What is the commission, the creator? ...

In the 90s, together with several prominent St. Petersburg figures of culture and science (D. Granin, B. Strugatsky, etc.), I published an open letter to President Yeltsin about the atmosphere of crime, which then overwhelmed the country. There was no reaction. Now the crime is smaller, but you do not know where to expect a greater threat - from criminals or from police officers and generally from security forces. The security forces who are now leading to our state are covered not only in oil and gas owning, but also to dominance over the thoughts of citizens. They want to own not only the present and future, but also our past. They take the courage to dictate to scientists how to do science, and invade history.

If I believed in the effectiveness of letters to the president, then I would probably compile such a message by collecting a certain number of signatures of historians, and simply educated people. Together we would write something like the next.

Dear Mr. President!

The decree signed by you on the creation of the “Commission on Combating attempts to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of Russia” seems to us insufficiently thought out. We want to believe that it is signed by you recklessly and will be canceled. We are convinced that this decree causes great damage to the interests of Russia.

The grounds for this conviction are as follows:

1. The creation of this commission is contrary to Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which reads: "No ideology can be established as state or mandatory." It logically follows that a single version of history cannot be established as such, since in this case it immediately becomes an ideology. The decree proceeds from the idea of ​​the presence of a single, inviolable and “ideologically correct” version of the historical fate of the Fatherland, in relation to which any other versions that do not meet “ideologically correct”, the essence of falsification.

2. The definition of the fact that there is a falsification of history is an extremely difficult task, its solution requires historians of high professionalism, careful and painstaking work. The archive of science contains proven cases of falsification of facts - the Piltdaun skull, the crown of Sitafarn, the “Protocols of the Zion sages”, Vlesova is a book. There are not intentional falsifications, but simply purely erroneous concepts, the absurdity of which none of the specialists is in doubt: “New Chronology” by Fomenko, “Slavic Runnya” by Chudinov. But as soon as the matter concerns the interpretation of genuine facts and evaluating their meaning, it is very difficult to achieve the same obviousness, to separate falsification from an unwanted and objectionable interpretation.

3. It is quite legitimate to create an expert commission under the President to assess the professional level of work of historians (like any other scientists). The established commission, in our opinion, is flagrantly unprofessional. It has only 3 professional historians out of 28 members (occupying high administrative posts); Conventionally, 2-3 more people with historical education and connections in this environment can be classified as historians, well, the rest of the commission’s members are al-Generals and administration officials. It is quite clear that it was not the expert council of scientists discussing scientific problems, but by the administrative body of control over science and dictates of state power aimed at science. Thus, the decree is clearly worth the idea of ​​a revival of censorship.

4. Until now, attempts to represent the domestic history are not what it was in reality - to hide and cover up some facts, to distort others - it came mainly from state power. It was she who hid the crimes of Stalin and his minions against humanity, countless falsifications related to political processes, Katyn business.

Fresh in memory and attempts - recently - to introduce Stalin as an “effective manager” (the manager of the company would be good to lead her to success only by some indicators, having killed and tortured a significant part of its composition, hungry for the other part and dooming to wretched, a beggar existence of the third; the next such manager is praising in North Korea - whether it is not invited?). Member of the commission Sergei Markov is known for his statement: to deny that Stalin was an effective manager, albeit cruel, shamelessly. The original idea of ​​conscience at the member of the commission!

It turns out that it is not historians who need to be controlled by such a state commission, and the state policy itself in this area needs to control the public.

5. In the very name of the commission, an ambiguity is concluded, which issues a failure of its plan. The commission is designed to "counteract attempts to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of Russia." This wording implies that the commission will not counteract attempts to falsify history, if they are not to the detriment of the interests of Russia, but for the sake of the “interests of Russia”, as falsifiers (and the collective of the commission?) Understand them? No wonder this commission was already universally nicknamed the "Falsification Commission."

And meticulous readers saw a terrible grammatical mistake in the decree. We are talking about "proposals for the implementation of measures aimed at counteracting attempts to falsify historical facts and events causing damage to the interests of Russia." According to the direct grammatical meaning of this phrase, it follows that the damage is not “attempts by falsification”, but “historical facts and events”. That's not in an eyebrow, but in the eye!

Yes, there is a danger that professional historians can receive and fulfill the “order” for “falsification” of history. But this danger is more proceeding from the very fact of the creation of this commission. We understand that professional historians who are ready to think as “customers” (such were always located) can find there, and even historians who themselves think exactly as “customers” need it (after all, history is a complex science and many of its provisions are debatable, and different ideas come across in discussions). There are historians who are ready to use this commission to approve their “only true” version of history, without participating in exhausting scientific disputes, simply forcing their opponents and expelling them from scientific institutions.

We in no case call for something like that, only on the contrary-to plug the mouths of such scientists. But let them prove their innocence in free discussion by scientific, and not by command-administrative methods.

We believe that the duty of historians is to tell the people the truth, only the truth and the whole truth. We do not need either a embellished story or a story artificially denied. All aspects of domestic and world history should be open and recorded, light and dark. And even calls for compliance with balance are harmful: the professional historian does not have the right to deliberately normalize how much it should be bright in the history of the Fatherland and how many dark. There should be exactly as much as it was in reality - no more or less. And the educational role of history should not be in the creation of the image of a bright and fabricated past for the youth, but in teaching it to draw reasonable conclusions from the past. Both from light and dark. So that there is no place for the previous mistakes. The Germans live in Germany with their bad recent past - and live well! Our past is no worse in any case.

Unfortunately, the decisions of our state power have been erroneous for more than once over the past half a century. The invasion of Afghanistan was a rough mistake, the consequences of which are still felt. The one -time abolition of benefits was erroneous: I had to reverse when hundreds of thousands of pensioners took to the streets. These mistakes could have been avoided if the country had a real opposition and important decisions were pre -wide discussion.

Hundreds of thousands of historians will not go outside: they are more dependent than pensioners. But historians will think apart with you. And this is the variety of no commission to reunite. In the Anti -Utopia, Orwell were analogues of your commission - the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of History. Do you like the role of a big brother?

This is what I would offer for signature to my colleagues if I hoped for the effectiveness of appeals. Everyone understands that those who sign such a letter risk the well -being of the administrative bodies, on which too much depends in our country. Nevertheless, colleagues who read this manuscript expressed their readiness to sign such a letter.

The main danger of falsification of history comes from creating this commission. We cannot close our eyes to this. Otherwise, it will be painfully ashamed of children and grandchildren who will grow up and will have the right to ask us: you lived at this time, did you understand how you could keep silent?

L.S. Klein,
Doctor of Historical Sciences

Help from the author

The commission included three professional historians.

Natalia Alekseevna Narochnitskaya - specialist in the history of international relations, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, Dokt. East. Sciences, activist of the conservative movement, a frank apologist Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Compares "liberal" measures to regulate the family with the management of the livestock farm.

Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov is a specialist in the history of foreign policy, ideology and culture of Ancient Russia, and Cor. RAS, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. However, he was not chosen for a regular five -year period, but only for a year and a half. In the institute he was led by, according to many, the Arakcheevsky regime, imposed his point of view as the only permissible, supplanted from the institute of dissenting prominent scientists and even entire sectors. This caused a sharp discontent to the scientific community, and although the remaining employees of the institute voted for the next Directorate of Sakharov almost unanimously, the department of the Russian Academy of Sciences did not approve the election and proposed another candidate. However, the Presidium compromised and, without restoring the election of Sakharov, extended his powers as a director for a year and a half. Now he will be able to transfer the director from the chair to the chair of the censor. By the way, it was Sakharov closely close to the Censor function in Soviet times, leading the State Middle.

Alexander Oganovich Chubaryan is a specialist in the new and recent history of Europe, Acad. RAS, doct. East. Sciences, Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the first rector and president of the State University of Humanities. On public and civic problems, he acted with sound thoughts more than once, but never defended any ideas that are contrary to the current trends of state power. Chubaryan is a hereditary humanitarium: his father O.S. Chubaryan was a prominent library worker and library order.

Two more members of the commission should be noted.

Nikolai Karlovich Svanidze - TV presenter and television journalist, held administrative posts in television management. Since 2003, he has been creating “historical chronicles” that other members of the commission could well declare falsifications.

Vasily Stepanovich Khristoforov -Lieutenant General of the FSB, Head of the Office of Registration and Archival Funds, Dokt. yur. sciences. Since taking office, he published a number of previously closed archival affairs and contributed to the coverage of the Stalinist past of our country.

The composition of the commission under the President of the Russian Federation on countering attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests

• Naryshkin S.E. - Head of the Presidential Administration (Chairman of the Commission)
• Kalina I.I. - Deputy. Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (deputy chairman of the commission)
• Sirosh I.I. - Assistant to the head of the Administration of the Russian Federation (deputy chairman of the commission)
• Demidov I.I. - Head of the Department of the President of the Russian Federation for domestic policy (off. Secretary of the Commission)
• Alkhanov A.D. - Deputy. Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation Busygin A.E. - Deputy. Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation
• Butko E.Ya. - Deputy. Head of Rosobrazia
• Vinokurov S.Yu. - Head of the Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation on Interregional and Cultural Relations with foreign countries
• Dergachev V.V. - Deputy. Director of the FSTEK of Russia, ed. Secretary of the Interdepartmental Commission for the Protection of State Secrets
• Zatulin K.F. - The first deputy. Chairman of the State Duma Committee on the Commonwealth of Independent States and Relations with Compatriots (as agreed)
• Zimakov V.A. - Head of the SVR Service
• Kambolov M.A. - Deputy. head of "Rosnauki"
• Kozlov V.P. - Head of Rosarchiv
• Makarov N.E. - Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - the first deputy. Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation
• Markov S.A. - Deputy. Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Public Associations and Religious Organizations (as agreed)
• Nazarenko V.P. - Deputy. Head of the President of the Russian Federation on Foreign Policy
• Narochnitskaya N.A. - President of the Fund for the Study of Historical Perspective (as agreed)
• Povolko A.B. - Deputy. head of "Rosmolodezh"
• Romanchenko A.Yu. - Deputy. head of "Rospechat"
• Sakharov A.N. - Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (as agreed)
• Svanidze N.K. - Chairman of the Commission on Interethnic Relations and Freedom of Conscience of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation (as agreed)
• Sobolev V.A. - Deputy. Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Titov V.G. - Deputy. Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation
• Torshin A.P. - The first deputy. Chairman of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (as agreed)
• Khristoforov V.S. - Head of the Department of the FSB of Russia
• Chubaryan A.O. - Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (as agreed)
• Shabanov Y.V. - Head of the President of the Russian Federation
• Shipov S.V. - Director of the Department of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia