Historian-falsifier Academician A.N. Sakharov. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day

Andrey Nikolaevich Sakharov(born June 2, 1930) - Soviet and Russian historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences (1982), professor (1988), corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences since December 7, 1991 in the Section of Humanities and Social Sciences (Russian History). Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1993-2010). Member of the Russian Writers' Union.
Graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov in 1953.
For 5 years he taught history in high school. Since 1958 - an employee of the press department of the Committee of Youth Organizations of the USSR, in 1961-1962 he worked at the APN. Since 1962 - head of the department of history of the USSR of the journal “Questions of History”. Candidate of Historical Sciences (1965, dissertation “Russian village of the 17th century (based on materials from the patriarchal economy)”). In 1968-1971 - instructor in the Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee. In 1971-1974 - editor-in-chief of the Nauka publishing house. Since 1974 - member of the board, head of the main department of the State Committee for Publishing, Printing and Book Trade. Doctor of Historical Sciences (1982, dissertation “The Origin of Diplomacy of Ancient Rus'. IX - first half of the X centuries”). Since 1984 - Deputy Director of the Institute of History of the USSR of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in 1993-2010 - Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Sakharov welcomed the creation in 2009 of the Commission to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of Russia and was actively involved in its work, and was its member until its liquidation in 2012.
Married to Olga Sakharova, father of two children (Artemy, Ignatius).
Areas of scientific activity: history of diplomacy, foreign policy, ideology and culture of Ancient Rus'; domestic and foreign historiography of Russian history; socio-economic relations in the Russian state in the 17th century.
He is a convinced and consistent opponent of Normanism. In 2012, he participated in the filming of Mikhail Zadornov’s film “Rurik. Lost story."

Author of about 300 scientific works, numerous school textbooks on the history of Russia and textbooks for universities.
Textbooks
Contemporary history of Russia: textbook / ed. A. N. Sakharov. M., Prospekt, 2010
History of Russia from ancient times to the present day: textbook / ed. A. N. Sakharov. M., Prospekt, 2010
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century: a textbook for the 10th grade of educational institutions. - M. - "Russian Word", 2012. ISBN 978-5-91218-549-6
In collaboration with A.N. Bokhanov. History of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. Textbook for 10th grade of general education institutions. - M. - "Russian Word", 2012 ISBN 978-5-00007-020-8
Monographs
Russian village of the 17th century. (based on materials from the patriarchal household). M.: Nauka, 1966.
Living voices of history. Book 1. M.: Young Guard, 1971 (in collaboration with S. M. Troitsky).
Stepan Razin. M.: Young Guard, 1973; 1987; 2010 (in the series “ZhZL”; translated in Japan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria).
Living voices of history. Book 2. M.: Young Guard, 1978 (co-authored with S. M. Troitsky).
Diplomacy of Ancient Rus': IX – first half. X centuries M.: Mysl, 1980 (translated in Bulgaria).
Diplomacy of Svyatoslav. M.: International relations, 1982; 1991 (in the series “From the History of Diplomacy”)
Generals of Ancient Rus'. M.: Young Guard, 1985; 1986 (in the “ZhZL” series; 3rd ed. M.: “Terra”, 1999; in collaboration with V.V. Kargalov).
“We are from the Russian family...”: the birth of Russian diplomacy. L.: Lenizdat, 1986.
Vladimir Monomakh. M.: Russian language, 1986; 1991 (reissues 1994, 1995, 1998).
Diplomacy of Ancient Rus'. M.: Pedagogy, 1987 (in the series “Scientists for schoolchildren”)
The Man on the Throne (Alexander I). M.: MARAN, 1992 (brochure)
Alexander I. M.: Nauka, 1998.
Devotees of Russia: historical essays. M.: Russian word, 1999; 2008 (in collaboration with A. N. Bokhanov and V. D. Nazarov).
War and diplomacy (1939–1945). M.: MGIMO, 1995 (brochure)
Russia: People. Rulers. Civilization. M.: Nauka, 2004.
Anxiety and hope. M.: Time, 2006 (vol. 1-2)
Ancient Rus' on the path to the “Third Rome”. M.: Nauka, 2006 (2nd ed. M.: Grif and Co., 2010; under the title “Rus on the way to the “Third Rome””)
Alexander Nevskiy. M.: AST, 2008, 2009 (in the series “The Name of Russia. Historical Choice 2008”)
Russia as part of the world civilization process. M., 2009 (brochure)
Historical discoveries at the turn of the 21st century: essays. M.: Golden-B, 2011.

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

Since 1962 - head. Department of Russian History of the journal “Questions of History”. In 1968-1971 - Instructor of the Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee. In 1971-1974. – editor-in-chief of the Nauka publishing house. Since 1974 - member of the board, head of the main department of the State Committee for Publishing, Printing and Book Trade. Since 1984 – Deputy Director, 1993-2010. - Director of the IRI RAS.

JOB TITLE:

Advisor to the Russian Academy of Sciences

JOB RESPONSIBILITIES:

Head of the Center “Historical Science of Russia”

ACADEMIC DEGREE AND TITLE:

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

DISSERTATION TOPICS:

Candidate's paper: “Russian village in the 17th century. (Based on materials from the patriarchal household)" (1965).

Doctoral dissertation: “The origins of diplomacy in 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 Russian foreign policy in the 15th century. – 1945; socio-economic history of Russia in the 17th century; history of Russian reformism of the 18th – early 20th centuries; domestic and foreign historiography of Russian history; problems of the formation of a totalitarian system in Russia in the 20s - 30s. XX century

SCIENTIFIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences "History of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia"
Chairman of the Dissertation Council of the IRI RAS “History of Russia until the 20th century”
Member of the Scientific Council of the IRI RAS
Deputy Chairman of the RAS Expert Commission on analysis and assessment of the scientific content of state educational standards and educational literature for secondary and higher schools
Scientific director from the Russian side of the international seminar “From Rome to the Third Rome”
Member of the editorial boards and editorial boards of the journals: “Russian History”, Military History Journal”, “Russian Nation”, “Historical Notes”, “Historical Archive”
Member of the Editorial Board: “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, a 10-volume collection of works by M.V. Lomonosov (on the 300th anniversary)
Member of the Bureau of NISO RAS

TEACHING ACTIVITY:

He taught history for 5 years in high school, and for 15 years he taught at the history departments of Moscow State Pedagogical University and Moscow State University. He gave a course of lectures on key problems in the history of Russia and on the history of reforms in Russia in the 80s and early 90s. XX century in English at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 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:

Certificate of Honor from the President of the Russian Federation (2010)
Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation
Gold medal "For scientific achievements of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine" (2010)
Title "Socius Honoris Causa" of the Center for Russian Studies at the University of Budapest (2010)
Prize and medal “Pro kultura Hungarika” for significant personal contribution for the development and popularization of Hungarian culture abroad (2005)
medal N.I. Vavilov “For outstanding contribution to scientific and educational activities and training of scientific personnel”, “Knowledge” Foundation named after. N.I. Vavilova (2008)
UNESCO Award for Dialogue of Cultures (2005)
Laureate of the All-Russian Historical and Literary Prize "Alexander Nevsky" (2009)
Honorary title “Honored Scientist of the Republic of Mordovia” (05.25.2010)
Diploma of Honorary Professor of the Research Institute of Humanities under the Government of the Republic of Mordovia (5/5/2010)
Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of education for 2012.

Language skills: English (fluent).

Contact Information: [email protected]

MAIN PUBLICATIONS:

Monographs:

Russian village of the 17th century. (Based on materials from the patriarchal household). 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' IX–first half of the X 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.
Devotees of Russia. 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 civilization process. M., 2009 (brochure).
Rus' is on the way to the “Third Rome”. M., 2010.
Historical discoveries at the turn of the 21st century. M., 2011.

Textbooks, teaching aids:

History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. For 10th grade. M.: Education, 1995 et seq. (co-authored with V.I. Buganov)
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. 6th grade. M.: Education, 2003–2010.
Russian history. XVII–XVIII centuries. 7th grade. M.: Education, 2003–2010.
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 15th century. Grade 10. M.: Russian Word, 2003–2010.
Russian history. XVII–XIX centuries. 10th grade (co-authored with A.N. Bokhanov)
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. A book to read. M.: Rossman, 2003.
Russian history. XVII–XVIII centuries. A book to read. M.: Rossman, 2003.
History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century. In 2 volumes. Textbook for universities. M.: Astrel, 2006–2011. (co-author)
History of religions. M.: Russian Word, 2007–2010. (co-author)
Russian history. XIX century. 8th grade. M.: 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)
Fundamentals of religious cultures of the peoples of Russia. 4th grade. M.: Russian Word, 2011. (co-authored with K.A. Kochegarov)

Chapters and sections in books:

Alexander I (on the history of life and death) // Russian autocrats. M., 1993. P. 14–90;
The hard path of Russian reformism // Russian reformers. XIX–early XX centuries 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 Russian foreign policy from ancient times to the 15th century; Ch. 1 “History of Russian foreign policy (end of the 15th century - 1917). // History of Russian foreign policy. XV–XVII centuries. From the overthrow of the Horde yoke to the Northern War. M., 1999. P. 13–105;
Constitutional projects and civilizational destinies of Russia // Constitutional projects in Russia. XVIII–early XX centuries. M., 2000. P. 10–78;
Russia at the beginning of the 20th century: People, power and society // Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. M., 2002. P. 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 of the 19th century” // History of humanity. 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. Alexandrov, E.I. Maleto);
People and power in 1930 // “Top Secret”: Lubyanka to Stalin about the situation in the country (1922–1934). T. 8. 1930. Part 1. M., 2008. P. 23–66;
“Another War” (about the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939–1940) // Winter War. Research, documents, comments. M., 2009. pp. 32–34;
Empire as a global civilizational factor // Russian Empire from its origins to the beginning of the 19th century. M., 2011. pp. 11–26.

Articles:

Anti-serfdom tendencies in the Russian village of the 17th century // VI. 1964. No. 3. P. 69–96;
On the dialectics of the historical development of the Russian peasantry (Problems of historiography of recent years) // VI. 1970. No. 1. P. 17–41;
Historical factors in the formation of Russian absolutism // History of the USSR. 1971. No. 1. P. 110–126;
Diplomatic recognition of Ancient Rus' (860) // VI. 1976. No. 6. P. 33–64;
“Eastern factor” and the origin of ancient Russian diplomacy (IX–first half of the 10th century) // History of the USSR. 1980. No. 1. P. 24–44;
International aspects of the baptism of Rus' // Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1988. No. 10. P. 122–133;
Lessons from the “immortal historiographer” // Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. In 12 volumes. T. 1. M., 1989. P. 415–460;
The political heritage of Rome in the ideology of Ancient Rus' // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 3. P. 71–83;
I.E. Zabelin: A new assessment of creativity // VI. 1990. No. 7. pp. 71–83;
Domestic historiography: Western assessments and our reality // Russia in the 20th century: world historians argue. M., 1994. S. 727–747;
Historical science at the crossroads // Russia in the 20th century: The fate of historical science. M., 1996. P. 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. P. 56–71;
Historical factors in the development of Russia // Place of Russia in Europe – Place of Russia in Europe. Budapest, 1999. pp. 9–17;
Series of articles: “Revolutionary totalitarianism in our history”; “The Middle Ages on the threshold of the 21st century”; “Unrest and authoritarianism in Russia” and others // Free Thought. 1990s
The formation of Russian geopolitics // Russia’s place in Eurasia. Budapest. 2001;
Reflections on the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. // IN AND. 2007. No. 4. P. 3–15;
1809 in the history of Russia and Finland // World and Politics. 2009. No. 12;
860: the beginning of Rus' // Varyag-Russian question in historiography. M., 2010. P. 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.

A.N. SAKHAROV

WITH ANCIENT TIMES TO THE END OF THE 16TH CENTURY

Textbook for 10th grade of secondary educational institutions

Approved by the Ministry of Education

Russian Federation

Moscow “Russian Word” 2003

BBK 63.3 (2) C 22

REVIEWERS: Doctor of Historical Sciences,

Professor of the Department of Russian History of RUDN University R. Lrslanov; history teacher of Lyceum No. 1560 M.N. Chernova

Methodical editing - Ph.D. history Sciences, Associate Professor, Head. Department of Methods of Teaching History, Social Science and Law MPU A.N. Fuchs

Methodological apparatus - G.I. Starobinskaya

Decoration - S.N. Yakubovsky

Sakharov A.N.

From 22 History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century: Textbook for the 10th grade of secondary educational institutions. - M.; “TID “Russkoe Slovo-RS”, 2003. - 320 pp.: ill.

ShVI 5-94853-057-4 (part 1) Yu Sh 5-94853-126-0

In the textbook of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Sakharov gives a broad panorama of the history of our Fatherland. The author covers in detail the political history of the country, considers issues of its economic life, culture, and everyday life. The main milestones and events of Russian history are shown through the fates of statesmen, scientists, religious thinkers, cultural figures, scientists, inventors, discoverers of new lands and other outstanding personalities.

Introduction

What do the words “history of Russia” mean? After all, Russia is also a huge territory, which by the beginning of the 20th century. occupied a sixth of the earth's land, and the nature of the country, and the climate, and its economy, and culture, and population. But first of all, the history of Russia is the history of people, peoples who inhabited our Motherland from ancient times to the present day and are united by a common destiny.

Century after century, our Fatherland was built, its territory expanded, various peoples were drawn into the cycle of Russian history. The process was long, difficult, complex and contradictory, sometimes painful and dramatic. Peoples entered into relationships with each other - they collaborated, exchanged economic experience, defended themselves from common enemies, and sometimes fought with each other, defending their own national interests, and only later were drawn into the mainstream of common Russian history.

From the very first steps, the history of Russia unfolded in the spaces of Europe and Asia. This means that the history of our Fatherland, the traditions and customs of our people have constantly reflected the influence, interaction and confrontation between the West and the East. Two great civilizations of the Earth - Western (European, Mediterranean, Atlantic) and Eastern, embodying the experience of the great nomadic empires and sedentary states of antiquity and the Middle Ages, paved their furrows in the historical field of Russia.

In world history, our Fatherland is the only country that experienced such a powerful and contradictory influence of the West and the East, which largely determined its historical path as the path of a Eurasian power. Russia remains such even until

today. It is not for nothing that in the Russian coat of arms the double-headed eagle looks both to the west and to the east.

We have already used the word “people” several times, and we will continue to use it in the future. This word has several meanings. Firstly, the word “people” often means one or another nation: they say “Russian people”, “Tatar people”, etc. Secondly, the word “people” often means working people, the lower classes of society. In ancient times, these were peasants and artisans who differed from the prosperous and wealthy segments of the population - merchants, clergy, nobility, aristocracy, both in their financial status and place in society. There is a third understanding of the word “people” - these are all layers of a particular society taken together, society as a whole, people welded together by a common public interest and at the same time sometimes sharply different from each other, and therefore having their own collective and personal interests. These interests can collide and lead society to violent conflicts.

IN in history there are no good or bad peoples, just as there are no bad and good strata of peoples. Everyone - peasants, entrepreneurs, nobility, clergy, aristocracy - is a product of the historical development of the country. Times have changed, the place of this or that part of the people in the history of the country has changed. And you need to have a good understanding of the role of various layers of society in the history of Russia, be able to identify what they gave to the country, and where and when they caused damage to it through selfish interests.

IN At the same time, it is necessary to remember that each member of society is a separate person, a separate life, destiny, and unique biography. On the one hand, a person is part of a team with its common interests, on the other hand, he himself is the embodiment of a whole unique world with his own interests, passions,

attachments, ideas, which may, for many reasons, differ from the ideas of other people. All human history, including the history of Russia, is not only a constant search by people for their common great public interest, the interest of the country, but also the struggle between interests

individual and collective, individual and state. To this day, persistent attempts continue to bring the aspirations of the individual and the entire society to a common denominator.

History is both a beautiful and cruel science, because it is designed to show the life of human society in all its diversity - greatness and downfalls, wonderful deeds, amazing inventions, wonderful movements of human souls - and low passions; mutual assistance and mutual assistance of people - and violence against the individual and entire nations.

The history of Russia is intended not only to show the past of our people, but also to help the current generation reflect on this past, and learn lessons from it for the benefit of future generations.

Sources of historical knowledge are varied and numerous. The sciences of archeology (from the Greek words “archeos” - “ancient” and “logos” - “teaching”) and anthropology (from the Greek words “anthropos” - “man” and “logos”) tell us about deep antiquity.

Archaeologists, by excavating ancient settlements, studying human life in caves, analyzing found tools, weapons, household utensils, jewelry, ancient sculpture and painting, recreate the life of people of past eras, their spiritual appearance and beliefs.

Using the remains found, anthropologists reconstruct the appearance of people, their development over thousands of years, and draw conclusions about how peoples and races were formed.

Linguistics also helps to understand the history of mankind (from the Latin word “lingua” - “language”). Linguists study the origin of languages, their kinship, connections, development and with their help reveal another facet of the historical destinies of various peoples.

With the advent of writing, the history of mankind is evidenced written sources. For Russia, these are chronicles - weather (from the word “year”) records of events, various kinds of secular and church laws and charters, state and international documents, church works, literary works,

memories of people, their diaries, and later - books, newspapers, magazines, reflecting the life of the era, cinema - photographic and phonological materials. Architectural structures, works of art, and household items are invaluable evidence of past eras and a person’s ideas about himself and his life.

All this taken together is carefully studied by history, recreating the appearance of past centuries, including the past of our Motherland.

1. Explain the meaning of the title of this textbook.

2. Why is history both a beautiful and cruel science?

3. In what meaning is the term “people” used in the following sentences:

a) various peoples were involved in the cycle of Russian history; ^ :H&.7 lacyl" ^ ^ ^ ^

b) the history of Russia is the history of people, peoples who inhabited our Motherland from ancient times to the present day and are united by a common destiny.

4. Come up with a sentence in which the word “people”

6. Consider what lessons your generation can learn from our nation's past.

7. What sources of historical knowledge help scientists recreate the appearance of past centuries? G " " . ". "

8. The work of which scientists (historians) has been invested in the study of deep

Homeland of the Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans - This is the ancient population of vast territories of Europe and Asia. It gave rise to many modern European and Asian peoples, and later, in modern times, it spread to North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and to various islands and archipelagos. Most scientists believe that a large area became the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans Southeast and Central Europe, in particular the Balkan Peninsula and the foothills of the Carpathians and, probably, southern Russia and Ukraine. Here, in parts of Europe washed by warm seas, on fertile soils, in sun-warmed deciduous forests, on grass-covered mountain slopes and valleys, where shallow transparent rivers flowed, the oldest Indo-European community of people took shape.

Once upon a time, people belonging to this community spoke the same language. Traces of a common origin have been preserved in many languages of the peoples of Europe and Asia. So, in all these languages there is the word “birch”, meaning a tree or birch. The Indo-Europeans were engaged in cattle breeding and agriculture, and later began to smelt bronze.

From this time, traces of settlements discovered by archaeologists have reached us. Farmers and cattle breeders began to settle on fertile lands along the banks of deep rivers from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dnieper region, and further, to the east, on vast steppe spaces up to the southern spurs of the Ural Mountains - cattle breeders.

Settlements of Trypillians. An example of settlements of farmers-pastoralists can be the remains of an ancient settlement in the Dnieper region near the village of Tripolie, dating back to the 4th - 3rd millennia BC. e. Therefore, the inhabitants of that time were conditionally called Trypillians.

Agriculture and cattle breeding increased the economic power of the Indo-European tribes and contributed to the growth of their population. And the domestication of the horse, the development of bronze tools and weapons made the Indo-Europeans in the 3rd millennium BC. e. easier to move in search and development of new lands.

Genealogy of the peoples of Eurasia. From the southeast Europe began the triumphant spread of Indo-Europeans across the expanses of Eurasia. Moving west, they reached the shores of the Atlantic. Another part of them settled in northern Europe and the Scandinavian Peninsula. The wedge of Indo-European settlements has cut

among the Finno-Ugric peoples and buried itself in the Ural Mountains. In the south, in the forest-steppe and steppe zone, the Indo-Europeans advanced into Asia Minor and the North Caucasus, reached the Iranian Plateau and settled in India. Now the lands where the Indo-Europeans lived extended from the Atlantic to India. That's why they were named Indo-Europeans.

In TU - III millennium BC. e. the former community of Indo-Europeans began to disintegrate. Later they divided into the eastern group of peoples (Indians, Iranians, Armenians, Tajiks), Western European(British, Germans, French, Italians, Greeks, etc.), Slavic (Eastern, Western and Southern Slavs: Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs, Serbs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, etc.) and Baltic ( Lithuanians, Latvians, etc.).

However, traces of the former community are visible everywhere. There are many common words and concepts in Slavic and Iranian languages - god, hut, boyar, master, axe, dog, hero etc. All of them came to us from the ancient Iranians. This commonality is also visible in applied art. In embroidery patterns, in decorations and clay vessels, a combination of rhombuses and dots was used everywhere. In the areas where the Indo-Europeans settled, the domestic cult of elk and deer was preserved for centuries, although these animals are not found in Iran, India and Greece. The same applies to some folk holidays - for example, bear holidays, held by many peoples on spring days when the bear awakens from hibernation. All these are traces of the northern ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans.

These peoples have a lot in common in their religious cults. Thus, the Slavic pagan god Perung the Thunderer is akin to the Lithuanian-Latvian Perkunis, the Indian Parjanya, and the Celtic Perkunia. And he himself is very reminiscent of the main Greek god Zeus. The Slavic pagan goddess Lada, patroness of marriage and family, is comparable to the Greek goddess Lata.

The mixing of Indo-Europeans with the tribes that had previously lived here, including the Finno-Ugric, began.

Clay figurines.

Trypillian culture. III millennium BC

Bone ritual hatchet.

II millennium BC e.

The Finno-Ugrians, who previously occupied large areas of the north of Eastern Europe, the Cis-Urals and Trans-Urals, split into new branches - the Ugrians (Hungarians) and Finns. The descendants of the Finno-Ugric population are many Russian peoples of the Volga region and the North - Mordovians, Udmurts, Mari, Komi, etc. People from the lands where the ancestors of the Turks and Mongols lived also appeared here. Their descendants are Kalmyks and Buryats. All of them, like the Slavs, later turned into full-fledged inhabitants of the East European Plain. In the Northern Urals, between the mouths of the Pechora and Ob, were located the Neolithic ancestors of the Ural peoples, who spoke the so-called Uralic languages. The population of Southern Siberia, Altai and Sayan - the ancient Altaians - were explained in Altai languages. In the Caucasus they spoke Caucasian languages. The ancestors of the Georgians emerged south of the Caucasus Range.

The North Caucasians were the first to master the smelting of metal (fortunately it was abundant in the Caucasus) and the manufacture of metal tools and weapons; they raised cattle and pigs, switched to cattle breeding, and were the first to master wheeled carts.

The Ural peoples were the first to launch boats and invent skis and sleds.

The Indo-Europeans who settled in the forest zone switched to cattle breeding and forest-type agriculture, and continued to develop hunting and fishing. All together, the local population, in the harsh conditions of the forest and forest-steppe, lagged behind the peoples of the Mediterranean, southern Europe, Western Asia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, which were gaining momentum in development. Nature at this time was the main regulator of human development.

Place of the ancestors of the Slavs among the Indo-Europeans. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. The Indo-Europeans of Central and Eastern Europe spoke the same language and represented one whole for a number of centuries. And they differed sharply from those who settled in India, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

In the middle of the II MILLENNIUM B.C. e. Germanic tribes became isolated. The Balts and Slavs formed a common

Balto-Slavic group. The Balts settled in the northern regions of Eastern Europe, the Germans

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 the 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 Dmitry Ivanovich Sakharov, a physicist. For the first five years, Andrei Dmitrievich studied at home. This was followed by 5 years of study at school, where Sakharov, under the guidance of his father, seriously studied physics and conducted many experiments.

Studying at the university, working at a military factory

Andrei Dmitrievich entered the Faculty of Physics at Moscow State University in 1938. After the outbreak of World War II, Sakharov and the university went into 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, Sakharov was considered the best student among all who had ever studied at this faculty.

After graduating from Moscow State University, Andrei Dmitrievich refused to stay in graduate school, which was advised to him by Professor A. A. Vlasov. 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. Living and working conditions 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 Vikhireva K. A.

An important event in Sakharov’s personal life occurred in 1943 - the scientist married Klavdiya Alekseevna Vikhireva (life: 1919-1969). She was from Ulyanovsk and worked at the same plant as Andrei 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 university. For this reason, subsequently, after the Sakharovs moved to Moscow, it was difficult for her to find a good job.

Postgraduate studies, master's thesis

Andrei Dmitrievich, returning to Moscow after the war, continued his studies in 1945. He is to E.I. Tamm, who taught at the Physics Institute. P. N. Lebedeva. A.D. Sakharov wanted to work on fundamental problems of science. In 1947, his work on non-radiative nuclear transitions was presented. In it, the scientist proposed a new rule according to which selection should be made based on charging 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", testing a 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 the group of Ya. B. Zeldovich. Andrei Dmitrievich soon presented his design for a bomb, in which layers of natural uranium and deuterium were placed around an ordinary atomic nucleus. When an atomic nucleus explodes, the ionized uranium greatly increases the density of deuterium. It also increases the speed of the thermonuclear reaction, and under the influence of fast neutrons it begins to fission. This idea was supplemented by V.L. Ginzburg, who proposed using lithium-6 deuteride for the bomb. Tritium is formed from it under the influence of slow neutrons, which is a very active thermonuclear fuel.

In the spring of 1950, with these ideas, Tamm’s group was sent almost in full force to the “facility” - a secret nuclear enterprise, the center of which was located in the city of Sarov. Here the number of scientists working on the project increased significantly as a result of the influx of young researchers. The group's work culminated in the testing of the first hydrogen bomb in the USSR, which successfully took place on August 12, 1953. This bomb is known as the “Sakharov 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, subsequently worked on compressing 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 the injuries of many people who were located at a considerable distance from the training ground. This, as well as the mass eviction of residents from nearby territories, forced Andrei Dmitrievich to seriously think about what tragic consequences atomic explosions could lead to. He wondered what would happen if this terrible force suddenly got out of control.

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

Simultaneously with the work on hydrogen bombs, Academician Sakharov, together with Tamm, proposed in 1950 an idea on how to implement magnetic confinement of plasma. The scientist made fundamental calculations on this issue. He also owned the idea and calculations for the formation of super-strong magnetic fields by compressing the magnetic flux with a cylindrical conducting shell. The scientist dealt with these issues in 1952. In 1961, Andrei Dmitrievich proposed the use of laser compression in order to obtain a controlled thermonuclear 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 resulting from bomb explosions and its effect on heredity. As a result of this, as the scientist noted, the average life expectancy of the population is decreasing. According to Sakharov, in the future, each megaton explosion will lead to 10 thousand cases of cancer.

In 1958, Andrei Dmitrievich unsuccessfully tried to influence the USSR’s decision to extend the moratorium he had declared on atomic explosions. In 1961, the moratorium was interrupted by the testing of a very powerful hydrogen bomb (50 megaton). It had more political than military significance. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov received the third Hammer and Sickle medal on March 7, 1962.

Social activity

In 1962, Sakharov came into sharp conflict with government 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 of nuclear weapons in all three environments.

It should be noted that Andrei Dmitrievich’s interests in those years were not limited exclusively to nuclear physics. The scientist was active in social activities. In 1958, Sakharov spoke out against the plans of Khrushchev, who planned to shorten the period of obtaining 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 gave a speech in which he spoke out against the election of biologist N.I. Nuzhdin as an academician, who ultimately did not 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.

In 1966, the scientist 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 the intolerance of dissent, a policy pursued by Stalin. In the same year, Sakharov met R. A. Medvedev, who wrote a book about Stalin. She significantly 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 authorities’ harsh response was to deprive Sakharov of one of the two positions he held at the “facility.”

Manifesto article, suspension from work at the “facility”

In June 1968, an article by Andrei Dmitrievich appeared in foreign media in which he reflected on progress, intellectual freedom and peaceful coexistence. The scientist spoke about the dangers of environmental self-poisoning, thermonuclear destruction, and dehumanization of humanity. Sakharov noted that there is a need to bring the capitalist and socialist systems closer together. He also wrote about the crimes committed by Stalin and that there is no democracy in the USSR.

In this manifesto article, the scientist advocated the abolition of political courts and censorship, and against the placement of dissidents in psychiatric clinics. The authorities reacted quickly: Andrei Dmitrievich was removed from work at the secret facility. He lost all posts related in one way or another to military secrets. The meeting of A.D. Sakharov with A.I. Solzhenitsyn took place on August 26, 1968. It was revealed that they had different views on the 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 mental devastation that lasted for many years. I. E. Tamm, who at that time headed the Theoretical Department of the Lebedev Physical Institute, wrote a letter to M. V. Keldysh, President of the USSR Academy of Sciences. As a result of this and, apparently, sanctions from above, Andrei Dmitrievich was enrolled in a department of the institute on June 30, 1969. Here he took up scientific work, becoming a senior researcher. 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 active social activities, which increasingly did not correspond to the policies 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 picketing the court, where the trial of the dissidents B. Weil and R. Pimenov was taking place. 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 of Crimean Tatars to return, for freedom of religion, for German and Jewish emigration.

Marriage to Bonner E.G., campaign against Sakharov

Marriage to Bonner Elena Grigorievna (years of life - 1923-2011) occurred in 1972. The scientist met this woman in 1970 in Kaluga, when he went to a trial. Having become a comrade-in-arms and faithful, Elena Grigorievna focused Andrei Dmitrievich’s activities on protecting the rights of individual people. 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 the death penalty and an amnesty.

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

The first hunger strike, Sakharov's book

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

E. G. Bonner, on the basis of the French humanitarian prize received by Sakharov, founded the Fund for Assistance to Children of Political Prisoners. In 1975, Andrei Dmitrievich 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 entitled “About the Country and the World.” In it, Sakharov developed the ideas of democratization, disarmament, convergence, economic and political reforms, and strategic balance.

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 treated abroad. She read out Sakharov's speech, which he had prepared for the award ceremony. In it, the scientist called for “genuine disarmament” and “true detente,” for 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, exile

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

Sakharov's hunger strike for E. G. Bonner's right to travel

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 family. It was accompanied by painful feeding and forced hospitalization, but did not bring results.

In April-September 1985, the academician's last hunger strike 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, which was 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 formed 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 died on June 18, 2011 from a heart attack.

In the photo above is a monument to Sakharov erected in St. Petersburg. The square where it is located is named after him. The Soviet Nobel Prize laureates are not forgotten, as evidenced by the flowers offered to their monuments and graves.

I’m watching the TV show “Academy” and I am amazed by the lies and resourcefulness of the historian-falsifier A.N. Sakharov. He is truly a weather vane, or dipole.

“Elementary dipoles” have always organically fit into any system, regime, or 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 Andrei Nikolaevich Sakharov was born on July 2, 1930 in the city of Kulebyaki, Nizhny Novgorod Region, into an intelligent family, which was very rare for those times. Mother Elena Konstantinovna Sakharova is a history teacher, graduated from a pedagogical institute in Novgorod, father, Nikolai Leonidovich Sakharov, taught political economy. Apparently, he also graduated from a pedagogical institute. Then I studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Construction 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.” Our hero’s father, according to him, was imprisoned for some time, then served exile, 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 “you could only go to a Gulag barracks, but not work. There was no place for me (A. Sakharov, author) not only in graduate school, but also in Moscow, and the question of sending me to work in the Altai Territory, at school, was considered.” The reason why our hero received a “bad” characteristic is not indicated. The autobiography hints that young Andrei Nikolaevich was unnecessarily inconvenient and distinguished by dissent. It’s 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 page 912 in the collection of his works “Russia: 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 to work in the Altai Territory”, it turned out, was only being considered. He managed to “catch on” to 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 “then respectable Novopeschanaya Street.” Thus, it turns out that the Stalinist regime still had a human face and provided young Sakharov with a free diploma so that he could support his gifted brother. It turns out this way, otherwise the historian is being dishonest, and completely different reasons allowed him to stay in Moscow.

A closer look at the historian’s biography reveals that he is indeed disingenuous. It turns out that, despite the “bad” characteristics with which “only in the Gulag barracks,” immediately after graduating from Moscow State University in 1953, he was accepted into graduate school (!), though by correspondence. Please note that admission to full-time and part-time graduate programs occurs simultaneously. For applicants enrolling in correspondence graduate school, a special admissions committee is not assembled.

Thus, for 5 years A. Sakharov works in one of the most prestigious Soviet schools, writes a dissertation and lives with his brother “for free” in a communal apartment located in the center of Moscow (correspondence graduate students are not given a place in the dormitory).

Being a history teacher leaves a lot of time for science. At that time, one could say that he was in a fairy tale. And so it was.

After working at school, A. Sakharov served as a journalist, then in the magazine “Questions of History”. “Travelings around the country and trips abroad began, and financial stability appeared.” This indicates that there was no “negative characteristic”, and the historian hid all his oppositional freedom-loving views well.

From his student days, Sakharov hated “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 placement, pushed aside their competitors in studies, through life. All this interfered with studies, scientific orientation (!), and made it possible for limited, mediocre, but ambitious and ambitious people to rise to the surface.” But as soon as A. Sakharov had the opportunity, he, without hesitation, went to the “party leaders”, and not just anywhere, but to the Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee. Thus, our hero worked in the CPSU Central Committee from 1968, then as deputy director and editor-in-chief of the Nauka publishing house; from 1974 until the transition in 1984 to the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences, he held the position of member of the board, and then editor-in-chief of the State Committee for Publishing of the USSR. So, 16 years in a party nomenklatura position (“turntables”, “special orders”, “fourth directorate of the Ministry of Health”), the last 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 resigned from the Politburo and the party. That is, I used the administrative resource as a last resort, 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? A belief is a firm view of something, based on an idea or worldview. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1984. - P. 712. Conviction is a conscious need of an individual, prompting her to act in accordance with her value orientations. Considering internal conviction from various angles, scientists note the following characteristics: firstly, knowledge, secondly, faith in the correctness of this knowledge and, thirdly, a volitional stimulus that encourages certain actions. Thus, in order for beliefs to change, a person’s value system and worldview must change, and then he must admit that his knowledge was not knowledge.

Nowadays, the world is changing so rapidly that if you follow the historian Sakharov, you will most likely find yourself in the characters of a joke. A.N. In his activities, Sakharov always adhered to the guidelines of the “party and government”; now he acts the same way, but events change so quickly that an opportunistic “scientific-journalistic” article written today, tomorrow, at best, loses relevance, and at worst can be assessed as a dissident. In other words, an elementary magnetic needle - corresponding member. RAS Andrei Nikolaevich Sakharov, increasingly began to point in the wrong places. Let's demonstrate this with several examples.

The first “puncture” is related to the responsibility for starting the Second World War. We will talk about how A. Sakharov was careless in supporting the “scientific result” of V. Rezun (Suvorov). He agreed that the Soviet regime bears "significant" responsibility "for the outbreak of war within the framework of the concept of world revolution." Historian Sakharov writes: “in Russia, these approaches took shape as an independent scientific direction and were represented by a group, including young scientists. These discussions resonated in the West.” But it’s the other way around, Andrei Nikolaevich is disingenuous. The “idea” belongs to V. Rezun (Suvorov), it was 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 foundations, the US State Department invested 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 presents himself 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 remain on the sidelines of historical thought. Ten years later (2002), after the “premiere” 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 by the author),” Sakharov asserts and ends up “in a mess.” Time has changed. The country's leadership rejected V. Rezun's interpretation of the beginning of the war. 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. There were many similarities in form, many analogies and coincidences: the one-party system, and leaderism, and the system of repression and rabid ideologism, and even the desire, the desire to nationalize property and establish a command system in the economy. But people who are adherents of this identification forget about the main thing - that German fascism and Soviet totalitarianism had a completely different 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, and anti-Catholicism of the German nation are one thing. The Soviet system grew on the basis of totalitarian, revolutionary ideas of the common man without private property, outside the market economy - the worker, the poor peasant, who became the dominant figures in our country. It is no coincidence that these two systems violently clashed during the Second World War.”

A. Sakharov’s reasoning is very “bold”, but not well-reasoned.

Firstly, Soviet Russia, like Germany, was humiliated by the Entente. Russia, even to a greater extent. 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, Moldova were transferred to Romania, etc.

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

Thirdly, A. Sakharov distinguishes between these regimes using a “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 made up the majority.

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

The answer to A. Sakharov’s “deep scientific” conclusion can be Russia’s official position on this issue.

“Commentary of the Department of Information and Press of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in connection with the signing by the President of the United States of the 2008 proclamation on the occasion of the “Week of Captive Peoples”

Last week, US President George W. Bush signed another proclamation on the topic of “captive peoples,” with whom he speaks annually on the basis of a law adopted back in the Cold War era. In general, everything is as usual, but this time one “innovation” has appeared: the equal sign between German Nazism and Soviet communism, which are now interpreted as the “single evil” of the 20th century, has been absolutely clearly equated.

No matter how the American president views the period of the Soviet Union and communist ideology, which, by the way, have been objectively assessed in modern democratic Russia, free from the ideological stereotypes of the past, these American “parallels” do not stand up to criticism either from a historical point of view or from a universal human perspective. Condemning the abuse of power and the unjustified severity of the internal political course of the Soviet regime of that time, we, however, 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, naturally, should (emphasis added) be the basis for understanding and periodizing Russian history.”

This approach very 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 improving the quality of people, improving their way of life... This progress is based on those social phenomena that from time immemorial have been powerful levers for the movement of people towards prosperity, convenience, comfort, towards cultural and spiritual development, towards improvement personality and in general to improve the quality of life in all its material and spiritual manifestations. This is labor, creativity, private property, human rights and freedoms, which, through centuries and millennia, formed the state of society that we today called civil. It is on these basic concepts that the study of the history of Humanity is built... day after day, year after year, century after century, Humanity as a whole and in its individual parts has moved and is moving forward along the path to material and spiritual improvement of its life, improvement of its quality, and personal improvement.” .

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 are becoming 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 apply it in practice, without much systematization, in school and university textbooks on Russian history. Over the years, the multifactorial approach to Russian history has been repeatedly mentioned both in oral presentations and in articles by both scholars. So are functionaries from science. But there is often 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 decoding 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, author) would include, like previous historians, the factors geographical and environmental, demographic, ethnic, religious, colonization, foreign policy, personal psychological, the factor of influence of world civilizations - “ key cultural world centers", primarily the Mediterranean, Western European countries, Byzantium (?), it is necessary to keep in mind socio-economic and class factors....".

A. Sakharov sharply criticizes “A Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).” Accuses Stalin of taking many reasonable positions of K. Marx and F. Engels to the point of absurdity. “In the fourth chapter, written directly by Stalin, in the second section “On dialectical and historical materialism”, much 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 primary task of historical science is, according to the author, to reveal the laws of production, the laws of development of productive forces, the economics 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 provisions.

First. So, according to Sakharov, human history is a linear function. All countries and the people inhabiting them will sooner or later come to “prosperity, convenience, comfort.” That is, A. Sakharov proposes to evaluate the level of civilization by the degree to which basic human needs are satisfied. 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 fatal 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 think that no one will argue with this. The Americans themselves understand this very well, so they will not allow humanity to follow the “path of civilization.” "Civilization" for the "golden billion". Consequently, the criteria for the “progress of history” declared by A. Sakharov are no good together with the “civilizational approach to the history of mankind.” If we follow Sakharov’s “idea,” we must admit that the “progress of history” is finite, since resources are finite. Nevertheless, the world is moving “according to Sakharov,” while the tendency for self-destruction of “civilization” is obvious. 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 the modern world and replace this analysis with consideration of “conflicts of civilizations” and “challenges” is understandable. In this case, i.e. 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 vital regions of the planet.

Second. Today no one connects “material and spiritual improvement.” Material perfection has nothing to do with spiritual perfection. Moreover, there is an inversely proportional relationship here. 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 now hard to believe, 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 Society, and theaters. Those people created, built cities, hydroelectric power stations, science cities, and made outstanding discoveries in science and technology. What do we have today? Who are the “stars” today? Who are the “idols” of young people? What did they create?

Third. A. Sakharov, without false modesty, attributes the discovery of the “multifactorial” approach to history to himself. But this research method has long been known and is successfully used in systems analysis. There is a whole science called factor analysis. Moreover, this research method was also used by Soviet scientists, in particular E. Tarle, L. Gumilev, 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 the early stage of human development, 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 we emerged from the biocenosis, ethnographic and economic factors began to take first place. 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 determinative, it will mean that changes in the biosphere have become irreversible and humanity is doomed to destruction. Over long periods of time, the main factors are socio-economic; over short periods, there is a whole set of factors; in particular, subjective factors can be significant. This was written about in the works of our wonderful scientists, long before the “discoveries” of A. Sakharov. So Stalin was right in many ways.

Fourth. Now about pluralism in science, for which the historian A. Sakharov so advocates. What is pluralism in history? Today we know what pluralism is in meteorology. Each source of information provides us with its own weather forecast. Professor Belyaev talks about clear skies, unusual heat, and in the yard it’s 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 reports. Doctor Belyaev went to a country house and left a recording of his speech with the forecast on NTV, so he cannot correct the weather information by looking out the window. At the same time, 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 scientific output relate to pluralism? The same theorem can be proven in several ways, but in mathematics this is not called pluralism. Or is pluralism freedom of opinion, which implies 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 are paid at the box office for their work. The West has more money, so it is happy with pluralism, 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 off foreign grants for many years.

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

So, the third mistake of the historian A. Sakharov is that he was not ready for “freedom of opinion and pluralism.” When the historian was left without the guiding documents that had regulated his scientific work for decades, he used alternative instructions. This is quite natural, because our hero did not have convictions based on knowledge acquired over many years of hard work. This is the main reason that the corresponding member of the RAS turned out to be a falsifier.

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 beat of my heart.

A. Sakharov is one of the domestic historians, a falsifier manipulating the consciousness of our children.