My attitude to the Great Patriotic War. “31 controversial issues” of Russian history: how attitudes towards Victory Day changed

Moscow Government Department of Education of the City of Moscow

State educational institution

Moscow State Academy of Business Administration

Coursework in Sociology

On the topic “The attitude of young people to the Great Patriotic War”

Scientific adviser:

Igrunova Oksana Mikhailovna

Completed by: student of group 38 MO

Titova Ksenia Anatolyevna

Moscow 2011

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..…3

Chapter 1. Research. The attitude of young people to the Great Patriotic War in Moscow………………………………………………………………………………….4

Chapter 2. Design. Sociological research among young people in the city of Zelenograd in order to identify the attitude and level of knowledge of young people about the Great Patriotic War……………………………………………………………………..8

Conclusion…………………………….……………………………………………………29

References………………………………………………………..……..30

Introduction

Subject course work is “The attitude of young people to the Great Patriotic War.” This topic will always remain relevant. Despite the fact that every year the events of that time move away from us, one cannot help but note the importance of the results of the Great Patriotic War, both for the fate of Russia and for each of us, and this is undeniable. Every year there are fewer and fewer WWII participants; they gave their lives for victory in the Great Patriotic War, and therefore for our lives. And modern youth should know and remember about all this.

The purpose of the study is to identify the attitude and level of knowledge of young people about the Great Patriotic War.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Conduct a survey of 75 respondents aged 15 to 25 years using 16 survey questions.

Process the received data.

Conduct an analysis of respondents' answers to the questions posed in the questionnaire.

Draw conclusions based on the results of the research obtained.

The object of the study is the youth of the city of Zelenograd aged 15 to 25 years, located in different social statuses. The subject of the study is to identify the level of knowledge of young people about the Great Patriotic War.

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters of conclusion, a list of references and an appendix. During the writing of this work, computer programs such as Microsoft Office Word, STATISTICA and Microsoft Office PowerPoint were used.

Chapter 1

Research

The attitude of young people to the Great Patriotic War in Moscow.

Great Patriotic War 19411945. the war of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany and its European allies (Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia). This is the most important part of World War II. 1

June 22, 1941 fascist Germany attacked the Soviet Union without declaring war.

The army and the population of the country were not ready for this. On the first day, 1,200 Soviet aircraft were destroyed. The Red Army was not motorized; the command staff, due to Stalin's repressions in the late 1930s, consisted mainly of inexperienced commanders. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief was at a loss all this time and did not address the Soviet people until July 3.

It was in this state that our country was caught by fascist Germany. But thanks to the courage and courage of the Soviet people, our country was able to resist the enemy. Behind heroic deeds in the Great Patriotic War, over 11 thousand people were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union (some of them posthumously), of which 104 twice, three three times (G.K. Zhukov, I.N. Kozhedub and A.I. Pokryshkin). The first to receive this title during the war were Soviet pilots M.P. Zhukov, S.I. Zdorovtsev and P.T. Kharitonov, who rammed fascist planes on the outskirts of Leningrad. Another glorious pilot, Viktor Vasilyevich Talalikhin, participated in many air battles near Moscow, shot down five more enemy aircraft personally and one in a group. He died a heroic death in an unequal battle with fascist fighters on October 27, 1941. The 316th especially distinguished itself in the battles near Volokolamsk rifle division General I.V.

1 http://traditio-ru.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War

Panfilova. Reflecting continuous enemy attacks for 6 days, they knocked out 80 tanks and killed several hundred soldiers and officers. The enemy's attempts to capture the Volokolamsk region and open the way to Moscow from the west failed. For heroic actions this unit was awarded the Order of the Red Banner. 2

From the first days, the Great Patriotic War took on the character of a nationwide struggle for the native Fatherland, one’s land and one’s father’s home. It affected the interests of all segments of society. Some went to fight for socialism. Others did not think about socialism at all, but about the Fatherland. The third are servicemen on orders. The fourth waited in the wings and opposed their country, against the existing government. It's all about the relationship between these "flows". If we focus on the latter, we will get the impression that the war was not against an external enemy, but against the “totalitarian regime led by Stalin.” But these idle statements are not true. Millions, including young people, stood up to defend the Motherland, not by order from above, but by the call of their hearts. The most famous of the youth organizations operating during the war was the “Young Guard,” whose work is reflected on the pages of Fadeev’s novel of the same name.
Young Guard The “Young Guard” arose under the leadership of the party underground, headed by F. P. Lyutikov. After the Nazi occupation of Krasnodon (July 20, 1942), several anti-fascist youth groups were formed. Soviet partisan Zoya Anatolyevna Kosmodemyanskaya (“Tanya”), at the age of 18, was twice sent behind enemy lines and despite brutal torture, did not issue military secrets, did not give her name. 3

As for modern youth, this period leaves few people indifferent. On numerous sites and forums dedicated to victory

__________________________________________________________________ 2 http://www.otvoyna.ru/

3 http://militera. lib. ru/research/pravda_vs -1/02. html

and the events of the Second World War, you can find many reviews and comments from young people of different ages:

" I think war is terrible. The victory of our homeland in this war is, of course, joy, but joy through tears. On Victory Day, we all joyfully honor veterans, and they not only rejoice, but also cry. It seems to me that they remember how much pain, loss and anxiety the Second World War brought them, how much blood was shed, how many people were killed. They smile and cry, because after all, they survived and won!" Anastasia Kurovskaya, 14 years old. 4

" I believe that war is a huge human misfortune, an unjustified cruelty towards our people. Thanks to courage, bravery, and the enormous feat of ordinary Soviet people, our great-grandfathers managed to stop and drive away the invaders. Without a strong rear, our troops would not have won. Our deepest bow to the workers and defenders of our Motherland who defended our independence." Alexey Smirnov, 17 years old.

" My attitude towards the Great Patriotic War is not very good, because war means the loss of people, their death. But it was the war won by our Soviet people that decided the further prosperity of Russia. The people who fought in the Great Patriotic War gave their lives so that we could live, so that we could remain one of the great countries and not be enslaved by our enemies." Maxim, 14 years old. 4

" The Great Patriotic War is an important date for each of us, because our grandmothers, grandfathers, great-grandparents and great-grandfathers participated in this war. Although the war was harsh, we won! Our faith in Victory was strong, and our compatriots were brave and stood up for Russia with their breasts. In my opinion, this war showed the courage and power of our country. There are few left who, sacrificing themselves, defended our Motherland, and every year, every day, they become fewer and fewer. How many soldiers still have the “unknown” status? In many Russian cities there are monuments to unknown soldiers. And this soldier could be your loved one, whom you were looking for, alive or dead, but never found. I think it is important to know the burial place of your loved ones so that they are nearby, and every year on May 9 you can come to the grave and say thank you for the Victory!"Irina Kashina, 17 years old. 4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

4 http://memory.cdo-revda.edusite.ru

Also, so that the memory of the heroes and Veterans of the Great Patriotic War does not fade, every year on May 9 our country celebrates Victory Day of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. This is a holiday that combines joy and sorrow, pride in our history and sincere sadness for the numerous victims of the war. On this day, parades and concerts are held, in which the younger generation actively takes part. You can attend and take part in such a holiday both from educational institutions and on your own initiative. In addition to celebrating Victory Day, meetings are held with WWII veterans and war children, charity concerts and various exhibitions dedicated to that time. It is important for the younger generation to realize at what cost the Victory was achieved, to know not only in order to bow to the fortitude and courage of the defenders of the Motherland, but also in order to take from them the baton of great responsibility for the fate of their Fatherland and subsequent generations.

conclusions

The fact that modern youth are interested in the Second World War, think about its consequences and take an active part in supporting Veterans of the Great Patriotic War speaks volumes about good level knowledge and humanity of the future generation. Of course, there may be those who are not at all interested in the Second World War, and in order to find out an objective attitude and level of knowledge about the Second World War, a study was conducted on the youth of the city of Zelenograd.

Chapter 2

Design

A sociological study among young people in the city of Zelenograd in order to identify the attitude and level of knowledge of young people about the Great Patriotic War.

Each generation has its own view of the past. Contradiction and ambiguity of assessments also exist in the perception of one of the most tragic and at the same time heroic periods in the history of our country - the Great Patriotic War. In order to find out this line in the divergence of opinions among young people of different ages and social statuses, this work was carried out.

To collect data, a questionnaire was developed, consisting of three parts: introduction, main part, requisite part (passport). The purpose of the introduction is to briefly and in an accessible form explain the purpose and essence of the study. Information from the passport section allows you to identify the gender, age and social status of respondents. Processing the information received in this part of the questionnaire with the questions of the main part will reveal the attitude of different segments to the Second World War. The main part is the most important, it serves as a source of obtaining from the respondent all the necessary information for conducting the study. It contains 16 questions, of which 1 is open-ended, 4 are semi-closed and 11 are closed.

Question 1: In what year did the Second World War begin? Closed multiple choice question. It is an introductory question, asked to “warm up” respondents in a way that is not particularly complex, but serves as an impetus for thinking about that time. The results on this question will be processed together with the passport to identify the segment of young people with what education or age who are more likely to make mistakes when choosing an answer.

Question 2: Are you interested in the events that happened during the Second World War? This is a closed dichotomous question. It is asked to identify the direct interest of WWII youth. Will be processed together with passport questions to identify the level of interest among both women and men, and among different age groups and with question 4.

Question 3: From what sources did you learn about the events that occurred during the Second World War? A semi-closed, multi-choice question is asked to find out the most common sources of dissemination of information about the Second World War among young people. Processed independently.

Question 4: Did any of your relatives or friends take part in the Second World War? Closed multiple choice question. The answers to this question will be processed with question 2, and indicate the indirect participation/non-participation of the respondents’ families in the Second World War.

Question 5: Select from the countries below those that, in your opinion, participated in the Great Patriotic War. Closed multiple choice question. It is asked to identify the level of knowledge of respondents about the history of the Great Patriotic War. Processed separately.

Question 6: Indicate the names of people who, in your opinion, influenced the course of events in the war. Open question. It is asked approximately in the middle of the questionnaire, when respondents have more or less refreshed their knowledge about the Second World War, and can write the most memorable names of the Second World War participants. Will be processed independently from other issues.

Question 7: What, in your opinion, did the Soviet people fight for during the Second World War? Semi-closed multiple-choice question. The answer to this question forces respondents to think about the meaning of the Second World War; some compare themselves with participants in the war, thereby becoming more deeply imbued with the topic of the survey. Processed separately.

Question 8: What feelings prevail in you when thinking about the Second World War?

Semi-closed multiple-choice question. Asked after question No. 7, when the respondent is already immersed in the atmosphere of events. Processed separately.

Question 9: What factors, in your opinion, were the reasons for our country’s victory in the Second World War? Semi-closed multiple-choice question. It is asked to identify the reasons for the victory of our country, according to young people. Will be processed separately.

Question 10: How do you feel about National Socialism (Nazism) and its manifestations in modern Russia? Closed multiple choice question. Unfortunately, in our time, the topic of Nazism continues to remain open and affects different social and age groups. It is for this reason that the purpose of this question is to identify the attitude of the youth of Zelenograd towards Nazism in modern society. It will be processed together with the passport.

Question 11: Are you ready to serve in the army? (for young people). Closed multiple choice question. For young people, this topic is always relevant, and since men whose age corresponds to the age of conscripts take part in the survey, each of them has already thought about this issue. The question will be processed together with question 12 and the passport.

Question 12: Do you consider yourself a patriot of your country? Closed multiple choice question. Purposefully asked after the two previous questions, so as not to provoke the desired answers to them. Will be handled with 10 and 11 questions.

Question 13: Do you think the Great Patriotic War influenced the fate of Russia? A closed, multiple-choice question asked to assess the importance of the Second World War for young people. Processed separately.

Question 14: Do you consider it necessary to hold public events related to the anniversary of the battle? A closed, multiple-choice question is asked to identify the need for public events in memory of the Second World War in the opinion of young people. The issue will be processed separately from others.

Question 15: Have you ever participated in events dedicated to the Second World War? A closed multiple-choice question that helps determine the activity of young people in events dedicated to the Second World War. It will be processed together with the passport.

Question 16: In your opinion, are there enough events dedicated to the Second World War? Closed multiple choice question. It will be processed with the 15th question of the questionnaire to determine the attitude towards the number of events of people who participated and attended them and people who were not involved in this.

Personal information about the respondent:Information from this section serves to analyze the responses received by respondents. The answers in this part allow you to identify gender, age and social status. This information will be processed with the questions in the main part of the questionnaire.

During the study, 75 respondents were interviewed, of which 38 were men and 37 women. Average age respondents are 18-19 years old. Detailed information about the ratio of gender, age and social status is presented in the figure “passport No. 1”.

Picture of passport number 1

The theme of the Second World War remains relevant and today 73% of young people are interested in the events of those years. Some of the respondents noted this period as one of the most interesting and important periods in history, while others are interested in the Second World War, since their relatives took part and experienced this difficult time. If you look at Figure 2, you can see that the overwhelming majority of respondents had one of their relatives directly involved in the war.

Figure No. 2

However, 7% of respondents could not answer this question. These are mainly young people who objectively “did not know alive” their relatives - participants in the hostilities of 1941-1945 due to the natural change of generations. Thus, we can already say that the family is gradually moving away from being the main carriers of “the truth about that war.”

But there are young people who do not show interest in the Second World War. However, if we look at the age group, as shown in Figure 3, we can see that the older generation is more interested in the Great Patriotic War. So we can hope that with age, young people will become interested in such an important event that took place in our country.

Figure No. 3

The majority of respondents chose 1941 as the start date of the Great Patriotic War, as can be seen from Figure No. 4.

Figure No. 4

However, the diagram shows that 9% of respondents chose 1939, which suggests that some confused the beginning of the Great Patriotic War with the Second World War. And 4 people completely mixed up the start date of the Second World War, choosing the wrong one. Having analyzed the answers to the questions on the passport sheet, we can conclude that schoolchildren are better informed about this issue than others. Figure No. 5

Drawings No. 5

Most frequently mentioned participating countries WWII is, of course, the Soviet Union, which was chosen by 72 respondents out of 75, and Germany, which was noted by 71 people, and the third place participating country was assigned to the United States of America. More detailed information is presented in table No. 1.

Table No. 1

	Number of persons
Bulgaria
Italy
Romania
Soviet Union
Slovakia
Finland
Croatia
China
France
Germany
USA
England
Japan

Modern youth receives basic knowledge about the war and its events from films, stories from loved ones and the media. But films took first place in broadcasting information about the Great Patriotic War to new generations, and this was the option chosen more quantity There were 42 respondents, although 41 people read literature about the Second World War. The most paradoxical thing is that in our age of information technology, the option “media sources” was chosen by only 33 people, and this is a minority. And only 37 people spoke with their relatives about the actions taking place during the war. These data indicate that there are almost no veterans and participants of the Second World War, and it is no longer possible to hear about the war from the first sources, but it is encouraging that literature does not take a back seat and young people are interested in and use such media.

When processing question 6 “indicate the names of people who, in your opinion, influenced the course of events in the war,” the answers were divided into 3 groups: 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in the order in which they were written. Figures No. 6, No. 7 and No. 8

Figure No. 6

Figure No. 7

Risk #8

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov was mentioned most often in the answers - 83%, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was named by 80% of respondents, and 63% remembered Adolf Hitler.

When asked what the Soviet people were fighting for, the answers were varied. But the majority of respondents believe that Soviet people went to the front for the sake of their Motherland. The remaining answer options are presented in Table No. 2.

Table No. 2

	Number of respondents
For the Motherland
For the future
For family and friends
For freedom
For Stalin
For a life
Other

As for the feelings of young people towards everything that happened during the Second World War, they were also different individually, but the majority regret the people who died in this battle. 34 people feel proud of the victory over fascism, and 30 feel proud of the Soviet people. Table No. 3

Table No. 3

	Number of respondents
Pride in the victory over fascism
Regret for the damage caused to Russia
Bitterness for human sacrifices
Pride and regret at the same time
Pride in the Soviet people
Regret over Hitler's defeat
None
I don't reflect
Other

The problem of patriotism in our years is quite relevant. It would seem that the most difficult times (the 90s), which demonstrated the most high level anti-patriotic sentiments (on average, about 70% of young people under 30 were ready to leave the country in any convenient situation) have passed, and now we are seeing a growth in national self-awareness. The correlation of answers to the question about patriotism with age is presented in Figure No. 9.

Figure No. 9

Slightly more than half of the respondents (57%) called themselves patriots, and among the male population the patriotic mood is felt more strongly. But as for serving in the army, 25 out of 38 men consider themselves a patriot, and only 13 are ready to serve in the army. Figure No. 10

Figure No. 1

At this rate, society will have to make significant efforts for a long time to at least to some extent come closer to the legendary patriotism of the Great Patriotic War, which gave rise to mass heroism of people at the fronts.

In addition to patriotism, it is worth touching on the topic of Nazism, which continues to remain open and affects different social and age groups. Figure 11 shows an analysis of responses by age group and in relation to patriotism.

Figure No. 11

The diagram shows that, regardless of the attitude of patriotism, in most cases, 49% of respondents have a negative attitude towards Nashism, and only 11% of respondents have a positive attitude.

The influence of the Great Patriotic War on the fate of Russia is undeniable, and 91% of respondents agreed with this. Figure No. 12

Figure No. 12

The importance of the activities was unanimously stated by 87% of respondents and only 13% doubted it. Figure No. 13

Figure No. 13

As for direct participation in events, then detailed information can be seen in Figure No. 14. It is paradoxical that the participation of men and women is equal and amounts to 29%.

Figure No. 14

However, it should be noted that the activity of young people aged 15-18 years is slightly higher than that of the fairer sex.

Regarding the issue of sufficiency of the measures taken, its dynamics can be seen in Figure No. 15

Figure No. 15

conclusions

As a result of the study, it was revealed that young people are more or less interested in the Second World War, read literature and watch films dedicated to those events. The names of heroes and participants of the Second World War have not been forgotten. In general, our youth showed a quite good level of knowledge. True, there are also some negative aspects, as far as patriotism is concerned, young people are losing faith in our country and do not show a patriotic attitude.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to note that, in general, young people showed a quite good level of knowledge, but we cannot stop there. Each generation has its own view of the past. During the research and processing of the results, it was clear that the Second World War was not taken so seriously in the subconscious of young people. Nobody thinks about that terrible time. Over the years, unpleasant memories are erased from memory and the price that was paid for victory is perceived not as large and tragic as it really is. All that remains is a feeling of joy and pride for our heroes and people. This is not to say that this is bad, but the pain and losses that the war caused must be made public. Based on the results of the study, one can see that people with seemingly insignificant age differences give significantly different answers. In the minds of our youth, the Second World War is beginning to move from the rank of “event of special importance” to the rank of “one of the significant historical events that has ever occurred in Russia.” So that this does not become irreversible,We need to more actively engage young people with the events of those years. We must always remember the mass heroism of people at the front, thanks to which we live today.

Bibliography

1. Golubkov E.P. BASICS OF MARKETING: Textbook. M.: Publishing house "Finpress", 1999. - 656 p.
2. Igrunova O.M. Methodology and practice of conducting marketing research of various markets for goods and services: Textbook. Part 1. 2nd ed., revised. And additional M: MGADA, 2007.-109 p.

Fortunately, the Great Patriotic War did not affect me or my family. No one in my family fought. Of course, you can’t say that. It would be more correct to say that none of my family was at the front. All citizens of the Soviet Union did something so that the soldiers who fight and die there at the front could win. Someone dug trenches, someone stood at the machine at the factory, someone looked after the wounded in hospitals, and someone gave away the last crust of bread. My grandmother was a home front worker, so I can’t say that she didn’t fight. Everyone fought at that time, but everyone fought in their own way: some with a machine gun in their hands on the front line, and others fought standing at a machine in the rear.
Many years have passed, but the memory of this terrible war is still alive in our hearts. Now, of course, it’s hard for us to imagine the events of that time, and looking at the smiling old veterans, it’s hard to believe that they survived the horror and chaos of the war. Look at them. Orders and medals rest on their chests. Here is a medal for courage, but for courage... Medals are not given just like that, which means the person deserves this award. These people defended their country and their homeland during the war, and if so, it means that they did not live their lives in vain.

I cannot imagine all the horror they had to endure. Let's mentally move back to when today's veterans were young and did not yet know that there would be a war. Can you imagine what they had to go through? And now they are standing at the parade as if nothing had happened and smiling. But look them in the eyes. They are crying. They cry because war is scary. Nowadays, modern youth have formed a clear opinion that war is romance, and May 9 is another reason to go out and have fun with friends. Tell me, is it necessary to celebrate Victory Day? After all, now no one remembers those terrible days. Nobody treats this day as a memory of victory anymore. Victory in one of the most terrible wars on the ground. After all, if we had not won then, who knows what the modern world would have become? Nobody remembers those terrible events and senseless deaths. I say “meaningless” because the death of a soldier is always meaningless. Who is a soldier? A soldier is, first of all, a citizen. Who is a citizen? A citizen is a person, just a person who wants to be happy. But instead of just living and enjoying life, the soldier picks up a rifle and goes to the front. What happens to the soldiers at the front? At the front, a soldier will kill the enemies of his country, kill fiercely and fanatically. The soldier knows that if he does not give his life now, then later all those he loves may die: his family, friends, children, his beloved who is waiting for him at home. Think about the fact that none of the politicians who start wars have ever fought. That's why I say that the death of a soldier is meaningless, because during the battle he is far from political intricacies. During a battle, a soldier knows one thing - he must fight, otherwise those he loves will die, and the death of a loved one is even worse than own death….

Now there are millions of books about the great Patriotic War. By reading one of these books, we can learn about a war in which we were not present. But we will never be able to understand the full horror of war. Why is Memorial Day gradually turning into just another holiday for us? Because our generation no longer remembers that terrible time, and then it will be even worse. Humanity tends to forget. Several more decades will pass, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will no longer understand the meaning of this holiday. Well, once upon a time there was a war. So what? And in a few decades, this day will no longer be marked in red on the calendar, because no one will need the memory of this war. Although no one needs her today. This is the second year that a campaign has been taking place in our city: St. George ribbons are being distributed to people. For what? So that people remember. Take a closer look at them, these ribbons are tied to bags, tied on the wrist, and braided in hair just because it is unusual and beautiful. And only veterans wear St. George ribbons near their hearts. They remember. I also want to remember, but I can’t, because I wasn’t there yet. You know, sometimes it seems to me that it’s good that humanity forgets everything. Yes, it’s good that in a few generations people will forget this damn war, because war is very scary.

P.S. You read school essay, which I wrote for my younger brother.

“The price of the victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War” is the 22nd “controversial issue” in Russian history, formulated by the compilers of a unified school textbook. The Great Patriotic War is the main “living myth” Russian history: it is both part of propaganda and part of real historical memory; and he is at the center of a wide public debate. Officials and scientists close to them insist that the legend of the war, and therefore the price of Victory, cannot be revised. Their opponents believe that it is possible and necessary to discuss the war, and we do not yet know the whole truth about this period. Lenta.ru decided to talk not about the number of victims and lost material values, but about why in new Russia The official history of the Great Patriotic War became an untouchable topic.

Founding Myth

“Every political nation must have its founding event. Otherwise, the nation does not function - or at least functions with great difficulties,” the professor argues in an interview with Lenta.ru High school economics Svyatoslav Kaspe. Typically, such a milestone is represented by revolutionary upheavals, as a result of which the socio-political regime with which they identify themselves was consolidated. modern society and the state: in the USA this is the American Revolution of 1775–1783, in France - simultaneously the Great French Revolution of 1789–1794, and the final establishment of the republican system after defeat in the war with Prussia in 1871, in Germany - the proclamation of a democratic Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 and its reunification in “unity, right and freedom” with the GDR in 1990.

Post-Soviet Russia never found such a “founding event” on which the “foundation myth” would rest. The “Preobrazhenskaya Revolution,” as Alexander Solzhenitsyn once called the failure of the State Emergency Committee putsch on August 19–21, 1991, failed to gain a foothold as such. The events themselves in Moscow acquired only a half-official status - in 1994, August 22 was proclaimed the Day of the National Flag of Russia, and in society the attitude towards them remains extremely ambiguous: they are recognized as a “revolution” by publicists like Maxim Sokolov who claim originality, and the majority prefer to call them maximum impersonally - “August events”.

The authorities also showed indifference to attempts to establish a memorial ritual for August 1991: in 2004, Vladimir Putin for the first time ignored mourning ceremonies on New Arbat, in the tunnel under which three defenders of the White House died on the night of August 21, 1991 - before that at the memorial stone Wreaths were always laid on behalf of the President. In 2004, another significant day for the “new Russia” - December 12 - ceased to be a holiday; In 1993, a democratic Constitution was adopted on this day. In 2007, the authorities organized a grand celebration of Flag Day, involving the “Kremlin youth” for this purpose. In this way, they tried to cut off liberals, the direct heirs of those who defended the White House, from the celebration - already in 2010, the Moscow mayor’s office did not approve the traditional march of democracy defenders along New Arbat on Flag Day; a small unauthorized march was harshly dispersed.

The chance to promote the myth of a “new Russia,” whose history would begin with the victory over the putschists, was lost almost immediately after the Democrats came to power, argues Professor Kaspe. “I’m not sure that betting on the “revolution of 1991” would have worked then; very difficult times came after the collapse of the USSR. It would be difficult to explain to the average person that the severity of current times is rooted much deeper than in 1991 itself or even in “perestroika”. But it was possible to at least try - and it’s a shame that such attempts remained isolated,” says the researcher.

“Yeltsin had an attitude towards positioning modern Russia as a “new Russia”, emphasizing its dissimilarity from the previous Russia; symbolic policy was aimed at breaking with the past and building a bright future,” the chief Researcher Institute of Scientific Information on social sciences RAS Olga Malinova. However, effective mechanisms for capturing this new historical experience within the framework of collective memory were never proposed - in contrast to the same October Revolution, whose leaders actively began creating their own mythology and associated places of memory like the Campus of Mars in Petrograd or the Kremlin wall, which became a columbarium for revolutionaries . Three dead opponents of the State Emergency Committee were awarded only a modest memorial stone and a series postage stamps, their comrades - the “Defender of the White House” medals, and the events of August 19–21 themselves - a commemorative coin and the renaming of the square in front of the building of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR into Free Russia Square.

Moreover, Professor Kaspe believes, the new Russian government deliberately did not make a radical break with the symbolic capital of the Soviet period. “That’s why they had their own objective reasons, in particular geopolitical ones: it was important to defend its status in the UN Security Council, to defend the monopoly on nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR. However, the costs of such a decision turned out to be enormous,” says Kaspe. This was also reflected in the reproduction of collective memory: the anniversary of the October Revolution continued to be an official holiday until 1996; after a short period of renaming geographical names, which affected mainly Moscow, St. Petersburg and some regional capitals, left the Bolshevik toponymy alone. In Russian cities, according to the Federal Address Information System, more than seven thousand Lenin streets, more than three thousand Kirov streets and over 2.5 thousand Kalinin streets are still preserved. Professor Kaspe also shows the strength of continuity with the Soviet past using the example of a “tearful story” told by Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich: he once could not sign a government decree only because it canceled the orders of the authorities given back in 1920–1930. e years; one of them had Lenin's visa. “It is generally impossible to cancel everything that was signed by Lenin, this is blasphemy, I think,” the deputy prime minister, who has a reputation as a liberal, said then.

“For some time the country was left without a founding myth, and when the time came to gather again, it looked around itself, looked inside itself and saw nothing other than the Great Patriotic War,” continues Professor Kaspe.

All these years, the only truly “national” holiday was still Victory Day on May 9. Over the course of two decades of post-Soviet Russian history, the Great Patriotic War retained the status of the most important historical event. Polls have consistently said this. public opinion starting with the study of the “historical consciousness of the population of the RSFSR” carried out in 1990 for the CPSU Central Committee; all other events, phenomena and historical characters - from the martyrs and saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, tsars, the October Revolution to the fall of " iron curtain― faded into the background, where there was a place for Russian ballet, Yuri Gagarin and successes in astronautics, as well as sports achievements. “Objectively, except for [the Great Patriotic War], the Russian authorities have nothing else to rely on. But this symbolic resource is not infinite, and hyperexploitation only accelerates its depletion,” says Professor Kaspe.

There are at least three criteria that symbols of the past must meet in order to be used to build a national identity, Malinova argues: “The first is recognition. This is the key to why it is so difficult to re-nominate symbols of the past for political use, as was the case with the replacement of the November holiday, and why the memory of the Great Patriotic War is convenient - it is certainly a recognizable symbol, the memory of which is formed in different ways. channels, both public and private. The second criterion is the ability to present ourselves in a positive light, that is, to correspond to the culturally given patterns of imagination of political communities. And from this point, the memory of the war is a unique resource, because it fits well into different templates: it is a symbol of the heroic past, great sacrifices, suffering, salvation, which can be represented both in nationalist projections of collective feat, and in liberal projections of humanism and the struggle for freedom . This is a very flexible symbol that can be embedded in different lines of cultural narrative. The third criterion is non-contestability. Those symbols of the past that are subject to contestation on the principle of a zero-sum game are unsuitable for constructing national identity - for example, the October Revolution, which some perceive as an unconditional evil, and others - as an unconditional good. In this regard, the Great Patriotic War was lucky, because with all the abundance of very different interpretations and interpretations, no one seriously questions the meaning of the war, and therefore it turned out that it is a symbol that is universally suitable for political use. By the way, in neighboring Ukraine everything turned out differently: the memory of the war became the subject of fierce debate.”

Post-Soviet Russia initially had a very meager set of symbols of the past that would meet all three criteria and could be used as a ready resource for constructing national identity, Malinova argues.

Given the significant absence of any “new foundations,” only one alternative was proposed - the Day of National Unity, which fell on November 4, the controversial date among historians of the surrender of the Kremlin by the Polish troops to the people’s militia of Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky in 1612. Over the past decade, Russians have not begun to associate themselves with this holiday, Levada Center head Lev Gudkov emphasized last year, but in their minds it has merged with the nationalist “Russian Marches.” The “Kremlin Youth”, the “Nashi”, “Local” and “Young Russia” movements tried to intercept this message, clearing it of nationalism and leaving only statist patriotism, but, admittedly, without success.

Other attempts to actualize the value potential of the past were also doomed to failure. In 2010-2011, the name of Tsarist Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin was actively heard, whose statements on the eve of his 150th birthday were quoted even by Vladimir Putin. But despite the fact that Stolypin’s ideology of preventing “great upheavals” was perfectly suited to the regime built by Putin, this story faded away. Publicists talked about the fact that the then prime minister was unfaithful to his favorite author, nationalist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, there was a discussion in magazines about the need for a monument to the pre-revolutionary reformer, in the end this monument was even unveiled - near the White House, but then Stolypin was forgotten again. The same story repeated itself in 2012, ambitiously proclaimed in Russia as the “Year of History”, and if the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Borodino was still widely covered in the press, largely due to the continuity with the Soviet historical canon of the Patriotic War of 1812, then the celebration of the 1150th anniversary of Rus' ended up in the backyard public life. In general, the anniversaries of Stolypin, the Battle of Borodino and the birth of Russian statehood were the three events that President Medvedev called “ important dates» and on which the state intended to focus public interest.

The result was disastrous. “Our political and intellectual elite have done surprisingly little to expand this repertoire. Although the states at the helm have exclusive resources to nominate events of the past for political use,” Malinova sums up. In this paradoxical way, the researcher believes - after all, we are talking about an event that was originally built into the system of memory production in the USSR, that is, in a state with different value systems - Victory Day became the main “constituent event” for Russian history. “Hitler Germany was absolute evil. And if we fought against absolute evil, then - in a simple rhetorical move - we turn out to be absolute good, obviously not subject to any criticism,” sums up Professor Kaspe.

Two births of one holiday

In the first post-war decade, the attitude towards the Great Patriotic War, as well as towards many aspects of Soviet life, was determined by the position of Joseph Stalin, which was conveyed to the masses by the collection “On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union”. Having gone through several post-war editions, this collection explained the reasons for the war, for example, the signing of a non-aggression pact with Germany (“No peace-loving state can refuse a peace agreement with a neighboring power, if at the head of this power are even such monsters and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop"), and assessed it as a patriotic war, liberation and just.

On May 8, 1945, on the day of the repeated surrender of German troops - no longer in liberated Reims, but in conquered Berlin - by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the next 9th was declared “the Day of National Celebration - Victory Day”. In exactly the same way, a second holiday was established, with exactly the same status - the day of victory over Japan, September 3. Both days were declared non-working. This double Victory Day in the Soviet calendars did not last long, however - already in December 1947, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Council published a resolution in which it declared, in particular, “the day of May 9 - the holiday of victory over Germany - is a working day”; other epithets were omitted. The same decree declared January 1 a non-working day. For the next 18 years, the victory in the Great Patriotic War was not celebrated in the USSR.

Exist different opinions regarding why neither Stalin nor Nikita Khrushchev tried to integrate the cult of Victory into the propaganda matrix of the Soviet state. Some - for example, outstanding researchers of the Soviet cult of Victory, the American Nina Tumarkin and the British Richard Overy - suggest that under Stalin the role of war was downplayed because it could conceptually overshadow the cult of personality of the leader. “He wished to restore his personal power after the war, after years of his dependence on the loyalty and competence of others,” and to do this it was enough to “silence those who directly or indirectly contradicted his favorite narrative of himself as the “architect of victory”.” “,” wrote Overy in his work “Russia’s War.” Leading researcher at the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey Miller, categorically disagrees with this. “You can, of course, explain everything this way - with the evil intentions of the authorities, but the situation is much more complicated. Neither during the war (especially after 1943), nor even more so immediately after it, did anyone who had even the slightest understanding of how the regime works have the desire to challenge Stalin’s role as the “architect of victory,” he says in a conversation with "Lentoy.ru".

Under Khrushchev, the Stalinist myth was debunked: “It was not Stalin, but the party as a whole, the Soviet government, our heroic army, its talented commanders and valiant warriors, the entire Soviet people - that’s who ensured victory in the Great Patriotic War,” declared (*.pdf ) First Secretary of the Central Committee at the historic closed meeting of the 20th Congress of the CPSU on February 25, 1956. The nationalization of the experience of Victory - through its “partisanship”, thus, began under Khrushchev. At the same time, throughout the eleven years of his stay in power, completely different values ​​were transmitted to society: it was assumed that the Soviet people were oriented towards a “bright future”, creating a communist society of universal abundance, and the trauma of the war that they experienced did not fit into this optimistic construction. “What, in the end, are you going to do in a country that has experienced a war and is in an absolutely destroyed state - will you constantly push the military issue or will you make sure that people switch to the future?” - says Miller. In addition, the Soviet Union had other “justifications for its existence,” adds Professor Kaspe: “The USSR opposed world imperialism, asserted the friendship of peoples, conquered space and the depths of the world ocean... The war was only part of this toolkit for legitimizing [the regime].”

But under Brezhnev, when the impossibility of implementing grandiose plans for building communism became obvious, a new cementing idea was required, a kind of rooting of the regime in the Great Patriotic War, and agreement with its official interpretation began to be perceived as required element manifestations of loyalty of a Soviet citizen towards the state. By decree of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces dated April 26, 1965, it was announced that “from now on” May 9 will be a holiday in honor of the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. The resumption of celebrations also entailed a broad campaign to create corresponding rituals - Victory parades, of which the one that took place on Red Square in Moscow acquired a canonical character.

“When does the memory of war begin to become institutionalized? When all the war invalids have already been sent to boarding schools, when a new generation has grown up to whom something needs to be explained, when Colonel Brezhnev himself is going to get something from this, when the structure international relations has changed somewhat and it is useful to remind comrades that the Soviet Union made its contribution to the victory over Germany. It’s always a combination of complex reasons,” Miller lists the reasons for Brezhnev’s policy. Simultaneously with the establishment of Victory Day, the design of places of ritualized memory of the war began. Large-scale architectural and sculptural memorials began to be erected on the territory of the Union: already in 1967, two monuments with the greatest symbolic meaning were opened: the Tomb unknown soldier near the Kremlin wall and the monument “The Motherland Calls!” In Volgograd.

In search of a new myth

As for the young Russian state, then at first there was no talk of developing his own canon of the Great Patriotic War. On the contrary, even before the collapse of the Union, a course was taken towards the “depoliticization of education”: in October 1990, at the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR at the seminar “Restructuring social science and historical education in the RSFSR in the conditions state sovereignty“discussed the possibilities of going beyond the “Soviet past.” This policy was continued by the first Minister of Education of the new Russia, Eduard Dneprov, who already achieved the “demilitarization” of schools at the beginning of 1991 (compulsory military training) and expulsion from school of party organizations.

“Depoliticization” played a cruel joke on the Soviet canon of the Great Patriotic War. The outright lies of official propaganda were exposed, such as the absence of secret articles in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or the attribution of responsibility for the death of Polish officers in Katyn to the German invaders, and many myths created in 1941–45 by military journalism were revised. This affected the story of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, originally the heroine of Pyotr Lidov’s article “Tanya” in Pravda - it was the image constructed by state propaganda that received the posthumous title of Hero of the Soviet Union; the history of “28 Panfilov Guardsmen” - this symbol owes its appearance to the journalist of “Red Star” Vasily Koroteev and the literary secretary of the same newspaper, Alexander Krivitsky, who revised his materials about the 8th Panfilov Division; the stories of Krasnodon underground fighters from the “Young Guard”, reproduced almost entirely based on the novel of the same name by Alexander Fadeev; the circumstances of the destruction of the Belarusian village of Khatyn - not by German occupiers, but by collaborationist punitive forces under the leadership of former senior lieutenant of the Red Army Grigory Vasyura.

At one time, Doctor of Historical Sciences Elena Senyavskaya from the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences developed a classification of methods used during the war by the Soviet system to create the symbols it needed: this is “falsification - complete or partial, including the substitution of one hero for another, appropriation of other people’s merits, distortion of the circumstances of the feat , incorrect interpretation of events; unfair silence about one hero or feat and purposeful exaltation of another using all available means of agitation and propaganda; singling out one hero from a number of others who have accomplished a similar feat, unequal assessment of an equal feat, personification of a feat; the creation of a propaganda cliché, a stereotype of a hero, into which living, really existing people were artificially “fitted.”

But at the same time, the history of the Second World War began to acquire an alternative mythology, as openly anti-Soviet, greatest contribution into which the Soviet intelligence defector Viktor Suvorov (Rezun) contributed, and the Sovietophile, which launched the so-called “Dulles plan”. “When someone tried or is trying to prove that Stalin and Hitler are the same bastards, all this was laced with some kind of political intentions. Firstly, they, by definition, are different bastards - they killed different people, in different ways, and for different purposes. It is important to calmly understand - when you don’t care which of them was better, who was worse, Stalin or Hitler - by asking another question: “How was it?” This is what you should do,” says Miller.

“In the 1990s, the events of the Great Patriotic War were reassessed, but does this mean that they were subjected to a deep rethinking? No, of course it doesn't. Understandably, people were more focused on the more obvious dark sides of the communist past, purges, repressions and the like. Does the history of war have a dark side? Undoubtedly. But that’s not how people thought, and they still refuse to think that way,” Miller adds.

Related materials

Under Yeltsin, the competition of these several war projections did not create a problem. “Exposing individual myths - about Panfilov’s heroes or about the colossal role of “Little Land” for the course of the war - is shooting at false targets. Revelations may infuriate opponents, but not cause serious damage [to the image of the war as a whole]. Questions should be asked not about specific episodes, but about the general meanings of this tragic event in the fate of the country,” comments Professor Kaspe. Official science, especially those focused on the preparation of educational manuals, has never carried out a revision of Soviet myths about the war. “They were largely created by these historians,” Miller briefly notes, and adds: “Institutional science is currently doing a lot of work on the production of anniversary editions, and in Lately- in general, the problem of survival in the conditions of the RAS reform, so one cannot expect revolutionary scientific breakthroughs from it.”

Despite the institutionalization of the state cult of the Great Patriotic War, for the younger generation, the events of 70 years ago become the past. This is shown (*.pdf) by the research of the Sociological Center of the Civil Registry of State Civil Service, conducted in 2004, and later surveys. Ten years ago, only 38 percent of Russians said in interviews that they were interested in the events of the Great Patriotic War, and for young groups of the population - under 39 years old - the proportion of those interested was even smaller - from 17 to 22 percent. A 2011 study conducted by Olga Chernova looks more optimistic in this sense: the events of the Second World War are of great interest to 28 percent of Russians under the age of 20, 36 percent of those under 30, and 40 percent of those under 40, but this still not much compared to 98 percent of Russians over 70 who are interested in the events of the war. However, the question remains about the “quality” of this memory - in 2004, there were three times more young people than older age groups who could not remember a single commander of the Great Patriotic War; in 2011, forty percent of respondents under 40 years of age could not name the names of those who received the title of heroes of the USSR during the war.

“What seems quite natural to the previous generation, brought up on Soviet stereotypes, causes misunderstanding and rejection among the 2020 generation. The pressing problem of the politics of memory in Russia is not only protecting one’s history from arbitrary falsification by unfriendly politicians, but also building one’s own trajectory historical development, based not on familiar stereotypes, but on the real position of Russia in the modern world,” wrote (*.pdf) Daniil Anikin from Saratov State University.

Already at the very beginning of the 2000s, Vladimir Putin began to make attempts to bring together all three disparate periods of Russian history, pre-revolutionary, Soviet and post-Soviet, into one. In sharp dissonance with the previous presidency was his statement that “the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the twentieth century.” And just a few months after coming to power, in October 2000, the new leader seized on the idea that the athletes presented at a meeting with him: to finally give the Russian anthem words. True, it was not Mikhail Glinka’s “Patriotic Song”, which became the anthem of the RSFSR back in 1990, that was endowed with words, but the old Soviet melody by Alexander Alexandrov, the text for which was called upon to be written - for the third time - by the poet Sergei Mikhalkov.

The authorities continued to use Soviet symbols. In the end, a parade with participation returned to Red Square military equipment; however, the return of the canonical Soviet ritual took a little longer. With Boris Yeltsin coming to power, the tradition of military parades on Red Square on May 9 seemed to be a thing of the past - in 1991–1994 they were not held, only in 1995, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the victory, columns of military equipment reappeared in Moscow . But not on Red Square, but on Poklonnaya Hill - the only large memorial building in post-Soviet Russia dedicated to the Great Patriotic War. The Yeltsin administration again demonstrated both a break with the memorial practices of the past, and a certain continuity with them - since 1996, military personnel again began to solemnly march along Red Square, but without the participation of military equipment. The refusal to use it was explained not so much by the refusal of ostentatious militarism, but by the need to protect the paving stones of the main square of the country and the logistical difficulties that arose after the reconstruction of the Iversky Gate, which blocked the passage to Red Square between the Historical Museum and the pre-revolutionary building of the Moscow City Duma. The parade with the participation of military equipment returned to Red Square only in 2008, the day after Dmitry Medvedev took office as president.

Photo: Yuri Abramochkin / RIA Novosti archive

The state also took a more active position with regard to the complex of ideas about the Great Patriotic War. In 2002, on the anniversary of Germany’s attack on the USSR, Putin announced: “We will defend the truth about the Great Patriotic War and fight any attempts to distort this truth and insult the memory of those who fell.” Over the following years, Putin repeated (at least in 2003, 2007 and 2013) that what was written about the war in some history textbooks made his “hair stand on end.” The “memory wars” unleashed in Eastern Europe in the 2000s also contributed to the increase in attempts to ensure state control over the ideological content of history. In 2004, a number of conservative Polish historians declared that their country needed to develop its own version of historical politics, despite the fact that such attempts made in Germany by Helmut Kohl in the 1980s under the slogan of a “moral-political turn” provoked a wave of accusations of revisionism , which ultimately forced the Germans to abandon the search for a “balanced” version of their history of the 20th century.

The Russian response to this was the infamous teacher's manual (and school textbook) " Recent history Russia, 1945-2006” by Alexander Filippov and Alexander Danilov, which actually justified Stalin’s tyranny. Here are quotes collected (*.doc) by Miller: “Resistance to Stalin’s course towards forced modernization and the country’s leader’s fear of losing control over the situation was main reason“Great Terror””; “there was no organized famine in the countryside in the USSR”; “speaking of the repressed, it would be correct if a formula appeared here that would include only those sentenced to death and those executed by execution”; “regarding the campaign of the Red Army in September 1939, it should be emphasized that we were talking about the real liberation of those territories that went to Poland under the Riga Peace Treaty of 1920, that is, it was nothing more than the liberation of part of the Fatherland”; “without justifying the murder of prisoners of war in Katyn, it should be noted that on Stalin’s part, the executions in Katyn were not just a matter of political expediency, but also an answer for the death of many (tens) of thousands of Red Army soldiers in Polish captivity after the 1920 war.”

Filippov and Danilov actually gave an answer to all the key claims formulated in the historiography of neighboring countries - in connection with the Soviet invasion of Poland and the occupation of the Baltic countries, the massacre in Katyn, the famine in Ukraine. Methodologically, “the authors proclaimed the rejection of the concept of totalitarianism as an unscientific instrument of the Cold War and proposed an analysis of the Soviet period from the point of view of the theory of modernization,” Miller noted. In his opinion, the content of this textbook was “a backward-looking discourse of the modern ruling elite,” which is “very similar to the post-Stalin Soviet narrative, if you subtract the communist rhetoric from it.” “The logic in this case is simple - criticism of the Soviet past will certainly lead to discrediting the fight against Nazism,” Professor Kaspe comments on this reaction. Then the publication of the textbook by Filippov and Danilov caused a scandal, and although the Ministry of Education and Science included it in the federal list of textbooks for the 2008–2009 academic year at the end of 2007, it apparently did not receive wide distribution in the education system.

At the same time, spears were actively being broken over the historical policies of the closest neighbors, who did not show due reverence for the memory of the Great Patriotic War. The scandal with the transfer of the “Bronze Soldier” to Tallinn in 2007 turned out to be especially loud - the Estonian embassy was then blocked for several days by the pro-Kremlin “youth”, the Federation Council proposed to the president to sever diplomatic ties with Estonia, and The State Duma- introduce economic and political sanctions against a neighboring state. At the same time, unknown hackers crashed the websites of Estonian government agencies, and a wave of pogroms swept through Tallinn, in which the government - without sufficient evidence for a trial - blamed activists of the "Nashi" movement who had parachuted into Estonia and friendly Estonian Russians from the "Night Watch" movement.

A similar story repeated itself in 2009, when the Memorial of Glory was blown up in Kutaisi, but Moscow’s relations with official Tbilisi were so bad that this event had no noticeable effect other than promises to restore the monument in Moscow. Moreover, already next year, when the monument was demolished in friendly Uzbekistan Soviet soldier, and in its place a monument “Oath to the Motherland” was opened, and President Islam Karimov commented on it this way: “If you compare the newly erected monument with the previous monument, which over the course of for long years stood in this place, reflecting the ideology of the old system, I think a lot becomes clear without unnecessary comments,” then Russian officials and their dedicated propagandists did not raise any friendly campaign of condemnation.

True, over the years, the need to formalize the canonical idea of ​​the Great Patriotic War has penetrated into the scientific community. “Russia has powerful political, economic and military, and, most importantly, enormous spiritual potential, rooted in the thousand-year past, which for centuries ensured its survival in extreme conditions and its victories over foreign invaders. And to preserve this potential, to realize it in the field of Russia’s revival after the defeat to the United States in “ cold war”, ensuring state security seems to be one of the most important tasks of modern Russian society“, - this is how, for example, Doctor of Historical Sciences Elena Malysheva explained the need to preserve the memory of the Great Patriotic War, as the “value basis of national identity.”

“In modern conditions, the task of politicizing the sphere of history education is not only not “hidden” from society, but is even declared at the state level,” wrote (*.pdf) in 2012, the chief researcher at the Institute of Content and Teaching Methods of the Russian Academy of Education, Evgeniy Vyazemsky, by the way, fully supports this politicization.

The institutionalization of state “memory policy” reached its highest point under Dmitry Medvedev. It was he who, by his decree of May 15, 2009, created the Commission to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of Russia. It was headed by the then head of the presidential administration Sergei Naryshkin, and his deputies were Deputy Minister of Education and Science Isaac Kalina and assistant to the head of the Presidential Administration Igor Sirosh. Kalina's appointment caused a stir liberal public- the official was known for supporting the introduction of Alexander Filippov’s textbook in schools in the mid-2000s. The executive secretary of the commission, the head of one of the departments of the presidential administration for internal policy, Ivan Demidov, who is inclined towards Orthodox fundamentalism, raised no less questions. famous TV presenter, who in the mid-2000s became one of the ideologists first of the Young Guard of United Russia, and then of United Russia itself. Under their leadership, the commission was supposed to identify “falsifications of historical facts and events aimed at diminishing the international prestige of the Russian Federation,” as well as “determine a strategy to counter [such] falsifications.”

The brewing ideological unification, however, did not happen. The beginning of the commission’s work was marked by a small scandal - when a letter was sent to the Research Institute of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences with a request to personally identify falsifiers of history - but subsequent events forced some observers to talk, if not about a change, then about adjusting the state course on building a monolithic historical memory. Already in the fall of 2009, a scandal broke out around an allegedly state-initiated campaign to whitewash the image of Joseph Stalin, for which Western PR specialists were brought in - RIA Novosti, which was named as one of the executors of the order, then gave a harsh response to these accusations. Other signals of emancipation were Demidov’s resignation from the commission for combating falsifications in January 2010, and an invitation to participate in the parade on May 9 military units almost all countries of the anti-Hitler coalition that fought in Europe.

And in the summer and autumn of the same year, passions began to boil around another textbook - professors of the history department of Moscow State University Alexander Barsenkov and Alexander Vdovin. It also contained characteristics of Stalin as “ outstanding personality, appealing to the cruel times,” and accusations of Chechens of collective desertion during the war years, and Jews of indirect guilt for deportation by Stalin Crimean Tatars. Subsequently, they also recalled that Vdovin’s graduate student was Nikita Tikhonov, one of the most prominent representatives of the nationalist terrorist movement. As a result, the dean of the history department of Moscow State University, Sergei Karpov, had to apologize for the nationalist textbook, and the manual itself was recommended to be removed from the teaching process, which, of course, left the “patriotic public” bewildered.

During Medvedev's presidency, it was considered good manners to make curtsies towards the victims of Soviet power. In my video blog, dedicated to the Day in memory of the victims political repression On October 30, 2009, the president, for example, noted how important it is “to prevent, under the guise of restoring historical justice, the justification of those who destroyed their people.” And here is the response ambiguity: “It is also true that Stalin’s crimes cannot diminish the exploits of the people who won the Great Patriotic War.”

As for the commission to counter attempts to falsify history, its work was limited to imitation of activities - in the first year of its existence, it met only twice and did not come up with any high-profile initiatives. This allowed critics to call it an “operetta”, and President Medvedev to disband it in February 2012.

“Many of the things that Russia did were a reaction to external stimuli, but if we are talking about these reactions, then they were complex: someone built this commission, someone talked about creating the same Institute of National memory like in Poland, someone talked about a law prohibiting the reassessment of the role of the Great Patriotic War. We, in general, learned bad things, but there were also positive experiences, for example, a Russian-Polish commission on complex issues chaired by Academician Anatoly Torkunov and Professor Adam Rotfeld,” Miller says in an interview with Lenta.ru. “I personally borrowed a lot for my publications against historical policies from Polish opponents of such policies in Poland itself and I consider this a positive influence. Another example of the ambiguity of influence is the second half of the 2000s, when [then Ukrainian President Viktor] Yushchenko began to promote the topic of the Holodomor, inflating the number of victims, insisting that it was genocide,” he continues. - No one here has dealt with this topic, thinking “well, thank God, no one asks, and we don’t answer anything,” as gays once did in American army. Now we have started our research, went to our archives, maybe after some time we will be able to get interesting results. But it’s possible that we’ll get propaganda that’s not so much about how it happened, but about the fact that it wasn’t genocide, period.”

He started talking about the need to “offer the state to become a customer for the development of a single textbook.” “Over the past six months, United Russia has made a sharp turn. Just recently in February, at a club meeting where they discussed patriotic education, everyone agreed that there should be several history textbooks. Deputy Minister of Education and Science Isaac Kalina then said that after the diversity that existed, the history textbook cannot remain alone. Six months have passed, and the same Kalina is already talking about the only state verified textbook,” Novaya Gazeta wrote then.

But several more years passed before the plan began to become a reality. Almost immediately after the dissolution of the commission to combat falsifications of history, a tender appeared on the State Procurement website called “Development educational materials on a thematic course in the history of Russia devoted to the problem of falsification national history" Thus, analyst Maria Lipman came to the conclusion, it could be considered that “the task of contrasting the “wrong narrative” with the “correct” one has become more of a domestic political one instead of a foreign policy one.” And only in February 2013, Putin officially came up with the idea of ​​revising the concept of history education, believing that school history textbooks should not “have internal contradictions and double interpretations.” He further explained that teaching history differently in different regions would “destroy the unified humanitarian space of our multinational country“, for which a “canonical version of our history” should be created. Now a working group of several dozen scientists, teachers and education officials is implementing the order formulated at the highest state level. It is chaired by State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin, who has already fought against falsifications of history. Now he acts in his alternative capacity - as chairman of the Russian Historical Society. But that, as they say, is a completely different story.

Amendments

An error was discovered and corrected in the “Big Memory Policy” material. The photograph signed “Alexander Filippov” did not depict Alexander Vyacheslavovich Filippov, co-author and co-editor of the textbook “Recent History of Russia, 1945-2006,” but Alexander Fridrikhovich Filippov, a professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Lenta.ru apologizes to readers and personally to A.F. Filippov.

The attitude of modern youth to the Great Patriotic War

Scientific supervisor: Lukovtsev Valentin Stepanovich

The 65th anniversary of the Great Victory of the Soviet people over the Nazi invaders in the Great Patriotic War is approaching. Over these years, a lot has happened in the history of the USSR, and then Russia. The communist regime was replaced by democracy, the views and values ​​of the victorious people changed, and several generations of Russians grew up. There are fewer and fewer combatants, home front workers, wartime children alive - all those who can be called living witnesses of history.

Who keeps the memory of the Great Patriotic War in modern Russia? What do modern youth know about her? What do our schoolchildren study in history lessons? Fortunately, in our city there are young people who are interested not only in current problems, computers and television, but also in their history. The history of the great exploits of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. And there are teachers who know how to interest children, make them fall in love with their subject and make them truly literate people.

The period of the Great Patriotic War, in my opinion, is the most difficult period in the history of our country. There is nothing more terrible when thousands, millions of people die not only on the battlefield, but also in peaceful villages, defending themselves, their families, their homeland. But even extremely hard life, filled with grief for the dead, could not break the fortitude and strength of character of the people fighting fascism.

Of course, the memory of the events of the Great Patriotic War is sacred. It is important to preserve this memory because its participants saved the Motherland, strangled Nazism, and defeated the fascists. Without their true patriotism, love for their free and independent Motherland, faith in truth and justice, without their fearlessness and dedication, we would not exist, there would be no future. This memory must be preserved, since it is history, and without history, as we know, one cannot move forward.

Everyone knows that many feats at the front were accomplished at a time when people were ready to give themselves and their lives for the Fatherland. But even without intense heroic work in the rear, it would have been impossible to defeat the terrible enemy. Each of these people is a real hero who knows nothing more valuable than the freedom and independence of his native country.

To identify young people's knowledge about the Second World War, a survey was conducted among students. 23 students from different courses took part in the survey. Respondents were asked to answer basic questions about the Great Patriotic War, its battles and heroes. It would seem that it would be much easier to answer questions taught in middle school, however, everything turned out to be much more difficult. Unfortunately, the majority of modern youth have a very vague idea of ​​the events of the Great Patriotic War, or, worst of all, this knowledge is completely absent.

So, for example, 87% (20 people) of respondents were able to name the exact date of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

Only 17% (4 people) remember the feat of Alexander Matrosov.

22% (5 people) did not forget the heroic defenders of the Brest Fortress.

26% (6 people) remembered the most ambitious tank battle on the Kursk Bulge.

Only 30% (7 people) could talk about the duration of the siege of Leningrad and the first counter-offensive of the Red Army near Moscow.

91% (21 people) know which country started hostilities.

78% (18 people) were able to name the name of the political leader of the invading country.

39% (9 people) know which countries were allies of the USSR in the fight against the German occupiers.

74% (17 people) watch films about the war.

39% (9 people) read books about the Second World War.

48% (11 people) know someone from their family who participated in the Second World War.

To the question “In your opinion, are the events of the Great Patriotic War sufficiently covered today and does the younger generation need this information?” 78% (18 people) gave a positive answer.

To summarize, we can say that modern youth knows and remembers very little about the events of the war years. Not all survey participants were able to name the exact dates of the beginning and end of the Great Patriotic War.

The main source of information about the events of the war years for today's youth is art films about the Great Patriotic War. It should be noted that films shot in Soviet time truthful, realistic, reliable. But history textbooks are still an important source of information. Based on films made in recent years, most young people judge the events of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, it is very important that they do not distort historical reality.

It's sad that few people read books on military topics. And many people confuse the events of the War of 1812, described by L.N. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace” with military actions of 1941-1945. Most of young people respect the events and participants of the Great Patriotic War, but, unfortunately, today we remember veteran soldiers only on the eve of Victory Day.

Some of today's youth have a commitment to any youth subculture. And the results shown by them once again give reason to assert that subcultural movements lead to personality degradation. Apparently, studying the glorious history of one’s own people is “not fashionable” now. It is much more useful, in their opinion, to be aware of all the details of the lives of the stars of Western show business.

I believe that WWII veterans are endowed with a special way of thinking. They have a winning mentality. And while we have the opportunity to adopt the best from our ancestors, we must take advantage of it.

To do this, you need to have many conversations with participants in the Great Patriotic War. Veterans come to schools and tell schoolchildren about their war years. It is extremely important that the memory of the Great Patriotic War remains in the heart of every citizen of our country. It must be passed down from older generations to younger ones.

By interviewing veterans, we can not only hear their stories, but also benefit our heroes. Now we have a serious task - to preserve the memory of veterans and their feats, as well as to prevent the falsification of the history of our country. In addition, veterans will simply be pleased to know that the younger generation cares about them and all their hardships were not in vain.

From the stories of my grandfathers, I know that in my family there were also participants in the war. My great-grandfather and my uncles died on the battlefield. Grandfather and grandmother were Churapcha settlers. Another grandfather is a veteran of the home front. It’s good that they are nearby, since childhood they have made me understand what terrible times those were. We must carefully preserve their stories so that we can later pass them on to our children and grandchildren. With the help of my grandfather and mother younger sister writes a report on the topic “Seri kemin o5oto”. It is very good that she began to be interested in the events of those times from childhood.

I really hope that this will never happen again in our country and our friendly countries.