Who is falsifying our history?

They went crazy. It is difficult to express otherwise the list of main issues that are going to be discussed at the Kirov regional scientific and practical conference “dedicated to the preservation of the historical memory of the people in the light of the 200th anniversary of the victory in the Patriotic War of 1812” in October of this year.

The conference itself is a useful and necessary thing, of course. But of the seven issues brought up for discussion, more than half are devoted to the problem of historical falsifications:

1) increasing the readiness of teachers and lecturers to counter the falsification of the history of the Patriotic War of 1812 by developing the skills of recognizing attempts at falsification, seeing the main methods of falsification;

2) models of methodological support for schoolchildren in the field of patriotism, countering the falsification of the history of the Patriotic War of 1812;

3) the potential of design and research activities in the field of countering falsifications of the history of the Patriotic War of 1812;

4) the potential of the local history component in the field of countering falsifications of the history of the Patriotic War of 1812.

It's scary to read. What kind of misfortune? Who is encroaching? Who is being trampled on - Alexander, Kutuzov, Barclay, Bagration? Has anyone even heard of this?

However, where the legs come from is clear. In January 2012, Order No. 39 of the Ministry of Education and Science was issued, which supplemented the federal component of state educational standards with the clauses “The danger of falsifying Russia’s past in modern conditions. Falsifying the modern history of Russia is a threat to the country’s national security.”

Moreover, in 2012, 13% of school graduates did not pass the Unified State Exam in history. It should be taken into account that this exam is optional, and it was taken by those who planned to enter universities with the appropriate result. If all graduates took it like mathematics, the result could be not just, but very sad. Here's the problem. We don’t just have to fight against falsifications, rushing to the mills like Don Quixotes, we need to fight for knowledge itself. What to falsify in empty heads? Teaching through concentrations has turned the study of history for schoolchildren into a frantic race with an endless variety of facts flashing by, where there is no time to calmly think and comprehend the material.

Unfortunately, the fashionable word “falsification”, which appeared in relation to our past not without the influence of political preferences, discredits the declared Year of Russian History. Instead of fruitful discussions (and history is a science designed, first of all, to bring to the judgment of modernity the experience of previous eras; this is always a place for different opinions, interpretations), the historical dispute today, like Stalin’s “Short Course” in its time, is creating a social divide - into “friends” and “strangers”. If admiration and enthusiasm shared by the supreme power is patriotism, if criticism and doubt in the official position is falsification.

Historian N. Troitsky regarding the Patriotic War of 1812. made a number of controversial provisions. Among its main reasons, he named the aggressive policy of the Russian Empire at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, the willingness of Alexander I to start a war with Napoleon himself. That the authority of Kutuzov, appointed commander-in-chief on the recommendation of Arakcheev, was initially low among the military; Suvorov, Ermolov, and Raevsky spoke critically of him. That Moscow was burned by the Russians. There was a discussion in the historical magazine Rodina. I am afraid that today many would use the only argument against Troitsky - “falsifier”.

Such opposition is not facts, not logic, not scientific debate, but waving fists and labeling. It has no scientific or practical value.

By the way, V.V. Putin’s statement about the national betrayal committed by the Bolsheviks during the conclusion of a separate peace with Germany in 1918 had a great resonance. I absolutely agree with Zyuganov, who characterized this discovery by the president as “anti-historical” and assessed his words as an attempt to impose “fake discussions on certain extremely ideological issues” on society.

Putin, being a private person, has the right to his own opinion. Like me. Like any graduate who failed the Unified State Exam, for example. However, as a president, he makes such speeches throughout the country and causes historical falsifications, because in any case they will listen to him, regardless of the nonsense he says. But talking about this at a regional conference will probably not be very convenient. Therefore, I would recommend that the organizers leave the topic of falsification alone and focus on other issues that are much closer to the school and also stated.