Historian Yevgeny SPITSYN in an interview with Pravda political observer Viktor KOZHEMYAKO.
History, especially covering the Soviet era, has come to the fore over the past three decades in the ideological struggle. The enemies of the Soviet power, resorting to all sorts of falsifications and one-sided interpretation of facts, actively used the insidious rearrangement of the past in order to cloud the mass consciousness, and ultimately to overthrow the socialist system and the collapse of the USSR.
The struggle for the minds and souls of people in the historical field continues. And today the interlocutor of Pravda about the pressing problems of this struggle is its constant participant, a well-known historian, advisor to the rector of Moscow State Pedagogical University, Evgeny Yuryevich Spitsyn. He is not only the author of the five-volume "Complete Course in the History of Russia", which was highly appreciated in the scientific community. Perhaps no less important is what you yourself may have noticed: in the so-called talk shows on historical and, at the same time, highly topical topics, which have recently been arranged by a number of TV channels, he always passionately and convincingly defends the Soviet truth.
I think our readers, like me, are interested in his opinion on many exciting issues.
Even the word "revolution" was branded as unacceptable
Last year was the year of the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The attitude towards it and the subsequent Soviet period of Russian history sharply divided our society. Well, since Gorbachev's "perestroika", anti-Sovietism has been established in our country in fact as a state ideology. The anniversary of the revolution and the preparation for it created a certain tension in society, but at the same time, in my opinion, many have raised hopes for a more objective and fair approach to assessing the events of a century ago. As the poet said, "the big is seen at a distance."
And now a lot of all kinds of conferences and "round tables" took place, television showed its films, serials and "talk shows", in which, by the way, you, Evgeny Yurievich, were attracted to participate. But what do you think, has there been at least a more or less significant change for the better in the public consciousness in relation to the revolution, Soviet power and its leaders, in the assessment of socialism and its achievements?
Promotional video:
- You know, the situation, in my opinion, has become even more acute. There are several reasons here. First, the counterrevolution that triumphed in 1991, which had two main incarnations - liberal Westernizers and monarchist Vlasovites, finally united in its hatred of October and Soviet power. Moreover, curiously, the ideological heirs of the RZPC, NTS and other most vicious anti-Soviet structures abroad and well-known kept women of the Western special services in their hatred of everything Soviet surpassed even the most frostbitten liberals such as Igor Chubais or the ever-memorable Madame Novodvorskaya, who in the Yeltsin period set the tone for the entire anti-Soviet hysteria.
Secondly, under the guise of "objective truth" in many television programs, sophisticated or outright lies were implanted. For example, that the October Revolution is not an objective historical process generated by the screaming contradictions of the country's previous development, but a "vile conspiracy of the dark forces", a "color" revolution slapped with the money of Western puppeteers. That the "Red Terror" in its gigantic proportions allegedly could not be compared with the White Terror, that, they say, it was purposeful and extremely bloodthirsty, and the "White" - only a response, "white and fluffy." But this is a real lie, refuted by facts!
Thirdly, the many times exposed lies about the allegedly forged "Act of abdication" of Nicholas II, about the "ritual murder" of the former Tsar and his family, and other anti-scientific delirium, so to speak, played with new colors and were actively propagated, especially by the sect of "Tsarebizniki" In fact, she was and remains the direct heiress of the most rabid fascist public from among the well-known emigre centers, long patronized by the intelligence agencies of the United States and Western Europe.
How do you think all this was perceived?
- Naturally, the most unbridled slander caused rejection among the majority of our people, who had already learned from the bitter experience of Yakovlev's propaganda during the Gorbachev's "perestroika". After all, it was then that the "Yakovlev's algorithm" for the destruction of the Soviet Union intoxicated many Soviet people and played an important role in the death of our state, for the freedom and independence of which the Soviet people paid a huge price during the Great Patriotic War. Now many of our people, in my opinion, are not so naive, they are far from everything, from what the central media stuff them with, they take on faith. Plus, of course, the fact that many Russian historians, who were not infected with the anti-Soviet virus, stopped sitting in the trenches and often gave a worthy rebuff to this entire public, including in discussions on radio and TV.
As for public support for the ideas of October, the ideas of socialism, the achievements of the Soviet government and its recognized leaders, it is difficult for me to judge objectively on this score. On the one hand, there seems to be a certain sobering up of the mass consciousness, especially in relation to such gigantic figures as V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin, in the understanding that the Soviet period was the highest achievement of our entire history, etc. But, on the other hand, political realities, primarily the election campaign and its results, lead to sad thoughts. Either people simply do not fully understand the seriousness of the problems facing our country today and the entire world civilization, or they are simply infected with the "Ukrainian syndrome". After all, you must admit that the current ruling "elite" very skillfully played on this syndrome and continues to play. Say,this is what the Maidan revolution in Ukraine led to …
Well, yes, they say, you want it too? Although what a revolution there is! Nevertheless, such suggestions act on someone. The very word "revolution" by the efforts of the authorities and their propaganda servants has been put under terrible doubt, it has been given an extremely negative meaning
- Sorry, I say, but is the revolution as a global social process subject to mantras of incantations? After all, this is an objective process that takes place according to the laws of dialectics, including according to the law of the transition from quantity to quality! Of course, the current "owners of factories, newspapers, ships" in Russia, any revolution is similar to death, therefore, through the lips of a whole cohort of "experts", "scientists", "journalists" and "social activists" a constant, in various forms, rush to Oktyabrskaya the revolution, its ideals, Soviet history, Soviet leaders … "Yakovlev's algorithm" in "Goebbels' packaging" is still in demand.
The Soviet past is a guiding star to the future
Over the past three decades, I, like all our compatriots, have had a chance to see and hear a lot about the Soviet era. And if Alexander Zinoviev called it the pinnacle of Russian history, then this is still either unknown to the majority in our country, or is presented as a kind of funny curiosity, worthy only of an ironic grin. And all these years dominated on the TV screen, in the press, in various kinds of book publications, completely different statements and other historical "mentors". For example, the brother of the privatizer Chubais you mentioned, who did not leave the TV screen and asserted day after day that the Soviet period was a “black hole” that should simply be removed from Russian history. Roughly the same thing sounded (and still sounds!) From the lips of MGIMO professor Zubov, odious academician Yuri Pivovarov, etc. etc. They are beyond numbers
And to what extent do you think the state position coincides with them, that is, the opinion of the current government? This position was not formally stated even in connection with the 100th anniversary of our revolution, but individual statements by the country's leaders indicate that the anti-Soviet view of history is much closer to them than the Soviet one. Yes, according to the Constitution, we should not have a single and obligatory state ideology. However, in your opinion, do you still need more constructive certainty and sober, interested attention on the part of the state in relation to basic Soviet values and to experience, to the achievements of the Soviet era? Isn't this a question about our future, and not just about the past?
- The fact that the current government was initially infected with the virus of anti-Sovietism is actually no secret to anyone. This can be seen constantly. Suffice it to recall at least the shameful story with the memorial plaque to Gustav Mannerheim in Leningrad, that is, to the one who bears direct, I emphasize this, responsibility for the Leningrad blockade, for the death of hundreds of thousands of Leningraders and the creation of concentration camps in Karelia, including in Petrozavodsk. Or, say, the constant references of the powers that be to the work of Ivan Ilyin, who admired the ideology of German Nazism and criticized it for only one single flaw - "the lack of Orthodoxy." And was it not Ivan Ilyin, after the defeat of the Third Reich, relied on the fascist regimes of Franco and Salazar as the pillars of the revival of National Socialism?
What can you say here: we are a country of "victorious capitalism" in its worst version - "feudal-comprador". The fact that the most odious oligarchs of the 1990s were removed from power and partly from the trough does not mean anything at all. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The country was ruled as well as by big business, and at the head of public power are his protégés, who have long and very successfully, especially in recent years, become adept at patriotic rhetoric.
You have to understand: the conflict that has been shaking the world over the past ten years is a completely traditional inter-imperialist conflict, which is simply (for greater persuasiveness) charged with traditional Russophobia. Nothing is new under the moon, about this even at the beginning of the twentieth century, V. I. Lenin. This is only under N. S. Khrushchev, and then L. I. Brezhnev, who, being general secretaries of the Central Committee, absolutely did not "petrify" in the Marxist theory, the pack of Khrushchev's "sixties" dragged revisionist ideas into Marxism-Leninism, on the basis of which "Eurocommunism", the theory of "convergence" and other crap, which is very competent and skillfully used by our ideological enemies. Remember that already at the turn of the 1950s-1960s, the central party apparatus was overwhelmed by degenerates or internal party dissidents, whom L. I. Brezhnev called "my Social Democrats" - Arbatov, Bovin, Shishlin, Burlatsky, Chernyaev, etc. It was these guys during the years of Gorbachev's "perestroika" that formed the backbone of that team of ideological mongrels, which, under the strict guidance of Alexander Yakovlev, implemented his well-known "algorithm".
The result is known: the destruction of the Soviet regime and the Soviet Union
- As for the Soviet legacy, here everything is very selective, Jesuitically sly. For example, we glorify the Soviet people for the defeat of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan, we hold the "Immortal Regiment" and Victory parades, but we shamefully block Lenin's Mausoleum, and the name of I. V. We send Stalin to the trash heap. We take from the Soviet era only what is profitable, because our achievements are not enough, but children still need to be educated on something. Therefore, we say "yes" to the Great Victory, the Soviet atomic bomb and Soviet space exploration - and then we mercilessly throw mud, shamelessly lie about Stalin's industrialization, collectivization, cultural construction and all other achievements of Soviet power.
Moreover, as they say, the trend of all recent years has become literally the glorification of imperial Russia, in which, supposedly, everything was harmonious and uplifting. We tell tales about the great reformers - S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin, we erect monuments to them and open memorial plaques, erect a monument to Alexander III, create new commissions for Nicholas II, etc. But at the same time, for all these years, not a single monument to Soviet leaders has been erected. And what, the same Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, who was the head of the Soviet government for more than ten years, does not deserve a monument? After all, it was during this period that the industrial might of the Soviet state was created, without which we would not have won the war. You see: you wouldn't have won! This means that now we simply would not exist as a nation, as a state. And another Soviet prime minister - Alexei Nikolaevich Kosygin,who headed the government for fourteen years also does not deserve a monument?
There are many worthy personalities in the Soviet era, whose memory has not yet been immortalized. Meanwhile, they not only do not erect monuments, but continue to exaggerate the question of the need to demolish the Honorary Necropolis at the Kremlin Wall and the burial of the body of V. I. Lenin
- Listen, but you can't do it in the end! Why in place of some myths to fence others? Why can't we tell the truth about the same tsarist reformers who, with their transformations, did not solve any of the problems that were screaming then? They tried to solve them again at the expense of the people and, in fact, gave birth to a revolution …
It seems that they quite deservedly began to pay tribute to the memory of the heroes of the First World War, but they shyly keep silent about the fact that this war was not needed by the Russian people, that they were poorly prepared for the war, with very rare exceptions they fought it mediocre, millions of people put it for nothing. After all, Lenin was absolutely right when he said that this war was an imperialist massacre, a war of conquest on the part of both warring coalitions! That is why the "man with a gun" played a key role in the events of 1917. By the way, the emperor was warned about this by P. N. Durnovo and others, but everything happened as it happened. And this is also a lesson …
For today, alas, unlearned or forgotten. And not being taught in the right way to new generations
- Speaking about the attitude to Soviet values and achievements, I declare: this, of course, today is not so much people's nostalgia as a guiding star for the real revival of the country! Having behind him such a colossal historical experience, including bitter mistakes, it is not only possible, but also necessary to turn to it. Of course, not just at the level of banal rhetoric, but in the practical plane of everyday work. This is vital for the country.
Only, I am afraid, there was no deep awareness of this at the top of the power. They cannot understand one elementary truth there: Russia is a weak link in a pack of imperialist predators, it will never be allowed into the "club of the elite", it will always be an outcast in the camp of the tycoons of world capital. And it doesn't matter who will sit in the presidential chair - "patriot", "Westerner" or "neutral". Is there still no understanding that the very system of bourgeois relations with a bunch of antagonistic, that is, insoluble, contradictions will constantly provoke military psychosis and anti-Russian hysteria? Truly Russia will be able to revive only by adopting a serious alternative, socialist project. Somewhere in the depths of my soul there is still a glimmer of hope for him, but, frankly, I have it fading moresince obscurantism, masked by the appearance of a return to national origins and traditions, is increasingly replacing the truly scientific knowledge of the world …
A look at the Civil War a century later
Starting this year, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War in our country. Cruel, bloody, fratricidal … That's right. But in the interpretation of those events, as in everything else, a long-familiar tendency prevails: to blame the Bolsheviks. Say, they and only they - the Bolsheviks, the communists - are to blame for the outbreak of the war then. But is this true? And how to convey to people the truth about the true reasons for the irreconcilable combat that unfolded a century ago?
By the way, many people intuitively feel today who was behind the truth in the Civil War. For example, the TVC channel conducted a poll: "Whose side - white or red - would you be on?" Ninety (!) Percent answered: "On the side of the red." And such evidence is far from the only one. What does this mean? The current "whites", of course, are different, but the working man sees them in the oligarchs and other similar exploiters who have enriched themselves and continue to enrich themselves at the expense of others, as well as in their servants. Should history teach social justice and how can it be taught in today's conditions?
- I will speak thesis.
First. Of course, the Bolsheviks did not call for the Civil War and did not start it, all this is a lie. Our opponents, especially the most aggressive of them - “czarist sectarians” and pseudo-Orthodox activists - traditionally cite the well-known Leninist slogan “about turning an imperialist war into a civil war” as proof of their rightness, which was put forward by V. I. Lenin in a number of his works, in particular War and Russian Social Democracy, published in early November 1914.
However, he meant something quite different. He spoke about the proletarian revolution, that is, the traditional main slogan of the Marxists, emphasizing only the fact that in conditions of war, any revolution is a civil war. This slogan flowed from all the conditions of the imperialist war, and first of all from the fact that it was she and she alone, but not the Bolsheviks, who created a new revolutionary situation in most European countries, primarily in Russia, where a rapid growth began in 1910. new anti-government protests, very similar to the revolutionary situation of 1902-1904.
Second. As for the issue of responsibility for unleashing a large-scale Civil War, let's start with the fact that, in the opinion of many modern historians, the first visible foci of armed civil conflict arose already during the February coup, the main beneficiaries of which were the liberals, Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Even then, the number of victims of the revolutionary elements was measured in thousands, and not only in Petrograd and Moscow. Secondly, in October 1917, not the Bolsheviks came to power, but a coalition of Bolsheviks and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, and this power was legitimized by the completely legitimate (in the conditions of a revolutionary process) Second Congress of Soviets. It was then that the triumphal march of Soviet power across the country began, and in the overwhelming majority of regions this power was established peacefully, without bloodshed.
In addition, it should be emphasized that the Bolsheviks did not at all intend to immediately build socialism on a large scale. The basis of their then program was made by Lenin's "April Theses", where it was written in black and white that "our immediate task" is "not the introduction of socialism immediately", but the transition "only to control by S. R. D. for social production and distribution of products”.
However, it is well known that the sabotage of the decree "On workers' control" provoked the "Red Guard attack on capital" carried out in the winter of 1918. But already in April of that same 1918, Lenin, in his work "The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power," returning to the "April Theses," again proposed a compromise to the bourgeoisie, whose interests were expressed by the Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. But no, they were already charged with inciting a large-scale Civil War! Moreover, a huge amount of facts and documents confirms that the main interest and sponsor of this war were European and overseas "partners".
Let me remind you that already in December 1917 in Tiflis, at a meeting of the American Consul L. Smith, the head of the British military mission, General J. Shore, and two French military attachés - Colonels P. Chardigny and P. Gushet, it was decided to support the Russian "democrats". And shortly before the new year, they made a fleeting voyage to Novocherkassk, where they informed General M. V. Alekseev, one of the leaders of the "white movement", on the allocation of impressive sums of money to fight the Bolshevik regime.
Has this already become a prologue to the soon unfolding intervention of a number of foreign powers against the Republic of Soviets?
- Yes, the Civil War, in fact, was the result of a conspiracy of two forces - the so-called Februaryists and their foreign sponsors, which very soon ceased to be limited only to financial assistance, and went on to open intervention against our country.
Now the third. As for the “red” and “white” terror, this question, in my opinion, has already been sufficiently studied in principle, especially in special monographs by the famous St. Petersburg historian Ilya Ratkovsky. However, our opponents, primarily from the ultra-monarchist camp, cannot be convinced by anything. They stubbornly deny the massiveness and systematic nature of the White Terror, reduce everything to just "isolated incidents."
But it is enough to look at the management system of the white governments, for example, the same Admiral A. V. Kolchak in Siberia and the Urals, where the bloody dictatorship of the "Supreme Ruler of Russia" was proclaimed and rigidly implemented, and we will see that it was based on a system of concentration camps, hostages, mass destruction of civilians, including the execution of every tenth hostage, etc. Moreover, all this terror was based on official orders not only of Admiral A. V. Kolchak, but also members of his government, including the Minister of War, General N. A. Stepanov, Governor-General of the Yenisei province, General S. N. Rozanov and the commanders of the Irkutsk, Amur and West Siberian military districts, Generals V. V. Artemieva, P. P. Ivanov-Rinov and A. F. Matkovsky.
On the question of "Stalinist repressions"
In our history, as in any other, there are especially sharp, burning and contradictory pages. On their basis, all kinds of speculations, falsifications, etc. usually arise in the first place. These are, for example, the GULAG, “Stalin's repressions,” speculating on which they cross out the entire Soviet period as a whole. I know you have just finished your book about Stalin. Yes, and in your other works, in communication with students or in the same television "talk shows" these topics cannot be avoided. Do you think you manage to be convincing enough in their interpretation?
- As you understand, I cannot assess myself. Let my colleagues and my readers and listeners give it. You must understand, I do not stand on the position of complete denial, let alone a complete justification of repression. But I will focus on the following facts and circumstances.
First, repression as such is an instrument of any (I emphasize: any!) State power. Not a single political regime or type of class state has ever done without repression. It is no coincidence that the power block of the executive branch, that is, the government, is very often called a repressive apparatus. Moreover, Marx and Lenin, speaking about the class essence of the state, argued that it is a machine for the suppression of one class by another, an apparatus of violence and an apparatus of domination of the ruling class.
Secondly, let's admit that the very deep-rooted phrase "Stalinist repressions" also raises a lot of questions, especially in the light of the recent scientific research of the historian Yuri Nikolaevich Zhukov. After all, in many ways he saw the origin of these repressions in a different way, which, perhaps, is much more fair to call "secretarial repressions." The fact is that they were initiated by the first secretaries of a number of republican, regional and regional party committees, primarily R. I. Eikhe, N. S. Khrushchev, P. P. Postyshev, E. G. Evdokimov and I. M. Vareikis. In addition, contrary to popular belief, I. V. Stalin then was by no means an omnipotent and sole dictator, but at that time critically depended on the moods and interests of the very secretary corps that formed the backbone of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), which, as is known,at their plenary sessions the personal composition of the Politburo, the Organizational Bureau and the Secretariat of the Central Committee.
Finally, quite legitimate indignation and rejection are provoked by endless stories of anti-Stalinist and anti-Soviet writers about the absolutely incredible scale of these repressions. Indeed, two memos of S. N. Kruglova, R. A. Rudenko and K. P. Gorshenin (heads of Soviet power structures) addressed to N. S. Khrushchev and G. M. Malenkov, who give a completely adequate idea of the real scale of "political repression", and over a huge period - 33 years in length, that is, from January 1921 to December 1953.
To these important documents it is worth adding extensive, very detailed statistical research carried out by the historian Viktor Zemskov, unfortunately now deceased
- I agree. And there is only one conclusion: there were no millions, and even more so tens of millions of victims, about which all these Solzhenitsyn, Gozmans and Svanidze are trending, and there are no. Moreover, not all of the victims of these repressions were innocent, many of them received for the cause and what they deserved - the same Vlasov, Bandera, members of gangs, foreign agents and spies, plunders of socialist property, etc.
And as for the common thesis about the destruction of the Russian peasantry during the years of collectivization, I advise all lovers of this lie to read the last work of the Doctor of Historical Sciences Viktor Nikolaevich Zemskov, mentioned by you, "Stalin and the People: Why There Was No Uprising." It contains mostly figures from the archives, but they very eloquently show the attitude of the majority of the Soviet peasantry to the policy of collectivization, and to the policy of dispossession, and to other "innovations" of the Stalinist leadership. The bottom line is that the Stalinist course was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people, 85 percent of the population of the Soviet countryside.
How do you explain this?
- There are several reasons, I think, and they should be discussed separately. And here I will express only one purely personal consideration.
The centuries-old Russian territorial community, in my opinion, was initially alien to the private ownership instinct, for example, there was no private ownership of land and other means of production. Now they are trying to convince us in every possible way that the right to private property is "sacred and inviolable." Where did it come from? What and why is the sanctity of this right? In false bourgeois theories, which in the West have long been elevated to the legal canon?
All these theories of "natural law", "social contract", "separation of powers", etc., born in the heads of the European "enlighteners" of the New Time, were only ideological tinsel, colored candy wrappers, a bright garland to cover exclusively class, selfish interests "Third estate". That is, the long-fledged European bourgeoisie, intensely striving for political power.
And, of course, these theories do not possess any "universal values". Just mantra-spells of the next servants of capital, nothing more. It doesn't smell like the genuine interests of the working people. All these theories can and should be exposed, including their political component in the form of bourgeois "democracy" with thoroughly fake elections and electoral technologies.
“You see where we came to. But a lot, you must agree, needs additional clarification for mass perception. Thank you for the conversation. Can we continue the conversation later, which will probably be of interest to many of our readers?
- I agree.