Horizon of expectations

If it were not for Alexander Nevsky, who surrendered Rus' to the Horde for selfish reasons and practically without outside pressure, our country probably would not have been isolated from Europe for centuries. If the centralization of the Russian lands had been headed not by Moscow, but by Vilna (in the 14th century the Lithuanian state was 9/10 Russian and Orthodox), we would have got the same Russia, but with a different capital and with a slightly different—slightly more democratic—social system . If Pavel Pestel had managed to reach an agreement with Nikita Muravyov in 1824, the Decembrist uprising would have taken place at a different time and with completely different results. If Mikhail Gorbachev had not relied so much on the possibilities of "managed democracy", many of the troubles that befell Russia in the 1990s could have been avoided. If in 1997 the oligarchs Gusinsky and Berezovsky, on the one hand, and Potanin, Kokh and Chubais, on the other, had not quarreled over a large block of shares in Svyazinvest, wild "oligarchic capitalism" would probably have already started by the beginning of 2000 -x would be transformed into "capitalism with a human face".

A detailed analysis of all these "ifs" is devoted to the book of historians Irina Karatsuba, Igor Kurukin and Nikita Sokolov "Choosing Your History", the genre of which the authors themselves define as "anti-textbook".

"Official" history traditionally describes only past events, neglecting the "horizon of expectations" - this is how historians call the range of alternatives that the participants in the events had. Under Alexander I and Nicholas I, official historiography in every possible way emphasized the prominent role of prince-rulers (including the most odious ones), while denying the existence of any representative institutions in Russia. Under the Bolsheviks, the situation became completely schizophrenic: on the one hand, the cult of tyrannical revolutionaries flourished, and on the other, admiration for the strong power that these same tyrants personified. Recently, the craving for a “strong hand” has again prevailed in official historical science: the latest textbooks vying with each other invite young Russians to admire the deeds of such, to put it mildly, controversial figures as Alexander Nevsky, Peter I and Joseph Stalin.

The meaning of all these manipulations is transparent: to prove the fatal predetermination, the historical inevitability and, consequently, the legitimacy of the current system. However, no matter what momentary purpose each particular interpretation serves, they all agree on one thing: history in them is presented as a main line, all events of which are subject to some immutable and unambiguous “law”.

Karatsuba, Kurukin and Sokolov decided to dispel the illusion of the "fatal predetermination" of history. “Our task was to show that history is not some predetermined sequence of events,” says Nikita Sokolov. “History is created by people, each of whom acts on the basis of their often unpredictable motives and to the extent of their own ideas about the surrounding reality . Without understanding the choices that specific people had in specific life circumstances, we will never understand the essence of what was happening. That is why in this book we have focused on “forks”—points where history could have gone in a different direction.”

However, one should not think that the book “Choosing Your History” is just another sci-fi with a pretense of scandalousness, designed to debunk the few heroes of Russian history that have not yet been debunked, or, God forbid, science fiction in the genre of “alternative history”. The Anti-Textbook, although written in a popular form, was compiled by professional scholars. The authors tell about what forces acted at the turning points of Russian history, what considerations guided the leaders of these forces, and what would happen if those who actually suffered a defeat took over.

Is there any point in mourning lost historical opportunities today? “But how!” Irina Karatsuba laughs. “In order to learn how to live in peace with our past and stop, finally, reshaping it every ten years, we absolutely need to “clean our attic”. We need to get used to the idea that history does not teach anyone anything, but at the same time, every day, sometimes, without realizing it, we are forced to make a historical choice by voting for one or another project of the future. Think of our book as a kind of attic cleaning!”

To facilitate the process of "general cleaning", historians give readers details that ordinary textbooks are bashfully silent about. For example, a few strokes to the portrait of Peter I. The main Russian educator and philanthropist, the most civilized of our monarchs, did not tolerate unprofessionalism in anything: once he even had to point out to the executioners the errors in their work - “the nostrils are taken out little, but it is necessary” to the bone." And Pyotr Alekseevich also liked to amuse his overseas friends-rulers - in order to please the Duke of Florence, the tsar once ordered to catch in the tundra six "Samoyeds" - Nenets "with a worse face" as a gift. Agree, such examples somewhat change the canonical image of the tsar-reformer, one of the main icons of official modern historiography, and judging by the shape and size of the monument by Zurab Tsereteli, the direct predecessor of Vladimir Putin in building the notorious “power vertical”.