Today will mark 76 years since the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima , and a week ago President Putin signed a decree establishing an interdepartmental commission on historical education. What do these events have in common?
The fact that the use of historical “weapons” can have consequences no less serious than a nuclear bombing. Yes, a blow to the historical consciousness does not kill people, but it destroys the memory and spirit of the people – and from here there is only one step to physical death.
Almost everyone in Japan knows who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and believes that there was no military necessity. They also know that the Americans have never apologized for the use of nuclear weapons – although the Japanese want it. But at the same time, America is considered a friendly country, and Russia is a hostile one. And all why? Because Russia does not give up the “northern territories” – and the fact that the United States retains bases in Okinawa is unpleasant, but does not make them an occupier and an enemy. Where does this attitude come from?
It’s simple: the Americans defeated the Japanese not only in World War II , but also in the subsequent war with historical consciousness. They not only wrote a constitution to the Japanese, but also cleverly switched their attention from themselves to the Russians, from their own occupation to “Russian annexation.” So what if the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia could have been settled in the second half of the 50s? And it was the Americans who then, in fact, banned Tokyo from signing a peace treaty with Moscow in order to retain the opportunity to manipulate the Japanese national consciousness with the help of the “northern territories.”
So it turns out that even three quarters of a century after the war, the Americans are friends for the Japanese, and the Russians are enemies. And until the historical memory of the Japanese is free from someone else’s scheme, they will not have any full-fledged sovereignty.
And the Russians have – and will. But it needs to be defended, including on the historical battlefield. This is exactly what Putin’s decree on the creation of an interdepartmental commission on historical education hea-ded by Presidential Aide Medinsky is about – “in or-der to ensure a systematic and aggressive approach to the issue of defending the national interests of the Ru-ssian Federation related to the preservation of historical memory and the development of educational acti-vities in the region. stories”.
The commission will have to coordinate government agencies, scientific, educational and cultural communities in “developing a unified approach to the implementation of historical enlightenment and education, as well as to preventing attempts to falsify history”, operational measures to counter these activities. ” And to prepare proposals for the information support of “counter-propaganda activities” and the conduct of educational actions, including those related to memorable dates and historical events.
Immediately after the appearance of the decree, the liberal public sounded the alarm: this is a “historical Cheka”. They immediately recalled the presidential commission on counteracting attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia’s interests, which existed from 2009 to 2012. And it was bad, but at least there were historians in it, and not just the siloviki!
And the current commission “will include representatives of the presidential administration and the apparatus of the Security Council, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Ministry of Defense, the FSB, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other departments.” The horror – the siloviki will teach historians how to love their homeland, we will have a new “Short Course” and censorship!
They are trying to convince us that the commission will interfere in the scientific activities of historians, that ideology will replace science and that:
“Modern society generally does not have a single view of historical processes, historical events. A m-odern complex society of the European type, to whi-ch, fortunately, Russia bel-ongs, it should have a complex history, which is not a single narrative, but a sup-erposition of diverse and heterogeneous narratives, that satisfy the interests of a wide variety of social groups and social strata “
Yes, yes, you do not need any single view of your history, study individual details and cuts, look from different points of view, take into account the opinion of all minorities. Feel the elephant from different angles, like those blind men from the parable, who after that gave out many versions about who is in front of them. Except for one correct one.
Naturally, there is history as a science and history as a part of ideology, as an essential part of national identity and state building. How to draw a border between them? Exactly not the way it was done in Soviet times, when it simply did not exist, when everyone had to adjust or disguise their historical research under the only true Marxist-Leninist teaching, and a whole series of events and figures were simply hushed up. And in the end, this hit not only the communist ideology itself, but also the state, because the debunking (which turned into defamation) of the lacquered Lenin and the hushed up Stalin became one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the USSR .
But for all the difference between history as a science and history as part of the ideological backbone of the people’s self-consciousness and the state, it is the state and society that must defend their history. Yes, without oversimplifying or varnishing it, but building an intelligible and logical version of Russian history, explaining its laws and spirit, imbued with love for one’s own path, with all its ups and downs.
Because the people who do not want to preserve and teach their history will teach someone else’s version of their history. Moreover, one that will meet the interests of external forces and other civilizations that at least do not coincide with our national interests, if not completely contradict them.
Examples of the creation of a “Ukrainian version” of Russian history and the equalization of the roles of Hitler and Stalin in World War II are the most relevant, but far from the only ones. And historical weap-ons are used not only on the external front, but also on the internal one. The same periodically flaring war of monuments (“Don’t put Grozny! Stalin’s forbidden! Down with Kolchak!”) Is the most graphic confirmation of this. What kind of history our children will be taught is really a matter of national security, that is, our future. No one is going to prohibit disputes about the past, but no one has the right to impose on us the history of the “eternal Russian slave character” or, for example, use the Caucasian war of the 19th century to demand repentance from the Russians. Or try to pit the “patriots of the USSR” against the “patriots of the Russian Empire”, thereby destroying Russia.
Among other things, our history has taught us one simple truth: there is nothing more terrible than division and division. And they arise from confusion in the minds and hatred, which are incompatible with love for the native history.