VICTORY DAY THROUGH THE ERAS: MEMORY AND COMMEMORATIVE PRACTICES

The topic of the Great Patriotic War remains relevant today and, to a certain extent, has a sacred character. The interest of scholars and researchers in studying the events of 1941-45 is particularly heightened during the anniversary years of the Great Victory Day celebrations. This article examines the historical memory of students regarding the Great Patriotic War. The subject of the analysis is the content of historical memory of the events of 1941-45 among different generations of students (using the example of students in the Altai Territory). Special attention is given to the justification for distinguishing students and school graduates as different generations of students. The article, using a survey method in the form of a questionnaire, as well as the method of comparative analysis and a generational approach, reveals the dynamics of the content of historical memory of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45 among different generations of students. A sociological analysis revealed that young students maintain continuity in both the content of their historical memory of the Great Patriotic War and their assessments of the factors that contributed to its victory. A trend toward declining interest in the history of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45 and the knowledge component of historical memory across different generations of young students was also identified. Unlike university students, high school graduates are less interested in the events of 1941-45 and possess less knowledge about the Great Patriotic War. The article describes the role of social institutions involved in preserving the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War. In particular, it notes a declining role for the family in preserving the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War due to a decline in the role of social practices in youth communication with their parents and grandparents. At the same time, it has been established that schools retain their position as a leading social institution in defining the substantive dominant of the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War for all generations of students. The article devotes special attention to recommendations aimed at minimizing the risks associated with preserving the historical memory of students.

In the scientific and publishing activities of the Russian State Library (RSL), one of the important and constant topics is The Library During the Great Patriotic War. The article examines the publications of the RSL and the publications of its staff on the history of the library during the Great Patriotic War, prepared in 1991—2025. Among the book publications devoted to this issue are the collection The Voice of the Past (1991), The Memorial Book of the Russian State Library (1995), the publications The Russian State Library During the Great Patriotic War: Chronicle of Life (2005), The Russian State Library During the Great Patriotic War: Front Line (2014), Not Only with Weapons: The Russian State Library During the Great Patriotic War (2020), published under the editorship of L.M. Koval; the collection of memoirs Remembering Wartime Childhood (2021), prepared by the Council of Veterans of the RSL; the richly illustrated publication Pages of Victory: Leninka in 1941—1945: Chronicle. Documents. Memoirs (2025), published under the supervision of A.Yu. Samarin. Among the articles presented in the professional press, we highlight the materials published in the journal Bibliotekovedenie: Book Exhibitions During the Great Patriotic War of 1941—1945 (from the History of the Russian State Library) by E.A. Tatarinova (2009, no. 5), Training of the Lenin Library Staff During the Great Patriotic War by E.B. Dudareva (2010, no. 2), The Lenin State Library of the USSR from Evacuation to the Great Victory (Following the Selected Documents and Photographic Materials of the Archives of the Russian State Library) by A.L. Divnogortsev (2015, no. 3), The Lenin State Library of the USSR During the Great Patriotic War: Preparation and Release of Bibliographic Publications by E.V. Gubina, G.L. Levin, and N.S. Maslovskaya (2020, vol. 69, no. 5). We also note the article by A.L. Divnogortsev, Lenin’s Library Employees in the Days of the Battle of Moscow, published in the journal Scientific and Technical Libraries (2016, no. 9). The activities of the State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin (now the RSL) during the Great Patriotic War of 1941—1945 are discussed in a number of presentations by RSL employees at the conferences Rumyantsev Readings (in various years), Book Culture: The Experience of the Past and the Problems of the Modernity: On the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. One of the key events of 2025 was the All-Russian scientific and practical conference Preserving the Historical Memory of the Great Patriotic War: The Role of Libraries, held at the RSL, dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory. At the event, RSL specialists delivered 11 papers on the topic, which are presented in the conference proceedings. RSL publications are an important contribution to the history of the institution and the entire librarianship in Russia.

The perpetuation of the feat of the Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War through monuments, museum displays, and artistic texts has been going on for three-quarters of a century now. Perpetuation strategies at various stages have been determined by official interpretations of events, processes, and commemorative practices. Referring to the analysis of the situation in Krasnodar Krai, this article reconstructs the initial stage of war commemoration and the mechanisms of historical memory production that were formed synchronously with the events of 1941–1945. The sources for the reconstruction are various documents of central and local Soviet bodies and the Communist party, creative unions, cultural institutions, periodicals, memoirs, and artistic texts. The main directions of the war commemoration were the combination of all-Union recommendations as well as regional peculiarities. The work was developed mainly after the liberation of the region in 1943. Military and labour exploits of the Kuban population were actualised. The merits of the Cossack formations were specially highlighted, while information about the facts of collaboration was minimised. Resistance to fascism during the occupation of Kuban was represented by the partisan theme. The main print source of the partisan movement in the region was the books by P. K. Ignatov, commander of the partisan detachment, that were promptly published and replicated in the USSR and abroad. The exploits of his dead sons, Heroes of the Soviet Union, became a classic example. Memorial spaces, a system for recording military monuments were formed. The artistic chronicle of the war was created as a set of victorious stories. The theme of the ongoing war was added to the repertoire of professional and amateur art groups, as well as exhibitions of local museums. The calendar of holiday dates included anniversaries of the liberation of territories from the Nazis. The memory of the war was reflected in the local toponyms.

Being one of the most tragic pages in the history of Russia, World War II left a colossal mark in the memory of the Russian people, combining such conflicting feelings as grief over irreparable losses and the joy of victory. The article is devoted to the most modern forms of preserving the memory of the events of the Great Patriotic War in the modern Russian Internet space. Using statistical data of user activity on the Internet in 2022, the author examines the most popular social networks operating in the Russian Federation and analyzes current trends in the development of modern commemoration practices and ways of forming and preserving collective memory. In particular, the article discusses such Internet platforms as VKontakte and Yandex Zen, where there is significant user activity in maintaining various communities and channels dedicated to the history of the Great Patriotic War, as well as the so-called phenomenon of the mass “flash mob” of Victory Day. The article uses the approaches of the concept of historical memory, which makes it possible to comprehend the trends in the forms and practices of preserving the historical memory of the feat of the Russian people in the space of social networks. The author comes to the conclusion that the growing role and importance of the Internet and social networks in the life of modern society contribute to the fact that in the foreseeable future these resources will become the richest, if not the main, sources of information on the collective historical memory of the Great Patriotic War, as well as space for formation of new commemorative practices.

This article is devoted to the discourse analysis of the comments of regional news sites and public publications about the commemorations of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Based on the application of the methodology of Siegfried Yeager's critical discourse analysis, the peculiarities of the perception of official memorials dedicated to the memory of the Great Patriotic War in the Internet space of the Tula and Tomsk regions were analyzed. The sources for the analysis were comments from users of social networks, Internet blogs and news sites of the two regions in the period 2015-2021, dedicated to Victory Day (May 9), the Immortal Regiment campaign, topical regional commemorations of the Great Patriotic War, as well as mentions of individual pages of family memory and events of war heroes. Despite the fact that sociological surveys of recent years show the preservation of the memory of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 as the most important historical event and ideological reference point in the mass historical consciousness, the study of the perception of war memorials on the Internet shows a further increase in the devaluation of historical meanings of the Russian memorial culture and the departure to particular versions of historical memory (family, local social group). The tendency of fragmentation and transformation of perception of the past in the regional Internet space was revealed. The analysis of a sample set of comments indicates the persistence of the trend of sacralization of war heroes, veterans and family memory of them in the mass consciousness, as well as attempts to contrast family commemorations of Victory Day and official events and actions of the authorities. In both areas, the fact of using the discussion of the May 9 commemorations and the "Immortal Regiment" campaign as a symbolic framework for criticizing the domestic and foreign policies of the current government was recorded. At the same time, most of the critical comments are situational in nature and are related to topical regional socio-economic problems.

The Siege of Leningrad is one of the most tragic and heroic events in the history of the Second world war. From September 8, 1941 to January 27, 1944, the city was surrounded by Nazi troops, which led to disastrous consequences for its inhabitants. More than two and a half million people were cut off from the outside world, deprived of food, water and medical care. Despite the unbearable conditions, the Leningraders showed incredible resilience, courage and solidarity, which became a symbol of the human spirit in the fight against a ruthless enemy. In this article, I want to share my thoughts on the Great Patriotic war, focusing on one of the most tragic and significant episodes in the history of Russia – the siege of Leningrad. Emphasizing that the blockade is the key moment for understanding the scale and consequences of the war, as well as its impact on the fate of millions of people. The article is based on the personal experience of my family, my relatives who were directly involved in the events of the Great Patriotic war. Great-grandfather – Dmitry Nikolaevich Viktorov was a war veteran who went through the front and was awarded the medal «For the Victory over Germany». Second great-grandfather – Ilyin Nikolai Yakovlevich, has the sign «Resident of besieged Leningrad», despite the fact that he was only five years old during the war. This article tells about the importance of the siege of Leningrad during the Great Patriotic war and its impact on people's lives. I share the memories of my relatives who took part in this tragic event. The article emphasizes the importance of preserving the memory of the blockade and the people who survived and helped each other in difficult times. This article also describes the importance of bread as a symbol of survival and cohesion, glorifying the power of human will and the desire for a normal life in wartime conditions. Despite its poor quality, it kept the city alive, and every piece was worth its weight in gold. This highlights how people valued the smallest resources in conditions of extreme need. The preservation of monuments and cultural heritage during the blockade also shows that Leningraders not only fought for their lives, but also for the preservation of their history and identity. The blockade is not just a historical fact, but a deep wound that reflects the importance of remembering those events for future generations. This helps us to remember the price of freedom and peace, as well as how important it is to preserve human dignity in the most difficult conditions. Analyzing the vital activity of the city under siege, emphasizing not only the suffering and deprivation, but also the examples of courage, solidarity and mutual assistance shown by its residents. The importance lies in the fact that the study of the blockade forms patriotism and an active civic position among modern readers. Understanding the historical context and heroism of the Leningraders contributes to the realization of the value of freedom, unity and the human spirit in the struggle against difficulties. The article is intended to inspire a new generation to preserve historical memory and actively participate in the life of society, strengthening patriotic feelings and civic responsibility. It is important to foster patriotic feelings among young people so that they become defenders of their values and actively participate in building a better future for their homeland. Patriotism is not just an emotion; it is a call to action for the common good.

Reviewed by: Is Russia Fascist? Unravelling Propaganda East and West by Marlene Laruelle Sarah Gear Is Russia Fascist? Unravelling Propaganda East and West. By Marlene Laruelle. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2021. vii+251 pp. $39.95; £32. ISBN 978–1–50175–413–5. In Is Russia Fascist?, Marlene Laruelle explores a dichotomy central to the identity of contemporary Russia. Although Russia is regularly accused of fascism by politicians in the West, the country perceives itself as actively anti-fascist. Meanwhile, Russia directs its own charges of fascism towards Europe and the United States. In this carefully constructed study Laruelle critiques populist trends, refuting such accusations against Russia. She contends that the West's indictments of fascism disenfranchise Russia on the world stage, while Russia's counter-accusations allow it to claim moral superiority over the West. For Laruelle, accusations of fascism are a 'discursive struggle' (p. 8) deployed by both Russia and the West in order to define themselves. This interplay between differing ethnocentric perspectives is at the core of Laruelle's work as she contextualizes attitudes towards fascism in both the Soviet and post-Soviet worlds, while exploring the Kremlin's tolerance of conflicting ideologies. After considering the main elements of fascism, the first four chapters describe its status in Russia, investigating the association between fascism and Nazism, and the paradoxical Soviet fascination with Nazi culture. Laruelle demonstrates the two cultures' parallel interest in neo-classical aesthetics and physical perfection and discusses how television programmes such as the hugely popular Seventeen Moments of Spring, with its spy hero Max Otto von Stierlitz, tapped into this interest. Laruelle describes anti-fascism as modern Russia's 'foundational myth' [End Page 528] (p. 43), demonstrated by its role in defeating the Nazi regime in the Great Patriotic War. This victory is promoted by Vladimir Putin's government as contemporary Russia's defining moment because it is one of the few instances of the 'usable past' (p. 49) that the population almost unanimously supports. The indisputable anti-fascist status of post-1940s Russia and the Soviet states is emphasized in schools, where textbooks reaffirm Putin's position, creating a society ill-equipped for open debate. Conflicting views held by Russia and the former Soviet states regarding the Soviet Union's role in the Second World War have provoked the current so-called 'memory wars' in Eastern Europe. These have in turn caused Russia to launch accusations of fascism against Ukraine and the Baltic States in response to anti-Soviet sentiment. From Chapter 5 onwards, Laruelle weighs the competing ideologies permitted by the Kremlin, including those of prominent right-wing political figures such as Alexandr Dugin. She also considers Putin's own support for right-wing groups and discusses how this can be reconciled with Russia's anti-fascist self-image. Laruelle suggests this ideological fluidity is driven by the government's desire to control the population: this approach is improvised primarily to prevent a return to the economic and political chaos of the 1990s. Laruelle concludes that Russia is neither fascist nor totalitarian, but rather illiberal. She argues that fascism is not a useful framework for analysing Russia, suggesting instead that any future studies should examine the prevalence of 'hybrid regimes, paternalism and illiberalism' (p. 155). Her penultimate chapter draws a convincing parallel between Putin and Charles de Gaulle, which provides a helpful counterpoint to the more politically charged comparisons between the Russian president and Hitler or Stalin. She concedes, however, that some elements of fascism are present in Russia, evident in the macho 'militia subculture' (p. 138). Indeed, the prominent position of politician, writer, and former National Bolshevik Zakhar Prilepin is testament to the enduring power of macho, bordering on fascist, ideology. But as this nuanced investigation demonstrates, to label Putin's regime as fascist is to obfuscate the political situation in contemporary Russia. Is Russia Fascist? provides a clear, balanced assessment of contemporary Russian politics, serving not only as a sensible dissection of the status of fascism in Russia, but also as a guide to that country's problematic political structures. Laruelle's thorough contextualization of Russian beliefs about fascism, the Second World War, and attitudes towards the...

The frequency of gunshot wounds of the extremities in the structure of combat surgical trauma of military conflicts of the XX - early XXI centuries exceeds 60-70% and has no tendency to decrease. Based on the high intensity of hostilities in recent decades, the use of personal protective equipment by military personnel, and the widespread use of modern fire weapons, a comparative analysis of the structure and nature of gunshot wounds to limbs during the Great Patriotic War and modern local conflicts in the first quarter of the 21st century is of particular interest. The review was conducted on the basis of an analysis of the "Experience of Soviet medicine in the Great Patriotic War", as well as domestic and foreign works that highlight modern combat limb injury. It was found that if during the Great Patriotic War the frequency of gunshot wounds to the extremities was 70,8%, then in the military conflicts of recent decades their share in the structure of combat surgical trauma increased to 71,7-81,4%. Soft tissue injuries during the Great Patriotic War accounted for 44,7% of all limb injuries. In the course of modern warfare, they make up 47-62%. The frequency of fractures of long tubular bones has increased from 45,4% during the Great Patriotic War to 53-60% in military conflicts of the early 21st century. The proportion of injuries to the nerve trunks of the extremities during the Great Patriotic War was 8-10%, which is comparable to the rates of military conflicts in recent decades (10-12%). However, if injuries to the main vessels of the extremities during the Great Patriotic War occurred in 1% of cases, then in modern local conflicts they are observed much more often(6-18%).

This article is a review of a collective monograph titled “Thank great grandfather for the victory... Material from stage 4 of a monitoring survey titled “Students of modern Russia on the Great Patriotic War” (2005-2010-2015-2020)/ Ed. by Y.R. Vishnevsky. Ministry of science and higher education of the Russian Federation. Ekaterinburg: Ural University publ. 2020., 325 p. It is dedicated to studying how students in modern day Russia perceive the events of the Great Patriotic War, which is very much relevant in a time when patriotism is becoming one of the conceptual dominants in the political agenda. There is really no need to prove the relevance of the work in question. Over time different generations lose touch with each other, the opportunity for young people to directly communicate with those who actually witnessed the events of the war slowly vanishes. Given these conditions, the scientific community needs to develop a research approach that would be sound from a methodological point of view in order to expand on the topic of preserving the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War. The reviewer insists that the monograph in question is a worthy contribution to the sociological study of the issue of preserving historical memory. The conclusions drawn by the authors of the monograph may be used in order to get a better grasp on methods of education.

Given the recent trend toward the instrumentalization of memory of the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in Russian federal memory politics, this article examines regional features of this trend by assessing the transformations that occurred in the monumental GPW commemoration in the post-Soviet Murmansk region. The case study analyzes the process of creating war memorials dedicated to the Battle for Zapoliar’e, a Murmansk regional narrative of the Great Patriotic War, by observing new war memorials and activities of mnemonic actors initiating these memorials. The article sheds light on the vigorous commemorative activism pushed by a set of regional mnemonic actors who, although remaining loyal to the official patriotic state narrative of the Battle, tend to emphasize other aspects, particularly heroic or tragic, depending on their agendas. While veteran organizations and sometimes regional authorities promote the state-centric and triumphalist vision of the Battle, local poiskoviki activists, on the contrary, appeal to its tragic side, pointing out the importance of the personal remembrance of the fallen. The article concludes that, although the centralization and unification trends in Russian memory politics noticeably affect the regional domain, they are unlikely to fully explain the regional dynamics of developing the monumental media of war memory since such dynamics are set primarily by grassroots activists.

Traditionally, Victory Day is celebrated by the post-Soviet population as one of the main holidays. Until now, many perceive it in the Soviet interpretation as Victory Day of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. It is not only the memory of the sacrifice and suffering that the country endured, but also the involvement in the heritage of the victorious generation. Unfortunately, the campaign to “correct” the historical memory, initiated by the West and being carried out in a number of countries of the former USSR, touched upon this holiday as well. Today, in some CIS countries, including Ukraine, some are trying to change the meaning of the holiday to belittle its significance, destroy “Soviet mythology, and dissolve the Great Patriotic War in the Second World War. Despite this, many still consider Victory Day to be the main holiday, as it can be seen from the number and mass of events held annually on May 9. The absence of a nationally responsible elite in the leadership of Ukraine, the European and Euro-Atlantic integration proclaimed by the authorities, Russophobia, the Orthodox Church schism, attempts to rewrite the country‘s history to please the Western “partners”, together with language bans, are increasingly aggravating the civilizational split between the citizens of the country.

Introduction. During the Great Patriotic War, in the general context of a significant mass volunteer movement of Soviet people, the volunteer movement of the Don Cossacks arose and developed quite actively. It manifested itself in various organizational and structural forms as common, in the form of the voluntary entry of the Don Cossack men and women into fighter battalions, regular and irregular military units, partisan detachments, and special in the form of separate volunteer Cossack cavalry divisions.Materials and Methods. Documents and materials containing information on various aspects of the volunteer movement during the Great Patriotic War in the Rostov Region were identified, analyzed and used. Various research tools are used: complex and multifactorial approaches, descriptive, comparative-historical and historical-systemic methods.Results. The participation of the Don Cossacks in the volunteer movement during the Great Patriotic War was very significant. The Cossack volunteer movement began almost immediately after the outbreak of war. In the Don villages, at numerous rallies of local residents, resolutions were adopted calling on the Cossacks to enlist in the ranks of volunteers of the people’s militia. Two Cossack cavalry divisions were formed from the Don Cossack volunteers. During the war, fighters of Don volunteer Cossack units and formations demonstrated personal courage and bravery, high morale and level of combat training, sustained power and response to orders, were awarded a great number of military orders and medals.Discussion and Conclusion. The volunteer movement of the Don Cossacks was considered in a number of monographic studies and scientific articles devoted, in general, to the study of events during the Great Patriotic War on the Don and the participation of its inhabitants in the war. In historiography, there are also some works in which some aspects of the formation of Cossack regular and volunteer military units were studied. In this study, on the basis of a complex and multifactorial approach, a comprehensive analysis of the participation of the Don Cossacks in the volunteer movement during the Great Patriotic War as part of special Cossack cavalry formations was carried out.

The analysis of the mechanism of the formation of historical memory and pride in the ideas of young people at the present stage is in demand due to the fact that these social phenomena can help young people to a large extent realize their own involvement in the Motherland, in the fateful affairs of their ancestors, and are also focused on developing a sense of responsibility for the future. their state. Lacking knowledge and not having an idea of the experience of previous generations, it is not easy for people to maintain civic identity, adhere to and pass on traditions to future generations, foster spirituality and, in general, navigate society. The article outlines the relevance of the issue of preserving historical memory at the present stage, characterizes the relationship of scientific and practical aspects of the topic under consideration, provides an overview of authoritative publications on the issue under study. The author describes the state programs of the federal and regional levels, reflecting the directions of the patriotic education of the younger generation in the Russian Federation in general, and in the Yaroslavl region in particular. The practical significance of the work is substantiated by the results of a qualitative study, which fixes the peculiarities of perpetuating the memory of the events of the Great Patriotic War in the ideas of young students, as well as their attitude to mass commemorative events during the Victory Day celebration. An analysis of the results of focus group discussions revealed ambivalent features of the preservation of historical memory in the ideas of modern youth: along with the awareness of the tragedy of individual memories of events during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, a component of understanding the heroism of events and the fate of Soviet people is also recorded.

The article analyzes the results of a sociological study of the historical memory of students about the World War II in general (and the Great Patriotic War in particular), conducted by the Russian Society of Sociologists in 2020, as well as materials from surveys of other research teams. The author comes to the conclusion that historical memory is formed, first of all, by the information field, set by state institutions or encouraged by them (school, mass media, network resources). Contradictory assessment of the events of the twentieth century led to the rupture of the historical memory of generations and the formation of a large group of people ready to accept the revision of the geopolitical results of the war from the standpoint of history falsifiers. The attitude of young people to the past, without taking into account the cause-and-effect liaison of the events of that time, is explained not only by the extinction of communicative memory for the departure of war generations, the desacralization of their life, deed, death. The range of factors is much wider. Since there is no integral picture of the history of the USSR, there is no value core for assessing events of the Great Patriotic War either. In the absence of historical hygiene in the Russian Federation, the entire Soviet period turns into historical antiques for new generations. They treat this in different ways: with reverence, condescension, aggressiveness, indifference, but it is excessive for the daily life of the majority. The slogan “If required, we repeat / can repeat”, replicated on May 9, is nothing more than a short-term emotional reaction, including to PR management, but not the readiness / mindset / promise of action in a real war. The opposition of the state to the country, that is reflected in the popular among young people song of the group Lumen, actually testifies to alienation from both the state and the country, since there is no one without the other. Questions are inevitable: how adequate are the methodologies and techniques based on which social scientists choose the range of factors that form the portrait of modern youth and predict the direction of further socialization of its individual groups? How many meaningful collaborators should there be to lose / win a civilizational battle in which historical memory is only one of the components? According to the author, the conditions and opportunities for the realization of the desired worldview values ​​in modern Russia adjust the attitude to the present and the life strategies of young people to a greater extent than historical memory.

The article deals with virtual exhibition activities of the central state archival institutions of Ukraine associated with the anniversary of the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45. The authors acknowledge that archives are an important institute of memory for Ukraine, and therefore they attempt to assess the impact of the official Ukrainian historical and political policy on the exhibition activities in the central state archives, using on-line exhibitions dedicated to the anniversary of the Victory of 1945 as an example. The Great Patriotic War is one of the most contradictory elements of the Ukrainian national historical narrative and one of the most conflictogenic elements in the Ukrainian historical policy (in the so called “wars of memory”), hence the choice of the topic. The authors have studied the webpages of the archives’ official sites, their structure, design, and content. They focused on the digests of on-line exhibitions, i.e. texts located on the home page of the archive, which reveal theme, concept, purpose, and objectives of the exhibition. The authors have tried to identify the patterns in using the concepts of the 1941–45 events, assuming that vocabulary and definitions contain most important information on the influence of the official historical and political policy on the work of archival institutions. The authors have also studied the thematic design of on-line exhibitions, in particular, the military symbols used in web design. The research has showed that the concept of the Great Patriotic War was persistently changed to the concept of World War II in all five exhibitions, although some sections of the exhibitions featured both. The article notes that design of at least two exhibitions used the European symbol for victory over Nazism: red poppy instead of red carnation and St. George’s ribbon usually used in the USSR. Use of the poppy image and substitution of concept of the Great Patriotic War with non-synonymous concept of the World War II is a shining example of the influence of Ukrainian state historical and political policy on the work of archives. The researchers argue that it is impossible to deny the significant influence of the controversial official Ukrainian historical and political narrative on the nature of the expositions. However, in general, the exhibitions are characterised by moderate political engagement, demonstrating a certain scientific independence of the Ukrainian state archives.