The course of "perestroika", announced by Gorbachev some time after he came to the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, turned out to be closely linked not only with "progressive" economic ideas, but also with new ideas, let's say, of a humanitarian nature. It was from the second half of the eighties that new interpretations of the "correctness" of fiction, art and even history suddenly began to appear. The so-called liberal historiographic science began to come into vogue, the main thesis of which was approximately the following: you can forget everything that was included in the concept of "studying history" before - now you need to take a course on "restructuring" public opinion about the course of national and world history; new historiography and historiosophy should be fashionable … This thesis "untied" the hands of those who believed that they were tied to him - and the new historical science, like a stream of feces, began to overwhelm both the educational field and social life in general.
Historiographic sensations and pseudo-sensations began to emerge in such a volume that, it seemed, literally everyone who saw a "creative grain" in themselves sat down to describe the course of historical events. The concept of "liberal historian" was born. And if initially the concept and activities of such people seemed very interesting to both professionals and ordinary people, then over time the epithet liberal turned into an openly abusive one. The liberal historian today is perceived not as a historian at all, but as someone who is overly eager for a sensation, moreover, a sensation aimed exclusively at cultivating Russophobia or dubious values.
The Katyn affair, the battles of the Great Patriotic War, the Russian revolutions, the role of individuals in the history of the state, the era of industrialization, the era of imperial reforms of the mid-19th century - this is just an incomplete list of what, if not turned upside down, then served with a hot sauce. With so sharp that history and many historians have become frankly similar to, excuse me, corrupt girls - who pays, he “dances the girl”, he “dines” on her …
One of the topics that many representatives of the so-called creative community wanted to season with their own sauce was the topic of General Vlasov's betrayal. In the early 2000s (apparently, on the post-perestroika wave), voices began to be heard more and more often that General Vlasov was no traitor, that he was a true Russian patriot who made efforts to fight “vile Bolshevism” and “Stalinism”. One of the first to rehabilitate the "honest" name of General Vlasov was Sergei Belavenets (he is also Hieromonk Nikon, member of the council of the so-called Russian Noble Assembly, winner of two awards at the Russian Imperial House, confessor of the movement "For Faith and Fatherland"). His example was followed by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), who, after the publication in 2009 of the book by the priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, "The Tragedy of Russia:" Forbidden "Topics of the Twentieth Century History in Church Sermon and Publicism", also decided to reflect on the topic glorification of Andrei Vlasov.
And here are some of the fruits of a liberal approach to the essence of Russian history in excerpts from readers' comments on materials on Vlasov in the media:
A certain Hukku writes:
General Vlasov was a great man; the embodiment of his manifesto could save the country, and the result of Stalin's activities was the present miserable existence.
Quoting from Wikipedia:
Andrei Andreevich Vlasov - Soviet military leader (lieutenant general), participant in the Battle of Moscow. He commanded the 2nd Shock Army, during the Luban offensive in 1942 he was captured by Germany and went to cooperate with the leadership of the Third Reich against the political system of the USSR.
It turns out that the "great" man went against the political system …
The ideas of rehabilitation and even heroization of General Vlasov and all those who subsequently stood under the banner of the ROA (Russian Liberation Army), in fact, taking the oath of allegiance to Hitler's Germany, began to actively advance into the media environment. The promotion of these ideas has been and continues to be carried out quite actively and persistently. So, for example, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR held a seminar in which the topic of General Vlasov was assigned a special role. Here are some excerpts from that workshop:
The tragedy of those who are usually called "Vlasovites", i.e. the participants in the movement, on the basis of which the Russian Liberation Army (ROA) arose, is truly great. In any case, it must be comprehended with all possible impartiality and objectivity. Outside of such comprehension, historical science turns into political journalism. We think that for a better understanding of what was happening in Russia - and with Russia - in the crucial years of the last century, we should avoid the "black-and-white" interpretation of historical events. These events, by their very nature, were so complex, internally contradictory and multi-layered that an attempt to describe them in any one word-concept was doomed to failure in advance. In particular, the naming of the deeds of the gene. A. A. Vlasov - betrayal, there is, in our opinion, a frivolous simplification of the events of that time.
So, ROCOR calls on historians to move away from "black-and-white" interpretations, to delve deeper into the essence of the issue. Well, it is undoubtedly necessary to delve into the essence of the issue, but only the following quote contains words that this appeal immediately crosses out:
Was there a gene. A. A. Vlasov and his associates - traitors to Russia? - we answer - no, not at all. Everything that was undertaken by them was done specifically for the Fatherland, in the hope that the defeat of Bolshevism would lead to the re-creation of a powerful national Russia. Germany was viewed by the "Vlasovites" exclusively as an ally in the struggle against Bolshevism, but they, the "Vlasovites" were ready, if necessary, to resist any kind of colonization or dismemberment of our Motherland by armed force. To paraphrase the famous statement of the late Russian philosopher Alexander Zinoviev, gene. A. A. Vlasov and his entourage, "aiming at communism", made every conceivable effort to "not get into Russia." And these moods, these aspirations were not particularly hidden in the "Vlasov" environment, and that is why the haters of Russia, both in Germany itself and in other countries, did everything in their power to prevent the timely creation of a combat-ready Russian Liberation Army, and so all the more so - the Russian national government.
That is, at least the inconsistency is obvious here. The Synod of Bishops urges not to slide towards exclusively "white" or exclusively "black" in the interpretation of the course of history, but immediately declares that General Vlasov is not a traitor, but a fighter against Bolshevism … Even without halftones … Interesting logic …
The ROCOR, a number of dignitaries of the ROC, as well as liberal interpreters of history have been trying for a fairly long period of time to present Andrei Vlasov as a heroic figure, who was undeservedly slandered by "illiberal" historians. And they are trying, despite the fact that in November 2001 the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to rehabilitate General Vlasov and many so-called “Vlasovites”.
So, what are the main theses of the supporters of the idea that Vlasov is not a traitor, Vlasov is a true Russian patriot.
Main idea: Andrei Vlasov (already outside the USSR) himself delivers an accusatory anti-Stalinist and anti-Bolshevik speech. Like, what is there to think and guess when the fugitive general himself presents us with his point of view.
But is it just his own?.. Or even not so, but how: how many points of view did General Vlasov have?..
Let us turn to that speech - the so-called Prague Manifesto (the manifesto of the "Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia") of 1944. We present excerpts from this speech (video version -
:
The Bolsheviks took away from peoples freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of personality, freedom of residence and movement, freedom of trade and the opportunity for each person to take a place in society in accordance with their abilities. They replaced these freedoms with terror, party privileges and arbitrariness inflicted on a person. The peoples of Russia have forever lost faith in Bolshevism. The committee aims to overthrow the Stalinist tyranny, liberate the peoples of Russia from the Bolshevik system and return to the peoples of Russia the rights won by the people's revolution of 1917, end the war and conclude an honorable peace with Germany, create a new free people's statehood without Bolsheviks and exploiters.
What a fine fellow General Vlasov! - exclaim in the ROCOR. What the right words were said by Vlasov! - echo them those who piously believe in the patriotism of the fugitive general. Yes, he wanted to use the strength of the German army to create a sovereign Russian state, free from the Bolshevik "tyranny"! - declare the same people.
But that's bad luck … Neither the ROCOR, nor among other modern fans of the ROA and General Vlasov take into account other documentary evidence associated with the name of the fugitive general.
End of the 1st part.
