Russian President Vladimir Putin's colonialist invasion of Ukraine has made Christian Ganzer's critical dissertation on a reportedly “key symbol of Soviet resistance” (www.belarus.by/en/travel/belarus-life/brest-fortress) and on its Soviet and Russian propagandistic legacy particularly timely. So too the statement by Belarus President Aliaksandar Lukashenka, Vladimir Putin's ally, in late June, 2022, underscoring a long-term “kinship” between their countries: “Minsk must be ready for anything . . . to defend our fatherland from Brest to Vladivostok” (Emphasis added: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2022/06/26/putin-promises-belarus-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-counter-039aggressive039-west).

Ganzer's Kampf um die Brester Festung 1941 (Battle for the Brest Fortress 1941), published in 2021, microscopically focuses on the above-mentioned “Soviet resistance” (yet German victory) at the Brest Fortress in late June 1941, at the beginning of Nazi Germany’s Soviet Union offensive, and on the Stalin/Soviet and post-Soviet era of falsifying and manipulating evidence in popular literature, scientific publications, and in the memorial museum itself in order to promote a distinctive patriotic (some would claim nationalistic) narrative of “heroic” sacrifice. Brest Fortress became a “Hero Fortress” in 1965, comparable to Soviet Hero Cities (gorod-geroi), which anchored it as a popular museum (now a museum complex) and memorial. Recent adjustments include the Orthodox Church's prominent presence, as exemplified by an on-site speech by Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus΄ Kirill in June 2015 (277).

Thanks to Ganzer’s perseverance (he began in 2006) and extraordinary investigative skills—perusing libraries and archives in Freiburg, Germany, Minsk, Brest, and Upper Austria—what began as a case study in museum studies (67) turned into a definitive study of contemporary Soviet and Belarusian history. Even before its release, Ganzer had published over two dozen articles (in Belarusian, English, German, and Russian) on his research results (468–71). He also coedited a collection of primary sources (published in Smolensk, 2016).

The book itself, apart from its clarifying introduction and thoughtful conclusion, is divided into three well-defined sections: (1) a primary-sourced exposition of the battles (from June 22 to 29, 1941), which inter alia corrects the Soviet narratives of the fortress's defense lasting over a month and of there being no capture or surrender of Soviet soldiers. According to legend, Soviet defenders fought to their deaths (7), when in fact about 6,800 were taken or surrendered (109); (2) an extensive historiography of the memory of the battles (at times “collective”), revealing twists and turns in printed and filmed legends, lies, exclusions, fake memories, propaganda and censorship (115–313); and a guided tour of the Brest Fortress Hero Memorial (314–429). Ganzer's work also includes roughly 1,000 footnotes, many of which are extensive or provide original source material. Relevant artwork is judiciously dispersed.

For a subject this narrow it is hardly surprising that many of the relevant topics and discoveries are repeatedly referred to, if sometimes also elaborated (the term “heroic defenders”; the battle report of Fritz Schlieper, commanding general of infantry division 45, dated July 8, 1941). Several times the reader is informed that the author became involved in conflicts with the museum authorities for daring to reveal certain facts. Generally soberly written, Ganzer can be a bit snarky (his thanks to the museum's deputy director, 67).

Whereas Ganzer addresses the biographies of so-called heroes of the Brest Fortress defense and of their myth-makers (including, unexpectedly, Konstantin Simonov), there is little about Brest's diverse “ordinary” inhabitants (Polish, Belarus, Jewish, and/or Soviet); for example, mentioned almost in passing is that at least 4000 Brest Jews were shot a few weeks after the German army arrived (3). Similarly, comparisons with studies that deconstruct shifting narratives in other key “hero cities” or in related memorials, such as the former Buchenwald concentration camp (in former East Germany) are lacking. The absence of a discussion of patriotic womanhood may put off some readers, and Ganzer provides little context to changing Soviet and Belarusian sociopolitical conditions.

These minor criticisms aside, Ganzer has written an exemplary case-study in the field of new military studies and his fact-based work has already successfully challenged—and altered—the Soviet/Belarusian narrative. Parts of his irrefutable research will likely hold surprises even for east European and Soviet studies experts. Likewise, his attention to the potential of museums as places of educational and cultural exchange is admirable and refreshing.