Read online "falsification of the history of Russia". Scientists about the falsification of the history of Russia The main falsifications in Russian history

Artifacts on which evidence of existing historiography is based are falsified copies of "disappeared" ancient manuscripts from ancient libraries that burned down at the same time. These copies were created in the 15th century and later, and even in our time with the help of modern computer programs.

Examples of copies of "ancient" artifacts of the XV century from the website of the Vatican Library, confirming the existing historical paradigm.

Today, the founders of Russian history are the great "Russian historians" Gottlieb Bayer, Gerard Miller, August Schlozer, who "made happy" us with the "Norman theory" of the origin of the Rus. Through this “theory”, the idea of savagery, primitiveness of the Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia, which has been driven in over the centuries, dominates in all spheres of culture and science.

It is known that many artifacts found by archaeologists do not fit into the official concept of history, since the interpretation is always given from the standpoint of those in power. A huge number of "cultures" have appeared, so called by the location of the artifacts, which are squeezed into the Procrustean bed of the existing historical paradigm. According to official history, Russia has only 1150 years of history, everything is borrowed from the "enlightened" West and the complete "inability" of the Russian people to self-government.

Most of the authors who write about the falsification of history in their works give one or two arguments, on the basis of which they draw a conclusion and give their vision of this historical event. At the same time, different authors on the same historical event sometimes have completely opposite opinions. But an event that has taken place in human society cannot be interpreted and interpreted as one wishes.

Any historical event is the result of the interaction of many root causes. It requires a multifaceted and complex consideration of these causes taken together. This approach in the study allows you to see the relationship in existing historical artifacts and gain an understanding of the studied processes of the past, their influence and connection with the present.

Map 1717 Muscovy, the Russian Empire during the time of Peter I, is highlighted in color.

The falsification of history began with the seizure of the throne of Moscow Tartaria by the Romanov dynasty (see map Fig. 2.), Who were proteges of certain forces in Western Europe. Further, this process actively continued during the reign of Peter the Great.

The map of 1717 shows Muscovy from the time of Peter I. The possessions of the Romanovs were not the Russian Empire, the history of which is presented to us by "Russian" historians. In the east, the border of the Empire of Peter I runs along the western spurs of the Ural Mountains and nothing more! His "great empire" was the territory of Muscovy or Moscow Tartaria. This suggests that relatively recently it was a province of the Slavic-Aryan Empire (Great Tartaria), the separation of which occurred during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy, who seized absolute power in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality.

Before Dmitry Donskoy, absolute monarchical power did not exist in this principality-province of the Slavic-Aryan Empire, and the position of the Grand Duke was not hereditary. The Grand Duke was appointed from among the most worthy people of the princely family.

This map shows two cities of Novgorod, Novogrod - Novgorod on Ladoga and Novogorod - Novgorod on the Volga and another area within the Golden Ring, a group of cities, which on the map is called NOVOGROD with a capital letter. This confirms the assumption of A.T. Fomenko that the Lord of Veliky Novgorod in Rus' was called the metropolis of the Golden Ring, and not a small city on Ladoga. Even the capital Moscow is not highlighted on the map in the same way as Lord Veliky Novgorod is highlighted - a group of cities that form the commercial and cultural center of Muscovy. This map is just one of many confirmations of the falsification of Russian history.

Then, at the end of the 18th century, the troops of the new Romanov dynasty, supported by the entire Western world, won a civil war with the old, Horde Russian dynasty of Great Tartaria, this happened in 1772-1775. This fact in history is falsified and presented as the suppression of the uprising under the leadership of Yemelyan Pugachev. And only after this victory was the modern "history" fabricated in its final form.

The main goal of the falsifiers was to hide the real role of the Russian Vedic civilization, which had hundreds of thousands of years of its past, and which was the mother of all the other "great" civilizations of the ancient world!

For many centuries, falsifiers have been slowly but surely replacing the Vedic worldview with their own pseudo-variant, which destroys the integrity of perception among the people, deliberately creating a conflict between the genetic memory of the people and its consciousness.

Having thus created a conflict between the pseudo-worldview imposed by them and the genetic memory of the people, they managed to break the last stronghold - the Great Tartaria in the Summer of 7283 from the SMZH (1775 AD), moreover, with the hands of those Rus, whom they also endowed pseudo worldview! Even in this case, they were able to win only at the hands of their own opponents, some of whom were turned into "Ivans who do not remember kinship"!

Historians have hidden the fact of the absorption of the Vedic Russian Empire by Moscow Tartaria after the latter's victory in the fratricidal civil war of 1772-1775. There is no exact data on the number of those killed in this war, especially from the side of the Vedic Russian Empire.

After the victory of the new Romanov dynasty over the old Horde dynasty, the punitive troops of Catherine II thoroughly destroyed its population, especially the Cossack settlements. A.S. Pushkin in his novel The Captain's Daughter tried to lift the veil over this, but the second volume of this book never saw the light of day, apparently he did not dare to reveal to people the whole truth about what he managed to learn during his trips around Siberia.

Having removed from history information about the largest state in the world of the Vedic Russian Empire, the falsifiers set about exalting other civilizations, countries and peoples. As a result of the falsification of history, the “great” ancient civilizations of China and India, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, the ancient Roman Empire appeared, and the Russians and Slavs were “allowed” to appear on the “historical arena” only in the 9th century.

It is necessary to point out the hypertrophied role of the personality of many historical characters and their influence on the processes taking place in society that exists in history.

Yes, there is a role of personality in history, and a brutal personality can either slow down or speed up this historical process. But without understanding the process and fundamentally changing the foundation of this process, it is impossible to change it. Since the processes take place in time and often last much longer than the life of a particular historical figure.

In order for the process to become crystal clear from ancient times to the present, everything must be considered as a whole, including genetics, human physiology and psychology, the development of society, the psychology and geopsychology of the social economy.

Any historical event is the result of a complex interaction of all these root causes taken together, and this event is the inevitable result of one process or another. The truth is one, and does not lie somewhere in the middle, as it is customary to assert in modern society when looking for an answer to a question.

World and our national history is completely falsified!

Falsification of history is one of the ways to form an erroneous worldview.

Traditional history is a pseudoscience based on the art of lying and manipulating people's minds.

History has become the most important instrument of politics. During the time from the end of the 18th century to the present day, a system of myths has been created that have replaced real history.

The scale of the falsification of the past of Russia and civilization is staggering in its volume.

The existing falsified history is affirmed in the minds of people as a total falsification in scientific and artistic literature, architecture and art.

The falsification of history continues in our time with the use of modern scientific achievements, for example, with the help of modern computer technology.

At the end of the 20th century, thanks to the development of microelectronics, computer technology and other industries, the World Wide Web was created - the Internet and the so-called information computer technologies appeared. New technical possibilities have appeared for creating information databases in the field of culture, computer technologies have come to libraries and museums.

Now in many countries and in Russia, the process of digitizing artifacts and documents (scanning, photographing) is widely going on - converting an image or text into digital data for storage and use. All major museums and libraries in the world have their own websites on the Internet.

Forgers use this process to correct their old “evidence” in the form of primitive “copies of the 15th century” and create new “old” engravings, texts, drawings, “copies” of disappeared old books. And in this "case" the Vatican Library is the leader and coordinator of actions.

To do this, in the ongoing information war, websites such as “freecopedia” are specially created, trolls on the salary and “ideological ones” are used on forums and social networks, and the production of “revealing” videos has been put on stream.

But the coin has two sides, and alien-lovers have not yet invented a way to control the entire Internet. Knowledge and understanding of the technology and methods of falsification allow modern researchers to build a logically consistent system of processes and events that have been taking place on our planet for many millennia.

To recreate (reconstruct) the "dark" pages of the past, using old and emerging new archaeological and other scientific facts and data, for example, such as the new scientific discipline of DNA genealogy, is our task.

Public opinion polls conducted by VTsIOM in the 1990s showed that during this period, collective ideas about the past occupied an increasingly significant place in the identity of Russians. At the same time, such a component of them as “antiquity, antiquity” was of the greatest importance, firstly, for people under 40 with a high level of education, and secondly, for those who were oriented towards democracy and reforms. This was also consistent with the hypertrophied craving for the "small motherland", which far outstripped in its importance in the self-consciousness of Russians such indicators as "our land" and "the state in which I live."

Obviously, many people were frightened by the bloodthirsty image of Bolshevik Russia, painted for several years by the media. In the national republics, the image of imperial Russia turned out to be even less attractive, which had its own crimes on its account, and they were widely written about in the 1990s, for example, in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the republics of the North Caucasus. In such a situation, the desire of many people to distance themselves from all these crimes and injustices looked quite natural. This goal can be achieved in two ways: firstly, by appealing to the more ancient past, which was not perceived so painfully and which could be given a heroic appearance, and secondly, by focusing on the “small motherland”, which made it possible to avoid direct identification with the activities of the Russian state . The first led to the creation of romanticized idealized images of antiquity, and the second to the flourishing of local history.

The idea of the significance of school history education in the process of legitimizing state power now seems trivial. At the same time, without clarifying the peculiarities of the ideological landscape of Ukraine, the place of school textbooks in the structure of the ideological market and the definition of concepts, the theme of the image of Russia in Ukrainian school history textbooks turns into only a set of insults, mutual accusations of falsification, ingratitude, betrayal, separatism, chauvinism, and thus loses all practical significance. However, in order not to get away from the stated problem, we can only indicate some initial positions without discussing them in detail. Are school history textbooks a segment of the ideological market? Is the state a monopoly in this market? How effective is this monopoly, if it exists? What are the goals and objectives of coding the historical consciousness of schoolchildren? What are the similarities and differences between the forms and methods of conquering the ideological market by the ruling circles in the USSR and in independent Ukraine? Is the status quo compatible with the proclaimed democratic values? If we are talking about the image of Russia, then what kind of Russia are we talking about - the Moscow State, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the RSFSR or the current Russian Federation? Is it possible to identify the modern Russian Federation as Russia without Ukraine and outside of Ukraine?

There is an opinion that the history of Russia and Russians was deliberately distorted.

Why was the history of Russia written in the 17th century by the Germans, while the greatest Russian academician and historian Lomonosov was sentenced to death? And who was interested in stealing Mikhail Lomonosov's scientific library and destroying his numerous manuscripts?

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov fell into disgrace because of his disagreements with the German scientists who formed the backbone of the Academy of Sciences in the 18th century. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, a stream of foreigners poured into Russia. Starting from 1725, when the Russian Academy was established, and until 1841, the foundation of Russian history was remade by the following “benefactors” of the Russian people who arrived from Europe, who spoke Russian poorly, but quickly became experts in Russian history.

Recently, the “Russian theme”, actively used in the political plane, has become very relevant. The press and television are full of speeches on this subject, as a rule, muddy and contradictory. Who says that the Russian people does not exist at all, who considers only the Orthodox to be Russian, who includes in this concept all those who speak Russian, and so on. Meanwhile, science has already given a very definite answer to this question. The scientific data below is a terrible secret. Formally, these data are not classified, since they were obtained by American scientists outside the field of defense research, and even published in some places, but the conspiracy of silence organized around them is unprecedented. The nuclear project at its initial stage cannot even be compared, then something still leaked into the press, and in this case - nothing at all.

What is this terrible secret, the mention of which is a worldwide taboo?

A number of prominent scientists in Russia and abroad question the generally accepted version of the history of the world.

In this book, you will get acquainted with numerous factual material that reveals a striking picture - it turns out that most of the discoveries in the field of archeology and geology, which indicate that man did not originate from a monkey at all, and has been on Earth for a very long time, were hushed up and hidden from the public. The version about the origin of man from a monkey was based on fabricated evidence, which, despite this, was exhibited in the largest museums in the world for decades.

With a thorough study of the facts and evidence of the use of high technologies in the creation of the pyramids, it becomes obvious that these ancient monuments were not created in the way that history presents. And, most likely, they were created, at least with the participation of other Races - as the Traditions and Legends say. The studied similarities in techniques suggest that in South America, Egypt, the Middle East and India, they were erected by representatives of the same culture. Once, apparently, it was a huge Country - the same Babylon, which is equally mentioned in the Bible and ... the Bonpo tradition!

In the past, presumably during the Renaissance in the West and during the Great Troubles in Russia, the largest forgery in the history of mankind took place. The former history of the world was withdrawn and destroyed and a new, false picture was drawn up, which placed people in the narrow framework of ignorance both in relation to their own nature and in the knowledge of their place in the Universe.

Exactly four hundred and thirty years ago, the greatest battle of Christian civilization took place, which determined the future of the Eurasian continent, if not the entire planet, for many, many centuries to come. Almost 200 thousand people met in a bloody six-day battle, proving the right to exist for many nations at once with their courage and selflessness. More than 100 thousand people paid with their lives for the resolution of this dispute, and only thanks to the victory of our ancestors, we now live in the world that we are used to seeing around. In this battle, not just the fate of Rus' and the countries of Europe was decided - it was about the fate of the entire European civilization. But ask any educated person: what does he know about the battle that took place in 1572? And practically no one, except for professional historians, will be able to answer you a word. Why? Because this victory was won by the "wrong" ruler, the "wrong" army and the "wrong" people. Four centuries have already passed since this victory is simply forbidden.

Being engaged in the study of northern languages on my own, I caught one characteristic pattern that eludes anyone who is still at the very beginning of the path of learning northern languages: from edition to edition, words with a Russian root stem are gradually withdrawn from all dictionaries ... and replaced by words with a Latin root stem ... Official linguistics rests on the fact that, they say, the Venets living in Scandinavia, who in ancient times formed with the Slavs a kind of single cultural and linguistic community, are closer in language to the Latins. In part, this may be true, I do not presume to argue with the luminaries of linguistics. But the fact that in the modern newspeak of the Norwegian language (nyno(r)shk), made up of hundreds of local dialects, "Russian" words are carefully removed is a fact ... And if this fails for some reason: there is only one argument - these words have not a "Russian" root basis, but ... "Indo-European". Or - which is completely out of the ordinary - they (the words) were somehow borrowed from Russian by these hundred dialects ... Curious, in what way? With word of mouth? If we take into account the very complex geophysical location of this country and the peculiarities of the landscape, then we can assume that the inhabitants who inhabited it a thousand years ago were indisputable innovators in terms of mass communication and ... put Russian words into circulation ... well, how is it done through the same television , Internet or radio, finally.

The state of modern historical science has become especially clear this year - 2012 was declared by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev the Year of Russian History. As of July 15, 2012 (exactly half a year has passed) no results of this Year have been presented to the society. None of the specialized institutes of the history of the Russian Academy of Sciences has given either the Russian people or the Russian president any work, the results of which in any way shed light on at least some controversial moments in Russian history.

And there are many such moments. Suffice it to say that we "officially" do not know anything from the history of our people, which obviously took place before the 9th - 10th centuries of our era. "Official" historical science to this day forces us to teach our children on historical materials formed back in the 18th - 19th centuries. And this despite the fact that such materials were frankly concocted by persons who in those years took an openly criminal position in relation to Russia. We specifically do not name any historical names here, because this article is intended for historians, who, of course, must independently recognize the characters described in it.

Is history a science? It would seem that the answer is known. The father of history is called Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC. Augustine the Blessed is considered the founder of the Christian philosophy of history?

After the "Founding Fathers," thousands and thousands of historians worked diligently for centuries in the fertile historical field. They created both the history and philosophy of history, they founded many historical disciplines, identified and substantiated numerous historical periods. In France, as early as 1701, academic historians were members of the French Academy of Inscriptions and Fine Literature, which had 95 full members, of which 40 were foreign subjects. History, which became a university discipline in the 19th century, as a science was taught and is taught today in many educational institutions around the world by thousands of specialists, teachers, associate professors and professors. All of them make up a large and powerful army of official historical science.
And this mighty army cannot and does not want to agree with statements like those made by Alexei Kungurov in his article. Meanwhile, criticism of official history and chronology dates back many centuries. It began almost when, according to A. Kungurov's exact expression, "... Europeans began to compose their great past ...". It is about this, about the falsification of European history and its chronology, that I would like to tell the reader.

The program canvas by Ilya Glazunov “Eternal Russia”, which crowds of Muscovites and visitors once flocked to see, was originally called “One Hundred Centuries”. The term is counted from the alleged exodus of the ancient Aryans from their ancestral home, which was the beginning of the collapse of the primary ethnolinguistic community and the emergence of independent peoples and languages (before, the language was common). The symbol of the former Motherland - the polar World Mountain, placed in the upper left corner, opens the visual row on Glazunov's composition.

But is it really a hundred centuries? Or is ten thousand years not the end of the long journey and the thorny history of the Slavic-Russian tribes and other peoples of the earth? After all, even Mikhailo Lomonosov called a completely different date, far beyond the borders of the most daring fantasy. Four hundred thousand years (more precisely - 399,000) - this is the result obtained by the Russian genius. And he relied on the calculations of the Babylonian astronomers and the evidence of the Egyptians, recorded by ancient historians. It was then that one of the most severe planetary catastrophes occurred: according to Lomonosov, the earth's axis shifted, the location of the poles changed, and in the end, as described by Plato in the dialogue "Politician", the Sun, which had previously risen in the west (!), began to rise in the east. According to Herodotus, this happened twice.

In the “Tale of Bygone Years”, reconstructed by modern scientists, supposedly belonging to Nestor, a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, Chernorites, the first real date is 852 AD. (or in accordance with the old Russian chronology - 6360 years “from the Creation of the world”). That year, a powerful Russian fleet appeared at the walls of Constantinople, which was recorded in the Byzantine chronicles, and from there it got into Russian chronicles. The next, truly significant, date - 862 - is associated with the calling of Rurik and his brothers to reign. It was from that time that it was customary to count Russian history for a long time: in 1862, the so-called 1000th anniversary of Russia was even celebrated, on the occasion of which an impressive monument was erected in Veliky Novgorod, designed by the sculptor Mikhail Mikeshin, which became almost a symbol of Russian statehood and monarchism.

Generations of Russian people have been brought up on textbooks and multi-volume publications on the history of Russia by Shletser, Karamzin, Solovyov, Polyakov, Kostomarov, Ilovaisky, Klyuchevsky, Pokrovsky, Tarle, Likhachev and the like. Since these authors have created entire schools and tens of thousands of people repeat the ideological cliches and characteristics of the characters of History they created, everything that is written by these Interpreters of History and repeated tens of thousands of times is perceived as an immutable Truth. But this is far from true. An analysis of the works of representatives of this cohort of historians allows us to conclude that many facts and assessments that these "interpreters" of Russian History presented as Truth have not been proven. V.L. Yanin:

"Repeatedly repeated in different works, such assessments seem to be justified and not subject to doubt by someone, while a study of the literature on the issue reveals that in reality the evidence never existed" (Yanin, 1990, p. 8).

Almost all of these authors were strongly influenced (if not dictated by) the democratic and Masonic trends that were fashionable in their time, which were inherently hostile to the Russian Idea. There were other reasons for these authors, which we will consider in this chapter, to distort the Patriotic History. As will be shown below, such a "substitution of concepts" and a direct falsification of Russian History has been going on for more than 1000 years.

The connection between the times of the History of modern Russia and the era of the Middle Ages was subjected to an even more fierce "attack" by interpreters of History hostile to us. Enormous resources have been expended to break this link between times. Such "attention" is explained by the special importance of the medieval history of Russia for understanding the current stage of the struggle between Russian and Jewish ideas.

It was in the Middle Ages after a centuries-old break that the Jewish idea found its own state, the Khazar Kaganate, which was not slow to put the Idea into practice, turning the tribes living between the Urals and the Dnieper into powerless slaves. There was no worse yoke in the history of mankind. For the first time, a genocide of the indigenous population was carried out on such a massive scale. Everyone who could even think of resistance (tribal leaders, warriors, priests, fists) was completely destroyed. The Jews, who lived in fortified settlements on the territory of the kaganate under the protection of the mercenary guards and their own national army, were proclaimed the highest race, to which everything is allowed in relation to the Slavs, "subhuman", "second-class people."

Already in the very name of the Ancient era there is a direct allusion to the most important role of the Slavic ethnos in those distant times, because "Antiquity" is difficult to translate otherwise than: "the era of Ants." But the Antes, according to most ancient and modern historians, are the Slavs. Perhaps the name given to the era by the name of the works of ancient art and crafts reflects the fact that in the entire Mediterranean of that time slaves were artisans, and most of the slaves were Slavs (Antes). Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a hint, although regardless of this assumption, Yegor Klassen cites many facts indicating the wide participation of the Slavic ethnos in the formation of ancient culture. In particular, he cited dozens of inscriptions on ancient tombstones and sculptures (6th century BC - 5th century AD) in "unknown" languages for Europeans. It turned out that these are inscriptions made in Old Slavonic in Latin letters. And now we write our return addresses in Russia on letters to Europe in the same way. But modern historiography, written by professional interpreters of history, conceals deaf silence about the ancient history of our ancestors, the genesis of the Russian Idea and the Russian people, which took place precisely at that time. We will talk about the reasons for such silence, and even the direct falsification of our history in this chapter.

The Romanov dynasty had "its own interest" in falsifying History.

Most of the most famous historians of that time, mentioned in the introduction to this chapter (Shletser, Karamzin, Solovyov, Ilovaisky, Kostomarov, Klyuchevskoy) were professionals. their well-being, like that of any professional, directly depended on those in power, who had their own ideas about what the people needed to know and what it was better for them to forget. Let us recall once again that all these historians "created" and edited Russian History during the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

The story, which describes the events of the twentieth century seventy years ago, claims that the Second World War began on September 1, 1939 as a result of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. What was the reason for choosing this date? The main reason for taking this date as a starting point was the fact that it was then, for the first time after the end of the First World War, that hostilities began again in Europe. Another argument was the elementary convenience of calculating the duration of wartime. If we consider the period from the date of entry into Poland to the date of the surrender of Japan, which occurred in early September 1945, then the duration of the Second Imperialist War was limited to six years. Nevertheless, the beginning of the countdown from the resumption of armed conflict in Europe does not look entirely logical. In this case, the Eurocentrism inherent in Soviet historical science comes to the fore.

Vadim Rostov

Falsification of the history of Russia

1. THE BEGINNING OF FICTION

The falsification of Russian history on a full scale occurred during the reign of Catherine II at the very end of the 18th century. The Empress personally edited the "History of Russia" compiled by her, while correcting historical documents, giving orders for the destruction of some documents and for writing fakes. The need for a global falsification of history at that time was determined by the capture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Western Rus' (Ukraine) during the divisions of the Commonwealth.

Among the political tasks were: 1) to somehow justify the acquisition of these completely alien territories for Russia; 2) to suppress the national liberation struggle of Belarusians and Ukrainians - to invent a myth that they allegedly always dreamed of being under the rule of Russia; 3) within the framework of this myth, another myth should have been created - that Muscovites are Slavs and Rus, and not the Finnish population of Finnish Muscovy; 4) in order to cover the implementation of these tasks, it was necessary to carry out a mass revision of all chronicles and historical documents in the occupied territories in order to correct or destroy them.

To achieve these political goals, it was necessary to solve specific tasks for falsifying history:

1) to create a myth that Kievan Rus, with the advent of the Tatars, suddenly begins to consider Rus (and even the Center of Rus!) Located in the Horde and 1000 kilometers from Rus, the country of Moksel (Moksha), inhabited by Finnish tribes and before that, Russia was not considered by anyone;

2) to create a myth about the existence of "Suzdal Rus", although no one before Catherine II knew about the existence of such;

3) to create a myth that Moscow was founded with the participation of the Kiev princes, although before Catherine II, all historians unanimously believed that it was founded at the behest of the Horde Khan after 1257 (then the Tatar-Mongol Empire carried out a census of all settlements and the entire population of the region to tighten taxation, and Moscow was not yet in it);

4) create a myth that Muscovy is Rus', and Muscovites are not Finns, but Slavs;

5) to create a myth about some kind of "yoke of the Horde", although before that all historians believed that Muscovy was a reliable stronghold of the Horde in the fight against Russia for three centuries, and then seized power in the Horde under Ivan the Terrible;

6) to create a myth that Dmitry Donskoy fought not for the Horde, but against the Horde.

The Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Belinsky in his book The Land of Moksel remarks:

“It was Catherine II, a European-educated person, who, having arrived in the Russian Empire and eventually gaining access to archival primary sources, was horrified, drawing attention to the fact that the entire history of the state rests on verbal epic mythology and has no evidence-based logic. The history of the state was based on the false research of Ivan the Terrible and was in a chaos of lack of evidence and mutually exclusive contradictions.

Could the assertion of the Muscovite Rurikids that Kievan Rus belongs to Muscovy on the grounds that the Muscovite prince emerged from the Kievan Rurik dynasty be considered serious? By that time, there was more than one dynasty in Europe, whose representatives were of the same faith, ruled in different countries, but did not encroach on foreign countries only on this basis. And then the Empress diligently set to work.

You should not think that Catherine II, because of simple disinterestedness, began to "write and streamline" Russian history. Everything was done not without the greatest intent. Indeed, in that long line of Moscow, and later Russian, Princes, Tsars and Emperors, Catherine II herself should have taken one of the most honorable places. And the more majestic and noble that row turned out to be, the more majestic she looked in it - the German princess. She did not allow the thought that in the royal family she could be among the TATAR-MONGOLIAN ordinary nobility. It was a nightmare! This, for a European-educated person of that time, could not be allowed even in a dream.

Catherine II on December 4, 1783 by her Decree ordered the creation of a "Commission for compiling notes on ancient history, mainly Russia" under the command and supervision of Count A.P. Shuvalov". (V.O. Klyuchevsky "Historical Portraits", p. 564.) Here is how the Decree was executed in practice: brief extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to the well-known [Catherine II] rather peculiar plan. These scholars constitute the "assembly"; but Shuvalov chooses them, preferring "diligence and accuracy to wit" when choosing, and introduces them to the empress.

Gerard Friedrich Miller, in the person of the so-called "Miller's historical department", became the "commander" for the "composition of Russian history" at the behest of Catherine II, since the academician himself passed away in 1783. But it was Miller who had a decisive influence on the "composed Russian history." Previously, he was looking for "historical materials" in the Volga region and in Siberia, that is, he seized materials relating to the Tatar-Mongolian past of Muscovy (1238-1598). In 1792, "Catherine's story" saw the light. Since then, it has been strictly forbidden to introduce anything else into the narrative framework of the history of the Russian Empire.

Member of the Commission Alexander Vasilyevich Khrapovitsky (1749-1801), in 1782-1793 State Secretary of Empress Catherine II, in his memoirs (passed through repeated royal and church censorship and published in 1862, republished in 1990 in Moscow) - openly writes, that Catherine II personally ruled a new "version of history". Including the compilation of the genealogy of the Russian Grand Dukes. At the same time, she argued that it was necessary to follow not historical facts (supposedly “confusing”), but “the order we need”, “Russian needs”.

The phrases of Catherine II cited in Khrapovitsky's memoirs are curious. He wrote down her direct instructions to show the enormous power of the Tatars and the reason for their victories in the absence of a strong monarchical power (Catherine ordered to bring at least 70 specific principalities to show the "fragmentation of Russia"). Including in the records “about the Tatars and their strength during the invasion of Russia”, the empress already replaces the Suzdal land with the concept of “Russia”. The Empress specifically instructs Khrapovitsky to create a myth that the Russians are allegedly Slavs, for which he "found papers written about the antiquity of the Slavs while living in the Hermitage, with the search for the primitive people."

Such typical moments in memoirs are funny: “I showed the river Sit, in the Yaroslavl province. It flows into the Mologa, and the Mologa into the Volga. Prince Vladimir Yuryevich Ryazansky from the Tatars was killed in the City. They thought [Catherine II] that he crossed the Volga much lower, to attack the Tatars, but the river Sit shows that Vladimir fled to Tver. They are not very happy with this discovery for the history they are compiling. This is how the flight of the prince from the Tatars turns into an "attack against the Tatars", because "they are not very happy with this discovery."

And from such thousands of small (and often large) falsifications, a completely different, fictional story is totally created. It is significant that Khrapovitsky in this quote says about her: “for the history being composed” - which is absolutely true, since this history of Russia was WRITTEN by the Commission under the supervision of the Empress.

2. "REFINEMENT OF THE HISTORY"

Historian Vladimir Belinsky writes that, being at that time well-educated and comprehensively developed, Catherine II understood where the history of the Empire did not fit. Reading the ancient chronicles of Kievan Rus, she saw that the Europeans immediately caught the eye - the unsubstantiated and impudent transfer of the right of heritage from the Grand Principality of Kiev to "Moksel" or - Suzdal land, and subsequently the arbitrary transfer of this "right" to Muscovy. For a European-educated person, this is nonsense!

At one time, England also expressed a claim to France. However, by the end of the 18th century, the English encroachment on the French throne had turned into either a European joke or a farce. And Catherine II knew about it. She understood that if such a gap even caught her eye, then subsequently serious European researchers would simply reject the allegations of the Muscovites about their "inheritance right" to the history and land of Kievan Rus. After all, in the part of the land of Kievan Rus, even during the time of Catherine II, the same people of Rusyns-Ukrainians, still not subject to the Russian Empire, lived, completely different from the Muscovites.

It was that period in the history of the Great Russians (the second half of the 12th-13th centuries) that was subject to radical “strengthening”. The history of the subsequent period required "usual revision". The Empress acted very cunningly and cleverly. She did not touch the history of Kievan Rus, which was dangerous. The history of Kievan Rus by that time was recorded not only in the annals stored in the archives of Catherine II, but also in the chronicles: Lithuanian, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian, Greek, Turkic, Arab, etc. The "Zaleshansky" principalities, that is, the future Muscovy, were initially created without connection with European culture and without contacts with peoples who, by the end of the 12th and in the first half of the 13th century, could fix its concretized history.

The Russian Empire did everything possible to either destroy the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia, or to slander them and forcibly drive them into Christianity. And the Volga Bulgaria was burned, its madrasas and mosques were destroyed to the ground, all cultural values and annals were stolen and taken to Muscovy. That is, everything that we know today about the origin of the Suzdal principalities and Muscovy was "composed" and presented to us by the "paid employees" of the Empire - Catherine II's day laborers and their followers. All of them "composed mainly hist...

In our previous publications “Moksel Country” (No. 14) and “Non-Russian Russian Language” (No. 12), we talked about the fact that Russia is a Finnish country, not a Slavic one, and a study of the gene pool of the Russian people just conducted by Russian scientists showed that Russians are not Slavs, but Mordovians (“The Face of Russian Nationality”, No. 15).

Where did the completely distorted ideas about the Russian people and the history of Russia come from? When and how did they appear? This article is the answer to these questions.

THE BEGINNING OF FICTION

Among the political tasks were: 1) to somehow justify the acquisition of these completely alien territories for Russia; 2) to suppress the national liberation struggle of Belarusians and Ukrainians - to invent a myth that they allegedly always dreamed of being under the rule of Russia; 3) within the framework of this myth, another myth should have been created - that the Muscovites are Slavs and Rus, and not the Finnish population of Finnish Muscovy; 4) in order to cover the implementation of these tasks, it was necessary to carry out a mass revision of all chronicles and historical documents in the occupied territories in order to correct or destroy them.

To achieve these political goals, it was necessary to solve specific tasks for falsifying history:

2) to create a myth about the existence of "Suzdal Rus", although no one before Catherine II knew about the existence of such;

4) to create a myth that Muscovy is Rus', and the Muscovites are not Finns, but Slavs;

6) to create a myth that Dmitry Donskoy fought not for the Horde, but against the Horde.And so on. All key moments in the history of Muscovy were subject to rewriting.

The Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Belinsky in his book The Land of Moksel remarks:

Catherine II on December 4, 1783 by her Decree ordered the creation of a "Commission for compiling notes on ancient history, mainly Russia" under the command and supervision of Count A.P. Shuvalov". (V.O. Klyuchevsky "Historical Portraits", p. 564.) Here is how the Decree was executed in practice: "Appoint ... up to 10 people who, by their combined efforts, would make useful notes on ancient history, mainly concerning Russia , making brief extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to the well-known [Catherine II] rather peculiar plan. These scholars constitute the "assembly"; but Shuvalov chooses them, preferring "diligence and accuracy to wit" when choosing, and introduces them to the empress.

The phrases of Catherine II cited in Khrapovitsky's memoirs are curious. He wrote down her direct instructions to show the enormous power of the Tatars and the reason for their victories in the absence of a strong monarchical power (Catherine ordered to bring at least 70 specific principalities to show the "fragmentation of Russia"). Including in the records “about the Tatars and their strength during the invasion of Russia”, the empress already replaces the Suzdal land with the concept of “Russia”. The empress specifically instructs Khrapovitsky to create a myth that the Russians are allegedly Slavs, for which he "found papers written about the antiquity of the Slavs while living in the Hermitage, with the search for the primitive people."

"REFINEMENT OF HISTORY"

Thus, the task of falsification was reduced by Catherine to two parts:

1) to write the never-existing “annalistic codes” of Muscovy during the Horde period (no one in the world knew them before and no one mentioned them until 1783, they all massively appear in the hundreds for the FIRST TIME only during the work of the Commission);

2) to correct the annals of Ukraine and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, introducing amendments to them in the form of references to the composed events in ancient Muscovy and to the composed "annalistic codes" of Muscovy. Moreover, the annals of the GDL did not cause a particular problem, because they were purposefully massively burned, also in order to hide the truth, even during the short occupation of the GDL by the troops of Ivan the Terrible.

But the Ukrainian chronicles were a headache for the Empress. Characteristically, Catherine collected with great effort all the available Ukrainian ancient texts in their originals. But they suddenly disappear in her hands, and only their lists, corrected by her hand, remain. For example, Khrapovitsky writes that together with Ekaterina he “worked” with the original of Nestor’s The Tale of Bygone Years. Having been in the hands of the Empress, the original disappears, like many other similar rarities.

Vladimir Belinsky notes: “Only “compositions” - “annalistic codes” have survived to our time, and forever, after Catherine II, the originals of antiquity disappeared. And the "annalistic vaults" that have come down to us were found either during the life of Catherine II, or after her death.

The commission, it should be noted, did a good job! The idea of the Commission: to combine in the "annalistic vaults", that is, in the folk narrative, Kievan Rus and Muscovy. So in the "Ipatiev Code" after the "Tale of Bygone Years" comes the Kiev Chronicle for the years 1119-1200, then the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, setting out the events from 1201 to 1292. Only in this chronicle is the year of the "foundation of Moscow" mentioned. And the "Laurentian Chronicle" following the "Tale of Bygone Years" contains a description of "the chroniclers of South Russia, and then" Vladimir-Suzdal Rus "(and this, now it turns out, was in antiquity!).

The idea of Catherine II is magnificent: dozens of "annalistic codes" are written, which later "are located", where folk geniuses themselves "transfer" the "right of heritage" from the great Nestor, ancient Kiev and the Galicia-Volyn principality to "Vladimir-Suzdal Rus". And who and how composed the "Northern Russian Chronicles" is known only to Catherine II and the Commission.

And in 1792, in St. Petersburg, a bright fruit of her work appeared, the so-called "Lviv Code", under the authorship of the abstract "Russian Chronicler". As you can see, the authorship of the "Commission" and personally Catherine II from "modesty" is missed. All subsequent "annalistic codes" were "found" either by Catherine's "accomplices", or by persons very much interested in their appearance, and they only specified the "Northern Russian chronicles".

To this day, imperial historians are "embarrassed" to recognize the "annalistic code", published in 1792 in St. Petersburg, as Catherine's, although the authorship of the Empress and the Commission has long been proven by many honest historians. In 1792, the Stately edited Chronicle of the Russian State appeared in five volumes, allegedly composed by the Russian Chronicler. And then it started - the falsification machine was gaining momentum. "Musin-Pushkin Alexei Ivanovich ... count, Russian statesman ... managed to open the Laurentian Chronicle ... he published ... "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" under the title "Iroic Song about the Campaign against the Polovtsy of the Prince of Novgorod-Northern Igor Svyatoslavovich (1800) "(TSB, third edition, volume 17, p. 129.).

M. Karamzin outdid A.I. Musin-Pushkin (member of the Commission). "I was looking for the oldest lists ... In 1809, while examining the ancient manuscripts of the late Pyotr Kirillovich Khlebnikov, I found two treasures in one book: the Chronicle of Kiev, known only to Tatishchev, and Volyn, previously unknown to anyone ... A few months later I got and another list of them: once belonging to the Ipatiev Monastery, he was hiding in the library of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences between the Defects. (N.M. Karamzin "History of the Russian State", volume 1, p. 24.) All such discoveries of incredible significance, documents never known to anyone before and never mentioned by anyone - are made for some reason only by participants in the work of the Commission. Moreover, all these “finds” in a strange way SUCCESSFULLY prove the instructions given by Catherine to change the picture of history. I gave the task - and here was the document, previously unknown to anyone! A chain of amazing coincidences.

In fact, the "linden" is obvious. No one in their right mind can believe that Karamzin could find in the library of the Academy of Sciences something that no one noticed and, moreover, was not known to anyone before and was not mentioned anywhere. Belinsky comments on this as follows: “All the “newly found” vaults, like twin brothers, were “made on the same block” either by “Catherine's guys”, or by “pioneers”. Each of the "newly found" chronicles had its own clarification or "spurred" to the Kievan antiquity a new "Great Russian" land, either Tver, or Ryazan or Moscow.

In parallel, Catherine II introduces by her Decree in 1787 strict censorship on the publication of books on history and on the reprinting of ancient chronicles. From now on, private publishing houses cannot publish such literature, and first of all it is forbidden to the famous Novikov publishing house, which published several books during the work of the Commission that directly contradicted the historical work of Catherine (more on one of them below). And on September 16, 1796, a decree of Catherine II was announced on the prohibition of "free printing houses" and on the introduction of even more stringent censorship.

A characteristic feature of the plan of total falsification is the complete disappearance of the sources, the discovery of which the Commission refers to. Including the chronicles mentioned above, allegedly found by Karamzin, have strangely disappeared, no one has seen them except Karamzin, but they are included in the basis of the history of Russia. This is unscientific: these "chronicles" were not proven by historical science as reliable (they were not studied at all) and disappeared - why on earth are they recognized as "reliable" today?

For example, this is impossible in biology: a scientist cannot take credit for the discovery of a new species without providing the very specimen of that species. But in historical science, it turns out that it is quite possible to trust only the words of a researcher, not supported by any visible evidence. The same is true of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, published in 1800 according to a single copy owned by Count Musin-Pushkin. The greatest masterpiece in the hands of the count burned down, although the count himself survived the war of 1812 and died only in 1817. Isn't it strange: Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin lives permanently in his palace in St. Petersburg, but for some reason he keeps the greatest value in Moscow.

It is clear - otherwise it is impossible to call the original disappeared. Musin-Pushkin understood that a detailed study of his "original" would necessarily reveal either its fake antique, or a distortion of the text. Let me remind you that Musin-Pushkin is a member of the Commission, and in the "Word ..." we are talking about the events of the end of the 12th century, which were actively falsified on the instructions of Catherine II. (L.N. Gumilyov: “It is generally accepted that The Tale of Igor's Campaign is a patriotic work written in 1187.”) Moreover, the very theme of The Lay ... is completely at odds with the historical texture.

In 1169, Prince Mordovians Andrei Bogolyubsky attacked Rus' from his Finnish lands and staged a complete genocide with his Finns in Kiev, slaughtering the population, raping children, destroying all Orthodox churches and at the same time showing his Finnish paganism. Let us ask ourselves the simplest question: could a true believing patriot of the Kyiv land, who survived the desecration of Slavic shrines by Andreev, in his essay glorify the Suzdal land of Moksel and its Finnish princes? It's only been 15-18 years. The answer to the question is obvious.

The opinion of some Russian scientists who analyzed the vocabulary of the “Words ...” is interesting: they find that the backbone of the work was indeed Old Russian (Ukrainian), but everything related to the attitude towards the future Muscovy is a fake, and the main enemy of Rus' in the work should be filed just future Moscow lands. Whether the "Word ..." was distorted by a member of the Commission in the "needs of Russia" or is it entirely a fake is still a subject of controversy.

By the way, this heyday of imperial myth-making in Russia was accompanied, in addition to the creation by the Commission of false "chronicles" of the Horde and the country of Moksel, with a mass of completely odious fakes in general. Unknown coins of medieval Muscovy began to appear in abundance, on which there were indications that its princes were the successors of Kievan Rus, fantastic “chronicles” began to appear, where the history of Russia was erected right up to ancient times, when the “Slavs of Moscow” participated in Greek wars. Although there are no Slavs in Russia even today, and Russians are Finns, as studies in 2000-2006 proved. Russian scientists in the framework of determining the gene pool of the Russian nation.

If there are no Slavs in Russia even today, then where could they come from in ancient times? Moreover, the very nationality of the Slavs arose many centuries later? Many such falsifications are rejected by our modern scientists as sheer stupidity, but the falsifications created during the work of the Commission are not only not rejected in Russia, but, on the contrary, are based on it, because it creates the imperial historical justifications that are so necessary today and always. Whether they were invented or not is no longer important, because the order for them, as it was under Catherine II, remains the same today.

"ADMINISTRATION OF LIES"

As part of the work of the Commission, A.I. Musin-Pushkin "Laurentian Code", hitherto unknown to anyone and generally not mentioned anywhere in history. His A.I. Musin-Pushkin solemnly presents to the Empress - as a huge find, because he immediately implements a lot of Catherine's orders when "composing History". Russian encyclopedias today report: “The Lavrentiev Chronicle, following the Tale of Bygone Years, contains a description of the events of South Russian, and then Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'.

The chroniclers of Vladimir considered the princes of Vladimir to be the successors of the Kyiv ones, and Vladimir was considered the new center of the political life of Rus'. Since 1285, a series of dated Tver news begins in the Laurentian Chronicle, which indicates the beginning of the Tver chronicle. One can see in the Laurentian Chronicle and the Tver code of 1305, connecting the material of various areas, and striving to be all-Russian. "Vladimir Belinsky comments:" The chroniclers, it turns out, were Kiev, Suzdal, Vladimir, Tver and others, and only did what they preached " all-Russian idea" from century to century: in 1070, and in 1170, and in 1281, and in 1305, and in 1377. And this was at a time when a glade and other Slavs lived in Kiev land, and in "Zaleshany land" was inhabited by the Finnish tribes Merya, Muroma and the whole.This is at a time when the inhabitants of "Southern Russia" fiercely hated the inhabitants of "Northern Russia" (according to S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky).

And, finally, this happened at a time when priests in the Suzdal land often did not know the "Our Father", but at the same time they, it turns out, were "Great Russian sovereigns." It should also be recalled that such "magnificent vaults" were written in the Meryansk and Murom "fenced (palisade) villages." From here, dear reader, draw your own conclusions. Just pay attention once again to what Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin Lavrentievsky vault only in 1792. It was at the time when the Mother Empress commanded. Interestingly, the TSB treats this “chronicle” cautiously and skeptically: “The Laurentian Chronicle ... In 1792 (year) A.I. Musin-Pushkin acquired it ...”. Not “found”, but “acquired”: from whom it is impossible to trace how very obscure its origin for science is. That is, another fake.

Soon N.M. Karamzin found the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle. Why was he found? In 1803 Karamzin began to compose "History of the Russian State". Already in 1811, Karamzin read the first chapters of the book to Emperor Alexander I, where the chapters of Batu's invasion of Suzdal were written. Sitting down at the table and starting to compose the "History of the Russian State", Karamzin leafed through all the "chronicles" "open" before him, but in none of them did he find the time of the founding of Moscow. And the main idea of Karamzin's super-patriotic composition (a Tatar, a descendant of the Tatars Murz Horde) was the glorification of the glory of Moscow and Muscovy for "gathering the Russian land." At the same time, it was automatically considered that since the "Suzdal Land" appeared during the heyday of the Great Kievan reign, then the related, they say, connection is visible to the naked eye. But in Karamzin, when presenting the History of the Russian State, the "Moscow trace" turned out to be very dirty.

Yes, and the author wanted it or not, but he had to show the whole path of humiliation of Muscovy after the conquest of the Suzdal land by the Tatar-Mongols. Although all humiliations are served in a laudatory and majestic spirit. But even N.M. Karamzin saw a contradiction in his reasoning. All the Suzdal-Vladimir principalities from 1237 turned into Uluses of the Golden Horde. And at that ulus time, Moscow possession suddenly appeared as part of the Golden Horde. Everything suggests that subsequently Moscow, as a state entity, should trace its ancestry from the Tatar-Mongol Ulus.

Since Muscovy, with the help of the Khan's troops and thanks to them, swallowed up Ryazan or Tver, Novgorod or Torzhok, and so on, she only "collected" small Tatar-Mongol Uluses, remaining the Great Ulus. Seeing the great Tatar-Mongolian ancestors in the birth of Moscow and Muscovy, Karamzin had no choice but to "search" for a new "annalistic code" in order to at least record the very appearance of the settlement of Moscow before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. And in 1809 he "finds" the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle. Like, look, the Kyiv chroniclers themselves recorded our appearance in the light of God. It is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, where the Kyiv and Galicia-Volyn Chronicles are summarized, that the word "Moscow" is mentioned for the first time.

It's funny that Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin himself did not hesitate to admit that he simply invented a lot in what he wrote with his own hand. Here is what he writes about history in general and his own in particular: “But History, they say, is filled with lies: let’s say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved, and that’s enough.” for us to form a general conception of people and deeds. (N.M. Karamzin "History ...", Volume I, p. 18.) So guess how much "admixture of lies" the author of "History of the Russian State" threw in.

Let's return to Karamzin's Ipatiev Chronicle. Here is how N.M. Karamzin, the words of Yuri Dolgoruky, allegedly said in 1147. "Come to me, brother, to Moscow." This is the appeal of the prince, who had no allotment in Kievan Rus, to the Novgorod-Siversky prince Svyatoslav. And at the behest of N.M. Karamzin, the Prince of Novgorod-Siversky moved for the sake of a "glass" to the "thirtieth kingdom" for a thousand kilometers through impenetrable forests and swamps, for two years of a dangerous journey, in order to "witness" the appearance of some village "Moskovy" to the world from the name of the Moscow River, derived from the names of the native Mordovian people Moksha-Moksa.

Today, historians consider this a complete invention of Karamzin "for the sake of the imperial needs of Moscow." And - fiction, absolutely nothing proven scientifically. In fact, Svyatoslav, according to this version, allegedly "foresaw" in this provincial village of Moksha "the birth of the capital of Great Russia" and "the successor of Kievan Rus", allegedly "showed insight." And Yuri Dolgoruky showed the same "sagacity" - it dawned on everyone that it was here, in this Mordovian village, that the capital of New Rus' would be. All this seems to be imperial nonsense.

Klyuchevsky, understanding the absurdities, wrote in a different way, completely forgetting about the “finds of Karamzin”: “In 1156, according to the chronicle, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky “laid the city of Moscow” below the mouth of the Neglinnaya ...” (V.O. Klyuchevsky “On the Russian Stories", p.132.). But even here everything does not add up. In 1156, Yuri Dolgoruky, having returned to Kievan Rus long before (according to Klyuchevsky), was the Grand Prince of Kiev and sat in Kiev until his death, which followed in 1157. Why it took him a thousand kilometers from Kyiv a year before his death to "mortgage" some useless "Moscow", remains the greatest mystery. It is not clear how it is possible and why to order someone (whom?) to lay the "city of Moscow" a thousand kilometers away.

And the most important Russian absurdity - how can a prince sitting in Kyiv "lay down a city" with a non-Russian name Moscow - with a Mordovian name? Either he is a Mordvin himself, who loves to create Finnish toponyms, or, after all, Moscow was created by its population of moksha-moksel, from which the name Moksva comes (Moks + Va, moksha + water in Finnish), then changed by the Slavs to Moscow ( Finnish "ks" in the roots of words in the Slavic language naturally changed to "sk", according to the norms of the Russian language). The only fact is that not a single historical source, except for the invented Catherine's "annalistic codes", does not record the time of the appearance of the Moscow settlement before the end of the 13th century. And it couldn't be fixed. For the birth of settlements with Finnish names was not recorded in Russian chronicles (because it was the work of the natives): there is no information in Russian chronicles about the founding of Ryazan (formerly Erzya), Murom, Kaluga or Perm - Finnish place names. And the birth of a village with the Finnish name Moscow is suddenly recorded in the annals ...

TRUE HISTORY OF RUSSIA: LYZLOV

Do not think that Catherine II was the first person to write "own" Russian history. A hundred years before the creation of the Commission by Catherine II, one of the contemporaries of Peter I - Andrei Ivanovich Lyzlov, who died in 1696, wrote in 1692 a serious work - "Scythian History". It was in this work that Lyzlov first tried to present the history of the future Russia (in those days it was called Muscovy), its relationship with Kievan Rus and the Golden Horde.

"Scythian History" covers the time from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. TSB reports: "Lyzlov used a wide range of sources and historical writings (chronicles, chronographs, bit books, versions of Kazan History, Ukrainian historical works, Polish-Lithuanian chronicles, works of Latin-Italian and other authors)". His "Scythian History", oddly enough, was not published until 1776, although it was distributed in manuscript. The publication of the book in very small editions in 1776 and 1787 was carried out by the famous publisher N.M. Novikov, and in response to these publications, a decree of Catherine II appeared, imposing censorship on books on the history of Russia.

What was the "Scythian History" about? Here are the main thoughts that A.I. Lyzlov, who studied the ancient primary sources:

1. The Mongols who came to Suzdal in 1237 were not Mongols at all, but the eastern and southern neighbors of Muscovy and Volga Bulgaria - the Tatars, or rather "Tartars". Which is absolutely true, since the Mongols in the XIII century had only a few hundred thousand people (today there are 2 million) and waged wars simultaneously in three directions: China, Iran and Europe. That is, the Genghisides dynasty went from Mongolia and, along the path of conquest, drew the conquered peoples of the Volga into the orbit of their statehood. Subsequently, the Suzdal principalities (the land of Moksel) became part of the single state of the Volga and were everywhere involved in the conquest campaigns of the Golden Horde. Which is fully proved by Russian sources, but is not recognized by Russian historical science, which refers to the version of history created by the Catherine's Commission.

2. The inhabitants of Muscovy are a separate, isolated, original people, having nothing in common with the Russians (Kievan Rus), Lithuania, Poles, etc. Here is what A.I. Lyzlov: "Scythia consists of two parts: one is European, in which we live, that is: Moscow [Muscovites-Moksha], Russians [Ukrainians], Lithuania [Belarusians], Volokhi and European Tatars [Crimean, Nogai, etc. ]". For Lyzlov, the people of Moscow are the people of Moksha-Moksel (in the Slavic name Moskel, Muscovites), these are Finns-Moksha, and not Slavs at all.

In Lyzlov, in no place is there any mention of any Slavic relationship between the Finns-Muscovites and the Rusyns of Ukraine. On the contrary, the idea of delimiting the ethnic groups of Muscovy and Kievan Rus is very clearly presented. Moreover, this thought dominated serious analytical work as early as 1692, that is, until the time when Peter I ordered to call Muscovy - the Russian State, renaming Muscovy to Russia.

3. Lyzlov does not mention a single so-called "annalistic code". Having freely studied many archives, turning over hundreds of primary sources, Andrei Ivanovich Lyzlov, who wrote the "Scythian History", nowhere (!!!) did not find a single (!!!) of the thousands of Russian "annalistic codes", allegedly first discovered by the Commission of Catherine II. At the same time, he was in the archives a hundred years earlier than any Karamzin, Musin-Pushkin and other Catherine's accomplices.

A. Bushkov in the book "Russia, which was not.-3" (M., 2004) draws attention to the curious fact that Lyzlov and other historians of the XVI-XVII centuries. there is no mention of the "great" Nestor, who, according to current ideas, worked no later than the 12th century, when he allegedly created the Tale of Bygone Years. Bushkov writes: “Why? Yes, because in the XVI-XVII centuries they did not hear about Nestor. His works did not yet exist, that's all. Historians did not even know such a name ... ”Bushkov believes that“ The Tale of Bygone Years ”was written at the direction of Peter the Great on the basis of ancient chronicles - to justify his Baltic territorial acquisitions.

Peter discovered this work "so successfully" in the captured Koenigsberg. However, Bushkov is mistaken here, believing that before Lyzlov there was no work of Nestor. It was - but in a completely different form, something ordinary was written in it, which did not attract the attention of historians, but only in the text of "The Tale ...", allegedly found by Peter in Koenigsberg, sensational pages about Rurik's arrival in Ladoga first appear in it, which in the present work of Nestor never existed (more on this below). In general, there is a trend: as soon as the Russian sovereigns seize new lands for themselves, “historical documents” are immediately found, allegedly confirming their rights to them ...

The book "Scythian History", twice published by N.I. Novikov in a very small circulation, it was never published again either in the tsarist or in the Bolshevik Empire. N.I. Novikov, who managed to publish this book before the cruel Catherine's censorship, it followed on July 25, 1787, was subsequently arrested and imprisoned for a long time. And only in 1990, during the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the Scythian History was published in Moscow for the third time in 300 years in an insignificant circulation of five thousand copies. You can’t hide an awl in a bag - with any weakening of imperial censorship, the works of Russian historians who wrote the truth again “emerge”.

TRUE HISTORY OF RUSSIA: TATISCHEV

More tragic was the fate of the works of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), which became generally, as it were, “lost”. The talented historian worked for Russia for many years, but was rejected, and his books were destroyed by the Power. By 1747, he created a huge work: "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." This work was found by the authorities to be “unnecessary” and destroyed. Tatishchev had access not only to state and church archives, but also to the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia.

His book had links to many primary sources, but this book was not published during the author's lifetime. Even more than that - Tatishchev was forbidden to publish the book, declaring his "political free-thinking and heresy." And then all Tatishchev's manuscripts disappeared. All primary sources used by V.N. Tatishchev from 1720 to 1745, by the 80s of the 18th century, were concentrated in the archives behind seven locks, in the caches of Catherine II, where only authorized persons had access. Here are the words of the German August Ludwig Schlozer, who worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767: “In 1720, Tatishchev was sent [by Peter I] to Siberia ... Here he found a very ancient list of Nestor from a schismatic. How surprised he was when he saw that it is completely different from before!

He thought, as I did at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev little by little collected a dozen lists, according to them and other options reported to him, he made the eleventh ... ". Here it is appropriate to recall that Tatishchev had previously studied the supposedly "Radzivilov" text of The Tale of Bygone Years acquired during the capture by Peter I in Koenigsberg (about him we spoke above), in which, at the suggestion of Peter, sheets were pasted concerning the appearance of Rurik in Ladoga, and pages about the conduct of the family of princes of Russia from the biblical Adam. Then Tatishchev stated that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, because this Koenigsberg text odiously contradicted everyone chronicle texts known to Tatishchev.

The main point is that before the discovery of Peter, all existing chronicles gave a completely different picture of the emergence of Rus', and Tatishchev completely believed it, since it was confirmed by all sources. Namely: it was not Rurik who created Kievan Rus at all - Kyiv, even before Rurik, became Russian from Galician Rus. And that earlier became Russia from Rus'-Ruthenia - a colony of the Slavs of Polabya, located on the territory of present-day Hungary and Austria, its capital was the city of Keve (this “Hungarian” Rus', which existed until the 12th century, is reflected in all European chronicles, including the Polish Chronicle ").

Rurik, in the Sami Ladoga, created only another new Russian colony (he built Novgorod as a continuation of the Old Town of Polabian Rus' - now Oldenburg in Germany). And when Askold and Dir, sent by him, came to Kyiv, they saw that the Russian princes were already ruling there - but a different Rus', not subject to the encouragers and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. I note that until now many Russian historians are perplexed or consider it a mistake of the annals that the princes of Kyiv answered the envoys of Rurik that the Russian princes were already ruling here. This seems absurd only in the version of the story invented by Peter (he was helped by hired German historians), which completely denied any Russian history of Kiev, Galicia, "Hungarian" Rus'-Ruthenia and even Polabskaya Rus' - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of encouragement, lyutichs , Rug-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).

Peter ordered to consider that Rus' was born in Muscovy: this gave "rights" to all the lands, one way or another connected in history with Russia. Tatishchev, on the other hand, found in his research the “objectionable fact” of the existence of many Russ in Europe long before Rurik landed in Ladoga, at the same time showing that at that time there was no “Rus” on the territory of Muscovy. Including Tatishchev, recreating the TRUE history of Rus' in his research, he seemed to be able, according to the vague hints of August Ludwig Schlozer, to find the genealogy of the Russian Kyiv princes before Rurik. Which had nothing to do with Rurik - as well as with Peter's Muscovy, but it had something to do with Central Europe and the then existing Russian kingdoms and principalities (there were several of them).

All this helps to understand Tatishchev's bewilderment when he got acquainted with the list of "The Tale of Bygone Years" "found" by Peter. And then the bewilderment became even greater - turning into a protest. In Siberia, Tatishchev found other ancient lists of The Tale of Bygone Years, devoid of Peter's corrections. And his opinion here completely changed: he discovered that Peter was engaged in the falsification of history, falsified the Koenigsberg text of "The Tale ...", which absolutely did not correspond to the lists of this text found by Tatishchev in Siberia. From that time on, Tatishchev fell into disgrace, and all his studies of history became "seditious" for the State.

The whole “sedition” of Tatishchev lies in the fact that he honestly wrote about the Finnish and Horde history of Russia and honestly resented the attempts of the Russian authorities to hide this history. Doesn't it seem very strange that even Tatishchev's "primary sources" have not come down to us? But all of them were, classified, in the hands of Catherine II. This should not be surprising, such "oddities" accompany Russian history everywhere. Vladimir Belinsky says somewhat emotionally: “It was after the order of Peter I, who transformed Muscovy into the Russian state, that the elite of Muscovy began to think about the need to create an integral history of their own state. But only with the advent of Catherine II, a European-educated person, on the Russian throne, the ruling elite managed to drive the plot of Moscow history into a predetermined pro-imperial course, stealing its legitimate name "Rus" from Kievan Rus, attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnos Muscovy.

Everything was justified "as required":

1. Falsely ennobled Alexander, the so-called Nevsky;

2. They made up a myth about Moscow, hiding the truth about its Tatar-Mongol ancestors;

3. The most faithful defender of the unity of the Golden Horde, Dmitry Donskoy, was turned into a defender of the "independence of Muscovy";

4. And so on and so forth... "Chronicle Codes" flooded the Russian historical science by the thousands, and single historical primary sources disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and this lie.”

The emotional approach of the Ukrainian historian, who sees in the creation of these myths the destruction of the statehood of his Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign, is understandable. If we remain scientifically impartial, then the historical science of the CIS countries is obliged to recognize the fact of the odious falsification of history by the Commission of Catherine II. Moreover, if this is still rejected by someone in Russia out of obsolete imperial considerations, then this has nothing to do with science. We need to separate our real history from the mythical views of “how one would like to see it” to someone. How Catherine II falsified the history of the GDL-Belarus is a topic for another publication.

Vadim ROSTOV

Analytical newspaper "Secret Research"