History lessons

Dear editors!

At one time, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin told Lunacharsky that of all arts, the most important is cinema for us. And now, a hundred years later, which of the sciences is the most important for Russia? We, scientists, will be very difficult to come to an agreement. Physicists, for example, have long been singing at our university: “Only in physics is salt, the rest is zero, and the philologist and chemist are clubs.” Each cooker, in general, praises his swamp.

But there is something that allows us to distinguish the real scientific discipline in the data of concrete historical conditions. This is the attention of the country's leadership to a particular branch of knowledge. And if we look at the matter from this point of view, then the answer is obvious: history. The Constitution of Russia now records that the Russian Federation honors the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland, and ensures the protection of historical truth. Nothing like this about physical, mathematical or biological knowledge is said there. And this is not surprising! After all, powerful spiritual scrapers of the nations cannot be forged in conditions when enemies and the fifth column distort our history, strive to erase historical memory. No wonder Orwell wrote that the one who controls the past controls the future. Therefore, it is necessary by all means to withstand the efforts of enemies and their heads.

Our great president also pays great attention to issues of history, and not only constantly talks about it, but also writes installation articles that set out historical truth. And more recently, on the day of knowledge, he spent a kind of lesson in history for talented children.

And, as usual, giggling and malicious liberals, accustomed to hold the figure in their pockets, could not restrain themselves. The media wrote a lot about the schoolboy from Vorkuta, who corrected Vladimir Vladimirovich, who called the Northern War of the seven years. But one of my colleagues turned out to be even more knowledgeable in the history of Russia than the schoolboy Nikanor Tolstoy, and in a conversation with me began to echid, I am interested in whether the president would be held accountable for distorting historical facts about the defenders of the Fatherland. Like, our president not only mixed up wars, but also distorted the facts from the biography of the great statesman, the military leader and St. Alexander Nevsky. Namely, Putin said that Alexander Nevsky at the age of 19 defeated the dogs-people, while in fact, at the age of 19, he broke the Swedes on the Neva, which later allowed him to call him Nevsky.

The colleague asked if Alexander Nevsky would now be renamed to Alexander Chudski, or maybe they would begin to write in textbooks that in 1240 Alexander Yaroslavich defeated the army of the Livonian order on the Neva and then drove seven miles on the ice of the Gulf of Finland? Of course, I rejected these vile insinuations, and my colleague said that now representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church expressed their readiness to make amendments to the life of Metropolitan Philip after Vladimir Vladimirovich indicated that there was a version that Malyuta Skuratov did not kill, but simply passed by. Or maybe he didn’t even pass.

I did not argue: arguing with liberals is a senseless waste of time. It is clear to me that our president behaves, as usual, very thoughtfully, realizing every step, every word. Obviously, the “errors” made are nothing more than a pedagogical technique called, so to speak, to probe the audience, to check how well she learned the historical material. I have no doubt that according to the results of a meeting with schoolchildren, an order would be issued to improve the study of Alexander Nevsky in schools and state activities - the president personally became convinced that not everything is smooth here.

In the same way, the words about Malyuta Skuratov are said for a reason. In the West, it is now customary to represent Ivan the Terrible with a bloody tyrant. With an obvious relevant anti -Russian political subtext. And the episode with the murder of Malyuta Skuratov, as it were, at the direction of Ivan the Terrible Metropolitan Philip, who raised his voice against lawlessness and oprichniper terror, is one of the elements of the image of the Tyranian Tsar. In fact, Ivan Vasilievich did not stand out with particular cruelty against the backdrop of other European monarchs of that time. Is the Spanish King Philip II, who flooded the Netherlands with the blood of the Netherlands, something more merciful than Ivan the Terrible, who defeated Novgorod? Or the English king Henry VIII, who executed, unlike Ivan, his wives who destroyed the Church and hung thousands of tramps, is more humane? He executed the humanist Thomas Mora, not even for the denunciation of lawlessness, but just for refusing to recognize the king as head of the Church!

Do not giggle, in general, it is necessary, gentlemen are good, but to turn on, think. History lessons need to be comprehended in the right way, especially when great statesmen push us to that!

Your Ivan Ekonomov