invasion itself? No, it doesn't at all.
My hypothesis for interpretation is the different understanding what occupation is it as the phenomenon. And the collective memory and the parallels/analogy from national history have the main influence on the meaning of this notion.
If collective memory gives the different pattern for phenomenon of "occupation" for different groups, so they have the different ideas about it, and make different conclusions about was the historical events "the occupation" or neither. The difference in Czech and Russian/(post)Soviet collective memories based, as I suppose, in the differences in the symbolic centers of Czech and Russian/(post)Soviet national histories, as we use the M.
Havelka conception. Could the revolution changes of 1989 (or 1991 in Russian case) make the changing also in the evaluation of these historical events? My hypothesis is negative, because I suppose this revolution didn't change the corresponding symbolic center of national history.