The difference between truth and truth. Vadim Kozhinov, the truth of Stalin's repressions

When they talk about Stalin’s repressions, they usually talk about who suffered more in them: the old party guard and the children of Arbat, or “former” officers, the nobility, the clergy and ordinary Russian men. They also argue about who is to blame for the repressions, whether Stalin was aware of them, and if so, to what extent.

But few people ask: why? Why did the Scourge of God in the person of Stalin fall on the shoulders of the peoples he conquered?

Soon a hundred years will pass since that black day when it collapsed into oblivion Russian empire, but still some people quite seriously believe that Baron Wrangel, Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin were preparing “for us the royal throne” - the restoration of autocracy in Russia with the wholesale flogging of the labor element.

And others just as seriously believe that the Red Commissars in dusty helmets were in charge of everything, the Judeo-Masons, no lower than 31 degrees of initiation, with whom the White Guard selflessly fought.

Vadim Kozhinov will disappoint both, but will delight lovers of historical truth. He convincingly showed that the whites were not monarchists, and the reds, to put it mildly, were indifferent to the “working people.” Both of them were driven by interests that were far from genuine interests Russian state and the Russian people.

Such figures of the White movement as generals Alekseev and Ruzsky were not only participants in the conspiracy against the Monarch, but also high-ranking masons. Their like-minded people were Denikin and Kolchak. Kornilov personally arrested the Empress and the Tsar's children.

The commander of the Don Army, General Denisov, testifies: “ On the banners of the White Idea it was written: to the Constituent Assembly , that is, the same thing what was written on the banners February Revolution … » And General Denikin was ready to “bless” any brutal violence (against the Russian people) if it ended in the establishment of parliamentary power in Russia.

If in the White movement the main component of the political leadership were the Masons, then on the Red side the Jews played the same role. It is enough to look at the payroll of the Soviet government in the first years after the revolution to be convinced of this. The destructive role of these people for Russia and the Russian people is comparable only to the atomic bombing.

« Thus, the struggle of the Red and White armies is completely was not a struggle between the “new” and “old” authorities, it was a struggle between two “new” authorities- February and October» , writes Kozhinov. A clear confirmation of this ugly symbiosis was Captain Zinovy ​​Peshkov, chief adviser to General Janin, the French representative under Admiral Kolchak, and part-time freemason and younger brother of Yakov Sverdlov, directly involved in the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family.

But besides the whites and reds in this tragedythere is one more character - the Russian people in the very in a broad sense this word.

Yes. Everyone is to blame . One cannot read without a terrible shudder how His portrait is taken out of the meeting room of the Holy Synod immediately after the abdication of the Emperor and placed upside down in the corridor. After all, someone had to answer for this. The entire Russian people responded, white and red, green and neutral. He answered in such a way that no one thought it enough. He was responsible for retreating from God and the Tsar, for violating the oath, for the death of innocent children in the bloody basement of the Ipatiev House, for spitting in the face of his Motherland.

The most perspicacious understood immediately that they had to pay the bills. One of the leaders of the Black Hundred movement, B.V. Nikolsky wrote: “ The reigning dynasty has come to an end... The monarchy to which we are flying must be Caesarism...“Less than ten years have passed since the Bonaparte of the Russian Revolution he predicted appeared as a formidable avenger to all the destroyers of historical Russia.

You can argue for as long as you like about Stalin’s role in history, but after reading V. Kozhinov’s book, you will no longer doubt the truth Stalin's repressions. God's judgment is sometimes carried out in strange ways.

© Ermilova E.V., 2013

© Algorithm Publishing House LLC, 2013

From the editor

When they talk about Stalin’s repressions, they usually talk about who suffered more in them: the old party guard and the children of Arbat, or “former” officers, the nobility, the clergy and ordinary Russian men. They also argue about who is to blame for the repressions, whether Stalin was aware of them, and if so, to what extent.

But few people ask: why? Why did the Scourge of God in the person of Stalin fall on the shoulders of the peoples he conquered?

A hundred years will soon pass since that black day when the Russian Empire collapsed into oblivion, but still some people quite seriously believe that Baron Wrangel, Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin were preparing “for us a royal throne” - the restoration of autocracy in Russia with the wholesale flogging of the labor element .

And others also seriously believe that the Red Commissars in dusty helmets were in charge of everything, the Judeo-Masons, no lower than 31 degrees of initiation, with whom the White Guard selflessly fought.

Vadim Kozhinov will disappoint both, but will delight lovers of historical truth. He convincingly showed that the whites were not monarchists, and the reds, to put it mildly, were indifferent to the “working people.” Both of them were driven by interests that were far from the true interests of the Russian state and the Russian people.

Such figures of the White movement as generals Alekseev and Ruzsky were not only participants in the conspiracy against the Monarch, but also high-ranking masons. Their like-minded people were Denikin, Kornilov, Kolchak. Kornilov personally arrested the Empress and the Tsar's children.

The commander of the Don Army, General Denisov, testifies: “On the banners of the White Idea it was inscribed: to the Constituent Assembly, that is, the same thing that was written on the banners of the February Revolution...” And General Denikin was ready to “bless” any cruel violence (against the Russian people) , if it ends with the establishment of parliamentary power in Russia.

If in the White movement the main component of the political leadership were the Masons, then on the Red side the Jews played the same role. It is enough to look at the payroll of the Soviet government in the first years after the revolution to be convinced of this. The destructive role of these people for Russia and the Russian people is comparable only to the atomic bombing.

“Thus, the struggle of the Red and White armies was not at all a struggle between the “new” and “old” authorities, it was a struggle between two “new” authorities - the February and October,” writes Kozhinov. A clear confirmation of this ugly symbiosis was Captain Zinoviy Peshkov, chief adviser to General Janin, the French representative under Admiral Kolchak, and part-time freemason and younger brother of Yakov Sverdlov, who was directly involved in the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family.

But besides the whites and reds, there is one more character in this tragedy - the Russian people in the broadest sense of the word.

Yes. Everyone is to blame. One cannot read without a terrible shudder how His portrait is taken out of the meeting room of the Holy Synod immediately after the abdication of the Emperor and placed upside down in the corridor. After all, someone had to answer for this. The entire Russian people responded, white and red, green and neutral. He answered in such a way that no one thought it enough. He was responsible for retreating from God and the Tsar, for violating the oath, for the death of innocent children in the bloody basement of the Ipatiev House, for spitting in the face of his Motherland.

The most perspicacious understood immediately that they had to pay the bills. One of the leaders of the Black Hundred movement, B.V. Nikolsky wrote: “The reigning dynasty is over... The monarchy to which we are flying must be Caesarism...” Less than ten years had passed before the Bonaparte of the Russian Revolution he predicted appeared as a formidable avenger to all the destroyers of historical Russia.

You can argue for as long as you like about Stalin’s role in history, but after reading V. Kozhinov’s book, you will no longer doubt the truth of Stalin’s repressions. God's judgment is sometimes carried out in strange ways.

Chapter 1
What really happened in 1917?

Over the course of eighty years, a variety of, even directly opposite, answers have been given to this question, and today they are more or less familiar to attentive readers. But the point of view of the Black Hundreds, their answer to this difficult question, remains almost unknown or is presented in an extremely distorted form.

The Black Hundreds, not blinded by the illusory idea of ​​progress, long before 1917 clearly foresaw the real fruits of the victory of the Revolution, far surpassing in this respect any other ideologists (thus, a member of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People, P. F. Bulatzel, prophetically - although in vain - called in 1916 to the liberals: “You are preparing the grave for yourself and millions of innocent citizens”). It is natural to assume that both directly in 1917 and in subsequent years, the “Black Hundreds” understood what was happening more deeply and clearly than anyone else, and therefore their judgments are of paramount importance.

It is appropriate to begin with the fact that today the prevailing opinion is that the Bolshevik coup of October 25 (November 7), 1917, was a fatal act of destruction of the Russian state, which, in turn, led to a variety of dire consequences, starting with the collapse of the country. But this is a deliberate untruth, although many influential ideologists have spoken and continue to speak about it. The death of the Russian state became an irreversible fact already on March 2 (15), 1917, when the so-called “order No. 1” was published. It came from the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Petrograd - essentially All-Russian - Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, where the Bolsheviks did not in any way play a leading role until September 1917; The direct drafter of the “order” was the secretary of the Central Election Commission, the then famous lawyer N.D. Sokolov (1870–1928), who made a brilliant career in numerous political trials back in the 1900s, where he mainly defended all kinds of terrorists. Sokolov acted as a “non-factional Social Democrat.”

“Order No. 1,” addressed to the army, demanded, in particular, “to immediately select committees from elected representatives (the hasty drafting of the text led to an annoying repetition: “to select ... from elected representatives.” - VC.) from the lower ranks... All kinds of weapons... must be at the disposal of... committees and in no case issued to officers... Soldiers cannot in any way be deprived of the rights that all citizens enjoy..." etc.

If you think about these categorical phrases, it will become clear that the matter was about the complete destruction of the army created over the centuries - the backbone of the state; one already demagogic provision that the “freedom” of a soldier cannot be limited “in anything” meant the liquidation of the very institution of the army. Moreover, we should not forget that the “order” was given in the context of a grandiose world war and there were about eleven million people under arms in Russia; By the way, the last Minister of War of the Provisional Government A.I. Verkhovsky testified that “order No. 1” was printed “in nine million copies”!

To better understand the situation, it is necessary to outline the circumstances of the appearance of the “order”. On March 2, Sokolov appeared with his text, which had already been published in the morning edition of Izvestia of the Petrograd Soviet, before the newly formed Provisional Government. One of its members, V.N. Lvov, spoke about this in his memoir, published shortly thereafter, in 1918: “...N.D. approaches our table with quick steps. Sokolov asks us to get acquainted with the contents of the paper he brought... This was the famous order number one... After reading it, Guchkov (Minister of War - VC.) immediately declared that the order... was unthinkable, and left the room, Miliukov (Minister of Foreign Affairs. - VC.) began to convince Sokolov of the complete impossibility of publishing this order (he did not know that the newspaper with its text had already begun to be distributed. - VC.)… Finally, Miliukov, exhausted, stood up and walked away from the table... I (that is, V.N. Lvov, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. - VC.) jumped up from his chair and, with my characteristic vehemence, shouted to Sokolov that this paper brought by him was a crime against his homeland... Kerensky (then Minister of Justice, from May 5 - Minister of War, and from July 8 - head of government. - VC.) ran up to me and shouted: “Vladimir Nikolaevich, be silent, be silent!” then he grabbed Sokolov by the hand, took him quickly into another room and locked the door behind him..."

And having become Minister of War on May 5, Kerensky, just four days later, issued his “Order on the Army and Navy,” very close in content to Sokolovsky; it came to be called the “soldier’s declaration of rights.” Subsequently, General A.I. Denikin wrote that “this “declaration of rights” ... finally undermined all the foundations of the army.” However, back on July 16, 1917, speaking in the presence of Kerensky (then prime minister), Denikin, not without insolence, declared: “When they repeat at every step (this, by the way, is typical of our days. - VC.), that the Bolsheviks were the cause of the collapse of the army, I protest. This is not true. The army was destroyed by others...” Not considering, apparently, “tactful” to directly name the culprits, the general said further: “The military legislation of recent months has destroyed the army” (cit. ed., p. 114); those present clearly understood that the “military legislators” were Sokolov and Kerensky himself (by the way, there is incorrect information in the literature that Denikin allegedly named Kerensky’s name at that time).

But one cannot help but say that Denikin’s “epiphany” was fatally late. After all, he agreed on April 5 (that is, more than a month after the publication of Order No. 1) to become the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and on May 31 (that is, after the appearance of the “declaration of the rights of a soldier”) - the commander-in-chief of the Western Front. Only on August 27 did the general break with Kerensky, but by that time the army, in essence, no longer existed...

It is necessary to take a closer look at the figure of Sokolov. Nowadays, few people know about him. It is characteristic that in the biographical dictionary “Political Figures of Russia” published in 1993. 1917” there is no article about Sokolov, although more than 300 people are presented there who played one or another role in 1917 (most of them, from this point of view, are significantly inferior to Sokolov). However, even in 1917, his imperious influence on the course of events seemed not entirely explainable. Thus, the author of the most detailed story about 1917, created in hot pursuit (and himself the most active figure of that time), N.N. Sukhanov-Gimmer was clearly surprised, as he wrote, “at N.D., who has been everywhere and knows everything. Sokolov, one of the main workers of the first period of the revolution." Only much later did it become known that Sokolov, like Kerensky, was one of the leaders of Russian Freemasonry in those years, a member of its small “Supreme Council” (Sukhanov, by the way, also belonged to Freemasonry, but occupied a much lower level in it). It should also be noted that Sokolov at one time laid the foundation political career Kerensky (he was eleven years younger), arranging an invitation for him in 1906 to a high-profile trial of Baltic terrorists, after which this then unknown lawyer became an overnight celebrity.

When putting forward “order No. 1,” Sokolov, of course, did not foresee that his brainchild would literally hit his own head in less than four months. In June, Sokolov led the Central Executive Committee delegation to the front. “In response to the conviction not to violate discipline, the soldiers attacked the delegation and brutally beat it,” said the same Sukhanov; Sokolov was sent to the hospital, where he “lay... without regaining consciousness for several days... For a long, long time, about three months after that, he wore a white bandage - a “turban” - on his head” (ibid., vol. 2, p. 309).

By the way, the poet Alexander Blok responded to this event. On May 29, he met with Sokolov and wrote about him: “... frantic N.D. Sokolov, according to rumors, is the author of order No. 1,” and on June 24 – perhaps not without irony – he noted: “In the newspapers: “dark soldiers” beat N.D. Sokolov" (ibid., vol. 7, p. 269). Later, on July 23, Blok records the interrogation of the most prominent Black Hundred member N.E. in the “Extraordinary Investigative Commission” under the Provisional Government. Markova: “Against Markov... Sokolov is sitting with his head tied... barking questions... Markov is very angry...”

Sokolov, as we see, was unusually energetic, and the range of his activities was exceptionally wide. And there were quite a lot of such people in Russian Freemasonry at that time. In general, when talking about the February Revolution and the further course of events, it is impossible to do without the “Masonic theme.” This topic is especially important because the Black Hundreds wrote and spoke a lot about Freemasonry even before 1917; in this, as in many other things, their superiority over any ideologists of that time was expressed, who “did not notice” any signs of the existence of Freemasonry in Russia or even decisively disputed the judgments of the Black Hundreds on this score, moreover, ridiculed them.

Only much later, already in emigration, did materials about Russian Freemasonry begin to appear - meager confessions of its figures and observations of people close to them; Subsequently, in 1960–1980, a number of works by emigrant and foreign historians were written on their basis. In the USSR, this topic was essentially not studied until the 1970s (although back in 1930, very significant - albeit extremely laconic - statements by the well-informed V.D. Bonch-Bruevich were published).

It is necessary to talk about the study of Russian Freemasonry of the 20th century, among other things, because many today know about it, but this knowledge is usually extremely vague or simply false, representing a mixture of facts taken out of the general picture and idle fiction.

Meanwhile, over the past two decades, this Freemasonry has been studied quite successfully and quite objectively.

The first work in which the question of this Freemasonry was seriously raised was the book by N.N. Yakovlev “August 1, 1914”, published in 1974. It, in particular, quoted the confession of a prominent freemason, cadet deputy of the Duma, and then commissioner of the Provisional Government in Odessa L.A. Velikhova: “In the 4th State Duma (elected in 1912. – VC.) I joined the so-called Masonic association, which included representatives from left progressives (Efremov), left cadets (Nekrasov, Volkov, Stepanov), Trudoviks (Kerensky), Social Democrats. Mensheviks (Chkheidze, Skobelev) and which set as its goal a bloc of all opposition parties in the Duma to overthrow the autocracy” (op. ed., p. 234).

And by now it has been irrefutably proven that Russian Freemasonry of the 20th century, which began its history back in 1906, was the decisive force of February, primarily because it united influential figures of various parties and movements that acted on the political scene more or less separately . Secured by an oath to their own and at the same time highly developed Western European Freemasonry (which will be discussed later), these very different, sometimes seemingly completely incompatible figures - from the Octobrists to the Mensheviks - began to carry out a single task in a disciplined and purposeful manner. As a result, a kind of powerful fist was created that destroyed the state and the army.

The most fruitful study of Russian Freemasonry of the 20th century was historian V.I. Startsev, who at the same time is one of the best researchers of the events of 1917 in general. In a number of his works, the first of which was published in 1978, the true role of Freemasonry is cogently revealed. The pages dedicated to Russian Freemasonry of the 20th century in the book by L.P. are also informative. Zamoyski (see bibliography in notes).

Later, in 1986, a book by emigrant N.N. was published in New York. Berberova “People and Lodges. Russian Freemasons of the 20th Century”, based, in particular, on the research of V.I. Startseva (N.N. Berberova herself said this on pages 265–266 of her book - without mentioning, however, the name of V.I. Startsev, so as not to “compromise” him). On the other hand, this book makes extensive use of Western archives and various emigrant materials that were essentially inaccessible to Russian historians at that time. But it must be said frankly that many provisions of N.N.’s book. Berberova are based on notes and rumors that are not truly reliable, and quite reliable information is mixed with at least doubtful ones (some of which will be discussed later).

Works by V.I. Startsev, like the book by N.N. Yakovlev, from the very moment of their appearance until recently they were subjected to very sharp attacks; historians were accused mainly of resurrecting the Black Hundred myth about the Freemasons (academician I.I. Mints was especially zealous). Meanwhile, historians with indisputable facts in their hands have proven (willingly or unwittingly) that the “Black Hundreds” were certainly right when they spoke about the existence of active Freemasonry in Russia and about its enormous influence on events, although for all that V.I. Startsev - and it is quite clear why he did this - more than once “dissociated himself” from the damned Black Hundreds.

It is impossible, however, not to point out that in the Black Hundred writings about Freemasonry there are a lot of incorrect and even fantastic moments. However, in those days the Masons were most carefully kept under wraps; Russian political police, which P.A. Stolypin gave instructions to investigate the activities of Freemasonry, but was unable to obtain any significant information about it. Therefore, it would be strange to expect accurate and consistent information about the Freemasons from the Black Hundreds. The fact that the “Black Hundreds” were aware of the presence and powerful influence of Freemasonry in Russia is truly significant in itself.

His decisive role in February was revealed with all clarity when - already in our time - it was precisely established that out of 11 members of the Provisional Government of the first composition, 9 (except A.I. Guchkov and P.N. Milyukov) were Freemasons. In total, during the almost eight months of the existence of the Provisional Government, 29 people served as ministers, and 23 of them belonged to Freemasonry!

No less important is the fact that in the then “second power” - the Central Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet - all three members of the presidium were Freemasons: A.F. Kerensky, M.I. Skobelev and N.S. Chkheidze - and two of the four members of the Secretariat: K.A. Gvozdev and already known to us N.D. Sokolov (two other secretaries of the Council - K.S. Grinevich-Shekhter and G.G. Pankov - did not play a primary role). Therefore, the so-called dual power after February was very relative, in fact, even ostentatious: both the government and the Council were ruled by people of “one team”...

Of particular interest is the fact that three of the six members of the Provisional Government who did not belong to Freemasonry (in any case, there is no indisputable information about such affiliation) were the most generally recognized, “main” leaders of their parties: this is A.I. Guchkov (Octobrist), P.N. Miliukov (cadet) and V.M. Chernov (SR). The “main” leader of the Mensheviks, L. Martov (Yu.O. Tsederbaum), was not a Freemason either. Meanwhile, a number of other influential - although not the most popular - leaders of these parties occupied a high position in Freemasonry: for example, the Octobrist S.I. Shidlovsky, cadet V.A. Maklakov, Socialist Revolutionary N.D. Avksentyev, Menshevik N.S. Chkheidze (and, of course, many others).

This is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that such persons as Guchkov or Milyukov, who were under the closest attention of society and the government even before 1917, could easily have been exposed, and they were not included in the Masonic “cadres” (although some authors explain their non-involvement in Freemasonry is due to the fact that the same Miliukov, for example, did not want to submit to Masonic discipline). N.N. Berberova tried to prove that Guchkov still belonged to Freemasonry, but her arguments were not convincing enough. However, at the same time, V.I. Startsev quite rightly says that Guchkov “was surrounded by Freemasons on all sides” and that, in particular, the conspiracy against the Tsar, which had been preparing since 1915, was carried out by “Guchkov’s group, which included the most prominent and influential leaders of Russian political Freemasonry Tereshchenko and Nekrasov..., and this conspiracy was still Masonic” (“Questions of History”, 1989, No. 6, p. 44).

To summarize, I will say about the special role of Kerensky and Sokolov, as I understand it. For both, belonging to Freemasonry was much more important than membership in any parties. Thus, in 1917, Kerensky suddenly switched from the “Trudovik” party to the Socialist Revolutionaries, while Sokolov, as already said, presented himself as a “non-factional” Social Democrat. And secondly, for Kerensky, who concentrated his activities in the Provisional Government, Sokolov was, apparently, the main associate in the “second” government - the Council. The later (1927) confessions of N.D. say a lot. Sokolov on the need for Freemasonry in revolutionary Russia: “...radical elements from the working and bourgeois classes will not be able to come to an agreement with themselves about any common acts beneficial to both sides... Therefore... the creation of bodies where representatives of such radical elements from the working and non-working classes could It would be very, very useful to meet on neutral ground...” Ion, Sokolov, “for a long time, even before 1905, tried to play the role of a mediator between Social Democrats and liberals.”

* * *

The Masons managed to quickly destroy the state in February, but then they turned out to be completely powerless and less than eight months later they lost power, unable to provide, in fact, absolutely no resistance to the new, October, coup. Before talking about the reason for the impotence of the heroes of February, it is impossible not to touch upon the dominant version in Soviet historiography, according to which the coup in February 1917 was allegedly the work of Petrograd workers and soldiers of the capital garrison, allegedly led mainly by the Bolsheviks.

I'll start from the last point. During the coup there were almost no influential Bolsheviks in Petrograd. Since they advocated defeat in the war, they aroused universal condemnation and by February 1917 were either in exile in Europe and the United States, or in distant exile, without any strong connection with Petrograd. Of the 29 members and candidates for membership of the Bolshevik Central Committee, elected at the VI Congress (in August 1917), not one was in Petrograd during the February days! And Lenin himself, as is well known, not only knew nothing about the impending coup, but also in no way imagined that it was even possible.

As for the mass workers' strikes and demonstrations that began on February 23, they were caused by the shortage and unprecedented high cost of food, especially bread, in Petrograd. But the bread shortage in the capital was, as follows from the facts, artificially organized. In the study by T.M. Kitanina “War, bread, revolution (food question in Russia. 1914 - October 1917)”, published in 1985 in Leningrad, shows that “the surplus of bread (minus the volume of consumption and union supplies) in 1916 amounted to 197 million poods ." (p. 219); the researcher refers, in particular, to the conclusion of A.M. Anfimov, according to which “ European Russia together with the army, until the harvest of 1917, it could be supplied with its own grain, without exhausting all the remnants from the harvests of previous years” (p. 338). And in the already mentioned book by N.N. Yakovlev “August 1, 1914” thoroughly states that the leaders of the February Revolution “contributed to the creation of a serious food crisis by the beginning of 1917... Isn’t there a synchronicity - from the beginning of November there were sharp attacks (on the authorities. - VC.) in the Duma and then the food supply collapsed!” (p. 206).

In other words, the “bread riot” in Petrograd, which was soon joined by soldiers of the “reserve regiments” located in the capital, was specially organized and used by the leaders of the coup.

Another thing is no less important. There was a constant shortage of shells at the front. However, by 1917, there were 30 million (!) shells in warehouses - approximately the same amount as was spent in 1914–1916 (by the way, without this stock, artillery in Civil War 1918–1920, when the factories were almost not working, I would have been forced to remain inactive...). Considering that the head of the Main Artillery Directorate in 1915 - February 1917, A.A. Manikovsky was a Freemason and a close associate of Kerensky, the situation becomes clear; These facts are set out in the mentioned book by N.N. Yakovlev (see pp. 195–201).

That is, both the sharp discontent in the army and the grain riot in Petrograd were, in essence, the work of the “turnovers.” But this is not enough. In fact, the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (that is, Nicholas II), General M.V., who led the army. Alekseev not only did nothing to send troops to Petrograd on February 23–27 in order to establish order, but also, for his part, used the unrest in Petrograd to put the most severe pressure on the tsar and, moreover, made him believe that the entire army was on the side of the coup.

N.N. Berberova in her book claims that Alekseev himself belonged to Freemasonry. This is hardly true (if only because for military personnel, joining secret organizations was essentially a criminal act). But at the same time, military historian D.N., who was at the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Dubensky testified in his diary-memoirs, published back in 1922: “General Alekseev enjoyed ... the widest popularity in circles State Duma, with whom he was in full connection... The Sovereign deeply believed in him... General Alekseev could and should have taken a number of necessary measures to prevent the revolution... He had all the power (over the army. - VC.)… To the greatest surprise... from the very first hours of the revolution his criminal inactivity was revealed..." (quoted from the book: Abdication of Nicholas II. Memoirs of Eyewitnesses. - L., 1927, p. 43).

Further D.N. Dubensky told how the commander of the Northern Front, General N.V. Ruzsky (N.N. Berberova also not quite rightly considers him a Freemason) “with cynicism and rough certainty” declared already on March 1: “... we must surrender to the mercy of the winner.” This phrase, wrote D.N. Dubensky, “clarified everything and indicated with certainty that not only the Duma, Petrograd, but also the high command at the front were acting in complete agreement and decided to carry out a coup” (p. 61). And the historian recalled how already on March 2, Adjutant General K.D., who was close to the Black Hundreds. Nilov called Alekseev a “traitor” and made the following conclusion: “... the Masonic party seized power” (p. 66). For many years such statements were classified as Black Hundred inventions, but now it is not Black Hundred historians who have proven the correctness of this conclusion.

However, we will return to the figure of General Alekseev later. First, it is necessary to realize that Russian Freemasons were Westerners to the core. At the same time, they not only saw all their social ideals in Western Europe, but also submitted to the powerful Freemasonry there. Having been in Freemasonry G.Ya. Aronson wrote: “Russian Freemasons seemed to shine with borrowed light from the West” (Nikolaevsky B.I., op. cit., p. 151). And they measured Russia entirely by purely Western standards.

According to A.I. Guchkov, the heroes of February believed that “after the wild spontaneous anarchy, the street (meaning the February riots in Petrograd. - VC.), will fall, after which people of state experience, state intelligence, like us, will be called to power. Obviously, in memory of the fact that... it was 1848 (that is, the revolution in France. - VC.): the workers left, and then some reasonable people arranged the power” (“Questions of History”, 1991, No. 7, p. 204). Guchkov defined this “plan” with the word “mistake.” However, what we are facing is not so much a specific “mistake” as the result of a complete misunderstanding of Russia. And Guchkov, moreover, clearly incorrectly characterized the course of events itself. After all, according to him, “spontaneous anarchy” is the strikes and demonstrations that took place from February 23 to 27 in Petrograd; On February 27, the “Provisional Committee of Members of the State Duma” was formed, and on March 2, the Provisional Government was formed. But it was precisely this that carried out the complete destruction of the former state. That is, real “spontaneous anarchy”, which ultimately engulfed the entire country and the entire army (and not just a few tens of thousands of people in Petrograd, whose actions were cleverly used by the heroes of February), broke out only later, when these same “reasonable” people came to power People"…

In a word, the Russian Freemasons imagined the revolution they were carrying out as something quite similar to the revolutions in France or England, but at the same time they forgot about the truly unique Russian freedom - “freedom of spirit and life”, which was constantly thought about, in particular, by the “philosopher of freedom” N. A. Berdyaev. In Western European countries, even the highest degree of freedom in political and economic activity cannot lead to fatal destructive consequences, because the majority of the population under no circumstances will go beyond the established “limits” of freedom and will always “play by the rules.” Meanwhile, in Russia there is unconditional, unrestricted freedom of consciousness and behavior - that is, to be more precise, it is no longer, in essence, freedom (which implies certain boundaries, the framework of the “law”), but the Russian will itself broke out into the open almost at every significant weakening of state power and gave rise to rampant Russian “freemen” unknown to the West - Bolotnikovism (during the Time of Troubles), Razinism, Pugachevism, Makhnovism, Antonovism, etc.

Pushkin, in whom the Russian national genius was most fully and completely embodied, starting at least from 1824, experienced the deepest and keenest interest in these phenomena, most of all, naturally, in the recent Pugachevism, to which he dedicated his main creations in the field of artistic prose (“The Captain’s Daughter,” 1836) and historiography (“The History of Pugachev,” published at the end of 1834 under the title—at the suggestion of Nicholas I, who financed the publication—“The History of the Pugachev Rebellion”). At the same time, Pushkin undertook very labor-intensive archival research, and in 1833, for a month, he traveled to the “Pugachev places,” questioning, in particular, elderly eyewitnesses of the events of 1773–1775.

But the point, of course, is not simply a matter of thorough study of the subject; Pushkin recreated Pugachevism with the universal understanding inherent in him and, without exaggeration, only in him. Later interpretations, in comparison with Pushkin’s, are one-sided and subjective. Moreover: the interpretations of Pushkin’s works themselves, dedicated to Pugachevism, are just as one-sided and subjective (a striking example is Marina Tsvetaeva’s essay “Pushkin and Pugachev”). The only exception is, perhaps, the recent work of V.N. Katasonova (“Our Contemporary”, 1994, No. 1), where Pushkin’s image of Pugachev is comprehended in its multidimensionality. To put it simply, Pugachevism after Pushkin was either praised or cursed. This is especially characteristic of the era of the Revolution, when almost all the ideologists and writers of that time remembered the Pugachevism (as well as the Razinism, etc.).

Pages: 34-58

Sergey Ananievich YAKOVLEV, writer, publicist, literary historian, publishing editor of the almanac Letters from Russia[Pis'ma from Russia], member of the Writers’ Union of Moscow and Russian PEN Center. Academic interests include Russian literature and popular philosophical trends in the 19th-20th centuries. Author of numerous essays, articles and books on the aforementioned topics. Email: [email protected].

Name: Non-public aspects of life. Igor Dedkov and Vadim Kozhinov: two views on truth and responsibility

Title: Nonpublic Sides of Life. Igor Dedkov and Vadim Kozhinov: Two Views on Truthfulness and Responsibility

Annotation: The controversy between literary critics I. Dedkov and V. Kozhinov outlines the field on which ideological battles took place in Russia in the 1970s-1990s. Interestingly, both did not accept both the Soviet and post-Soviet regimes. Their disagreements reveal ethical contradictions in Russian society that exist to this day.

Abstract: The dispute between the literary critics I. Dedkov and V. Kozhinov typifies the intellectual battlefield in Russia in the 1970s-1990s. Neither of them a supporter of the Soviet or post-Soviet regime, the two critics clash over ethical controversies persistent in Russia to this day. The article explains how the contemporary reality derives from the 1980s-1990s radicalism driven, to a large extent, by Kozhinov’s conservative discourse. The germ of the present-day social inequality and humiliating hierarchy lies in the ‘excess, conceit and haughtiness’ of those members of Soviet intelligentsia supported by Kozhinov. His deviation from consistently true interpretation gave rise to contemporary relativism. Dedkov, a faithful follower and contributor of Russian classical criticism, typically avoided finite judgments and always encouraged the reader to make their own moral choice. A strong opponent of any kind of human hierarchy and violence, he took to heart every attempt to pigeonhole humanity, select the ‘elite’ and appoint a ‘drover’ for the rest.

Keywords/Keywords: I. Dedkov, V. Kozhinov, O. Latsis, Stalinist repressions, “Truth and Truth”, democratic traditions, intelligentsia, truth, responsibility, relativism, I. Dedkov, V. Kozhinov, O. Latsis, Stalin repressions, Truth and Verity [Pravda i trutha], democratic traditions, intelligentsia, the truth, responsibility, relativism.

Fragment

1

You and I live in strange world, in which there is no truth. It was destroyed “as a class.” Many different most influential (politically, socially and even culturally) forces are interested in ensuring that the truth does not exist or, at least, that no one is looking for it. The functioning of most public institutions, the activities of information resources, artistic creativity- everything seems to be aimed at instilling total mistrust in society.

Surprisingly, the fact of the absence of truth is recognized and even promoted openly, including at the official level. The advantages are obvious: it allows politicians not to answer awkward questions, clergy to rely on deep superstitions, criminals to evade responsibility, repressive authorities to persecute the innocent... And what is even more surprising, it meets almost no resistance in society.

This phenomenon is relatively new. Just 30 years ago this would have been difficult to imagine. Moral relativism existed, of course, in philosophical and, quite widely, artistic discourses, but it did not dominate everyday life and did not infect large sections of the population. People have always thirsted for the truth. And especially high demands in this regard were placed on those from whom they hoped to hear it - state and public leaders, prominent scientists, writers and artists, “masters of thought.”

At one time, I was deeply touched by the words of Tamara Fedorovna Dedkova, the widow of Igor Alexandrovich, relating to the fate of the critic’s literary heritage. She wrote about the criterion of truthfulness in literature, understood by Igor Dedkov “as a requirement, by and large, of fidelity to historical truth and fidelity to human interests,” and immediately noted that in modern life, starting from the 1990s, this criterion “was placed in a position of some marginal exclusivity” [Dedkova: 24]. In other words, clarity of thought, truth, responsibility are today not fashionable.

What are the reasons - political, social, cultural, maybe even aesthetic - that underlie this phenomenon? Which of the relatively recent values ​​did Soviet Russia lose during the transition to a new quality and which of the current ones, on the contrary, accumulated in the depths of “developed socialism”? Where have we gone in recent decades and continue to go? Finally, was the state of things really so different in the time of Igor Dedkov from the present? Wasn’t the voice of this knight of truth then a “voice crying in the wilderness” and isn’t what is happening just a revelation of the true nature of man and society?

To understand such issues, it is useful to take a look at Dedkov’s contemporaries - both like-minded people and opponents, who left a more or less significant mark on the history of Russian social thought in the second half of the twentieth century. Of greatest interest are the interlocutors of the critic-thinker, in face-to-face and correspondence dialogues with whom his own position was clarified and disagreements were revealed. Previously, I had the opportunity to consider two such in-depth dialogues between Dedkov and people with whom he certainly sympathized and whose work was interesting to him as a critic - the prose writer Sergei Zalygin and the poet Vladimir Leonovich (see: [Yakovlev]). This time is a slightly different case.

2

Literary critic and publicist Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov came from Moscow as part of a representative delegation of writers to the very first Dedkov readings in April 1995 in Kostroma. I don’t remember his speech verbatim. , but his furious clash right on stage, in front of a crowded hall, with publicist Otto Latsis is still visible before my eyes. The dispute concerned Dedkov’s ideological platform, his activities and, most importantly, the assessment of the historical period in which these activities occurred. Despite the bitterness of the loss (not even four months had passed since the critic’s death), the atmosphere was heated, and other participants in the meeting also entered into controversy. Someone called Dedkov a “true democrat”, someone - a “real communist”... As for Latsis and Kozhinov, they represented opposite parties at that time: the first was considered an inveterate liberal-Westernizer, a “foreman of perestroika”, the second adhered to conservative "patriotic" views and in liberal circles was considered an odious figure - as they would say now, "not shaking hands." I would like to emphasize that these were prices from the time of the perestroika battles that had not yet cooled down, and today they may well cause bewilderment for an impartial reader. And then each of the parties pulled the late Dedkov over to their side and hurried to use his name and legacy in their own interests.

Who was Dedkov really with?

The first mention of Kozhinov dates back to 1978 and is connected, oddly enough, not with the work of a widely known critic and brilliant polemicist at that time, whose literary interests directly intersected with Dedkov’s, but with the “Russian party” he personified in Dedkov’s eyes:

Stasik, reproducing the sentiments widespread in Kozhinov’s circle, said that Russia apparently needed a tsar. What is left for the poor Russian minds to do is to go through everything, become disillusioned with everything and return to the wretched idea of ​​autocracy. To your health. Let them amuse themselves. This idea will never be revived among the people, it is unnatural, and intellectual minds are the only place where it can be discussed. Kozhinov and Palievsky need a driver, but they hope that an exception will be made for them, and no one will drive them, but on the contrary, there will be undead [Dedkov. Diary... 196].

Kozhinov here appears almost as an evil spirit seducing “Stasik” (Stanislav Lesnevsky). The preaching of “the wretched idea of ​​autocracy” (for Lesnevsky, it must be said, is completely independent, in no way connected with Kozhinov) does not prevent Dedkov from continuing his warm relationship with “Stasik”. friendly relations; but Kozhinov, distant in every sense, is given almost demonic features. (But in this, we note, there is also recognition of the scale and influence of the venerable critic.)

Another time, already in 1979, the iconic name of Kozhinov flashes in an irritated description of contacts with completely different characters. Dedkov recounts, in particular, a conversation in a bar with the writer Baigushev, who threatened critics on behalf of certain “we” with trouble for his “life and literary position” and asked “in a completely friendly way” how many “silver pieces” Dedkov received for one of his articles. “And then I - also in a friendly way - told him that their entire notorious Russian party itself is permeated with the spirit of Jewry, like trading, that is, unprincipled, permeated with the desire for positions, a career, infected with buying and selling, friendship and so on. And as for silver coins and any gain, I am pure, and this party cannot control me” [Dedkov. Diary... 255]. Below, Dedkov will note that much in Baigushev revealed his closeness to some secret “organization” (one must understand - the KGB).

Let's remember this passionate monologue - it will lead us to another trail, not only ideological, but also ethical Dedkov’s rejection of the then “Russian party” and its practices. In a conversation about Kozhinov, this will be significant.

Literature

Dedkov I. A. The road is long to all ends: Literary-critical essays and articles. Yaroslavl: Verkhne-Volzhskoe book. ed., 1981.

Dedkov I. Before the mirror, or the suffering of a middle-aged hero // Questions of literature. 1986. No. 7. P. 102-143.

Dedkov I. A. Be in love? Hate? What else?.. Notes about literature, history and our fast-flowing absurd life. M.: IC "AIRO-XX", 1995.

Dedkov I. Diary. 1953-1994. M.: Progress-Pleiada, 2005.

Dedkov I. A. This earth and this sky: Essays. Notes. Interview. Diary entries about the culture of the province 1957-1994. Kostroma: Kostromaizdat LLC, 2005.

Dedkova T. F. A new look at the literature of the 60-90s. Does it exist? // Kostroma Humanitarian Bulletin. 2012. No. 2 (4) (Special issue). pp. 22-25.

Kozhinov V.V. True and imaginary values ​​(1967) // Kozhinov V.V. Articles about modern literature. M.: Sovremennik, 1982. pp. 42-47.

Kozhinov V. Truth and truth // Our contemporary. 1988. No. 4. P. 160-175.

Kozhinov V. Spirituality is a broad concept // Literary Russia. 2001. February 2.

Kozhinov V. Reflections on art, literature and history. M.: Consent, 2001.

Kozhinov V.V. Sin and holiness of Russian history. M.: Eksmo, 2010.

Letter to the editor of Literaturnaya Gazeta // Questions of Literature. 1986. No. 9. P. 286.

Sidorevich A. Letters of a Russian intellectual // Neman. 2000. No. 11. P. 198-239.

Yakovlev S. Unity of the unlike. Correspondence between Vladimir Leonovich and Igor Dedkov // Questions of literature. 2017. No. 4. pp. 176-196.

Bibliography

Dedkov I. A. Vo vse kontsi doroga daleka: Literaturno-kriticheskie ocherki i statii. Yaroslavl: Verkhne-Volzh. kn. izd., 1981.

Dedkov I. Pered zerkalom, ili Stradaniya nemolodogo geroya. Question literature. 1986. Issue 7. P. 102-143.

Dedkov I. A. Lyubit'? Nenavidet'? What eshche?.. Zametki o literature, istorii i nashey bystrotekushchey absurdnoy zhyzni. Moscow: IC ‘AIRO-XX’, 1995.

Dedkov I. Dnevnik. 1953-1994. Moscow: Progress-Pleyada, 2005.

Dedkov I. A. Eta zemlya i eto nebo: Ocherki. Zametki. Interviyu. Dnevnikovie zapisi o culture provintsii 1957-1994 godov. Kostroma: Kostromaizdat, LLC, 2005.

Dedkova T. F. Noviy vzglyad na literatururu 60-90-kh. Sushchestvuet li on? // Kostroma Bulletin of the Humanities. 2012. Issue 2 (4) (Special Issue). P. 22-25.

Kozhinov V. V. Tsennosti istinnie i mnimie (1967) // Kozhinov V. V. Statii o modern literature. Moscow: Sovremennik, 1982. P. 42-47.

Kozhinov V. V. Problema avtora i put’ pisatelya: Na materiale dvukh povestey Yuriya Trifonova (1976) // Kozhinov V. V. Statii o modern literature. P. 212-234.

Kozhinov V. Pravda i istina // Nash sovremennik. 1988. Issue 4. P. 160-175.

Kozhinov V. Dukhovnost’ - ponyatie shirokoe // Literaturnaya Russia. February 2, 2001.

Kozhinov V. Razmyshleniya ob iskusstve, literature i istorii. Moscow: Soglasie, 2001.

Kozhinov V. V. Grekh i svyatost’ russkoy istorii. Moscow: Eksmo, 2010.

Pis’mo v redaktsiyu ‘Literaturnoy gazety’ // Questions literatury. 1986. Issue 9. P. 286.

Sidorevich A. Pis’mo russkogo intelligenta // Neman. 2000. Issue 11. P. 198-239.

Yakovlev S. Edinstvo nepokhozhikh. Perepiska Vladimira Leonovicha i Igorya Dedkova // Questions literatury. 2017. Issue 4. P. 176-196.

Original taken from afanarizm in About the controversial and indisputable in the legacy of Vadim Kozhinov

Kozhinov and those who write about him have more than once spoken of his dignity, that Vadim Valerianovich in Soviet times never quoted Stalin, Brezhnev, did not use the words “collective farm”, “party”, “socialism”, was an anti-communist... I don’t understand why the quote, Let's say, quotes from Stalin are worse or more shameful than quotes from Lenin or Marx. The point is what kind of quotes these are and what their role is in the text. The same collectivization can and should be talked about as a crime (remember V. Belov’s trilogy or M. Lobanov’s article “Liberation”), or as a justified necessity (see, for example, V. Kozhinov’s interview “The Price of Experience” // “ Russian Federation Today", 2000, No. 21). But whether the words “collective farm”, “socialism”, etc. are used does not matter at all.

Igor Shafarevich in the article “Strokes to the creative portrait of Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov” (“Our Contemporary”, 1993, No. 9) gently notes: “In his works of the 60-70s there are quotes from Marx, Engels and Lenin as references to authorities, the conclusions of which support the author’s thoughts.” That is, such quoting performs a protective function, and in this Shafarevich is right and wrong.

Indeed, Kozhinov has cases of formal, defensive citation, as, for example, in the second paragraph of the article “Knowledge and the Will of the Critic” (1975) about Pyotr Palievsky’s book “The Ways of Realism.” Vadim Valerianovich brings together the idealist Hegel and the materialist Lenin in this paragraph, citing their ideologically harmless statements. They complicate Kozhinov’s views on the purpose of criticism and Palievsky’s book. The prominent place of these quotes in the composition of the article makes the critic’s intention obvious, although, apparently, it was possible to do without them.

However, in V. Kozhinov’s articles of the 60-80s there are many cases of informal quoting or references to Lenin, when a strong impression is created that the critic shares the ideas being conveyed. For example, in an article about Vasily Belov “In Search of Truth” (1979), Kozhinov proves the modernity of the writer through an excursion into the history of literature: “Felix Kuznetsov began one of his recent articles with a meaningful reminder: “Let us remember the crushing defeat that Russian criticism suffered at the end of the 19th century.” century.<…>It took the genius of Lenin... to give a scientific and objective interpretation of Tolstoy’s work.” And this excursion ends accordingly: “And we need to take into account the historical lesson that Felix Kuznetsov so appropriately reminded.”

So, it is not clear what prompted Vadim Valerianovich, through F. Kuznetsov, to look for an ally in Lenin, to refer to his experience in interpreting Leo Tolstoy, which cannot be called positive. Ulyanov's articles are a rare example of the squalor of thought and spirit, an example of a screaming, absolute misunderstanding of Leo Tolstoy.

Vadim Valerianovich has repeatedly spoken about his involvement (relatively early by Soviet standards) in Russian religious philosophy, which happened thanks to Mikhail Bakhtin. And Kozhinov himself, according to Vladislav Popov, introduced him “to Russian religious philosophy (then officially prohibited): with N. Fedorov, V. Rozanov, N. Berdyaev, and then Slavophiles, Eurasians<…>"(Our Contemporary, 2003, No. 7).

But how then could Kozhinov, if not nourished, then at least in the field of attraction of Russian thought, be in solidarity with Lenin on many issues? I agree with this degenerate, monster, Russophobe, cosmopolitan, Satanist, destroyer of traditional Russia. Moreover, first on the sidelines, and then, from the second half of the 80s, in the press, Kozhinov broadcast myths about the “good” Lenin.
I first heard one of them, the myth of Lenin the Patriot, in May 1984 from Yuri Seleznev. He, with his characteristic passion, told me about the “hidden” legacy of Lenin... Yuri Ivanovich did not hide that the “unknown” Lenin was not his discovery. However, the name of the “discoverer” was not mentioned, and I didn’t need it. I believed in this myth with trembling enthusiasm, since Yuri Ivanovich was an indisputable authority for me.

When in the articles by V. Kozhinov “The Heart of the Fatherland” (“Literaturnaya Gazeta”, 1985, No. 29), “History Lessons: On the Leninist Concept of National Culture” (Moscow, 1986, No. 11), “Are We Changing”?: Polemical notes about culture, life and “literary figures” (“Our Contemporary”, 1987, No. 10), in his dialogue with B. Sarnov (“Literaturnaya Gazeta”, 1989, No. 10-13) the Lenin theme was heard, the authorship of the myth heard from Seleznev became obvious to me, but that’s not the point. Many people believed, and some, I think, continue to believe in beautiful fairy tales about Lenin...

Over the past fifteen years or so, Vadim Valerianovich, for reasons unknown to me, has been trying to Russify and partly ennoble V. Ulyanov. The opposition looks unconvincing: on the one hand, Lenin is a patriot, a supporter of the “solution: revolution for Russia”, on the other - everyone else, emigrants who “did not know and could not know Russia, and for them it was “essentially indifferent material” (Kozhinov V. - Sarnov B. Russia and revolution // Literary Newspaper, 1989, No. 11).

In order to prove the unprovable, V. Kozhinov has to show the height of ingenuity. It turns out that in the Ulyanovs’ house “a Russian-Orthodox atmosphere dominated,” as stated in the book “Russia. The twentieth century (1901-1939)" (M., 1991). Vadim Valerianovich, always so fundamental in proving this or that thesis, in this case refers only to the testimony of Anna Ilyinichna about her father as a deeply religious person and to Lenin’s confession of his faith in God until the age of 16. These facts, even if we take them on faith, it seems, do not prove anything, because a family in which the “Russian-Orthodox atmosphere” reigned could not have given so much, even to such Russophobes, misanthropes, cannibals.

To confirm the version of “Lenin the Patriot”, the statement of Ulyanov in 1818, which, in our opinion, does not indicate anything, is suitable: “to achieve ... so that Rus' ... becomes powerful and abundant in the full sense of the word ...”, and the lines from his will: “I I would strongly advise you to make a number of changes in our political system" From the quoted words of the will, V. Kozhinov makes a completely unexpected, unfounded conclusion: “Yes, neither more nor less is a change in the “political system” itself, but it is obvious that a “series of changes” is not identical to a “change in the political system itself.”

It is also difficult to agree with the following version: as a result of the implementation of Lenin’s will, the body of “supreme power would consist mainly of Russians.” V. Kozhinov, like many authors of different directions, makes one logical and essential mistake. It is not clear how from workers and peasants, people with only the designated social status, people who have passed through the party sieve can end up being Russian. The fact that Lenin determines the Russianness of 75 or 100 workers and peasants by blood is natural, but the fact that one of the best experts acts in a similar way national question, more than surprising.

V. Kozhinov’s attitude towards Stalin changed throughout his life. He recalled more than once that in school years was a young man far from politics. However, at Moscow State University, where Kozhinov studied at the philological department, general atmosphere was such that he was in short term became a “sincere, convinced Stalinist”, joined the Komsomol... In the 60-70s, judging by the articles and memoirs of Vadim Valerianovich, the cult of Stalin was left behind and was positively overcome. During the years of perestroika, the theme of Stalin appeared in many of Kozhinov’s publications.

The article “Truth and Truth” (Our Contemporary, 1988, No. 4) caused the greatest resonance. In it, the author, unlike Anatoly Rybakov (whose novel “Children of the Arbat” was subjected to evidentiary and total criticism), speaks of Stalin as the product of the Russian and world revolutionary and “left” movements in general. These and other ideas of Kozhinov sounded like a screaming dissonance against the backdrop of a huge number of articles in which Stalin was debunked by contrasting him with “worthy” communists: N. Bukharin, S. Kirov, F. Raskolnikov, M. Ryutin, M. Tukhachevsky, etc. .

Vadim Kozhinov’s article was perceived by the “left” as a defense of Stalin, for which the critics were reproached by authors from V. Lakshin to B. Sarnov. In another context, this topic was raised in an open letter from Ales Adamovich to Vadim Kozhinov “How to thin out the carrots” (“Ogonyok”, 1989, No. 35). Kozhinov, in his response letter “The Fruit of Irritated Fantasy” (“Ogonyok”, 1989, No. 41), in particular, stated: “I, for example, unlike you, never used the word “collective farms” at all, since I did not have the opportunity to say , what do I think about “collective farms”.

And one last thing. Since you essentially cannot object to me<…>, You, Alexander Mikhailovich, decided not to argue, but to create some creepy “image of Vadim Kozhinov” - an apologist for terror, collectivization, and repression. But this “image” is the fruit of only an irritated fantasy.”

Kozhinov contrasted the myth of the “left” about Stalin the villain, who carried out a counter-revolutionary coup in 1928-1929, with the idea of ​​regularity, the preparedness of the phenomenon of Stalin and Stalinism. Thus, in the article “The Greatest Danger...” Vadim Valerianovich argued: “... Stalinism was able to triumph because in the country there were hundreds of thousands or even millions of absolutely sincere, absolutely convinced of their rightness “Stalinists” (“Our Contemporary”, 1989, no. 1).

In this and such articles as “Truth and Truth” (“Our Contemporary”, 1988, No. 4), “1948-1988. Thoughts and partly memories of “changes” in literary positions” (“Literary Studies”, 1988, No. 3), Kozhinov names and characterizes, first of all, those “Stalinists” who, during perestroika, were included in the lists of “leftists” as “anti-Stalinists.” These are N. Bukharin, S. Kirov, B. Pasternak, A. Tvardovsky, A. Dementyev and others.

Vadim Kozhinov confirms his point of view with numerous examples. I will give just one statement of his about Pasternak: “He not only unconditionally believed in Stalin in the 1930s (which is clear, for example, from the memoirs of Osip Mandelstam’s widow), but also largely retained this faith later. His poetry books, published in 1943, 1945 and 1948, in their general mood did not contradict the literature of that time in general, and in prose he wrote, for example, during the war: “As common sense has taught for centuries and Comrade Stalin repeated, a just cause must sooner or later take over. That time has come. The truth has triumphed” (“Literary studies”, 1988, No. 3).

In the article “On the debate about “Russian national consciousness”” (1990), V. Kozhinov evaluates Stalin from the point of view of his attitude towards national history and literature. V. Kozhinov calls Stalin’s 1934 statement about Russia, which was “continuously beaten” throughout history, the most absurd and ironically comments... Using the examples given, Vadim Valerianovich shows that Stalin’s position on this issue was in tune with such Russophobes as L. Trotsky, N. .Bukharin, I.Erenburg.

In this article, Kozhinov evaluates a version that will soon become very popular, the version of Stalin's turn to patriotism in the second half of the 30s. This predominantly cosmetically new policy is explained by Vadim Valerianovich by tactical and strategic considerations: “... The clearly approaching military threat forced the authorities to think about what would protect the people. But the idea that the authorities of that time really “encouraged” genuine national consciousness is completely false.” Kozhinov quite often confirms this idea with information about repressed writers. Of the fifty “left-wing” authors “far from the Russian idea,” two were repressed; of the twenty “neo-Slavophiles,” only Pimen Karpov survived. Vadim Valerianovich’s conclusion is quite logical and fair: “Those who believe that Stalin supported “nationally minded” Russian writers should either abandon this idea, or come to the conclusion that it was not Stalin who carried out the repressions against writers.”

The polemic between Kozhinov and Lobanov, which arose in this regard six years later, is indicative. Vadim Valerianovich in “The Riddle of 1937” (“Our Contemporary”, 1996, No. 8) comments on the main provisions of Mikhail Petrovich’s article “Unity. On what?" (“Our Contemporary”, 1996, No. 7) and criticism addressed to him. V. Kozhinov, following Yu. Emelyanov, argues that the refusal to discredit everything Russian is due to the fact that this harmed the development of the world revolution. And the reliance on the glorious Russian history, the names of Dmitry Donskoy, Suvorov, Ushakov, etc., the policy that began after 1934, was caused not by “personal Stalinist ideas”, but by “understanding historical development countries". Here, of course, from the point of view of logic, not everything is clear from Kozhinov: understanding is not included in Stalin’s idea?

A very important addition to the topic is contained in Kozhinov’s interview “Faces and Masks of History” (“Zavtra”, 2000, No. 27-28). Speaking again about the turn of the mid-30s, Vadim Valerianovich emphasizes its limitations, which was expressed in the fact that this process did not concern the religious and philosophical origins of Russian culture, “which remained banned until very recently.”

In the works and interviews of V. Kozhinov of the 90s, the topic of Stalin arises quite often, and Vadim Valerianovich, with the constancy of a convinced person, expresses essentially the same ideas that he loved, accompanying them periodically with new factual “support”, and sometimes with ethical ones estimates. Thus, in a conversation with Viktor Kozhemyako, Kozhinov refutes the version of Stalin the patriot in a way that is not very common for himself: “I cannot, say, forgive him for the fact that in 1946, when there was a terrible famine in the country, he threw a huge amount of grain to Germany to bribe the Germans. There is, of course, the concept of political expediency, but a real patriot, in my opinion, still could not do this” (“Pravda”, 1996, March 21).

In an interview with Viktor Kozhemyako (Pravda, 1996, March 21) and a conversation with Alexei Zimenkov (Podmoskovnye Izvestia, 1997, August 21) we talk about the possible perception of Stalin in our country. In the interview, Stalin's acquittal is spoken of as an inevitable fact; only the degree of justification is the object of discussion. V. Kozhinov states: “I am convinced that in Russia Stalin will never be justified to the same extent as Napoleon, who became the greatest representative of the nation there, was justified in France.” In a conversation with Zimenkov, Vadim Valerianovich is not so categorical: “Let’s hope no one will force the Russian people to cancel the moral verdict on Ivan the Terrible and Stalin (otherwise we will cease to be Russian).”

Such ambivalence in relation to Stalin is characteristic of Kozhinov’s articles of the 90s. Through some of them, the leitmotif runs through the idea of ​​Stalin as an absolute, supreme evil, which defeats ordinary, earthly evil, all these Radeks, Zinovievs, “whose arms were up to their elbows, and their legs were knee-deep in blood...”. And Vadim Kozhinov takes Alexander Pushkin and Mikhail Bulgakov as his “allies”, as, for example, in a conversation with Vyach. Morozov (“Our Contemporary”, 1999, No. 6).

Doubts arise both about personalities, more precisely, about Pushkin, and in general theoretical terms, because in this way there is a partial rehabilitation of absolute evil. What this can lead to was demonstrated by Vadim Kozhinov in 2000. He argues that the pace of collectivization and dispossession were to blame for wealthy peasants who did not want to sell grain to the state. They really didn’t want to, only because of the low purchase price, and not because, as V. Kozhinov believes, this small percentage of peasants “somewhere secretly, and where openly, made it clear that, threatening general famine, he was ready to demand from the authorities of concessions, including political ones” (“Russian Federation today”, 2000, No. 21).

Kozhinov, who in so many works brilliantly follows the precepts of his teacher Evald Ilyenkov (“one must think in facts”, “the truth is concrete”), in this case violates his precepts. Where Vadim Valerianovich gives facts, they sound unconvincing, and “feedback with reality” (what Kozhinov strives for, as he admits) does not arise.

Trying to prove the inevitability of collectivization, Vadim Valerianovich recreates the atmosphere of life in the village of 1925-1928 as follows. He refers to the testimony of Nikolai Tryapkin, who was 7-10 years old during the indicated period. And then follow the following reflections and conclusion of Kozhinov: “Why strain yourself for the sake of some kind of expanded production, industrialization? But peasants made up 80 percent of the country's population. If such a life had lasted until 1941, we would have had nothing to fight with.”

As we see, Kozhinov is not original in his interpretation of this issue; he repeats the common version of orthodox Soviet historians. It’s sad that Vadim Valerianovich, who avoided Soviet time the words “collective farm”, due to the impossibility of telling the truth about collectivization, at the end of his life he gave this version. Equally sad and surprising is that it became popular among some on the right in the second half of the 90s.

] Compiled by P.S. Ulyashov. Executive editor S.V. Marshkov. Artist M.A. Zosimova.
(Moscow: Algorithm, 2005)
Scan, processing, Djv format: Zed Exmann, 2011

• CONTENT:
  Vadim Kozhinov - writer and historian (5).
  Part one. CONVERSATIONS, DIALOGUES, INTERVIEWS
  Sower (9).
  Faces and masks of history (25).
  Intermittent path (52).
  “Only believe...” (59).
  Russia is like a miracle (70).
  Two capitals (83).
  What Russia can hope for (94).
  My pain is Serbia (104).
  “It is absurd to negotiate with the Chechens within the framework of the norms of world democracy” (108).
  “Much of what happened can be explained by Russian maximalism...” (113).
  Will a sense of dignity help our Motherland? (119).
  Nigliism is a bad advisor (126).
  The most pure face of Victory (132).
  Fashion for common people (145).
  Who is guilty? (185).
  Statehood and culture (205).
  Russia surrounded by neighbors (217).
  Dual power (230).
  “Russian culture began in the squad” (238).
  “The patriotic idea is not opposed to socialism” (242).
  Russian people: in search of truth (249).
  “Please consider me a fellow countryman” (258).
  “Socialism in Russia is inevitable” (272).
  The invincibility of Rus' (275).
  Persona and character (287).
  “We are no better and no worse than others. We are different” (301).
  “We have a different beginning” (306).
  Who is escalating the topic of anti-Semitism and why? (311).
  Riddle of the 37th (321).
  The mystery of the cosmopolitans (337).
  Solzhenitsyn vs. Solzhenitsyn (353).
  "Judgment" (368).
  War... literature... history. Letters from Abkhaz writers to Vadim Kozhinov (373).
  Part two. MEMORIES OF V.V. KOZHINOVE
  Careless and necessary (386).
  Alexey Puzitsky. Brother (388).
  Geliy Protasov. At the walls of the Donskoy Monastery (392).
  Georgy Gachev. Vadim - necessary (401).
  Lev Anninsky. Only Vadim (406).
  Sergey Semanov. Vadim Kozhinov and his comrades in the Russian anti-Masonic lodge (416).
  Stanislav Lesnevsky. Artist (423).
  Taisiya Napolova. “...And again the soul and nature become orphans” (427).
  Mikhail Grozovsky. Russian enlightener (437).
  Victor Kozhemyako. His word in “Pravda” and “ Soviet Russia", as well as in my life (443).
  Sergey Kara-Murza. Giver of the staff in the fog (451).
  Evgeny Potupov. He carried in his heart the victories and misfortunes of Russia (457).
  Alexander Vasin. Anti-obituary (459).
  Stanislav Kunyaev. “Old friends beyond the horizon...” (469).
  Vladislav Popov. Vadim Kozhinov as my teacher (507).
  Stanislav Kunyaev. This fearless man (521).
  Sergey Nebolsin. Kozhinov, Arbat and Russia (535).
  “If it weren’t for Zyuganov, I wouldn’t vote for anyone” (551).
  Pavel Ulyashov. Well-wisher (557).
  Russian poets - Vadim Kozhinov. Poems from different years (564).

Publisher's abstract: Books by V.V. Kozhinov (1930-2001), writer, historian, connoisseur of Russian culture, have long become reference books for millions of readers. An outstanding educator of the last century, on whose ideas “two generations of Russian nationally-minded intelligentsia” grew up, Vadim Valerianovich was extremely responsive to requests for an interview, to write a review, or a recommendation. And in these works of his there are a lot of subtle thoughts, observations, assessments.
This publication, which includes interviews, conversations, dialogues with Vadim Kozhinov and memories of his contemporaries, was prepared for his 75th birthday.