A Unified History Textbook
The President of the country has issued a directive to quickly create a standardized history textbook for schools. The idea is to teach the history of the country based solely on historical documents and facts, rather than allowing individual interpretations. This decision by the President is correct, though somewhat delayed. Creating such a textbook, which would present the country's past from a single perspective, is no easy task. Over the past 20 years, some misguided patriots and so-called scholars have already managed to distort and desecrate the history of the country and its historical figures. Some have even suggested that the period from 1917 to 1991 should be completely erased from Russian history. However, I can’t imagine how they plan to do that. I lived through 61 years of Soviet rule, so I know firsthand what that period was like.
In this brief work, I don’t aim to either praise or criticize the Soviet period. I can only say that it is the history of my homeland. The good things make me proud, while the bad things cause me pain. As a historian by education, my long life gives me the basis to say that there has never been a socio-political system that satisfied all layers of society, and I believe it is impossible to create such a system. The Soviet system had many flaws, as has been widely discussed. There was both the dark side, such as mass repression, and the bright side, such as the industrialization that was crucial for the victory in the Great Patriotic War. There was also the space breakthrough and the creation of the nuclear shield, which protected and continues to protect the country from potential aggression.
Questions on Soviet History
I don’t intend to either vilify or glorify the Soviet system. But as a historian, I have questions that remain unanswered by modern scholars and political scientists. For instance, after the fall of Tsarism, was there any other political force that could have preserved Russia within the borders of the Russian Empire, other than the Bolsheviks? If there was, why didn’t they succeed? If we hadn’t built a powerful industrial base, how would we have defended our country’s freedom and independence? All this was achieved relying solely on internal resources, without foreign investment.
The Role of Leaders in History
Another question: If leaders like Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Yeltsin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Brezhnev had been in charge during the Great Patriotic War, would we have won? I believe that answers to these questions should guide the evaluation of Stalin’s actions. It's important to remember that Stalin did not wield great power before the 1930s. His policies, such as industrialization and collectivization, faced significant opposition from influential party members. The cult of personality around Stalin only developed later. My generation remembers well how he was glorified, and it’s true that speaking out of line could result in severe punishment. But does that mean everyone who was repressed was an innocent victim? Not necessarily. The country was surrounded by deadly enemies, and even today, some of our neighbors are not very friendly towards us.
Reflecting on the Past and Present
When some people today label Stalin as a criminal and compare him to Hitler, I want to ask them: how do they reconcile this with the pride millions of Soviet citizens feel for their medals won in battles for their homeland? These are complex issues that deserve careful thought. It’s also worth noting that Stalin returned the Kuril Islands, Port Arthur, and Kaliningrad to Russia—facts that are often overlooked by our historians. Finally, I would like to point out the stark difference between what Stalin left behind for his children and what Yeltsin left for his heirs. Stalin didn’t even own a personal apartment, while today we see the luxurious lifestyles of Russia’s modern rulers.
The Challenges of Writing History
Creating a history textbook that satisfies everyone in our society is incredibly challenging. Perhaps our historians, political scientists, and journalists should express their views on this matter more openly, aiming to find a more acceptable version of the textbook. It’s important to remember that history isn’t just about highlighting the dark sides. We should respect and take pride in the achievements of our ancestors. At the same time, we should also focus on the present, addressing the issues that arose in the tumultuous 1990s. Unfortunately, capitalism has not yet delivered the desired results for our country and its people.
The Complexity of Evaluating Historical Figures
In conclusion, it's essential to approach evaluations of any historical figure with objectivity. For example, I agree with historian Roy Medvedev’s assessment of Stalin, which is based on thorough and serious research. In the planned history textbook, it will be difficult to cover Stalin's activities, including the events of 1937, relations with Germany, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I clearly remember the criticism and uproar over this pact. But I would ask those critics one question: what would have happened if we hadn’t moved the border 150 kilometers westward before Germany’s sudden advance?
The moral character of the Romanov dynasty is also worth discussing. Where people live well, there are no revolutions or mass killings. The current trend in political literature to idealize the Romanovs overlooks their flaws. Let’s not present Tsarism in an overly positive light, and let’s recognize the role it played in leaving Russia trailing behind Europe today.
