For more than a thousand-year history, our state has repeatedly faced what is commonly called an encroachment on its independence. From the Teutonic knights and Mongol-Tatar hordes to the Napoleonic invasion and the Great Patriotic War. And each historical epoch gave birth to its own heroes, who, one way or another, refuted the proverb that one is not a warrior in the field. However, at different times and especially in the last two decades, so-called "exposing" publications began to appear, in which the authors present their arguments and versions that many Russian heroes of different eras are a kind of fiction of historians who thus tried to form public opinion in the direction necessary for the authorities. At the same time, the further the person under discussion remains in history, the more materials appear that literally “debunk” the created heroic images.
Fayustov M. "Ivan Susanin"
For some time now, "competent" lovers of fishing in the murky historical water decided to take on one of the most famous heroic images in Russia - the image of Ivan Susanin, who during the Polish-Lithuanian intervention saved the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty - Mikhail - from reprisals Poles. The story of how Ivan Susanin led the Polish army into the jungle of the Kostroma forests to prevent the interventionists from reaching the village of Domnino, in which at that time Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who was named the Russian Tsar, was known, perhaps, to most Russians. However, today there are more and more "interpreters" of the feat of Susanin, who are inclined to look at the role of Susanin's personality in the history of the country in a completely different way.
Here are just a few of the very "interpretations, interpretations" of the events of 1613, which today they are trying to convey to Russian youth, in pursuit of certain goals. At the same time, judgments that in 1613 there was no feat in the Kostroma forests date back to the middle of the 19th century, when a remarkable publication by St. feat.
Ivan Susanin, Mikhail SCOTTI
"Interpretation" 1. (belongs to N. I. Kostomarov and is actively replicated today).
Such a person as the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin really existed, but he did not at all lead the Polish army into the impenetrable Kostroma forests in order to prevent him from getting to the new Russian tsar. Allegedly, some roaming robbers (Cossacks) attacked Susanin, who simply decided to chop Susanin apart for no intelligible reason. Kostomarov himself and those who, after his death, actively exaggerated this theory and continue to exaggerate, say that, perhaps, the people who killed Susanin were Poles or Lithuanians, but there is no evidence that they went to capture Mikhail Romanov.
It is completely incomprehensible what evidence the supporters of this theory wish to see before them. Really in the Kostroma archives there should have been a letter, which testifies that, they say, we (the Poles) really killed Ivan Susanin when we realized that this man was not leading us to the house of the Russian autocrat. Well, excuse me, the Poles decided not to leave such a letter either to Professor Kostomarov or to modern interpreters of Susanin's history.
At the same time, critics of historical data about the heroic feat of Ivan Susanin also use one more argument: why the first documents that testify to the meeting of Susanin with the Poles near the village of Domnino appeared only 6 years later, and not immediately after this event. The first document was the letter of the tsar from 1619, issued to the relatives of Susanin.
However, in this criticism, one sees either a weak awareness of the foundations of Russian reality of the early 17th century, or the current “twittering” of any event, or one multiplied by the other. The “twitter” nature of interpretations lies in the fact that today any incident, and even related to the head of state, becomes public knowledge literally a few minutes after its own implementation, therefore modern authors interpreting the events of 1613 in their own way are sure that Ivan Susanin should have "Tweet" that he is now saving Tsar Mikhail …
To give an answer to why the state issued the so-called Susanin charter only 6 years later, one can give a simple example: do hero stars today find those who perform their feat for the state right away? Sometimes for this you have to wait not even 6 years, but whole decades. The orders still cannot find the heroes of the Great Patriotic War … What can we say about 6 years of "delay" in 1613 …
Ivan Susanin at the 1000th Anniversary of Russia Monument in Veliky Novgorod
"Interpretation" 2
Ivan Susanin was killed not by the Poles, but by the Belarusians … Allegedly, it was the military regiments from Vitebsk and Polotsk, consisting of ethnic Belarusians at that moment, which is said in history, could be in the Kostroma region. It turns out that Susanin, for some reason, brought his brothers-Belarusians into the Kostroma forests. And then his relatives presented this as the salvation of the tsar from the Polish invaders so that they (relatives) would be relieved of their duty to pay taxes. And this story came to light thanks to the authorities, who allegedly wanted to show their connection with the common people.
If we add here the fact that a number of writers and journalists see in Susanin a person of Finno-Ugric origin, who allegedly did not understand Russian (Belarusian) speech at all, then the story takes the form of a kind of absurd staging.
This is what it turns out: a certain illiterate peasant of Finnish origin, who does not understand Russian at all, by mistake led some Vitebsk regiments into the wilderness, which were not at all going to "take alive" the new Russian tsar.
If one tries, as far as possible, to consider such an "interpretation" seriously, then it is generally incomprehensible how the relatives of an illiterate peasant were able to pull off such a thing that is still described in history textbooks. Well, it was necessary for the Finno-Ugric relatives, who, according to the logic of the interpreters, were also illiterate and with difficulty expressing themselves in Russian, to concoct a story that pleased the tsar himself …
And why did the tsar need to "start a fuss" with a certain "Finno-Ugric", when instead of Susanin it was possible to glorify a certain "Vanka Ivanov" with clearly Russian roots.
In general, with all due respect to the personalities of those who are sure that Susanin has led someone somewhere by mistake, their version does not stand up to criticism.
Naturally, over the years of its existence, the personality of Ivan Susanin has acquired a certain lubokness, but this does not at all give the right to alter history without any reason. In the end, the whole problem is not even in Ivan Susanin himself, who suddenly turned into an object of serious discussions between historians and "interpreters", but in the fact that in this way it is possible to distort any historical truth.
It really scares that years may pass and the press will suddenly report that there were actually no exploits of the pilot Alexander Pokryshkin, but he simply unknowingly crashed into German planes … A "historical thought" may well appear that, they say, in 2000, there was no feat of the Pskov paratroopers, and Lieutenant Colonel Yevtyukhin did not at all cause artillery fire on himself, but the artillerymen themselves just "misunderstood" him … And about Major Solnechnikov, the "interpreters" can say that he is not at all he saved his soldiers from a grenade explosion, but he simply "accidentally fell on it" … And there are many such hypothetical examples of mockery of the memory of those for whom duty was above their own lives.
All these are links in one long chain, which is called "to kill patriotism in Russia." In this case, it should be said that those who start dancing on historical bones will sooner or later become victims of the same “interpreters” who are trying to earn some bonuses by rewriting national history.
