Zubov Hitler is the angel of Russian history. Parnassus leads to the power of the Nazis

During the election campaign, the liberals agreed to the point that they began to sing praises to the Fuhrer

"Hitler is the angel of Russian history."

No, these words, blasphemous for everyone in our country, do not belong to the odious Goebbels, but they were uttered just the other day.

And it was not at all some fan of Bandera who drank vodka, and not a scumbag with a swastika shaved at the back of his head, but a quite handsome-looking gentleman with a sleek professorial beard, who lives in the city of Moscow Andrey Zubov (on the picture).

By occupation, Zubov is indeed a professor, doctor of science, and not just any, but historical. And today he is no longer just a historian, but an activist working in the political field, who is listed third on the electoral list of the liberal party PARNAS.

And the professor uttered this ode to Hitler not in his kitchen, but in an interview with the American Radio Liberty. Speaking frankly with a correspondent about the details of his biography, Zubov admitted that in his youth he was a zealous anti-Soviet.

“I,” he said, “even in the “Coffee Maker” of our institute told my friends how, they say, it was annoying that Stalin did not lose the war to Hitler. Because all the same, in the end, the allies would have liberated us, but then the British and Americans would have established democracy in our country and would have replaced the cannibalistic Stalinist regime.”

Considering that this was not enough, Zubov, answering questions, then “turned on a couple”, adding:

"Compared to Stalin, Hitler is the angel of Russian history."

The liberal historian explained this monstrous comparison by saying that Stalin exterminated more people than Hitler. However, this doesn't change anything. To call the possessed Fuhrer an "angel" in any context is blasphemy and a cynical mockery of the memory of millions of his victims.

However, such a statement was made by Zubov, of course, not by chance. The professor mentioned Hitler before, back in 2014, during the annexation of Crimea to Russia.

"In Germany, -wrote Professor Zubov,- 99.08% voted for unification with Austria, in Austria itself, which became the Ostmark of the German Empire - 99.75%. On October 1, 1938, the Czech Sudetes were also reunited with Germany, and on March 22, 1939, the Lithuanian region of Klaipeda, which turned into the German Memel in one day.In all these lands, the Germans did live for the most part, and everywhere many of them really wanted to unite with the Nazi Reich. Everywhere this reunion took place to the fanfare and shouts of jubilation of the crowd, distraught in a chauvinistic frenzy, and with the connivance of the West ... And everything seemed so radiant. And Hitler's glory shone at its zenith. And the world trembled before Greater Germany. The accession of regions and countries to the Reich without a single shot, without a single drop of blood - isn't the Fuhrer a brilliant politician? And six years later, Germany was defeated, millions of her sons were killed, millions of her daughters were dishonored, her cities were wiped off the face of the earth, her cultural values, accumulated for centuries, turned into dust. Two-fifths of the territory was taken away from Germany, and the rest was divided into zones and occupied by the victorious powers. And shame, shame, shame covered the heads of the Germans. And it all started so radiantly!... History will repeat itself”, - Zubov concludes with false pathos.

The professor's hints from history are clear.

He compares Russia's actions in the case of the return of Crimea with the capture of European states by the Nazis, threatening her with defeat and death for this, recalling the defeat of Germany.

But shouldn't he, as a doctor of historical sciences, not know that we are talking about completely different events that cannot be compared under any circumstances? That Crimea rebelled only after a coup d'état was carried out in Kyiv, and a pro-fascist junta came to power in Ukraine? That on the peninsula, if its inhabitants had not made their historical choice, the same bloody massacre would have been arranged, which the Kyiv punishers then staged in the Donbass?

Of course, Zubov knows all this very well, he cannot but know, like a man who has taught at MGIMO for many years and, of course, has become quite skilled in matters of politics. But why then does he turn everything upside down?

And the answer is simple. This is the usual trick of the liberals - if there are no weighty arguments against the current government, which they call for overthrowing, then they need to be thought up.

Compare, for example, the actions of the Russian leadership with Hitler, and portray the will of the people of Crimea as "Russian aggression."

And Zubov does this - for a long time and methodically. Here is what, for example, he said at one time on Ekho Moskvy about Nadezhda Savchenko:

“Nadezhda Savchenko is a person who obviously did not want to become a hero - she was an ordinary hero of Ukraine, one of the thousands of people who stood up to defend their country from Russian aggression then, in the spring and summer of 2014. But God awarded her a special fate - she was captured and accused, as everyone knows, of having some kind of participation in the death of Russian journalists ... But in any case, it is quite clear - among those thousands of victims and incredible lawlessness that occurred in the eastern and southeastern Ukraine over the past two years, even if the Savchenko case has something behind it, it is drowning in this sea of ​​crimes, which, of course, were committed by both sides, but the aggressor, of course, was Russia, not Ukraine ... "

But Zubov and his associates are trying in vain. In response to his laudatory words about Hitler, a whole storm of indignation broke out on the network.

Here are just some of the comments:

User Dmitry Ermakov wrote: "Nothing new. Read The Brothers Karamazov. Smerdyakov: "In the twelfth year there was a great invasion of Russia by the first French emperor Napoleon ... and it would be good if these very French conquered us then: a smart nation would have conquered a very stupid one and annexed it. There would even have been completely different orders, sir"

Alexey Safronov: “It is not for nothing that Zubov is a member of an anti-people party with foreign funding. This can only be said by a traitor to his own people, who must be brought to justice for promoting the genocide of our people, desecrating the memory of the dead, and for openly calling for betrayal of the Motherland. It was not Stalin who fought the war, but the people who were sentenced to extermination by the very sponsors who financed Hitler and today finance PARNAS.

Elena Ivanova: “Pluralism, in this case, is inappropriate and seems to be punishable by law. And how many years did this unfinished Vlasovite teach?

Answering Elena's question, let's say that Zubov taught for quite a long time. And not just anywhere, but in one of the most privileged educational institutions Moscow - in MGIMO. From where he was finally expelled recently.

As can be expected, due to the too original interpretation by the former professor modern history Russia. Here, apparently, he hit politics, deciding to break into State Duma under the wing of PARNAS. For what? And, probably, in order, as his liberal friends also call, “to return Crimea to Ukraine.”

Andrey Sokolov

Andrey Zubov- a wonderful person in every respect. Starting with the fact that he considers Hitler "the angel of Russian history" (quote verbatim), and ending with the fact that his liberalism exceeded the limits of such a university known for its liberal views as MGIMO - Andrei Borisovich even managed to fly out of there. And it's understandable why. Professor Zubov does not hesitate to express Vlasov's views and convince that it would be better for the Soviet Union to lose in the Great Patriotic War. Feeling a wild hatred for Stalin, he falsely contrasts him with Hitler and justifies National Socialism and all Hitler's accomplices who were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal. He speaks very warmly about the Baltic SS men, about the Ukrainian Bandera. In a word, for him, May 9 is really a “day of memory and sorrow” - only not for the dead Soviet people, but for a lost dream, where the Nazis and their accomplices win.

Confessions of "father Muller's storyteller"

A conversation about Professor Andrei Zubov should generally begin with the fact that he is a typical person. Neo-fascism is raising its head not only in some of the former Soviet republics, but also in Europe.

They try to downplay the horrors of Hitlerism and the scale of the crimes committed by that government, simultaneously downplaying the degree of their complicity in them - after all, all of Europe either surrendered to the Third Reich, or allied with it openly and ideologically - and now they are ashamed to remember this, they don’t want to. And they are trying to downplay the role of the Soviet Union in the victory over this monster, and in general appoint himself to the role of the monster Soviet Union. If you remember everything, it turns out that a fair part of the atrocities of the fascist regime in the occupied territories were committed by the occupied citizens themselves, and not at all under the SS lash, but of good will and with enthusiasm.

All this was foreseen a very long time ago, many decades ago. Some foresaw that their time would come when it would be possible to start rewriting history, and people would accept it, while others foresaw these plans and half a century ago we were warned about this danger.

Through the mouth of Muller, the chief of the Gestapo, in Yulian Semyonov’s novel “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, this plan was already announced then:

“The gold of the party is a bridge to the future, it is an appeal to our children, to those who are now a month old, a year old, three years old ... Those who are now ten do not need us: neither we nor our ideas; they will not forgive us hunger and bombing. But those who still do not understand anything now will tell legends about us, and the legend must be fed. We need to create storytellers who will put our words in a different way, accessible to people in twenty years . As soon as somewhere instead of the word "hello" they say "heil!" to someone's personal address - know that they are waiting for us there, from there we will begin our great revival!

Andrey Zubov is just one of those "storytellers who will put the words of the Nazis in a different way, accessible to people in seventy years." And he is not alone, there are many.

But let's listen to what Zubov says in his interview with Radio Liberty:

“I was still in the “Coffee Machine” of our institute telling my friends how, they say, it’s annoying that Stalin did not lose the war to Hitler. Because all the same, in the end, the Allies would have liberated us, but then the British and Americans would have established democracy in our country and would have replaced the cannibalistic Stalinist regime. Hitler is the angel of Russian history."

We are all more or less aware of how the Allies planned to “liberate” us - fortunately, the documents on the “Unthinkable” plan, in which it was assumed that the Allies, together with the captured Nazis, would again attack the Soviet Union, weakened by the war, and by common efforts they will finally finish him off - all this has already been declassified today. As well as Churchill's hysterical telegram, in which he implores Truman to subject the USSR to an atomic bombing.

But the most interesting thing is the justification of murderers, war criminals and executioners by the fact that someone (allegedly) committed even more terrible crimes. This is an absolutely Vlasov position, because Vlasov also fought against Hitler at first, but then he considered that Hitler was a “lesser evil” than Stalin, and began to kill his people, fight against his country on the side of Hitler.

The evolution of an intellectual, or "and then they knocked from below"

Characteristic is the gradual evolution of the views of Zubov, who in 2011 still criticized Vlasov for his betrayal, but radically changed his attitude to the problem of Vlasov, and in general to the characterization of the war as Patriotic, about which he even wrote a whole textbook “History of Russia. XX century”, from which, by the time of publication, even Alexander Solzhenitsyn distanced himself, who at first enthusiastically accepted the idea of ​​​​creating such a project.

However, Zubov and his co-authors in the book agreed to such an extent that even Solzhenitsyn - not the most, to put it mildly, a big fan of Stalin - decided that this was too much for him and refused co-authorship and demanded that the data on his participation be deleted.

The typical method that Zubov resorts to, whitewashing the Nazis and justifying them and their accomplices, is attributing greater crimes to someone else. Although it is not clear how one atrocity can be justified by another. Here is a typical example from the professor's speeches:

"Bandera" were called fascists, although, of course, this was not true. It was a typical nationalist organization of the war period with its own army, with its own terrorist wing. Many people did this then. Of course, some leaders of the Ukrainian national movement were fascinated by the idea of ​​Mussolini's corporatism. But Mussolini still called Joseph Stalin his best student. I think that Stalin was a greater fascist than Bandera and even Mussolini.

That is, Bandera, according to his logic, are not fascists because allegedly Stalin was a greater fascist than Bandera. Or here's another one:

Everything was attributed to Bandera: genocide Ukrainian people, and the extermination of the Jews, and cooperation with Hitler and all conceivable cruelties. Bandera is an example of the big lie of the Soviet system. Although from the point of view of the science of history - it was a national liberation movement, anti-communist.

A very interesting approach, especially considering that the genocide carried out by Bandera is not only documented, but also officially recognized European states- for example, the same Poland, which recently condemned the Volyn massacre as a genocide of the Polish people.

But Zubov finds justification for the crimes of Stepan Bandera's supporters:

Bandera was a hundred times less cruel than the Beria or Abakumov NKVD, which fought the Bandera. Therefore, any attempt to free them from this state was already an element of justice. And in this sense, the Bandera movement is more justified from the point of view of morality than the Stalinist Soviet state.

How are the atrocities of Bandera against civilians and in general all the war crimes committed by them independently and jointly with the Nazi troops connected with post-war attempts law enforcement bringing them to justice for these atrocities is completely incomprehensible. Zubov deliberately arranges "porridge" in order to compare the incomparable.

In reality, the Bandera people were recognized war criminals who knew what they had done and tried to avoid responsibility. That is, Zubov does not consider real fascists and their accomplices to be fascists. And who does he consider fascists? You will laugh, but... us!

Now we have no return to the USSR. All property is owned not by the state, but by a dozen people. Everyone who cooperates with the government gets their share of the property. In all economic parameters, our regime is not socialist. It is much more reminiscent of the regime of a fascist state, where private corporations were created under state control. It is no coincidence that the fascist state was called corporate. This corporate capitalism is now being built in Russia.

Thus, according to Zubov, the fascists are not fascists, but Russia, which defeated the fascists, is a fascist state. In exactly the same way, Zubov justifies the parades of SS veterans. Recall that, according to the decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the SS was recognized entirely criminal organization. That is, no part of the SS, no unit can be considered legal and not involved in war crimes - the tribunal condemned the entire organization entirely, and specifically mentioned this fact in a separate paragraph - that exceptions cannot be made for anyone.

In fact, all of Europe knows that the parades of SS veterans are a direct violation of the Nuremberg Tribunal's verdict, but everyone turns a blind eye - these are the new members of the EU and NATO, how can you criticize them! Zubov does not criticize them either, although he writes history textbooks.

In a word, in the list of the PARNAS party under the honorary third number is not just a Russophobe, but a man with frankly Vlasov views, justifying the crimes of the Nazis and their accomplices on the territory of our country and justifying the neo-fascists of our time. As they say, when he thought that he had already reached the bottom, there was a knock from below.

And before that, he wrote a school history textbook - and the hair stands on end from what kind of "history" he wrote there. And he also taught at MGIMO - and also for many years. And then we wonder where people come from who despise their country! So they were not just taught this, but they were required to learn exactly the "necessary" version of history under pain of "twos" and deductions.

Now he travels around the cities of Russia and speaks at rallies with Kasyanov, trying to run for the State Duma. I think no one needs to explain what the appearance of such a deputy in Russian politics will mean.

Especially for

Third number on the electoral list of PARNAS Andrey Zubov- wonderful person in every way. Starting with the fact that he considers Hitler "an angel of Russian history" (literal quote), and ending with the fact that his liberalism exceeded the limits of such a well-known liberal university as MGIMO - Andrei Borisovich even managed to fly out of there. And it's understandable why. Professor Zubov does not hesitate to express Vlasov's views and convince that it would be better for the Soviet Union to lose in the Great Patriotic War. Feeling a wild hatred for Stalin, he falsely contrasts him with Hitler and justifies National Socialism and all Hitler's accomplices who were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal. He speaks very warmly about the Baltic SS men, about the Ukrainian Bandera. In a word, for him, May 9 is really a “day of memory and sorrow” - only not for the dead Soviet people, but for a lost dream, where the Nazis and their accomplices win.

Confessions of "father Muller's storyteller"

A conversation about Professor Andrei Zubov should generally begin with the fact that he is a typical person. Neo-fascism is raising its head not only in some of the former Soviet republics, but also in Europe. They try to downplay the horrors of Hitlerism and the scale of the crimes committed by that government, simultaneously downplaying the degree of their complicity in them - after all, all of Europe either surrendered to the Third Reich, or allied with it openly and ideologically - and now they are ashamed to remember this, they don’t want to. And they are trying to downplay the role of the Soviet Union in defeating this monster, and generally appoint the Soviet Union itself to the role of the monster. If you remember everything, it turns out that a fair part of the atrocities of the fascist regime in the occupied territories were committed by the occupied citizens themselves, and not at all under the SS lash, but of good will and with enthusiasm.

All this was foreseen a very long time ago, many decades ago. Some foresaw that their time would come when it would be possible to start rewriting history, and people would accept it, while others foresaw these plans and half a century ago we were warned about this danger.

Through the mouths of Muller, chief of the Gestapo in the novel Yuliana Semyonova"Seventeen Moments of Spring" already then this plan was announced:

“The gold of the party is a bridge to the future, it is an appeal to our children, to those who are now a month old, a year old, three years old ... Those who are now ten do not need us: neither we nor our ideas; they will not forgive us hunger and bombing. But those who still do not understand anything now will tell legends about us, and the legend must be fed. We need to create storytellers who will put our words in a different way, accessible to people in twenty years. As soon as somewhere instead of the word "hello" they say "heil!" to someone's personal address - know that they are waiting for us there, from there we will begin our great revival!

Andrey Zubov is just one of those "storytellers who will put the words of the Nazis in a different way, accessible to people in seventy years". And he is not alone, there are many.

But let's listen to what Zubov says in his interview with Radio Liberty:

Back in the "Coffee Maker" of our institute, I told my friends how, they say, it's annoying that Stalin did not lose the war to Hitler. Because all the same, in the end, the allies would have liberated us, but then the British and Americans would have established democracy in our country and would have replaced the cannibalistic Stalinist regime. Hitler is the angel of Russian history.

Andrey Zubov

We are all more or less aware of how the Allies planned to “liberate” us - fortunately, the documents on the “Unthinkable” plan, in which it was assumed that the Allies, together with the captured Nazis, would again attack the Soviet Union, weakened by the war, and by common efforts they will finally finish him off - all this has already been declassified today. As well as Churchill's hysterical telegram, in which he implores Truman to subject the USSR to an atomic bombing.

But the most interesting thing is the justification of murderers, war criminals and executioners by the fact that someone (allegedly) committed even more terrible crimes. This is an absolutely Vlasov position, because Vlasov also fought against Hitler at first, but then he considered that Hitler was a “lesser evil” than Stalin, and began to kill his people, fight against his country on the side of Hitler.

The evolution of an intellectual, or "and then they knocked from below"

Characteristic is the gradual evolution of the views of Zubov, who in 2011 still criticized Vlasov for his betrayal, but radically changed his attitude to the problem of Vlasov, and in general to the characterization of the war as Patriotic, about which he even wrote a whole textbook “History of Russia. XX century ”, from which, by the time of publication, even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was initially enthusiastic about the idea of ​​creating such a project.

However, Zubov and his co-authors in the book agreed to such an extent that even Solzhenitsyn - not the most, to put it mildly, a big fan of Stalin - decided that this was too much for him and refused co-authorship and demanded that the data on his participation be deleted.

The typical method that Zubov resorts to, whitewashing the Nazis and justifying them and their accomplices, is attributing greater crimes to someone else. Although it is not clear how one atrocity can be justified by another. Here is a typical example from the professor's speeches:

"Bandera" were called fascists, although, of course, this was not true. It was a typical nationalist organization of the war period with its own army, with its own terrorist wing. Many people did this then. Of course, some leaders of the Ukrainian national movement were fascinated by the idea of ​​Mussolini's corporatism. But Mussolini still called Joseph Stalin his best student. I think that Stalin was a greater fascist than Bandera and even Mussolini.

Andrey Zubov

That is, Bandera, according to his logic, are not fascists because allegedly Stalin was a greater fascist than Bandera. Or here's another one:

Everything was attributed to Bandera: the genocide of the Ukrainian people, and the extermination of the Jews, and cooperation with Hitler, and all conceivable cruelties. Bandera is an example of the big lie of the Soviet system. Although from the point of view of the science of history - it was a national liberation movement, anti-communist.

Andrey Zubov

A very interesting approach, especially considering that the genocide carried out by the Bandera people is not only documented, but also officially recognized by European states - for example, Poland, which recently condemned the Volyn massacre as a genocide of the Polish people.

But Zubov finds justification for the crimes of Stepan Bandera's supporters:

Bandera was a hundred times less cruel than the Beria or Abakumov NKVD, which fought the Bandera. Therefore, any attempt to free them from this state was already an element of justice. And in this sense, the Bandera movement is more justified from the point of view of morality than the Stalinist Soviet state.

Andrey Zubov

How the atrocities of Bandera against civilians and in general all the war crimes committed by them independently and jointly with the Nazi troops are connected with the post-war attempts of law enforcement agencies to bring them to justice for these atrocities is completely incomprehensible. Zubov deliberately arranges "porridge" in order to compare the incomparable.

In reality, the Bandera people were recognized war criminals who knew what they had done and tried to avoid responsibility. That is, Zubov does not consider real fascists and their accomplices to be fascists. And who does he consider fascists? You will laugh, but... us!

Now we have no return to the USSR. All property is owned not by the state, but by a dozen people. Everyone who cooperates with the government gets their share of the property. In all economic parameters, our regime is not socialist. It is much more reminiscent of the regime of a fascist state, where private corporations were created under state control. It is no coincidence that the fascist state was called corporate. This corporate capitalism is now being built in Russia.

Andrey Zubov

Thus, according to Zubov, the fascists are not fascists, but Russia, which defeated the fascists, is a fascist state. In exactly the same way, Zubov justifies the parades of SS veterans. Recall that, according to the decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the SS was recognized entirely criminal organization. That is, no part of the SS, no unit can be considered legal and not involved in war crimes - the tribunal condemned the entire organization entirely, and specifically mentioned this fact in a separate paragraph - that exceptions cannot be made for anyone.

In fact, all of Europe knows that the parades of SS veterans are a direct violation of the Nuremberg Tribunal's verdict, but everyone turns a blind eye - these are the new members of the EU and NATO, how can you criticize them! Zubov does not criticize them either, although he writes history textbooks.

In a word, in the list of the PARNAS party under the honorary third number is not just a Russophobe, but a man with frankly Vlasov views, justifying the crimes of the Nazis and their accomplices on the territory of our country and justifying the neo-fascists of our time. As they say, when he thought that he had already reached the bottom, there was a knock from below.

Now he travels around the cities of Russia and speaks at rallies with Kasyanov, trying to run for the State Duma. I think no one needs to explain what the appearance of such a deputy in Russian politics will mean.

Historian Andrei Zubov is one of the first Russian intellectuals to openly speak out against the annexation of Crimea. On July 1, a professor who is in opposition to the official Kremlin line was fired from MGIMO.

Nevertheless, Andrei Zubov launched an online department of history on the Novaya Gazeta website. Together with colleagues, he tries to explain the historical background of the current situation in Russia, the danger of the syndrome of greatness and the need for decommunization.

Explain everything that is still badly perceived by Russian society.

“If you see that a friend is delirious in a dream, in no case should you wake him up abruptly, you should quietly start saying something pleasant to him, then the dream will change and he will wake up in a good mood. This is exactly what we are doing with respect to our sick society," says the historian.

Part of the lectures is devoted to Ukraine. Historians talk about how the Ukrainian national movement arose, who the "Banderites" were, how alternative forms of political worldview developed on the territory of our country.

- Why is it now important for Russians to know who the Bandera people were?

In our common country, the Soviet Union, the technology of creating myths was developed to the highest degree. Huge historical stages and the most important facts were either hushed up or distorted. We didn't really know the real story.

Moreover, at different times in different ways: in the 20s, some facts were distorted, in the 40s, others. We are not accustomed to the pricelessness of historical fact.

Until now, the attitude towards history in Russia is not as a science that needs to be studied and which only under this condition is useful, but as an ideology that needs to be created.

In the Soviet Union, in order to stigmatize something, especially after the Second World War, one had to simply call it fascism. This is how the “Banderites” were called fascists, although, of course, this was not true.

It was a typical nationalist organization of the war period with its own army, with its own terrorist wing. Many people did this then. Of course, some leaders of the Ukrainian national movement were fascinated by the idea of ​​Mussolini's corporatism. But Mussolini still called Joseph Stalin his best student. I think that Stalin was a greater fascist than Bandera and even Mussolini.

photo: novayagazeta.ru

Soviet troops were at war with a powerful rebel army on the territory of Ukraine. How to call it?

To say that they were Ukrainian patriots meant to cross out themselves. The Soviet government was very proud of the fact that it gave all peoples the right to national revival.

Everything was attributed to Bandera: the genocide of the Ukrainian people, and the extermination of the Jews, and cooperation with Hitler, and all conceivable cruelties. Bandera is an example of the big lie of the Soviet system.

Although from the point of view of the science of history - it was a national liberation movement, anti-communist.

Stepan Andreevich Bandera was born and lived in that part of Ukraine, which until 1939 was part of Poland. And he saw all the Soviet horrors from peaceful and rich (in comparison with Soviet Ukraine) Galicia. He saw how during the Holodomor, when people dying of hunger rushed across the border into Polish territory, they were shot by Soviet border guards. And for this he hated the Soviet regime.

Any nationalism is a terrible joke, especially with weapons in hand. But Bandera was a hundred times less cruel than the Beria or Abakumov NKVD, which fought the Bandera.

Therefore, any attempt to free them from this state was already an element of justice. And in this sense, the Bandera movement is more justified from the point of view of morality than the Stalinist Soviet state.

This must be explained - consistently and systematically.

After 70 years, the myth of Bandera turned out to be extremely relevant. Suddenly, the Russians began to hate the Bandera people indiscriminately. They were also supplemented by myths about the right sector, Ukrainian punishers. All these myths that prevent Russians from thinking critically.

This includes Soviet ideological attitudes.

And this is understandable. For the descendants of NKVD officers, their grandfathers really fought with the Bandera. There are especially many such descendants in the Crimea, where former NKVD officers were sent to retire.

- Is there an antidote for this ideological mechanism?

We must calmly explain what the Ukrainian organization of nationalists really was, who Stepan Bandera was, who his associates were. And why did you hate him so much? Soviet authority that she was not even too lazy to send her agent in 1959 to kill with a shot with an ampoule of potassium cyanide.

Now "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" has returned to cultural circulation. With these words, Ukrainian nationalists greeted each other, and now we. Doesn't it scare you?

Look, now Tatars, Jews, and Russians who live on the territory of Ukraine call themselves Ukrainians.

I myself joyfully said these words in Moscow. For me, your revolution is the liberation of Ukraine from the Soviet regime of thieves.

This is a great achievement. And more than that, in a way, I think it's an example for us.

Because Ukraine for us is some part of this big former state. And now she manages to break through to something more worthy, and this is a great lesson for us. Ukraine is liberated from the Soviet.

photo: novayagazeta.ru

But this is how a very small number of Russians think. Most, judging by the ratings of the authorities, want us to return to the stall, under the influence of some myth about the "Russian world".

A month and a half before the start of your revolution, one Ukrainian political scientist from Kharkov in a conversation gave a very clear definition of the difference between Ukraine and Russia.

“We are ruled by bandits and the SBU is on their packages, and you have the KGB, and they have bandits on their packages,” he told me then. And I must admit, this is an unfortunate truth.

You have a chance to get out of this.

You are now going to Europe. I believe that and Russian Federation also need to go to Europe. There is no alternative to the European way.

Do you see the prerequisites for this? It seems that Russia is just stepping confidently into the past. There are no free media, civil rights are violated, but at the same time Putin's rating is growing. How do you explain it?

Everything is much more complicated. First, this is not a return to the USSR. All property is owned not by the state, but by a dozen people.

Everyone who cooperates with the government gets their share of the property.

In all economic parameters, our regime is not socialist. It is much more reminiscent of the regime of a fascist state, where private corporations were created under state control. It is no coincidence that the fascist state was called corporate.

This corporate capitalism is now being built in Russia.

Will Putin be able to build a fascist-type state? I think, no, not that world context. At the beginning of the century, after the defeat of the Triple Alliance powers in the First World War, everyone on the continent was fascinated by fascism.

The peoples of these countries had a complex that they were deceived, robbed, and these peoples needed to achieve revenge.

When it comes to revenge, you always need a national leader and mobilization of the economy. And hence the totalitarian regimes that have emerged to varying degrees throughout Europe.

And after 1945 West Side Europe came to a completely different concept - from "man is a cell of the national organism" to "man is the main value." This completely different mentality made it possible to build a new democratic Europe.

Now you are approaching this understanding.

Why is a different ideology still in demand in Russia, in which a person is a cell of the state organism? Is the field of ideas weak?

Because in our country, as well as in you, the detotalitarianization of consciousness was not carried out.

In Germany, Austria, Italy, denazification and defashization of consciousness were carried out. Moreover, this process has been going on for many decades.

And relapses arose even as early as the 1990s, when the famous dispute between historians in West Germany and those who actually justified Nazism took place.

In the 90s, the process of decommunization began in the Baltic States and Bulgaria. Similarly, the communist period was declared criminal, and the ideologists and leaders of communism - people who committed crimes, and the fighters against communism - heroes. Property taken by the communists was also returned. This is a whole range of measures.

We didn't have any of that. And so we remained carriers of the Soviet mentality. What the world condemns, we do not yet consider even bad. And this affects the perception of reality.

Since 1993, I have been talking about the need for decommunization in Russia and in general throughout the entire post-Soviet space.

- Can the fact that the Ukrainians began to destroy the monuments of Lenin be considered a request for de-Sovietization?

You intuitively started this process. But in order to systematically approach this issue, it is necessary to study the experience of Eastern Europe.

It is impossible to be limited to one monuments. Now lustration is being actively discussed in your society.

This is very good, but lustration should be not only for those who committed crimes under Yanukovych, but also for those who committed crimes before 1990.

Yes, they are already old men, but at least their crimes should be condemned. The question of restitution also needs to be addressed. This issue has already been resolved in Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic States. Serbia passed a law on the restitution of property rights two years ago.

By recognizing the confiscation of private property by the Soviet system, one cannot enter a Europe where human rights are respected, including the right to property.

Therefore, Ukraine faces the same tasks. If they are not set and work in this direction, then you will have a Soviet relapse.

- In Russia, on the contrary, they sing the Soviet. Is this the relapse you're talking about?

Yes, all the same Soviet people sitting in government offices. They want to justify the "Soviet" as the basis for the current course of the country.

And, of course, all this talk about decommunization is in their throats, on the contrary, they sing of Andropov. And hence the relevance of the myths of the Soviet period - and about Bandera, and about the hand of the West.

Crimea is also a Soviet relapse.

Those regions of Ukraine in which Soviet mental forms have been preserved to the greatest extent - Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea - they gather near the monuments of Lenin.

It would seem that Lenin ruined you, killed you, took away property and land from your grandfathers. But people do not think critically, they are again guided by Soviet clichés.

- A myth has been created that a junta rules in Ukraine, but is the regime that rules in Russia more likely to be called a junta?

We have rigged elections in 2007, and 2008, 2011 and 2012. We have an illegal illegitimate regime, we do not stop repeating this.

The regime that came to power in your country is, of course, revolutionary. He did not have full legitimacy. But you tried to return to full legitimacy as soon as possible by holding the presidential election in compliance with all rules and regulations.

They called the Ukrainian politicians who have now come to power "Junta" only because they did not want to have anything to do with them. Here with Yanukovych, who represented the same regime of thieves as in Russia, it is absurd to deal with.

But to deal with politicians who are elected by the people and who see it as their task to build a real Democratic state, the Kremlin regime is dangerous.

It is dangerous to have such a state at hand. After all, this is a different Russia.

Ukraine for many centuries was a different Russia. In Ukraine, under the Lithuanian-Polish state, the Magdeburg Law is approved.

This is another Russia, more European, cultural. In the 17th century, under the first tsars of the Romanov dynasty, there was a terrible fashion for Ukraine. Ukrainian scientists-monks, Ukrainian boyars, politicians came to Russia, created schools and taught the royal children. Another Russia did cultural inoculation of Muscovite Rus'.

And now there may be a repeat. Not in the sense that Russia will take over Ukraine. And in the sense that independent Ukraine, being very close in culture, language, religion, will be able to give a lot after going through this difficult path in European integration and the restoration of those cultural forms that were destroyed during the communist regime.

- How long do you think the "construction" of a new Ukraine will take?

I am already an old man, and I can tell you that I have been working at a construction site all my life: I write, teach, speak. But this is our way. Be prepared for all working life you devote to it.

Formally, you will be able to carry out reforms in five years. But in order to change the structures of consciousness, you will need more time.

But you can look back and say, "We built new Ukraine"You understand how hard it is for me at my age to look back and see that so far we have not built anything.

And instead of building the future, we are constantly fighting the past. There are wonderful prospects in front of you now, keep acting.

Friends. We are on the threshold. We are on the verge of not including a new subject in the Russian Federation. We are on the verge of complete destruction of the system international treaties, economic chaos and political dictatorship. We are on the verge of a war with our closest, kindred people of Ukraine, a sharp deterioration in relations with Europe and America, on the verge of a cold, and possibly hot war with them.

After all, it has already happened. Austria. Early March 1938. The Nazis want to round off their Reich at the expense of another German state. The people are not very eager for this - no one infringes on them, no one discriminates. But the idea of ​​a great Germany turns the head of the radicals - the local Nazis. To put an end to the dispute about the fate of Austria, its Chancellor Kurt Alois von Schuschnigg announces a plebiscite on March 13. But the Nazis in Berlin and Vienna are not satisfied with this. What if the people speak out against the Anschluss? Chancellor Schuschnigg is forced to resign on March 10, in his place the president appoints the leader of the local Nazis, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and the German divisions are already entering Austrian cities at the invitation of the new chancellor, whom he himself learned from the newspapers. Austrian troops capitulate. The people either enthusiastically meet the Nazis, or stay home in irritation, or urgently flee to Switzerland. Austrian Cardinal Innitzer welcomes and blesses the Anschluss... Arrests began on March 13th. Chancellor Schuschnigg had been arrested the day before. The plebiscite was held on 10 April. In Germany, 99.08% voted for unification with Austria, in Austria itself, which became the Ostmark of the German Empire - 99.75%. On October 1, 1938, the Czech Sudetes were also reunited with Germany, and on March 22, 1939, the Lithuanian region of Klaipeda, which turned into the German Memel in one day. In all these lands, the Germans did live for the most part, and everywhere many of them really wanted to unite with the Nazi Reich. Everywhere this reunion took place to the fanfare and shouts of jubilation of the crowd, distraught in a chauvinistic frenzy, and with the connivance of the West.

“We must not deceive, much less reassure small weak states, promising them protection from the League of Nations and appropriate steps on our part,” Neville Chamberlain said in the British Parliament on February 22, 1938, “since we know that nothing this cannot be done."

And Adolf Hitler spoke quite differently on March 23, 1939 from the balcony on the Theater Square of the newly annexed Memel. Two hours before, he theatrically sailed aboard the newest battleship Germania to the Memel port. “... The Germans are not going to do anything bad to anyone in the world, but it was necessary to stop the suffering that the Germans from the whole world were subjected to for 20 years ... Germany had already abandoned the Memel Germans to their fate when it resigned itself to shame and dishonor . Today, the Germans of Memel... are once again becoming citizens of the mighty Reich, determined to take their destiny into their own hands, even if half the world doesn't like it."

And everything seemed so radiant. And Hitler's glory shone at its zenith. And the world trembled before Greater Germany. The accession of regions and countries to the Reich without a single shot, without a single drop of blood - isn't the Fuhrer a brilliant politician?

And six years later, Germany was defeated, millions of her sons were killed, millions of her daughters were dishonored, her cities were wiped off the face of the earth, her cultural values, accumulated for centuries, turned into dust. Two-fifths of the territory was taken away from Germany, and the rest was divided into zones and occupied by the victorious powers. And shame, shame, shame covered the heads of the Germans. And it all started so brightly!

Friends! History repeats itself. Russians do live in Crimea. But did anyone oppress them there, were they second-class people there, without the right to a language, to Orthodox faith? From whom do soldiers need to protect them Russian army? Who attacked them? The entry of troops foreign state on the territory of another state without its permission is aggression. The occupation of Parliament by unmarked uniformed individuals is arbitrary. The adoption of any decisions by the Crimean Parliament in such circumstances is a farce. First, the parliament was seized, the prime minister was replaced with a pro-Russian one, and then this new prime minister asked Russia for help, when the assistants are already here, they have been controlling the peninsula for a day. Like two drops of water, it looks like the Anschluss of 1938. And even a referendum-plebiscite a month later, under friendly bayonets. April 10 there, March 30 here.

Has the Russian government calculated all the risks of this incredible adventure? I'm sure not. Like Adolf Aloizovich, he did not calculate in his time. I would have calculated - I would not have rushed around the bunker in April 1945 under Russian bombs, I would not have eaten an ampoule of poison.

And what if the West does not act like Chamberlain did with Deladier in 1938, but introduces a complete embargo on the purchase of Russian energy resources and freezes Russian holdings in its banks? The Russian economy, already agonizing, will collapse in three months. And troubles will begin here, in comparison with which the Maidan will seem like a Garden of Eden.

And what if the Crimean Tatars, who are categorically against the Russian government, who remember what this government did to them in 1944 and how they didn’t let them go back until 1988, if the Crimean Tatars turn to the same-religious and consanguineous Turkey to protect their interests? After all, Turkey is not over three seas, but on the other side of the same Black Sea. And she owned Crimea longer than Russia - she owned it for four centuries. The Turks are not chamberlains and not doing anything: in July 1974, protecting their fellow tribesmen, they occupied 40% of the territory of Cyprus and, ignoring all protests, still support the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which no one recognizes except them. Maybe someone wants to have the Turkish Republic of Southern Crimea? But if the hotheads from the Crimean Tatars rise to fight, then Muslim radicals from all over the world will gladly join them, and especially with North Caucasus and the Volga region. Will we not bring a storm from the ruined Crimean resorts to our Russian house? What do we - our attacks are not enough?

And finally, having acquired the Crimea, torn apart by internal strife, we will forever lose the people of Ukraine - the Ukrainians will never forgive the Russians for this betrayal. What, you think, will not happen, that this is too much, it will grind - there will be flour? Do not hope, dear Russian chauvinists. At the end of the 19th century, Serbs and Croats considered themselves one people, only separated by borders, confessions and alphabet graphics. They strove for unity - how many books they wrote about this then, smart, kind books. And now there are few peoples so embittered at each other as the Serbs and Croats. How much blood was shed between them, and all for some pieces of land, some towns and valleys in which they could live richly and joyfully together. They could, but they couldn't. Greed for brotherly land has made enemies out of brothers. And in Everyday life doesn't that happen? Is it worth losing the brotherly people forever because of ghostly desires? Yes, and the split of the Russian Church then is already inevitable. Its Ukrainian half will break away from the Moscow one forever.

But an even more terrible defeat will be the Kremlin's success in annexing Crimea. If everything works out easily, then tomorrow Russian-populated regions of Kazakhstan will be requested to Russia, there, you see, and South Ossetia with Abkhazia, and Northern Kyrgyzstan. Austria was followed by the Sudetenland, the Sudetenland by Memel, by Memel by Poland, by Poland by France, by France by Russia. It all started small...

Friends! We need to come to our senses and stop. Our politicians are dragging our people into a terrible, terrifying adventure. Historical experience says that nothing will work out that way. We should not be led, as the Germans were led in their time to the promises of Goebbels and Hitler. For the sake of peace in our country, for the sake of its real revival, for the sake of peace and real friendliness in the spaces of historical Russia, now divided into many states, let's say "no" to this insane and, most importantly, completely unnecessary aggression.

We lost so many lives in the 20th century that our only true principle should be the principle proclaimed by the great Solzhenitsyn: the preservation of the people. The preservation of the people, not the gathering of lands. Lands are collected only by blood and tears.

We don't need any more blood or tears!