Hate, Lies, and Propaganda
What I have discovered, analyzing the new history book for 11th graders in Russia.
I must note that I am no historian. There are plenty of videos about this Hell Book but, unfortunately, most of them are in Russian for Russians. And I, from my side, want all the world to know what Russian kids learn about their past since the knowledge about the past determines our future.
The first impression about the book and the most striking features.
Ok, we expect that the coursebook is terrible but how bad can it be? I am happy to share with you, as I didn’t suffer in vain reading this school masterpiece.
The first thing you notice opening the book is the language. Normally, a coursebook is supposed to have a neutral narration. Students have to develop their own views on the situation and learn to think independently. However, it’s not typical for this particular creation. The language is manipulative and ideological, with exclamation marks and phrases like ‘thief’s daring’, ‘the unprecedented and unthinkable happened’, and many others. The first impression of the book was as if it had been written by one of the Russian propaganda ‘hounds’ — Soloviev or Simonian.
Second, like in a fictional piece of literature, there are ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ characters. The Good is represented by unbendable Russian leaders, such as Putin or Stalin, and the Bad — is by the evil collective West that always seeks power and craves Russian territories but it will never win because the Good will always overpower the Bad.
Third, all the problems in Russia seem to be caused by weak leadership and breaking ‘the chain of command’.
Fourth, the statements in the book often contradict themselves. For instance, it can be written in one paragraph that the WW2 veterans struggled to adapt to the new post-war conditions, and in the next paragraph, the authors suddenly say: ‘It was easy for most of the ex-war soldiers to adjust to the new reality.’
Last but not least, all mistakes committed by Russia seem to be blurred. The Russian history is filled with correct decisions and righteous fights.
Ah yes, almost forgot. The main purpose of the book is to form patriotism in the young generation. I am not kidding: it’s written on one of the first pages.
Now, let’s pass on the things that blew my mind the most.
The Old Kind Joseph
There are many shameful aspects in the new book, and the picture of Stalin is one of the most painful. Joseph Stalin is described as the father of the nation who is loved and respected by everyone. The negative details are concealed carefully under a thick layer of positivity. The people were happy and satisfied and looked into the future confidently. And how could it be otherwise if, according to the book, the USSR thrived, the damaged buildings were rebuilt and renovated in no time, and the country was the first one that abolish the food cards in 1947? What is even more incredible, despite the fact that many males had died in the war, the number of people living in the USSR was restored by the 1950s, possibly because of the endless optimism and patriotism of the Soviet citizens.
Okay, we understood, everything was shiny like in a Broadway musical. But what about the dark side? Repressions? Deportations? The black carriages that provoked pure horror in people who saw them? I must say that the most famous cases of political arrests ARE mentioned in the book — such as the case of the medical workers, or the Leningrad case. However, most of the facts are swept under a rug. For example, if the authors write about the Russian soldiers who were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany, it’s also added that the Soviet Citizens fully agreed with the necessity of this punishment. No word of false accusations. No information about the fact that sometimes it was basically enough to return from the war alive to be convicted. Or, when it’s narrated about the Tatar deportations, the comment is: ‘The place where they had been sent, tried to provide them with everything necessary for a decent life’.
Stalin is highly appreciated by the authors. All the text is built in a way that Stalin didn’t actually direct all the repressions against his fellow countrymen but he was standing aside, smoking shyly into his moustache. Frequently, his negative qualities were turned upside down and suddenly ‘elections without an alternative’ or ‘repressions against people working with the West’ were the reason for the national pride.
But, to my mind, the worst part about the book is that the authors obviously use manipulations. In the paragraphs about Stalin and Co., you can read wonderful quotes such as ‘What a shame, what a humiliation of national dignity! There is only one thing these gentlemen who admire the “Western way of life” cannot explain: why did we defeat Hitler, and not those who have beautiful bins on the streets?’ by D. Schepilov about people who wanted to live like in Western countries after WW2.
Also, I paid attention to the statistics that had been shown on Russian TV many years ago and now it’s in the coursebook. It looks like this and represents, according to the authors, some French surveys (seriously, no links) demonstrating the statistics with the most popular responses to the question ‘Who won the Second World War?’
Should I tell you that I found the original source which appeared to be a survey made in 2019 by Le Monde? The French were wondering if the significance of the opening of the second front in WW2 was overrated or not and didn’t question the contribution of the Soviet Union at all.
Enemy #1. Nikita Khrushchev
Khrushchev is known in Russia as the corn man and he was, certainly, a contradictory figure in Russian history. However, being named the Devil doesn’t really suit him. As you have probably figured out, the representation in the book is quite one-sided — it’s either bright or dark, and Khrushchev, unfortunately, did a lot of things that personally offended Putin (although he was a small kid back then). So, the amnesty that was held after Stalin’s death in 1955 is demonized in the book. Khrushchev is blamed for releasing criminals, especially Nazis. The authors state that it led to the growth of the modern neo-nazis movement in Ukraine and in other non-Soviet past-friendly countries. I tried to find some information about that notorious amnesty. The only trustworthy article was written by Novaya Gazeta about amnesty in 1953, which neutrally depicted the categories of people who were eligible for amnesty.
Even the debunking of the cult of Stalin’s personality is described as something dubious and something that was rejected by the Soviet society and the world. The contrast between Stalin and Khrushchev is evident and Stalin wins: Khrushchev gave Crimea away. Unforgivable.
Enemy 2: The key is in Gorbachev
Putin proclaims: ‘The collapse of the USSR is one of the most dramatic catastrophes of the 20th century.’ The quote is given in the very beginning of the book and it forces the children to feel nostalgic towards the country that they were never familiar with. And I would prefer them not to know it in person.
If you thought that Khrushchev was the most hated historical character, you are mistaken: Gorbachev is ahead. Apparently, the USSR was not about to fall apart. Actually, nobody even thought about leaving since all the countries in the unity were happy together. Gorbachev triggered the destruction. He was the cause that Western Germany annexed the East (say this to my German friends who celebrate Unity Day every 1st October). However, one of the biggest sins of Gorbachev is the submission to the collective West that had been dreaming of taking over the Soviet territories and expanding NATO to the East. And, of course, allowing Ukraine to occupy Crimea. It’s all about Crimea, you know.
Et tu, Brute? Eltsin vs Putin
Now we are close to the modern days and we reached Boris Eltsin. Thanks to Boris, Russia has had to endure Putin’s extravagant behavior for more than 20 years. But Eltsin is long dead so let’s leave him alone. Especially, since the new history book already did all the work for us. The former president is accused of releasing power and breaking the chain of command. Because of the lack of governmental control, Russia was about to cease its existence. The West gripped on Russian minds and Russia was about to lose its sovereignty. Inside the country, everything was ruled by oligarchs. The conclusion about Eltsin’s presidency states:
‘The state of the Russian economy in 1992–1999. sequentially
worsened. This was reflected in both negative growth rates,
and in negative structural changes that actually put the country on the path of deindustrialization. The collapse of the USSR, the extremely painful transition to the market, carried out without analyzing the possible consequences, the formation of “oligarchic capital” in the country, and the growth of crime and corruption determined the extremely high social cost of reforms. In the current critical situation, a radical change in economic and social policy was required from the country’s political leadership.’
Putin, Medvedev, Putin
All the book was hard to read since I am a big history fan and I know many insights. But the part that was the hardest for me to read was about the 2000s. I grew up at that time, and I remember all their speeches about democracy and promises of partnership with Europe and the US. In the book, you won’t find Vladimir Putin of the early 00s attending Paul McCartney’s concert as an ordinary citizen. You can read the quote by Dmitry Medvedev: ‘Freedom is better than non-freedom’, and, nevertheless, no information about non-visa traveling for Russians that he had announced in 2010.
Putin was destined to bring Russia to success. He gave his word that terrorists in Russia would be eliminated and it was true. He promised to end the war in Chechnya, and it happened. He offered prospects of returning Crimea to Russia and it was a triumph. Putin led the country to prosperity and proved himself to be a strong leader, keeping everything under control. According to the authors, the collective West envied Russian success and that was the reason why they sponsored revolutions in neighboring countries, neo — nazi uprisings in Ukraine, and the war in the Donetsk region.
Reading all this really hurt me and almost made me cry. The truth is completely neglected. At schools, the kids would never know about people dying of hunger after WW2 and how they had to eat potato peels and some field crop leftovers (picking them up was a reason to be imprisoned, by the way). The kids will never find out about their older relatives trying to catch some glimpses of freedom turning the radio upside down just to hear some BBC or Voice of America. They will stay unfamiliar with the tragedies in Beslan and on the submarine Kursk which were Putin’s fault. The children won’t learn how the ex-Soviet republics fought for independence, how many people were relieved when the USSR collapsed, and how they came to the White House to stand for Eltsin and their freedom. So, we must tell them. Tell the truth if schools refuse to do it.
Homework
My dear students,
I was highly unsatisfied with the additional materials offered by the authors of the new Russian history book, so I have my own recommendations.
- A video about Beslan with English subtitles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF1UGmi5m8s&t=9s
2. The Fate of a Man, a short story by Mikhail Sholokhov.
3. The Kursk Submarine. What happened. English subtitles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBxz-vwGO0k&t=3s
4. Chechnya and terrorists in Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBtS8Nvun-0&t=10s
5. Welcome to Chechnya, documentary.
Enjoy the real Russian history.
Love-Love, peace-peace,
Anna.
