Time to read: 13 minutes(s)

For the cover of the new 11th-grade Russian history textbook, a collective author chose a painting by one of the pillars of socialist realism, Alexander Deineka, "Conquerors of Space." Then, Putin expressed dissatisfaction with the textbook's lack of information about the Crimean Bridge, and the bridge was dutifully included in the text, and for good measure, its image was added to the background, behind the conquerors.  

True, it would probably be better to keep quiet about the conquest of space—especially after the Luna-25 debacle and the unbridled boasting that preceded its launch. And the Crimean Bridge—a source of particular pride and a symbol of "Crimea's return to its native harbor"—after two explosions, began to symbolize something different from what was intended.

Another question is whether such things bother the authors of the textbook, whose annotation frankly states: “The main result of studying the course should be the formation of Russian civic identity and patriotism in students.”

NeMoskva collected the opinions of historians and teachers on the new textbook. We asked those who will be working with it to evaluate the source from which eleventh-graders will learn about Russian history from 1945 to the present day. 

This is what most of the experts we interviewed said, in one form or another. A lack of a scientific approach, a loose handling of facts (in some places, downright lies), and, finally, outright propaganda that would seem out of place in a textbook—this, in their opinion, is the brainchild of Vladimir Medinsky and Anatoly Torkunov.

Historian Nikita Sokolov calls Medinsky's 11th-grade textbook "an excessively bloated propaganda leaflet for the current government":

In many ways, this isn't a textbook at all. A textbook should, after all, be based on a scholarly consensus on the significance of various periods and events. But there's none of that here; it's a monologue from one side. Not everyone is prepared to accept the world order and Russia's place in the world proposed by this text. We're asked to believe that only a state that can act arbitrarily, both internally and externally, is strong and deserving of support. The world has long since abandoned such parameters: after all, the primary metric for assessing a state's success is the internal well-being of its citizens. This is precisely why all those who attempted to humanize this cannibalistic state in any way—like Yeltsin and Gorbachev in this text—are reviled, as they undermine Russia's geopolitical position.

The textbook should use proven, scientific terminology. What is Russophobia? No one knows. What is geopolitics? Not a single scholar has recognized it for 60 years. Yet, the textbook asks Russian schoolchildren to use these concepts. And there are many of them.

Strictly speaking, this isn't a textbook at all. It's an overblown propaganda leaflet for the current government, promoting its own virtues and finding heroes to match them in the past. Its hero, obviously, is Joseph Stalin, who was a "great commander of victory," despite all his atrocities. Who would agree with that? I don't know.

And the final section on the special military operation is pure propaganda, filled with all the falsehoods of Russian propaganda, the falsity of which has long been demonstrated. After all, we live in a very dense information flow, where every falsehood is immediately verified and either confirmed or refuted. So, why include in the textbook a mention of American biolabs in Ukraine, which are already known to be fake? I think—this is my hypothesis, we don't have the data to make a firm judgment—that this is the view of very old people, mentally stuck in the 70s. For 20 years now, school textbooks have not been the primary source of information for students, and everyone admits this. Therefore, I think it's a sign of old age to try to claim such heroic laurels for oneself through a textbook.

So Medinsky doesn’t seem to be that old yet…

"But he still thinks in 70s cliches. He's a very archaic person. He's deeply ignorant of history; he doesn't understand how modern historical scholarship works. He doesn't understand that history isn't a story about the past told by a single, authoritative voice. Understanding history is built on a multitude of questions, and only by asking different questions do we obtain different answers. It's only by the overlap of these different answers and different questions that the modern field of historical knowledge emerges. Medinsky completely fails to understand this. He thinks he can cover the entire field of the past with his monologue and proclaim how it really was. Historical scholarship abandoned this idea 40-50 years ago."

— In the section dedicated to the "SVO," the authors seem to have openly switched to the language of television propaganda... 

"They want to hedge their bets with the textbook, too. But I think the danger to society will be small. Firstly, this is 11th grade, the very end of the year—at this time, no one is poring over textbooks; everyone is preparing for the Unified State Exam. And what is preparation for the Unified State Exam? It's like cramming everything they need for two weeks of exams into a student's working memory, and then throwing it all out of their heads as completely unnecessary. I think the same fate will befall this section on the "SVO." It won't have any long-term impact. Teachers don't live in a vacuum; they understand perfectly well that, despite massive propaganda and the pressure of official sociology, there is, of course, no unanimity on politics, let alone on the Ukrainian war. School teachers will be forced to take this into account, otherwise parents will come to them and say: why are you feeding our child such harmful nonsense?"

They were repressed because that's how it happened.

"This textbook is catastrophically bad, if only because it lacks the most important thing a history textbook for senior grades should have—cause and effect relationships," says Vadim Bespalov, a history teacher from St. Petersburg (name changed at his request):

— It's said that during the war, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and other peoples were deported. The Chechen people are not mentioned at all, which is perfectly understandable in our modern paradigm. But who deported the others? Why? How did this deportation take place? What happened to these peoples afterwards? It's unknown.

Or here's another example: in 1947, a currency reform was carried out; one ruble was exchanged for ten, which led to price stabilization. And nothing was said about the reasons—not a word about, for example, the large amount of counterfeit money in the country. Nothing about the consequences, about how much the population lost in money because the currency reform This is, essentially, a confiscation of some of the money. And there's a wonderful phrase there: "Thanks to the significant gold reserves, it was possible to maintain relatively low domestic prices and curb inflation." But inflation in a planned state isn't curbed by gold reserves: prices are set by the state, and this has nothing to do with gold reserves.

According to Vadim Bespalov, the textbook constantly manipulates facts: those facts that benefit the authors are mentioned, while those that are unfavorable are glossed over, to the point of being ridiculous:

For example, Stalin, according to the authors, is great and good in everything. Yet they argue that talented Leningrad party leaders and popular military leaders "who had proven their military leadership talent" were repressed, while Zhukov, about whom much had been said previously, was sent to command minor military districts. Why were they repressed? Who was behind these repressions? Well, it just happened that way.

The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was liquidated because its members "established connections" with Zionists. And Stalin Prize laureate Mikhoels, murdered by Soviet secret services, is, of course, not mentioned at all in this context.

Another example: "After carefully studying the terms, the USSR and other Eastern European countries abandoned the Marshall Plan." The reason is unknown. In fact, the plan included certain demands, including democratic elections, which proved unacceptable to the political leadership of these countries.

"The main measure of the 'success' of any given creative work or event was its coverage in Western media." According to Bespalov, this textbook formulation applies to insufficiently "Soviet" artistic phenomena, be it Ernst Neizvestny or the participants of the Bulldozer Exhibition: they were nobodies—they were simply publicized in the West. National movements also developed "with the direct participation of the CIA and the US government," as did dissidents. 

"Life gets better, life gets more fun—with every New Year, with every new ruler. It's just incomprehensible why, with such a history, we haven't colonized Mars yet," the teacher quips.

Ivan Prokhorov, a history teacher with 16 years of experience from a city in Central Russia and a member of the "Teacher" trade union (name changed at his request), also notes the textbook's propagandistic style:

"For example, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. But why? It's not explained, but it was a catastrophe—please believe us."

Or, for example, after the introduction of sanctions, Russia has become a country of opportunity; it's now possible to develop startups and businesses, and schoolchildren are encouraged to do the same. This isn't history, this textbook isn't for children, but rather a way for the author, Medinsky, to demonstrate his loyalty to the authorities: we're here, on our front lines, with our position, with all our strength, fighting, helping; by writing this textbook, we're contributing to victory. It's impossible to seriously discuss the contents of this textbook.

Historian Yevgeny Spitsyn (formerly the director of one of the Moscow schools, now an advisor to the rector of Moscow State Pedagogical University) has long been known for his pro-Stalinist and in the last year and a half, the pro-war position. However, the new textbook is criticizedWhat's interesting is that it's also criticized for its lack of scientific merit and propaganda. Because, according to Spitsyn, it promotes something completely different from what's needed:

"For example, it was written that something simply unthinkable happened when our foreign partners seized our $300 billion in their banks. Do you even realize what you're writing? On the one hand, you're writing that the unthinkable happened—how can it be unthinkable? Why are you running the country if you don't think this could happen? And then—they seized our money, which is in foreign banks. What are you admitting? You took our money and hid it in foreign banks for some reason? And why aren't they in our banks? A ton of questions immediately arise. You're shooting yourself in the foot. Are you planning to educate patriots with textbooks like this?"

And regarding the following quote, Evgeny Spitsyn even used something that is not entirely accepted in scientific polemics the word "madhouse":

"I'll quote what this textbook says on page 406: 'Such unique times rarely happen in history. With the departure of foreign companies, many markets are open to you.' I take it that 'you' refers to 11th-grade students? 'Fantastic opportunities for business and your own startups are open. Don't miss this chance. Today, Russia is truly a land of opportunity.' Is this a history textbook? Or what is it?"

But overall, the feedback from the government and the "patriotic public" is predictably favorable:

Previously, post-war Soviet history was often portrayed in a strictly negative light, with the occasional exception of the glorification of Gorbachev's perestroika. "Stalinism" easily transitioned into Khrushchev's "voluntarism," which in turn transitioned into Brezhnev's "stagnation." Without denying or concealing the serious shortcomings of the Soviet project, the authors of the unified textbook tend to highlight the most important aspects of the post-1945 era. The introduction to the book itself states: "The progressive development of the economy, combined with advances in science and technology in the 1950s–1970s, made our country one of the two most influential powers in the world. The Soviet Union achieved unprecedented heights: it opened the door to space for humanity and made impressive achievements in the development of science, medicine, and education." пишет Candidate of Historical Sciences Yuri Borisenok.

Speaking at a conference commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Kursk, Mikhail Myagkov, director of the Russian Military Historical Society, notes that Stalin's role is finally being properly assessed:

"In textbooks funded by the Soros Foundation, he was a tyrant, a beast, an incompetent commander who buried the enemy in corpses. Stalin's criminal regime was a common thread running through many textbooks. But today, in our unified textbook, Stalin's role is presented properly and objectively: [he is] the man who held the position of Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and not a single major operation—not only strategic, but also frontline, even military—was carried out without his participation. He was the man who promoted our victorious commanders, including Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin, Vasilevsky, and, it's worth emphasizing, the man who staunchly defended the interests of Soviet foreign policy."

Tamara Kiseleva, a history teacher at the Bryansk Transport College, also praised the textbook:

I liked the textbook. Among its strengths, I'd note that it presents the material comprehensively, is beautifully illustrated, contains links to documents and sources, and the QR code makes it much easier to access them. The textbook is organized according to the sample curriculum. I think the section on the Secondary Military Order is appropriate, as my students ask a lot of questions about it. It will be useful for future generations to know how contemporaries viewed the events in Ukraine. I'd also add that the material on international history seamlessly intersects with domestic events, which simplifies the process. Because you don't have to buy two textbooks, one on domestic and one on world history. That's great!

Whatever the new textbook, it's a unified and state-mandated standard, meaning there's no escape from it. So what should teachers do?

"I'm really hoping these textbooks haven't arrived at our school yet, because we bought new sets of the same textbooks last year. The money's been spent, so I hope they won't buy new ones. And if they do, I simply won't use them," says Vadim Bespalov.

- But they will still reach you. if not this year, then next year...

“I hope that something will change and these textbooks will no longer be needed.”

Ivan Prokhorov says he will remain at the school as long as there is an opportunity to convey a position different from propaganda:

"For now, I can at least mitigate the negative consequences, guiding children interested in history so they approach history as a science. While I have this opportunity, when it disappears, I'll leave."

"Still, at school, when the classroom door closes, you're left alone with your conscience," says Bespalov. "The only problem is denunciations from students and parents."

— And from your colleagues?

— Thank God, not yet. But parents—yes, they write, at the instigation of their children.

— What do your students think about all this? Do they say anything to you?

"Students are diverse. There are those who wear Z-ribbons, and there are those who come up and ask, 'We want to go to a protest, what should we do?' But both are in the minority. The majority—70 percent—are tired of propaganda. They simply don't accept it, from either side. In fact, school shouldn't be an arena for battling one side's propaganda against the other. And it's understandable that they prefer what a teacher says to what's said in some poorly written book."

— How would you advise them to answer the Unified State Exam?

"We'll probably have to tell them two 'truths': the real truth and what to answer on the exam. That's the worst thing. We're teaching children hypocrisy. The textbook won't pollute their brains, because they hardly ever read textbooks. But the fact that the adults around them are constantly lying is far worse."

What if they demand, with a knife to your throat, that you teach using the new textbook? Will you quit?

- Yes. No options.