Conversation with Aleh Trusau
Author and host Siarhei Ablameika
Recently, I had the opportunity to read the memoirs of the Vilnius Belarusian activist from the war period, Doctor of Medicine Yauzep Maletski’s “Under the Sign of Pahonia.” Published in 1976 in Toronto by the Belarusian publishing house “Pahonia,” the book reveals horrifying images of the Vilnius Belarusian tragedy at the end of the 1930s and the beginning of the 1940s. In the Belarusian capital, Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, and Germans mocked and destroyed Belarusians. They not only mocked but also exterminated us, reported us, and even shot our activists while being underground themselves. For example, only in the neighboring Lida region, Polish underground forces killed 1,200 Belarusians during the war. The tragedy of a city torn from its homeland…
However, there, in the Belarusian West, historical circumstances developed in such a way that both in Vilnius and in Bialystok, there was a distinctly Belarusian movement that defended Belarusians and testified to their presence. There, the occupiers always counted and still count on Belarusians.
But what about the Belarusian East, I wondered, what about Smolensk and the Smolensk region? For centuries, no one has defended Belarusian lands there. What was this city for Belarus, and what is it for us now? Is the Smolensk question closed? And in general, do we pay enough attention to Smolensk when looking back at our history?
In Belarusian medieval times, there lived Kliment Smaliatsich and Avraami Smalenski. It is in the text of a trade agreement between Smolensk merchants and Riga from 1229 that scholars first record lexical features of the Belarusian language. It was there, at the end of the 14th century, that Luka Smalets lived, the author of the famous Belarusian literary monument “Smolensk Psalter.” It was in Smolensk that the renowned “Praise to Vitaut” was composed, as well as the so-called Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicle of 1446. Because of this city, our state waged endless wars with Moscow; it was for Smolensk and the Smolensk region that thousands and thousands of Belarusians laid down their lives, and it was the Smolensk rivalry with Muscovy that significantly predetermined the historical fate of the entire old Belarus.
The Belarusian character of this land is beyond doubt. Today, Russians, as a necessity of the time, call the local dialects southwestern Russian. However, when the threat of a Belarusian state did not exist, for example, in 1860, they provided different information about Smolensk. According to the Smolensk Statistical Committee, at that time, 68% of the population of the Smolensk province were Belarusians. In the central and western districts of the province, these figures approached 100%. In the Krasnensky district, there were 95% Belarusians, in Roslavl — 94%, in Smolensk — about 91%, in Paretsky — 90%, in Elninsky — 90%, in Dukhavshchinsky — 87%, and in Dorogobuzh — about 81% of the population. The 30% non-Belarusian population in the province was provided by Smolensk itself, which had been Russified over 300 years of captivity.
The three-hundred-year captivity also explains the almost complete absence of organized Belarusian movement there. However, individual historical facts indicate that something did exist in Smolensk. For example, it is known that at the All-Belarusian Congress in Minsk in 1917, the Smolensk delegation, unlike the Vitebsk and Mahiliou delegations that advocated for the autonomy of Belarus within Russia, along with the Vilnius delegation, advocated for the complete independence of our country. At the beginning of the century, one of the Belarusian poets even came from there. It is also known that during the last war in Vilnius, a Belarusian from Smolensk, Yafremau, actively collaborated with the newspaper “Belarusian Voice,” edited by Francišak Alyakhnovich.
For a conversation about Smolensk, I decided to invite the well-known Belarusian historian and public figure Aleh Trusau, who himself comes from the Smolensk region. What you will hear next suggests that Mr. Trusau actually represents a new eastern current in Belarusian socio-political thought, which can be called Smolensk or, at least, Smolensk-Mahiliou.
xxx
S.A. – Aleh Anatolievich, what is your attitude towards the conditional order in history? Is it correct for a historian or not?
A.T. – I believe it is correct, and the conditional order in history always exists. If you look philosophically — what is history, it is some moment that cannot be measured. You know this sophism about the turtle and Achilles, dating back to Ancient Greece. Therefore, a true historian should consider the conditional order in history infinitely. Because all the variants that were in history and could have happened but did not happen — they have the right to exist in the future. And there are quite a few such facts. For example, if something did not succeed immediately, it could have been accomplished by the people on the fifth, eighth, or tenth attempt.
Take, for example, the numerous uprisings of the Bulgarians against the Turks. Bulgarian revival historians always philosophically and literarily considered their mistakes. Especially when the uprising did not yield the desired result. Therefore, it seems to me that what Radio Free Europe is doing now, examining possible variants of the Belarusian path at the end of the 20th century, is very important. And this approach has the right to exist like any futurism.
S.A. – Thank you. Now, about Smolensk. I address you with these questions both as a professional historian and as a person who comes from the Smolensk region and even has the entry “Russian” in his passport.
First of all, what stages of Smolensk history could you highlight?
A.T. - There are several. The first and extremely important is the formation of the Smolensk state. The fact is that the Krivichs — that Slavic people who, along with the Balts, formed the basis of the Belarusians — simultaneously created three states: Polotsk, Pskov, and the largest and strongest — Smolensk. The Smolensk state has its roots somewhere in the 9th-10th centuries, when the so-called Gnezdovo arose near Smolensk, which was one of the first urban formations on the territory of Central and Eastern Europe, where Slavs lived alongside Varangians and other tribes. Archaeologists have uncovered interesting finds there. It is there that a large number of Arab dirhams were found, as Gnezdovo, and later Smolensk became a nodal point on the route from “Varangians to Greeks” — the route through which European trade flowed from the Baltic Sea to the Caspian and Black Seas. And then the Smolensk state, unlike other East Slavic states, was the longest-lasting. The Smolensk principality existed as an independent state until the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 15th centuries, while Polotsk lost its independence somewhere in the early 14th century. Smolensk existed for another 100 years as an independent ethnicity, as a state with its army, its chronicles, architecture… And this is very important. Unfortunately, the fact of the independent existence of Smolensk in the 13th-14th centuries is little considered. It is unprofitable for Russians, and Belarusians have not yet reached this point.
S.A. – You say that the Krivichs created three states. But were the Smolensk Krivichs completely identical to the Polotsk and Pskov ones? Because today archaeologists and anthropologists claim that the Polotsk people were practically identical to the Latgalians (!). Now they are digging and seeing almost identical structures with the Latgalians. In other words, hidden Baltic influences or even roots.
What can you say in this sense about the Smolensk Krivichs?
A.T. – The Smolensk Krivichs differed somewhat in that they came to the borderlands. But on the territory of Smolensk until the 12th century, there existed the East Baltic tribe of Holod, and the Smolensk people assimilated it quite late; the Balts existed there even in the 12th century, not to mention the 8th-9th-10th centuries. Another thing is that in Smolensk, the Krivichs encountered Finno-Ugric tribes, as this was the border between the Balts and the Finno-Ugrics. And this Finno-Ugric element is present in the Smolensk people. By the way, the Pskov Krivichs were already half connected with the Finno-Ugrics, meaning much more than the Smolensk ones. Therefore, the research of our archaeologists in Polotsk does not provide anything new to the picture of the settlement of Baltic areas by the Krivichs.
S.A. – Indeed, this is very interesting. It turns out that in the 13th-14th centuries, there existed another Belarusian state.
A.T. - Yes. Completely independent, completely self-sufficient. With its princes, chronicles, architecture. All of this existed. We just do not know about it yet. This is an unknown Belarus.
Moreover, Moscow princes went to war against this state together with the Tatars. Later, the Grand Lithuanian princes defended it from the Muscovites. In the second half of the 14th century, Algirdas defended Smolensk several times from Muscovite-Tatar raids. There are many written sources about this. But then the Grand Duchy of Lithuania annexed Mstsislaw first, and later, at the beginning of the 15th century, Smolensk as well. The Smolensk region was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for 100 years, and in 1514, Smolensk was captured by the troops of Vasily III. And once again, Smolensk returned to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1609 and remained there until the summer of 1654.
S.A. – And how would you assess the role and significance of Smolensk for Belarus at all these stages? It was a bone of contention between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Duchy of Moscow, a reason for a devastating and destructive war between them. How do you define the role of Smolensk for Belarus, for example, geopolitically?
A.T. - Smolensk for Belarus is a kind of hallmark, a symbol of both Belarusian revival and decline. As soon as the question of Smolensk arises — Belarus always stands up and revives. Likewise, as soon as it disappears from the historical map, Belarus is in decline. Here are specific examples. After the battle of Orsha, Smolensk remained part of the Russian state. And this led to the fact that a little later, Ivan the Terrible came to Belarus, captured and destroyed Polotsk, and practically exterminated Polotsk as an ethnocultural region. And he could do this only by having Smolensk in his hands. However, when Russia itself fell into a difficult situation — the so-called Time of Troubles — and when the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund stormed Smolensk in 1609, the situation changed dramatically, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania reached its last peak in the first half of the 17th century. This was the last surge of its prosperity, the prosperity of material culture and architecture.
It was during this time that influences of our Baroque flowed through Smolensk into Moscow: this includes Belarusian tile work, our carvers, etc. Smolensk became a stronghold for Belarusians to seize cultural territories of Muscovy. Later, when in 1654 Smolensk finally fell into the Russian Empire, a very interesting phenomenon occurred. Until 1924, or more precisely until 1941, the Smolensk region remained practically a Belarusian land, meaning the majority of the people were not assimilated by the Russian conquerors.
Our Smolensk region raised its head again at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. For example, when at the All-Belarusian Congress in December 1917 (the 80th anniversary of which we recently celebrated), the delegates from Vitebsk and Mahiliou advocated for the autonomy of Belarus, the Smolensk delegation, along with the Vilnius delegates, advocated for complete independence. Later, Smolensk played a huge role a couple of years later when the BSSR was proclaimed in Smolensk. And these moments show that the question of Smolensk is the same as the question of Strasbourg, Alsace, and Lorraine in French-German relations.
The most interesting thing is that the question of Belarusian Smolensk was fully formulated in the third volume of “Picturesque Russia,” which, by the way, was reissued in Belarus in 1993. And if you open this volume on page 442, you will see that according to data from 1860, there were 1,122,000 Belarusians in the Smolensk province and 520,000 Great Russians (Russians), in percentages — 68% and 32%. It turned out, surprisingly, that the Smolensk province was one of the most Belarusian. Why? Because the number of Jews was minimal here. The settlement border cut off the urban Jewish population from Smolensk. And it is not accidental that it was so Belarusian-aware. In the cities of Smolensk, except for those that fell into the Mahiliou province, there were significantly fewer Jews or none at all.
The same goes for Poles. By the way, Polish assimilation did not exist in Smolensk after 1654, and Catholicism disappeared as a phenomenon, and Uniatism vanished. Smolensk became what it was due to these seemingly unfavorable factors for the rest of Belarus. This is like the phenomenon of Bialystok. The Orthodox Church did not fight with Uniatism and Catholicism because they were supported at the state level, and peasants continued to use the Belarusian language and lived until the 19th century without any signs of assimilation. (In Bialystok, at the beginning of the 19th century, there were 3 Orthodox parishes. — S.A.)
The latest data on Smolensk date back to 1924. At that time, during the BSSR’s expansion, it was emphasized that the majority of the population of the Smolensk province were Belarusians.
There are official documents. Even on Smolensk radio, representatives of the local provincial authorities spoke about this. This is 1924.
S.A. - Do you see any parallels in the fate of Smolensk and Vilnius?
A.T. – I see parallels more with Bialystok than with Vilnius. Because Vilnius and the Vilnius region are still the heart of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the heart and capital of Belarus. Smolensk has never, except for one day — January 1, 1919 — claimed to be the capital of Belarus or the BSSR. It was only the capital for one day. But it has the same significance for us as Grodno does in the west. Imagine if Grodno were to fall into Poland now. We would suffer the same losses, both cultural and ethnic. This is a city that I compare not with Vilnius, but with Grodno. And later, when Smolensk fell into the hands of Russia, its function was performed by Mstsislaw. But it could never compare with Smolensk. It is like Slonim in Grodno region. After Grodno, it is the second city, but it can never be the first.
S.A. – Well, if Smolensk had remained part of Belarus, what could have been the fate of Belarus and what would be the present face of Smolensk?
A.T. - Firstly, a larger part of Smolensk could have entered Belarus in the 1930s; this was in the works. Maps of the BSSR were even printed in “Zvyazda,” where several districts of Smolensk were to join the BSSR any day. There were Belarusian schools in Smolensk, and the question of uniting the western part of Smolensk with the BSSR was practically resolved. Only the repressions of the 1930s halted this process. Therefore, if Smolensk had joined the BSSR then, the situation with the Belarusian language and culture would have been much better than it is now. Because in these villages of Smolensk, people still speak, practically, Belarusian.
The annexation of Smolensk to Belarus would have given us a different mentality, allowing us to speak with our eastern neighbor in a different language — in the language of equals. Because moving the border of the Muscovite state 200-300 kilometers to the east is the same as, for example, Bialystok being part of Belarus. Having Smolensk within Belarus would have allowed us to achieve much greater results during the last revival. Not to mention that the Smolensk lands are now empty, uninhabited; we could have resolved the issue with Chernobyl resettlers. It is not accidental that Chernobyl evacuees were settled in Dribin, which is right on the border of Smolensk. We could have settled Krasnoye, Dorogobuzh, and other areas, because now there are 10-15 thousand people living there; these are practically empty lands.
S.A. – And today. Looking back into the past, no term is great for history, and nothing is eternal in history. Is Smolensk forever lost to Belarus and, I emphasize, to Belarusian identity? I know that during your deputyship, you had access to such information and had contacts with the Smolensk elite.
A.T. - The fact is that in 1990, I, as part of a small group of opposition deputies from the DemClub, which included Pyotr Sadouski, Dzmitry Bulakhau, and Zenon Paznyak, went to the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR in Moscow. On various issues. We also met with representatives from Smolensk, deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR from the Smolensk region. And there, during a friendly conversation in the “Rossiya” hotel, we talked for several hours about the same topics as with you now: is it possible for Smolensk to return to Belarus? As a result, for example, of a referendum. At that time, the USSR Law “On Referendum” was adopted, and we were theoretically raising the question. For example, a declared referendum — where should Smolensk be, in Belarus, the then BSSR, or in Russia? How does the local elite view this? Because those deputies were representatives of the local elite — representatives of district and regional committees of the Smolensk region, etc. Surprisingly, they all expressed “for.” They said that if only this referendum were to take place, if we were not hindered, we would all join Belarus. Because at that time, Belarus was living much better than Smolensk, and they always looked at Belarus the way, for example, Poles looked at Germany, or Eastern Germans looked at the West. What surprised me was that these people (most of whom had moved to Smolensk after the war, as this region was completely destroyed during the war) were patriots of Smolensk in spirit. Many of them subscribed to the newspaper “Zvyazda,” one of them recited a poem by Piatrus Brouka from memory, they all listened to Belarusian Radio, and some even read “LiM”… Again, I emphasize — this is not the intelligentsia; this is party, nomenklatura intelligentsia. And they expressed their opinion — if such a referendum had taken place in 1990, Smolensk would undoubtedly have joined the BSSR. But this would have been on the condition that the referendum took place.
Such sentiments of the then nomenklatura suggest that in the 21st century, when Belarus becomes a normal European state, and centrifugal tendencies in Russia prevail, such a referendum has the right to exist. The annexation of these lands purely voluntarily, without any coercion, is not excluded. As you, Siarhei, aptly noted, in history, there are no eternal state borders; they constantly change depending on the political situation. Just in this 20th century, there were eight partitions of Belarus, and our state borders changed eight times.
By the way, the last piece of Smolensk joined Belarus in 1964 — these were 8 villages of the collective farm “Path to Communism,” which entered the Belarusian territory during Khrushchev’s thaw.
xxx
One of the main outcomes of our conversation I would name is Aleh Trusau’s proposal to consider the medieval Smolensk principality of the Krivichs as another Belarusian state. It seems that no one has posed the question like this before: alongside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, there existed another, East Belarusian state until the beginning of the 15th century.
It is also interesting that Smolensk reached its historical peak in the first half of the 17th century as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At that time, it became a stronghold of Belarusian culture in the east and a bridge for the transfer of Belarusian Baroque to Moscow.
I was also attracted by Aleh Trusau’s words about a different mentality that Belarus could have had if Smolensk had been part of it. He also believes that with Smolensk, we would have achieved much greater success in the matter of national revival, in the matter of Belarusianization today. Who knows? Perhaps that is so. Indeed, the Belarusian composition of the urban and local population of the Smolensk province, the almost complete absence of Jews and Poles there, could have made Smolensk a center of Belarusianization in the 1920s, and perhaps would not have allowed it to stop so early…
However, when we talk about the desirability of including Smolensk in today’s Belarus, there is much to think about. It is quite possible that today, Smolensk, which is undoubtedly more Russified than any of the other eastern regions of Belarus, could prevent Belarus from reviving. Imagine if the already Russified Vitebsk and Mahiliou were joined by industrial Smolensk with its imported Russian population… This is like Dnipro for Ukraine. But I recently read an article in a Russian newspaper about life in rural Smolensk. So, of the 10 surnames mentioned in that article of collective farm chairmen and village council secretaries, 9 were purely Belarusian. And Aleh Trusau, in general, speaks about the next century, about the future full-fledged European Belarus.
On the other hand, I sometimes think this. Well, let Smolensk be Russified. It would create a problem for us if we obtained it now. But is any sacrifice for such a piece of native land and a native city adequate? Probably, it depends on the person. A simple person needs a quiet life, simply well-being. An intellectual simply needs native land, its happiness. Was the sacrifice of Lithuanians for the non-native Vilnius adequate? 50 years of Soviet captivity, shootings, deportations, collectivization, and the unloved Russian language in schools… A 50-year break in development…
In the 1930s in Western Belarus, there was such a Lithuanian figure — Stashys. He was very friendly with Belarusian activists. When Stalin gifted Vilnius to Lithuanians in October 1940, that Stashys became the mayor of Vilnius. Then a delegation of Belarusians came to him and asked for help in opening Belarusian schools in Vilnius. Stashys sharply refused, saying that, well, we, Lithuanians, have achieved our goal — we got Vilnius, our paths have diverged, and you, Belarusians, now seek your own solutions… Seven months later, all of Lithuania was taken by the Russians, and that Stashys was one of the first arrested and shot by the NKVD… So, from today’s point of view, was the Lithuanian sacrifice for Vilnius adequate? I do not have a definitive answer to this question. However, today independent European Lithuania, which strives for the European Union and NATO, undoubtedly benefited from Vilnius, and thus from that Stashys…
In general, it is an interesting matter — the expansion of the territory of the BSSR. It turns out that even in the 1930s, the newspaper “Zvyazda” published maps of Soviet Belarus including Smolensk. This indicates that the fathers of the BSSR thought a little about their heritage… For example, I recently learned with surprise that in 1945, immediately after the war, the Supreme Soviet of the BSSR passed a resolution to include East Prussia along with the city of Königsberg-Kaliningrad into the BSSR, justifying this need for Belarus to reach the sea. At that time, we also had Bialystok. But Moscow had other plans. The resolution was canceled in the Kremlin, and soon Bialystok was gifted to the Poles. We have not had much luck with territory in this century.
But despite all this, the leaders of the BSSR at that time were still interesting people. The later ones became very fragmented, all these Malafeyevs, Sakalovs. Now in Russia, the situation is different; they do not yield even a kilometer at the border. But during the times of the degenerated Brezhnev, the sick Chernenko, or early Gorbachev, it might have been possible to hold some plebiscite in Smolensk, at least for the resettlement of people from Chernobyl-affected areas there.
In general — it was pleasant to hear sober and reasoned optimism about centrifugal tendencies in Russia and European, thus attractive Belarus in the next century from the mouth of Aleh Trusau, who is not only a historian and a Smolensk native but also has significant experience as a statesman.
Siarhei Ablameika, Prague