History and interactions between states and nations usually shape a certain perception and memory about each other. Mass consciousness is an extremely complicated and contradictory phenomenon. It intertwines elements of social psychology, politics, and culture, moral and ideological preferences. But in our days politics impacts on evolution of mass consciousness more and more. Perceptions and historical memory are salient and important for understanding not only the relationship between people, but also for analyzing foreign policies of states. Elites and state public institutions are key actors producing ideas and values in society in any concrete historical period. As Thomas Berger confirms that "the way in which most people remember the past is powerfully conditioned by the narratives generated by state, which are driven primarily by particular considerations of security and economic gain". Consistent policy of memory including historical consciousness and awareness of essential past events can be regarded as a strategic basis for developing society and the state. Thus, memory can not only shape domestic situation, but also constricts international behaviour of a state bringing improvement of international environment or making it more complicated. Sometimes relationship can be paralyzed by tensions over historical issue; on the other hand, good developed politics of memory can build productive relationship between states.　　This research is aimed to analyze the impact of politics of memory on the process of reconciliation, cooperation and interaction between states in post-war period. The study is rooted in the view on how politics of memory influences not only on domestic situation, but also on states international behaviour and interstates relations.　　After the Second World War Russian-German and Sino-Japanese relations have had a complicated evolution and faced a lot of challenges standing in the way of reconciliation and cooperative relations. Nevertheless, now we can see progressed deep reconciliation and well-established cooperation between Russia and Germany, while Sino-Japanese relations stuck in the process of mutual distrust generating conflicts in bilateral relations. One of the main reasons explaining such diversity can be a different result of different politic of memory carried by Russia and China. Politics of memory and historical memory produced by states can not only reshape national identity, but also impact on states international behaviour. Moreover, it can provide improvement or deterioration of interstate relations, especially in the case of former enemies.　　We will examine and compare the origins, evolution and consequences of politics of memory in China and Russia after the end of the Second World War in order to understand how politics of memory can shape or reshape national identity and what kind of impact on foreign relations it can cause. We will explore the role of politics of memory in Chinese and Russian identity formation and political discourse, and try to regard politics of memory as a key to understanding interconnection between identity-based interpretation and state international behaviour. In addition, politics of memory can be considered as a one of the main aspects of building of trust between states. And even if politics of memory cannot be regarded as a comprehensive approach to trust-building reconciliation because of necessity of analyses of other aspects and prerequisite for it; nevertheless, politics of memory is a crucial core element of the trustful foundation in interstate relations that can undermine trust or rehabilitate it.　　Indeed, as former German Chancellor Willy Brandt points out "understanding and reconciliation cannot be decreed by politicians but must mature in the hearts of people on both sides", hence the role of nation and its perceptions of former adversaries have to be considerate too. Therefore, we will examine instrumental use of history that serves for governments or elites interests; and collective historical consciousness of countrys past and public opinion as a result of governments use of politics of memory. People from different nations have different perceptions and value standards, thus we will examine public opinion of particular state in order to evaluate how concrete politics of memory adopted by government was accepted by the nation. Moreover the result of politics of memory can be analyzed by the perception of people toward former enemy-state and peoples choice to remember traumatic history or glorify it, forgive or remember past events.