The article is a falsification of historical data. Problems of interpreting history and countering attempts to falsify Russian history

History / 2. General history

Ph.D., prof. Gazetov V.I.

Candidate of Economics, Assoc. Efimov G.I.

Institute of Economics and Culture, Russia;

Ph.D., prof. Khomenko V.I.

Moscow City University of Management of the Government of Moscow, Russia

Falsification of history is an effective weapon of the information war

Today, history has become a fertile field for a variety of manipulations in order to extract or otherwise political benefits. This has happened before. Great people make history, and their less gifted descendants rewrite it to suit the political expediency.

The search for and knowledge of truth based on information about reliable facts is the essence of historical science as one of the most important areas of the world knowledge system. Of particular danger to the world system of knowledge is the falsification of historical science with intrusions into the sources of historical facts and distortions in the application of scientific methods for their interpretation.The history of a country, people, society or state formation at all times has been the scene of numerous clashes over the formation and interpretation of the image of the past, first of all, because the conceptually designed image of the past has an ideological aspect for all generations, consolidating (or disintegrating and polarizing) society, ethnic group, state . The search for any information about the past, its systematization and generalization, transformation into appropriate views, theories and concepts, followed by their broad broadcast to various social strata to consolidate historical ideas in the mass consciousness, is carried out by the cultural and intellectual environment. The formation of an appropriate image of the past is aimed atsolution of a number of ideological and ideological tasks to ensure the stability of the society and its resistance to external influences.

The intellectual distortion of historical events consists in correcting them in such a way that the real reflected facts of the past, supplemented by details that never existed, led to a change in its actual original meaning. Incomplete authenticity (identity) of the source, which is expressed in the replacement of its content with modified fragments that change the meaning of this content, is a banal forgery, that is, a materialized distortion of the truth.

Distortion of historical knowledge, rewriting of history, large-scale or isolated cases of its falsification, aimed at changing anyelements of the collective representation of society and the people about their past, pose for the latter a real threat of destruction of their internal integrity, coherence and stability.The existing space of historical memory does not imply intentional or even simply careless interference, the inevitable and immutable consequences of which may well be sudden and unpredictable events. Therefore, in modern conditions of global communication, deliberate falsification of history is perceived as an effective "non-lethal weapon" of a new generation that can be effectively used for political, economic, military or other purposes. In the process of scientific research, techniques and methods alien to science are introduced for information and psychological support of military operations, the system-forming principle of which is disinformation and manipulation of public consciousness.

The conquerors of antiquity burned books and destroyed monuments in order to deprive the people of historical memory. The blackening of Russian history has a long tradition. Even in the middle of the XIX century. a cohort of people appeared who identified the concepts of "Russia" and "evil". The meaning of life for these people was the struggle not with evil in Russia, but with Russia as a source of evil. Since then, these people and their modern followers have been convinced that the preservation of the Russian archetype is hindering the complete reform of the country. The victory over the "source of evil" is seen by him in the radical destruction of the integral system of moral values ​​of the people. The way to achieve this goal lies through the introduction into the public consciousness of hatred for one's past. This thought is expressed with maximum accuracy by one of Dostoevsky's "demons": "Whoever curses his former, he is already ours."

According to objective historical results, glorious deeds accomplished by many generations of Russians, Russia's past is one of the most worthy and convincing.That is why it becomes the object of aggressive and vicious attacks. At the same time, domestic history appears as a string of gloomy, unsightly, vile events that should cause natural disgust in society. Pathological contempt for the culture and history of Russia, for its shrines and symbols, the lack of a sense of historical roots finds expression in attempts to overthrow the heroes of past times. Genuine heroes are replaced by fictional, ugly, farcical characters. The slaughter of heroes and the death of memory are interrelated processes. The deheroization of the past was required by the persecutors of national culture in order to exterminate the feeling of patriotism. The logic here is extremely simple - a country that does not have a worthy past cannot count on a favorable future either.

A characteristic technique associated with an attempt to radically transform the historical understanding of the past is the desire to question the impeccable reputation of glorious heroes recognized by contemporaries and descendants, to discredit the good name and zeal in the performance of duty to the fatherland of thosewho, according to the poet Vladimir Solovyov, was always glorified by universal prayer, consecrated and exalted in churches, - those who loved, defended and died for Russia.At the same time, the lives and activities of not only and not so much prominent political figures, military leaders, thinkers of the past - from Grand Duke Vladimir to Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, A.V. Suvorov, M.V. Lomonosov and many, many others. Ordinary workers, warriors who lived honestly and regularly performed their duty, but are almost unknown to the general public, are subjected to defamation.

The morality of the people is expressed in its attitude towards previous generations.Russian historians of past centuries sincerely and disinterestedly served the search for truth on the basis of the reliability of repeatedly verified facts and the validity of sources. In conditionscomplication of public consciousness and its humanization,Internet forums are filled with dialogues of numerous enthusiasts who are interested in their native places, conducting a painstaking search for any information about their ancestors, their life, customs and way of life. It is from this moral interest, in the final analysis, that love for the Motherland is formed, feelings of patriotism and high citizenship are brought up.

The Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications (Rospechat) and the International Press Club have announced an interregional competition of journalistic skills "Glory to Russia", dedicated to the days of the military glory of the Fatherland. The holding of the Contest is considered in the context of the implementation of the state program "Patriotic education of citizens of the Russian Federation for 2011-2015". The purpose of the competition is to attractmedia attention to patriotic themes, including the glorious military past and present of our country, the traditions and modern tasks of its armed forces and civilian formations. As a jury member of the Competition, one of the authors of these lines was lucky to get acquainted with many materials published in the media - honest, kind, fair, glorifying the feat of the people. Small regional newspapers compete on equal terms with the central press...

Therefore, the speeches of some press organs, with poorly concealed disdain, digging into the past, denigrating and vulgarizing perhaps the best pages of their history, sometimes simply striking with their dense ignorance, sound like destructive dissonance. The past, according to B. Pasternak, opens up in all the diversity of human destinies, where each person, each individually, is one and only, where each peasant or artisan, priest or general, scientist or artist is real and valuable by his deeds, thoughts, aspirations of the soul. Domestic history is full-blooded and crowded, populated by many bright, original personalities. Satisfying the social demand of the population, providing it with effective support in organizing the search and collection of data on distant ancestors is the task of the day, formulated at the highest level. Many regional newspapers are actively using the communication opportunities that open up in this area. The humanistic component of such activity is obvious. The central and local archives contain documentary information about many of the residents who have already left. Access to this information has long been open. The local press could be helpful by publishing materials that help specific people find the truth. information on the history of the region, based on archival documents, and not on dubious rumors that distort the life of past generations and sin by broadcasting obsolete stereotypes.

Desecration of the past leads to cynicism and lack of spirituality. Lies generated by ignorance, disrespect for history, culture, and the memory of ancestors can lead to spiritual impoverishment and national collapse. Attempts to inflict reprisals on the past of the people are becoming more severe and aggressive. More and more new waves of historical "revisionism" are rolling in. Techniques and methods of information-psychological operations applied against a military adversary are used. The efforts of falsifiers, acting, as a rule,under the banner of goodness and justice,are aimed not at a simple distortion of historical facts, but at the destruction of the spiritual, cultural foundations of the state and people. Therefore, organized and in-depth counteraction to them must inevitablyinclude not only the obligatory refutation of lies, but also something immeasurably more important - the all-round strengthening of these same spiritual and civilizational foundations.

No one is allowed to try to question the deeds of the heroes. They stay with us forever. The spiritual health of Russian society is ensured not only by the instinct of national self-preservation, but also by a system of state and public measures that ensure the preservation of a unique patriotic spirit, honored and respected throughout the world.

The lessons of the Second World War and the main directions of its falsification

The main lessons of the Second World War, their relevance today

The results of the Second World War led the peoples of the world to realize the danger posed by wars, especially world wars, to the understanding that they should be excluded from the life of society.

What are the main lessons of the Second World War and its constituent part - the Great Patriotic War?

The first and most important of them is that Victory in the Great Patriotic War was achieved only thanks to the spiritual strength and stamina of the Soviet people and army. The faith of the people in their Fatherland, in the just nature of the war was an important factor that made it possible to defeat fascism.

Deep patriotism has always been and remains a hallmark of the Russian people. It manifested itself especially brightly during the Great Patriotic War, became the basis of the spiritual and moral superiority of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany.

Patriotism was a powerful source of mass heroism, unprecedented stamina, courage and selflessness, selfless devotion to the Motherland of Soviet people at the front and in the rear, labor exploits of workers, peasants and intelligentsia.

Having lost patriotism as a fundamental, basic component in the system of spiritual values ​​traditional for Russia and the national pride and dignity associated with it, we will lose the most powerful incentive to defend the Fatherland, we will lose the ability to achieve great things.

The second important lesson of the war is that successes at the front and in the rear were possible only thanks to the cohesion of society, the unity of the people and the army. The Great Patriotic War is rightfully called a truly national, Patriotic War.

The main thing that united and inspired people was the need to protect and save the Fatherland. Thanks to the policy of internationalism during the war years, all the peoples of the Soviet Union came out against the enemy as a united front. This allowed the country to withstand and defeat a strong and insidious aggressor.

Today, the relevance of this lesson is undeniable. He recalls that the friendship and mutual assistance of peoples is the source of their strength and well-being. For example, the current political situation in the world urgently requires, within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, to actively and effectively carry out deep integration of the participating countries in all areas, including defense. We are talking about looking for and finding worthy answers to common threats and challenges in close cooperation. This is the only way to achieve lasting collective security for the Commonwealth.

The third lesson of the war is that the issues of strengthening the country's defense, increasing the combat readiness and combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces must constantly be in the center of attention of the state leadership.

Turning back to the times of the Second World War is a good opportunity to remember that in order to repel any possible aggression and reliably ensure the country's security, a powerful and combat-ready army and navy are required.

With the end of the Cold War, the tense confrontation between the two most powerful military-political blocs, led by the USSR and the USA, ceased. However, this does not mean that the military danger, especially the danger of local military conflicts, has disappeared for Russia, the legal successor of the Soviet Union.

In order to resist it, it is necessary to carefully and deeply analyze the situation in the world and the changes taking place in it, to foresee the nature of a possible war, its possible scale and duration. To unravel the intentions of a potential adversary, a thorough analysis and evaluation of various options for his actions is necessary. The ability to draw correct conclusions from this will increase the combat readiness of the Armed Forces.

As is known, the underestimation of the role of strategic defense in the military theory of the USSR, the focus on defeating the enemy on its territory and "little bloodshed" in the pre-war period led to tragic consequences at the initial stage of the Great Patriotic War.

Assessing him Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov noted: “During the reworking of operational plans in the spring of 1941, the features of conducting a modern war in its initial period were practically not fully taken into account. The People's Commissar of Defense and the General Staff believed that the war between such major powers as Germany and the Soviet Union should begin according to the previously existing scheme: the main forces enter the battle a few days after the border battles. Fascist Germany was placed on the same terms with us as regards the terms of concentration and deployment. In fact, both the forces and the conditions were far from being equal.

Only the high level of military art of the commanders of the Red Army, the good training of domestic military personnel made it possible, at the cost of the greatest losses in four years, to correct the miscalculations made in the first days and months of the war.

The conclusion from this experience is obvious: in matters of military construction, it is necessary to proceed from a real assessment of the military threats existing in the world. It depends on what kind of war the Armed Forces should be prepared for and what tasks they will have to solve.

The fourth lesson of the Second World War clearly speaks of the need to prevent the slightest manifestation of the ideology of fascism and its varieties in society.
The lessons of the past teach: when fascism acquires a state base for its existence, when a powerful military machine is in its hands, the fascist government and its leaders begin to pose a mortal threat to the existence of the rest of mankind.

Unfortunately, despite the complete defeat of fascism in World War II and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, half a century later, neo-fascist and extremist groups and organizations revived in a number of states, primarily in the Baltic states. And although their numbers are small, as a rule, they are associated with powerful circles in politics and economics, they are trying to actively introduce fascist ideology into the minds of people, especially young people. The manifestations of modern fascism should be counteracted primarily by criminal law measures, as well as measures aimed at identifying and eliminating the causes and conditions conducive to the implementation of extremist activity.

The fifth lesson from the experience of the Second World War is that only the collective efforts of states and peoples, the efforts of international organizations, can prevent an impending war. The disunity of the peace-loving forces in the West as a whole and in Germany itself in the mid-1930s allowed the Nazis to unleash a war.

In order to prevent this, the powers must be responsible for the choice of tactical and strategic allies in resolving issues of the military security of the country, the region and the world as a whole.

The Second World War showed that the policy of states or their coalition can be successful only when it is based on the mutual trust of the allies, based on a combination of economic, socio-political, ideological and defense factors.

The sixth lesson of the Second World War: the victory over fascism was achieved thanks to the powerful economic base of the states - members of the anti-Hitler coalition.

For example, the Soviet economy, later strengthened by Lend-Lease supplies, successfully provided the Soviet-German front with everything necessary throughout the war.

The conclusion that victory in any war, ensuring national security and defense of the state is possible only with a powerful economy and a powerful military-industrial complex, is still relevant today.

The lessons of the Second World War not only have not lost their relevance decades after its end, but have also acquired great significance. Today they are guiding mankind towards the search for agreement in the name of common goals, towards achieving unity and cohesion, political and economic stability in the world.

Falsification of the history of the Great Patriotic War

Throughout the post-war period, the events and results of the Great Patriotic War were repeatedly subjected to various "revisions" and revisions by the political and military leaders of a number of foreign states, former German military leaders, etc. The theme of the results of World War II is still the subject of acute ideological, scientific, informational and psychological confrontation in domestic and world historiography. In this dispute, distortions, bias in the assessment of events, and sometimes lies are often allowed.

The main stumbling block was the following points: the history of the pre-war period in the world, the military art of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, the role and significance of the Soviet-German and other fronts of World War II, the losses in the war of various sides, and others.

Pseudo-scientific and pseudo-historical concepts, views on these and other issues throughout the entire post-war period were replicated in thousands of books, articles, were reflected in television programs and films. Now such interpretations of history, far from the truth, can be found in large numbers on the global information network Internet.

Their goal is obvious: to shield the true culprits of the war, to belittle the contribution of the USSR and its Armed Forces to the defeat of the fascist bloc, to denigrate the liberation mission of the Red Army, to cast doubt on the geopolitical results of World War II.

Unfortunately, a wave of "new interpretations" of the past has swept through public consciousness in Russia itself. Since the beginning of the 90s of the last century, a part of the Russian scientific, journalistic and writers' community has been involved in the process of rewriting history. At the same time, the main blow is dealt to the minds of young people, and distorted views on the events of the Great Patriotic War have penetrated, sadly, even into school history books.

What are the main areas of falsification of the history and results of the Great Patriotic War can be identified?

The first direction is a deliberate underestimation of the role and significance of the Soviet-German front in World War II and the contribution of the USSR to the Victory.

Adherents of this theory admit that the Soviet Union took on a heavy burden in the war and played a significant role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan. But at the same time, they argue that he was not the main "architect of the Victory" and the laurels of glory should go to the United States and England, who supposedly made the greatest contribution to achieving victory.

Justifying this concept, some American historians insist that the war became a world war only from the moment the United States entered it, that is, from December 7, 1941, and this turned out to be a decisive factor that changed the course of World War II. The American military historian, Colonel E. Dupuy (Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, 1916 - 1995) begins his book on the war with the events at Pearl Harbor and does not hide the fact that his goal is for "the reader ... to appreciate the decisive role of the United States in victory of the free world over the forces of totalitarianism.

To prove the decisive role of the United States in the victory over the "axis" countries, the so-called "arsenal of democracy" theory was invented. According to her, such an arsenal was the American military economy, the industrial potential of the United States, which served as a supplier of a huge amount of weapons and military equipment for all countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. However, the widespread version that the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany was largely determined by US lend-lease supplies is clearly exaggerated. Everyone knows that during the war years such supplies amounted to only about 4% of the military production of the USSR. In addition, deliveries were carried out irregularly, with long interruptions.

In addition, as the English historians D. Barber and M. Garrison rightly noted, Lend-Lease “... was never an act of charity ... While Germany controlled the continent from the English Channel to Central Russia, the Russians remained the only who fought directly against the German ground forces, and it was in the Western Allies' own interest to assist them."

Already during the war years and immediately after it, American historians considered the events on the Soviet-German front, without touching on the question of their influence on the overall course of hostilities. At the same time, the results of the combat operations of the American-British troops in various theaters of military operations (in the Pacific Ocean, North Africa, Italy, France) were exaggerated in every possible way.

For example, the American historian X. Baldwin believes that 11 battles (“great campaigns”) decided the outcome of World War II. He refers to them the battle in Poland in 1939, the battle for Britain in 1940, the landing on the island of Crete in 1941, the battle for the island of Corregidor in 1942, the battle for Tarawa in 1943, the landings in Sicily and Normandy in 1943-1944 years, the naval battle in Leyte Gulf in 1944, the Ardennes and Okinawa in 1945. Of the battles won by the Red Army, he names only the Battle of Stalingrad.

The developers of the "concept of decisive battles" do not mention Moscow, Kursk and other great battles of the Soviet troops at all.

A variation on the "decisive battle" theory is the "turning point" theory, which aims to prove the decisive role of the US military in bringing about a turning point in World War II.

For example, the American historian T. Carmichael believes that a radical turning point in the war occurred in late 1942 - early 1943, including El Alamein, Tunisia, Stalingrad and the naval battle in the Barents Sea among such "turning points". At the same time, the landing of a reinforced division of the American Marine Corps on the island of Guadalcanal in August 1942 is referred to as "the beginning of the counteroffensive in the Pacific", although in strategic terms it was of particular importance.

There are other options for the number and names of both "decisive battles" and "turning points", but the naval battle of Midway Island in June 1942 stands out as "one of the truly decisive events of the war", as a result of which the Japanese fleet was defeated, but its superiority in the Pacific was not eliminated. The battle itself also did not have a serious impact on the overall course of the Second World War.

In any case, and this is the essence of the theory, when the vast majority of "decisive battles" and "turning points" are attributed to those fronts where the fighting was conducted by the Anglo-American troops.

The distortion of the role of the Soviet Union in World War II is closely connected with the tendentious definition of the sources and preconditions for the victory of the Soviet Union over the fascist-militarist bloc. Their scientific analysis is often replaced by fictions that hide the true reasons for the success of the Red Army.

So, a number of German historians are trying to substantiate the version that the Soviet Union was completely unprepared to repel fascist aggression, and its victories over Germany are explained by “military happiness”. To explain the reasons for the defeat of the Wehrmacht, they even developed a special theory of "accidents". As a rule, they include among such accidents the unfavorable weather and climatic conditions of the Soviet Union for the Nazi troops, the large extent of its territory, the miscalculations and mistakes of Hitler as a political and military leader.

Attempts are also being made to belittle the level of Soviet military art and the spiritual and moral potential of the peoples of the USSR, mass heroism, exceptional stamina, courage and courage of Soviet soldiers in the fight against the enemy are denied.

All these false theories are baseless. The truth is that the main burden of the armed struggle in World War II fell on the Soviet Union, and the Soviet-German front was the main, decisive one in it. It was on this front that the main battles of the Great Patriotic War took place, it is this front that has no equal in terms of the number of forces involved, the duration and intensity of the armed struggle, its spatial scope and final results.

The number of losses of the Soviet Union in the war and the cost of victory are the second most important controversial point in the interpretation of the history of the Second World War.

So, due to the large human and material losses of the USSR, some historians generally question the significance of the Victory he achieved.

Under the pretext of establishing the truth, other authors name their unsubstantiated figures of human losses and try to present the losses of the aggressor as less than they actually were. In this way, they distort historical truth, they seek to deliberately belittle the feat of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.

Meanwhile, the rechecking of statistical data, carried out in 1988 - 1993 by the commission of the USSR Ministry of Defense, headed by Colonel General G.F. Krivoshee, and data published in the latest unique reference publication “The Great Patriotic War without a secrecy stamp. The Book of Losses / G.F. Krivosheee, V.M. Andronikov, P.D. Burikov. - M.: Veche, 2009., confirm the previously obtained research results.

The losses of both military personnel and the civilian population of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, determined by accounting, statistical and balance methods, ultimately amount to 26.6 million people. Irreversible demographic losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR (killed, died from wounds and diseases, died as a result of accidents, shot by military tribunals, did not return from captivity), recorded by the headquarters of all instances and military medical institutions during the years of the Great Patriotic War (including campaign in the Far East), amounted to 8 million 668 thousand 400 military personnel on the payroll.

These sacrifices were not in vain. This is a forced payment for the most precious thing - the freedom and independence of the Motherland, the salvation of many countries from enslavement, a sacrifice in the name of establishing peace on Earth.

The controversy surrounding the version of the "preventive" nature of Germany's war against the USSR does not subside.

The essence of this version lies in the fact that in 1941 the Soviet Union allegedly concentrated a powerful grouping of its troops on the western border and prepared the Red Army's invasion of Europe through Germany. Thus, he, they say, provoked a preemptive strike by Hitler, who, in order to "protect himself and other Western countries," was forced to start a preventive war against the USSR.

This version of the outbreak of war was first heard on June 22, 1941, in a statement by the German ambassador to the USSR, Count Friedrich-Werner von der Schullenburg, handed over to the Soviet government, and in a memorandum handed over by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop on the same day to Soviet Ambassador V.G. Dekanozov in Berlin after the invasion.

In addition, the version of the “preventive nature” of the war of Nazi Germany against the USSR was intensively promoted by many Nazi generals in their memoirs dedicated to World War II.

It should be emphasized that these statements are far from the truth and do not reflect the objective reality. The course of events of that time, historical facts and documents completely refute the judgments about the allegedly forced invasion of the Germans into the territory of the Soviet Union.

The myth of the "preemptive attack" was exposed at the Nuremberg trials. The former head of the German press and broadcasting, Hans Fritsche, admitted that he organized a massive campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda, trying to convince the public that it was not Germany, but the USSR that was to blame for this war.

Preparing a campaign to the East, Hitler attached great importance not only to the creation of strategic offensive bridgeheads, not only to solving material, technical, resource and food problems at the expense of third countries, but also to favorable propaganda support for his actions. It was in the depths of the Hitlerite propaganda machine that myths arose about the “Soviet threat”, about “Soviet expansionism”, about the desire of the USSR to establish control over Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, about the “preventive” nature of the Barbarossa plan, about the “hostility” of the Soviet system to small peoples, about the "liberation mission" of the German Reich in the East, etc.

The legend of the "preventive war" is exposed by the analysis of the content of the plans "Barbarossa", "Ost" and other numerous Nazi documents extracted from the German archives. They reveal the Wehrmacht's secret preparations for an attack on the USSR and testify to the aggressive essence of fascism's plans against the USSR.

An analysis of the entire set of documents and the specific activities of the top Soviet leadership testifies to the absence of plans for a preventive war in the USSR. None of the more than 3 thousand orders of the people's commissars of defense (K. Voroshilov and S. Timoshenko) from 1937 to June 21, 1941, and none of the operational plans of the western border military districts of 1941 contain even a hint of preparation for an attack on Germany. Had it been carried out in reality, it would inevitably have had an effect on the assignment of missions to the troops and the planning of combat training.

Another persistent myth of the Second World War is about the "expansion" of the USSR to the West, its desire for territorial conquests during the liberation of the countries of Europe and Asia.

Attempts are being made to present the liberation mission of the Red Army in the countries of Europe and Asia as a communist expansion, as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and peoples, to impose a social system that is objectionable to them. However, even at the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet government emphasized that the goal of the struggle of the USSR against the fascist oppressors was not only to eliminate the danger hanging over the country, but also to help all the peoples of Europe, groaning under the yoke of German fascism.

When the Red Army entered the territory of other countries, the Government of the USSR was guided by the treaties and agreements that existed at that time, which corresponded to the norms of international law.

Knowledge of the main directions of falsification of history, showing their anti-science are the key to an effective struggle against the distortion of the true course of events of the Second World War.

Guidelines
In the introductory part, it is necessary to emphasize that today in a huge flow of information one often comes across facts of a biased interpretation of the history of the Second World War. The main goal of the parties interested in this is to revise its geopolitical results. In practice, this can be seen, for example, in Japan's unfounded territorial claims regarding the Kuril Islands, which were ceded to the Soviet Union following the war.

Opening the first question, it is important to note that the lessons of the Second World War are still important today for preventing wars and maintaining the Armed Forces in proper combat readiness.

When considering the second question, it should be emphasized that the approaches of today's falsifiers of the history of the Second World War date back to the developments of the propaganda apparatus of the Third Reich.

It should be added that an effective way to counter attempts to falsify history is the widespread introduction of new historical documents, including declassified ones, into scientific circulation.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in order to combat the facts of distorting history in our country, a Commission was created under the President of the Russian Federation to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests.

1. History of the Second World War 1939 - 1945. In 12 volumes. T. 12. - M., 1982.

2. Zakharin I., Strelnikov V. Lessons from the Second World War and the main directions of its falsification. // Reference point. - 2005. - No. 4.

3. Gareev M. Battles on the military-historical front. - M., 2008.

4. Kulkov E., Rzheshevsky O., Chelyshev I. Truth and lies about the Second World War. - M., 1988.

Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Samosvat.
Reserve Lieutenant Colonel, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Alexei Kurshev
Landmark 06.2011

It's no secret that the destruction of the Soviet Union and the subsequent disintegration of the post-Soviet space was based on a large-scale falsification of Russian history. Under the pretext of familiarizing ourselves with the benefits and values ​​of Western civilization, all kinds of anti-historical concepts were imposed on our peoples with the sole purpose of discrediting our national history and changing the mentality of our people, depriving them of national identity, respect for their history, for their great compatriots and ancestors. For a people deprived of its historical memory, its historical self-consciousness, ceases its historical existence, disappears as a people. Of course, the falsifiers directed their main blow against Soviet history as the closest and most tangible for our people and, consequently, the most dangerous for the disintegrative, anti-historical designs of the falsifiers.

Let's single out the most typical forms and give the most used examples of falsification of Russian history of the 20th century.

1. It is important to understand that the very process of choosing and substantiating a historical theme can already be a certain form of falsification of history. This is when an insignificant, insignificant topic is portrayed as a large and complex problem, studied long ago - supposedly not studied by historians, but unpromising, local in terms of reaching theoretical knowledge, seems relevant and fundamental for historical science. Far-fetched themes are often formulated. For example, what kind of war was the USSR preparing for - defensive or offensive? Who led the country during the Great Patriotic War - Stalin or Zhukov? It is obvious that the very posing of such questions already orients towards the falsification of historical events.

2. The inclusion in the object of study of elements that exist outside the subject of historical science, its cognitive tasks. For example, "devilry" according to Dostoevsky is presented as a real history of 1861-1917 and subsequent years. The political and religious-philosophical views of the white emigration about the fate of Russia are interpreted as elements of historical science. The opinions of writers and journalists are announced as scientific facts in the process of learning the history of our country.

So on June 4, 1991, Komsomolskaya Pravda published an interview with A.I. Solzhenitsyn, which he gave to Spanish television back in 1976. In this interview, referring to the "data" of Professor I. Kurganov, A.I. Solzhenitsin claims that, they say, from the internal war of the Soviet regime against its people from 1917 to 1959, the country lost 110 million people: 66 million as a result Civil War and the subsequent policy of the Soviet government, and 44 million - during the Second World War from its neglectful, sloppy conduct. The interview was published under the title Reflections on Two Civil Wars. The meaning of these reflections was to whitewash the crime of the fascists and Francoists in the war they unleashed against the republican government of Spain in 1936-1939, under the guise of bringing grotesque falsified statistics of the allegedly criminal policy of Soviet socialism against its people. And thus to introduce into the minds of the Spaniards in 1976 and into the minds of our citizens in 1991 that socialism, so to speak, is more terrible than fascism. The logic here was the same as that of Goebbels: the more monstrous the lie, the more willingly they would believe in it. And when the modern falsifier Yu.L. Dyakov in the book “The Ideology of Bolshevism and Real Socialism” (M., Tula, 2009) reproduces the so-called “calculations” of Professor I. Kurganov, which A.I. Solzhenitsyn repeated in 1976, then, as the Russian historian V.N. Zemskov correctly noted, all these conclusions and generalizations “cannot be called anything other than a pathological deviation from the mainstream in this area of ​​historical science” .

3. The fabrication of falsified documents, attributing ideas and meanings to documents that they did not have, and abstracting from the functions that these documents were intended for.

At present, it is well known that specifically in order to discredit Stalin, back in the Khrushchev era, a false “report” by the Soviet intelligence officer Richard Sorge was fabricated, allegedly dated June 15, 1941 and reporting the date of the German invasion - June 22, 1941. “In fact, Sorge did not send such a report, because he did not know the exact date of the German attack on the USSR.”

Or take the so-called Stalin's speech on May 5, 1941, which is used by falsifiers as evidence of the USSR's preparations for an attack on Germany. But what happened in reality? The exact title of this document is as follows: "Brief recording of the speech at the graduation of students of the Academy of the Red Army on May 5, 1941." This document was reconstructed according to the memoirs of the meeting participants in two versions - Russian and German. The Russian version contains several fragments: the main text - speech - speeches in the form of toasts. In particular, Stalin said: “While carrying out the defense of our country, we are obliged to act in an offensive manner. From defense to move to a military policy of offensive actions. “You don’t have to be a military specialist,” G.D. Alekseeva quite correctly points out, “to understand that we are talking about strategy in time of war - from defense to “offensive actions”, and not about two types of wars, as some modern historians, including Nevezhin and Sakharov, who, it should be noted, never studied the documents of 1940-1941. By the way, modern falsifiers are deeply ignorant in their understanding of the moral spirit of Soviet society on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War. They are trying to transfer their corrupt soul and servile admiration for the West to the soldiers of the Red Army, portraying the latter as some kind of underdeveloped subjects, criminals and fines who are afraid and hate Stalin and the Soviet government, and fight the Germans only because of their stupidity and because under sticks. Thus, the writer Vladimir Voinovich in his libelous novel The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of a Soldier Ivan Chonkin portrayed a Soviet soldier small, bow-legged, with red ears, stupid and downtrodden. And the resonant theatergoer Eldar Ryazanov called him "a normal folk type, a truly Russian character." The difference between these "workers of art" and the truly outstanding Russian writer Alexei Tolstoy with his "Russian character" is precisely the difference between a real patriotic writer and literary and theatrical dirty tricks and falsifiers. The latter, due to their pro-Western servility, will never understand that there can be warriors who are capable of the highest heroism and self-sacrifice in the name of the freedom of their Motherland. The famous Belarusian sculptor Valentin Zankovich, the author of the main monument of the memorial complex "Khatyn" in the casemates of the Brest Fortress found a stunning inscription made by the defenders of the fortress, which is not yet known to the general public. These are laconic, but soul-searing words: “There were five of us. We will die for Stalin." That's the whole truth about the moral and psychological atmosphere of Soviet society during the war. These words contain the whole meaning, the spirit of the Great Patriotic War, our national history: morality, patriotism and heroism of our people.

4. Substitution of scientific knowledge about historical facts with the information contained in the sources. Such an approach leads to gross errors. And the most significant of them is the illegitimate identification of information, data recorded in documents, with scientific knowledge about historical facts. The second mistake is the inclusion of information in a scientific text without its analysis and critical evaluation, i.e. without scientific understanding, in the form of a retelling of the source. It is with this approach that the falsification of history is carried out, even apart from the consciousness of the researcher himself. To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the source. Only after a comprehensive analysis, the information contained in the source turns into scientific knowledge, which is already used by the historian in the process of knowing certain historical events. Scientific knowledge acquired as a result of a comprehensive analysis of the information contained in the source often plays a verification role in determining the reliability of previously obtained scientific knowledge.

5. In particular, this also applies to the so-called concept of totalitarianism, which today's falsifiers and simply narrow-minded historians have put as the basis for studying the national history of the twentieth century. The American historian Stephen Cohen, in his book Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917, published in Russian in 1986, stated: full embodiment in the "totalitarian model" of 1953-1956." . Stephen Cohen points out that these studies were funded not only by private foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie), but also by the Department of Defense, the US CIA. By the way, the Soviet Ministry of Defense and the KGB never engaged in such activities, and in this regard, American studies, English studies in the USSR acquired a different type of development in the system of scientific knowledge, where the history of foreign countries was covered more correctly than was the case in Western Sovietology, in which, according to S. Cohen, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism became the source and basis for the emergence of the "totalitarian school", a model of totalitarianism. Analyzing the positions of the authors of the "totalitarian school", Cohen came to the conclusion that "they began to identify Stalin's Russia with Hitler's Germany, Soviet communism with Nazism, etc." . This is where, it turns out, today's home-grown falsifiers borrowed their miserable ideas about identifying Stalin with Hitler and the USSR with Nazi Germany. From Fascist and Western Reactionary Historiography of the 1940s-1950s.

It is important to note that many Western Sovietologists have completely rejected the concept of totalitarianism, concluding that its inconsistencies and ideological overtones are too obvious and that its only function is to label the Soviet system of government with derogatory labels. As the American historian M. Karpovich noted, scientific works in the United States "were too often created in an atmosphere of fierce hatred for the current Russian (Soviet - L.K.) regime."

Thus, concludes the Russian historian G.D. Alekseeva, “borrowed from the American Sovietology of 1940-1960. totalitarianism and its verbose replication in the academic literature of 1990-2010. became evidence not only of the theoretical helplessness of the opponents of Soviet power and science that appeared. Due to scientific impotence, moral degradation, betrayal, historians have turned into preachers of Western canons, who, having lost scientific content in the United States already in the 1960s, in Russia in the 1990s. began to play an ideological and political role without any significant scientific perspective.

In 2015, a great event in our historical calendar is the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War over the Nazi invaders. In this regard, there is reason to dwell on some more falsifications related to the events of the Great Patriotic War.

It is known that falsifiers, trying to discredit the great feat of our peoples during the Great Patriotic War, introduced into the mass consciousness the installation that the leadership of the USSR allegedly recorded all the captured soldiers of the Red Army as traitors. It was a deliberate blasphemous falsification, when the expression “we have no prisoners, we have traitors” was attributed to Stalin. In fact, this falsification was composed in 1956 in the literary and journalistic environment in the wake of criticism of Stalin's personality cult. This falsification is still widely used in journalism, films, fiction.

It should be noted that such a "crime" as "surrender" did not appear in the criminal legislation of the USSR. In article 193 of the then Criminal Code of the RSFSR, in the list of military crimes, it was recorded: "Surrender, not caused by a combat situation." It goes without saying that the concepts of "surrender" and "surrender not caused by a combat situation" are not identical concepts. Therefore, there was no identification of the concepts of "prisoners" and "traitors". Traitors included those who actually were such (policemen, punishers, graduates of reconnaissance and sabotage schools, officials of the occupation administration, etc.), and such a definition was not applied to prisoners of war in principle.

The falsifiers of the Great Patriotic War also invented a myth about certain “hit lists”, “executions” of part of the repatriates, i.e. people returning to the USSR (prisoners of war, Ostarbeiters, displaced persons, collaborators) supposedly immediately upon arrival at Soviet assembly points. It was also a monstrous lie. The truth is that the vast majority of repatriates were not subjected not only to no executions, but even to any repressions. The paradox here was that many of the direct accomplices of the Nazis were surprised that in the USSR they were not treated as harshly as they expected.

Let's take an illustrative example. In the summer of 1944, during the offensive of the Anglo-American troops in France, a large number of German soldiers and officers were captured by them, who were usually sent to camps in England. It soon became clear that some of these prisoners did not understand German and that it turned out that they were former Red Army soldiers who were captured by the Germans and then entered the service in the German army. According to Article 193 of the then Criminal Code of the RSFSR, only one punishment was provided for the transfer of military personnel to the side of the enemy in wartime - the death penalty with confiscation of property. The British knew about this, but, nevertheless, informed Moscow about these persons and asked to take them to the USSR. On October 31, 1944, 9,907 repatriates on two British ships were sent to Murmansk, where they arrived on November 6, 1944. Among these repatriates, who went over to serve in the German army, there were suggestions that they would be shot immediately on the Murmansk pier. However, official Soviet representatives explained that the Soviet government had forgiven them and that not only would they not be shot, but that they would generally be exempted from criminal liability for treason. For more than a year, these people were tested in the NKVD special camp, and then they were sent to a 6-year-old special settlement. In 1952, most of them were released, and their profiles did not show any criminal record, and the time spent working in the special settlement was included in the length of service.

The anti-Soviet falsifiers who criticize the Anglo-Americans for extraditing these people to the Soviet Union do not grasp one subtlety in the psychology of the British and American politicians and officials of that time. And this subtlety lies in the fact that the British and Americans could well assume that the former Red Army soldiers who were captured by them in German military uniforms are in fact Stalin's people and play some role in his political game. Hence, naturally, a desire was born to quickly clear Western Europe of them, and, consequently, to return them all to the USSR. “Later,” as the Russian historian V.N. Zemskov notes, “the Anglo-Americans to some extent abandoned these suspicions, but before that they managed to betray to the Soviet authorities many active opponents of Bolshevism and Soviet power.”

Here we must bear in mind the fact that the approaching victory of the USSR over fascist Germany largely contributed to the humanization of the policy towards prisoners of war and interned civilians, up to the promise not to bring to justice those of them who entered military service with the enemy and committed actions in damage to the interests of the USSR as a result of fascist violence and terror over Soviet prisoners of war. This also applied to the aforementioned repatriates who arrived in Murmansk on November 6, 1944, since it was known that for the most part they entered the military service of the enemy, unable to withstand the torture of hunger and ill-treatment in German camps. Therefore, one cannot agree with the widespread falsification in literature and journalism of the repatriation of Soviet citizens solely as an alleged violation of human rights or even a humanitarian crime. V.N. Zemskov is absolutely right that “in spite of all the costs and negative phenomena that took place, this process was based on a natural and exciting epic finding the motherland large masses of people forcibly deprived of it by foreign conquerors.

And the last thing to note, speaking of the falsification of the national history of the twentieth century. This is about the so-called Stalinist repressions. The public conscience of the post-Soviet countries is being intensively forced into a perverted idea that in the USSR the majority of the population suffered from repressions and was allegedly intimidated by them. It is important to note that the exposure of this fake was done not only by objective domestic historians, but also by Western ones. In this regard, the conclusions of the American historian Robert Thurston, who published the monograph Life and Terror in Stalinist Russia in 1996, are of interest. 1934-1941".

These are the conclusions that an American historian came to on the basis of documentary facts and statistics. “The system of Stalinist terror in the form in which it was described by previous generations of Western researchers never existed. The influence of terror on Soviet society in the Stalin years was not significant, and there was no mass fear of reprisals in the 1930s in the Soviet Union. The repressions were limited and did not affect the majority of the Soviet people. Soviet society supported the Stalinist regime rather than feared it. For most people, the Stalinist system provided the opportunity to move up and participate in public life.

One does not have to be an expert not to recognize the absolute correctness of the conclusions of Robert Thurston. Even more. The socio-political system that took shape in the pre-war years in the minds of the many millions of people was strongly associated with the ideals of justice, friendship and progress. And the Soviet civilization was unequivocally regarded by the overwhelming majority of our citizens as the most humane and fair on our entire planet. And it was so in reality.

1. Zemskov, V.N. On the scale of political repressions in the USSR // Political education. - M., 2012. - No. 1.
2. Alekseeva, G.D., Manykin, A.V. Historical science in Russia of the XXI century / G.D. Alekseeva, A.V. Manykin. - M., 2011.
3. Zemskov, V.N. People and war: pages of the history of the Soviet people on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War. 1938-1945 / V.N. Zemskov. - M., 2014.
4. Thurston, R. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia 1934-1941 / R. Thurston. - New Haven, 1996.

Report of RISS Leading Researcher, Doctor of Political Science L. M. Vorobyova at the international scientific-practical conference held in Tiraspol on April 23-25, 2010

L. M. Vorobieva

Leading Researcher, Department of Euro-Atlantic Studies,

doctor of political sciences

The history of the Second World War remains the front of the most acute ideological, scientific and information-psychological struggle. On the eve of the celebration of the 65th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and World War II, the efforts of falsifiers to shield the true culprits, downplay the role of the USSR in the defeat of fascism, denigrate the liberation mission of the Soviet Army, cast doubt on the results of the war are not weakening.

Attempts to reinterpret history are being made not only by the victors, but also by the vanquished, not only by the opponents of the USSR in the Cold War, but also by the former allies in the Warsaw Treaty Organization, as well as by a number of former Soviet republics, primarily the Baltic ones.

Part of the Russian scientific, journalistic and writing community was also included in this process of rewriting history. Some defend the "Icebreaker" Suvorov, stigmatize the Soviet military leaders, who, as they say, defeated the Germans not thanks to the art of war, but by filling them with millions of corpses. Others demonstrate hypocritical “objectivity”, following which they obscure the guilt of the creators of the Munich policy, and seek to misrepresent the goals of the foreign policy of the USSR in the 1930-1940s, the efforts of the Soviet government aimed at maintaining peace, at a collective rebuff to aggression.

The most paradoxical thing is that the approaches of today's falsifiers of the history of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War date back to the achievements of the propaganda apparatus of the Third Reich. Preparing a campaign to the East, Hitler attached great importance not only to the creation of strategic offensive bridgeheads, not only to solving logistical, resource and food problems at the expense of third countries, but also to favorable propaganda support for his actions. It was in the depths of the Hitlerite propaganda machine that myths arose about the “Soviet threat”, about “Soviet expansionism”, about the desire of the USSR to establish control over Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, about the “preventive” nature of the Barbarossa plan, about the “hostility” of the Soviet system to small peoples, about the "liberation mission" of the German Reich in the East, etc.

These and other myths became the core of the ideology of the occupation policy of the Nazis. Then they entered the arsenal of the ideologists of the Cold War, and subsequently were adapted to the needs of the current moment in the information and propaganda war against modern Russia.

The persistence of the myths and technological methods of Hitler's propaganda is partly due to the fact that after the war, West Germany, which considered itself the successor of the German Reich, moved into the center of the conflict between East and West and took an important place among the ideologists of the Cold War. Denazification here took place formally, and the amnesty law adopted in 1949 opened the way for numerous officials, specialists and military personnel of the Third Reich into state structures, scientific institutions and into the newly formed army. At the same time, in the post-war Germany, a system of studying the East was formed, put at the service of the Cold War, or Ostforschung. It included over 100 research institutions and institutes. Initially, many of them were the ideological and organizational successors of the respective centers that existed in pre-war Germany. Not only German military men, historians, lawyers, political scientists, who previously worked for Hitler's propaganda, but also representatives of the elites of Eastern European countries who collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces, and then emigrated to Germany, found refuge in the Ostforshung institutions. It was this military generation of the vanquished, who escaped punishment, that not only complicated the process of comprehending the past in Germany, but also created the basis for further falsifications of the history of the Second World War.

In particular, the approaches of the West German professor Ernst Nolte and his like-minded people, expressed in the “dispute of historians” in 1986-1986, gave an undoubted falsifying impulse to understanding history. So, E. Nolte pulled out the old Nazi thesis of “preventive war” from the ideological storehouses of the “ostforshung”, demanded that the theory of totalitarianism be restored in rights as a basis for understanding history, putting Hitler and Stalin on the same level, tried to deprive the Nazi crimes of their exclusivity by presenting them as a reaction to the "Bolshevik threat". Nolte's opponent, the West German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, was right to see in Nolte's concept the desire to downplay the crimes of the Third Reich in order to free Germany from its historical burden and historical debt.

Although E. Nolte was subjected to sharp and justified criticism during the dispute and after it, the questions raised during the “dispute of historians” in Germany are still in demand by falsifiers. Was Hitler's war against the USSR a preventive one? To what extent did the Soviet Union act as a liberator? Was he not only a new conqueror? Is it possible to put the Gulag and Nazi concentration camps on the same level?

It is noteworthy that these issues are also brought to the center of the modern discussion by former allies of Hitler from among the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. In their attempts to reinterpret the history of the Second World War, to question the liberation mission of the Soviet army, one can see the desire to belittle the involvement of their own country in the crimes of National Socialism and present it as a victim of the “Soviet threat” and “Soviet expansionism”.

It should be said that the cultivation by the former countries of the Hitlerite coalition of their image as a victim became an important direction in reinterpreting their responsibility for the tragedy of World War II. The beginning of this direction immediately after the end of the war was laid in West Germany. In fiction, films, the media, in the statements of politicians, the Germans see themselves as victims of the defeat at Stalingrad, unfortunate refugees fleeing the onset of the Soviet army, victims of the policy of the occupying authorities, victims of forced resettlement (in German terminology - expulsion) from the eastern regions of the Reich and other places of centuries of residence, victims of Anglo-American bombings and, of course, victims of Hitler and his executioners, who allegedly encouraged raped and terrorized Germans to do things that are completely alien to their human nature. And, finally, in the film "Sunset" (2004), Hitler himself is already presented as a victim - a victim of his illusions and delusions, but also a change in military happiness, political betrayal and human loneliness.

In this case, we are dealing with belittling and even ignoring causal relationships. This has now become a widespread technique used by modern forgers. Therefore, the restoration and prevention of oblivion of causal relationships in the history of the Second World War remains the main direction of upholding the truth about the war and the role of the Soviet Union in it.

An important place in the arsenal of ideas of modern falsifiers is occupied by the refinements of American historiography, which serve the goals of US foreign policy. Thus, US claims to a leading role in the post-war world materialized in a false concept that actually denied the decisive role of the Soviet Union in World War II and lauded the US military contribution as the "chief architect" of Victory and the "arsenal of democracy." Already during the war years and immediately after it, American historians considered the events on the Soviet-German front, without touching on the question of their influence on the general course of the war. At the same time, the results of the combat operations of the American-British troops in various theaters of military operations (in North Africa, Italy, France) were exaggerated in every possible way. The rejection of the results of the Second World War and the desire to revise them was reflected in the statements according to which the post-war strengthening of the positions of the USSR in Europe and Asia was mainly caused by the military-strategic mistakes of the United States, the nature of the international obligations they assumed during the war, and the assistance they received. provided to the Soviet Union. In this context, attempts have been made and are being made to discredit the liberation mission of the Soviet Army in the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as a communist expansion in Europe, as a result of the intervention of Soviet troops in the internal affairs of these countries.

The end of the existence of the Warsaw Pact, the unification of Germany on the terms of the West, the collapse of the USSR, the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia are now presented not only as the victory of the West in the Cold War, but also as the final victory in World War II. As a result, the winner becomes the loser.

In the tragic period of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ethno-political elites of the former Soviet republics advanced to the forefront of forces falsifying the history of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, and the ruling elites of the Baltic republics were ahead of all. They are doing an unjust judgment on our common history. They reject and denigrate everything that historically, culturally and spiritually connected and, I hope, continues to connect the peoples of the former USSR, who survived and won the Great Patriotic War. It is noteworthy that the Baltic falsifiers did not invent anything new, but adopted political myths constructed in the Sovietological centers of the West with the participation of their compatriots who collaborated with the Nazi occupation regimes, including in the field of propaganda.

This is a myth about the eternal "Russian and Soviet" genocide of the Baltic peoples.

This is a propagandistically motivated reduction of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 1939 to the odious-sounding Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which is interpreted in the spirit of totalitarian theory as a conspiracy of aggressors that allowed the Soviet Union to "occupy" the Baltic states. (It should be said that today the leading historians of Western European countries have abandoned the theory of totalitarianism as an unfruitful approach, since it sets the vector for a tendentious reinterpretation of historical reality and facts, and allows all kinds of opportunistic fabrications to be built on them)

This is a blackening of the liberation mission of the Soviet Army in the Great Patriotic War and World War II in order to accuse the USSR of "re-occupation" of the Baltic states and justify the cooperation of the Baltic nationalist elites with the German occupation administration.

And, finally, this is a selective, simplistic and malicious interpretation of difficult periods in the development of the USSR in order to expose their peoples as victims of “Bolshevik atrocities”, a harsh policy of liquidating the formations of the “forest brothers”, as well as allegedly purposefully carried out “Russification”.

Today, in contacts with representatives of the Baltic states, Russian citizens are amazed at how deeply Russophobic and anti-Soviet myths are deeply integrated into their consciousness, which have acquired an anti-Russian orientation in modern conditions. The myths about the "occupation" in the summer of 1940 and the "re-occupation" of the Baltic states in 1944-1945 are fundamental. Under the dominance of these myths, facts are multiplying that cannot but cause concern and protest on the Russian side. Militant nationalism directed against Russia triumphs in the politics of the Baltic states, discrimination against the Russian-speaking population continues, the process of legalization and glorification of SS legionnaires is rapidly developing, there are museums of "occupation" that educate young people in an anti-Russian spirit and reduce the great significance of the Victory exclusively to the shadow sides.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that over the 65 years of the post-war period in the countries of Europe, America, Asia, a huge literature on the history of World War II, numbering thousands of titles, has been created, covering the events of the war in the wrong sense. In the Soviet period, the tendentious interpretation of the facts and events of the war, their deliberate distortion met with a resolute rebuff from Soviet historians. In the 20 years that have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this rebuff has weakened significantly. Meanwhile, the wave of literature on the events of the Second World War continues to grow. However, a significant number of publications that misinterpret this period often remain with us without a clear and reasoned answer. The growing number of such publications is still opposed by a few books, articles, and public speeches.

The atmosphere of "non-resistance" and indifference of the historical community to the fate of their country and its authority in the international arena, in particular, is trying to change the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, headed by director Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov. In November 2009, the RISS hosted an international conference “Collaborationism in World War II. Vlasov and Vlasovism. Based on the materials of the conference, a collection was published, which is in great demand among a wide readership. In January 2010, the presentation of the book “History of Latvia. From the Russian Empire to the USSR”, published jointly with the Historical Memory Foundation. It provides an analysis of historical facts that are deliberately hushed up or falsified by modern Latvian historians, as they destroy the myths about the “occupation”. This book is an answer to those who are waging an information-psychological war against our country. And at the same time, it is a source of reflection for those who have already become or may become victims of propaganda attacks on our history.

On April 8-9, the RISS hosted the international conference "World War II and the Great Patriotic War in the history textbooks of the CIS and EU countries: problems, approaches, interpretations." Olga Vladimirovna Gukalenko, a representative of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, delivered a meaningful and interesting report. In less than two weeks, Pridnestrovie took over from Moscow, becoming the organizer and venue for the international scientific and practical conference “Great Victory and Modernity. To the 65th Anniversary of the Victory of the Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War.

I have always treated and still treat the people of Pridnestrovie with great respect and admiration. Deputy is absolutely right. Rector of the Pridnestrovian State University named after T. G. Shevchenko, Professor Vladimir Okushko, who called Pridnestrovie an outpost of Russian and Orthodox-Slavic civilization. I am grateful that I was invited here to make a report, and I am sure that in alliance with Pridnestrovie, Russia will be able to defend the truth about the Great Patriotic War, as well as solve many other problems that are important for both Russia and Pridnestrovie.

There are many blank spots in the history of our country. The lack of a sufficient number of reliable sources gives rise not only to speculation, but also outright falsifications. Some of them are very durable.

Older than usual

According to the official version, statehood came to Russia in 862, when the Finno-Ugric and Slavic tribes called on the Varangian Rurik to rule over them. But the problem is that the theory known to us from school is taken from The Tale of Bygone Years, and the reliability of the information contained in it is being questioned by modern science.
Meanwhile, there are many facts confirming that the state in Russia existed before the calling of the Varangians. So, in the Byzantine sources, when describing the life of the Rus, obvious signs of their state structure were reflected: developed writing, the hierarchy of the nobility, and the administrative division of lands. Petty princes are also mentioned, over whom "kings" stood.
The data of numerous excavations, presented by the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, testify that where the Central Russian Plain is now located, life was seething even before the advent of a new era. The well-known domestic archaeologist and anthropologist Tatyana Alekseeva found a sufficient amount of evidence that on the territory of modern central Russia in the period from the 6th to the 2nd millennium BC. e. there was a flourishing of large proto-cities.

Ukraine-Rus

Ukrainian historian Mikhail Grushevsky created one of the most famous falsifications on which modern Ukrainian historiography relies. In his writings, he denies the existence of a single ancient Russian ethnic group, but speaks of a parallel history of two nationalities: "Ukrainian-Russian" and "Great Russian". According to Grushevsky's theory, the Kyiv state is the state of the "Russian-Ukrainian" nationality, and the Vladimir-Suzdal state is the "Great Russian".
Already during the Civil War, Grushevsky's scientific views were subjected to serious criticism from colleagues. One of the most notable critics of his "Ukraine-Rus" concept was the historian and publicist Andriy Storozhenko, who viewed this approach as an attempt to clothe the political goals of Ukrainian separatism in historical form.
An influential Kyiv public figure and publicist Boris Yuzefovich, having familiarized himself with the works of Grushevsky, called him a "scientist-liar", hinting that all his writing activity was connected with the desire to take the place of a professor at the Department of Russian History at Kyiv University.

"Veles book"

In 1950, emigrants Yuri Mirolyubov and Alexander Kur in San Francisco published the Book of Veles for the first time. According to Mirolyubov’s stories, the text of the Book of Veles was written off by him from wooden planks lost during the war, created around the 9th century.
However, the falsity of the printed document was soon established. So, the photographs of the plates presented by Mirolyubov and Kur were actually made from specially prepared paper.
Philologist Natalya Shalygina says: rich factual material convincingly proves that the Book of Veles 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.
In particular, it became known that in response to the arguments of scientific criticism, the authors of the forgery made changes and additions to the already published material in order to make it more believable.

Testament of Peter the Great

This tendentious falsification first appeared in French in 1812. According to the compilers of the document, it was based on a strategic plan of action for the successors of Peter the Great for many centuries with the aim of establishing world domination by Russia; the goal was "to get as close as possible to Constantinople and to the Indies."
Historians have come to the conclusion that the main provisions of the Testament were formulated in October 1797 by a Polish emigrant close to Napoleon, General Sokolnitsky. The abundance of errors and absurdities in the text make us assume that the author of the document was not familiar with the foreign policy of Peter I. It is also established that the Testament was originally intended not for propaganda purposes, but for internal use.

Unnecessary Alaska

Russia's sale of its overseas territory to the United States is explained in history textbooks simply: maintaining Alaska became more and more expensive, since the costs of maintaining it far exceeded the income from its economic use. There was another reason for the sale of Alaska - to improve relations with the United States.
Historian Ivan Mironov says that there are many documents that refute the official version. The history connected with the sale of Alaska is very reminiscent of the current events in terms of corruption scandals, “kickbacks” and the “cutting” of budget and public funds by a handful of oligarchs and politicians.
Work on the sale of the American colony began as early as the reign of Nicholas I. In addition to the sale of Alaska, the government planned to get rid of the Aleutian and Kuril Islands, of course, for money. The main lobbyist for the 1867 deal was Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, brother of Emperor Alexander II, among his accomplices was a number of influential people, including the head of the Foreign Ministry, Alexander Gorchakov.

Rasputin's personality

In the memoirs of his contemporaries, Grigory Rasputin often appeared as an odious person. He was accused of a mass of sins - drunkenness, debauchery, sectarianism, spying for Germany, and interfering in domestic politics. However, even the special commissions investigating the Rasputin case did not find anything compromising.
What is curious is that Rasputin's accusers, in particular, Archpriest Georgy Shavelsky, admitted in their memoirs that they themselves did not personally know the elder or saw him several times, and all the scandalous stories they describe were based solely on a retelling once and somewhere heard.
Doctor of Philology Tatyana Mironova says that the 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.
And not without substitution, the scientist continues. The atrocities attributed to Grigory Rasputin were often a clownery of doubles, organized by swindlers for selfish purposes. So, according to Mironova, it was with the scandalous story that took place in the Moscow restaurant "Yar". The investigation then showed that Rasputin was not in Moscow at that moment.

Tragedy in Katyn

The mass murder of captured officers of the Polish army, carried out in the spring of 1940, has long been attributed to Germany. After the liberation of Smolensk by the Soviet troops, a special commission was created, which, after conducting its own investigation, concluded that Polish citizens were shot at Katyn by the German occupying forces.

However, as evidenced by documents published in 1992, the executions of Poles were carried out by decision of the NKVD of the USSR in accordance with the resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated March 5, 1940. According to published data, a total of 21,857 people were shot, in addition to the military, there were mobilized Polish doctors, engineers, lawyers, and journalists.

Vladimir Putin, in the status of prime minister and president of the Russian Federation, has repeatedly voiced the opinion that the Katyn massacre is a crime of the Stalinist regime and was caused, first of all, by Stalin's revenge for the defeat in the Soviet-Polish war of 1920. In 2011, Russian officials announced their readiness to consider rehabilitating the victims of the execution.

"New Chronology"

There are many falsifications in historiography - events, documents, personalities - but one of them clearly stands apart. This is the famous theory of the mathematician Anatoly Fomenko, according to which all previous history is declared false. The researcher believes that traditional history is biased, tendentious and is designed to serve one political system or another.
Official science, of course, calls Fomenko's views pseudo-scientific and, in turn, calls his historical concept a falsification. In particular, Fomenko's statement that the entire history of antiquity was falsified during the Renaissance, in their opinion, is devoid of not only scientific, but also common sense.
According to scientists, even with a strong desire it is impossible to rewrite such a voluminous layer of history. Moreover, the methodology used by Fomenko in his "New Chronology" is taken from another science - mathematics - and its application to the analysis of history is incorrect. And Fomenko's obsessive desire to unite all ancient Russian rulers with the names of the Mongol khans among historians does cause a smile.
What historians agree on is Fomenko's statement that his "New Chronology" is a powerful ideological weapon. In addition, many believe that the main goal of a pseudoscientist is commercial success. Historian Sergei Bushuev sees a serious danger in such scientific fiction, since its popularity may soon oust the real history of the country from the consciousness of society and our descendants.