V last years in our country, such a concept as "falsification of history" is especially widespread. Of course, at first glance, this phrase seems incomprehensible. How can facts that have already taken place be distorted? But, nevertheless, rewriting history is a phenomenon that takes place in modern society and has its roots in the distant past. The very first examples of documents in which history was falsified are known since the days of Ancient Egypt.

Methods and techniques

Authors whose writings reflect the distortion and falsification of history, as a rule, do not indicate the sources of their "factual" judgments. Only sometimes in such works are references to various publications that either do not exist at all, or they clearly do not relate to the topic of publication.

We can say about this method that it is not so much a forgery of the known, but rather an addition to it. In other words, this is not a falsification of history, but ordinary myth-making.

A more subtle way of distorting the available facts is the forgery of primary sources. Sometimes the falsification of world history becomes possible on the basis of "sensational" archaeological discoveries... Sometimes authors link to previously unknown documents. These can be "unpublished" chronicle materials, diaries, memoirs, etc. In such cases, only a special examination can reveal a forgery, which the interested party either does not carry out, or the results obtained by it are also falsified.

One of the methods of distorting history is a one-sided selection of certain facts and their arbitrary interpretation. As a result of this, connections are built that were absent in reality. The conclusions drawn on the basis of the obtained picture cannot be called true. With this method of falsifying history, these or those described events or documents took place in reality. However, the researchers make their conclusions with a purposeful and gross violation of all methodological foundations. The purpose of such publications may be to justify a certain historical character. Those sources that give negative information about him are simply ignored or their hostility is noted, and therefore falsity. At the same time, documents that indicate the presence of positive facts are used as a basis and are not criticized.

There is another special technique, which in its essence can be located between the methods described above. It is concluded in the author's citation of a real, but at the same time truncated quotation. It omits passages that are in clear contradiction with the conclusions necessary for the mythologist.

Goals and motives

What is the falsification of history for? The goals and motives of the authors, from under whose pen there are publications that distort the events that have taken place, can be very diverse. They relate to the ideological or political sphere, affect commercial interests, etc. But in general, the falsification of the history of the world pursues goals that can be combined in two groups. The first of them includes socio-political motives (hepolitical, political and ideological). Most of them are closely associated with anti-state propaganda.

The second group of goals includes commercial and personal psychological motives. On their list: the desire to gain fame and self-assertion, as well as to become famous for short time, giving the society a "sensation" capable of overturning all existing ideas about the past. The dominant factor in this case is, as a rule, the material interests of the authors, who earn good money by publishing large circulations of their works. Sometimes the motives that prompted the distortion of historical facts can be explained by the desire for revenge on individual opponents. Sometimes such publications are aimed at belittling the role of government officials.

Historical heritage of Russia

A similar problem exists in our country as well. At the same time, falsification national history viewed as anti-Russian propaganda. Often, publications distorting the events that have taken place are born in the states of both near and far abroad. They have a direct connection with the current material and political interests of various forces and contribute to the substantiation of material and territorial claims against the Russian Federation.

The problem of falsifying history and countering such facts is very urgent. After all, it affects the state interests of Russia and damages the social memory of the country's citizens. And this fact has been repeatedly emphasized by the leadership of our state. In order to respond to such challenges in a timely manner, a special commission has even been created under the President of Russia, whose task is to counteract any attempts to falsify history that are detrimental to state interests.

Main directions

Unfortunately, in modern times the falsification of the history of Russia has begun to take on rather impressive proportions. At the same time, authors researching and describing the past in their publications boldly pass through all ideological barriers, and also rudely break moral and ethical norms. The reader is literally flooded with a stream of misinformation, which is simply impossible for an ordinary person to understand. What are the main directions of falsification of history?

Classic

These historical falsifications have migrated to us from past centuries. The authors of such articles claim that the Russians are aggressors and that they are a constant threat to all civilized mankind. In addition, such publications also characterize our people as dark barbarians, drunkards, savages, etc.

Russophobic

These falsifications are picked up by our intelligentsia and transplanted into our own soil. Such a distortion of history gives rise to a complex of self-deprecation and national inferiority. After all, according to him, everything is fine in Russia, but people do not know how to live culturally. This supposedly forces you to repent for your past. But in front of whom? Foreigners become judges, that is, those ideological enemies who organized such a sabotage.

At first glance, these directions of distortion of historical facts seem antagonistic. However, both of them fit perfectly into the anti-Russian and anti-Russian channel. Someone who tries to tarnish our history is excellent at using both tools at the same time, despite their clear opposite. So, when relying on communist arguments, tsarist Russia is humiliated. At the same time, in order to denigrate Soviet Union, the arguments of the most rabid critics of the idea of ​​communism are used.

Distortion of the activities of key figures

Another direction, according to which the falsification of the history of Russia is carried out, is criticism directed against various prominent personalities.

Thus, distortion of facts can often be found in works about St. Vladimir the Baptist, St. Andrew Bogolyubsky, St. Alexander Nevsky, etc. There is even a certain pattern. The greater the contribution of this or that figure to the development of the country, the more persistent and aggressive they are trying to denigrate him.

Distortion of events in Russian history

This is one of the most beloved directions of mythologists trying to slander our country. And here a special priority belongs to the events of the Great Patriotic War. The explanation is quite simple. In order to belittle Russia, these authors try to erase and obscure the most grandiose and vivid feat of our state, which, without any doubt, saved the entire civilized world. The period from 1941 to 1945 provides a large field of activity for such mythologists.

So, the most distorted moments of the war are the statements that:

• The USSR was preparing for an attack on Germany;
• the Soviet and Nazi systems are identical, and the victory of the people took place against the wishes of Stalin;
• the role of the Soviet-German front is not so great, and Europe owes its liberation from the fascist yoke to the allies;
• Soviet soldiers who accomplished feats are not at all heroes, while the praise of traitors, SS men, etc. occurs;
• the losses of the two opposing sides are clearly exaggerated by politicians, and the number of victims of the peoples of the USSR and Germany is much less;
• the military art of the Soviet commanders was not so high, and the country won only at the expense of huge losses and casualties.

What is the purpose of falsifying the history of the war? Thus, the "purifiers" of facts that have already occurred are trying to ground and grind the war itself and nullify the feat Soviet people... However, the whole truth of this terrible 20th century tragedy lies in a great spirit of patriotism and desire ordinary people come to victory at any cost. This was the most defining elements of the life of the army and the people of that time.

Theories that counterbalance Westernism

Currently, many of the most amazing versions of the development of the social system in Russia have appeared. One of them is Eurasianism. It denies the existence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, and the Horde khans of these mythologists rise to the level of the Russian tsars. A similar trend announces the symbiosis of Asian peoples and Russia. On the one hand, these theories are friendly to our country.

After all, they call on both peoples to work together to oppose common slanderers and enemies. However, upon closer examination, such versions are a clear analogue of Westernism, just the opposite. Indeed, in this case, the role of the great Russian people, which supposedly should be subordinate to the East, is belittled.

Neopagan falsification

This is a new direction of distortion of historical facts, which at first glance seems pro-Russian and patriotic. During its development, works are allegedly discovered that testify to the primordial wisdom of the Slavs, their ancient traditions and civilizations. However, they also contain the problem of falsifying the history of Russia. After all, such theories are in fact extremely dangerous and destructive. They are aimed at undermining true Russian and Orthodox traditions.

Historical terrorism

This rather new direction sets itself the goal of exploding the very foundations of historical science. The most striking example of this is the theory that was created by a group led by mathematician, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Fomenko A. T. This work examines the issues of a radical revision of world history.

The scientific community rejected this theory, explaining this by the fact that it contradicts the established facts. The opponents of the "New Chronology" were historians and archaeologists, mathematicians and linguists, astronomers and physicists, as well as scientists representing other sciences.

Introduction of historical forgeries

At the present stage this process has its own characteristics. So, the impact is carried out in a massive way and has a clearly purposeful character. The most dangerous for the state forgeries have solid sources of funding and are published in huge numbers. These include, in particular, the works of Rezun, who wrote under the pseudonym "Suvorov", as well as Fomenko.

In addition, by far the most important source of dissemination of articles about falsification of history is the Internet. Almost every person has access to it, which contributes to the implementation of the massive impact of fakes.

Unfortunately, the funding of fundamental historical science does not allow it to provide tangible opposition to the emerging works that are in contradiction with the events that actually happened. Academic works are also published in small editions.

Sometimes some Russian historians are held captive by falsifications. They accept Soviet, anti-Soviet, or Westernizing theories. To confirm this, one can recall one of the school history textbooks, in which statements were made that the turning point of the Second World War was the battle of the American army with the Japanese at Midway Atoll, and not Stalingrad battle.

What are the consequences of the attacks of falsifiers? They are aimed at teaching Russian people to wash about the fact that they do not have a glorious and great past, and the achievements of their ancestors should not be proud of. The younger generation is turning away from their native history. And this work has its depressing results. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of today's youth are not interested in history. In this way, Russia is trying to destroy the past and erase the former power from the memory. And therein lies a great danger for the country. After all, when the people are separated from their cultural and spiritual roots, they simply perish as a nation.

V. Dymarsky
- Good evening, the program "The Price of Victory", I am its host Vitaly Dymarsky. And today our guest is Sergey Mironenko, director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences. Sergey Vladimirovich, I am glad to see you with us.

S. Mironenko
- Good day.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, first of all, Happy Victory Day!

S. Mironenko
- Thank you, you too. This is a wonderful holiday.

V. Dymarsky
- The holiday is wonderful. Although, you know, lately - I participated in several discussions - they began to question the word "holiday" in this case. A lot of sadness, right?

S. Mironenko
- You know, I just miss this sadness. Do not be sad, but sorrow for the millions of our compatriots who died in this war. We must pay tribute to their memory.

V. Dymarsky
- Necessary. You know, here I recalled such an absurd enough episode, a very long time ago. In the fall of 1977 - I will now explain why I remembered it - in the fall of 1977 in one of the cities (it was in Brest at the station square) there was a banner: "The 60th anniversary of the Great October Revolution is the main event of the 20th century." You know, this is so Soviet absurdity.

S. Mironenko
- Well, yes.

V. Dymarsky
- This is when words lose their meaning. I mean, sometimes it seems that the anniversary of an event becomes more important than the event itself.

S. Mironenko
- Well, yes and no, from my point of view. Memorable dates, they are memorable because they are notches, that is, they should be in the memory of every person who feels himself a citizen of his country, the country in which he lives. But the memory can be both solemn and sad. So, it seems to me, there should be a measure in everything, copper pipes alone are not enough, right?

V. Dymarsky
- Undoubtedly.

S. Mironenko
- You have to grieve too. Mourn. Because war is always a tragedy.

V. Dymarsky
- But, tell me, another topic that comes up from time to time, is discussed, so I heard this about the price of Victory - by the way, this is the name of our program. So many people objected to me, they said: Victory has no price.

S. Mironenko
- It is not true. From my point of view, this is not true. You know, this is a continuation of these terribly cynical words "victory will write off everything" or "the war will write off everything." These are very cynical words. But those who do not want a repetition of the traversed, bloody traversed, they should know.

I will tell you very much about this. interesting story... About 10 years ago, there was another anniversary of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense, and there was a closed narrow display of documents not yet declassified. And it turned out that I and one colonel-general, I don't even know his name, the commander of the aviation of one of our military districts, the two of us walked around the exhibition. All the rest, having already run pretty quickly, went to the holiday tables - what is there to look at the documents? And I asked this general: "Well, I understand why, I am curious, I am a historian, I am an archivist, I want to see, but what are you?" And he told me: “You know, but I also know something about history. I do not want Russian aviation to be destroyed at airfields, as in the first days of the war. I want to understand why this happened. "

V. Dymarsky
- You know, this is amazing! You hit the pandanus straight to what I just had right in my head about the history lessons and unlearned lessons stories, if you like, huh? And, by the way, this is an answer to those people - well, today we have such a survey, I would say, a conversation, we are talking about everything, in general, as far as the war is concerned, as for the history of the war - this is to some extent an answer to those people, I repeat, who say that one should not talk about such, not glorious, so to speak, pages of history in general and war in particular. 41st year? Well, yes ... Well, why remember this? Let's remember the Victory. This is the question that this military man told you about. If we do not remember the 41st year, then we will continue in the same way, do you understand?

S. Mironenko
- Yes. You know, I understand these people very well. My mother, who died more than ten years ago, did not watch films about the war. Because she was born in 1926, and she remembered how the Germans took Kalinin, how they fled across this field. It was very difficult for her to remember all this. She did not want. This is a natural human feeling. But you still have to overcome yourself.

V. Dymarsky
- But this is not said by veterans, even young people are saying this. Well, we want to be proud, right? We do not need these stories of yours about the 41st year, "they filled up with corpses," and so on and so forth. That is, the set is also quite traditional now, which, as it were, opposes the official version of the history of the war.

S. Mironenko
- Well, what can I say? Indeed, you know, there are always some associations. You say - I immediately have an association: I remember my conversation with Daniil Alexandrovich Granin. Daniil Alexandrovich and I, believe me, talked a lot about the war, and he recalled how it all was, how he went to the front line without a rifle, and how he changed ...

V. Dymarsky
-… going to the rifle.

S. Mironenko
- Yes, the sugar that my mother gave him for the rifle. It was all there. And to say that this did not happen is a crime against the present. But Daniil Alexandrovich only heard the speech of Metropolitan Hilarion, who said that in general, the fact that the Germans were stopped near Moscow is a miracle. This is God's miracle, God's help, this is the protection of the Mother of God, who covered Moscow, as it once covered Constantinople. And Daniil Alexandrovich told me: “You know, I somehow really liked it at first. And then I began to think: where am I in this miracle? I fought for 4 years, I still, thank God, survived, I have many memories. But where is my place in this miracle? "

So it’s a miracle, and indeed, in a sense, even in the ordinary, the fact that the Germans did not take Moscow is a miracle. Why this miracle happened is already a serious historical conversation. And the fact that by September, excuse me, in 1941, practically the entire pre-war army was taken prisoner is also a fact. And the fact that the army fled is also a fact. Because several million rifles were lost. Imagine, if several million rifles were needed, why did Granin not have a rifle?

V. Dymarsky
- Well, yes.

S. Mironenko
- Because someone left her, running away. The archives of the Ministry of Defense are now open.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, not all, probably.

S. Mironenko
- You know, openly enough for a thoughtful historian to paint a true picture of the beginning of the war. After all, someone knows that in 1942 in the summer we suffered colossal defeats in Ukraine, right? That there were a million Red Army soldiers in the cauldron. Kharkov - it was terrible, right? And this, after all, cannot be explained by the suddenness of the attack, a year of war has already passed. And we learned how to fight only by the end of the second year of the war.

V. Dymarsky
- But tell me, Sergey Vladimirovich, this is how you think, from the point of view, as a historian, as a person dealing with archives, in what, after all, really, you see, you, in any case, personally see the reason for this failure in the first period of the war, in the initial period of the war?

S. Mironenko
- You know, well, it is very difficult to say in two words about it.

V. Dymarsky
- I understand, yes.

S. Mironenko
- The latest work of Solonin, in any case, convinced me that technically the Soviet army was armed no worse than Hitler's.

V. Dymarsky
- Of course. And quantitatively too.

S. Mironenko
- You say: of course, but even for me, a person who is professional ...

V. Dymarsky
- That was the question.

S. Mironenko
- You can't know everything, right? But when, with numbers in hand, that the Red Army had 1,500 T-34 tanks - 1,500, this is not 10, not 20, but 1,500 tanks. I'm not talking about artillery, I'm not talking about ... They said that the communications in the Red Army is bad, right?

V. Dymarsky
- Yes.

S. Mironenko
“But there was radio communication. Control was lost. I think that the most important thing is, in a sense, the moral unpreparedness for war.

V. Dymarsky
- Leadership or people?

S. Mironenko
- Guides, of course.

V. Dymarsky
- I mean, not even the people, I would rather say this: the army.

S. Mironenko
- Guides. And although the Red Army is the strongest of all, right? It was suggested. The first months of the war showed that the Red Army, at least in the state in which it faced the war, was not the strongest. The combat manual of the 39th year - much has been written about this - is outdated. There was no experience in modern warfare. The fact that the personnel were beaten by the military - well, what can I say about that! When Pavlov from lieutenants in 4 years became the commander of the largest district - well, it's unthinkable, jumping over separate steps in the army, like everywhere else, requires experience. There was no experience, there was no experience in conducting large military operations.

Of course, Stalin's confusion. Well, you know, huh? I am already tired of repeating that when Minsk fell on June 28, Stalin began to have a severe depression, and the fact that he had not been in the Kremlin for 2 days ...

V. Dymarsky
- Is it for this famous visit log?

S. Mironenko
- These are, firstly, the memories of Khrushchev, the memories of Mikoyan. Finally, when the magazine of visitors to Stalin's office was published, this was documented. In addition, the State Archives of the Russian Federation contains the memoirs of Chadayev, the head of the Council of People's Commissars, then the head of the State Defense Committee. Well, Stalinist, do you understand? For him, Stalin is an idol, a genius. And then he could not help but describe this horror and confusion, when the day is not Stalin, the second day is not Stalin. What to do? Like this? And in general, it was categorically not accepted to go without a call to a nearby dacha.

And, finally, the country's leadership gets together and, violating all written and unwritten laws, comes to him, and what does he decide?

V. Dymarsky
- Whom did you send? Voroshilov, in my opinion, right?

S. Mironenko
- There was Molotov, Voroshilov, Bulganin - that is, a group of Politburo members, Malenkov. And Stalin thought that they had come to arrest him. And these famous words that he said to them: "Lenin left us a great empire, and we pissed it away." (Excuse me.) And only when Voroshilov began to say: “Koba, what are you doing? You have to lead us, what are you? Let's now think about what to do, ”he cheered up a little, and it was decided to create the State Defense Committee, and then he returned to the Kremlin and began to work actively.

And it’s amazing how much we don’t read documents. Here is the famous Stalinist toast to the Russian people. Remember these words? Another people would have driven this government away, but our Russian people ...

V. Dymarsky
- This is already ...

S. Mironenko
- Yes, in the 45th year. He makes a toast to the Russian people. As far as this episode lay in his head. And, of course, I understand, he could not even imagine that Hitler would start a war on two fronts.

V. Dymarsky
- But how much it sat in his head, isn't this explaining his strange, I would say, attitude to the holiday, to Victory Day, and to the winners, I would say?

S. Mironenko
- No, no, what's strange?

V. Dymarsky
- He was very suspicious of those people who went through Europe, who reached Berlin.

S. Mironenko
- Wait a minute, he should have made it clear who, excuse me, is the owner of the shop. He absolutely did not want to allow it, Stalin, in general, knew Russian history. And the liberation campaigns of 1813-14, which ...

V. Dymarsky
-… what they led to.

S. Mironenko
- ... ended with the formation of secret societies, the uprising on December 14, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment in Ukraine. And so - well, well, Victory Day was introduced and canceled by Stalin. And only Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev ... no, in the 48th year the decree on the abolition of the day off - that's it, the memorable day on May 9 was returned by Leonid Ilyich.

V. Dymarsky:
- In the 65th, on the 20th anniversary.

S. Mironenko
- Yes, in the 65th year. And the money for the orders, at the numerous requests of the workers, which was canceled? And the same Daniil Alexandrovich Granin said: no, you cannot imagine what an insult it was for the people who deserved these orders, and for whom this money was a serious help in their difficult post-war life.

V. Dymarsky
- Now, returning all the same again to the beginning of the war and to the behavior of Stalin. Well, did he believe so strongly in this pact, in this friendship, so to speak, enshrined on paper? Did he believe in Hitler that he would not attack? Where does this come from?

S. Mironenko
- You know, this question, I think, requires more and more thought, reflection, and I think that, firstly, the proposal of this pact was a surprise for Stalin.

V. Dymarsky:
- In the 39th.

S. Mironenko:
- In the 39th, yes. Well, in general, it was really unexpected. And Stalin, I think, hoped that until Germany took England there was an island there, that Hitler would not dare to fight on two fronts. It is known that from the time of Bismarck and from the time of the German strategic minds, the idea was: no need to fight on two fronts. Germany is already in the first world war I understood what it means to fight on two fronts. And to think that Hitler was like this ... That is why Stalin did not want to believe it. And after all, you know, there are such psychological situations: a person who is very suspicious, a person does not believe his environment, but he succumbs to some such thing.

V. Dymarsky
- He sent to hell, to put it mildly, all the reports, all intelligence reports ...

S. Mironenko
- This famous resolution on the report of Merkulov, People's Commissar of State Security, when one of the few, by the way, our agents, who are at the Luftwaffe headquarters, basically our agents were collecting rumors, excuse me, what they say somewhere. And there was an agent at the headquarters of the Luftwaffe, who said that, yes, everything had already been decided, on June 22 ...

V. Dymarsky
- Specifically our agent? Or from the Red Chapel, there? ..

S. Mironenko
- No, no, this is a recruited agent. Well, of course, a communist sympathizer, yes, a communist who gave precise instructions that June 22 would be, and Stalin wrote: send this informant to hell. Yes, and, very much so ... this is not an informant, it is a disinformer.

V. Dymarsky
- That is, this is not Sorge?

S. Mironenko
- No, no, what are you! It…

V. Dymarsky
- It was considered for a long time ...

S. Mironenko
- Read the literature, this episode has already been described, this is a famous person. His surname is Boysen.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, I remember, nevertheless, when the film "Who are you, Dr. Sorge?" Appeared, we all then ... It was also a revelation. The point is not that Sorge is not Sorge, but there was a revelation that they were still warned, right? This was the first signal, if you like, that there was no surprise attack, that, in principle, it could have been predicted. And these 200 German divisions that were standing on the border - did he not pay attention to them?

S. Mironenko
- Well, you know, when Hitler told him that, you understand, friend Joseph, yes, we are reorganizing our troops in order ... forgive us that we are with you, there, but Poland is a good place to relax, where we can reshape it all for a decisive throw on England. What should I do? I am also amazed how you can fail to notice 200 divisions, which ... But this is simply unthinkable. So I didn't believe it. And when this whole story: if only there were no provocations, if only there were no provocations ... By the way, this is a good argument against Suvorov's theory of a preemptive strike. Why be so afraid of provocations if we strike this preemptive strike anyway, right?

V. Dymarsky
- Well, I know your position that you are against Suvorov's theory. This is my position, I have spoken about this many times during our program, which will soon be 10 years old, by the way, by the way, in any case, it seems to me that this theory, this concept, call it what you want, it has the right to discussion.

S. Mironenko
- You understand, it is necessary to discuss something on the merits. So I highly value the book of Solonin, but I absolutely disagree with him, because he is a follower of Suvorov. After all, you understand, well, what should I explain to you, a person who is engaged in national history? You know that with little blood on foreign territory - no one hid that if there is war tomorrow, then little blood on foreign territory. And that we will meet the enemy and defeat him and we will be there ... And all these plans for the development of military operations that are envisaged, the offensive, there, right up to Warsaw, right? But these are still defensive battles. It is the enemy that attacks us, and we rebuff him and go forward.

V. Dymarsky
- I'll ask you a question now, I think you won't have time to answer it before our short break, but at least let's start. Perhaps he is the most important for me in our conversation today.

70 years have passed. Why does society still raise questions about the war and not always, I would put it mildly, get answers to them? Why haven't we received the complete history of the war in 70 years?

S. Mironenko
- Want me to start answering?

V. Dymarsky
- Let's start.

WITH... Mironenko
- Come on, please. Are you sure that our fellow citizens even know the truth? For example, I am not at all sure. You see, knowing the truth is very bitter. It takes a lot of courage, a lot of love for the homeland in order to survive this truth, suffer, continue to love and be proud of your homeland. To be proud, because in the end, through all the trials, we won.

V. Dymarsky
- We won.

S. Mironenko
- We won. And this is, you know, not very commonplace ... So I want to say: you know what, they say that the Russian archives are closed. Trust me, they are more open than ever. And the declassification of documents continues. Stalin's archive was opened. Archive of the State Defense Committee. Did you know that historians are not very fond of going to these archives?

V. Dymarsky
- Andrei Konstantinovich Sorokin told me that, for example, about the blockade of Leningrad, what lies there, in my opinion, Stalin's correspondence with Zhdanov, and not a single request from historians.

S. Mironenko
- Yes this particular example... There are dozens of cases that, you know, where the eye of a discerning historian has not looked. Why is also interesting. And these are the questions for me and for everyone.

V. Dymarsky
- Sergei Vladimirovich, nevertheless, you say that everything is open, but here ...

S. Mironenko
- I did not say that everything is open.

V. Dymarsky
- No, no, here was a man sitting in your place who published an article in Ogonyok, if I'm not mistaken, about the fact that, for example, he was trying to get something - there is all, for example, Voroshilov's correspondence and Stalin, for some reason I remember, from the 23rd to the 53rd year, everything is closed.

S. Mironenko
- I doubt it.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, a person seems to be saying this from his own experience.

S. Mironenko
“Maybe… how many years ago did he try to get this correspondence?

V. Dymarsky
- Like recently ... That is, you think that it is open enough so that there are no blank spots? Or are there still white spots?

S. Mironenko
- No. First, history is a science, no matter what they say about it. And this science is developing, and new sources appear, new concepts, new understandings appear. It's an endless process. But there are some things that for me, for example, are indisputable. Here is the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which in fact should be called the Stalin-Hitler Pact.

V. Dymarsky
- Listen, well, just recently I heard how I, we, everyone, was told that this was an outstanding victory for Soviet diplomacy.

S. Mironenko
- Are you so sure?

V. Dymarsky
- I'm not sure, I heard that.

S. Mironenko
- No, you explain to me. Let me ask you.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes.

S. Mironenko
- This is Germany - the invading army, right? There is a war in Europe. Hitler put the entire capable male population under a bayonet. Who will feed this army? Ever wondered? And Hitler, is he such a simpleton who proposed a pact in 1939? The Soviet Union fed this invading army. He supplied bread, meat, milk, eggs, whatever.

V. Dymarsky
- Sergey Vladimirovich, here I will interrupt you now. We will definitely continue this conversation literally some time after a short news release.

V. Dymarsky
- Once again I greet our audience, the program "The Price of Victory", I am its host Vitaly Dymarsky, and today my guest is Sergey Mironenko, Director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences. We are talking about falsifications, about the myths that surround the history of the war. It is still surrounded. Strictly speaking, this is where we stopped. I mean, when I asked you why we still don't know a lot, huh? And after that you moved on to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

S. Mironenko
- We already know this very well.

V. Dymarsky
- We know everything to the end, right?

S. Mironenko
- And here is the question of interpretation, of the assessment of this event.

V. Dymarsky
- And these assessments, in your opinion, are they scientific, from the point of view of history, or are they political assessments?

S. Mironenko
- You know, here I am trying to avoid political assessments, although in this case a political assessment is needed, since this was a serious political step in foreign policy Soviet Union.

So: the Soviet Union fed the Nazi invasion army. Without food from the Soviet Union, Hitler could not have fought this war the way he fought it. This is the first thing. Way someone will try to challenge this.

V. Dymarsky
- Do you mean that there was food supply under the agreement?

S. Mironenko
- Of course! We delivered food to Germany until June 22. Echelons with grain went straight to Germany.

V. Dymarsky
- Not only with grain.

S. Mironenko
- No, wait a minute. I also want to say, yes, not only with grain. We filled the German tanks with our gasoline, our diesel fuel. We supplied necessary elements for making armor. Yes? Something that Germany was sorely lacking. We worked, the Soviet Union worked for the war with Germany.

Someone objects that, yes, our specialists gained access to German technology, yes, we copied the BMW 500-horsepower engine and armed the T-28 tank. You can say whatever you want. But that doesn't outweigh what I said.

Now the second argument, as an outstanding victory for our diplomacy. So - a sudden war, right? What would have happened if Stalin and Hitler had not divided Poland?

V. Dymarsky
- There would be a buffer zone.

S. Mironenko
- No. There would be no border directly to Russia ...

V. Dymarsky
- It wouldn't be, yes.

S. Mironenko
- And what would have happened if these small Baltic states had not become part of the Soviet Union? If we did not receive a part of Bukovina, there, Moldavia, Bessarabia - the border moved. No matter how weak the armies of these countries are. Poland fought for 2 weeks. What kind of surprise attack could we talk about? There would be no surprise attack. You understand? And so you can go on.

V. Dymarsky
- But the territory was expanded.

S. Mironenko
- No, wait a minute, let's say this: they expanded, but they could have lost everything. Thank God we didn’t lose.

Now, to the European question - yes, of course, I do not idealize either the French government or the British government at all.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, yes. The same answer was to Munich ...

S. Mironenko
- Forgive me, yes, here is Munich - the policy of appeasing Hitler. And what, the French and British did not drag out the negotiations? Yes, and we, and they. Well, that was the world. We didn't trust them, they didn't trust us. But there is an unconditional share of their guilt in this. If we speak honestly and speak the truth.

Of course, Stalin was faced with a dilemma, what should he do: continue these viscous, it is not clear why they are negotiating with Britain and France, or here - Hitler is proposing an alliance. And he decided - and miscalculated.

After all, not just miscalculated. I will remind you of the wonderful words of Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov that fascism is an ideology, it cannot be defeated. And ideology cannot be destroyed. You see, they were terrible ... you know, if Russians are friends, then they are very, very friendly, right? And a lot of monstrous words were spoken. And at one moment, one day, our propaganda out of the danger of fascism and ... but how did we surrender our communist friends?

V. Dymarsky
- I also remembered that.

S. Mironenko
- You see, well, that's what to say?

V. Dymarsky
- Well, yes. Hard.

S. Mironenko
- Therefore, for me, the mildest assessment of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is that it is a strategic mistake, but in a sense it is a crime.

V. Dymarsky
- You see, but, here you say, of course, there is no doubt that England and France also contributed, of course. Munich and so on. But, in any case, they now at least no longer deny it. They kind of repented, I don’t know, they didn’t repent, they admitted Munich was wrong.

But let us, too, in the end - although we, too, seem to be already, and there were official estimates, right? Still the Soviet, in my opinion, or the Congress of People's Deputies, or the Supreme Soviet, right?

S. Mironenko
- There were estimates, but Gorbachev did not give Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev ... Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev to me, this is how we sat, Alexander Nikolayevich and I talked. He told me that he could not forgive Mikhail Sergeevich alone, that Mikhail Sergeevich answered a direct question: are there any secret protocols ...

V. Dymarsky
- Didn't answer?

S. Mironenko
- He said that they are not. Although he knew perfectly well, as the secretary general, that the Politburo archive contained several packages that were transmitted from the secretary general to the general secretary... One package was the Katyn case, the other was the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which contained the originals, authentic documents.

V. Dymarsky
- And where do we end up getting there? I’m reading it last year - I don’t know, maybe it was corrected there, but for me, I can’t say that my hair stood on end, but the shock was big enough. Remember when you published what it was called, the concept, perhaps, of a single textbook, right? I read a phrase there - well, it is clear that this is such a conceptual thing, it is not disclosed there - nevertheless, such a phrase: the Soviet Union entered World War II on June 22, 1941.

S. Mironenko
- This is a question for the author.

V. Dymarsky
- Since this is a radio, I can say that Sergei Vladimirovich threw up his hands.

S. Mironenko
- It was, how to say, the propaganda idea of ​​the Soviet propagandists, in order to separate June 22 and September 1 or September 17 of 1939.

V. Dymarsky
- It is not clear then what the Soviet Union did for two years. But how would you define: he was a participant in World War II - I mean these two years - or not? As a matter of fact, there was still finnish war, the winter war was at this time.

S. Mironenko
- Of course, of course, the Second World War includes many different, not only comprehensive military operations, but also local ones. You quite rightly said: how to define the Soviet-Finnish war? Is this part of World War II or not? How do you define this liberation campaign of the Red Army in Western Ukraine, in Western Belarus? Well, for me, I can only tell you for myself - for me, of course, the participation of the Soviet Union in the Second World War.

V. Dymarsky
- Sergey Vladimirovich, we have just discussed such global issues. But here's one more thing. I recently read your interview, where, in particular, you talk about myths, let's say, more local, not global, there are 28 Panfilovites, let's say, and so on. My question is not even about the 28 Panfilovites, although I also need to dot the i's, but in general. Here is the creation of this kind of myths during the war - sometimes it seems to me that this is a necessary thing, useful, in the sense that by doing so you ... understand the task - to raise the spirit of people. Another thing is that it is not necessary to keep these myths in this state for 70 years.

S. Mironenko
- You know, I can answer you a little from the other side. You probably remember the American film, I think Spielberg made it, Saving Private Ryan. This is also an agitation, also a story about how almost the entire American army rescued one private. But this is the myth of a state that took care of its soldiers. In the American army, the number of those soldiers whose fate they have not been able to establish is very few. Units, do you understand? I do not know how many, there, 8, 10, 14 ... Until recently, we have millions.

V. Dymarsky
- A good thing is the Memorial WTS, but it was stopped.

S. Mironenko
- No, no, it continues. They continue, and thank God. And I warmly congratulate our colleagues from the Ministry of Defense, from the Central Archives. They did a lot to enable people to know the fate of their loved ones.

V. Dymarsky
- By the way, I always take this opportunity and say that, here you are, find the United Database, the Memorial WBS.

S. Mironenko
- Of course!

V. Dymarsky
- This has nothing to do with the Memorial organization, this is the Ministry of Defense.

S. Mironenko
- Yes.

V. Dymarsky
- And you try, you can find your relatives there, the fate of which, perhaps, you still do not know.

S. Mironenko
- Absolutely right. And I'll tell you: these are two different poles. The Soviet Union was an empire built on lies. And she proved her unviability. Whether we want it or not, we are worried that the Soviet Union collapsed - but it could not withstand the competition. And, you know, you can talk a lot about it. But you cannot build a normal society on lies. You can't build it. And I don't want to talk ...

V. Dymarsky
- But this applies, you think, to these military exploits?

S. Mironenko
- Absolutely. Because why not take real heroes? Why not take people who really did? Mass heroism! We would not have won if the Russian people had not stood up against it. If they ask who won the war - Stalin? I think not Stalin. The Russian, Soviet people won the war. Who did not want one dictatorship to be replaced by another. And this - well, you can say a lot there that we have always fought against the German and will fight, there, tra-ta-ta ...

V. Dymarsky
- Even if the dictatorship is better your own than someone else's.

S. Mironenko
- Better, of course, your own than someone else's. But for this power a specific fate, a specific hero was not needed, they needed ... How did it all happen? Well, this is the same, when I first read this file of the military prosecutor's office, my hair stood on end.

V. Dymarsky
- About?

S. Mironenko
- Well, about Panfilov's men. Yes please.

V. Dymarsky
- Admitted themselves from the "Red Star" that they came up with it. In the same place they even have, in my opinion, recognition.

S. Mironenko
- Yes. 47-48 years, the investigation is underway. home military prosecutor's office- please, we will publish this case. The regiment commander is being interrogated: was there a battle at the Dubosekovo junction? There was no fight. Did not have. I was on the right, I was on the left, but in this place it was not. They ask the correspondent Krivitsky, another one: how did you find out about all this? They say: well, from the report of the political department, Ortenberg, the editor-in-chief of Krasnaya Zvezda, sent me there. Have you seen political instructor Klochkov? Yes, well, what are you! No. And who came up with these words "Russia is great, but there is nowhere to retreat - Moscow is behind!" I - says Krivitsky. Well? And it's just ... And the conclusion signed by the chief military prosecutor: this is fiction, this event did not happen.

V. Dymarsky
- Why did you figure it out?

S. Mironenko
- Well, because 7 people have already come from those who should lie in the grave.

V. Dymarsky
- A…

S. Mironenko
- You understand? Well, that's impossible. Well, how is it? One comes, another comes, a third, a fourth - you have to lie there, your name knocked out, we honor you, you are a Hero of the Soviet Union. And, suppose, the Ukrainian Dobrobaba was taken prisoner twice, they added more camps to him when he returned.

V. Dymarsky
- And he is among the Panfilovites? ..

S. Mironenko
- Of course! Of course - well, everyone's fates are different. Now, in my opinion, in 1992 or 93, the Ukrainians rehabilitated him, collected information, his fellow villagers were still alive then, they said: yes, come on, he was a good fellow. He warned us about German raids, we drove the cows into the forest.

V. Dymarsky
- Are there many such feats?

S. Mironenko
- How do I know? The question is what needs to be dealt with. We need to figure it out. This is the business of historians, this is the business of history. And don't be afraid of that, do you understand? Just telling the truth. But every such fact, yes, this lie, it also gives rise to terrible suspicions. What are you telling us? Oh well, everything else is also a lie. Yes, not a lie in fact! Yes, of course, Soviet propagandists were lying a lot. But there were real heroes, pay tribute to them, tell them their names.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes ... Thinking.

S. Mironenko
- Yes. If you think about it, that's good.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes. And tell me, please, by the way, when you said that Americans know up to ten, right?

S. Mironenko
- Yes.

V. Dymarsky
- I have always, I have already spoken about this many times, I can also add with what envy I looked and heard these messages, Sarkozy was still the President of France, when all of France, led by the President, was burying the last soldier of the First World War. That is, it is accounting down to one.

S. Mironenko
- Of course!

V. Dymarsky
- Up to one person, right? Will we ever bury the last soldier of World War II, the Great Patriotic War?

S. Mironenko
- Well, I hope it won't happen soon. But still, we must pay tribute - the anniversary, the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War, it was very widely covered.

V. Dymarsky
- I must say that gave the impetus.

S. Mironenko
- And gave impetus to study, to exhibitions, to films, to the opening of monuments. No matter how you relate to artistic implementation, this is a separate conversation. But it reminded me of a forgotten war. After all, it was not for nothing that the First World War in Russia was a forgotten war. Oh sure…

V. Dymarsky
- She was inglorious.

S. Mironenko
- Well, inglorious ...

V. Dymarsky
- Because it ended in no way, although Russia could well have been among the winners, if not for the 17th year. Doubt, right?

S. Mironenko
- I'm not that optimistic, yes. This was hardly a stolen victory. The situation was very difficult, and Russia would have withstood such tension - this is no one ... You see, you cannot say what it would have been. History is still a science, not a fortune-teller who ...

V. Dymarsky
- Well, yes. On the other hand, you see, France has the opposite situation. For them, the glorious First World War, the great war, from which they emerged victorious. And there are a lot of questions about France, the winner, I would say, in World War II.

S. Mironenko
- What are you talking about! De Gaulle - national hero.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes, absolutely. No, no, Sergei Vladimirovich, I worked there, I know very well: they understand everything there, nevertheless, what was Vichy, they are ashamed of it.

S. Mironenko
- Everything is correct. Are we not ashamed of Vlasov? Collaboration is a phenomenon that has shown itself everywhere in World War II. Collaboration with the occupiers, whatever it may be justified, Pétain justified it by the fact that he had saved France, but still he was tried.

V. Dymarsky
- They don't know what to do with Pétain, because Pétain is a hero of the First World War and a collaborator in the Second.

S. Mironenko
- You see, after all, in France - I, too, believe me, have been in France more than once and have met many of the greatest French historians - their past is there, more or less assessments are settled, you know? De Gaulle is a national hero. There was Resistance, de Gaulle raised, the Fifth Republic - everything. Yes?

V. Dymarsky
- Yes. They live with it.

S. Mironenko
- Of course.

V. Dymarsky
- And, in general, they do not return there much. Because they are really well-established. And I again come back to that question: why is it still not possible for us? What's in the way? Does it interfere, as you say - society does not really need it? Or the political situation, which all the time dictates its own ...

S. Mironenko
- You are asking me a question not as a historian, but as a political scientist, a sociologist. Do you understand? I could also tell you a lot what I think about this. I'm not sure if this will be of interest to the audience because it is, well, the opinion of the absolute layman. Although I have some ideas.

V. Dymarsky
- Your look.

S. Mironenko
- Your own view on these issues.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes. I just want to get better, because you said: I hope it won't be soon, when I said: bury the last soldier. Of course, I didn’t mean that ... but I didn’t mean that when we count, in the end everyone.

S. Mironenko
- This is an absolutely necessary task. I am very much afraid that behind the thunder of the timpani on the occasion of the Victory, well, these search parties- well, this is not just a drop in the ocean, people are doing a glorious job. But how many people are lying ... But as a state task, it has not even been set. We must pay tribute to the memory of all who gave their lives for the defense of our homeland. And this can be done only when the last soldier who died, who lies in the ground unknown, is buried. It's good that we made a grave Unknown Soldier, this is also a merit, by the way, of Leonid Ilyich.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes, this is already in Brezhnev's time.

S. Mironenko
- Yes Yes.

V. Dymarsky
- This is just in time for the 20th anniversary of the Victory.

S. Mironenko
- Yes, it was all for the 20th anniversary of the Victory.

V. Dymarsky
- And, as far as I remember, another 25th anniversary was very widely celebrated too.

S. Mironenko
- Yes, yes, Leonid Ilyich as a participant in the war, he understood that war is a tragedy.

V. Dymarsky
- Well, here we are ... Once again, we need to congratulate all of us and the entire audience, of course, on a great holiday. We are now used to calling it a holiday, although, no matter how banal, this line from the song "Victory Day" cannot be avoided - a holiday with tears in our eyes. He will always be that way, no matter what.

S. Mironenko
- Yes.

V. Dymarsky
“And we just need to say thank you to those people who defended the country on themselves and by themselves and endured the entire burden of the Victory.

S. Mironenko
- We must remember this. And always every citizen who feels like a citizen would never forget about it.

V. Dymarsky
- And the truth about the war will not prevent this.

S. Mironenko
- Absolutely.

V. Dymarsky
- So we will ...

S. Mironenko
- You have to be courageous.

V. Dymarsky
- Yes, you have to be courageous to both find out the truth and say it.

S. Mironenko
- This is true.

V. Dymarsky
- With these words, I will thank Sergei Vladimirovich Mironenko, I remind, the Director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences for our conversation today on Victory Day. Thank you, Sergey Vladimirovich.

S. Mironenko
- Thank you.

V. Dymarsky
- And we are always glad to see you.

S. Mironenko
- Thanks.

Deliberate distortion of reality, ideological clichés and falsifications, deliberately pursuing the goal of distorting the facts of the USSR's participation in the war with the Third Reich, belittling the contribution of our country to the Victory over fascism. Some of the falsifications date back to samples of Nazi propaganda. Others are the product of the internal decay of Soviet society. Still others are a product of the special activities of foreign Sovietologists, propagandists, and politicians. Since the period of "Gorbachev's perestroika", persistent attempts have been made to break the historical and moral code of perception of the Great Patriotic War through the implantation of a significant number of various black myths into the official ideology and mass consciousness: about the nature of the war, the scale of losses, key moments of hostilities, the cost of Victory, etc. etc.

Attempts to overcome falsification in the works of scientists

In recent years, much has been done in Russian historiography to debunk the black myths about the Great Patriotic War. Many professional authors, as well as amateur historians, presented objective scientific information. It is curious to note such a phenomenon as the publication of entire books specifically devoted to exposing the falsifiers of history. Often the general focus of these works was reflected already in their titles.

The first monographs exposing the depravity and inconsistency of black peacekeepers appeared at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. Nowadays, the exposure of black myths has become in fact an independent direction of national historical journalism, to which such well-known statesmen as the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation V.R. Medinsky. He came up with a special book exposing the most odious myths about the Great Patriotic War.

Black myths both before and now are a manifestation of non-spontaneous processes in the mental sphere. These days they are kind of " offensive weapon"In the so-called" wars of memory ".

Was the war the Great and the Patriotic War?

The first place among these myths, distorting our history, undoubtedly, should be assigned to statements that the war that fell on our people was neither Great nor Patriotic. In some Russian regions, in particular in Crimea and Sevastopol, history teachers are well aware of this kind of attitude to the past. More recently, classes in schools and universities in Crimea and Sevastopol were conducted using Ukrainian history textbooks. Many of them did not contain sections on the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against the German fascist invaders. Ukrainian textbooks events of 1941-1945. on the Soviet-German front they are portrayed differently - only as one of the episodes of the Second World War.

We will find the same approach in the works of some Russian historians. In Moscow in 2008, a book by B.S. Pushkareva “Two Russia of the XX century. 1917-1993 ". Several other Moscow authors took part in its creation. The authors only recognize World War II. Accordingly, the Great Victory does not exist for them either. In the appropriate place, only a list of events is given in a tongue twister:

“On May 1, the red banner flies over the Reichstag, on May 2, the city garrison surrenders, 134 thousand Germans surrender. The price of this ending: no less than 90 thousand killed and 330 thousand wounded Soviet soldiers. Late in the evening of May 8, Germany signs unconditional surrender... It's already May 9 in Moscow ”. There is no concept of Victory itself; instead of Victory, the dismissive "finale" is used. But even this derogatory definition is used not for Victory in the Great Patriotic War, but only for the operation to storm Berlin. The authors cannot say anything about the Victory in the Great Patriotic War - the Great Patriotic War itself was not for them either.

Even more indignation from the public and scientific community was caused by the appearance on the eve of the 65th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War of another through work on the history of our country, we are talking about the book "History of Russia XX century: 1939-2007", published under the editorship of MGIMO professor A.B. ... Zubova.

Zubov, unlike Pushkarev, distinguishes the period 1941-1945 as a separate structural unit of the book. But he goes much further than Pushkarev, declaring this period not the Great Patriotic War, but a "Soviet-Nazi" war. That is, for him the events of 1941-1945. Is just a clash of two ideologies. Zubov's concept is based on the attitude to the Great Patriotic War as a battle of two dictatorships. Both of these dictatorships, according to Zubov, are hostile to the Russian people. In a word, his book takes us into the same looking glass as the works of modern Ukrainian neo-fascist historians.

Responsibility for unleashing a war on the USSR?

The second shock myth, which is trying to reformat the national memory, is aimed at shifting the responsibility for unleashing the war on our country. If we call a spade a spade, we are talking about the creeping rehabilitation of fascism. Since public opinion neither in Russia nor in the world is yet ready to call the USSR the only culprit in the war, the false theory of "equal responsibility" of "two totalitarian regimes" is used.

Today, it is the attempts to equalize the degree of responsibility of the USSR and Germany for unleashing a war that are most characteristic of "wars of memory" against our people. But even in this truncated form, we face the same tendency for the collective West to rehabilitate its Nazi past. There is no doubt that as soon as public opinion gets used to the imposed false scheme, the next stage will begin. And already within the framework of the coming stage of the "wars of memory" the fascist regime will be finally rehabilitated, and the USSR will be named the only initiator of the Second World War.

One of the most egregious and provocative attempts to rewrite history at the highest European level was the steps taken by Euro-parliamentarians in the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. Thus, on July 3, 2009, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution “On the reunification of a divided Europe”. It was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the outbreak of World War II and the signing of the "Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact" - as Western counterfeiters call the "Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union" of August 23, 1939.

In their resolution, the Euro-parliamentarians directly proclaimed the equal responsibility of the USSR and the Third Reich for unleashing a war. The reaction of the Russian authorities was principled and prompt. A few days later, on July 7, 2009, the State Duma and the Federation Council angrily condemned the provocateurs, thereby confirming the principled course of preventing the use of historical lies in international relations.

As the press reported in those days, “in response, Russian parliamentarians accused their European colleagues of“ insulting the memory of millions who fell in the battles for the liberation of Europe ”,“ attempts to denigrate the winners and rehabilitate criminals and their accomplices ”, as well as“ direct revision of the spirit and the letter Of the Nuremberg Accords ”and“ an attempt to revise the results of the Second World War ””. As some journalists rightly wrote, our history is an element of our sovereignty. And historical sovereignty needs to be protected just like any other element of national sovereignty.

Controversy around Rezun's books

In the latest historiography, the thesis of the equal or even prevailing responsibility of the USSR for the war is reflected in the position of the Soviet officer-defector V. Suvorov (Rezun). In his first books, written in collaboration with British intelligence, he developed the myth that Stalin was preparing a first strike against Germany. Thus, it turned out that Hitler was forced to act proactively in order to prevent the spread of the Stalinist regime in Europe. Rezun's speeches shook public opinion in the Russian Federation and abroad. We have not only his opponents, but also followers.

The controversy around Rezun's books began in the 1990s. But due to the pressure of the official ideology, liberal and Westernizing, it was difficult for professional historians to oppose Rezun with anything other than brief critical remarks on his individual inaccuracies and fakes.

More was needed. Namely, it was required to offer a detailed concept of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, different from the previous Soviet, but alternative to Rezun. One of the first who dared to undertake such a large-scale plan was the Israeli scientist Gabriel Gorodetsky, who worked for a long time at Oxford, and later at the Center for the Study of Russia and Eastern Europe at Tel Aviv University. His book, published in Russian, was devoted to the exposure of Rezun's writings.

Gorodetsky showed that Rezun's point of view is not new, that Rezun has many predecessors, and even before the appearance of his works, the black myth about the USSR's preparation for a preemptive strike sounded in the works of some German authors. For example, the historian Nolde argued that Hitler's cruelty was caused by fear of Stalin, and the "Jewish-Bolshevik empire of the USSR." Professor Hilgruber, one of the leading German historians, suddenly spoke about the threat posed by the USSR in 1941. for Germany. Another German, Hoffman, announced a strategic threat from the Soviet Union, which could not fail to convince Hitler that June 1941. - the last opportunity to start a preventive war. The Austrian professor Topich in his work "The War of Stalin" wrote that, carried away by the displays of Hitler's aggressiveness, Western science overlooked the true criminal - Stalin. Topich argued that World War II "was essentially an attack by the Soviet Union on Western democracies, and Germany ... was assigned only the role of a military deputy."

In fact, the entire conceptual base of Rezun and the German and Polish historians who support him, as well as some Russian publicists, is drawn from Hitler's speech to his generals on June 22, 1941, in which he stated that “now the moment has come when a wait-and-see policy is not only a sin , but also a crime that violates the interests of the German people and, consequently, the whole of Europe. "

Was there a moral and political unity of Soviet society during the Great Patriotic War?

Another anti-historical myth, which should be attributed to the most destructive, casts doubt on the moral and political unity of Soviet society during the Great Patriotic War. It speaks of the lack of unity between the front and the rear, between the majority of the Soviet peoples, between various strata of Soviet society, between communists and non-party people, officers and privates, etc. The quintessence of this myth was the opposition of the Soviet people and the Soviet political regime.

So, even at dawn modern era, during the years of Gorbachev's "perestroika" in " Komsomolskaya Pravda”, On the eve of the bright anniversary of the 45th anniversary of our Victory, provocative material appeared, in which, speculating on certain facts of discontent among a part of the population of the USSR, an attempt was made to prove that during the war the people and the regime pursued different goals. The people strove to liberate the country, and Stalin - to preserve his system of tyranny. The very title of the publication ("The Stolen Victory"), not to mention its content, angered and insulted the veterans.

Since the time of Perestroika and the 1990s. a lot has changed. But even two decades later, when the inconsistency of this myth and all its components was fully proven, one of its adherents, the historian G. Bordyugov, continues to insist on his own. Wash off his assertions came down to the fact that "two intertwining but dissimilar forces acted in the war: the people and the system personified by the Stalinist regime."

“If the power of the people liberated,” he writes, “then the systemic power, following in its wake, immediately enveloped the liberated in its steel embrace. So Victory was intercepted at the final stage. " From this assertion there was only one step to the assertion that the victory was won "not thanks to, but in spite of" the Soviet regime, that the Soviet system collapsed or at least staggered at the very first blows of the fascists, that it demonstrated its inefficiency at the very beginning of the war, etc. .d.

There are other myths about the Great Patriotic War, as well as about the victory won by our people over the fascist aggressors. The interest of modern Russian society in protecting historical truth creates a serious obstacle to their dissemination. But, as practice shows, the struggle for historical truth requires a lot of effort and a long time and needs serious, painstaking work of Russian historians.

The lessons of World War II and the main directions of its falsification

The main lessons of World War II, their relevance today

The results of the Second World War led the peoples of the world to realize the danger posed by wars, especially world wars, to the understanding that they must be excluded from the life of society.

What are the main lessons of the Second World War and its component part - the Great Patriotic War?

The first and foremost of them is that Victory in the Great Patriotic War was achieved only thanks to the spiritual strength and resilience of the Soviet people and the army. The people's faith in their Fatherland, in the just nature of the war was an important factor that made it possible to defeat fascism.

Deep patriotism has always been and remains a distinctive feature of the Russian people. It manifested itself especially vividly during the Great Patriotic War, became the basis of the spiritual and moral superiority of the Soviet Union over fascist Germany.

Patriotism was a powerful source of mass heroism, unprecedented stamina, courage and dedication, selfless devotion to the Motherland of Soviet people at the front and in the rear, labor exploits of workers, peasants and intelligentsia.

Having lost patriotism as a fundamental, basic component in the system of spiritual values ​​traditional for Russia and the national pride and dignity associated with it, we will lose the most powerful incentive to defend the Fatherland, we will lose the ability to great achievements.

The second important lesson of the war is that successes at the front and in the rear were possible only thanks to the cohesion of society, the unity of the people and the army. The Great Patriotic War is rightfully called truly people's, Patriotic.

The main thing that united and inspired people was the need to protect and save the Fatherland. Thanks to the policy of internationalism during the war years, all the peoples of the Soviet Union came out against the enemy as a united front. This allowed the country to withstand and defeat a strong and insidious aggressor.

The relevance of this lesson is undeniable these days. He reminds that friendship and mutual assistance of peoples is the source of their strength and prosperity. For example, the current political situation in the world urgently requires, within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, to actively and effectively carry out deep integration of the participating countries in all spheres, including defense. The point is to seek and find worthy answers to common threats and challenges in close cooperation. This is the only way to achieve lasting collective security in the Commonwealth.

The third lesson of the war is that the issues of strengthening the country's defense, increasing the combat readiness and combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces should constantly be in the center of attention of the state leadership.

An appeal to the times of World War II is a good opportunity to remember that a powerful and efficient army and navy are required to repel any possible aggression and reliably ensure the country's security.

With the end of the Cold War, the tense confrontation between the two most powerful military-political blocs, which were headed by the USSR and the United States, ceased. However, this does not mean that the military danger, especially the danger of local military conflicts, has disappeared for the legal successor of the Soviet Union, Russia.

To resist it, it is necessary to carefully and deeply analyze the situation in the world and the changes taking place in it, to foresee the nature of a possible war, its possible scale and duration. To unravel the plans of a potential adversary, a thorough analysis and assessment of various options for his actions are required. The ability to draw the correct conclusions from this will increase the combat readiness of the Armed Forces.

As you know, the underestimation of the role of strategic defense in the military theory of the USSR, the installation to defeat the enemy on its territory and "little bloodshed" in the pre-war period led to tragic consequences for initial stage Great Patriotic War.

Evaluating him, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov noted: “When revising operational plans in the spring of 1941, the peculiarities of modern warfare in its initial period... The People's Commissar of Defense and the General Staff believed that the war between such major powers as Germany and the Soviet Union should begin according to the previously existing scheme: the main forces enter the battle a few days after the border battles. Fascist Germany with regard to the timing of concentration and deployment was placed in the same conditions with us. In fact, both forces and conditions were far from equal. "

Only high level the military art of the commanders of the Red Army, good training of domestic military personnel made it possible, at the cost of the greatest losses in four years, to correct the mistakes made in the first days and months of the war.

The conclusion from this experience is obvious: in matters of military development, it is necessary to proceed from a real assessment of the military threats existing in the world. It depends on this what kind of war the Armed Forces should be prepared for and what tasks they will have to solve.

The fourth lesson of World War II clearly speaks of the need to prevent the slightest manifestations of the ideology of fascism and its varieties in society.
Lessons from the past teach: when fascism acquires a state basis for its existence, when a powerful war machine is in its hands, the fascist government and its leaders begin to pose a mortal threat to the existence of the rest of humanity.

Unfortunately, despite the complete defeat of fascism in World War II and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, half a century later, in a number of states, primarily in the Baltic states, neo-fascist and extremist groups and organizations revived. And although their number is small, as a rule, they are associated with powerful circles in politics and economics, they are trying to actively introduce fascist ideology into the minds of people, especially young people. To counteract the manifestations of modern fascism should, first of all, criminal-legal measures, as well as measures aimed at identifying and eliminating the causes and conditions conducive to the implementation of extremist activities.

The fifth lesson from the experience of the Second World War is that only the collective efforts of states and peoples, the efforts of international organizations can prevent the impending war. The disunity of the peace-loving forces in the West as a whole and in Germany itself in the mid-30s of the last century allowed the Nazis to unleash a war.

In order to prevent this, the powers must be responsible for the choice of tactical and strategic allies in addressing the issues of military security of the country, the region and the world as a whole.

The Second World War showed that the policy of states or their coalition can be successful only when it is based on mutual trust of allies, based on a combination of economic, socio-political, ideological and defense factors.

The sixth lesson of the Second World War: the victory over fascism was achieved thanks to the powerful economic base of the states - members of the anti-Hitler coalition.

For example, the Soviet economy, strengthened later by supplies under Lend-Lease, throughout the war successfully provided the Soviet-German front with everything it needed.

The conclusion that winning any war is to ensure national security and the defense capability of the state is possible only with a powerful economy and a powerful defense-industrial complex, is relevant today.

The lessons of the Second World War not only did not lose their relevance decades after its end, but also acquired great importance. Today, they orient humanity towards seeking agreement in the name of common goals, towards achieving unity and cohesion, political and economic stability in the world.

Falsification of the history of the Great Patriotic War

Throughout the post-war period, the events and results of the Great Patriotic War were repeatedly subjected to various "revisions" and revisions by the political and military leaders of a number of foreign states, former German military leaders, etc. The topic of the outcome of the Second World War is still the subject of acute ideological, scientific, informational and psychological confrontation in domestic and world historiography. In this dispute, distortions, bias in assessing events, and sometimes lies are often allowed.

The main stumbling blocks were the following points: the history of the pre-war period in the world, the military art of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, the role and significance of the Soviet-German and other fronts of World War II, losses in the war of various parties, and others.

Pseudoscientific and pseudo-historical concepts, views on these and other issues throughout the post-war period were replicated in thousands of books, articles, were reflected in television programs and films. Now such interpretations of history, far from the truth, can be found in large numbers on the global information network Internet.

Their goal is obvious: to shield the true culprits of the war, to belittle the contribution of the USSR and its Armed Forces to the defeat of the fascist bloc, to denigrate the liberation mission of the Red Army, to cast doubt on the geopolitical results of World War II.

Unfortunately, a wave of "new interpretations" of the past has swept over the public consciousness in Russia itself. Since the beginning of the 90s of the last century, part of the Russian scientific, journalistic and writing community has been involved in the process of rewriting history. At the same time, the main blow is inflicted on the consciousness of young people, and distorted views on the events of the Great Patriotic War have penetrated, sadly, even into school history textbooks.

What are the main directions of falsification of the history and results of the Great Patriotic War?

The first direction is a deliberate understatement of the role and significance of the Soviet-German front in World War II and the contribution of the USSR to the Victory.

The adherents of this theory admit that the Soviet Union took on a heavy burden in the war and played a significant role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan. But at the same time, they argue that he was not the main "architect of the Victory" and the laurels of glory should go to the United States and England, which allegedly made the greatest contribution to the achievement of victory.

Justifying this concept, some American historians insist that the war became world only from the moment the United States entered it, that is, on December 7, 1941, and this turned out to be a decisive factor that changed the course of World War II. American military historian Colonel E. Dupuy (Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, 1916 - 1995) begins his book about the war with the events at Pearl Harbor and does not hide the fact that his goal is to "the reader ... appreciate the decisive role of the United States in the victory of the free world over the forces of totalitarianism. "

To prove the decisive role of the United States in the victory over the Axis countries, the so-called theory of the "arsenal of democracy" was invented. According to her, such an arsenal was the American war economy, the industrial potential of the United States, acting as a supplier huge amount weapons and military equipment for all countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. However, the widespread version that the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany was largely determined by US supplies under Lend-Lease is clearly exaggerated. Everyone knows that during the war years, such deliveries amounted to only about 4% of the war production of the USSR. In addition, deliveries were carried out irregularly, with long interruptions.

In addition, as the English historians D. Barber and M. Garrison justly noted, Lend-Lease “... was never an act of charity ... While Germany controlled the continent from the English Channel to Central Russia, the Russians remained the only who waged a direct fight with the German ground forces, and it was in their own interests of the Western allies to help them. "

Already during the war years and immediately after its end, American historians considered the events on the Soviet-German front, without touching on the question of their influence on the general course of hostilities. At the same time, the results of the combat operations of the American-British troops in various theaters of operations (in the Pacific Ocean, North Africa, Italy, France) were exaggerated in every possible way.

For example, the American historian H. Baldwin believes that the outcome of the Second World War was decided by 11 battles ("great campaigns"). These include the battle in Poland in 1939, the battle for Britain in 1940, the landing of troops on the island of Crete in 1941, the battle for the island of Corregidor in 1942, the battle for Tarawa in 1943, the landings in Sicily and Normandy in 1943-1944. years, the naval battle in Leyte Gulf in 1944, the Ardennes and Okinawa in 1945. Of the battles won by the Red Army, he names only the Battle of Stalingrad.

The developers of the "concept of decisive battles" do not even mention the Moscow, Kursk and other great battles of the Soviet troops.

A variation of the “decisive battles” theory is the “turning point” theory, the purpose of which is to prove the crucial role of the US military in bringing about a radical turning point in World War II.

For example, the American historian T. Carmichael believes that a radical turning point in the war took place in late 1942 - early 1943, including El Alamein, Tunisia, Stalingrad and the naval battle in the Barents Sea as such “turning points”. At the same time, the landing of a reinforced division of the American marines on the island of Guadalcanal in August 1942 is called "the beginning of the counteroffensive in the Pacific", although in strategic terms it was of particular importance.

There are other options for the number and names of both "decisive battles" and "turning points", but the naval battle of Midway Island in June 1942 stands out as "one of the truly decisive events of the war", as a result of which the Japanese fleet was defeated. but his dominance in the Pacific was not eliminated. The battle itself also did not have a serious impact on the overall course of World War II.

In any case, and this is the essence of the theory, when the absolute majority of "decisive battles" and "turning points" are attributed to those fronts where fighting were fought by the Anglo-American troops.

The distortion of the role of the Soviet Union in World War II is closely related to the tendentious determination of the sources and prerequisites for the victory of the Soviet Union over the fascist-militarist bloc. Their scientific analysis is often replaced by fictions that hide the true reasons for the success of the Red Army.

Thus, a number of German historians are trying to substantiate the version that the Soviet Union was completely unprepared to repel fascist aggression, and that its victories over Germany were explained by "military happiness." To explain the reasons for the defeat of the Wehrmacht, they even developed a special theory of "accidents". These accidents, as a rule, include the unfavorable weather and climatic conditions of the Soviet Union for the Nazi troops, the large extent of its territory, the miscalculations and mistakes of Hitler as a political and military leader.

Attempts are also being made to belittle the level of Soviet military art and the spiritual and moral potential of the peoples of the USSR, mass heroism, exceptional fortitude, courage and courage of Soviet soldiers in the fight against the enemy are denied.

All of these falsified theories are groundless. The truth is that the main burden of the armed struggle in World War II fell on the Soviet Union and the main, decisive one in it was the Soviet-German front. It was on this front that the main battles of the Great Patriotic War took place, it is this front that has no equal in terms of the number of forces involved, the duration and intensity of the armed struggle, its spatial scope and final results.

The number of Soviet losses in the war and the cost of Victory are the second most important controversial points in the interpretation of the history of the Second World War.

So, due to the great human and material losses of the USSR, some historians generally question the significance of the Victory it achieved.

Under the pretext of establishing the truth, some authors call their own, unfounded figures of human losses and try to present the losses of the aggressor as less than they were in reality. Thus, they distort the historical truth, strive to deliberately belittle the feat of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.

Meanwhile, the rechecking of statistical data, carried out in 1988 - 1993 by the USSR Ministry of Defense Commission, headed by Colonel-General G.F. Krivosheye, and the data published in the latest unique reference edition “The Great Patriotic War without a stamp of secrecy. Book of losses "/ G.F. Krivoshee, V.M. Andronikov, P.D. Burikov. - M .: Veche, 2009., confirm the previously obtained results of research.

The losses of both military personnel and the civilian population of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, determined by accounting, statistical and balance methods, as a result, amount to 26.6 million people. Irrecoverable demographic losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR (killed, died of wounds and diseases, died as a result of accidents, executed by the verdicts of military tribunals, did not return from captivity), recorded by the headquarters of all instances and military medical institutions during the years of the Great Patriotic War (including and campaign for Far East), amounted to 8 million 668 thousand 400 servicemen on the payroll.

These sacrifices were not in vain. This is a forced payment for the most precious thing - the freedom and independence of the Motherland, the salvation of many countries from enslavement, the sacrifice in the name of establishing peace on Earth.

The controversy surrounding the version of the "preventive" nature of Germany's war against the USSR does not subside either.

The essence of this version is that in 1941 the Soviet Union allegedly concentrated a powerful grouping of its troops on the western border and prepared for the invasion of the Red Army into Europe through Germany. Thus, he, they say, provoked a preemptive strike by Hitler, who, in order to "protect himself and other Western countries," was forced to start a preemptive war against the USSR.

This version of the outbreak of war was first voiced on June 22, 1941 in a statement by the German ambassador to the USSR, Count Friedrich-Werner von der Schullenburg, handed over to the Soviet government, and in a memorandum presented by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop on the same day to Soviet ambassador V.G. Dekanozov in Berlin after the invasion.

In addition, the version of the "preventive nature" of the war of Nazi Germany against the USSR was actively promoted by many Hitlerite generals in their memoirs dedicated to World War II.

It should be emphasized that these statements are far from the truth and do not reflect objective reality. The course of events of that time historical facts and the documents completely refute judgments about the allegedly forced invasion of the Germans into the territory of the Soviet Union.

The myth of a "preemptive attack" was exposed at the Nuremberg trials. The former head of the German press and radio broadcasting Hans Fritsche admitted that he organized a wide campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda, trying to convince the public that it was not Germany, but the USSR, that was to blame for this war.

Preparing a campaign to the East, Hitler gave great importance not only the creation of strategic offensive bridgeheads, not only the solution of material, technical, resource and food problems at the expense of third countries, but also favorable propaganda support of their actions. It was in the depths of Hitler's propaganda machine that myths arose about the "Soviet threat", about "Soviet expansionism", about the USSR's desire to establish control over Eastern and Southeastern Europe, about the "preventive" nature of the "Barbarossa" plan, about the "hostility" of the Soviet system to small peoples, about the "liberation mission" of the German Reich in the East, etc.

The legend of the "preventive war" is exposed by an analysis of the content of the plans for "Barbarossa", "Ost" and numerous other Nazi documents recovered from German archives. They reveal the secret preparation by the Wehrmacht of an attack on the USSR and testify to the aggressive nature of the plans of fascism against the USSR.

Analysis of the entire set of documents and specific activities the top Soviet leadership testifies to the lack of plans for a preventive war in the USSR. None of the more than 3 thousand orders of the people's commissars of defense (K. Voroshilov and S. Timoshenko) from 1937 to June 21, 1941 and none of the operational plans of the western border military districts in 1941 contain a hint of preparation for an attack on Germany. Had it been carried out in reality, it would inevitably be reflected in the formulation of missions to the troops, and in the planning of combat training.

Another persistent myth of the Second World War - about the "expansion" of the USSR to the West, its desire for territorial seizures during the liberation of the countries of Europe and Asia.

Attempts are being made to present the liberation mission of the Red Army in the countries of Europe and Asia as a communist expansion, as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and peoples, to impose a social system they do not like. However, even at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet government emphasized that the goal of the USSR's struggle against the fascist oppressors was not only to eliminate the danger hanging over the country, but also to help all the peoples of Europe groaning under the yoke of German fascism.

When the Red Army entered the territory of other countries, the USSR Government was guided by the treaties and agreements that existed at that time, which corresponded to the norms of international law.

Knowledge of the main directions of falsification of history, showing their antiscientific nature are the key to an effective struggle against the distortion of the true course of events of the Second World War.

Guidelines
In the introductory part, it is necessary to emphasize that today, in the huge flow of information, one often has to deal with the facts of a biased interpretation of the history of the Second World War. The main goal of the parties concerned is to revise its geopolitical results. In practice, this can be traced, for example, in the unfounded territorial claims of Japan against the Kuril Islands, which were transferred to the Soviet Union as a result of the war.

Revealing the first question, it is important to note that the lessons of the Second World War are important today for preventing wars and maintaining the Armed Forces in proper combat readiness.

When considering the second question, it should be emphasized that the approaches of today's falsifiers of the history of World War II go back to the developments of the propaganda apparatus of the Third Reich.

It is worth adding that effective way countering attempts to falsify history is a wide introduction into the scientific circulation of new historical documents, including declassified ones.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in order to combat the facts of distortion of history in our country, under the President of the Russian Federation, a Commission has been created to counteract attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests.

1. History of the Second World War 1939 - 1945. In 12 volumes. T. 12. - M., 1982.

2. Zakharin I., Strelnikov V. Lessons of the Second World War and the main directions of its falsification. // Reference point. - 2005. - No. 4.

3. Gareev M. Battles on the military-historical front. - M., 2008.

4. Kulkov E., Rzheshevsky O., Chelyshev I. Truth and lies about the Second World War. - M., 1988.

Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Samosvat.
Lieutenant Colonel of the Reserve, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Aleksey Kurshev
"Landmark" 06.2011

At the Monino cadet school, at a meeting with veterans of the Great Patriotic War, one of the cadets volunteered to tell what he knew about these events. His story may cause shock: “The war began on September 1, 1939, when Stalin attacked Poland. The Germans intervened, they moved so that ours scrambled to Moscow. Then the Americans landed troops in Belarus and straightened out the situation ... "

Historical falsifications are far from new and by no means accidental. Political (and spiritual) rivalry at all times has been accompanied by information wars, and our country has been involved in such rivalry for centuries.

Since the XIV century, Russia fought for its existence with Lithuania and Poland. In the 17th century, she won, won leadership in Eastern Europe, but at the same time the leader of Western Europe, France, stood out. At first, she fought with Russia by proxy, set the Swedes and Turks against them, lost in a direct clash of the Napoleonic Wars - but immediately, without any respite, rivalry with England developed, Russia became her main competitor. Then the United States replaced England.

Since the 13th century, in addition to political, economic and commercial rivalry, Russia has assumed the mission of the stronghold and salvation of world Orthodoxy. Thus, she turned out to be an opponent for militant Catholicism, and for Protestant movements, and for dark occult, satanic sects, and for atheist parties and groups.

One should not be surprised at this enmity. After all, the Lord Himself warned: “If the world hates you, know that I first hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but as you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you ”(Inn, 15, 18-19).
In line information wars historical falsifications were born. They wandered from era to era, they were adopted from their predecessors, and peculiar stereotypes were formed, stable, with claims to objectivity. Although their essence was entirely determined by the rivalry described above. All opponents had to present Russia only as an enemy - an aggressive conqueror, enslaver, a prison of nations. And the Russians needed to be portrayed as unattractive and caricatured as possible. Hence the myths about Russian savagery, cruelty, slavery, drunkenness, ignorance, backwardness were produced. Everything of value was declared to be borrowed from the West. For world civilization, Russia was presented not only as useless, but as a brake, an obstacle to progress.

A typical concentrate of these tendencies is given in the works of the German ideologist V. Hen on the eve of the First World War: “The souls of the Russians have been saturated with age-old despotism”, they “have neither honor, nor conscience, they are ungrateful and love only the one whom they fear ... No Russian can become a locomotive driver ... The inability of this people is amazing, their mental development does not exceed the level of a German high school student. They have no traditions, roots, culture to rely on. Everything they have is imported from abroad. ”
Therefore, "without any loss for humanity, they can be excluded from the list of civilized peoples."

Naturally, the falsifications were aimed at citizens of states opposing Russia in order to incite and mobilize them to fight. But ideological sabotage and the introduction of lies among the Russians themselves turned out to be effective as well. I saw this danger back in the 17th century. Croatian thinker Yuri Krizhanich is a Catholic spy who also wrote negative things about Russia, but was in exile in Siberia, got to know our country better, and began to look at many things differently. He called such a threat "outlandish." "Nothing can be more disastrous for the country and the people than the neglect of their good order, laws, language and the appropriation of foreign orders and foreign language and the desire to become another people."
Nevertheless, "foreign ravages" in Russia have become firmly established - under the brand name of "Westernism". It also manifested itself in historical science, which adopted foreign views and assessments, ridiculous theories like Normanism. Unsubstantiated and fairly easily refuted, but, no matter what, extremely stable, living both abroad and in our country to this day.

Let us also note such an important fact. In all states, historians have carefully embellished and varnished their past. And only in Russia in the XIX century. the fashion of self-spitting its history has taken root! Moreover, the methods used for this were far from pure. So, dozens of foreign authors wrote about Medieval Russia. They wrote in different ways. But the testimonies of those of them who admired our country were hushed up. And the testimonies of those who hayal (at least within the framework of explicit information wars) were replicated, promoted as "generally recognized".

The famous "Domostroy" can be a striking example of dishonest manipulations with primary sources. According to different works, historical and journalistic, the same quote wanders: “And the husband will see that his wife is in disarray… and for disobedience… taking off his shirt and whipping politely beat him, holding his hands, looking through fault”. Seemingly undeniable barbarism? Stop! Pay attention to the ellipses. They missed not single words, but several paragraphs! Let's take the original text of “Domostroi”: “And if the husband sees that his wife is in disorder and with the servants, he would be able to instruct his wife and teach with useful advice”. Is it the same meaning or is it slightly different? Or is he completely, completely different? And the words about spanking do not refer to the wife at all, but to the careless servants. I do not argue here whether it is right or not to whip a servant if, for example, he steals (maybe it would be more correct to send him immediately to the gallows, as they did in England until the 19th century?) But Russian historians, like Kostomarov, who put into circulation quote with ellipsis, read the full text of "Domostroy". Consequently, they committed forgery deliberately. By the way, facts of forgery can also be found in translations of some texts from Church Slavonic into modern Russian. The question is, why? Spit on your own ancestors, but earn the reputation of "progressive", praise abroad ...

The result is known. The educated elite of society, the nobility and the intelligentsia, broke away from their national roots. From language, culture, and then from Vera. And the same educated elite, infected with the falsifications of Westernism, influenced the common people. Everyone knows Bulgakov's story " dog's heart”, But few people thought that she was close to the truth. The noble and seemingly decent Professors Preobrazhensky and Doctor Bormentals really created the Sharikovs! But not from dogs, but from simple and honest Russian people. A zemstvo teacher, engineer, agronomist, doctor came to the peasants, workers, children, and sowed the seeds of atheism and other "progressive" teachings. Should we be surprised at the tragedy of the same nobility and intelligentsia? Everything happened according to the Gospel. “But whoever seduces one of these little ones who believe in Me, it would be better for him if they hung a millstone around his neck and drowned him in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18: 6).

In the storms of the twentieth century. several sorts of ideological falsifications have been added to historical science. On the one hand, they are communist, denigrating and distorting the pre-revolutionary reality. But anti-Soviet ones also appeared - distorting and denigrating Soviet reality. And for the Western powers, the Soviet Union remained the same rival as the Russian Empire, ideology played a purely applied role. Therefore, old fakes were extracted from the archives of past centuries, and new ones were composed, for example, during the period Cold war urgently required forgeries of the history of the Second World War. The political order demanded to turn the USSR from an ally and savior of the world back into a monster, tantamount to defeated fascism.

As for our era, not only ideological barriers have disappeared in research and descriptions of the past. Disappeared - or rather, were roughly hacked, moral barriers. Barriers of conscience, responsibility, elementary decency. Any restraining mechanisms have collapsed, and streams of misinformation are whipping at people like from a bursting sewer pipe. The main directions of these flows are the following:

1) "Classic" falsifications that have migrated from past centuries. That the Russians are aggressors, a constant threat to civilized mankind, by their nature they are dark barbarians, savages, drunkards, etc.

2) The same Russophobic falsifications, picked up by the domestic intelligentsia and transplanted onto domestic soil, gave rise to another direction - a complex of national inferiority and self-deprecation - in Russia, everything is not like people, we do not know how to live well and culturally. And we can only repent for the past. By the way - in front of whom? No, not before the Lord! Foreigners are invited to be judges of our repentance! Ideological enemies who carried out the described sabotage.

3) Ideological falsifications, both Soviet and anti-Soviet, were further developed. They seem to be opposite, irreconcilable. But an interesting feature can be noted. Both of them fit perfectly into one channel, anti-Russian and anti-Russian. The detractors of our history make excellent use of both at the same time. Relying on communist arguments, they cheat tsarist Russia, and for gritting Soviet Russia use the arguments of rabid critics of communism.

4) Key figures in Russian history are becoming the preferred targets for forgers. St. Vladimir the Baptist, St. Andrew Bogolyubsky, St. Alexander Nevsky and others. One can even reveal a pattern, the more this or that figure has done for the country, the thicker and more persistently they try to denigrate him.

5) In the same way, key events in Russian history are attacked. The priority in this respect belongs to the Great Patriotic War. And this is also quite understandable. In order to slander Russia, it is necessary, first of all, to obscure and cross out its brightest, most grandiose feat, which saved the entire civilized world. If you do not cross it out, then in other respects the slander will "stick" badly, sympathy will remain.

6) Nationalist falsifications about the enslavement of the Baltic States, Ukraine, the Caucasus by the Russians were given new life, Central Asia... And also pseudo-nationalistic - attempts to further dismember our people. For example, the recognition of the Cossacks as a separate nation, and a nation also enslaved by the Russians. The development of these theories was still carried out by Kaiser's Germany, then by Nazi Germany, then they were considered useful and suitable by American ideologists, and now the fruits of their joint creativity are walking around Russia with might and main.

7) There were also theories opposite to Westernism. An example is Eurasianism. The Mongol-Tatar yoke is denied, the Horde khans are recognized as almost Russian tsars, the symbiosis of Russia and the Asian peoples is announced. Theories, at first glance, are friendly to our country, calling together to confront common enemies and common slanderers. Although if you look at it, you get an analogue of the same Westernism with a change of sign. The independent role of the Russian people is belittled, it is offered a model of subordination, not to the West, but to the East.

8) New in our era has become the direction of falsification, seemingly patriotic, pro-Russian - neo-pagan. Surfacing sensational works about a certain primordial wisdom, ancient Slavic traditions and civilizations. But in reality, such theories also turn out to be extremely dangerous and destructive. By giving rise to false traditions, they aim at undermining the true traditions of Russia, the Orthodox.

9) Finally, there appeared directions of "historical terrorism" aimed at exploding the very foundation of historical science. Most vivid example- the so-called "New Chronology".

The processes of introducing historical forgeries at the present stage have certain features:
- The impact is massive and clearly targeted. The most dangerous fakes are backed up by very solid sources of funding and are splashing out in huge circulations, filling the shelves, as was the case with the works of the notorious traitor Rezun (who dared to take the pseudonym "Suvorov"), with the works of Fomenko-Nosovsky.

The Internet opens up even greater opportunities for the spread of fakes - here anything is poured out. The swamp of the Internet attracts and drowns young people in the first place.

Fundamental historical science does not provide real resistance to falsifications. Its possibilities are limited, funding leaves much to be desired, circulation of academic publications is scanty. However, Russian historians themselves are often in captivity of falsifications: all the same Soviet or anti-Soviet, or Westernizing. Suffice it to recall the school history textbook, which argued that the turning point of World War II was not the Battle of Stalingrad at all, but the battle of the Americans with the Japanese at Midway Atoll.

However, scientific methods of struggle, familiar and traditional for past eras, now, as a rule, do not give results. Falsification can be refuted, exposed, but it continues to spread, as if nothing had happened. The determining factor is not logic at all, not proof of correctness, but the impact of the mass.

If you summarize all the directions of falsification, you can see where they lead. Russian people are taught to think that they did not have a great and glorious past. That the achievements of the ancestors and the name of the Russian can only be ashamed of. The younger generation is turned away from their native history. Say, there is nothing good there! Stink, filth and shame, why go there?

A mess of all sorts of sensations and pseudo-sensations, at first glance, plays the opposite role. It attracts to itself, arouses an increased interest in history. But in reality it also disgusts. Carried away and played enough with delusional sensations, people get tired of them. And it grows cold towards history as such - if everything is incomprehensible in it, it is redrawn this way, then is it worth it to climb into this confusion?

The results are disappointing. The overwhelming majority of today's youth do not know their history at all and are not interested in it. At the All-Russian training camp of military-patriotic clubs, I had the opportunity to examine the 16-17 year old finalists of the historical competition. The answers were capable of terrifying: “Which prince won the battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi? - Yuri Dolgoruky "," Who fought against Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field? - Khan Batu "," What tsar built the Russian military fleet? - Nicholas II ".

If any of the young people are still interested in history, he is recruiting completely insane fiction in the landfills of the Internet, television and yellow literature. For example, at the Monino cadet school, at a meeting with veterans of the Great Patriotic War, one of the cadets himself volunteered to tell what he knew about these events. His story drove the veterans into complete shock: “The war began on September 1, 1939, when Stalin attacked Poland. The Germans intervened, they moved so that ours scrambled to Moscow. Then the Americans landed troops in Belarus and straightened out the situation ... "

What happens? And it turns out that Russia is trying to destroy its past. They are destroying Russia itself, but moreover, they are trying to erase the former power from their memory! Erase from the memory of descendants, and therefore of all mankind. Generally uprooting our country from the face of the earth, as if it never existed. However, the past is inseparable from the present. If a people breaks away from their historical, spiritual and cultural roots, it collapses and perishes. Tear off the grass from the roots - it will wither and scatter in the wind. Tear off the people - it will be the same. People will remain, but nothing else binds them together. They are no longer a historical community. They dissolve in other nations, change their language and faith. Or, let's say, they get drunk, die out. Alas, history knows such cases.