In society

The war of lies

February 27, 2009 Leonid Radzikhovsky

Army General Shoigu wanted to emphasize his aggressive-new way of thinking in the corresponding audience. And he found an adequate form: “And who has a way of thinking less enthusiastic - on trial!”

Well, he completed his task, and then - at least do not dawn.

Who denies that we, under the leadership of the national leader ...

Who denies that Shoigu is the Minister of Emergencies and Hero of Russia ...

Who denies that we, we, we ...

Well, understandable.

But the topic involuntarily touched on an important and very, very sad one-which, however, is often synonyms.

Historians-representatives

“They never lie as much as before the elections, during the war, after hunting” (Bismarck).

But since war is also a choice (between the war and the world), as well as hunting, it is clear that all regarding war is a lie. Before the war, during and after it.

Moreover, the closer and more important the war is - the more dimensionless the lie. There are too many business and personal feelings here.

The Second World War - the record holder for a terrible lie.

And the Second World War - like the core of this war - is flooded with a lie even thicker.

“Lies” is not inventing non -existent events (“volley of Aurora”, “battles on February 23, 18”). No, a lie about the Second World War or the Second World War is, as a rule, only concealment, non -verification of some facts, circumstances, and therefore distortion, reformatting the whole picture. As the same Bismarck said, "tell the truth, only the truth - but not the whole truth." This is in textbooks. But the main source of knowledge of society about history in general, and about the war in particular - of course, cinema, TV. Everything is quite simple here - "the dexterity of hands and no fraud." Cinema for this is necessary to show the "artistic truth of the war" in the style of Hollywood socialist realism. It doesn’t matter how the war was going on - it is enough to boast of the feats of a specific strong nut ... So the last 10,000 years and the heroic “legends and myths of ancient Greece” are created, which people consider their real history.

Moreover, over the past 20 years, when a muzzle has been removed from historians, a whole gap has arisen between cinema-educational history and historical science. Historians of the Second World War, if not all, then many, can at least today be put on trial. They write about everything-otherwise where did we even know that they were “hiding”, that they “distort”? But there is a non -aggression pact. Historians do not climb with their truth to the people. Want to know something-"Love the book, the source of sorrow." Do not want to relax at the box and have fun.

Prevented harmony: all nations boast of their exploits and do not know (hide, displace) what they should be ashamed of. Mass history is a lie in salvation, and even this is easier - a lie in the name of spiritual comfort.

Is it utopia, is it stupid - is it hopeless to try to pick the truth?

Well, let's take a few obvious topics ...

Jews

The Holocaust, about which Mr. Shoigu said neither to the village, nor to the city.

I will not discuss the malicious lies of the revisionists - neo -Nazis, “denying the Holocaust”, and in fact, cowardly justifying him in the form of mockery over the victims.

But the devil with them, with neo -Nazis. Lies and hypocrisy are enough without them.

The laws on criminal prosecution for the denial of the Holocaust are the belated hypocrisy of Western governments.

With a finger on the finger without knocking for the salvation of the Jews, the Western governments retroactively decided to “put a candle” in the form of laws on the denial of the Holocaust. The laws are good, important as an element of the struggle against anti -Semitism, as an element of delegation of anti -Semitism. But compare: how many words are said about the Holocaust - and how much about the guilt of Western countries that it became possible! A modest silence reigns on the last question ... But the law “On the criminal persecution of those who accuse the Western governments of silent aiding by the Holocaust” - such a law seemed to be not adopted ... What is a timid silence? Or is the topic not interesting?

There are a lot of lies-to-capacity and the Jews themselves.

Alas, in this most terrible goal of the history of the Jewish people and, probably, in the most terrible page in the universal history of human madness there are many words, which Jews are not only painful, but also ashamed ... As always, they willingly write about heroes, but do not want to write about cowards and villains. And they were, there were a lot of them - Jews who worked for the Germans who reported to their ghetto policemen, elders in concentration camps, etc. Yes, they were in a hopeless position - they betrayed with a loop on the neck. Yes, they were also destroyed. Yes, let him condemn the one who is sure that he himself would find the strength to behave differently ... All this. This story is so prohibitively terrible that it is impossible to condemn - being in completely different conditions, that horror cannot be understood. But - it’s a shame anyway ...

And another topic is the shameful conformism of the Jewish communities of the United States, England, where the Jewish elites were too afraid for their well -being and did not do everything they could help their brothers in Europe ...

And it is clear that Jewish-historians prefer to be silent about these things, Christians-historians, too, the only one who willingly reasons these topics are neo-Nazis, heirs and fans of those who created concentration camps. Another illustration of not only human abomination, but also the eternal question: where is the line between the selfish lie - and the lie in salvation.

The French and the Germans

And the history of France, the Czech Republic, the countries of Eastern Europe (including the Baltic)?

As far as I understand, one book in France, telling about the defeat of the French army, surrender, collaboration, accounts for a hundred books about resistance, de Gaulle, etc.

De Gaulle is the main symbol, the main national hero of France.

Here the degree of “exaggeration” of his role in the war is about the same as that of the Poles-about the “captain of Kloss” from the series of the same name ... When Keitel, signing the surrender, saw a representative of France, he found the strength to arouse: “Ah! It turns out we lost France too? "

Yes ... War - surrender - occupation - shameful page in the history of France. But since in the history of France the shameful pages itself cannot be, by definition, this page is simply ... cleaned up! The French schoolboy associates the war with resistance, and not with mass and meek obedience to the invaders. Approximately like in “17 moments of spring”, where Edith Piaf with his song goes against the background of shots with de Gaulleus - and is almost a heroine of resistance! And she sang in Parisian taverns in front of German officers ...

Are the French right, having come up with a national myth for self -toss? Probably-why do they have an inferiority complex ... But is it really necessary for something? Or-completely, not needed?

Or take a criminal prospective propaganda of “their SS” in the Baltic countries. After all, everything that our “state -facilities” speak about this pronounced propaganda is the holy truth. As the truth is the fact that the Baltic, Ukrainian, etc. Nationalists talk about the Red Army ...

Are they right-not by self-propelled, but by a large national account-Baltic states and Ukrainians, poetizing their SS men? "Well, to do it, since poetry is more - there is no one!" National myth is needed, and there is nothing more to sculpt from it. But maybe building your national myth on a deceitful and bloody swamp, they will fall into it?

German lie. A rare case of double silence.

On the one hand, German textbooks, mass culture, etc. Of course, in spite of any repentance, the scale of the German people “in all this” - the Holocaust, slave labor, the robbery of Europe, the horrors created not only by SS, but also in parts of the Wehrmacht ... They will at all be silent the degree of moral corruption of the German nation.

Such a silence of shameful sides in the order of things. Everything is like everyone else.

An unusual other. German textbooks, the media, mass culture - as far as I can judge by expert assessment - after almost 70 years they are silent about what the Germans themselves survived. For example, about what was happening when the Germans evicted from Poland, from Sudet. They do not want to incite revanchist passions, to blow up consent in Europe ... Political correctness and political calculation require - it is better to keep silent in salvation, it is necessary to "let the pan cool." For 70 years, she never cooled down ...

The Germans still know their guilt-the guilt of the aggressor and the occupier. And they do not consider themselves entitled to focus on those, to put it mildly, “injustices”, which in revenge created with them. This is reasonable, it is noble. But it is impossible to call the resulting “full” and “objective” picture.

The Germans are silent or they speak in passing-again, as far as I can judge by those who live in Germany-and that the Red Army was doing in 1945. The Soviet film “The Father of the Soldier” showed how the Soviet soldier cares for the German vine, which was broken by our tank, everyone remembers the warrior with the girl in her arms in Treptov Park.

But the rumor is noisy, the legends are noisy (partly they described Solzhenitsyn in the “Feature of the Winners”). These legends talk about another attitude of warriors towards "German girls." Yes, Goebbels lied that the “Mongols” would pass with fire and sword, destroy all the Germans: “Take a blond woman - she is your prey.” Goebbels lied ... But how much?

The poor Soviet peasants in military uniform first saw rich European houses. The houses of those who attacked us, burned our homes, killed, raped ... Yes, and the German ... Well, where the war, murder, there and violence with robbery - I suppose, it didn’t start with Budanov, they didn’t end up ... Of course, not everyone raised it, not everyone raped, it is quite possible that such rumors are very exaggerated and fateful fame forward. How was it really? But what is "actually"? Statistics, one must think, no one led ... And indeed the topic is taboo. The Germans do not want to incite their revanchist emotions. Well, we have it all the more, stutter - they will tear off your head.

And again I do not know: is this a silence - for salvation? To save whom? Or is it a selfish distortion of a real picture? The digging of such a truth, the search for such skeletons in the closet-do someone need it? "Truth" ... and would not have gone such "truth-seekers" and to such and such a mother! " And such an answer is also true!

Russians

Was Stalin an attack on the Germans in the 41st? If “yes”, then it is clear what he was shaking so, was afraid to at least “provoke Hitler” so that he would not upset his plans ...

Or is it a lies of Goebbels and Suvorov, another photo monitoring?

An ordinary military film about the 41st year. Our soldiers with rifles - yes to German tanks. Now, not only in special, but also in mass books, this obvious lie is completely exposed-something, and the Germans had much less equipment than that of the Red Army by June 22. And the ability to fight, control the troops and just a fighting spirit is much more. And not all of ours fell (surrendered!) In captivity wounded, surrounded, in a hopeless position, etc. They scattered - as historians write, entire military units scattered, having lost control, throwing equipment.

And was Stalin wrong so, having shot the command of the Western Front in the 41st year? These are not crazy shooting-37. Yes, probably, the command of the front, judge them at least some sane court, would be justified or escaped with the deprivation of shoulder straps. But after all, in France, the generals did not shoot in vain and they, having removed uniforms, peacefully walked around the occupied Paris ... The execution of ten generals mortally frightened 1000 others - although they did not write about it in the “Red Star”, but everyone found out! Of course, Stalin was supposed to begin to shoot himself, Tymoshenko, Zhukov - the main culprits of the disaster, this is true. But, firstly, the maniac saduges do not shoot, except with fear of the inevitable execution (see Stalin's spiritual brother-Hitler). Secondly, the army with the shot chief chief will it be? Thirdly, the execution of the People’s Commissar of Defense and the head of the General Staff could only strengthen panic in the army and the country. And fourthly-Zhukov was still useful: "The motherland to the saved, aloud to say."

Here historians write about one and a half million of our soldiers who fought in auxiliary (and not only!) Parts of the German army (the "Vlasovites" have nothing to do with it). Is this figure true? But even if exaggerated - anyway, the scale of betrayal was huge, unprecedented in any previous war of Russia with the West. In the 41st, Hitler hoped-according to Lenin-“to turn the imperialist war into a civil war”, he hoped that the Russian people after the first powerful German strokes would rebel against “Jews, Commissars, Stalin” and bring Russia to the Germans on a dish. The calculation failed - a fact. But why did you fail? We saw the chronicle: the Russian old woman-peasant baptizes the fighters of the Red Army-the Savior. But there is another chronicle: the Russian peasants baptize the fighters of the German army - the deliverers from the Communists and the collective farms ... The Russian Orthodox Church blessed the Red Army - but the foreign church blessed the German army, and the priests in churches opened by the Germans - who prayed for?

So to what extent the Nazi calculation to blow up Russia from the inside failed due to patriotism, and in which due to fear of the NKVD? And does this mean that the NKVD saved Russia, that if Russia were not such a palack regime, then it would collapse and fall apart - like France, like Poland, like tsarist Russia, finally, which the Germans were guided by? And the defeated Russia would become exactly the “country of slaves, the country of gentlemen”-Russian slaves-miners from the German gentlemen-surgeons! So what: Thanks to the NKVD, Stalin and Beria? (The usual liberal answer “may not Stalin, then there would have been no war”-it somehow does not convince me very much. And finally, let's say, for example. But the war has already happened, so in the 41st who saved? Isn't it absolutely inhuman cruelty of the Soviet fighter system?)

There is no answer to these questions. Equally unpleasant, uncomfortable for all - Stalinists, anti -Stalinists ...

And again and again - is it necessary to talk about it on TV at all, discuss it in schools, embarrassing the souls of people?

Z0 million civilian citizens

Repressed peoples ...

Who is such a psycho today that he will begin to seriously answer the question: is it true that there was the mass cooperation of these same peoples (well, of course, not every person is personally!) With the Germans? So it was - or was it? And if it was, then what would the authorities do? Leave potentially “dangerous peoples” in the rear of the army? Or is it all - lies, slander, only justifying state garden cruelty? It was necessary to separate the guilty from the innocent - undoubtedly. But was there such an opportunity? Or maybe there were not as many perpetrators as they were reported to curry up, Beria and Co.?

Who will answer - without ideological hysteria, calmly, with facts in their hands? Don't know. But I think that the arranging answer is in principle impossible: the initial ideological answers to which it is necessary to adjust the conditions of the task is too strong, and for each fact there is a counterFact ... and what to rummage through in hot bush, it is better to enclose them - and go to yourself with a forest ... and it is possible that this is right.

Or here are our losses.

I will not talk about how many Russians were killed and captured (until 1945) for one murdered and captured German. And how many tens of thousands of conscious defectors were (and the Germans had practically no defectors).

I am about something else.

About the victims among the civilians.

No one exactly thought, but they say about tens of millions of dead civilians.

But how did it happen?

Whatever you say about the Germans, but they did not conduct any universal extermination of the population - although, of course, the “struggle against the partisans” meant the tactics of scorched land when entire villages were cleaned (did the USSR fought in Afghanistan, the USA in Vietnam? Otherwise - where did one and a half million killed Afghans, three million killed Vietnamese?).

There is such an answer: these millions died mainly as a result of bombing and shelling before the offensive. And supposedly, most of the bombing and artillery shots fall-not because, of course, that the Germans “spared the population” (!!!), but simply because they too quickly captured huge pieces of the territory-in a matter of months of 1941, and we liberated their good two years (1943-1944).

Did someone think that?

And someone is necessary for someone?

And the question: otherwise you could fight? Without destroying millions, or maybe tens of millions (!!!) of their civilians?

The Soviet system of the Gulag defeated (with great assistance to the United States and England) the Nazi system of Auschwitz. And Russia became the field of collision. What to be surprised at dozens of millions of dead ...

And again the question.

And another system - could you deal with the Nazi system?

Moreover, the stake was not “victory in the war” - but the existence of Russia as a country, Russians as a nation, but ultimately - all modern civilization, which they wanted to conquer and destroy the “new Huns”.

So what: Long live the executioner, a serial killer, an “effective maniac” and the system of mass destruction he led by him?

These are not rhetorical issues at all.

These are questions that, it seems to me, in principle there is no answer.

Because there are questions that there are no answers.

Unresolved questions - as they say, the latter.

And when there is no answer, it is replaced by silencing and multi -colored lies.

Lying is selfish, for those who are lying.

But maybe this is a lie to save those to whom they lie, from whom they hide?

“Do not wake a sleeping dog” - Better accept the law on criminal liability for trying to wake this dog.

“I am walking along the carpet, you go - while you are lying, we are going - while the time, you are going - while you are lying.”

I can’t find an honest answer: who needs the truth about the war?

Может быть, единственный ответ примерно такой: все-таки если бы людям рассказали, мордой ткнули в весь этот АБСОЛЮТНЫЙ УЖАС, без голливудской патоки и футбольно-патриотической лжи — может быть, тогда что-то и правда изменилось бы в сознании. И люди (большинство нормальных, хороших людей) переступило бы через бездумные детские «геройские мифы» и приблизились к осознанию ПАЦИФИЗМА как естественной нормы человеческой жизни. Кстати, пацифизма не только во время войны, но и в мирных человеческих отношениях…

Или это тоже глупая утопия, типа «подставь правую щеку»? Ты-то подставишь — вот и получишь…

No. I don't know the answer. ЗАЧЕМ стремиться «к правде во пагубление»? Или бывает «правда во спасение»? Как же она выглядит?..

Фотоматериалы с сайта www.ushmm.org