Difficulties and obstacles in the creation and work of the joint Commission

Understanding the difficulties and contradictions involved in implementing the declared dialogue, the parties did not rush to officially launch the joint commission. It may be assumed that the German side was dissatisfied with the Belarusian approach, which did not envisage inviting independent Belarusian historians who enjoyed a high reputation within Germany’s academic community. The Belarusian side, in turn, was wary of German initiatives aimed at broadening research topics and introducing wider and more transparent scholarly approaches to historical subjects considered sensitive by the Belarusian authorities.

Before the official start of the commission’s work, the parties held a series of meetings aimed at shaping the composition of the bilateral structure and defining principles and historical topics for joint discussion. It should be noted that the financing of these events, above all the payment of all travel expenses, was, as expected, assumed by the German side.

The first joint event was a conference on the history of Germany and Belarus in the twentieth century (December 12–13, 2018), held at Justus Liebig University in Giessen. On February 26–27, 2019, a second conference, “Belarus and Germany in the Mirror of Historical Scholarship,” took place in Minsk and brought together eight German and fourteen Belarusian historians.[3]

The Belarusian-German Historical Commission officially began its work at a joint meeting held in Berlin on February 1–2, 2020. On the German side, the commission was chaired by Professor Thomas Bohn (Justus Liebig University, Giessen). On the Belarusian side, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus Aliaksandr Kavalienia was appointed head of the commission.[4]

Disputes concerning the fundamental principles of the future commission’s activities began already at the first meeting. Only the German participants’ threat to terminate the commission’s work made it possible to establish freedom of research and teaching as a principle of cooperation. The head of the Belarusian delegation insisted on including the principles of objectivity and historicism in the final communiqué and opposed declaring freedom of research and teaching. As a result, the document adopted at the commission’s first meeting and published in Belarusian and German stated the following: “We believe that pluralism in scholarly activity is an important prerequisite for ensuring the continuous growth of knowledge. Guided by this conviction, Belarusian and German members of the commission agreed that scholarly principles, freedom of research, and freedom of teaching would form the foundation of cooperation”.[5]

The participants decided to meet twice a year and to hold an annual academic conference. An important area of the commission’s activities was declared to be a scholarship program for reciprocal one-month research fellowships for young scholars.[6]

At the same time, it was clear from the very beginning that the Belarusian side would agree only to the consideration of topics “convenient” for the regime and would reject alternative views regarding historical events and assessments of historical figures. Under these circumstances, German colleagues, understanding the situation, were prepared to compromise in selecting topics for joint research.

On the eve of the presidential elections in the Republic of Belarus, the German section of the commission managed to publish recommendations regarding the use and spelling in German-language texts of the country name Belarus and the adjective derived from it. Unlike the outdated list of country names on the website of the Federal Foreign Office (“Weißrussland” for internal use and “Belarus” in diplomatic practice), beginning in June 2020 German scholars recommended using the unified designation “Belarus” for the state that emerged in 1991. Taking the national language seriously, the commission went further than German media outlets and recommended spelling the corresponding adjective as “Belarusisch” (“Belarusian”) with a single “s.”. This proposal sparked a nationwide German discussion concerning the distinction between the terms “Belarus” and “Weißrussland,” providing commission members with an excellent opportunity to publicly articulate their position and communicate expert knowledge to a broader audience. By that time, many major German media organizations had adopted the spelling “Belarus,” and some had also accepted the adjective form “Belarusisch”.[7] This was a genuine success for the German side of the commission. It demonstrated how and in which direction cooperation should develop.

Crisis of joint activities after the suppression of mass peaceful protests in Belarus in 2020

Several months after the official launch of the commission, it faced a serious challenge –the COVID-19 pandemic, which intensified in the spring of 2020. However, the most serious challenge to the commission’s work became the repression against Belarusians who openly criticized the blatant falsification of the presidential election (August 9, 2020).

Political developments in Belarus led the historical commission into an irresolvable conflict. Its beginning can be traced to August 14, 2020, when forty-nine employees of the Institute of History (the main coordinator of the commission’s work on the Belarusian side) signed a statement expressing distrust in the presidential election results announced by the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Belarus. The signatories demanded that the authorities “comply with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Belarus, immediately release all political prisoners and detained citizens of the country, stop torture, punish all those responsible for inciting social hostility within society, disband AMAP (a special police unit to suppress protests), transfer prisons and detention facilities to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus, and introduce the principle of electing judges.” As punishment for this peaceful action, at the end of 2020 the leadership of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of History did not renew the employment contracts of seven employees. Another five historians terminated their contracts in solidarity with their unlawfully dismissed colleagues.[8]

The persecution of Belarusian researchers outraged the German members of the commission. They attempted to defend their dismissed colleagues and appealed to the Belarusian side with demands to restore justice. In November 2020, the German co-chair of the commission, Thomas Bohn, wrote a letter of support to the affected colleagues. He also sent letters to Aliaksandr Kavalienia and Vadzim Lakiza, Deputy Director of the Institute of History, emphasizing that German members of the Historical Commission had received reports about the non-renewal of employment contracts with concern. The professor also reminded them that freedom of research and teaching constituted the foundation of their joint work. The letters ended with a request to explain the reasons for the dismissals.[9]

In turn, the president of the German Association for East European Studies sent an open note of protest to the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, to which no response was received. Instead, the head of the Belarusian section of the commission, A. Kavalienia, accused the German colleagues of politicizing the commission’s activities in a letter addressed to Thomas Bohn.[1o]

Unlike members of the Belarusian section of the commission, who suspended their activities and did not even respond to letters from Germany while awaiting instructions from above, German researchers attempted to communicate their position not only to former colleagues but also to the wider public. They responded to offensive publications by Minsk propagandists and, in March 2021, sent a request to the editorial office of the newspaper SB. Belarus Segodnya, expressing disagreement and indignation regarding an article by Andrei Mukavozchyk that contained harsh attacks against the German-Belarusian historian Alexander Friedman.[11]

German historians watched with concern as the Belarusian authorities used the history of the Second World War as a political weapon for discrediting political opponents. In their appeal to Belarusian colleagues, they wrote that German society still knew relatively little about the scale of Nazi mass crimes in Belarus and their consequences; therefore, the topic required further study. As a gesture of goodwill, German scholars proposed digitizing selected collections of the Federal Archives of Germany and KGB archives.[12]

It should be emphasized that during the first half of 2021, the dominant opinion within the German section of the commission was that its work should continue even under difficult political circumstances. German colleagues hoped to use this format to influence their Belarusian counterparts and persuade them of the need to adhere to scholarly standards. Under the conditions of the described conflict, German representatives decided to continue their work and initiate thematic academic discussions in close contact with historians conducting research in Belarus (at universities, the National Academy of Sciences, and outside state institutions), as well as in exile. The first online discussion took place on February 5, 2021, on the topic “The Use of Symbols and Terms of the Nazi Era and the Second World War in Belarus after the Presidential Elections of August 2020.” On March 12, 2021, participants discussed the topic “100 Years of the Riga Peace Treaty: The Belarusian Question and the European Postwar Settlement.”

In April 2021, German historians summarized the commission’s first year of activity in an open appeal entitled “A Year in a State of Emergency,” in which they discussed the commission’s achievements and presented their position regarding developments in Belarus. Once again, accusations of politicization directed at German researchers were categorically rejected. According to the German side, continuing cooperation in the format of a full-fledged commission would be appropriate only if the Belarusian organizer respected freedom of research and teaching, involved non-governmental organizations in the commission’s work, and included historians who had lost their jobs because of their political views.[13]

On July 12, 2021, Professor Thomas Bohn sent a letter to the German and Belarusian members of the commission. He stated that German historians were prepared to resume the work of the Historical Commission as soon as the spokesperson of the Belarusian side approached the process constructively and cooperation was carried out in accordance with previously reached agreements. Until then, the German side would seek other forms of cooperation with Belarusian historians and would also welcome Belarusian commission members to participate in these initiatives.[14]

Thus ended theof organizing historical interaction between a democratic and an authoritarian state, which failed to produce positive results. It revealed existing obstacles and both objective and subjective limitations. However, dialogue between German and Belarusian historians did not cease – it simply took on other forms.

In search of new cooperation forms between Belarusian and German historians

more successful format for interaction between historians from different countries became the Forum for Belarusian Historical Research within the framework of the German Association for East European Studies. Under conditions in which it had become impossible to continue the work of the joint historical commission, representatives from Germany together with Belarusian colleagues – primarily those who had found themselves in exile – established the Forum for Belarusian Historical Research in March 2022. Like the Historical Commission, the Forum operated within the framework of the DGO, while the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) acted as its sponsor.

According to the document adopted following the aforementioned meeting, the Forum’s objectives included creating a platform for academic exchange among scholars and interested parties from Belarus through online formats such as discussions and book presentations; providing support and building connections between German researchers and Belarusian scholars in the humanities who had gone into exile in Germany, Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and other countries. This was intended to be implemented through online working groups and seminars where participants could exchange information regarding the themes and methodologies of historical research.[15]

To organize the Forum’s work, a Steering Group (Steuerungsgruppe) was established, consisting of three representatives from the German side (Anika Walke, Simon Lewis, Felix Ackermann) and three representatives from the Belarusian side (Iryna Kashtalian, Tatsiana Astrouskaya, Viktar Shadurski), along with the project coordinator representing the DGO, Alesia Belanovich. The Steering Group regularly held online meetings during which all issues related to the Forum’s work were discussed.

One of the already tested formats became public online discussions devoted to current topics in Belarusian history. During almost four years of the Forum’s activity, sixteen online discussions were held, featuring nearly fifty experts. The total number of participants in these meetings amounted to approximately seven hundred people. The most recent discussion was devoted to the significance of September 17, 1939, for Belarus and Poland. Researchers from different countries were invited to participate and, as a rule, represented differing perspectives. Discussions were always conducted in two languages – Belarusian and German or Belarusian and English – and were accompanied by simultaneous interpretation. This made them accessible both to Belarusian and international audiences. Recordings of the online discussions were made publicly available on the DGO website.[16]

The Forum continued the scholarship program for scholars that had originally been launched in spring 2020 and also organized a number of academic events. Nineteen Belarusian citizens, including seven researchers residing within the country, were given the opportunity to spend one month in Germany. Two specialists from Belarus were unable to travel abroad but received financial support to participate in the online program.

The Forum’s principal activities became academic conferences held in Berlin: “In the Shadow of the USSR: The BSSR in the Twentieth Century” (November 10–13, 2022) and “(Re)Thinking Violence: New Configurations of History, Memory, and the Present in Belarusian and Neighboring Societies” (November 9–11, 2023). In the latter case, the conference brought together sixty researchers, activists, and lecturers from nine countries.

The Forum also supported other initiatives by Belarusian historians, including the organization of a roundtable at the XI International Congress of Belarusian Studies in Gdańsk (September 2023) and the work of a special section at the XII International Congress in Berlin (September 2025). The German Association for East European Studies and the Forum became co-organizers of seminars on reforming the Belarusian educational system at the Krzyżowa / Kreisau Foundation for European Mutual Understanding (November 2023; May 2024). These seminars involved Belarusian experts who were developing the project “Roadmap for the Democratization of Higher Education in Belarus for the Period of 50–100–500 Days”.[17]

Despite the termination of the Forum’s funding, its activities continued in other, albeit more modest, formats. The preservation of the Forum is supported by Belarusian historians in exile, who consider it essential to maintain proven platforms for continuing professional cooperation. Thus, through the initiative and active participation of members of the Supervisory Board, the electronic platform H-Belarus began operating in September 2025 within the academic H-Net network in English. Other initiatives are also planned and conducted on a voluntary basis.

Conclusion

In summary, it should be noted that the experience of the Belarusian-German Historical Commission demonstrated the relatively low effectiveness of interstate partnerships between researchers from a democratic state and representatives of an authoritarian state, who more often act according to instructions from the authorities rather than on the basis of professional interests and mutual agreements. In this case, the results of cooperation depend primarily not on the qualifications and motivation of the members of the joint commission, but on the political will of the authoritarian state standing behind one of the parties. It is well known that within an authoritarian context, scholarship generally remains dependent on political power.

Under conditions of the Belarusian regime’s isolation and self-isolation in the international arena, representatives of Belarusian academia in exile have the opportunity to continue their scholarly activities aimed at researching and popularizing their country’s national history.

Their efforts can be significantly strengthened by creating professional associations, including in collaboration with their international colleagues. Experience also demonstrates the success of international electronic scientific platforms, which allow for the dissemination of information about scientific events, publications, and their authors on Belarusian topics. It is precisely horizontal associations, created on a voluntary basis, that facilitate free and reasoned discussion, including on complex historical topics. State institutions may provide financial support for horizontal ties with foreign specialists, but they should not interfere with the content of cooperation.

In order to attract the attention of international scholarship to their country, Belarusian authors seek to broaden approaches to the study of Belarus, its culture, and history by considering historical and contemporary problems not only within a national framework but also in broader regional, transnational, and global contexts, and through comparison with other countries, particularly neighboring states.

A promising direction remains the publication of research in highly ranked international journals and publications in German and English. The issue of translating monographs by foreign scholars into Belarusian also remains relevant. Under current conditions, the need to prepare educational materials and anthologies on the history and culture of Belarus in German and/or English has repeatedly been emphasized [18].

References:

[1] Reise in die Republik Belarus zur Eröffnung der Gedenkstätte Malyj Trostenez. (2018, June 29). Bundespräsidialamt. https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/2018/06/180629-Reise-Minsk.html.
[2] Partners’ correspondence (2020–2021) [Переписка партнеров (2020–2021)]. (2021). Current Archive of the German-Belarusian Historical Commission – Forum for Belarusian Historical Research (Berlin).
[3] Korsak, A. I. (2019, March 15). Establishment of the German-Belarusian Commission of Historians [Создание немецко-белорусской комиссии историков]. Polack State University. https://www.psu.by/ru/novosti/sobytiya/sozdanie-nemetsko-belorusskoj-komissii-istorikov
[4] Belarusian-German Historical Commission established [Основана Белорусско-германская историческая комиссия]. (2020, February 3). National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. https://nasb.gov.by/rus/news/10036/
[5] Vom 30. Jan. bis 1. Feb. fand die konstituierende Sitzung der Kommission in Berlin statt. (2020, February 6). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Osteuropakunde. https://dgo-online.org/informieren/aktuelles/belarusisch-deutsche-geschichtskommission-gegruendet/.
[6] Call for applications for fellowships of the Belarusian-German Historical Commission for research internships [Объявлен конкурс Белорусско-Германской исторической комиссии на получение стипендий для прохождения научных стажировок]. (2020, May 14). National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. https://nasb.gov.by/rus/news/10305/
[7] Kurianowicz, T. (2020, August 18). Warum Belarus und nicht Weißrussland? Berliner Zeitung. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur-vergnuegen/belarus-weissrussland-namensstreit-wieso-heisst-es-jetzt-belarus-und-nicht-weissrussland-ein-herz-fuer-belarus-li.99460
[8] Seven historians dismissed from the Institute of History; five resigned in solidarity [Семь историков уволены из Института истории, пятеро ушли из солидарности]. (2020, November 27). Euroradio. https://euroradio.fm/ru/sem-istorikov-uvoleny-iz-instituta-istorii-pyatero-ushli-iz-solidarnosti
[9] Partners’ correspondence (2020–2021), note 2 above.
[10] Belarusisch-Deutsche Geschichtskommission. (2021, April 12). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Osteuropakunde. https://dgo-online.org/informieren/aktuelles/belarusisch-deutsche-geschichtskommission/
[11] Partners’ correspondence (2020–2021), note 2 above.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Belarusisch-Deutsche Geschichtskommission, note 10 above.
[14] Partners’ correspondence (2020–2021), note 2 above.
[15] Forum for Belarusian Historical Research [Форум гістарычных даследаванняў Беларусі]. (2025). Forum for Belarusian Historical Research. https://dgo-online.org/forum-fuer-historische-belarus-forschung/
[16] Here you can find recordings of our online discussions [Тут вы знойдзеце запісы нашых анлайн-дыскусій]. (2025). Forum for Belarusian Historical Research. https://dgo-online.org/forum-fuer-historische-belarus-forschung/online-diskussionen/
[17] Partners’ correspondence (2020–2021), note 2 above.
[18] Are there grounds to call Belarus the “stepdaughter” of German East European studies? Belarusian and German scholars summarize the results of a roundtable discussion [Ці ёсць падставы называць Беларусь «падчарыцай» нямецкіх даследаванняў Усходняй Еўропы? Беларускія і нямецкія даследчыкі падвялі вынікі круглага стала]. (2026, April 18). Reform.news. https://reform.news/ci-josc-padstavy-nazyvac-belarus-padcharycaj-njameckih-dasledavannja-ushodnjaj-e-ropy-belaruskija-i-njameckija-dasledchyki-padvjali-vyniki-kruglaga-stala