Kremlin unveils revised history of WWII while historians politely ask for version control access

May 9 in Russia is officially observed as “Victory Day,” marking Nazi Germany’s surrender in 1945, but it has also become a deeply politicised national ritual — one that the Kremlin uses to reinforce themes of sacrifice, military strength and historical continuity.

Under Vladimir Putin, the commemorations have increasingly been framed not just as remembrance of the Second World War, but as a broader narrative about Russia’s identity and its role in defeating fascism.

The annual parade in Moscow’s Red Square is now a central state event that combines historical memory with modern military displays.

That said, the history of the war itself is far more complex than any single national narrative. The defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 was achieved through a wide coalition of Allied forces across multiple fronts, including the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, and resistance movements across occupied Europe.

Within the final months of the war, the collapse of German forces in Central Europe involved a range of competing dynamics — including uprisings, shifting alliances, and fragmented German command structures.

However, mainstream historical accounts do not support the idea that Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army played a decisive role in the liberation of Prague or the end of the war.

Instead, Prague was primarily liberated by advancing Soviet forces alongside elements of the First and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts, with local resistance forces also playing a role in the uprising against German occupation.

What is clear from historical scholarship is that memory of the war has long been politically contested, particularly in Russia, where the “Great Patriotic War” occupies a central place in national identity.

Different states and historians emphasise different aspects of the conflict, but the broad consensus remains that Nazi Germany’s defeat was the result of a multinational Allied victory.

In that sense, modern disputes over interpretation reflect less about the outcome of the war itself and more about how that outcome is remembered and used in contemporary politics.