What foreign students learn in history lessons, and why the West is trying to rewrite the course of World War II

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

The importance of historical memory cannot be overestimated. Allowing the next generation to forget certain facts is to allow the possibility of their repetition. History is often called not a science, but an instrument of propaganda. If this is so, then each country will use it for its own benefit and educate its young citizens of the necessary attitude to certain significant historical events. For objectivity and completeness of the picture, it is useful to know what is written about Russia in foreign textbooks and how our country looks for them in the context of world history.

Perhaps the most interesting details that can be found in foreign history textbooks are the cause-and-effect relationships of historical events and explanations of some situations. Indeed, in Russia it is customary to view certain events from a certain angle, and most textbooks are still slightly altered editions that were approved under the Bolsheviks. Therefore, the bias can be very noticeable, and in some places even painful for the domestic reader.

However, one should not overlook the fact that if the history of the USSR for Soviet schoolchildren was skillfully tweaked by party members, then a similar thing could happen in other countries. Therefore, one cannot count on objectivity from any side.

Several British publishers conducted research, according to which three types of textbooks were identified, in which the history of Russia takes its place. 1. From the end of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century, practically in all textbooks on the history of Europe, Russia is presented little, only to describe the previous events. Only the history of modern times describes the events in the country in more or less detail. Such textbooks usually talk about how democracy developed, the struggle between fascism and communism, the aftermath of the Cold War, and how these events are reflected in European history. 2. In the textbooks on world history "Contemporary World History" events in Russia are described very thoroughly. The history of Russia begins with the First World War and is narrated up to the collapse of the USSR. 3. The third group of textbooks is devoted to the history of Russia and is intended for in-depth study of the subject. Most often these are separate books of the same series, which contain publications about most countries.

The first category of textbooks, for example, provides reasons for Russia's economic lag in the 19th century. The policy of tsarism is indicated by the main reason. It is precisely this that is the reason for the restriction of the work of joint-stock companies, insufficient investment in industry, and the absence of a middle class. Capitalist explanations for the children of the bourgeoisie, however, are not devoid of objectivity.

However, the authors over and over again do not refrain from comparing Western democracy and the serfdom of tsarist Russia, of course, not in favor of the latter. As a result, an opinion is formed that the reason for backwardness (also a very controversial statement, which is presented as an axiom) is the hierarchical structure of society and tsarism.

However, another author Browning gives a different assessment of Russia in the same period. He notes positive shifts in economics, politics and social stratification. He writes that if back in the 20-30s of the 19th century Russia was an agrarian country, then by the end of the same century it began to resemble Western European countries (well, what else can a historian - a British man take as a standard) of the same period. Some regions had highly developed road systems, cities accelerated the pace of infrastructure construction, industry developed at an accelerated pace, and the middle class was becoming the most numerous. The same author speaks of the high level of development of Russian culture at that time. And he is certainly right.

The war of 1812, as a rule, is not covered as widely as in Russian textbooks, but the merits of Russia and Alexander I in the victory over the Napoleonic empire are recognized. However, this is done in the context of the fact that the Russians managed to dispel the myth about the invincibility of the French army and this became a turning point in the course of world history - breaking the spirit of the French and raising the fighting spirit of others.

Quite a lot of attention is paid by foreign authors to the Decembrist uprising. Starting with the prerequisites for the development of the ideology of the nobles, who were inclined to revolution, and ending with the reasons for the defeat of the rebels. The participants in the uprising are presented as heroic and courageous, their striving for the ideals of freedom is emphasized.

The textbook, dedicated to the life of Europe in the mid-18th century and up to the third half of the 19th century, talks about Russian culture, and especially about literature. The textbook does not just mention in passing, but provides biographies of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Gogol, Lermontov and, of course, Pushkin.

Nicholas II and foreign views on his policy

Considering that it is on this emperor that the era of tsarism in Russia ends and something radically new begins, but at the same time alien to Europe, it is worth dwelling on this point in a little more detail, especially since they write about this in sufficient detail in history textbooks abroad.

The role of Nicholas II in the formation of Russian legislation, the reform of local self-government, and economic growth are noted as positive moments. The authors of the textbooks cite difficult living and working conditions, defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the low level of professionalism of Nikolai as a leader as the reason that by that time a huge number of contradictions had accumulated in Russia.

Despite the fact that the last Russian emperor is called nothing other than an autocrat, there are positive aspects in his policy. For example, his desire for order and discipline, forced him to first carefully study the problem, and only then proceed to its solution. This is exactly how he, according to European textbooks, approached the reform of Russia.

The reason for the autocracy of the last Russian emperor is called his obsession with the greatness of his family, despite the fact that he had a lot of positive qualities and was hardworking, petty in the good sense of the word, an excellent family man, he was much inferior to his predecessors as a monarch.

With special love, foreign authors describe any revolutionary mood in Russia, of course, the events of the autumn of 1917 could not be an exception. Portraits of Lenin, Trotsky, a detailed disclosure of the ideology of the Bolsheviks, political biographies of the leaders of the movement - all this is presented in large volumes and in great detail. There are even illustrations - paintings dedicated to the October Revolution. However, the most interesting thing is that the authors of all textbooks are convinced that the revolution was not popular, but proletarian. That is what they call her.

The authors dwell on the point that the Bolshevik propaganda diligently presents what happened as an expression of the will of the people, as support for communism. However, this is not the case, a relatively small group of revolutionaries, known only in the capital, achieved success in their plans. In addition, they were resisted in Moscow. Nevertheless, this revolution is presented to foreign schoolchildren as one of the most important events of the 20th century.

MacDonald, one of the authors of the history textbook, poses to schoolchildren the question of how a coup d'état became possible if one of the country's 600 inhabitants supported the Bolsheviks. And there is no talk of any mass character. Was the coup the result of the excellent military training of Lenin and Trotsky, or was it all about the inexperience and mistakes of the provisional government?

The ensuing civil war has been described as the most violent phenomenon on both sides. This war, according to foreign historians, led to the deaths of 21 million people. The textbooks quote Churchill, who calls the Bolshevik tyranny the most terrible and outnumbered that for which the German dictator is responsible. However, as befits an objective narrator, whose conclusions were not altered by the Bolsheviks, foreign authors blame both sides for cruelty - both the red and the white.

The shooting of the royal family is explained by the desire of the Red Army to cut off the path to retreat and make it clear to the whole country that there is no turning back. In addition, this was supposed to rally the ranks of the Red Army. The textbooks indicate several reasons for the victory of the "Reds". The main reason is the lack of unity in the ranks of their opposition. Each "white" general tried to pull the blanket over himself.

As for Soviet history after the revolution and on the eve of World War II, here they talk about Russia rather casually, there is industrial growth, repression throughout the country, the cult of Stalin's personality and, of course, the construction of socialism, which the whole country was busy with.

World War II on the pages of foreign textbooks

Perhaps the most important event in the entire history of the world, in terms of attempts to reshuffle facts and rewrite history in order to whitewash and present their own country in a winning light.

It is especially interesting what German schoolchildren who have reached the study of World War II are being taught. So, the German textbook, authored by Jenes Eggert, quite expectedly underestimates the merits of the USSR in the victory over fascism. In 1943, the expected turn occurs after the surrender of the 6th German army at Stalingrad. Only the author completely forgot to clarify to whom this very surrender took place. The author calls Great Britain, France, the USA and the Soviet Union allies, and in this sequence. But for some reason it includes France among them, which up to 44 supplied the Wehrmacht with weapons and food.

The German army was pushed back into Germany, the British and Americans liberated the southern part of Italy, then the Allies landed in Normandy, and Soviet troops advanced from the east. Hitler committed suicide because he was afraid to be captured by the Russians, whose Red Army had already reached the walls of the Reichstag. At the same time, the author did not consider it necessary to report on what military route the Red Army men went to Berlin. As if we are talking only about the need to get to Berlin, and not to wage fierce hostilities for every piece of land. In total, especially after the textbook says that Hitler, together with the "Soviet dictator" came to a secret agreement and occupied Poland in 1939, it seems that the war did not arise as a result of the treacherous attack of one country on another, but as a result of political controversy.

History textbooks in Great Britain also do not write about the most important battles of World War II, in which the army of the Soviet Union played a key role. About the Eastern Front, as well as in German textbooks, it is said once, they say, in 1941 Germany attacks the USSR. Yes, on the one hand, everything is true, for a British student the history of his country is much more important, but, not knowing about the Kursk and Stalingrad battles, he will not be able to understand which of the allies played a fundamental role in the victory over fascism.

Italian textbooks generally write about the Second World War in passing, clearly not paying due attention to the event. However, given their role in this event, this approach is understandable. But there is about the Battle of Stalingrad, two whole lines that it was the first major defeat of the German army. But there is not a word about the fact that along with the Germans at Stalingrad, the Italian army was also defeated (Mussolini sent his soldiers in the amount of 300 thousand to Hitler as support).

In America, the education system is decentralized and each district is free to teach its children as it sees fit. In one of the textbooks, which contains the whole world history, from the Stone Age to the present day,… a paragraph is devoted to the Second World War. However, most American textbooks agree that fascism defeated the West, while the Soviet side won the Battle of Stalingrad. However, nothing surprising.

But in Turkish textbooks, the presentation does not differ from the Russian one, Turkish children study these events in the fifth grade, and since then they know that the Nazis were occupiers, and the Soviet army defended not only its homeland, but also saved many countries from occupation. Apparently the secret is that Turkey has remained a neutral party. By the way, the textbooks say that Hitler longed for the support of the Turks, but they wanted to spoil relations with the USSR.

Cold War and its causes

For European schoolchildren, the reasons why yesterday's allies suddenly launched a long-running Cold War are the following: differences in political and economic views, the US attempt to contain communism in the world, the desire to preserve the borders of the USSR.

British textbooks tell in detail about the Berlin crisis, the Cuban missile crisis, the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, the gradual improvement of relations and the "thaw" between America and the USSR. Economic growth in the USSR, the development of heavy industry, and the commissioning of housing are not ignored either. At the same time, Americans honestly tell their children why there was a serious shortage of consumer goods in the USSR, although it is unlikely that American schoolchildren can understand the very concept of “deficit”. The times of Khrushchev are assessed by American historians as a time of stagnation that did not bring any significant changes.

But Gorbachev, in the opinion of Western historians writing for schoolchildren, became a real radical in terms of domestic and foreign policy of the USSR. The development of democracy and glasnost in the country is associated with the name of this politician. The withdrawal from the Cold War, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the destruction of the Berlin Wall - all this is considered Gorbachev's merits to the West and makes him a modern and democratic leader in the eyes of the authors of textbooks.

The disappearance of the USSR from the political arena of the world is mentioned on the pages in passing, schoolchildren are invited to independently look for answers to questions about how the citizens of these states began to live after the collapse of the most powerful union?

The West and Europe do not at all like to remember that half of Europe was an accomplice in Hitler's crimes. It is not customary to write in Western textbooks that all the fascist horrors were perpetrated not only by the Wehrmacht soldiers, but also by Hitler's allies - soldiers from different European countries. Condemning the actions of Hitler, this historical fact is completely forgotten, which provides the basis for the revival of Nazism. From the school bench, instilling Russophobia in children and leveling the merits of Russia in world history, not only the facts are being reshuffled, but the boundaries of good and evil are erased, for the sake of defending which the blood of millions of people was shed.