Lomonosov And The Fight Against Forgery In Russian History - Alternative View

Lomonosov And The Fight Against Forgery In Russian History - Alternative View
Lomonosov And The Fight Against Forgery In Russian History - Alternative View

Video: Lomonosov And The Fight Against Forgery In Russian History - Alternative View

Video: Lomonosov And The Fight Against Forgery In Russian History - Alternative View
Video: ALTERNATIVE HISTORY OF RUSSIA | Альтернативная история России - 1864-2021 2024, March
Anonim

The writing of the well-known version of Russian history has passed a difficult and not straight path. And this winding road for the birth and understanding of the history of the emergence of the Russian state raises great doubts about the truth of this story. According to the memoirs of the German Schlözer about the Russian historian Tatishchev, “he allowed himself a lot of bold arguments that could bring on him an even more dangerous suspicion - of political free-thinking. Without a doubt, this was the reason that the printing of this 20-year-old work in 1740 did not take place."

German historian G. F. Miller received an order from the authorities to write Russian history. He also received the post of sovereign historiographer. But what does this mean and what is the reason? According to Schlözer, “Miller talked about state secrets that would have to be mastered if he was engaged in the PROCESSING of Russian history: but these secrets are entrusted only to those who“sign up for the Russian service …”(1). An interesting statement! "Processing of Russian history"! Treatment! Not writing, not studying, but processing. Yes, this is a clear political order to please the power structures! It turns out that for hundreds of years the Russian people lived with the officially recognized history of their people, taught children in schools according to concepts raised to the rank of truth, not on the basis of the truth itself, but on "processed" material on the political order of those who fear the truth about the Russian history of those in power !

An interesting quote was made recently in one of the documentary films: “The historical memory that dominates in society is formed by power, and the spring of power is secrecy, lack of information, and often distortion of historical facts. The syndrome of secrecy in foreign policy is especially noticeable, where inconvenient topics are either under archival taboo, or deliberately forgotten, or presented in a form that is beneficial to the country's prestige. It should be noted that profitability is determined from the position of the existing government and its political interests.

According to the views of the Norman Russophobes, the leading and fundamental idea is that Russian history begins with the vocation of the Varangian princes, who not only organized the “wild Russians” into a community, but further led them to culture, prosperity and civilization. What is Schlözer's statement about Russia in the 7th century worth? AD: “A terrible emptiness reigns everywhere in central and northern Russia. Not the slightest trace of the cities that now adorn Russia is visible anywhere. Nowhere is there any memorable name that would provide the spirit of the historian with excellent pictures of the past. Where now the beautiful fields delight the eye of the astonished traveler, there, before that, there were only dark forests and swamps. Where now enlightened people have united in peaceful societies, there lived, before this, wild animals and semi-wild people”(2). How can you agree with such conclusions of "scientific research"? The original Russian spirit will never accept such conclusions, even if it does not know for certain how to refute these sly ideas. The genetic memory, the memory of the heart, knows exactly what was wrong at all. The information stored by the subconscious of a person will force a true researcher to find a refutation of false "legitimate" theories in search of truth. And it is not surprising that V. N. Demin in his works gives a refutation of the above fact: “… what Schlözer said refers precisely to the very era of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian, when the Slavs invaded the Balkans and kept both the Eastern and Western Roman empires in constant fear. It is to this time that the words of one of the Slavic-Russian leaders refer,said in response to the offer to become summer residents of the Avar Kaganate: “Was he born among people and is he warming himself by the rays of the sun who will subdue our power? For we are accustomed to rule over someone else's land, and not others of ours. And this is unshakable for us as long as there are wars and swords."

We only have to regret that not all historians are really researchers, but follow in the footsteps of generally recognized authorities and stereotypes in knowledge. Such spiritual and scientific blindness is costly for everyone. As a result, the truth goes through hardships. But perhaps it should be so - the brighter open stars will shine.

The adherents of the Norman theory include the Russian historian N. M. Karamzin. It is difficult now to say what guided him in writing his "History of the Russian State", when he defined the ancient history of the Russian people in this way: "This great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was from time immemorial inhabited by wild, in the depths of ignorance immersed peoples who did not commemorate their existence with any of their own historical monuments."

But the essence of this article is a refutation of his opinion. But not all Russian scientists agreed with the redrawing of the truth in those distant times. One of the main opponents of Miller and his associates was M. V. Lomonosov, a true scientist, an outstanding, talented researcher and an honest person. Based on the works of ancient historians, he asserted in his “Short Chronicler”: “At the beginning of the sixth century according to Christ, the Slovenian name became very widespread; and the power of the entire people, not only in Thrace, in Macedonia, in Istria and Dalmatia, was terrible; but a lot contributed to the destruction of the Roman Empire."

Promotional video:

In the middle of the XVIII century. the struggle for Russian history unfolds. M. V. Lomonosov opposes the false version of Russian history, created before his eyes by the Germans Miller, Bayer and Schlözer. He sharply criticized Miller's dissertation "On the origin of the name and the Russian people." The same befell Bayer's writings on Russian history. Mikhail Vasilyevich began to actively deal with issues of history, realizing the importance and significance of this for the life of society. For this research, he even gave up his duties as a professor of chemistry. A great battle can be called the opposition to Lomonosov of the German historical school in the scientific world of Russia. German historian professors tried to get Lomonosov removed from the Academy. The discrediting of his name, his scientific discoveries began, with a simultaneous impact on the Empress Elizabeth, and then on Catherine II,and setting them up against Lomonosov. All this had its results, which was facilitated by the dominance of foreigners in the scientific world of Russia. Schlötser was appointed an academician on Russian history, who named Lomonosov, as M. T. Belyavsky in the work “M. V. Lomonosov and the founding of Moscow University "," a gross ignoramus who knew nothing but his chronicles. " And what can a historian-scientist rely on in the study of history, if not on the true ancient sources?And what can a historian-scientist rely on in the study of history, if not on the true ancient sources?And what can a historian-scientist rely on in the study of history, if not on the true ancient sources?

For 117 years in the Russian Academy of Sciences, from its foundation in 1724 to 1841, out of 34 academic historians there were only three Russian academicians - M. V. Lomonosov, Ya. O. Yartsov, N. G. Ustryalov.

For more than a century, foreigners have controlled the entire process of writing Russian history. They were in charge of all documents, archives, chronicles. And as they say: "Master is a master!" On a full basis, they decided the fate of Russia, since it was the uncontrolled access to historical documents (the most valuable) that allowed them to manipulate information about the past at their own discretion. And the fact that the fate and future of the state depends on this manipulation even today, now, after a long time, it is clearly visible. Only after 1841 did domestic academicians-historians appear at the Russian Academy. And this is also an interesting question: why were they suddenly "allowed" into science? Is it because “the legend of how it was” was firmly entrenched in the scientific world and there was no need to create anything again, all that was left was to follow generally accepted and legalized concepts?

In addition, Schlözer received the right to use all documents uncontrollably not only in the Academy, but also in the imperial library. To which the accidentally preserved note of Lomonosov says: “There is nothing to save. Everything is open to the crazy Schlözer. There are more secrets in the Russian library."

All leadership of the scientific process was placed in the hands of the Germans. The gymnasium for the preparation of students was run by the same Miller, Bayer and Fischer. The teaching was in German, which the students did not know, and the teachers did not know Russian. For 30 years, the gymnasium has not prepared a single person for admission to the university. It was even decided to dismiss students from Germany, since it is impossible to prepare Russians. And the question did not arise that Russian students were not guilty, but the preparation process was ugly. The Russian scientific world of that time looked with bitterness at the events taking place in the country. An outstanding Russian mechanical engineer of that time, who worked at the Academy, A. K. Nartov, filed a complaint with the Senate about the state of affairs at the Academy. He was supported by students and other employees of the Academy. During the investigation, some Russian scientists were shackled and chained. They stayed in this position for about two years, but did not renounce their testimony during the investigation. And, nevertheless, the decision of the commission was surprising: to award the leaders of the Schumacher and Taubert Academy, I. V. Gorlitsky - to execute, punish other participants of the complaint with whips and exile to Siberia, leave the rest under arrest.

M. V. Lomonosov actively supported L. K. Nartov, for which he was arrested and after 7 months of imprisonment, by the decree of Empress Elizabeth, was found guilty, but released from punishment. But the struggle for truth did not end there.

And the reason for the fight against Lomonosov was the desire to force the great scientist and patriot of his country to abandon independent research in the study of history. During his lifetime, there was even an attempt to transfer his archives on the Russian language and history to Schlözer. Very few materials were printed during his lifetime. The publication of "Ancient Russian History" was slowed down in every possible way. And the first volume of it came out 7 years after his death. The rest were never printed. Immediately after the death of Mikhail Vasilyevich, his entire archive of history disappeared without a trace. By order of Catherine II, all documents were sealed and taken away. Neither the drafts, according to which the first volume of his history was published, nor the subsequent materials of this book, nor numerous other documents, have survived. A strange coincidence with the fate of Tatishchev's works is the same disappearance of drafts and the same partial (after death) publication of the work, not confirmed by drafts.

Taubert's letter to Miller about Lomonosov's death contains strange words: “On the day after his death, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. Undoubtedly, it should contain papers that do not want to be released into ANYONE's hands”(ed. Ed.). Someone else's hands! Whose hands are others, and whose are theirs? These words are a clear argument in support of the fact that history is used by people as a screen for disguising one truth and presenting another, that is, its falsification is evident. It turns out that “their” hands are those who want to keep the story in their narrow directional aspect of vision. And "strangers" are those who would like to know the truth, the true course of events. And why do you need to direct people along the wrong path of history? Obviously in order to hide some affairs, phenomena that do not fit into the desired picture. But our task now is not even so much to find outhow was it, how long did the falsification take place? What did you want to hide the people who are at the helm of the life of society, capable of using power to hide the truth and direct the understanding of people on the wrong path? Why did MV Lomonosov's archive disappear with only documents on history? And documents on natural science have survived. This fact confirms the importance of the significance of history for the future.

These are mainly excerpts from the book by L. P. Yaroschik "The Origin and Development of Life on Earth"

Andrey Staroverov

Recommended: