Institute of Russian history of the wounds of Andrei Nikolaevich Sakharov. A. D. Sakharov: biography, scientific and human rights activities. Academic degree and title

Born in 1930. Graduated from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.

Since 1962 - head. Department national history journal "Voprosy istorii". In 1968-1971. - Instructor of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In 1971-1974 - Editor-in-chief of the publishing house "Nauka". Since 1974 - member of the board, head of the head office State Committee for publishing, printing and book trade. Since 1984 - Deputy Director, 1993-2010. - Director of the IRI RAS.

JOB TITLE:

RAS Advisor

JOB RESPONSIBILITIES:

Head of the Center "Historical Science of Russia"

ACADEMIC DEGREE AND TITLES:

Doctor of Historical Sciences (1983), Professor (1988), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1992)

TOPICS OF DISSERTATIONS:

Candidate: “Russian village in the 17th century. (According to the materials of the patriarchal economy) "(1965).

Doctorate: "The Origin of Diplomacy Ancient Rus'. 9th - first half of the 10th century. (1981).

AREA OF SCIENTIFIC INTERESTS:

Civilizational foundations of Russia's development; history of foreign policy and diplomacy of Ancient Rus'; history of Russia's foreign policy in the 15th century. - 1945; socio-economic history Russia XVII V.; history of Russian reformism in the 18th – early 20th centuries; domestic and foreign historiography of the history of Russia; problems of the formation of a totalitarian system in Russia in the 20s - 30s. 20th century

SCIENTIFIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "History international relations and foreign policy of Russia"
Chairman Dissertation Council IRI RAS "History of Russia until the XX century"
Member of the Academic Council of the IRI RAS
Deputy Chairman of the RAS Expert Commission for the Analysis and Evaluation of the Scientific Content of State Educational Standards and educational literature for middle and high school
Scientific supervisor from the Russian side international seminar"From Rome to the Third Rome"
Member of the editorial boards and editorial boards of journals: Russian History, Military History Journal, Russian Nation, Historical Notes, Historical archive»
Member of the editorial board: "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 10-volume collected works of M.V. Lomonosov (to the 300th anniversary)
Member of the Bureau of NISO RAS

TEACHING ACTIVITIES:

Taught history for 5 years at high school, for 15 years he taught at the historical faculties of Moscow State Pedagogical University and Moscow State University. He gave a course of lectures on key issues in the history of Russia and on the history of reforms in Russia in the 1980s and early 1990s. 20th century on English language at McGill University (Montreal, Canada), Alberta (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), University of Helsinki (Renwall Institute, Helsinki, Finland), University of Pisa (Pisa, Italy; in Russian).

AWARDS AND PRIZES:

Orders:

"Badge of Honor", "Friendship of Peoples", "For Services to the Fatherland" IV degree, "For Services to the Polish Republic".

Medals and scientific distinctions:

Honorary Diploma of the President of the Russian Federation (2010)
Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation
Golden medal"Behind scientific achievements NAS of Ukraine" (2010)
Title "Socius Honoris Causa" of the Center for Russian Studies of the University of Budapest (2010)
Award and medal "Pro kultura Hungarika" for significant personal contribution for the development and promotion of Hungarian culture abroad (2005)
medal N.I. Vavilov "For outstanding contribution to scientific and educational activities and training scientific personnel”, Fund “Knowledge” them. n.I. Vavilova (2008)
UNESCO award "For the Dialogue of Cultures" (2005)
Laureate of the All-Russian Historical and Literary Prize "Alexander Nevsky" (2009)
Honorary title"Honored Worker of Science of the Republic of Mordovia" (05/25/2010)
Diploma of Honorary Professor of the Research Institute Humanities under the government of the Republic of Mordovia (5.05.2010)
Government Prize Russian Federation in the field of education in 2012.

Language skills: English (fluent).

Contact Information: [email protected]

MAIN PUBLICATIONS:

Monographs:

Russian village of the 17th century. (According to the materials of the patriarchal economy). M., 1966.
Living voices of history. M., 1971. (co-authored with S.M. Troitsky).
Living voices of history M., 1978. (co-authored with S.M. Troitsky).
Stepan Razin. M., 1973; 1982; 2010. (Translated in Japan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria).
Diplomacy of Ancient Rus' in the 9th–first half of the 10th century. M., 1980. (Translated in Bulgaria).
Diplomacy of Svyatoslav. M., 1982; M., 1991.
“We are from the Russian family…”. M., 1986.
Vladimir Monomakh. M., 1986; 1991.
Diplomacy of Ancient Rus'. M., 1989.
The man on the throne. M., 1992. (brochure)
Alexander I. M., 1998.
Russian followers. M., 1999. (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov, V.D. Nazarov).
War and diplomacy. 1939–1945 (brochure).
Russia: People. rulers. Civilization. M., 2004.
Alexander Nevskiy. M., 2009.
Russia as part of the world civilizational process. M., 2009 (brochure).
Rus' on the way to the "Third Rome". M., 2010.
Historical acquisitions at the turn of the XXI century. M., 2011.

Textbooks, tutorials:

History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. For 10th grade. Moscow: Enlightenment, 1995 etc. (co-authored with V.I. Buganov)
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the XVI century. 6th grade. Moscow: Education, 2003–2010.
Russian history. XVII-XVIII centuries. 7th grade. Moscow: Education, 2003–2010.
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the XV century. Grade 10. M.: Russian word, 2003–2010.
Russian history. XVII-XIX centuries. Grade 10 (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov)
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the XVI century. Book for reading. Moscow: Rossman, 2003.
Russian history. XVII-XVIII centuries. Book for reading. Moscow: Rossman, 2003.
History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. In 2 volumes. Textbook for universities. Moscow: Astrel, 2006–2011. (co-authored)
History of religions. Moscow: Russian Word, 2007–2010. (co-authored)
Russian history. XIX century. 8th grade. Moscow: Russian Word, 2008–2010. (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov)
History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. In 2 volumes. Textbook for universities. M.: Prospekt, 2008. (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov, V.A. Shestakov);
History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook for universities. M.: Prospekt, 2009. (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov, V.A. Shestakov)
Basics religious cultures peoples of Russia. 4th grade. M.: Russian Word, 2011. (co-authored with K.A. Kochegarov)

Chapters and sections in books:

Alexander I (to the history of life and death) // Russian autocrats. M., 1993. S. 14–90;
The Hard Path of Russian Reformers // Russian Reformers. 19th–early 20th century M. 1995. S. 7–33;
Discussions in Soviet historiography: The murdered soul of science // Soviet historiography. M., 1996. S. 124–161;
The main stages of Russia's foreign policy from ancient times to the 15th century; Ch. 1 “History of Russia's foreign policy (end of the 15th century - 1917). // History of Russia's foreign policy. XV-XVII century. From the overthrow of the Horde yoke to the Northern War. M., 1999. S. 13–105;
Constitutional projects and civilizational destinies of Russia // Constitutional projects in Russia. 18th – early 20th centuries M., 2000. S. 10–78;
Russia at the beginning of the 20th century: People, power and society // Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. M., 2002. S. 5–71;
The history of Russia is an organic part of the history of mankind; Preface to the eighth volume; I "Ancient Rus'"; II "Medieval Rus'"; III "Russia in Modern Times"; IV "Russia in the first quarter XIX century" // History of mankind. T. VIII. Russia. M., 2003. S. 1–396;
Chapter I. "Diplomacy of Ancient Rus'" // Essays on the history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. T. I. M., 2003. (co-authored with D.N. Aleksandrov, E.I. Maleto);
The people and power in 1930 // "Top Secret": Lubyanka - to Stalin on the situation in the country (1922-1934). T. 8. 1930. Part 1. M., 2008. S. 23–66;
"Another War" (about the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939–1940) // winter war. Studies, documents, comments. M., 2009. S. 32–34;
Empire as a world civilizational factor // Russian Empire from its origins to the beginning of the 19th century. Moscow, 2011, pp. 11–26.

Articles:

Antiserfdom tendencies in the Russian village of the 17th century // VI. 1964. No. 3. S. 69–96;
About dialectics historical development Russian peasantry (Problems of historiography in recent years) // VI. 1970. No. 1. S. 17–41;
Historical factors in the formation of Russian absolutism // History of the USSR. 1971. No. 1. S. 110–126;
Diplomatic recognition of Ancient Rus' (860) // VI. 1976. No. 6. S. 33–64;
"Eastern factor" and the emergence of ancient Russian diplomacy (IX - first half of the X century) // History of the USSR. 1980. No. 1. S. 24–44;
International aspects of the baptism of Rus' // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1988. No. 10. S. 122–133;
Lessons from the "immortal historiographer" // Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. In 12 vols. T. 1. M., 1989. S. 415–460;
The political heritage of Rome in the ideology of Ancient Rus' // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 3. S. 71–83;
I.E. Zabelin: A new assessment of creativity // VI. 1990. no. 7. P. 71–83;
Domestic historiography: Western assessments and our reality // Russia in the XX century: world historians argue. M., 1994. S. 727–747;
Historical science at the crossroads // Russia in the XX century: Fates historical science. M., 1996. S. 5–10;
The Romanov dynasty as a historical phenomenon // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 12/31/1997. pp. 14–15;
Stages and features of Russian nationalism // Russia and the modern world. M., 1997. S. 56–71;
Historical factors of Russia's development // Place of Russia in Europe - Place of Russia in Europe. Budapest, 1999, pp. 9–17;
Series of articles: "Revolutionary totalitarianism in our history"; "Middle Ages on the Threshold of the 21st Century"; "Unrest and authoritarianism in Russia", etc. // free thought. 1990s
Formation of Russian geopolitics // Place of Russia in Eurasia. Budapest. 2001;
Reflections on the Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905 // IN AND. 2007. No. 4. S. 3–15;
1809 in the history of Russia and Finland // World and Politics. 2009. No. 12;
860: the beginning of Rus' // Varyago-Russian question in historiography. M., 2010. S. 555–565;
Soviet historiography. Modern Trends // Western and Russian Historiography. Recent Views. new york. Martin Press. 1993.p. 191–206;
Russische Reformen im 19 und zu Beginn des 20 Jahrhunderts. M.M. Speranskiy und die Staatordnung Finnland // Reformen in Russland des 19 und 20 Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main, 1996, s. 25–36;
New Politicized History or Intellectual Pluralism? Regarding Some Tendencies in International Historiography of Russia Twentieth Century History // History–Making. The Intellectual and Social Formation of a Discipline. Stockholm, 1996. p. 141–151.
Main Phases and Distinctive Features of Russian Nationalism // Russian Nationalism. Past and Present. London, 1998. p. 7–19.
General and Specific in the Genesis of the Old Russian Town // Medieval Towns in Northeastern Europe. Toning, 2007.

The great Soviet scientists are known all over the world. One of them is Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, a physicist. He was one of the first to write works on the implementation of a thermonuclear reaction, therefore it is believed that Sakharov is the "father" of the hydrogen bomb in our country. Sakharov Anatoly Dmitrievich is an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, professor, doctor of physical and mathematical sciences. In 1975 he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The future scientist was born in Moscow on May 21, 1921. His father was Sakharov Dmitry Ivanovich, a physicist. For the first five years Andrei Dmitrievich studied at home. This was followed by 5 years of study at the school, where Sakharov, under the guidance of his father, was seriously engaged in physics and conducted many experiments.

Education at the university, work at a military plant

Andrei Dmitrievich entered the Faculty of Physics at Moscow State University in 1938. After the outbreak of World War II, Sakharov, together with the university, went to evacuation to Turkmenistan (Ashgabat). Andrei Dmitrievich became interested in the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. In 1942 he graduated from Moscow State University with honors. At the University of Sakharov was considered best student among all who have ever studied at this faculty.

After graduating from Moscow State University, Andrei Dmitrievich refused to remain in graduate school, which Professor A. A. Vlasov advised him to do. A. D. Sakharov, having become a specialist in the field of defense metallurgy, was sent to a military plant in the city and then Ulyanovsk. The conditions of life and work were very difficult, but it was during these years that Andrei Dmitrievich made his first invention. He proposed a device that made it possible to control the hardening of armor-piercing cores.

Marriage to Vihireva K. A.

An important event in personal life Sakharov happened in 1943 - the scientist married Claudia Alekseevna Vikhireva (years of life - 1919-1969). She was from Ulyanovsk, worked at the same factory as Andrey Dmitrievich. The couple had three children - a son and two daughters. Because of the war, and later because of the birth of children, Sakharov's wife did not graduate from the university. For this reason, later, after the Sakharovs moved to Moscow, it was difficult for her to find a good job.

Postgraduate, Ph.D. thesis

Andrei Dmitrievich, having returned to Moscow after the war, continued his studies in 1945. He to E. I. Tamm, who taught at the Physical Institute. P. N. Lebedeva. AD Sakharov wanted to work on the fundamental problems of science. In 1947, his work on nonradiative nuclear transitions was presented. In it, the scientist proposed a new rule according to which selection should be carried out by charge parity. He also presented a method for taking into account the interaction of a positron and an electron during pair production.

Work at the "facility", test of the hydrogen bomb

In 1948, A. D. Sakharov was included in a special group led by I. E. Tamm. Its purpose was to test the hydrogen bomb project made by Ya. B. Zel'dovich's group. Andrei Dmitrievich soon presented his bomb project, in which layers of natural uranium and deuterium were placed around an ordinary atomic nucleus. When atomic nucleus explodes, ionized uranium greatly increases the density of deuterium. It also increases the rate of the thermonuclear reaction, and under the influence fast neutrons starts to share. This idea was supplemented by V. L. Ginzburg, who suggested using lithium-6 deuteride for the bomb. From it, under the influence of slow neutrons, tritium is formed, which is a very active thermonuclear fuel.

In the spring of 1950, with these ideas, Tamm's group was sent practically to in full force to the "object" - a secret nuclear enterprise, the center of which was in the city of Sarov. Here, the number of scientists working on the project has increased significantly as a result of an influx of young researchers. The group's work culminated in the testing of the first hydrogen bomb in the USSR, which was successfully carried out on August 12, 1953. This bomb is known as "Sakharov's puff".

The very next year, on January 4, 1954, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov became a Hero of Socialist Labor, and also received the Hammer and Sickle medal. A year earlier, in 1953, the scientist became an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

New test and its consequences

The group, headed by A. D. Sakharov, further worked on the compression of thermonuclear fuel using radiation obtained from the explosion of an atomic charge. In November 1955, a new hydrogen bomb was successfully tested. However, it was overshadowed by the death of a soldier and a girl, as well as injuries to many people who were at a considerable distance from the site. This, as well as the mass eviction of residents from nearby territories, made Andrei Dmitrievich seriously think about the tragic consequences that atomic explosions could lead to. He wondered what would happen if this terrible force suddenly got out of control.

Sakharov's ideas that laid the foundation for large-scale research

Simultaneously with work on hydrogen bombs, Academician Sakharov, together with Tamm, proposed in 1950 the idea of how to carry out magnetic plasma confinement. The scientist made fundamental calculations on this issue. He also owns the idea and calculations for the formation of superstrong magnetic fields by compressing magnetic flux cylindrical conductive sheath. The scientist dealt with these issues in 1952. In 1961, Andrei Dmitrievich proposed the use of laser compression in order to obtain a thermonuclear controlled reaction. Sakharov's ideas laid the foundation for large-scale research carried out in the field of thermonuclear energy.

Two articles by Sakharov on the harmful effects of radioactivity

In 1958, Academician Sakharov presented two articles on the harmful effects of radioactivity from bomb explosions and its effect on heredity. As a result, as the scientist noted, the average life expectancy of the population is decreasing. According to Sakharov's estimate, in the future, each megaton explosion will lead to 10,000 cases of cancer.

Andrei Dmitrievich in 1958 unsuccessfully tried to influence the decision of the USSR to extend the moratorium announced by him on the implementation of atomic explosions. In 1961, the moratorium was broken by the testing of a very powerful hydrogen bomb (50 megatons). It was more political than military. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov on March 7, 1962 received the third Hammer and Sickle medal.

Social activity

In 1962, Sakharov entered into sharp conflicts with state authorities and his colleagues over the development of weapons and the need to ban their testing. This confrontation had a positive result - in 1963, an agreement was signed in Moscow prohibiting the testing nuclear weapon in all three environments.

It should be noted that the interests of Andrei Dmitrievich in those years were not limited exclusively to nuclear physics. The scientist was active in social work. In 1958, Sakharov spoke out against the plans of Khrushchev, who planned to shorten the period of secondary education. A few years later, together with his colleagues, Andrei Dmitrievich freed Soviet genetics from the influence of T. D. Lysenko.

In 1964, Sakharov made a speech in which he spoke out against the election of the biologist N. I. Nuzhdin as an academician, who did not eventually become one. Andrei Dmitrievich believed that this biologist, like T. D. Lysenko, was responsible for the difficult, shameful pages in the development of domestic science.

The scientist in 1966 signed a letter to the 23rd Congress of the CPSU. In this letter ("25 celebrities") famous people opposed the rehabilitation of Stalin. It noted that "the greatest disaster" for the people would be any attempt to revive intolerance of dissent - a policy pursued by Stalin. In the same year, Sakharov met R. A. Medvedev, who wrote a book about Stalin. She markedly influenced the views of Andrei Dmitrievich. In February 1967, the scientist sent his first letter to Brezhnev, in which he spoke out in defense of four dissidents. The harsh response of the authorities was the deprivation of Sakharov of one of the two posts that he held at the "object".

Manifesto article, suspension from work at the "object"

In June 1968, an article by Andrei Dmitrievich appeared in the foreign media, in which he reflected on progress, intellectual freedom and peaceful coexistence. The scientist spoke about the dangers of ecological self-poisoning, thermonuclear destruction, dehumanization of mankind. Sakharov noted that there is a need for convergence between the capitalist and socialist systems. He also wrote about the crimes committed by Stalin, about the lack of democracy in the USSR.

In this manifesto article, the scientist advocated the abolition of political courts and censorship, against the placement of dissidents in psychiatric clinics. The reaction of the authorities followed quickly: Andrei Dmitrievich was suspended from work at a secret facility. He lost all posts, one way or another connected with military secrets. The meeting between A. D. Sakharov and A. I. Solzhenitsyn took place on August 26, 1968. It was revealed that they had different views on social transformations that the country needs.

Death of his wife, work at FIAN

This was followed by a tragic event in Sakharov's personal life - in March 1969, his wife died, leaving the scientist in a state of despair, which later gave way to long years mental desolation. I. E. Tamm, who at that time headed the Theoretical Department of FIAN, wrote a letter to M. V. Keldysh, President of the USSR Academy of Sciences. As a result of this and, apparently, sanctions from above, on June 30, 1969, Andrei Dmitrievich was enrolled in the department of the institute. Here he took up scientific work, becoming a senior research fellow. This position was the lowest of all that a Soviet academician could receive.

Continuation of human rights activities

In the period from 1967 to 1980, the scientist wrote more than 15. At the same time, he began to conduct an active public activity, which increasingly did not correspond to the policy of official circles. Andrei Dmitrievich initiated appeals for the release of human rights activists Zh. A. Medvedev and P. G. Grigorenko from psychiatric hospitals. Together with R. A. Medvedev and physicist V. Turchin, the scientist published the Memorandum on Democratization and Intellectual Freedom.

Sakharov came to Kaluga to participate in the picketing of the court, where the trial in the case of dissidents B. Weil and R. Pimenov was being carried out. In November 1970, Andrei Dmitrievich, together with physicists A. Tverdokhlebov and V. Chalidze, founded the Human Rights Committee, whose task was to implement the principles laid down by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Together with Academician Leontovich M.A. in 1971, Sakharov spoke out against the use of psychiatry for political purposes, as well as for the right Crimean Tatars for return, for freedom of religion, for German and Jewish emigration.

Marriage to E. G. Bonner, campaign against Sakharov

The marriage to Bonner Elena Grigoryevna (years of life - 1923-2011) took place in 1972. The scientist met this woman in 1970 in Kaluga, when he traveled to trial. Having become a comrade-in-arms and faithful, Elena Grigoryevna focused the activities of Andrei Dmitrievich on protecting the rights of individuals. From now on, Sakharov considered program documents as subjects for discussion. However, in 1977, the theoretical physicist nevertheless signed a collective letter addressed to the Presidium of the Supreme Council, which spoke of the need to abolish death penalty about amnesty.

In 1973, Sakharov gave an interview to W. Stenholm, a radio correspondent from Sweden. In it, he spoke about the nature of the then existing Soviet system. Deputy Attorney General issued a warning to Andrei Dmitrievich, but despite this, the scientist held a press conference for eleven Western journalists. He denounced the threat of persecution. The reaction to such actions was a letter from 40 academicians, published in the Pravda newspaper. It was the start of a vicious campaign against social activities Andrei Dmitrievich. On his side were human rights activists, as well as Western scientists and politicians. A. I. Solzhenitsyn proposed to award the scientist the Nobel Peace Prize.

The first hunger strike, Sakharov's book

In September 1973, continuing the struggle for the right of everyone to emigrate, Andrei Dmitrievich sent a letter to the US Congress in which he supported the Jackson amendment. The following year, R. Nixon, President of the United States, arrived in Moscow. During his visit, Sakharov held his first hunger strike. He also gave a TV interview to draw public attention to the fate of political prisoners.

E. G. Bonner, on the basis of the French humanitarian award received by Sakharov, founded the Fund for Assistance to the Children of Political Prisoners. Andrei Dmitrievich in 1975 met with G. Bell, a famous German writer. Together with him, he made an appeal aimed at protecting political prisoners. Also in 1975, the scientist published his book in the West called "On the Country and the World." In it, Sakharov developed the ideas of democratization, disarmament, convergence, economic and political reforms, strategic equilibrium.

Nobel Peace Prize (1975)

The Nobel Peace Prize was deservedly awarded to the academician in October 1975. The award was received by his wife, who was being treated abroad. She read out Sakharov's speech, which he had prepared for the presentation ceremony. In it, the scientist called for "genuine disarmament" and "true detente", for a political amnesty throughout the world, as well as for the widespread release of all prisoners of conscience. The next day Sakharov's wife delivered his Nobel lecture "Peace, Progress, Human Rights". In it, the academician argued that all three of these goals are closely related to each other.

accusation, reference

Despite the fact that Sakharov actively opposed the Soviet regime, he was not formally charged until 1980. It was put forward when the scientist sharply condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. January 8, 1980 was deprived of all received by him earlier government awards A. Sakharov. His exile began on January 22, when he was sent to Gorky (today it Nizhny Novgorod where he was under house arrest. The photo below shows the house in Gorky, where the academician lived.

Sakharov's hunger strikes for the right of E. G. Bonner to leave

In the summer of 1984, Andrei Dmitrievich went on a hunger strike for the right of his wife to travel to the United States for treatment and to meet with her relatives. It was accompanied by painful feeding and forced hospitalization, but did not bring results.

In April-September 1985, the last hunger strike of the academician took place, pursuing the same goals. Only in July 1985 was E. G. Bonner granted permission to leave. This happened after Sakharov sent a letter to Gorbachev promising to stop his public appearances and concentrate entirely on scientific work if the trip was allowed.

Last year of life

In March 1989, Sakharov became a People's Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The scientist thought a lot about the reform of the political structure in the Soviet Union. In November 1989, Sakharov presented a draft constitution based on the protection of individual rights and the right of peoples to statehood.

The biography of Andrei Sakharov ends on December 14, 1989, when, after another busy day spent at the Congress of People's Deputies, he died. As the autopsy showed, the academician's heart was completely worn out. In Moscow, at the Vostryakovsky cemetery, lies the "father" of the hydrogen bomb, as well as an outstanding fighter for human rights.

A. Sakharov Foundation

The memory of the great scientist and public figure lives in the hearts of many. In 1989, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation was established in our country, the purpose of which is to preserve the memory of Andrei Dmitrievich, promote his ideas, and protect human rights. In 1990, the Foundation appeared in the United States. Elena Bonner, the wife of the academician, was the chairman of these two organizations for a long time. She passed away on June 18, 2011 from a heart attack.

In the photo above - a monument to Sakharov, installed in St. Petersburg. The area where he is located is named after him. Soviet laureates Nobel Prizes not forgotten, as evidenced by the flowers brought to their monuments and graves.

M.: 2012. - 768 p.

The textbook is written taking into account the latest research in historical science and the modern scientific approach to the study of Russian history. The main problems of national history are covered, the issues of socio-economic and state-political development of Russia are revealed, the author's concept of their study is developed. The material is presented in a clear and expressive manner. literary language chronologically and scientific interpretation which largely explains its accessibility to a wide range of readers. The textbook complies with state educational standards of higher vocational education Russian Federation.

For applicants, students, teachers, as well as all those interested in national history.

Format: doc

Size: 5.3 MB

Download: 29

Format: djvu

Size: 1 3.9Mb

Download: 29 .12.2017, links removed at the request of the Prospekt publishing house (see note)

Format: pdf

Size: 4 3.1 MB

Download: 29 .12.2017, links removed at the request of the Prospekt publishing house (see note)

CONTENT
Section I. ANCIENT Rus'
Chapter 1. ORIGIN OF THE SLAVES. THEIR NEIGHBORS AND ENEMIES 3
§ 1. The place of the Slavs among the Indo-Europeans 3
§ 2. First invasions 3
§ 3. Greek colonies and Scythians 4
§ 4. The emergence of Eastern Slavs and new enemies 5
§ 5. Other peoples on the territory of Russia in ancient times 5
§ 6. Great migration of peoples and Eastern Europe 6
§ 7. Antes and the first East Slavic state 7
§ 8. Fight against Avars and Khazars. Bulgarians 9
Chapter 2. ANCIENT Rus' 11
§ 1. East Slavic tribes of the VIII-IX centuries 11
§ 2. The emergence of the state Eastern Slavs 16
§ 3. The first Russian princes 22
§ 4. Board of Svyatoslav 27
§ 5. Rus' in the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich 32
Chapter 3. THE AGE OF YAROSLAV THE WISE 39
§ 1. The second civil strife in Rus'. Boris and Gleb - martyr princes.... 39
§ 2. The struggle of Yaroslav with Mstislav of Tmutarakan and the new unification of Rus' 42
§ 3. The heyday of Rus' under Yaroslav the Wise 43
§ 4. Church and religion under Yaroslav. Metropolitan Hilarion. Saints of the Caves 47
§ 5. State power. The formation of early feudal relations. Cities. Trade. Army 50
§ 6. From pagan rebellions to social protest 58
Chapter 4. Rus' AT THE CROSSROADS 62
§ 1. Civil strife in Rus' in the 70s. XI at 62
§ 2. Rebellion of Oleg Gorislavich and a new strife 64
§ 3. The beginning of the military activities of Vladimir Monomakh 65
§ 4. The tragedy of 1096-1097 68
§ 5. Crusade in the steppe 1111 g 72
§ 6. The uprising of 1113 and the era of Vladimir Monomakh 74
Chapter 5. POLITICAL DECAY OF Rus' 78
Chapter 6. EDUCATION ON THE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA PRINCIPAL STATES 81
§ 1. Kiev principality 81
§ 2. Chernigov and Seversky principality 82
§ 3. Galicia-Volyn principality 84
§ 4. "Mr. Veliky Novgorod" 87
§ 5. Vladimir-Suzdal principality 90
Chapter 7. CULTURE OF Rus' X-BEGINNING XIII centuries 95
Chapter 8
§ 1. The birth of the Mongolian state 107
§ 2. Conquests of the Mongols 109
Section II. MEDIEVAL PERIOD
Chapter 1. HORDE DOMINATION 112
§ 1.Batu's invasion of Rus'. Defense of Ryazan 112
§ 2. The conquest of the rest of Rus' 113
Chapter 2. THE STRUGGLE OF RUSSIAN LANDS FOR INDEPENDENCE. ... 116
§ 1. Tatar-Mongol yoke 116
§ 2. Onslaught of enemies in the northwest. The first battles with the crusaders and Lithuanians 117
§ Z. Alexander Nevsky 119
§ 4. Battle on the Ice 120
§ 5. Revival of Rus'. Rus' and the Golden Horde under Alexander Nevsky... 122
§ 6. Great "small deeds" 124
§ 7. Rise of new Russian centers 128
Chapter 3. Rise of Moscow 132
§ 1. Fight between Tver and Moscow for the championship 132
§ 2. Rise of Moscow. Ivan Kalita 134
§ 3. Vilna or Moscow? 135
§4. The beginning of the fight against the Horde. Battle of Kulikovo 139
Chapter 4. MOSCOW TAKES THE TOP 146
§ 1. In the struggle for unity and independence 146
§ 2. The role of the Orthodox Church in the unification of Rus'. 148
§ 3. Feudal war mid-XIV in 150
Chapter 5. FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE 154
§ 1. Ivan III - Sovereign all Rus' 154
§2. Liberation from the Horde yoke 157
§ 3. Centralization of state power. Formation of the state according to the Eurasian model 158
§ 4. Entry of Rus' to the international arena 161
§ 5. Formation of a multinational state 163
§ 6. Economy and people 164
§ 7. State and Church 167
§ 8. Culture and life of the XIV-XV centuries. 170
Chapter 6. RUSSIA In the XVI century in 178
§ 1. Board Basil III 178
§ 2. The struggle of boyar groups for power 180
§ 3. Reforms of the "Chosen Rada" 183
§ 4. Foreign policy Ivan IV. The transformation of Russia into a Eurasian power 187
§ 5. Oprichnina. From centralization to feudal dictatorship 193
§ 6. Accession of Siberia 199
§ 7. Crisis of power. End of the Rurik Dynasty 201
§ 8. New phenomena in Russian culture in the XVI century 203
§ 9. Boris Godunov - the first elected monarch of Russia 206
Chapter 7. RUSSIA IN THE PERIOD OF TROUBLES 213
§ 1. Great famine and the beginning of Troubles 213
§ 2. Triumph and tragedy of False Dmitry 216
§ 3. The crisis of the state and society in Russia 220
§ 4. Saviors of the fatherland and the path to absolute monarchy 228
Chapter 8. RUSSIA IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE XVII century in 237
§ 1. Appeasement of the country and the revival of autocracy 237
§ 2. Establishing a peaceful life 240
§ 3. From defense to offensive 244
Section III. RUSSIA IN MODERN TIMES
Chapter 1. NEW FEATURES OF OLD RUSSIA. SECOND HALF XVII at 250
§ 1. The beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich 250
§ 2. The growth of social tension in the country 250
§ 3. Code of 1649 g 252
§ 4. Development of the economy 254
§ 5. Accession of Ukraine to Russia 257
§ 6. The internal situation of Russia in last years board of Alexei Mikhalovich 263
§ 7. Church reform and schism 270
§ 8. Gain royal power 274
Chapter 2. RUSSIA ON THE EVE OF TRANSFORMATIONS 279
§ 1. Board of Fedor Alekseevich 279
§2. Regency of Princess Sophia and the coming to power of Peter I 283
§ 3. Non-Slavic peoples of Russia in the XVII century in 290
§ 4. The final annexation of Siberia 293
§ 5. Culture and life of Russia in the XVII century in 297
Chapter 3. THE AGE OF PETER I 305
§ 1. The first years of government 305
§ 2. The beginning of the Northern War 313
§ 3. The transformation of Russia into a great power 317
§ 4. Reforms of Peter I 326
§ 5. Reforms in the field of culture, science, education 338
§ 6. Opponents of Peter 344
§ 7. The last years of the life of Peter I 353
Chapter 4. THE AGE OF PALACE COUPS 356
§ 1. Russia under the successors of Peter 1 356
§ 2. The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and the stabilization of the country 370
§ 3. Peter III and a new attempt to Europeanize the country 380
Chapter 5. RUSSIA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XVIII in 384
§ 1. The first years of the reign of Catherine II 384
§ 2. The heyday of the noble empire. . 390
§ 3. Foreign policy of Russia in the second half of the XVIII in 401
§ 4. The economy and population of Russia in the second half of the XVIII in 410
§ 5. Culture of Russia in the second half of the XVIII in 416
§ 6. Russian way of life 428
§ 7. Anxious end of the century 431
Section IV. RUSSIA in the 19th - EARLY 20th century
CHAPTER I. RUSSIA IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE XIX IN 439
§ 1. The first years of the reign of Alexander I 441
§ 2. The foreign policy of Russia in the first years of the XIX century in 445
§ 3. Patriotic War 1812 448
§ 4. Foreign campaign of the Russian army. Congress of Vienna 464
§ 5. Life in Russia in the post-war period 470
§6. Decembrist movement 474
Chapter 2. RUSSIAN EMPIRE UNDER NICHOLAS I 484
§ 1. Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich 484
§ 2. Nicholas I and peasant question 487
§ 3. On guard of the autocratic empire 489
§ 4. Russian industry. Industrial revolution 492
Chapter 3. NATIONAL QUESTION AND IMPERIAL INTERESTS DURING THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I. . 496
§ 1. Polish uprising 1830-1831 GT 496
§ 2. War in the North Caucasus. Imam Shamil 497
§ 3. Russia and European Affairs 500
§ 4. Crimean War and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 502
Chapter 4. RUSSIA IN THE AGE OF TRANSFORMATIONS 60-70s 19th century . . 504
§ 1. Emperor Alexander II 504
§ 2. The abolition of serfdom. Fundamentals of the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 505
§ 3. Zemstvo, city, judicial, military reforms. Changing the education system 507
§ 4. Development National economy 508
§ 5. Russo-Turkish War 1877-1878 510
§ 6. Aggravation of the social situation. Populist terror 513
Chapter 5. MAIN DIRECTIONS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY 517
§ 1. Emperor Alexander III And government priorities 517
§ 2. The most important directions domestic policy Russia 519
§ 3. Legislation in the field of judicial and educational affairs 524
§ 4. Franco-Russian alliance 526
§ 5. State system in late XIX in 526
Chapter 6. PUBLIC THOUGHT AND SPIRITUAL LIFE IN RUSSIA XIX century 531
§ 1. National roots of domestic culture and foreign influences. "Golden Age" of Russian culture 531
§ 2. Slavophiles and Westernizers 536
§ 3. Russian Orthodox Church. Venerable Seraphim of Sarov. . 539
§ 4. Russian utopian socialism 540
§ 5. Great writers and thinkers: F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy. 542
Chapter 7. RUSSIA AT THE END OF XIX in 546
§ 1. Accession of Nicholas II 546
§ 2. Reform of monetary circulation 548
§ 3. Population census 1897 Rich and poor 550
§ 4. Hired workers. Labor law. Strikes 552
§ 5. Trans-Siberian Railway 556
Chapter 8
§ 1. Russo-Japanese war. Portsmouth Peace 559
§ 2. Workers' unions. " Bloody Sunday» 562
§ 3. Revolutionary movement. Manifesto October 17, 1905 564
§ 4. Basic laws Russian Empire 1906 567
§ 5. Main political parties 569
§ 6. First and Second State Dumas 572
Chapter 9. THE LAST DECADE OF MONARCHICAL RUSSIA (1907-1917) 576
§ 1. Third The State Duma. P.A. Stolypin 576
§2. Economic boom 1910-1913 580
§ 3. System international unions 582
§4. The beginning of the world war. The course of hostilities 583
§5. February 1917 in Petrograd. Abdication of Nicholas II 587
Section V. MODERN HISTORY OF RUSSIA. XX - BEGINNING OF XXI century: 1917-2005 IT.
Chapter 1. THE REVOLUTION OF 1917. ORIGINS AND CAUSES 591
§ 1. Political crises of 1917 591
§ 2. The Bolshevik stage of the revolution 602
Chapter 2. CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA 606
§ 1. The birth of Soviet power 606
§ 2. Brest: "revolutionary" way out of the war 609
§ 3. The policy of "war communism" 612
§ 4. White and red 615
Chapter 3. THE FORMATION OF THE SOVIET SYSTEM 623
§ 1. During the NEP 623
§ 2. Formation of the USSR 628
§ 3. The evolution of the Bolshevik regime 630
Chapter 4. THE SOVIET MODERNIZATION MODERNIZATION 638
§ 1. Curtailment of NEP 638
§ 2. Conservative revolution in the economy 639
§ 3. Changing the mechanism of power 644
§ 4. Formation of a new economic mechanism 648
§ 5. Soviet society on the eve of the war. Mass terror 651
Chapter 5. USSR AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR 658
§ 1. "Great game" 658
§ 2. USSR on the threshold of war 661
§ 3. Disruption of plans for lightning war 664
§ 4. Decisive battles 668
§ 5. Victory anti-Hitler coalition 671
Chapter 6. POST-WAR CHALLENGES. 1945-1953 675
§ 1. Beginning " cold war» 675
§ 2. Creation of a nuclear missile shield 678
§ 3. Difficult revival 679
§ 4. The last years of Stalin's reign 682
Chapter 7. FIRST ATTEMPTS TO LIBERALIZE THE SYSTEM...
§ 1. Change of power in the Kremlin 688
§ 2. The beginning of de-Stalinization 691
§ 3. Reforms 50 - early 60s 694
§ 4. The collapse of the thaw 706
Chapter 8. THE ERA OF "DEVELOPED" SOCIALISM. 1964-1984 ... 709
§ 1. Change of political course 709
§2. From stagnation to crisis 710
§ 3. Soviet society at a turning point 713
§ 4. New attempts at modernization 716
§ 5. Failed detente 719
Chapter 9. The collapse of the totalitarian communist regime 723
§ 1. The origins of "perestroika" M.S. Gorbachev 723
§ 2. Difficult turn to the market 726
§ 3. Dismantling of totalitarian structures 728
§ 4. From intra-systemic reforms to disintegration 731
Chapter 10. MODERN RUSSIA 737
§ 1. The last Russian revolution of the XX in 737
§ 2. Creation of a new Russian statehood 738
§ 3. Return of the market and private property 744
§ 4. Russia at the end of XX - early XXI in 749
§ 5. New trends political life 757

In this series of publications, we present five of the most popular and, most importantly, influential domestic historians-falsifiers.

It is unusually popular in the media to announce the top five, ten, one hundred of the most popular songs, performers, actors, etc. In this series of publications, we will present the five most popular and, most importantly, influential domestic falsifier historians.

The famous French historian Mark Blok believed that falsifications in history play no less important and positive role than documents containing truthful information. Positively he found the opening opportunity to study the motives of deceit. Research into the motives of lying, as a rule, helps to gain new knowledge. “It is not enough to reveal deceit, it is necessary to reveal its motives. At least in order to better expose him, ”Mark Blok taught.

Activities are always motivated. "Unmotivated" activity still has motives hidden from the observer or the subject himself.

In politics and economics, the motives for deceit are the pursuit of capital and power. And what motive determines the actions of the falsifier of history?

A state system in which political power belongs to the wealthy top of the ruling class is called a "plutocracy". In the era of universal globalization, a world plutocracy has formed in the face of the world center of capital and power. A plutocrat is a representative of this elite, his goal is the accumulation of wealth (according to Aristotle - chremastika, or the pursuit of profit as such, regardless of how it is obtained). The totality of plutocrats constitutes the elite (X-elite). Its purpose, in addition to the accumulation of wealth, is to preserve political power. To do this, the X-elite creates and manages an influential party (the X-Party) that lobbies its interests around the world.

X-elite uses two channels of control. The first channel is the manipulation of public consciousness (deception), and the second is lobbying for illegal profit in collusion with local elites, i.e. fraud. By definition, S.I. Ozhegov, "a rogue is a cunning and clever deceiver, a swindler." Deception and fraud are committed in the interests of the local center of capital and power (LCKP) or the global center of capital and power (GKKP), or the X-elite. It follows from this that the "imaginary wise men" are in the service of either the LTSKV or the GTsKV. By the way, in this service you can do without cheating. We know many Russians and Soviet historians who have made fundamental contributions to historiography without resorting to lies. But we will explore the tricks of the "supposed sages" and the reasons why they became so.

"Imaginary wise men"-historians can be divided into three groups:

- the first group - "elementary dipoles" (serve as LTsKV);
- the second group - "recruited" (serve the X-elite);
- the third group - "cynics" (serve those who are in this moment pay more).

An elementary dipole can be thought of as a very small magnetic needle. One end of the dipole is positively charged and the other is negatively charged. Such a particle is always directed along the lines of force of the electromagnetic field. Remember school laboratory work on the visualization of electromagnetic field lines. On a sheet of white paper, under which there are two charges with different poles, metal filings are poured out. These sawdust immediately line up along the lines of force, and these lines become visible. Billions of microscopic solid particles, which are elementary dipoles, are suspended in the thickness of the World Ocean. Over the course of millions of years, they gradually settle to the bottom, layering on each other. Geophysicists today are drilling the shelf and, studying layer by layer of sedimentary rocks, they study the change in the position of the Earth's magnetic axis, which have occurred throughout the history of its existence.

When you study the works of some Russian historians, the speeches of long-lived politicians, you can study the variations of the “political axis” of Russia that have occurred in recent decades.

In particular, in our opinion, V.V. Posner is a prominent representative of this group of people. At one time, while working in the APN, he justified the entry of troops Warsaw Pact to Czechoslovakia, later, as a commentator on the main editorial office of radio broadcasting to the United States and England (the Voice of Moscow program), he criticized dissidents with passion, and in the late 80s defended the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist via teleconferences. Vladimir Vladimirovich turned his exit from the ranks of the CPSU into a world show, and he did it when this act was no longer fraught with risk. Now V.V. Pozner urges Russians to repent.

"Elementary dipoles" at all times organically fit into any system, regime, value system. They are always oriented along the "lines of force" of power.

Corresponding Member Russian Academy Sciences Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov was born on July 2, 1930 in the city of Kulebyaki, Nizhny Novgorod Region, into an intelligent family. Mother, Elena Konstantinovna Sakharova, a teacher of history, graduated from the Pedagogical Institute in Novgorod, father, Nikolai Leonidovich Sakharov, taught political economy. Then there was a study in Nizhny Novgorod building institute and correspondence courses of the Paris Polytechnic Institute. A. Sakharov claims that this fact served as one of the "indictments after the arrest." The father of our hero, according to him, was imprisoned for some time, then served a link, working in his specialty. This arrest, meanwhile, did not prevent the son of the “political prisoner” from entering the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, and his younger brother Dmitry - to graduate from the Moscow Conservatory, become its professor and laureate of the Chopin Competition. Upon completion of his studies at the university, A. Sakharov was given a reference with which, in his words, “one could only go to the Gulag barracks, but not to work. There was no place for me not only in graduate school, but also in Moscow, and the question was considered about sending me to work in the Altai Territory, to school.” The reason why our hero received a "bad" characteristic is not indicated. In the autobiography, a hint is made that the young Andrei Nikolayevich was unnecessarily uncomfortable and distinguished by dissent. Hard to believe. A. Sakharov is not the one who “does not change his views”, since this principle is “far from science” (as it is written in the collection of his works “Russia: People. Rulers. Civilization” on page 912).

A.N. Sakharov is really masterly, completely without inertia, changing his views. This property, in our opinion, allowed him to always "stay afloat". And then, in the distant 40s, "the question of sending a job to the Altai Territory", it turned out, was only considered. He managed to "catch" on Moscow. A. Sakharov explains this by the need to support the "young piano genius" - his 10-year-old brother Dmitry, who had to study at the Central music school. They were given a room for two in a communal apartment on "respectable then Novopeschanaya Street." Thus, it turns out that the "Stalin regime" was still with a human face and provided the young Sakharov with a free diploma so that he could support his gifted brother. It turns out like this. Otherwise, the historian is prevaricating, and completely different reasons allowed him to stay in Moscow.

A closer look at the historian's biography reveals that he is indeed cunning. It turns out that despite the "bad" reference, with which - "only in the Gulag barracks", immediately after graduating from Moscow State University in 1953, he was accepted into graduate school (!), True, by correspondence. Note that admission to full-time and part-time postgraduate studies occurs simultaneously. For applicants entering the correspondence postgraduate study, specially admission committee do not collect. Thus, for 5 years, A. Sakharov has been working in one of the most prestigious Soviet schools, writing a dissertation and living with his brother “for free” in a communal apartment located in the center of Moscow (correspondence graduate students are not given a place in a hostel!).

The job of a history teacher leaves a lot of time for science. At that time, we can say that he was in a fairy tale. So it was!

After working at school, A. Sakharov worked as a journalist, then - in the journal "Questions of History". “Trips around the country, trips abroad began, material stability appeared.” This indicates that there was no "negative characterization", and the historian well concealed all his oppositional freedom-loving views.

According to Sakharov, from his student days he hated the "Komsomol and party leaders", who were very "mediocre in science and exams", but "caught fish: they forged a career, achieved positive characteristics, recommendations for graduate school, favorable distribution to work, pushed aside their competitors in studies, in life. All this interfered with studies, scientific orientation (!), made it possible for limited, mediocre, but ambitious and ambitious people to rise to the surface. But as soon as the opportunity presented itself to A. Sakharov, he, without hesitation, went to the "party leaders", and not just anywhere, but to the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Thus, since 1968, our hero has worked in the Central Committee of the CPSU, then as deputy director and editor-in-chief of the Nauka publishing house; from 1974 until transferring to the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1984, he served as a member of the collegium, and then as the editor-in-chief of the USSR State Committee for Publishing. So, 16 years in the party nomenklatura position (“turntables”, “special orders”, “fourth department of the Ministry of Health”), the last years - in the position of “All-Union ideological Cerberus”. As a party boss, he defended his doctoral dissertation ... Why be surprised: his boss A.N. Yakovlev not only defended his doctoral dissertation, but also became an academician, and, what is most remarkable, immediately after that he left the Politburo and the party. That is, he finally took advantage of the administrative resource, became an academician, and then “closed” this resource.

“You can reach conviction only by personal experience and suffering,” said Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.

A. Sakharov argues that the immutability of views and beliefs is alien and even harmful to scientific research. But what are beliefs? Belief is a firm view of something, based on some idea, worldview. In order for beliefs to change, the system of values and worldview of a person must change, then he must admit that his knowledge was not knowledge.

In our time, the world is changing so rapidly that if you follow the historian Sakharov, you will most likely fall into the characters of a joke. A.N. Sakharov in his activities always adhered to the guidelines of the "party and government"; now it seems to be acting in the same way, but events are changing so rapidly that the opportunistic “scientific-journalistic” article written today will lose its relevance tomorrow at best, and at worst can be assessed as dissident. In other words, our “elementary magnetic needle” increasingly began to point in the wrong direction. Let's give some examples.

The first "puncture" of the Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Sakharov was associated with the "justification of the equal responsibility" of Nazi Germany and the USSR for the outbreak of World War II. We are talking about how A.N. Sakharov made a mistake by supporting the "scientific result" of V. Rezun (Suvorov). He agreed to some extent that the Soviet regime bears "significant" responsibility "for unleashing the war within the framework of the concept of world revolution." The historian Sakharov writes: “In Russia, these approaches took shape as an independent scientific direction and are represented by a group including young scientists. These discussions have resonated with the West.” But the opposite is true, Andrei Nikolayevich is being disingenuous. The “idea” belongs to V. Rezun (Suvorov), it is here in Russia, and not in the West, it “found a response”. Rezun's book "Icebreaker" was first published in Russia in 1992. Serious money was thrown in through non-governmental funds by the US State Department in order to make the "response" to this book as wide as possible. Dozens of conferences in Russia and abroad, millions of copies, hundreds of publications... The Yeltsin authorities and the media encouraged the "idea". A film about Viktor Rezun is being released on central television, where he is presented as a fighter against the totalitarian regime. But sober-minded people warned: Rezun is a project of the special services of Great Britain and the United States, supported by Russian "agents of change."

However, our hero cannot remain on the sidelines of historical thought. 10 years later (2002) after the "premier" of "Icebreaker", in the program article "On New Approaches in Russian Historical Science. The turn of the 21st century” A. Sakharov agrees with this “idea”. “Today, it seems, no one doubts that Stalin has such an intention (to start a preventive war. - S.B.),” Sakharov asserts and falls into a mess. Time has changed. The country's leadership at that time rejected the interpretation of the beginning of the war in the version of V. Rezun. The elementary arrow deviated from the direction of the force field.

Second puncture. In 2004, in the article “On Stalinism,” our hero writes: “Fashionable in Lately began to identify the totalitarian system that developed in the Soviet Union under Stalin, and the totalitarian system that developed in Germany under Hitler. In terms of form, there was much in common, many analogies and coincidences: a one-party system, and leaderism, and a system of repressions, and furious ideologicalism, and even cravings, the desire for state ownership and the establishment of a command system in the economy. But people who are adherents of this identification forget the main thing - that German fascism and Soviet totalitarianism had a completely heterogeneous social basis. It is one thing for a German burgher who threatened the world after Versailles and longed for revenge for his great nation; racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism of the German nation is one thing. The Soviet system grew up on the basis of totalitarian, revolutionary ideas. common man without private property, outside the market economy - the worker, the poor peasant, who have become the dominant figures in our country. It is no coincidence that these two systems clashed violently during the Second World War.

A. Sakharov's reasoning is very "daring", but not well-reasoned.

Firstly, Soviet Russia, like Germany, was humiliated by the Entente, and even more so. Germany is the aggressor, Russia is an ally of the Entente, a member of the coalition that won the First World War. It is a fact. However, the Entente accepted active participation in the dismemberment of Russia. Thanks to its active participation, at the expense of Russia, limitrophe states were created in the Baltic states, Bessarabia and Moldavia were transferred to Romania, etc.

Secondly, our hero presents the presence of "state anti-Semitism in the USSR" as a fact (see p. 707 of the folio "Russia: People. Rulers. Civilization"). However, this assertion has not been proven, and it is impossible to prove it.

Thirdly, A. Sakharov distinguishes between the Soviet and Nazi regimes, using the "class approach": private owners fought against those who rejected this property. But this is not so: in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, representatives of the working class constituted the majority.

Thus, it turns out that fascism and totalitarianism, according to A. Sakharov, are no different.

The answer to the "deep scientific conclusion" of A. Sakharov can be official position Russia on this issue.

“Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in connection with the signing by the US President of the proclamation in 2008 on the occasion of the “week of enslaved peoples”

1104-26-07-2008

Last week, US President George W. Bush signed yet another proclamation on the subject of "enslaved peoples", with whom he speaks every year on the basis of a law passed back in the Cold War era. In general, everything is as usual, but this time there was one “innovation”: the sign of equality between German Nazism and Soviet communism, which are now treated as the “one evil” of the 20th century, has been completely unequivocally put.

No matter how the American president treats the period Soviet Union and communist ideology, which, by the way, have undergone an objective assessment in modern democratic Russia, free from the ideological stereotypes of the past, neither from a historical nor from a universal point of view, these American "parallels" do not stand up to criticism. While condemning the abuses of power and the unjustified harshness of the internal political course of the Soviet regime of that time, we, nevertheless, cannot be indifferent to attempts to equate communism with Nazism and agree that they were driven by the same thoughts and aspirations.

Third puncture. Andrei Nikolaevich suddenly, overnight, became a fan of the civilizational approach in history, “which, of course, SHOULD BE (highlighted by us. - S.B.) is the basis for understanding and periodization Russian history».

This approach quite simply explains the essence of evolutionary changes, "which underlie the movement of all human history." It turns out that “the progress of history consists in improving the quality of people's lives, improving their way of life ... This progress, based on those social phenomena which from time immemorial have been powerful levers for the movement of people to prosperity, conveniences, comfort, to cultural and spiritual development, to the improvement of the individual and, in general, to improving the quality of life in all its material and spiritual manifestations. These are labor, creativity, private property, human rights and freedoms, which, through centuries and millennia, have formed the state of society that we today call civil. It is on these basic concepts that the study of the history of mankind is built... Day after day, year after year, century after century, humanity as a whole and in its individual parts has been advancing and is advancing along the path to the material and spiritual improvement of its life, improvement of its quality, improvement of personality ".

In his collection of works “Russia: People. rulers. Civilization". A. Sakharov continues: “Today, it seems, the time is coming when everyone more scientists become adherents of the so-called. multifactorial approach to history and to the history of Russia in particular. I first tried to introduce this concept into circulation in our country in one of my speeches in the early 1990s, and then put it into practice, without much systematization, in school and university textbooks on Russian history. Over the years, a multifactorial approach to the history of Russia has been repeatedly mentioned both in oral presentations and in articles by both scientists and science functionaries. But often there is a difficulty in trying to explain what it is, how various factors interact with each other and how the approach to the history of our Fatherland is applied in practice. The newfangled term often hangs in the air without explanation, without deciphering, and in essence is declarative and does not at all help to understand the history of the country. Meanwhile, this approach is very promising.

First. So, according to Sakharov, the history of mankind is a linear function. All countries, the people who inhabit them, sooner or later will come to "prosperity, convenience, comfort." That is, A. Sakharov proposes to evaluate the level of civilization according to the degree of satisfaction of basic human needs. It turns out that the most civilized country is the one whose citizens consume more, but this is not true. This is not civilization, but a diagnosis of a deadly disease. The causative agent of this disease is "civilization" in the understanding of A. Sakharov. It is known that if all people eat like Americans, then in a week all life on Earth will die. The Americans themselves understand this very well, therefore they will not allow humanity to follow "the path of civilization." “Civilization” is for the “golden billion”. Consequently, the criteria of “progress of history” declared by A. Sakharov are no good together with the “civilizational approach in the history of mankind”. If we follow Sakharov's "idea", then we should admit that the "progress of history" is finite, since resources are finite. Nevertheless, the world is moving "according to Sakharov", while the tendency of self-destruction of "civilization" is evident. Thus, alternative criteria for the civilized society are needed.

The desire to abandon the analysis of the true interests of the geopolitical and economic interests of the leading forces of the modern world and replace this analysis with consideration of "conflicts of civilizations" is understandable. In this case (that is, within the framework of the “civilizational approach”), it turns out that the United States is really concerned about the fate of democracy and freedoms in the regions of the planet that are vital for it.

Second. Material perfection has nothing to do with spiritual perfection. Moreover, there is an inversely proportional relationship. Russians are convinced of this every day, looking at television screens and looking through glossy magazines. Historian A. Sakharov despises the "small, worthless" people of the Soviet era with their "wretched" life. But the idols of these people, which is hard to believe now, were the outstanding physicists L. Landau and N. Bohr, mathematicians A. Kolmogorov and S. Sobolev, chess players M. Botvinnik and M. Tal. In that "totalitarian" past, it was difficult to get through to poetry evenings at the Polytechnic Museum, the Philharmonic, theaters. Those people created, built cities, hydroelectric power stations, science cities, made outstanding discoveries in science and technology. What about today? Who are the stars today? Who are the "idols" of youth? What did they create?

Third. Without false modesty, A. Sakharov attributes the discovery of the “multifactorial” approach to history to himself, but this method of research has long been known and has been successfully used in system analysis. There is a whole science factor analysis. Moreover, this method research was also used by Soviet scientists, in particular, E. Tarle, L. Gumilyov, B. Rybakov, N. Moiseev. Indeed, there are many factors influencing the course of history, and they are clearly ranked according to the degree of this influence. At an early stage in the development of mankind, when it had not yet emerged from the biocenosis, the geographical factor was decisive. Physical geography and landscapes determined the directions of migration of animals and humans, determined the way of life, formed ethnic groups, etc. As they left the biocenosis, ethnographic and economic factors began to come to the fore. All modern history humanity is determined by the laws of economics. Their influence covers everything related to human life, from geopolitics to the behavior of an individual buyer in a supermarket. Only in the last two decades has the environmental factor become significant. When it becomes decisive, it will mean that changes in the biosphere have become irreversible and humanity is doomed to perish. For long periods of time, the main factors are socio-economic, for short ones - a whole set of factors; in particular, subjective factors may be significant. This was written in the works of our remarkable scientists long before the "discoveries" of A. Sakharov. So Stalin was right in many respects.

Fourth. About pluralism in science, for which the historian A. Sakharov so advocates. What is pluralism in history? Today we know what pluralism in meteorology is. Each source of information presents us with its own weather forecast. Professor Belyaev speaks of a clear sky and unusual heat, and outside it is raining and 10 degrees Celsius. All this is because the domestic system of hydrometeorological observations has been destroyed, and therefore the weather forecast is unreliable. As a result, everyone uses their own source of information: some from the Internet, some from CNN messages. Dr. Belyaev went to a country house and left a recording of his speech with a forecast on NTV, so he cannot correct the weather information by looking out the window. In this case, no one is responsible for anything.

We have pluralism in the form of parascientific obscurantism on TNT and other TV channels. This kind of pluralism plunges the whole world into the Middle Ages.

How does the scientific result relate to pluralism? The same theorem can be proved in several ways, but in mathematics this is not called pluralism. Or is pluralism a freedom of opinion, implying the right to deception and manipulation? Without exception, all falsifiers of history refer to pluralism, to their "vision of history". But this vision pays well. Historians all over the world receive cash allowances for their work at the box office. The West has more money, so pluralism suits it, because in this case Russian citizens will see the history of their Motherland through the eyes of its geopolitical competitor. It is known that many Russian "historians" have been living off foreign grants for many years.

Read their history textbooks, materials of "scientific" conferences and round tables. All results are programmed by the customer!

So, the third blunder of the historian A. Sakharov is that he was not ready for "freedom of opinion and pluralism." When the historian was left without guiding documents that had regulated him for decades scientific activity, he used alternative instructions. This is natural, because our hero did not have convictions based on knowledge gained through many years of hard work. This is the main reason why the Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences turned out to be a forger.

Beliefs are, first of all, knowledge, confidence in their correctness and the will to defend them. The presence of will is a necessary condition for scientific research. Lack of convictions, following other people's views and will contribute to career growth, but are incompatible with scientific activity.

Woe to me if my convictions fluctuate according to the beating of my heart.

We assign A. Sakharov No. 5 in our list of domestic falsifying historians.

I watch the TV show "Academy" and I am struck by the lies and resourcefulness of the falsifying historian A.N. Sakharov. He is truly a weather vane, or a dipole.

"Elementary dipoles" at all times organically fit into any system, regime, value system. They are always oriented along the "lines of force" of power.

An example of an "elementary dipole". Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov was born on July 2, 1930 in the city of Kulebyaki, Nizhny Novgorod Region, into an intelligent family, which was a rarity for those times. Mother Elena Konstantinovna Sakharova - teacher of history, graduated from the Pedagogical Institute in Novgorod, father, Nikolai Leonidovich Sakharov, taught political economy. Apparently, he also graduated from the Pedagogical Institute. Then there was study at the Nizhny Novgorod Civil Engineering Institute and correspondence courses at the Paris Polytechnic Institute. A. Sakharov claims that it was this fact that served as one of the "indictments after the arrest." The father of our hero, according to him, was imprisoned for some time, then served a link, working in his specialty. This arrest, meanwhile, did not prevent the son of the “political prisoner” from entering the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, and his younger brother Dmitry to graduate from the Moscow Conservatory, become its professor and laureate of the Chopin Competition. Upon completion of his studies at the university, A. Sakharov was given a testimonial with which “you could only go to the Gulag barracks, but not work. For me (A. Sakharova ed.) there was no place not only in graduate school, but also in Moscow, and the question was considered about sending me to work in the Altai Territory, to school.” The reason why our hero received a "bad" characteristic is not indicated. In the autobiography, a hint is made that the young Andrei Nikolayevich was unnecessarily uncomfortable and distinguished by dissent. It is hard to believe that A. Sakharov is not the one who “does not change his views”, since this principle is “far from science”, as it is written on p. 912 in the collection of his works “Russia: The People. rulers. Civilization". A.N. Sakharov, indeed, masterfully, completely without inertia, changes his views. This property allowed him to always "stay afloat." And then, in the distant forties, "the question of sending a job to the Altai Territory", it turned out, was only considered. He managed to "catch" on Moscow. A. Sakharov explains this by the need to support the "young piano genius" - his 10-year-old brother Dmitry, who had to study at the Central Music School. They were given a room for two in a communal apartment on "respectable then Novopeschanaya Street." Thus, it turns out that the Stalinist regime was still with a human face and provided the young Sakharov with a free diploma so that he could support his gifted brother. It turns out that otherwise the historian is prevaricating, and completely different reasons allowed him to stay in Moscow.

A closer look at the historian's biography reveals that he is indeed cunning. It turns out that despite the “bad” reference with which “only in the Gulag barracks” immediately after graduating from Moscow State University in 1953, he was admitted to graduate school (!), True, by correspondence. Note that admission to full-time and part-time postgraduate studies occurs simultaneously. For applicants entering the correspondence postgraduate study, a special selection committee is not collected.

Thus, for 5 years, A. Sakharov has been working in one of the most prestigious Soviet schools, writing a dissertation and living with his brother “for free” in a communal apartment located in the center of Moscow (correspondence postgraduate students are not given a place in a hostel).

The job of a history teacher leaves a lot of time for science. At that time, we can say that he was in a fairy tale. So it was.

After working at school, A. Sakharov served as a journalist, then in the journal Voprosy istorii. “Trips around the country, trips abroad began, material stability appeared.” This indicates that there was no "negative characterization", and the historian well concealed all his oppositional freedom-loving views.

From his student days, Sakharov hated the "Komsomol and party leaders", who were very "mediocre in science and exams", but "caught fish - forged a career, achieved positive characteristics, recommendations for graduate school, favorable job distribution, pushed back their competitors in studies, for life. All this interfered with studies, scientific orientation (!), made it possible for limited, mediocre, but ambitious and ambitious people to rise to the surface. But as soon as the opportunity presented itself to A. Sakharov, he, without hesitation, went to the “party leaders”, and not just anywhere, but to the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Thus, since 1968, our hero has worked in the Central Committee of the CPSU, then as deputy director and editor-in-chief of the Nauka publishing house; From 1974 until transferring to the system of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1984, he held the position of a member of the collegium, and then the editor-in-chief of the State Committee for Publishing of the USSR. So, 16 years in the party nomenklatura position (“turntables”, “special orders”, “fourth department of the Ministry of Health”) in recent years - in the position of the All-Union “ideological Cerberus”. As a party boss, he defended his doctoral dissertation. Why be surprised, his boss A.N. Yakovlev not only defended his doctoral dissertation, but also became an academician, and what is most remarkable, immediately after that he left the Politburo and the party. That is, he finally took advantage of the administrative resource, became an academician, and then closed this resource.

You can reach convictions only through personal experience and suffering. (Anton Pavlovich Chekhov)

A. Sakharov argues that the immutability of views and beliefs is alien and even harmful to scientific research. But what are beliefs? Belief is a firm view of something, based on some idea, worldview. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1984. - S. 712. Persuasion is a conscious need of the individual, prompting her to act in accordance with her value orientations. Considering inner conviction from various angles, scientists note the following characteristics: firstly, knowledge, secondly, belief in the correctness of this knowledge, and, thirdly, a volitional incentive that encourages certain actions. Thus, in order for beliefs to change, the system of values and worldview of a person must change, then he must admit that his knowledge was not knowledge.

In our time, the world is changing so rapidly that if you follow the historian Sakharov, you will most likely fall into the characters of a joke. A.N. Sakharov in his activities has always adhered to the guidelines of the "party and government", now he is acting the same way, but events are changing so quickly that an opportunistic "scientific and journalistic" article written today, tomorrow, at best, loses its relevance, and at worst can be assessed as dissident. In other words, an elementary magnetic needle - corresponding member. RAS Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov, increasingly began to show the wrong way. Let's demonstrate this with several examples.

The first "puncture" is associated with the responsibility of unleashing the Second World War. It will be about how A. Sakharov made a mistake by supporting the "scientific result" of V. Rezun (Suvorov). He agreed that the Soviet regime bears "significant" responsibility "for unleashing the war within the framework of the concept of world revolution." The historian Sakharov writes: “in Russia, these approaches have taken shape as an independent scientific direction and are represented by a group, including young scientists. These discussions have resonated with the West.” But the opposite is true, Andrei Nikolayevich is being disingenuous. The “idea” belongs to V. Rezun (Suvorov), it is here in Russia, and not in the West, that it “found a response”. Rezun's book "Icebreaker" was first published in Russia in 1992. Through non-governmental funds, the US State Department threw in a lot of money so that this "response" to this book would find a return. Dozens of conferences in Russia and abroad, millions of copies, hundreds of publications. The Yeltsin regime and the media encouraged the "idea". A film about Viktor Rezun is being released on central television, where he is presented as a fighter against the totalitarian regime. In general, one gets the impression that Rezun is a project of the US and British intelligence services.

Our hero cannot possibly remain on the sidelines of historical thought. Ten years later (2002), after the “premiere” of The Icebreaker, in the program article “On New Approaches in Russian Historical Science. The turn of the 21st century” A. Sakharov agrees with this “idea”. “Today, it seems, no one doubts that Stalin has such an intention (to start a preventive war, auth.),” Sakharov asserts, and falls into a “slump.” Time has changed. The country's leadership rejected the interpretation of the beginning of the war in the version of V. Rezun. The elementary arrow deviated from the direction of the force field.

Second puncture. In 2004, in the article “On Stalinism,” our hero writes: “It has recently become fashionable to identify the totalitarian system that developed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and the totalitarian system that developed in Germany under Hitler. In terms of form, there was a lot in common, many analogies and coincidences: a one-party system, and leaderism, and a system of repressions and frenzied ideologicalism, and even cravings, the desire for state ownership and the establishment of a command system in the economy. But people who are adherents of this identification forget the main thing - that German fascism and Soviet totalitarianism had a completely heterogeneous social basis. It is one thing for a German burgher who threatened the world after Versailles and who longed for revenge for his great nation; racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism of the German nation is one thing. The Soviet system, on the other hand, grew up on the basis of totalitarian, revolutionary ideas of a simple person without private property, outside the market economy - a worker, a poor peasant, who became the dominant figures in our country. It is no coincidence that these two systems clashed violently during the Second World War.

A. Sakharov's reasoning is very "bold", but not substantiated.

First, Soviet Russia, like Germany, was humiliated by the Entente. Russia, even more so. Germany is the aggressor, Russia is an ally of the Entente, a member of the coalition that won the First World War. It is a fact. But the Entente took an active part in the dismemberment of Russia. Thanks to its active participation, at the expense of Russia, limitrophe states were created in the Baltic states, Bessarabia, Moldavia were transferred to Romania, etc.

Secondly, our hero presents the presence of “state anti-Symetism in the USSR” as a fact, although this has not been proven and it is impossible to prove. (p. 707 of the folio "Russia: People. Rulers. Civilization.")

Thirdly, A. Sakharov distinguishes between these regimes, using the "class approach" - private owners fought against those who rejected this property. But this is not so, in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, representatives of the working class were the majority.

Thus, it turns out that fascism and totalitarianism according to A. Sakharov are no different.

Russia's official position on this issue can serve as an answer to A. Sakharov's "profound scientific" conclusion.

“Comment by the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in connection with the signing by the President of the United States of the proclamation of 2008 on the occasion of the “week of enslaved peoples”

Last week, US President George W. Bush signed yet another proclamation on the subject of "enslaved peoples", with whom he speaks every year on the basis of a law adopted back in the Cold War era. In general, everything is as usual, but this time there was one “innovation”: the sign of equality between German Nazism and Soviet communism, which are now treated as the “one evil” of the 20th century, has been completely unequivocally put.

No matter how the American president treats the period of the Soviet Union and communist ideology, which, by the way, have been subjected to an objective assessment in modern democratic Russia, free from the ideological stereotypes of the past, neither from a historical point of view, nor from a universal human point of view, these American "parallels" do not stand up to criticism. While condemning the abuses of power and the unjustified harshness of the internal political course of the Soviet regime of that time, we, nevertheless, cannot be indifferent to attempts to equate communism with Nazism and agree that they were driven by the same thoughts and aspirations.

Third puncture. Andrei Nikolaevich suddenly, overnight became a fan of the civilizational approach to history, "which, of course, should be (highlighted by us) taken as the basis for understanding and periodization of Russian history."

This approach quite simply explains the essence of evolutionary changes, "which underlie the movement of all human history." It turns out that “the progress of history lies in the improvement of the quality of people, the improvement of their way of life ... This progress, based on those social phenomena that from time immemorial have been powerful levers for the movement of people to prosperity, convenience, comfort, cultural and spiritual development, to improvement personality and in general to improve the quality of life in all its material and spiritual manifestations. These are labor, creativity, private property, human rights and freedoms, which, through centuries and millennia, have formed the state of society that we today call civil. It is on these basic concepts that the study of the history of Mankind is built ... day after day, year after year, century after century, Mankind as a whole and in its individual parts has been advancing and advancing along the path to the material and spiritual improvement of its life, improvement of its quality, improvement of the personality " .

In his collection of works “Russia: People. rulers. Civilization". A. Sakharov continues: “Today, it seems, the time is coming when an increasing number of scientists become adherents of the so-called multifactorial approach to history and to the history of Russia in particular. For the first time I (!) tried to introduce this concept into circulation in our country in one of my speeches in the early 90s. XX century, and then put into practice, without much systematization, in school and university textbooks on Russian history. Over the years, a multifactorial approach to the history of Russia has been repeatedly mentioned both in oral presentations and in articles as scientists. And functionaries from science. But often there is a difficulty in trying to explain what it is, how various factors interact with each other and how the approach to the history of our Fatherland is applied in practice; a newfangled term often hangs in the air without explanation, without deciphering, and is essentially declarative and does not at all help to understand the history of the country. Meanwhile, this approach is very promising.”

“Among, say, constantly operating historical factors, I (A. Sakharov ed.) would include, as former historians, geographic and environmental factors, demographic, ethnic, religious, colonization, foreign policy, personal-psychological, the factor of influence of world civilizations -“ key cultural world centers”, primarily the Mediterranean, countries Western Europe, Byzantium (?), it is necessary to keep in mind both socio-economic and class factors .... ".

A. Sakharov sharply criticizes " Short Course history of the CPSU(b). He accuses Stalin of bringing to absurdity many of the reasonable provisions of K. Marx and F. Engels. “In the fourth chapter, written directly by Stalin, in the second section “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” great attention is paid to historical factors in the development of society. The so-called mode of production, which includes productive forces and production relations, comes to the fore here. In this regard, the first task of historical science, in the author's opinion, is to reveal the laws of production, the laws of the development of productive forces, the economy of society and the history of the working masses. The history of the people (which, we note, includes not only the working masses), as well as the class struggle of the working people against the exploiters and "violence as the midwife of history." Let's analyze these positions.

First. So, according to Sakharov, the history of mankind is a linear function. All countries, the people inhabiting them, sooner or later will come to "prosperity, convenience, comfort." That is, A. Sakharov proposes to evaluate the level of civilization by the degree of satisfaction of basic human needs. It turns out that the most civilized country is the one whose citizens consume more. But this is not true. This is not civilization - this is a diagnosis of a deadly disease. The causative agent of this disease is "civilization", in the understanding of A. Sakharov. It is known that if all people eat like Americans, then in a week all life on Earth will die. I don't think anyone will argue with this. The Americans themselves understand this very well, therefore they will not allow humanity to follow the “path of civilization”. "Civilization" for the "golden billion". Consequently, the criteria of "progress of history" declared by A. Sakharov are no good together with the "civilizational approach in the history of mankind." If we follow Sakharov's "idea", then we should admit that the "progress of history" is finite, since resources are finite. Nevertheless, the world is moving "according to Sakharov", while the tendency of self-destruction of "civilization" is evident. Thus, alternative criteria for the civilization of society are needed.

The desire to abandon the analysis of the true interests of geopolitical and economic players in modern world and to replace this analysis with consideration of "conflicts of civilizations", "challenges" are understandable. In this case, i.e. within the framework of the “civilizational approach”, it turns out that the United States is indeed concerned about the fate of democracy and freedoms in the vitally important regions of the planet.

Second. Today, no one connects "material and spiritual perfection." Material perfection has nothing to do with spiritual perfection. Moreover, there is an inversely proportional relationship. Russians are convinced of this every day by looking at television screens and looking through glossy magazines. Historian A. Sakharov despises the "small, worthless" people of the Soviet era with "their miserable" life. But the idols of these people, which is hard to believe now, were the outstanding physicists L. Landau and N. Bohr, mathematicians A. Kolmogorov and S. Sobolev, chess players M. Botvinnik and M. Tal. In that totalitarian past, it was difficult to get through to poetry evenings at the Polytechnic Museum, the Philharmonic, theaters. Those people created, built cities, hydroelectric power stations, science cities, made outstanding discoveries in science and technology. What do we have today? Who are the stars today? Who are the "idols" of youth? What did they create?

Third. Without false modesty, A. Sakharov attributes the discovery of the “multifactorial” approach to history to himself. But this research method has long been known and has been successfully used in system analysis. There is a whole science of "factorial analysis". Moreover, this research method was also used by Soviet scientists, in particular E. Tarle, L. Gumilyov, B. Rybakov, N. Moiseev. Indeed, there are many factors influencing the course of history, and they are clearly ranked according to the degree of this influence. At an early stage in the development of mankind, when it had not yet emerged from the biocenosis, the geographical factor was decisive. Physical geography and landscapes determined the directions of migration of animals and humans, determined the way of life, formed ethnic groups, etc. As the biocenosis emerged, ethnographic and economic factors began to take the lead. The entire modern history of mankind is determined by the laws of economics. Their influence covers everything related to human life from geopolitics to the behavior of an individual buyer in a supermarket. Only in the last two decades has the environmental factor become significant. When it becomes decisive, it will mean that changes in the biosphere have become irreversible and humanity is doomed to perish. For long periods of time, the main factors are socio-economic, for short ones - a whole set of factors, in particular, subjective factors may turn out to be significant. This was written in the works of our remarkable scientists, long before the "discoveries" of A. Sakharov. So Stalin was right in many respects.

Fourth. Now let's talk about pluralism in science, for which the historian A. Sakharov advocates so much. What is pluralism in history? Today we know what pluralism in meteorology is. Each source of information presents us with its own weather forecast. Professor Belyaev speaks of a clear sky, unusual heat, and in the yard it is raining and 10 degrees Celsius. All this is because the domestic system of hydrometeorological observations has been destroyed, and therefore the weather forecast is unreliable. As a result, everyone uses their own source of information, some from the Internet, some from CNN messages. Dr. Belyaev went to a country house and left a recording of his speech with a forecast on NTV, so he cannot correct the weather information by looking out the window. In this case, no one is responsible for anything.

We have pluralism in the form of parascientific obscurantism on TNT and other TV channels. This kind of pluralism plunges the whole world into the Middle Ages.

How does the scientific result relate to pluralism? The same theorem can be proved in several ways, but in mathematics this is not called pluralism. Or is pluralism a freedom of opinion, implying the right to deception and manipulation? Without exception, all the falsifiers of history refer to pluralism, to their own "vision of history". But this vision pays well. Historians all over the world at the box office receive monetary allowance for their work. The West has more money, so pluralism suits it, because in this case, Russian citizens will see the history of their homeland through the eyes of its geopolitical competitor. It is known that many of our "historians" have been living on foreign grants for many years.

Read their history books, materials of "scientific" conferences and "round tables". All results are set by the Customer! This is easy to prove, but that's another topic.

So, the third blunder of the historian A. Sakharov is that he was not ready for "freedom of opinion and pluralism." When the historian was left without guiding documents for decades regulating his scientific activity, he took advantage of alternative instructions. This is quite natural, because our hero did not have convictions based on knowledge gained over many years of hard work. This is the main reason that the corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences turned out to be a forger.

Thus, beliefs are, first of all, knowledge, confidence in their correctness and the presence of the will to defend them. The presence of will is a necessary condition for scientific research. Lack of convictions, following other people's views and will contribute to career growth, but are incompatible with scientific activity.

Woe to me if my convictions fluctuate according to the beating of my heart.

A. Sakharov is one of the domestic historians of falsifiers manipulating the minds of our children.