Scum, two, three ...

The head of the Ministry of Culture Vladimir Medinsky called the "overdled" people leading the discussions about the authenticity of the history of "28 heroes-Panfilov." It is reported by TASS.

"My deepest belief is that, even if this story was invented from beginning to end, even if there were no Panfilov, even if there was nothing, it was a holy legend that could not be touched," the official said. "The very discussion of this topic, in my opinion, is blasphemous."

At the same time, Medinsky admitted that 28 is the number "to a certain extent conditional." “There were 28, 30, 38 of them, maybe 48 out of 130 - we don’t know,” the official remarked further. “And no one knows and never knows. And it does not make sense to find out.”

In July 2015, the State Archive of the Russian Federation placed on his website the digitized report "On 28 Panfilovtsy", prepared in 1948, the main military prosecutor's office of the USSR. It proves that the history of 28 fighters of the Panfilov division, who allegedly stopped the cost of his own life by the German tank attack near Moscow in November 1941, was a newspaper fiction. The director of Gosarchiv Sergey Mironenko called the story of "Heroes-Panfilov" by the myth.

After that, Medinsky threatened Mironenko with dismissal . “There is a question of what archives should deal with,” said the head of the Ministry of Culture. The director of the archive, he remarked, "this is not a writer, not a journalist, not a fighter with historical falsifications."

In March of this year , Mironenko was removed from the post of director - as claimed, at his own request.

In June, Medinsky said that the fight against the falsification of the history of Russia is still relevant, since this is "the struggle for human souls."

Meanwhile, the dissertation council of the University of Ural in Yekaterinburg is considering the imprisonment of the Medine degree of a doctor of historical sciences . The trial was initiated by two scientists-historians and a member of Dissernet. They indicated, in particular, to the gross methodological and factual errors in the work of Medinsky, as well as the fact that in the bibliography of the dissertation there are fragments of bibliography of other people's research.