Historians to the zone

The commission created by President Dmitry Medvedev will make decisions that will have a recommendatory, even might say, methodological nature. It should explain to the authorities and all of us how to deal with the falsifiers of history. But it is difficult for me to introduce an official who will not listen to such recommendations and will not prohibit the corresponding historical work. One fact of the existence of a commission of this kind will enormously strengthen the self -censorship of both the media, and publishers, and all those writing on historical topics. Moreover, this applies not only to the Great Patriotic War, but also of the entire Russian history.

The law on the protection of victory in the Great Patriotic War with its indignant application may fall on almost all historians of the Second World War, including the most well -meaning and patriotic . Some seducts in their scriptures, if desired, can always be found. I’m not talking about those historians who, for example, doubt the official figures of Soviet military losses, claim that Stalin himself prepared an attack on Germany, insist that the Soviet Union occupied and annexed the Baltic states, or risk writing about the crimes of the Red Army in Germany and other European countries in 1944-1945.

The commission swung throughout Russian history, from Rurik to Putin. And its composition leaves no doubt what will be the view of the historical path of our people and the state. The commission is sharply dominated by officials, it is not without reason that its head of the presidential administration, Sergei Naryshkin , as if representing an ancient boyar clan, heads it. I wonder if it will be considered falsification of history, for example, criticism of the role of boyars Naryshkin during the reign of Peter the Great? But jokes aside. There are the ranks of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the chief of the General Staff, representatives of the FSB, the Security Council and the foreign intelligence service.

I suspect that now historians will have to write that Russia and the USSR, throughout the thousand-year history, waged exceptionally fair wars, as the head of the Soviet Institute of Military History once stated, general and academician Pavel Zhilin. The presence in the commission of the ex-president of Chechnya may means that the commission will pay especially close attention to works on the history of the North Caucasus and especially the current Russian-Chechen conflict.

Among the few professional historians in the commission, the director of the Institute of General History of Academician Alexander Chubaryan , the director of the Institute of Russian History of the Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrei Sakharov and the ex-deputy of the State Duma from the Rodina Bloc Natalia Narochnitskaya , can be mentioned. True, Sakharov and Chubaryan in position are more likely officials than historians. Although they can bring to the work of the commission and some of their sympathies and antipathy regarding specific historical plots. For example, Sakharov today is a convinced anti -Normanist, a supporter of nothing to do with science that does not have the Baltic concept of the origin of the Varangians.

And it may very well be that the commission will decide, for example, that Rurik came from the Baltic tribes. And all the Normanists, as well as supporters of other versions of the origin of the Varangians, will be closed. Or it will be a high commission to argue that Ivan the Terrible was a psychopath and the oprichnins were not in general as a social phenomenon, but there was only a pathology of the king’s personality (this idea was as if being held in the series “Ivan the Terrible” Andrei Eshpai , which was just shown on the “Russia” television channel). Then supporters of the theory that Grozny and oprichnina is the brightest manifestation of all -terrible Russian autocracy, and not a consequence of the manic inclinations of the autocrat, will be forced to plug the mouth. The main thing is that the authorities concern about the era of Grozny is not to think that we are now a new oprichnina, brilliantly sparrowed in the novels of anti-science novels by Vladimir Sorokin .

As for Natalia Narochnitskaya, who is engaged in the history of the Second World War, it turns out to be a much greater Stalinist than Medvedev and Putin, and fully justifies the policy of the Generalissimo on the eve of the day and during the war, insists that the fascists and their accomplices prevailed in the Baltic states, and the Red Army simply had no other way out, except to annex Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia To the Soviet Union (if necessary - repeat!).

One of the few historians in the commission, Nikolai Svanidze , immediately called it a means of struggle against the politicization of history. In fact, Nikolai Karlovich, both in his proximity to the Kremlin and in the former posts in the civil service, is primarily not a journalist and historian, but an official and politician. And he knows very well that the commission was created just in order to make the story of the instrument of the policy of the present Russian government, which, however, has long been . It is interesting that, judging by the name, the commission is going to fight only with those falsifications of domestic history, which damage the interests of the Russian state. It turns out that with those falsifications that serve the Russian state, the commission will not only not fight, but will encourage them in every possible way.

It is characteristic that the official certificate of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, published in 1948, was called “Falsifiers of History”. There, without a shadow of embarrassment, the existence of secret protocols was denied and proved that the Molotov Pact - Ribbentrop was our response to the Munich Agreement and the only and legal means of ensuring the security of the USSR. Interestingly, now every departure from such an interpretation will also be considered falsification of history? And what about secret protocols, repeatedly published already on copies from Soviet archives? Or again, back to the practice of denying their existence, recognizing this practice by the falsification necessary for the needs of the state?

And in general, what to do with the fact that the point of view on the same historical events can fundamentally change with the introduction into the circulation of new sources and the emergence of new philosophical and historical theories, with the emergence of new ideologies in society? In order for the commission and the law to act, it will simply be necessary to freeze historical thought. And at the same time, introduce total censorship. In all likelihood, first, all school and university history textbooks will pass through the commission, it is no coincidence that the commission ensures the Ministry of Education.

And when it turns out that in most popular historical books, articles and monographs they write not at all that in the highest approved textbooks, they will have to introduce censorship on the whole literature, including artistic, so that new “days of the guide” and “icebreakers” do not appear. And there, before the restoration of totalitarianism, there will be only one step. Only in this way it will be possible to ensure state control not only over historical science and journalism, but also over the entire humanitarian sphere in Russia. It is clear that no government loves when they are criticized. This is characteristic not only for Russia, but also for Western democracies. But in Russia, unlike European countries, now there is no strength that could counteract the desire of the authorities for state unanimity. Now it should apply to Russian history.

If the commission begins to work actively, and does not remain only on paper, and the Duma will accept the corresponding law (and in the fact that it will accept, there is almost no doubt), and it will begin to put into practice, domestic history will become a purely state business, and only people, which are extremely loyal to the existing authorities and are ready to conduct a “right” look approved on top of Russia, will be able to do it very soon.

About historical science as such, about the criticism of sources, the existence of alternative interpretations of the same historical events and historical sources will have to be forgotten seriously and for a long time. Until the authorities are forced to admit that historians themselves should fight falsifications, not officials, which, in particular, are the director of academic institutions. Fight not with the help of prohibitions and repression, but by publishing new sources, new interpretations, creating new, more convincing theories. To fight, among other things, for the state-patriotic view of history, for a sober and objective analysis of the historical path of Russia. It is necessary to create only scientifically convincing and popularly written books and articles that will read more people than the works of “falsifiers” and “revisionists”. Everything is different - from the evil one.