The falsification of world history has been carried out for several centuries. Falsification of the history of the Great Patriotic War. Lies to destroy

In our previous publications “Moksel Country” (No. 14) and “Non-Russian Russian Language” (No. 12), we talked about the fact that Russia is a Finnish country, not a Slavic one, and a study of the gene pool of the Russian people just conducted by Russian scientists showed that Russians are not Slavs, but Mordovians (“The Face of Russian Nationality”, No. 15).

Where did the completely distorted ideas about the Russian people and the history of Russia come from? When and how did they appear? This article is the answer to these questions.

THE BEGINNING OF FICTION

The falsification of Russian history on a full scale occurred during the reign of Catherine II at the very end of the 18th century. The Empress personally edited the "History of Russia" compiled by her, while correcting historical documents, giving orders for the destruction of some documents and for writing fakes. The need for a global falsification of history at that time was determined by the capture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Western Russia (Ukraine) during the divisions of the Commonwealth.

Among the political tasks were: 1) to somehow justify the acquisition of these completely alien territories for Russia; 2) to suppress the national liberation struggle of Belarusians and Ukrainians - to invent a myth that they allegedly always dreamed of being under the rule of Russia; 3) within the framework of this myth, another myth should have been created - that the Muscovites are Slavs and Rus, and not the Finnish population of Finnish Muscovy; 4) in order to cover the implementation of these tasks, it was necessary to carry out a mass revision of all chronicles and historical documents in the occupied territories in order to correct or destroy them.

To achieve these political goals, it was necessary to solve specific tasks for falsifying history:

1) to create a myth that Kievan Rus, with the advent of the Tatars, suddenly begins to consider Rus (and even the Center of Rus!) Located in the Horde and 1000 kilometers from Rus, the country of Moksel (Moksha), inhabited by Finnish tribes and before that Russia was not considered by anyone;

2) to create a myth about the existence of "Suzdal Rus", although no one before Catherine II knew about the existence of such;

3) to create a myth that Moscow was founded with the participation of the Kiev princes, although before Catherine II, all historians unanimously believed that it was founded at the behest of the Horde Khan after 1257 (then the Tatar-Mongol Empire carried out a census of all settlements and the entire population of the region to tighten taxation, and Moscow was not yet in it);

4) to create a myth that Muscovy is Russia, and the Muscovites are not Finns, but Slavs;

5) to create a myth about some kind of "yoke of the Horde", although before that all historians believed that Muscovy was a reliable stronghold of the Horde in the fight against Russia for three centuries, and then seized power in the Horde under Ivan the Terrible;

6) to create a myth that Dmitry Donskoy fought not for the Horde, but against the Horde.Etc. All key moments in the history of Muscovy were subject to rewriting.

The Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Belinsky in his book The Land of Moksel remarks:

“It was Catherine II, a European-educated person, who, having arrived in the Russian Empire and eventually gaining access to archival primary sources, was horrified, drawing attention to the fact that the entire history of the state rests on verbal epic mythology and has no evidence-based logic. The history of the state was based on the false research of Ivan the Terrible and was in a chaos of lack of evidence and mutually exclusive contradictions.

Could the assertion of the Muscovite Rurikids that Kievan Rus belongs to Muscovy on the grounds that the Muscovite prince emerged from the Kievan Rurik dynasty be considered serious? By that time, there was more than one dynasty in Europe, whose representatives were of the same faith, ruled in different countries, but did not encroach on foreign countries only on this basis. And then the Empress diligently set to work.

You should not think that Catherine II, because of simple disinterestedness, began to "write and streamline" Russian history. Everything was done not without the greatest intent. Indeed, in that long line of Moscow, and later Russian, Princes, Tsars and Emperors, Catherine II herself should have taken one of the most honorable places. And the more majestic and noble that row turned out to be, the more majestic she looked in it - the German princess. She did not allow the thought that in the royal family she could be among the TATAR-MONGOLIAN ordinary nobility. It was a nightmare! This, for a European-educated person of that time, could not be allowed even in a dream.

Catherine II on December 4, 1783 by her Decree ordered the creation of a "Commission for compiling notes on ancient history, mainly Russia" under the command and supervision of Count A.P. Shuvalov". (V.O. Klyuchevsky "Historical Portraits", p. 564.) Here is how the Decree was executed in practice: "Appoint ... up to 10 people who, by their combined efforts, would make useful notes on ancient history, mainly concerning Russia , making brief extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to the well-known [Catherine II] rather peculiar plan. These scholars constitute the "assembly"; but Shuvalov chooses them, preferring "diligence and accuracy to wit" when choosing, and introduces them to the empress.

Gerard Friedrich Miller, in the person of the so-called "Miller's historical department", became the "commander" for the "composition of Russian history" at the behest of Catherine II, since the academician himself passed away in 1783. But it was Miller who had a decisive influence on the "composed Russian history." Previously, he was looking for "historical materials" in the Volga region and in Siberia, that is, he seized materials relating to the Tatar-Mongolian past of Muscovy (1238-1598). In 1792, "Catherine's story" saw the light. Since then, it has been strictly forbidden to introduce anything else into the narrative framework of the history of the Russian Empire.

Member of the Commission Alexander Vasilyevich Khrapovitsky (1749-1801), in 1782-1793 State Secretary of Empress Catherine II, in his memoirs (passed through repeated royal and church censorship and published in 1862, republished in 1990 in Moscow) - openly writes, that Catherine II personally ruled a new "version of history". Including the compilation of the genealogy of the Russian Grand Dukes. At the same time, she argued that it was necessary to follow not historical facts (supposedly “confusing”), but “the order we need”, “Russian needs”.

The phrases of Catherine II cited in Khrapovitsky's memoirs are curious. He wrote down her direct instructions to show the enormous power of the Tatars and the reason for their victories in the absence of a strong monarchical power (Catherine ordered to bring at least 70 specific principalities to show the "fragmentation of Russia"). Including in the records “about the Tatars and their strength during the invasion of Russia”, the empress already replaces the Suzdal land with the concept of “Russia”. The empress specifically instructs Khrapovitsky to create a myth that the Russians are allegedly Slavs, for which he "found papers written about the antiquity of the Slavs while living in the Hermitage, with the search for the primitive people."

Such typical moments in memoirs are funny: “I showed the river Sit, in the Yaroslavl province. It flows into the Mologa, and the Mologa into the Volga. Prince Vladimir Yuryevich Ryazansky from the Tatars was killed in the City. They thought [Catherine II] that he crossed the Volga much lower, to attack the Tatars, but the river Sit shows that Vladimir fled to Tver. They are not very happy with this discovery for the history they are compiling. This is how the flight of the prince from the Tatars turns into an "attack against the Tatars", because "they are not very happy with this discovery."

And from such thousands of small (and often large) falsifications, a completely different, fictional story is totally created. It is significant that Khrapovitsky in this quote says about her: “for the history being composed” - which is absolutely true, since this history of Russia was WRITTEN by the Commission under the supervision of the Empress.

"REFINEMENT OF HISTORY"

Historian Vladimir Belinsky writes that, being at that time well-educated and comprehensively developed, Catherine II understood where the history of the Empire did not fit. Reading the ancient chronicles of Kievan Rus, she saw that the Europeans immediately caught the eye - the unsubstantiated and impudent transfer of the right of heritage from the Grand Principality of Kiev to "Moksel" or - Suzdal land, and subsequently the arbitrary transfer of this "right" to Muscovy. For a European-educated person, this is nonsense!

At one time, England also expressed a claim to France. However, by the end of the 18th century, the English encroachment on the French throne had turned into either a European joke or a farce. And Catherine II knew about it. She understood that if such a gap even caught her eye, then subsequently serious European researchers would simply reject the allegations of the Muscovites about their "inheritance right" to the history and land of Kievan Rus. After all, in the part of the land of Kievan Rus, even during the time of Catherine II, the same people of Rusyns-Ukrainians, still not subject to the Russian Empire, lived, completely different from the Muscovites.

It was that period in the history of the Great Russians (the second half of the 12th-13th centuries) that was subject to radical “strengthening”. The history of the subsequent period required "usual revision". The Empress acted very cunningly and cleverly. She did not touch the history of Kievan Rus, which was dangerous. The history of Kievan Rus by that time was recorded not only in the annals stored in the archives of Catherine II, but also in the chronicles: Lithuanian, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian, Greek, Turkic, Arab, etc. The "Zaleshansky" principalities, that is, the future Muscovy, were initially created without connection with European culture and without contacts with peoples who, by the end of the 12th and in the first half of the 13th century, could fix its concretized history.

The Russian Empire did everything possible to either destroy the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia, or to slander them and forcibly drive them into Christianity. And the Volga Bulgaria was burned, its madrasas and mosques were destroyed to the ground, all cultural values ​​and annals were stolen and taken to Muscovy. That is, everything that we know today about the origin of the Suzdal principalities and Muscovy was "composed" and presented to us by the "paid employees" of the Empire - Catherine II's day laborers and their followers. All of them "composed mainly the history of Russia" only according to "Catherine's sources". After that, cruel church and state censorship was introduced.

Thus, the task of falsification was reduced by Catherine to two parts:

1) to write the never-existing “annalistic codes” of Muscovy during the Horde period (no one in the world knew them before and no one mentioned them until 1783, they all massively appear in the hundreds for the FIRST TIME only during the work of the Commission);

2) to correct the annals of Ukraine and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, introducing amendments to them in the form of references to the composed events in ancient Muscovy and to the composed "annalistic codes" of Muscovy. Moreover, the annals of the GDL did not cause a particular problem, because they were purposefully massively burned, also in order to hide the truth, even during the short occupation of the GDL by the troops of Ivan the Terrible.

But the Ukrainian chronicles were a headache for the Empress. Characteristically, Catherine collected with great effort all the available Ukrainian ancient texts in their originals. But they suddenly disappear in her hands, and only their lists, corrected by her hand, remain. For example, Khrapovitsky writes that together with Ekaterina he “worked” with the original of Nestor’s The Tale of Bygone Years. Having been in the hands of the Empress, the original disappears, like many other similar rarities.

Vladimir Belinsky notes: “Only “compositions” - “annalistic codes” have survived to our time, and forever, after Catherine II, the originals of antiquity disappeared. And the "annalistic vaults" that have come down to us were found either during the life of Catherine II, or after her death.

The commission, it should be noted, did a good job! The idea of ​​the Commission: to combine in the "annalistic vaults", that is, in the folk narrative, Kievan Rus and Muscovy. So in the "Ipatiev Code" after the "Tale of Bygone Years" comes the Kyiv Chronicle for the years 1119-1200, then the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, setting out the events from 1201 to 1292. Only in this chronicle is the year of the "foundation of Moscow" mentioned. And the "Laurentian Chronicle" following the "Tale of Bygone Years" contains a description of "the chroniclers of South Russia, and then" Vladimir-Suzdal Rus "(and this, now it turns out, was in antiquity!).

The idea of ​​Catherine II is magnificent: dozens of "annalistic codes" are written, which later "are located", where folk geniuses themselves "transfer" the "right of heritage" from the great Nestor, ancient Kyiv and the Galicia-Volyn principality to "Vladimir-Suzdal Rus". And who and how composed the "Northern Russian Chronicles" is known only to Catherine II and the Commission.

And in 1792, in St. Petersburg, a bright fruit of her work appeared, the so-called "Lviv Code", under the authorship of the abstract "Russian Chronicler". As you can see, the authorship of the "Commission" and personally Catherine II from "modesty" is missed. All subsequent "annalistic codes" were "found" either by Catherine's "accomplices", or by persons very much interested in their appearance, and they only specified the "Northern Russian chronicles".

To this day, imperial historians are "embarrassed" to recognize the "annalistic code", published in 1792 in St. Petersburg, as Catherine's, although the authorship of the Empress and the Commission has long been proven by many honest historians. In 1792, the Stately edited Chronicle of the Russian State appeared in five volumes, allegedly composed by the Russian Chronicler. And then it started - the falsification machine was gaining momentum. "Musin-Pushkin Alexei Ivanovich ... count, Russian statesman ... managed to open the Laurentian Chronicle ... he published ... "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" under the title "Iroic Song about the Campaign against the Polovtsy of the Specific Prince of Novgorod-Northern Igor Svyatoslavovich (1800) "(TSB, third edition, volume 17, p. 129.).

M. Karamzin outdid A.I. Musin-Pushkin (member of the Commission). "I was looking for the oldest lists ... In 1809, while examining the ancient manuscripts of the late Peter Kirillovich Khlebnikov, I found two treasures in one book: the Chronicle of Kiev, known only to Tatishchev, and Volyn, previously unknown to anyone ... A few months later I got and another list of them: once belonging to the Ipatiev Monastery, he was hiding in the library of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences between the Defects. (N.M. Karamzin "History of the Russian State", volume 1, p. 24.) All such discoveries of incredible significance, documents never known to anyone before and never mentioned by anyone - are made for some reason only by participants in the work of the Commission. Moreover, all these “finds” in a strange way SUCCESSFULLY prove the instructions given by Catherine to change the picture of history. I gave the task - and here was the document, previously unknown to anyone! A chain of amazing coincidences.

In fact, the "linden" is obvious. No one in their right mind can believe that Karamzin could find in the library of the Academy of Sciences something that no one noticed and, moreover, was not known to anyone before and was not mentioned anywhere. Belinsky comments on this as follows: “All the “newly found” vaults, like twin brothers, were “made on the same block” either by “Catherine's guys”, or by “pioneers”. Each of the "newly found" chronicles had its own clarification or "spurred" to the Kievan antiquity a new "Great Russian" land, either Tver, or Ryazan or Moscow.

In parallel, Catherine II introduces by her Decree in 1787 strict censorship on the publication of books on history and on the reprinting of ancient chronicles. From now on, private publishing houses cannot publish such literature, and first of all, this is prohibited by the famous Novikov publishing house, which published several books during the work of the Commission that directly contradicted the historical work of Catherine (more on one of them below). And on September 16, 1796, a decree of Catherine II was announced on the prohibition of "free printing houses" and on the introduction of even more stringent censorship.

A characteristic feature of the plan of total falsification is the complete disappearance of the sources, the discovery of which the Commission refers to. Including the chronicles mentioned above, allegedly found by Karamzin, have strangely disappeared, no one has seen them except Karamzin, but they are included in the basis of the history of Russia. This is unscientific: these "chronicles" were not proven by historical science as reliable (they were not studied at all) and disappeared - why on earth are they recognized as "reliable" today?

For example, this is impossible in biology: a scientist cannot take credit for the discovery of a new species without providing the very specimen of that species. But in historical science, it turns out that it is quite possible to trust only the words of a researcher, not supported by any visible evidence. The same is true of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, published in 1800 according to a single copy owned by Count Musin-Pushkin. The greatest masterpiece in the hands of the count burned down, although the count himself survived the war of 1812 and died only in 1817. Isn't it strange: Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin lives permanently in his palace in St. Petersburg, but for some reason he keeps the greatest value in Moscow.

It is clear - otherwise it is impossible to call the original disappeared. Musin-Pushkin understood that a detailed study of his "original" would necessarily reveal either its fake antique, or a distortion of the text. Let me remind you that Musin-Pushkin is a member of the Commission, and in the "Word ..." we are talking about the events of the end of the 12th century, which were actively falsified on the instructions of Catherine II. (L.N. Gumilyov: “It is generally accepted that The Tale of Igor's Campaign is a patriotic work written in 1187.”) Moreover, the very theme of The Lay ... is completely at odds with the historical texture.

In 1169, Prince Mordovians Andrei Bogolyubsky attacked Russia from his Finnish lands and staged a complete genocide with his Finns in Kyiv, slaughtering the population, raping children, destroying all Orthodox churches and at the same time showing his Finnish paganism. Let us ask ourselves the simplest question: could a true believing patriot of the Kiev land, who survived the desecration of Slavic shrines by Andreev, in his essay glorify the Suzdal land of Moksel and its Finnish princes? It's only been 15-18 years. The answer to the question is obvious.

The opinion of some Russian scientists who analyzed the vocabulary of the “Words ...” is interesting: they find that the backbone of the work was indeed Old Russian (Ukrainian), but everything related to the attitude towards the future Muscovy is a fake, and the main enemy of Russia in the work should be filed just future Moscow lands. Whether the "Word ..." was distorted by a member of the Commission in the "needs of Russia" or is it entirely a fake is still a subject of controversy.

By the way, this heyday of imperial myth-making in Russia was accompanied, in addition to the creation by the Commission of false "chronicles" of the Horde and the country of Moksel, with a mass of completely odious fakes in general. Unknown coins of medieval Muscovy began to appear in abundance, on which there were indications that its princes were the successors of Kievan Rus, fantastic “chronicles” began to appear, where the history of Russia was erected right up to ancient times, when the “Slavs of Moscow” participated in Greek wars. Although there are no Slavs in Russia even today, and Russians are Finns, as studies in 2000-2006 proved. Russian scientists as part of the definition of the gene pool of the Russian nation.

If there are no Slavs in Russia even today, then where could they come from in ancient times? Moreover, the very nationality of the Slavs arose many centuries later? Many such falsifications are rejected by our modern scientists as sheer stupidity, but the falsifications created during the work of the Commission are not only not rejected in Russia, but, on the contrary, are based on it, because it creates the imperial historical justifications that are so necessary today and always. Whether they were invented or not is no longer important, because the order for them, as it was under Catherine II, remains the same today.

"ADMINISTRATION OF LIES"

As part of the work of the Commission, A.I. Musin-Pushkin "Laurentian Code", hitherto unknown to anyone and generally not mentioned anywhere in history. His A.I. Musin-Pushkin solemnly presents to the Empress - as a huge find, because he immediately implements a lot of Catherine's orders when "composing History". Russian encyclopedias today report: “The Lavrentiev Chronicle, following the Tale of Bygone Years, contains a description of the events of South Russian, and then Vladimir-Suzdal Russia.

The chroniclers of Vladimir considered the princes of Vladimir to be the successors of the Kiev ones, and Vladimir was considered the new center of the political life of Russia. Since 1285, a series of dated Tver news begins in the Laurentian Chronicle, which indicates the beginning of the Tver chronicle. One can also see in the Laurentian Chronicle the Tver code of 1305, which connects the material of various regions and strives to be all-Russian. " all-Russian idea" from century to century: in 1070, and in 1170, and in 1281, and in 1305, and in 1377. And this was at a time when a glade and other Slavs lived in Kiev land, and in "Zaleshany land" was inhabited by the Finnish tribes Merya, Muroma and the whole.This is at a time when the inhabitants of "Southern Russia" fiercely hated the inhabitants of "Northern Russia" (according to S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky).

And, finally, this happened at a time when priests in the Suzdal land often did not know the "Our Father", but at the same time they, it turns out, were "Great Russian sovereigns." It should also be recalled that such "magnificent vaults" were written in the Meryansk and Murom "fenced (palisade) villages." From here, dear reader, draw your own conclusions. Just pay attention once again to what Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin Lavrentievsky vault only in 1792. It was at the time when the Mother Empress commanded. Interestingly, the TSB treats this “chronicle” cautiously and skeptically: “The Laurentian Chronicle ... In 1792 (year) A.I. Musin-Pushkin acquired it ...”. Not “found”, but “acquired”: from whom it is impossible to trace how very obscure its origin for science is. That is, another fake.

Soon N.M. Karamzin found the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle. Why was he found? In 1803 Karamzin began to compose "History of the Russian State". Already in 1811, Karamzin read the first chapters of the book to Emperor Alexander I, where the chapters of Batu's invasion of Suzdal were written. Sitting down at the table and starting to compose the "History of the Russian State", Karamzin leafed through all the "chronicles" "open" before him, but in none of them did he find the time of the founding of Moscow. And the main idea of ​​Karamzin's super-patriotic work (a Tatar, a descendant of the Tatars Murz Orda) was the glorification of the glory of Moscow and Muscovy for "gathering the Russian land." At the same time, it was automatically considered that since the "Suzdal Land" appeared during the heyday of the Great Kievan reign, then the related, they say, connection is visible to the naked eye. But in Karamzin, when presenting the History of the Russian State, the "Moscow trace" turned out to be very dirty.

Yes, and the author wanted it or not, but he had to show the whole path of humiliation of Muscovy after the conquest of the Suzdal land by the Tatar-Mongols. Although all humiliations are served in a laudatory and majestic spirit. But even N.M. Karamzin saw a contradiction in his reasoning. All the Suzdal-Vladimir principalities from 1237 turned into Uluses of the Golden Horde. And at that ulus time, Moscow possession suddenly appeared as part of the Golden Horde. Everything suggests that subsequently Moscow, as a state entity, should trace its ancestry from the Tatar-Mongol Ulus.

Since Muscovy, with the help of the Khan's troops and thanks to them, swallowed up Ryazan or Tver, Novgorod or Torzhok, and so on, she only "collected" small Tatar-Mongol Uluses, remaining the Great Ulus. Seeing the great Tatar-Mongolian ancestors in the birth of Moscow and Muscovy, Karamzin had no choice but to "search" for a new "annalistic code" in order to at least record the very appearance of the settlement of Moscow before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. And in 1809 he "finds" the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle. Like, look, the Kiev chroniclers themselves recorded our appearance in the light of God. It is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, where the Kiev and Galicia-Volyn chronicles are summarized, that the word "Moscow" is mentioned for the first time.

It's funny that Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin himself did not hesitate to admit that he simply invented a lot in what he wrote with his own hand. Here is what he writes about history in general and his own history in particular: “But History, they say, is filled with lies: let’s say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved, and that’s enough.” for us to form a general conception of people and deeds. (N.M. Karamzin "History ...", Volume I, p. 18.) So guess how much "admixture of lies" the author of "History of the Russian State" threw in.

Let's return to Karamzin's Ipatiev Chronicle. Here is how N.M. Karamzin, the words of Yuri Dolgoruky, allegedly said in 1147. "Come to me, brother, to Moscow." This is the appeal of the prince, who had no allotment in Kievan Rus, to the Novgorod-Siversky prince Svyatoslav. And at the behest of N.M. Karamzin, the Prince of Novgorod-Siversky moved for the sake of a "glass" to the "thirtieth kingdom" for a thousand kilometers through impenetrable forests and swamps, for two years of a dangerous journey, in order to "witness" the appearance of some village "Moskovy" to the world from the name of the Moscow River, derived from the names of the native Mordovian people Moksha-Moksa.

Today, historians consider this a complete invention of Karamzin "for the sake of the imperial needs of Moscow." And - fiction, absolutely nothing proven scientifically. In fact, Svyatoslav, according to this version, allegedly "foresaw" in this provincial village of Moksha "the birth of the capital of Great Russia" and "the successor of Kievan Rus", allegedly "showed insight." And Yuri Dolgoruky showed the same "sagacity" - it dawned on everyone that it was here, in this Mordovian village, that the capital of New Russia would be. All this seems to be imperial nonsense.

Klyuchevsky, understanding the absurdities, wrote differently, completely forgetting about the “finds of Karamzin”: “In 1156, according to the annals, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky “laid the city of Moscow” below the mouth of the Neglinnaya ...” (V.O. Klyuchevsky “On the Russian Stories", p.132.). But even here everything does not add up. In 1156, Yuri Dolgoruky, having returned to Kievan Rus long before (according to Klyuchevsky), was the Grand Prince of Kiev and sat in Kyiv until his death, which followed in 1157. Why it took him a thousand kilometers from Kyiv a year before his death to "mortgage" some useless "Moscow", remains the greatest mystery. It is not clear how it is possible and why to order someone (whom?) to lay the "city of Moscow" a thousand kilometers away.

And the most important Russian absurdity - how can a prince sitting in Kyiv "found a city" with a non-Russian name Moscow - with a Mordovian name? Either he is a Mordvin himself, who loves to create Finnish toponyms, or, nevertheless, Moscow was created by its population of moksha-moksel, from which the name Moksva comes (Moks + Va, moksha + water in Finnish), then changed by the Slavs to Moscow ( Finnish "ks" in the roots of words in the Slavic language naturally changed to "sk", according to the norms of the Russian language). The only fact is that not a single historical source, except for the invented Catherine's "annalistic codes", does not record the time of the appearance of the Moscow settlement before the end of the 13th century. And it couldn't be fixed. For the birth of settlements with Finnish names was not recorded in Russian chronicles (because it was the work of the natives): there is no information in Russian chronicles about the founding of Ryazan (formerly Erzya), Murom, Kaluga or Perm - Finnish toponyms. And the birth of a village with the Finnish name Moscow is suddenly recorded in the annals ...

TRUE HISTORY OF RUSSIA: LYZLOV

Do not think that Catherine II was the first person to write "own" Russian history. A hundred years before the creation of the Commission by Catherine II, one of the contemporaries of Peter I - Andrei Ivanovich Lyzlov, who died in 1696, wrote in 1692 a serious work - "Scythian History". It was in this work that Lyzlov first tried to present the history of the future Russia (in those days it was called Muscovy), its relationship with Kievan Rus and the Golden Horde.

"Scythian History" covers the time from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. TSB reports: "Lyzlov used a wide range of sources and historical writings (chronicles, chronographs, discharge books, versions of Kazan History, Ukrainian historical works, Polish-Lithuanian chronicles, works of Latin-Italian and other authors)". His "Scythian History", oddly enough, was not published until 1776, although it was distributed in manuscript. The publication of the book in very small editions in 1776 and 1787 was carried out by the famous publisher N.M. Novikov, and in response to these publications, a decree of Catherine II appeared, imposing censorship on books on the history of Russia.

What was the "Scythian History" about? Here are the main thoughts that A.I. Lyzlov, who studied the ancient primary sources:

1. The Mongols who came to Suzdal in 1237 were not Mongols at all, but the eastern and southern neighbors of Muscovy and Volga Bulgaria - the Tatars, or rather "Tartars". Which is absolutely true, since the Mongols in the XIII century had only a few hundred thousand people (today there are 2 million) and waged wars simultaneously in three directions: China, Iran and Europe. That is, the Genghisides dynasty went from Mongolia and, along the path of conquest, drew the conquered peoples of the Volga into the orbit of their statehood. Subsequently, the Suzdal principalities (the land of Moksel) became part of the single state of the Volga and were everywhere involved in the conquest campaigns of the Golden Horde. Which is fully proved by Russian sources, but is not recognized by Russian historical science, which refers to the version of history created by the Catherine's Commission.

2. The inhabitants of Muscovy are a separate, isolated, original people, having nothing in common with the Russians (Kievan Rus), Lithuania, Poles, etc. Here is what A.I. Lyzlov: "Scythia consists of two parts: one European, in which we live, that is: Moscow [Muscovites-Moksha], Russians [Ukrainians], Lithuania [Belarusians], Volokhi and European Tatars [Crimean, Nogai, etc. ]". For Lyzlov, the people of Moscow are the people of Moksha-Moksel (in the Slavic name Moskel, Muscovites), these are Finns-Moksha, and not Slavs at all.

In Lyzlov, in no place is there any mention of any Slavic relationship between the Finns-Muscovites and the Rusyns of Ukraine. On the contrary, the idea of ​​delimiting the ethnic groups of Muscovy and Kievan Rus is very clearly presented. Moreover, this thought dominated serious analytical work as early as 1692, that is, until the time when Peter I ordered to call Muscovy - the Russian State, renaming Muscovy to Russia.

3. Lyzlov does not mention a single so-called "annalistic code". Having freely studied many archives, turning over hundreds of primary sources, Andrei Ivanovich Lyzlov, who wrote the "Scythian History", nowhere (!!!) did not find a single (!!!) of the thousands of Russian "annalistic codes", allegedly first discovered by the Commission of Catherine II. At the same time, he was in the archives a hundred years earlier than any Karamzin, Musin-Pushkin and other Catherine's accomplices.

A. Bushkov in the book "Russia, which was not.-3" (M., 2004) draws attention to the curious fact that Lyzlov and other historians of the XVI-XVII centuries. there is no mention of the "great" Nestor, who, according to current ideas, worked no later than the 12th century, when he allegedly created the Tale of Bygone Years. Bushkov writes: “Why? Yes, because in the XVI-XVII centuries they did not hear about Nestor. His works did not yet exist, that's all. Historians did not even know such a name ... ”Bushkov believes that“ The Tale of Bygone Years ”was written at the direction of Peter the Great on the basis of ancient chronicles - to justify his Baltic territorial acquisitions.

Peter discovered this work "so successfully" in the captured Koenigsberg. However, Bushkov is mistaken here, believing that before Lyzlov there was no work of Nestor. It was - but in a completely different form, something ordinary was written in it, which did not attract the attention of historians, but only in the text of "The Tale ...", allegedly found by Peter in Koenigsberg, sensational pages about Rurik's arrival in Ladoga first appear in it, which in the present work of Nestor never existed (more on this below). In general, there is a trend: as soon as the Russian sovereigns seize new lands for themselves, “historical documents” are immediately found, allegedly confirming their rights to them ...

The book "Scythian History", twice published by N.I. Novikov in a very small circulation, it was never published again either in the tsarist or in the Bolshevik Empire. N.I. Novikov, who managed to publish this book before the cruel Catherine's censorship, it followed on July 25, 1787, was subsequently arrested and imprisoned for a long time. And only in 1990, during the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the Scythian History was published in Moscow for the third time in 300 years in an insignificant circulation of five thousand copies. You can’t hide an awl in a bag - with any weakening of imperial censorship, the works of Russian historians who wrote the truth again “emerge”.

TRUE HISTORY OF RUSSIA: TATISCHEV

More tragic was the fate of the works of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), which became generally, as it were, “lost”. The talented historian worked for Russia for many years, but was rejected, and his books were destroyed by the Power. By 1747, he created a huge work: "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." This work was found by the authorities to be “unnecessary” and destroyed. Tatishchev had access not only to state and church archives, but also to the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia.

His book had links to many primary sources, but this book was not published during the author's lifetime. Even more than that - Tatishchev was forbidden to publish the book, declaring his "political free-thinking and heresy." And then all Tatishchev's manuscripts disappeared. All primary sources used by V.N. Tatishchev from 1720 to 1745, by the 80s of the 18th century, were concentrated in the archives behind seven locks, in the caches of Catherine II, where only authorized persons had access. Here are the words of the German August Ludwig Schlozer, who worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767: “In 1720, Tatishchev was sent [by Peter I] to Siberia ... Here he found a very ancient list of Nestor from a schismatic. How surprised he was when he saw that it is completely different from before!

He thought, as I did at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev little by little collected a dozen lists, according to them and other options reported to him, he made the eleventh ... ". Here it is appropriate to recall that Tatishchev had previously studied the supposedly "Radzivilov" text of The Tale of Bygone Years acquired during the capture by Peter I in Koenigsberg (about him we spoke above), in which, at the suggestion of Peter, sheets were pasted concerning the appearance of Rurik in Ladoga, and pages about the conduct of the family of princes of Russia from the biblical Adam. Then Tatishchev stated that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, because this Koenigsberg text odiously contradicted everyone chronicle texts known to Tatishchev.

The main point is that before the discovery of Peter, all existing chronicles gave a completely different picture of the emergence of Russia, and Tatishchev completely believed it, since it was confirmed by all sources. Namely: it was not Rurik who created Kievan Rus at all - Kyiv, even before Rurik, became Russian from Galician Rus. And that earlier became Russia from Russia-Ruthenia - a colony of the Slavs of Polabya, located on the territory of present-day Hungary and Austria, its capital was the city of Keve (this "Hungarian" Russia, which existed until the 12th century, is reflected in all European chronicles, including the Polish Chronicle ").

Rurik, in the Sami Ladoga, created only another new Russian colony (he built Novgorod as a continuation of the Old Town of Polabian Russia - now Oldenburg in Germany). And when Askold and Dir, sent by him, came to Kiev, they saw that the Russian princes were already ruling there - but a different Russia, not subject to the encouragers and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. I note that until now many Russian historians are perplexed or consider it a mistake of the annals that the princes of Kyiv answered the envoys of Rurik that the Russian princes were already ruling here. This seems absurd only in the version of history invented by Peter (he was helped by hired German historians), which completely denied any Russian history of Kyiv, Galicia, "Hungarian" Russia-Ruthenia and even Polabskaya Russia - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of the encouragers, Luticians , Rug-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).

Peter ordered to consider that Russia was born in Muscovy: this gave "rights" to all the lands, one way or another connected in history with Russia. Tatishchev, on the other hand, found in his research an “objectionable fact” of the existence of many Russ in Europe long before Rurik landed in Ladoga, at the same time showing that at that time there was no “Rus” on the territory of Muscovy. Including Tatishchev, recreating the TRUE history of Russia in his research, he seemed to be able, according to the vague hints of August Ludwig Schlozer, to find the genealogy of the Russian Kiev princes before Rurik. Which had nothing to do with Rurik - as well as with Peter's Muscovy, but it had something to do with Central Europe and the then existing Russian kingdoms and principalities (there were several of them).

All this helps to understand Tatishchev's bewilderment when he got acquainted with the list of "The Tale of Bygone Years" "found" by Peter. And then the bewilderment became even greater - turning into a protest. In Siberia, Tatishchev found other ancient lists of The Tale of Bygone Years, devoid of Peter's corrections. And his opinion here completely changed: he discovered that Peter was engaged in the falsification of history, falsified the Koenigsberg text of "The Tale ...", which absolutely did not correspond to the lists of this text found by Tatishchev in Siberia. From that time on, Tatishchev fell into disgrace, and all his studies of history became "seditious" for the State.

The whole “sedition” of Tatishchev lies in the fact that he honestly wrote about the Finnish and Horde history of Russia and honestly resented the attempts of the Russian authorities to hide this history. Doesn't it seem very strange that even Tatishchev's "primary sources" have not come down to us? But all of them were, classified, in the hands of Catherine II. This should not be surprising, such "oddities" accompany Russian history everywhere. Vladimir Belinsky says somewhat emotionally: “It was after the order of Peter I, who transformed Muscovy into the Russian state, that the elite of Muscovy began to think about the need to create an integral history of their own state. But only with the appearance on the Russian throne of Catherine II, a European-educated person, did the ruling elite manage to drive the plot of Moscow history into a predetermined pro-imperial channel, stealing its legitimate name "Rus" from Kievan Rus, attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnos Muscovy.

Everything was justified "as required":

1. Falsely ennobled Alexander, the so-called Nevsky;

2. They made up a myth about Moscow, hiding the truth about its Tatar-Mongol ancestors;

3. The most faithful defender of the unity of the Golden Horde, Dmitry Donskoy, was turned into a defender of the "independence of Muscovy";

4. And so on and so forth... "Chronicle Codes" flooded the Russian historical science by the thousands, and single historical primary sources disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and this lie.”

The emotional approach of the Ukrainian historian, who sees in the creation of these myths the destruction of the statehood of his Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign, is understandable. If we remain scientifically impartial, then the historical science of the CIS countries is obliged to recognize the fact of the odious falsification of history by the Commission of Catherine II. Moreover, if this is still rejected by someone in Russia out of obsolete imperial considerations, then this has nothing to do with science. We need to separate our real history from the mythical views of “how one would like to see it” to someone. How Catherine II falsified the history of the GDL-Belarus is a topic for another publication.

Vadim ROSTOV

Analytical newspaper "Secret Research"

One of the "ancient" stones of Stonehenge, built on level ground in the early 50s of the 20th century ...

Are there honest historians? Yes, there are...

I am not trying to expose dozens and hundreds of stupid tales about the mythical "Tatar-Mongols" written by "scientific" historians. Firstly, because they are already up and down. Secondly, because it makes no sense to expose the content of absurd tales. It is only necessary to establish that we are dealing with absurdity. Some naive readers may be indignant: it cannot be that many generations of scientists support the lie about the great Mongols! It cannot be that plump scientific volumes were the fruit of someone's unhealthy fantasy or the product of cynical lies for self-interest! Scientists, they say, by their very nature are not capable of fabricating archaeological finds, forging ancient ones, distorting sources and lying so subtly. What's the benefit to them?

So why can't they? Actually this"professional" historians are engaged. And they always did. And they benefited greatly from this. Some made up a fake story and destroyed inconvenient real documents to please the rulers. Others engaged in falsification because they wanted to humiliate and overthrow these rulers. Still others were sold for money to one political force or another. Others simply satisfied their own vanity in such a sophisticated way or made a career in "scientific" circles.

But I want the reader to understand one simple truth: there is no science called and never existed. History has always been an instrument of political, ideological, economic, interstate, geopolitical struggle, and therefore historians only pretended to be scientists to be more persuasive. And the more authority science acquired in society, the more diligently historians mimicked scientists.

Are there any honest people among the "scientific" historians?

Certainly, there is. But they are mentally so undeveloped that they sincerely believe everything that they have been taught for five years at universities by professors of history. A smart, thinking, inquisitive and honest person who loves to ask questions will never pass even the first semester at the history department. An army of weak-willed obedient fools is very necessary for real historians. After all, it’s not enough to come up with myths that are beneficial to the rulers, they still need to be firmly hammered into the people’s heads. This is what the army of popularizing historians is doing: journalists, school teachers, fiction writers, screenwriters, writers.

Who dares to call Radzinsky, Svanidze or Volkogonov honest historians? They are - cynical, unprincipled liars serving the interests of the authorities. The current ones are very afraid of the renaissance of the Soviet civilization, because it threatens them with the loss of power, property and even life. Therefore, their court historians have been writing anti-Soviet horror stories for two decades. And popularizers are historians who are not smart enough to compose fairy tales themselves, but who can creatively rework what was invented by "professional" historians, adapting myths for school textbooks, TV shows, "scientific" magazines, etc.

Well, let's say, - skeptics will agree, - in anti-Soviet propaganda, the political conjuncture can be seen quite clearly. It is necessary for the shock workers of capitalist labor to somehow morally justify the fact that they overnight appropriated the multi-billion dollar property created by the entire people, and the people themselves received miserable pensions, meager salaries and extortionate interest on consumer loans. But what is the benefit of historians to support the myths about the "Tatar-Mongolian" yoke? This is definitely not what our government needs today.

I agree that there is no utilitarian benefit for the current rulers. But it's a matter of principle. If we admit that earlier, for the sake of the political situation, it was possible to falsify and maintain for centuries the most insane ideas about the past of mankind, then there will be no faith in historians who tell, for example, about the terrible Stalinist repressions. Moreover, people will begin to wonder: why did Stalin, who resettled during the war for massive, almost universal collaborationism 500 thousand Chechens to Kazakhstan - a tyrant, a dictator and a bloody criminal? How, then, to call Yeltsin, who killed with air bombs and "point" missiles 100 000 residents of Chechnya in peacetime? Why is the socialist economy, which ensures production growth of more than 10% per year, declared inefficient, while capitalism, with its hyperinflation, frequent crises, poverty and unemployment, is the best form of management invented by mankind?

Probably because under capitalism it is very concentrated in the hands of colossal property, power and means of brainwashing (media). And this very group of people is served by "professional" historians, helping to keep the redneck in obedience. lie at the very base of the building called "Russian History". If historians admit that there was no yoke, the whole complex of ideas about our past will collapse, and it will be much more difficult to manipulate historical consciousness. Therefore, "scientists" historians will continue to diligently suck more and more details about the mythical Mongols out of their fingers.

Goebbels said: "A lie has to be big to be believed". Historians are faithful to his precepts. is so large-scale that it simply overwhelms the average person, who is little versed in brainwashing technologies, with its titanic scale. The writings about the ancient Mongols are replete with a huge mass of details: how many wives and children did which khan have, what were their names, when which son and where did he rule; what were the names of the commanders of the supreme khan, what campaigns they participated in, what battles they won, what booty they took and how many cities they burned; when kurultai were held, what ideas were expressed by the emperor’s confidants, what decisions were made and how they were carried out.

In addition, historians even cite a lot of sayings of the great Mongol rulers, they report about what character they had, what they dreamed about and what they loved. An ordinary person, who is bombarded with megatons of these details, is simply unable to admit that historians made it all up sitting at the desk. Meanwhile, this is exactly what it is.

But the specificity of the "scientific" lies of historians is such that most of them lie only 10%, and the rest base their writings on the most "reliable sources" - the books of their predecessors. They also embellished and conjectured the events known to them by 10%, and in 90% of cases they relied on manuscripts recognized as reliable. The authors of the manuscripts, by the way, were crystal honest people, but they had ancient chronicles at their disposal, from where they got 90% of the information. But other speculated solely for the beauty and coherence of the narrative. And one more thing - so that the tsar-father would like it. Well, in order to please, they corrected the ancient chronicles just a little, but just a little - by a quarter, no more. And not even that they changed it, they simply interpreted it in their own way. In addition, the ancient chronicles came to them with large editions (someone for some reason destroyed significant pieces). And ancient historians were forced to fill in these lost pieces from memory. And memory is a tricky thing - here I remember, here - I don’t remember, but here I remember, but in my own way.

But what if the oldest chronicle, on the basis of which many generations of historians fantasized, is a fake? Yes, this cannot be! - yell in chorus historians. - After all, it is ancient, pre-ancient, and its antiquity has been proven by all examinations! Of course I want believe historians and revere the expertise that makes the same historians. But, among other things, I know well, which gives us a lot of examples when ancient books, annals and parchments were fabricated in the most brazen way. Some kind of virtuoso falsifiers are known, who literally put the production of fakes on stream. But this can only be said about those who managed to expose. And how many have not yet been exposed? I bring to the attention of the reader an excerpt from an article in the Wikipedia electronic encyclopedia about Vaclav Gank, a Czech philologist and poet, a figure in the national revival:

“After four years of study with Dobrovsky and Slovene Jernej Kopitar Gank, he announced the discovery of the Kraledvorskaya manuscript in the city of Keniginhof (September 16, 1817), and the following year, the appearance of an anonymously sent manuscript, which he received forty years later, after the publication of the version of the find in castle Zelena Gora, the name "Zelenogorskaya" (with the famous romantic fragment of the national epic - "The Judgment of Libuše"), Ganka published both manuscripts with a parallel translation into modern Czech and German. Believing (at least at first) in Kraledvorskaya, Dobrovsky, however, regarded the Zelenogorsk manuscript even before publication as "obvious forgery". Did not believe Ganka and his other Yerney Kopitar. However, the entire young generation of Czech enlighteners greeted Ganka's "discoveries" enthusiastically. In the future, the question of the authenticity of the manuscripts for a long time became a matter of Czech patriotism - anyone who publicly expressed doubts about them was considered an enemy by the “awakeners” (however, during the life of Hanka there were very few such speeches, and, according to the witty expression of the historian J. Hanush, “ for a long time there was not a single person who doubted the manuscripts, except, perhaps, Hanka himself"),

Thanks to Hank (and his likely co-author Josef Linde), the expectations of the leaders of the national revival came true - monuments of ancient literature were “opened”, which were not inferior in antiquity and diversity of content to Russian and Serbian monuments and, moreover, containing a picture of the heroic and democratic past, as well as anti-German attacks. The unprecedented long success of falsifications was facilitated not only by the perfect correspondence of the "manuscripts" to the political aspirations of Czech patriots, but also by literary talent, high Slavic qualifications for those times and Hanka's technical art, which was half a century ahead of the possibilities of contemporary science. Shortly before Hanka's death (1860), an unsuccessful campaign against the authenticity of the manuscripts, organized by the Austrian police and the editor of an Austrian newspaper, seemed to secure his historic victory for a long time: he won a lawsuit against the Austrian Ku (Kuh) and descended into the grave with the halo of a national martyr.

The falsity of both manuscripts from various points of view (technical-paleographic, historical and linguistic) was finally scientifically proven only at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, although statements in support of the manuscripts (guided primarily by political considerations) continued later and did not subside completely even in our time. time (“the Society of Manuscripts”, which existed in the 1930s and in the late 1940s, was recreated in 1993) The future president Tomasz Masaryk, who himself appeared on the pages of the Ateneum magazine as a critic of manuscripts from an aesthetic point of view.

The fact of writing manuscripts on scraps of ancient parchment, from which the old text (palimpsest) was washed away, the use of Prussian blue produced since the beginning of the 18th century, the mixing of spellings of different times and uncertain handwriting (outlining, erasures), for 6 thousand words was discovered - about a thousand errors in the Old Czech language (obvious tracing papers from Russian and German, incorrect spelling, the use of words from authentic monuments in erroneous meanings), actual anachronisms, etc. It is highly likely that Josef Linda also participated in the production of the manuscripts, a quickly exposed forgery of which (“Song under Vyšehrad”) is used in the text. In 1899, there was even a version that Hanka left an author's mark in the Kraledvor manuscript - an encrypted Latin inscription "Hanka fecit" (Hanka did), but this was not confirmed.

Hank owns another one - the Czech glosses “discovered” by him in 1827 in the medieval Latin dictionary Mater Verborum (one of their goals was to reinforce the authenticity of the Kraledvor and Zelenogorsk manuscripts). The names of the Slavic deities and the names of the planets given there for half a century (until the exposure in 1877) figured among the sources on Slavic mythology; in numerous non-scientific writings on paganism, references to them are found even now. Perhaps the most “harmful” falsification of Ganka is the story about the victory of Yaroslav from Sternberk near Olomouc over the Mongol-Tatars in 1242 (one of the songs of the Kraledvorskaya manuscript). This mythical battle wanders from one historical work to another, and after the exposure of the manuscripts, it even got into the third edition of the TSB.

And what if a fake of the XV century. fell into the hands of historians five hundred years later, and they don’t really know anything about the events described in authentic looking? You can either believe or not believe. If the content of a document suits historians, they will, of course, recognize it as a reliable source. And if you don’t like it, they will declare it a work of art, telling in an allegorical manner about events that actually developed in such and such a way.

But a similar situation arises when historians want but cannot understand the content of a document. Some are completely sincerely mistaken, Much more difficult when barbarians like get down to business. They do not trouble themselves with casuistic interpretations of ancient chronicles, they destroy them, they do not write works on history, they falsify them. And the older the fake, the harder it is to expose it. But, in my opinion, any falsification can be exposed, because it is simply impossible to fabricate a document ideally and fit it perfectly into the real story.

My last name is probably known to some readers in connection with the exposure of the falsification of the so-called secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (see A. Kungurov. “Secret Protocols, or Who Falsified the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. Moscow: Algorithm, 2009. ). In this regard, I met with Prof. Berndt Bonwitch, director of the German Historical Institute in Moscow. It was about the well-known map of the division of Poland with Stalin's painting. After listening to my arguments in favor of the fact that this map is a fake, and even as many as four completely different images of it are known, the professor only smiled indulgently: “You never know what walks on marginal Internet sites. This map has been published in reputable publications, and no one questions its authenticity ... "

Five minutes later, Herr Bonwitsch was already showing me one of these solid editions, where the mentioned map was reproduced in good quality - the fifth version known to me today. The quality of the printing was so good that one could easily notice: The card is made on... Polish. So tell me for mercy: did Ribbentrop fly from Berlin to Moscow with a Polish map, or did he keep it with him on purpose so that Soviet and German diplomats who did not know the Polish language would get more confused when drawing a new border? If there was a need for a map of Poland or any other part of the planet, it would be instantly delivered from the Military Topographic Department of the General Staff of the Red Army.

The question is why historians, who were looking at this map point-blank, did not notice such a blatant oddity?

There were still a lot of oddities on it, but the Polish toponymy was simply striking, giving out another fake. Although, what is the benefit of historians to expose the ridiculous crafts of their own colleagues? Today you will destroy Professor N's ​​stupid little book, and tomorrow this professor will preside over a council called to evaluate your dissertation. After the certification given by the vindictive Professor N, your scientific career will be put to rest. All "scientists"-historians are connected with each other inextricably. mutual responsibility. Therefore, disputes and discussions are organically alien to this "scientific environment", despite the fact that historians themselves are often no friendlier than spiders in a jar.

Is everything and everything in historical science falsified and distorted? No, not all events are of interest to falsifiers. Take, for example, the Battle of Borodino. Only interpretations of its results differ. The French rightly believe that Napoleon won a brilliant victory in the Battle of Moscow (as they call it), domestic historians coyly declare that, they say, Napoleon himself did not consider the battle won until the enemy army was defeated, and therefore the Russians at Borodino were not defeated. Say, there was a draw in favor of the Russians. And the retreat was not a retreat at all, but a wise strategic maneuver that ultimately ensured the collapse of the Great Army. Nevertheless, there is no need to erase the Battle of Borodino from history or radically rewrite its results and significance.

Is it necessary to distort ideas about the battle of Poltava? For almost 300 years this was not necessary. The customer was not. And now he has appeared, and in the "independent" Ukraine, the Poltava battle is beginning to turn into a battle of Ukrainian Mazepin patriots for the independence of their state with the damned Moscow occupiers. True, the Ukrainian "vcheny" are somewhat hindered Swedes

In recent years, in our country, such a concept as “falsification of history” has become especially widespread. Of course, at first glance, this phrase seems incomprehensible. How can you distort the facts that have already taken place? But, nevertheless, the rewriting of history is a phenomenon that takes place in modern society and has its roots in the distant past. The very first examples of documents in which history was falsified have been known since the time of Ancient Egypt.

Methods and techniques

The authors whose works reflect the distortion and falsification of history, as a rule, do not indicate the sources of their "factual" judgments. Only occasionally in such works are references to various publications that either do not exist at all, or they clearly do not relate to the subject of the publication.

One can say about this method that it is not so much a forgery of the known as its addition. In other words, this is not a falsification of history, but ordinary myth-making.

A more subtle way of distorting the existing facts is the falsification of primary sources. Sometimes the falsification of world history becomes possible on the basis of "sensational" archaeological discoveries. Sometimes authors make references to previously unknown documents. These can be “unpublished” chronicle materials, diaries, memoirs, etc. In such cases, only a special examination can reveal a fake, which the interested party either does not conduct, or falsifies the results obtained by it.

One of the methods of distorting history is the one-sided selection of certain facts and their arbitrary interpretation. As a result of this, connections are being built that were absent in reality. It is simply impossible to call the conclusions made on the basis of the obtained picture true. With this method of falsifying history, certain events or documents described actually took place. However, researchers draw their conclusions with a purposeful and gross violation of all methodological foundations. The purpose of such publications may be to justify a certain historical character. Those sources that give negative information about him are simply ignored or their hostility is noted, and therefore falsity. At the same time, documents that indicate the presence of positive facts are used as a basis and are not criticized.

There is another special technique that, in essence, can be located between the methods described above. It lies in the fact that the author gives a real, but at the same time truncated quote. It omits places that are in clear contradiction with the conclusions necessary for the mythologist.

Goals and motives

Why falsify history? The goals and motives of the authors who publish publications that distort the events that have taken place can be very diverse. They relate to the ideological or political sphere, affect commercial interests, etc. But in general, the falsification of the history of the world pursues goals that can be combined in two groups. The first of these includes socio-political motives (gepolitical, political and ideological). Most of them are closely connected with anti-state propaganda.

The second group of goals includes commercial and personal-psychological motives. In their list: the desire to gain fame and assert themselves, as well as to become famous in a short time, giving the society a "sensation" that can turn over all existing ideas about the past. The dominant factor in this case is, as a rule, the material interests of the authors, who earn good money by publishing large editions of their works. Sometimes the motives that prompted the distortion of historical facts can be explained by the desire for revenge on individual opponents. Sometimes such publications are aimed at belittling the role of government representatives.

Historical heritage of Russia

A similar problem exists in our country. At the same time, the falsification of national history is considered as anti-Russian propaganda. Often, publications that distort the events that have taken place are born in states both near and far abroad. They are directly related to the current material and political interests of various forces and contribute to the justification of material and territorial claims against the Russian Federation.

The problem of falsification of history and opposition to such facts is very relevant. After all, it affects the state interests of Russia and damages the social memory of the country's citizens. And this fact has been repeatedly emphasized by the leadership of our state. In order to respond to such challenges in a timely manner, a special commission has even been created under the President of Russia, whose task is to counter any attempts to falsify history that are detrimental to state interests.

Main directions

Unfortunately, in modern times, the falsification of the history of Russia has begun to take on quite impressive proportions. At the same time, the authors who explore and describe the past boldly cross all ideological barriers in their publications, and also grossly break moral and ethical norms. The reader was literally flooded with a stream of disinformation, which is simply impossible for an ordinary person to understand. What are the main directions of falsification of history?

Classic

These historical falsifications have migrated to us from past centuries. The authors of such articles claim that the Russians are aggressors and that they are a constant threat to all civilized mankind. In addition, such publications characterize our people as dark barbarians, drunkards, savages, etc.

Russophobic

These falsifications are picked up by our intelligentsia and transplanted into our own soil. Such a distortion of history gives rise to a complex of self-abasement and national inferiority. After all, according to him, everything is fine in Russia, but people do not know how to live culturally. This supposedly forces one to repent for one's past. But before whom? Foreigners, that is, those ideological enemies who organized such sabotage, become judges.

These directions of distortion of historical facts at first glance seem antagonistic. However, both of them fit perfectly into the anti-Russian and anti-Russian channel. Anyone who tries to denigrate our history perfectly uses both tools at the same time, despite their apparent opposite. So, when relying on communist arguments, tsarist Russia is humiliated. At the same time, in order to denigrate the Soviet Union, the arguments of the most rabid critics of the idea of ​​communism are used.

Distortion of the activities of key figures

Another direction in which the falsification of the history of Russia is carried out is criticism directed against various prominent personalities.

Thus, the distortion of facts can often be found in works about St. Vladimir the Baptist, St. Andrei Bogolyubsky, St. Alexander Nevsky, etc. There is even a certain pattern. The greater the contribution to the development of the country was made by this or that figure, the more persistently and aggressively they try to denigrate him.

Distortion of the events of national history

This is one of the favorite directions of mythologists who are trying to slander our country. And here special priority belongs to the events of the Great Patriotic War. It's pretty easy to explain. In order to belittle Russia, these authors are trying to cross out and obscure the most grandiose and brilliant feat of our state, which, without any doubt, saved the entire civilized world. The period from 1941 to 1945 provides a large field of activity for such mythologists.

Thus, the most distorted moments of the war are the assertions that:

• The USSR was preparing for an attack on Germany;
• the Soviet and Nazi systems are identical, and the victory of the people occurred against the wishes of Stalin;
• the role of the Soviet-German front is not so great, and Europe owes its liberation from the fascist yoke to the allies;
• Soviet soldiers who have accomplished feats are not heroes at all, while traitors, SS men, and others are praised;
• the losses of the two opposing sides are clearly exaggerated by politicians, and the number of victims of the peoples of the USSR and Germany is much less;
• the military art of the Soviet generals was not so high, and the country won only due to huge losses and victims.

What is the purpose of falsifying the history of the war? Thus, the "purifiers" of the facts that have already occurred are trying to ground and crush the war itself and nullify the feat of the Soviet people. However, the whole truth of this terrible tragedy of the 20th century lies in the great spirit of patriotism and the desire of ordinary people to come to victory at any cost. This was the most defining element in the life of the army and the people of that time.

Theories that go against Westernism

At present, many of the most amazing versions of the development of the social system in Russia have appeared. One of them is Eurasianism. It denies the existence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, and these mythologists raise the Horde khans to the level of Russian tsars. A similar direction announces the symbiosis of the Asian peoples and Russia. On the one hand, these theories are friendly to our country.

After all, they call on both peoples to work together to counter the common slanderers and enemies. However, upon closer examination, such versions are a clear analogue of Westernism, only vice versa. Indeed, in this case, the role of the great Russian people, which supposedly should be subordinate to the East, is belittled.

Neo-pagan falsification

This is a new direction of distortion of historical facts, which at first glance seems pro-Russian and patriotic. With its development, works are allegedly discovered that testify to the primordial wisdom of the Slavs, their ancient traditions and civilizations. However, they also contain the problem of falsifying the history of Russia. After all, such theories are in fact extremely dangerous and destructive. They are aimed at undermining true Russian and Orthodox traditions.

Historical terrorism

This rather new trend sets itself the goal of blowing up the very foundations of historical science. The most striking example of this is the theory that was created by a group led by a mathematician, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. Fomenko. This work considers questions about a radical revision of world history.

The scientific community has rejected this theory, explaining that it contradicts established facts. Opponents of the "New Chronology" were historians and archaeologists, mathematicians and linguists, astronomers and physicists, as well as scientists representing other sciences.

Introduction of historical forgeries

At the present stage, this process has its own characteristics. Thus, the impact is carried out in a massive way and has a clearly targeted character. The most dangerous fakes for the state have solid sources of funding and are published in huge circulation. These, in particular, include the work of Rezun, who wrote under the pseudonym "Suvorov", as well as Fomenko.

In addition, today the most important source of dissemination of articles about the falsification of history is the Internet. Almost every person has access to it, which contributes to the mass impact of fakes.

Unfortunately, the financing of fundamental historical science does not allow it to provide tangible opposition to the emerging works that are in conflict with the events that actually happened. Academic works are also published in small editions.

Sometimes some Russian historians are also captivated by falsifications. They accept Soviet, anti-Soviet or Western theories. To confirm this, one can recall one of the school history textbooks, in which statements were made that the turning point of World War II was the battle of the American army with the Japanese at Midway Atoll, and not the Battle of Stalingrad.

What are the attacks of counterfeiters? They are aimed at accustoming the Russian people to the thought that they do not have a glorious and great past, and the achievements of their ancestors should not be proud of. The younger generation is turning away from their native history. And such work has its depressing results. After all, the vast majority of today's youth are not interested in history. In this way, Russia is trying to destroy the past and erase the former power from memory. And therein lies a great danger to the country. Indeed, when a people is separated from its cultural and spiritual roots, it simply dies as a nation.

The falsification of history, due to political, ideological and sometimes even financial reasons, inspires doubts about the reality of historical events and the authenticity of historical sources, which ultimately gives rise to an information shock due to a sharp change in generally accepted and scientifically based views - a shock that contributes to the manipulation of public consciousness.

The negative consequences of the falsification of the history of Russia are manifested as historical nihilism, the destruction of the prospects for state development, and the segmentation of public consciousness.

These and other problems arising in connection with the falsification of Russian history were discussed in the reports of the conference held by the Book and Reading Department of the RSL.

Here are videos of performances, many of which are really worth watching:

Sale of Alaska: myths and facts

Mironov Ivan Borisovich, Candidate of Historical Sciences.

Documented research that refutes the official version of the sale of Alaska from school textbooks. A story shockingly reminiscent of modernity, in terms of corruption factors, “kickbacks” and “cutting” budgetary and public funds by a handful of oligarchs and gray cardinals of that time.

The Katyn problem: documents and reality

Shved Vladislav Nikolaevich, Candidate of Historical Sciences

Synod and the overthrow of the monarchy

Babkin Mikhail Anatolievich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State University for the Humanities

Interesting facts that refute the official "compassionate" version of the ROC MP about the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia as an institution. The facts of the hasty activity of the Synod to delegitimize the royal power even before the official abdication of the Romanovs are given. Circulars sent to all parishes ordered to commemorate the royal power in the past tense, and in the akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos “Blessed by God” suddenly began to be called ahead of schedule not the royal power, but the Provisional Government. Such actions fueled nervousness in people, and this example of the facts is still a zone of silence in the New Believer Church.

Grigory Rasputin and his "double": falsification of personality

Mironova Tatyana Leonidovna, Doctor of Philology, Chief Researcher of the RSL

An analysis of the testimonies and memories of those days tells about the methods of banal and brazen manipulation of public opinion with the help of falsifications and provocations in the media. The atrocities attributed to Grigory Rasputin are a clownery of doubles, organized by swindlers with the tacit consent of the government and the Royal Family.

"Vlesova book" as a historical and philological falsification

Shalygina Natalya Vladimirovna, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor of the Orthodox University named after St. John the Evangelist

A rich factual material is summarized that the Vlesova Book is a complete historical fake, both from the point of view of linguistic and philological analysis, and from the point of view of the historical inconsistency of the version of its acquisition. Examples of substitutions, the latest changes and additions made in new editions of the publication in response to the arguments of scientific criticism, as well as the perfidious substitution of negative reviews of this book with evidence of its validity from the same authors are given.

Russian historians about the "New Chronology" by A.T. Fomenko-Nosovsky

Bushuev Sergey Vladimirovich, leading researcher of the RSL

A number of absurdities of the discussed work and the opinion of the scientific community about the "New Chronology" are listed. The possible prerequisites for the emergence of this kind of "scientific fiction" are analyzed, the popularization of which may soon oust the real history of our country from the consciousness of society and our descendants.

Also read the article on the topic on our website: “New Chronology” by Fomenko and Nosovsky:

The nobility in Russia: myths and reality

Shcherbachev Oleg Vyacheslavovich, leader of the Moscow noble assembly

The leader of the Moscow Nobility Assembly says that the stereotyped clichés about the nobility that have established themselves in the public mind do not correspond to historical reality and require clarification and correction.

Publishing project "Forgotten and Unknown Russia"

Blagovo Valentina Alekseevna, Candidate of Philology

Presentation of books on the history of Russia from a publishing house specializing in such publications.

Discussion of reports

Photos from the event are posted on the RSL website: http://readerlounge.blogspot.ru/2013/10/blog-post_25.html#more

In addition, we present on the topic an amazingly frank study on the falsification of a document attributed to the Bolshevik regime: “Instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars” signed by the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin dated May 1, 1919, No. 13666/2” on “the fight against priests and religion”, addressed to F. Dzerzhinsky. http://redstar2012.livejournal.com/37403.html :

By this decision, Dzerzhinsky was “indicated” to the need “to do away with priests and religion as soon as possible. Priests were to be arrested as counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs, shot mercilessly and everywhere. And as much as possible. Churches are to be closed. The premises of temples should be sealed and turned into warehouses” (see photo).

The article, written by the staff of the Rublevsky Museum, describes in detail the sources and goals of the falsifiers, and we strongly recommend that you read it to form your own attitude to the problem.

Lenin's instructions about the fight against priests are fake: who is behind it?

I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland or have a different history, except for the history of our ancestors, such as God gave it to us (Pushkin A.S. Collected work: In 10 vols. M., 1992. Vol. 10. S. 310)

Mankurt did not know who he was, where he came from, the tribe, did not know his name, did not remember childhood, father and mother - in a word, mankurt did not realize himself as a human being. Deprived of understanding his own self, mankurt from an economic point of view had a number of advantages. He was equivalent to a dumb creature and therefore absolutely submissive and safe ... The command of the owner for the mankurt was above all (Chingiz Aitmatov. Stormy stop (And the day lasts longer than a century). M., 1981 S. 106-107)

Society in Russia is sick. And the diagnosis of this disease is anabiosis. Apparently, over the past decades, such monstrous experiments have been carried out on the historical memory of our people that a protective mechanism is triggered in the surviving generation, making it easy to forget today what happened yesterday... their students, who are between 18 and 25 years old, that they ALREADY do not know either the Soviet Union or the history of its collapse. And indeed, those who today are from 15 - the age of the beginning of the awakening of social activity, to 35 - and this, according to sociological canons, is the “age of maturity”, do not have the knowledge and personal experience of the USSR - for them this is a completely DIFFERENT country and a different AGE, terra incognita »: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/59586.html?thread=398786#t398786

This article was supposed to be published in the museum blog on the eve of the presidential elections on March 4, 2012, but this was prevented by a heinous provocation against the editorial staff of the blog in LJ: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/94995.html Regular readers of our site know firsthand about the principled position of its editors in covering the drama of Russian history, whether it be the orgy of atheists: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/53948.html or the struggle for shrines: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/29617.html. The main criterion in the preparation of editorial materials was and remains the objectivity of the facts presented and the rebuff to all sorts of insinuations and fooling the people.

The stuffing of falsified "documents" on the history of Russia began immediately after the falsification of the results of the presidential elections on March 26, 2000, when in Russia as a whole Putin received, according to the majority of experts, approximately 48-49% of the votes, but the Presidential Administration and the "election ministry" lowered “from above” the CEC figured 52.94% (39,740,434 votes), although at the time the elections ended at 20:00, only 44.5% were for Putin (Verkhovsky A.M., Mikhailovskaya E.M., Pribylovsky V.V. PUTIN'S RUSSIA: A Partisan View, Moscow: Panorama Center, 2003, pp. 146-158). Instead of the second round, the inauguration was held on May 7, 2000 in the Kremlin, and a dirty information war was unleashed against Putin's main rival, Zyuganov, using fakes from the "Kremlin archives", which has not subsided to this day: http://expertmus.livejournal.com /89273.html

On the eve of the presidential elections on March 4, 2012, Patriarch Kirill, after the Liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on February 29, 2012, stated that too many lies and hypocrisy are used during the election campaign: “how the heart breaks from this stream of lies, slander, hypocrisy, juggling of facts oblivion of historical experience! Excuse me, but how can the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church denounce lies from the pulpit and at the same time launch fakes (see video) ?! I remember that someone from the Moscow Patriarchate even hinted at schizophrenia when both executioners and victims are glorified at the same time :-)

To manipulate mass consciousness in Russia, a total falsification of historical sources has been launched, one of the striking examples of which is the so-called. " Lenin's directive of May 1, 1919 No. 13666/2" on "the fight against priests and religion ". At the international conference "Christianity on the Threshold of the New Millennium", organized in June 2000 jointly by the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarchate, journalist V.M. Markov reported on his 1999 publication in Nash Sovremennik magazine with comments by priest Fr. Dimitry Dudko, where the “Instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars” was first mentioned, signed by the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin dated May 1, 1919 No. 13666/2, addressed to the chairman of the Cheka F.E. Dzerzhinsky with reference to some mysterious "decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars." By this decision, Dzerzhinsky was “indicated” to the need “to do away with priests and religion as soon as possible. Priests were to be arrested as counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs, shot mercilessly and everywhere. And as much as possible. Churches are to be closed. The premises of temples should be sealed and turned into warehouses” (see photo). It is this so-called. "instruction" is most often used today as proof of the "bloodlust" and "fierce" of the Bolsheviks in the early years of Soviet power.

We note right away that in the practice of party-state office work there were no documents with the name “Instruction”. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars have not issued a single document with such a name in their entire activities. There were only resolutions and decrees signed by the heads of these bodies (see collections “ Decrees of the Soviet government”), while serial numbers were not assigned to such documents. However, in all dubious publications, the “instruction” was assigned the serial number 13666/2, which implies the presence of many thousands of “instructions” in state records management. None of these documents is known to historians, has not been found in the archives, and has never been published. Of course, such a number was invented by falsifiers in order to be able to introduce into it the apocalyptic "number of the beast", give the paper a pronounced mystical character and connect it with the "satanic" element of Russian Bolshevism. In this case, the calculation was made not on the intellectuals, but on the mass consciousness. "Three sixes" in the "Lenin document" were supposed to hit the perception of a simple believer. The choice of the date is not accidental either – May 1, International Workers' Day.

For all his party and state activities, Lenin did not sign a single document with the title " indication”- neither with three sixes, nor without :-) There was no anti-religious document of Lenin dated May 1, 1919 and under a different name (decrees, notes, telegrams, decrees, etc.).

The Russian State Archive of Social-Political History (RGASPI) stores a fund of Lenin's documents, it included all Lenin's documents. Now all the documents of the Lenin Fund have been declassified and are available to researchers, since they do not contain state secrets. " Lenin's directive of May 1, 1919» is absent in RGASPI. Director of RGASPI K.M. Anderson on June 2, 2003 informed M.A. Vysotsky, in response to his request about the notorious “Instruction of Lenin dated May 1, 1919”, which he met in the work of G. Nazarov, the following: “In the funds of V. I. Lenin, M. I. Kalinin and other Soviet statesmen of secret documents and there is no restricted access. We also inform you that the text of the order of the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Kalinin and the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Lenin to the chairman of the Cheka Dzerzhinsky dated May 1, 1919, which is of interest to you, was not found in the RGASPI. At the same time, we inform you that the author of the article you sent, German Nazarov, did not work in the reading room of the archive and, therefore, did not receive any documents. All Lenin's documents in RGASPI are cataloged strictly by date. Among the papers relating to May 1, 1919, there are no anti-religious ones - these are several resolutions signed by Lenin of the Small Council of People's Commissars that met on that day, which relate to minor economic issues (RGASPI. F. 2 (V. I. Lenin's fund). Op. 1. D. 9537. Protocol No. 243 of the meeting of the Small Council of People's Commissars on May 1, 1919), as well as several resolutions on incoming telegrams (Lenin V.I. Biographical chronicle. M., 1977. T. 7. S. 149, 150).

There is no “Instruction of Lenin dated May 1, 1919” in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, where the funds of the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee are stored. The Central Archive of the FSB and the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation deny the existence of this “document” in their official letters. Thus, “Lenin's Decree of May 1, 1919” is absent in all state and departmental archives of Russia specialized on this topic. Likewise, there was no secret "decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars" of 1917-1919. about the need to “do away with priests and religion as soon as possible”, in pursuance of which “Lenin’s Decree of May 1, 1919” was allegedly issued. There are no "instructions of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD" with references to this "instruction" (allegedly canceled together with the "instruction" in 1939), there are no documents on its implementation.

Moreover, the content of the imaginary "Instruction" contradicts the factual side of the history of church-state relations in 1918 - early 1920s. During the fabrication of the “document”, the gross historical ignorance of the falsifiers was revealed. Documents of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR indicate that in 1919, and in 1920, and in the early 1920s. By order of the People's Commissariat of Justice of the RSFSR, individual churches were repeatedly placed at the disposal of the communities of believers, and the decisions of local authorities on their arbitrary closure were canceled. Such a practice, under the influence of "Lenin's directive of May 1, 1919" or a document similar to it, would be completely impossible. On April 23, 1919, the VIII department of the People's Commissariat of Justice informed the Administration of the Council of People's Commissars that "if the railway church at the Kursk station is a separate building, then there are no obstacles to transferring it to the disposal of groups of believers."

The clarification of the People's Commissariat of Justice is a response to a petition addressed to Lenin by a general meeting of Kursk railway workers, "strongly protesting against the closure of the church" (State Archive Russian Federation(GARF). F. 130. Op. 1. D. 208. L. 10, 11). In this case, the authorities could not but reckon with the moods among the "ruling class", even if, from their point of view, they were backward. In early November 1919, the Council of People's Commissars received a petition from the believers of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra about the unlawful closure of a number of churches on the territory of the Lavra. It was accepted for consideration, and the manager of the affairs of the Council of People's Commissars V.D. Bonch-Bruevich ordered the VIII department of the NKJ "to investigate the circumstances and inform me for a report to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars." “It is necessary to obtain exact information,” he wrote further, “why these churches were closed. The decree on the separation of the Church from the state does not provide for this circumstance – the interference of local authorities in the religious rights of citizens” (Ibid. L. 17). Of course, the tragic fate of the Lavra itself, closed by the authorities a few years later, is known: http://expertmus.livejournal.com/28442.html. But it is impossible not to notice that in 1919 the authorities demonstrated their "tolerance" and even met the believers halfway on the issue of abolishing the closure of churches. Hence Bonch-Bruyevich's call to "investigate", to provide "accurate information" for his report to Lenin, his reference to the "Decree", his rebuke to the local authorities.

The initiators of the persecution of the Church at the indicated time most often became not only and not so much the punitive bodies (local Chekas), but various kinds of local councils, executive committees, presidiums, land committees, and revolutionary committees. There are many striking examples of this kind in the archives. After October 1917, the nuns of the Kolomna convent got the opportunity to live in the form of a women's labor commune, but it did not last long. In August 1919, the Kolomna City Executive Committee searched and plundered the monastery and sealed its premises. On August 19, the nuns sent a collective letter to Lenin: “Almost all are nuns of the peasant class, living on their own work - needlework. Why rob and embarrass them? You write that the Workers' and Peasants' Government does not interfere in the affairs of the faith, but does not allow believers to live. Please return everything taken in our monastery.” The nuns noticed that searches were continuing in the monastery and that all property was being plundered and taken away. The letter got to Bonch-Bruevich, who wrote briefly and expressively on paper: “ To the archive» (Ibid. Op. 3. D. 210. L. 37).

On September 3, 1919, about 400 sisters of the Serafimo-Diveevo convent sent a complaint addressed to Bonch-Bruyevich. The Nizhny Novgorod provincial land department took away from the community of 1600 all the monastery land (91 dessiatins), plowed by the sisters, in the absence of previously confiscated cattle, “on itself”, i.e. harnessing instead of horses (Ibid. L. 59). There was no reaction from Bonch-Bruevich. Later, the sisters were thrown out of the monastery, and it was closed in 1927: http://rublev-museum.livejournal.com/108332.html

In relation to the Orthodox clergy, the policy of the Bolshevik authorities was not aimed at its total physical destruction, as the authors of the fake - the so-called. "Lenin's instructions of May 1, 1919, No. 13666/2". In the 1920s the tactics of splitting the Church from within with the aim of destroying its canonical structures prevailed. For this, groups of representatives of the clergy loyal to the authorities were used, who became objects of manipulation. Similar tasks in the 1930s. were carried out by the forces of the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD, which would be completely impossible if they were faced with the task of "widespread" destruction of the clergy.

The head of the Soviet punitive organs, Dzerzhinsky, in whose name Lenin allegedly sent an ominous "instruction", wrote to his deputy M.Ya. Latsis April 9, 1921: " My opinion is that the church is falling apart, this should be helped, but in no way should it be revived in a renovationist form. Therefore, the church policy of collapse should be carried out by the Cheka, not by anyone else."(RGASPI. F. 76. Op. 3. D. 196. L. 3-3v.). Dzerzhinsky more than once demonstrated flexibility in his methods of combating the Church. On March 11, 1921, he issued a circular on the procedure for the liquidation of the Moscow United Council of Religious Communities and Groups for allegedly "counter-revolutionary activities." At the same time, he directed the Chekists to fight those religious societies that “under the flag of religion openly conduct agitation that contributes to the collapse of the Red Army, against the use of food distributions and the like.” And at the same time he ordered the workers of the Cheka: Communities that do no harm to the proletariat should be treated with the utmost caution, trying not to irritate religious associations that are not led by any counter-revolutionary center, which turned out to be the Moscow United Council. When issuing a circular, strictly refrain from any measures that could raise complaints against the agents of our power in the sense of ... constraining purely religious freedom"(F. E. Dzerzhinsky - Chairman of the Cheka-OGPU. 1917-1926: Collection of documents. M., 2007. S. 266, 267). This real source contradicts the assertion that the VChK is oriented toward the “widespread” destruction of the clergy.

Thus, even if we ignore the archival and clerical details that prove the forgery of the so-called. "Lenin's instructions of May 1, 1919", such a document could not have been born at all, since it does not fit into the real picture of church-state relations in 1918-1923. The normative acts that justified the persecution of the Church, persecution and restrictions on the rights of believers are well known in historiography: the Decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the Church of January 20, 1918, which deprived the Church of the right of ownership and legal entity, and May 1918 - the decision to create a "liquidation" department of the People's Commissariat of Justice; instructions of the People's Commissariat of Justice of August 30, 1918, depriving the Church of the rights of missionary, charitable, cultural and educational activities (further documents reproduced these provisions). In addition to the above normative acts, it should not be forgotten that in March 1919, at the VIII Congress of the RCP (b), the Party Program was adopted, with paragraph 13: “to avoid any insult to the feelings of believers, leading only to the consolidation of religious fanaticism” (CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 2. M., 1983. P. 83). So, an analysis of the sources establishes that “Lenin's instructions of May 1, 1919” on the fight against priests and religion did not exist, and its text cited in various publications is a gross fake.

The matrix of public consciousness is being intensively cleared right before our eyes. According to the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, even the materials on the impeachment of Yeltsin in 1998-1999 “have already been liquidated ... they are no longer in the open press, they have all been destroyed. Impeachment remains completely in my book “Loyalty”, all speeches, all faction leaders are described”: http://rublev-museum.livejournal.com/286212.html

Katyn case

And the most active member of the special parliamentary commission to consider the issue of impeachment, Viktor Ilyukhin (see photo), died, according to Zyuganov, against his will. Recall that on May 26, 2010, Ilyukhin informed Zyuganov that on May 25, 2010, one of the members of the special group for the production and forgery of archival documents, incl. on the Katyn case. According to him, “in the early 1990s, a group of high-ranking specialists was created to forge archival documents relating to important events of the Soviet period. This group worked in the structure of the security service of Russian President Yeltsin. Geographically, it was located in the premises of the former dachas of workers of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the village. Nagorny (Sparrow Hills, Kosygin St., military unit 54799-T FSO). According to him, the necessary order was delivered to Nagorny, a text for a document that should have been prepared, or a text to be included in an existing archival document, to make a signature of one or another official under the text or on the text. They had free access to archival materials. Many documents were brought to the village. Nagorny without any accounting and control over their movement. Their receipt was not fixed by any receipts and storage obligations. The group worked in Nagorny until 1996, and then was moved to the settlement of Zarechye.

According to him, a group of people worked on the semantic content of the draft texts, which allegedly included the former head of the Russian Archive R.G. Pikhoya. The name of the first deputy head of the presidential security service, G. Rogozin, was also named. He knows that employees of the 6th Institute (Molchanov) of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation worked in the same vein with archival documents. He, in particular, said that they had prepared a note by L. Beria to the Politburo of the CPSU (b) No. 794 / B dated March 1940, in which it was proposed to shoot more than 20 thousand Polish prisoners of war. He claims that hundreds of false historical documents were thrown into the Russian archives during this period and the same number were falsified by introducing distorted information into them, as well as by forging signatures. In support of what was said, the interlocutor presented a number of letterheads from the 40s of the last century, as well as fake stamps, signatures, etc. (see photo). At the same time, he stated that it often causes irony for the public to present certain archival documents as reliable, although the named group of people “had a hand” in their falsification”: http://youtu.be/jRJzkIAKarQ

The credibility of this sensational exposure of Yeltsin's mass falsification of historical sources is well confirmed by the history of the Katyn case. We are talking about the famous documents from package No. 1, which for decades was kept in the closed archive of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the rights of special importance. In September 1992, according to Andrey Artizov, the current head of the Rosarchive, the commission for acquaintance with the documents of the archive of the President of the Russian Federation opened this package at a scheduled meeting. “In October 1990, on behalf of the President of the Russian Federation Yeltsin, copies of these documents were handed over to the President, then President of the Republic of Poland Walesa, and, of course, they were published in Poland,” the head of the Russian Archives explained: http://www.rian .ru/society/20100428/227660849.html

For reference: Yeltsin was elected President of the Russian Federation on June 12, 1991: http://rublev-museum.livejournal.com/264148.html. And in July 1992, in the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation, the then head of the presidential administration, Yu.V. Petrov, Advisor to the President D.A. Volkogonov, chief archivist R.G. Pikhoya and director of the archive A.V. Short looked through his top secret materials. On September 24, they opened "Special Package No. 1". As Korotkoe said, “the documents turned out to be so serious that they were reported to Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. The President's reaction was swift: he immediately ordered that Rudolf Pikhoya, as the chief state archivist of Russia, fly to Warsaw and hand over these amazing documents to President Walesa. Then we sent copies to the Constitutional Court, the Prosecutor General's Office and the public” (Yazhborovskaya I.S., Yablokov A.Yu., Parsadanova V.S. Katyn Syndrome in Soviet-Polish Relations, M. ROSPEN, 2001, p. 386) . As you know, the transfer of these copies (!) to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which was then considering the "case on the ban on the CPSU", turned out to be a complete embarrassment for Yeltsin's supporters :-)

Meanwhile, there is another version of Yeltsin's publication of the "Katyn case", set out in the memoirs of the main "foreman of perestroika" A.N. Yakovleva: “In December 1991, in my presence, Gorbachev handed over to Yeltsin a package with all the documents on Katyn. When the envelope was opened, there were notes by Shelepin, Serov and materials about the execution of Polish servicemen and civilians, especially from the intelligentsia (more than 22 thousand people). I still don’t understand what was the point of keeping all these documents secret….” It turns out that the “Katyn case” was “found” either in December 1991 (according to Yakovlev) or in September 1992 ( according to the official version).

It must be taken into account that on the cover of the package, the photo of which is posted on the website of the Russian Archive, not only a list of what is inside is indicated, but also the date - December 24, 1991 with a note from above “Archive of the VI sector O. about the Central Committee of the CPSU Without the permission of the head Office of the President S... do not open the package”: http://rusarchives.ru/publication/katyn/14.jpg . As you know, Gorbachev officially announced his resignation on December 25, 1991. Accordingly, on December 24, 1991, the day before the "transfer of cases", the documents from the "Special Folder" in one package were handed over by Gorbachev to Yeltsin, as mentioned by Yakovlev. And V.I. Boldin wrote in his memoirs that in 1989 the “Katyn case” consisted of not one thick, but two thin closed packages, and inside both closed packages on Katyn in 1989 there were only “a few pages” with text. (Boldin V.I. The collapse of the pedestal. M., "Respublika". S. 257). 18.04. 1989 V. Galkin received from V.I. Boldin "Katyn case" and in one package handed over to the VI sector O. about the Central Committee of the CPSU (see photo). Officially confirmed the fact of his personal acquaintance in April 1989 with documents from the "Katyn case" and b. General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev. Moreover, Gorbachev, as well as V.I. Boldin, claims that in April 1989 there were two closed “Katyn folders”, and not one, while specifying: “... But both contained documentation confirming the version of the commission of academician Burdenko. It was a set of disparate materials, and all under that version ”(Gorbachev M.S. Life and reform. M., RIA Novosti, 1995. Book 2. P. 346).

For reference: according to the official Soviet version, published in 1944, Polish soldiers were shot by the German occupation forces near Smolensk in 1941. This conclusion was based on the conclusion of a commission chaired by academician Nikolai Burdenko, which included writer Alexei Tolstoy, Metropolitan Nikolai ( Yarushevich), People's Commissar of Education Vladimir Potemkin, as well as high-ranking representatives of the army and the NKVD.

Thus, a fake note by L. Beria to the Politburo of the CPSU (b) No. 794 / B dated March 1940 was made in the structure of the security service of the Russian President Yeltsin on the basis of the former dachas of the workers of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the village. Nagorny between December 25, 1991 and September 1992, when it was “found” by the group of the chief archivist R.G. Pihoya in "Special Package #1"...

Russian historians, in particular, Doctor of Historical Sciences M. Meltyukhov, have already proven the falsification of the “Will of V.I. Lenin”, documents related to the abdication of the throne of Nicholas II, and other similar facts have been established. Among them is the fake “Instruction of Lenin dated May 1, 1919 No. 13666/2” on the “fight against priests and religion”, first published in 1999. In order to build a false pseudo-historical series in the minds of people, the authors of this fake used wide popularity another fake - the so-called. Lenin's letters to V.M. Molotov dated March 19, 1922 on the discrediting of the Church as an ideological adversary during the famine in the country, which was first mentioned in 1964, when the 45th volume of Lenin’s PSS was released, where a place was allocated specifically for a note about this “letter” on with. 666. As you know, the number 666 - the number of Satan-Lucifer - is a secret signal to all Kabbalists, Jews and Masons: "Here is a mystery, here is a lie, here is our presence!"...

"The Matrix has you…"

To be continued …

© Andrey Rublev Museum experts' blog, 2012

Funny pictures

Let's finish with (not) funny pictures on the theme of the Soviet era, found on the site http://politiko.ua/blogpost810596

Related material

Scientifically substantiated exposure of the scientific version of world history from specialists from the authorized commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Press review: Ynglingi. Perun-nationalist outside the law

- deliberate distortion of historical events, or historical myth-making. The goals and motives of falsifications can be very diverse: ideological, political, creating public or commercial interest in a particular problem, event or scientist, etc. Examples of historical falsifications have been known since ancient Egypt.

Methods of falsification

The methods of falsifying history are varied, but in general they can be summarized as follows:

1. direct composition of facts and forgery of documents; destruction of documents and historical research; hiding existing documents.
2. one-sided selection and arbitrary interpretation of facts, as a result of which connections are built between facts, are absent in reality, and conclusions are drawn that cannot be drawn on the basis of the full picture.

The first group of methods refers to the falsification of information sources. The sources of certain “factual” judgments may not be indicated at all, indicated with reference to fictitious publications, or are clearly not related to the primary sources of the work (usually journalistic ones) in which these “facts” were first voiced. In this case, it is more correct to speak not so much about falsification (fake of the known), but about myth-making (additions of the fictitious). The most subtle means of falsification is the falsification of primary sources (“sensational” archaeological discoveries, previously “unknown” and “not yet printed” chronicle sources, memoirs, diaries, etc. In this case, a special examination is required to refute incorrect data, which is either not carried out, or carried out with a predetermined result, that is, it is also falsified.

In the second case, all the facts used separately can correspond to reality, but the conclusions are made with a gross and purposeful violation of the methodological foundations. Non-traditional methods can be used to process primary information, leading to "sensational" conclusions, the truth or falsity of primary sources can be confirmed depending on the goal, incomplete citation can be used, extrapolation of certain trends, etc.

This process reaches a special scope in countries with totalitarian regimes, where the apparatus of propaganda is controlled only by the authorities, and not by the public, and alternative information is blocked. As a result, the authorities get the opportunity to create completely arbitrary pictures of the past and then change them at their discretion. This was reflected in the well-known joke: "The USSR is a country with an unpredictable past."

Historical examples

Ancient Egypt

In ancient Egyptian documents, the activities of the pharaohs were, of course, depicted in an exaggerated and exaggerated form. For example, it was pointed out that Ramses II made a decisive personal contribution to the victory at the Battle of Kadesh, independently destroying hordes of enemies. In fact, Ramses II personally participated in the battle when he broke through with a small detachment from the encirclement, and the battle itself ended in a draw. The Hittites retreated to Kadesh, the Egyptian troops remained on the field, and each side presented itself as the winner. But, undoubtedly, the result of this battle was the strengthening of the influence of Egypt.

After the death of Pharaoh Akhenaten, he carried out a religious reform and tried to introduce monotheism, the new cult was declared a heresy. Images and sculptures of Akhenaten were destroyed, and his name was removed from documents.

Ivan IV the Terrible

One of the first documented cases of falsification of history for political reasons in Russia refers to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. At the direction of the king, the "Face Chronicle" was written - a holistic record of history from ancient times to that time. In the last volume (the so-called "synodal list"), which already talked about the reign of Grozny himself, who made the corrections, in which the governors and boyars, who fell out of favor with the tsar, were accused of various unseemly acts. According to some assumptions, the boyar rebellion of 1533, which was described only in the synodal list, but was not mentioned in any other written sources, was also completely invented.

In connection with the monopoly position of the Communist Party, throughout the entire period of the existence of Soviet Russia and the USSR, history was interpreted according to its ideological guidelines and goals under the control of the relevant party structures - departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU and republican party organizations (departments of propaganda and agitation, department of science, etc.). etc.), - and the main body of state censorship in the USSR, Glavlit, subordinate to the Central Committee of the CPSU.

Total control over the media allowed the leadership of the party to falsify any information and any events.

So, already at the beginning of 1918, the head of the Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia, V. Ulyanov, in his speeches for propaganda purposes, cited false information. Shaumyan", although at that time he was not even arrested; On April 23, he also said that "the first courageous counter-revolutionary Kornilov was killed by his own, indignant soldiers," although L. Kornilov was killed in the battle near Ekaterinodar.

Historians Dyakov Yu.L. and Bushueva T.S. noted that "the Stalinist regime created its own history in order to falsify the past by historical means." As a result, historical science in the USSR "lost one of its main functions - the study of the lessons of the past in the name of the present and the future."

One example of the falsification of history in the USSR is the falsification of the history of the CPSU, certified by scientists from the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, members of the Scientific Council "History of the Great October Socialist Revolution", scientists from the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Central Party Archive of the CPSU.

Back in 1932, Leon Trotsky showed examples of Stalin's falsification of the history of the October Revolution in Russia and later events at a time when their direct participants and witnesses were still alive.

Indications of the falsification of the history of the October Revolution, the history of the USSR and earlier periods in the history of the Russian Empire are contained in many scientific studies and encyclopedic publications, especially those published during the periods of the next debunking of the previous government: in the 1920s - in relation to the period before 1917, for example, "Small Soviet Encyclopedia"; after the 20th Congress of the CPSU - in relation to the period of Stalin's dictatorship, such as, for example, the studies of A. Solzhenitsyn; after 1991 - in relation to various periods of history, both the Russian Empire and the lands seized by it at different times, and the history of the USSR, such as, for example, the Encyclopedia of the History of Ukraine in 10 volumes; A short encyclopedic dictionary published in Moscow and many, many others. The biographies of the leaders - V. Ulyanov, I. Dzhugashvili, many other party and state leaders L. Bronstein, V. M. Skryabin, L. M. Kaganovich were falsified. and etc.

The history of such important events in the state as the Holodomor in Ukraine 1932-1933, the Holodomor in Ukraine 1921-1923, the Holodomor in Ukraine 1946-1947, the mass deportations of the population by nationality, the signing of the Non-Aggression Treaty between the USSR and Germany and related documents, was falsified and hushed up, the formation of the USSR, the creation and activities of the GULAG, the CPSU, the destruction of Polish prisoners, the execution of peaceful demonstrations (from January 1918 until the 60s, as, for example, in Novocherkassk) and many others.

A member of the London "Committee on Non-Intervention" during the Spanish Civil War, Soviet Ambassador to Great Britain Ivan Maisky, at a meeting of the Committee on November 4, 1936 (and then, in his memoirs), refuted the assertion of the representative of Italy, Dino Grandi (ital. Dino Grandi about the participation at that time of tanks, planes and Soviet troops in the battles in Spain. But in the notes to the edition of "Spanish Diaries" by M. Koltsov 1987, the participation of tankers of the Red Army under the command of brigade commander S.M. Krivoshein in the defense of Madrid already on October 27, 1936. Brigade commander Ya.V. Smushkevich fought in Spain "since October 1936." The first victims among the Soviet pilots were already at the end of October, as Dino Grandi informed the Non-Intervention Committee.

As an example of falsification by the method of arbitrary selection of historical facts, historians S. Volkov and Yu. Emelyanov cite the brochure "Falsifiers of History (historical reference)", produced by the "Sovinformburo" in 1948 in response to the publication by the US State Department, together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain and France, collection of documents "Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941". Pointing to a significant list of real events of that time, at the same time, the anonymous authors of the brochure do not mention the secret Soviet-German agreement of 1922, which allowed Germany to make a significant breakthrough in the preparation of the armed forces, bypassing the Treaty of Versailles. And this agreement was signed on August 11, 1922

Lenin portends at a rally on Sverdlov Square in Moscow May 5, 1920 Trotsky and Kamenev stand on the steps of the platform.

Photo falsified: Trotsky and Kamenev are no more.

Nikolai Yezhov next to Stalin.

Falsified photo: Yezhov is no more.

Ulyanov and A. Bogdanov play chess in Capri (1908). Standing: V. Bazarov, M. Gorky, his son Z. Peshkov, Bogdanov's wife

the same photo, but seized by V. Bazarov and Zinovy ​​Peshkov

Modern Ukraine

In Ukraine, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of Ukrainian pseudo-historians also appeared who tried, on the basis of false evidence, to exalt the role of the Ukrainian people in history. In particular, it has been argued that the original Indo-Europeans were Ukrainian or prominent historical figures, like Jesus Christ and Buddha, were from Ukraine. The official Ukrainian historical science is fighting against such falsification of history.

Modern Russia

In Russia there are also a number of historians who seek to raise the greatness of Russia on the basis of many falsifications or the suppression of some historical circumstances. Thus, the school textbook by N. Zagladin “History of Russia and the world in the 20th century”, which, on the instructions of V. Putin, was supposed to teach “more patriotic” history, deliberately keeps silent or one-sidedly interprets many dark pages of Russian history - Stalinist repressions and famines, Chechen wars the like.