“Chud and chud all around,” “Russia is Muscovy, which arose after the collapse of the Golden Horde,” wrote Karl Max. He wrote that the cradle of Muscovy is "the bloody swamp of Mongol slavery, and not the harsh glory of the Norman era." He wrote that the policy of Russia continued the policy of the Horde, and not the policy of Russia. What Muscovy ( future Russia) was the legal successor not of Russia, but of the Golden Horde. Simply put, he discovered the lies of imperial historians, which he wrote about. This book is called Secret Diplomacy of the 18th Century. Marx Karl. Secret diplomatic history of eigtheen century. London, 1899... Why was Marx not published in its entirety in the USSR? One of his little books was not published, translated, or mentioned. The one in which Marx showed the history of Russia. What did he write there that it was not published?

But, let's talk about everything in order.

THE APPEARANCE OF RUSSIA

Russia - as a state with a center in Kiev - was created by the tribes of the Polyans. Glades have long lived on the right bank of the middle reaches of the Dnieper. And the Kiev land (the land of the meadows) was called Rus long before the creation of the state. Polyanskie cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav. Over time, the glades unite with other Slavic tribes. Glades, Drevlyans, Severyans, Dregovichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Krivichi, Ilmen Slovenes. Having united, assimilated, these eight tribal unions became the basis of Russia. It was this common nationality that later began to be called Rusyns. Rus or Rusyns were the basis of Rus, with the center in Kiev. As they would say now, it was the titular ethnic group of Rus.

RUSSIA IMPERIAL

Russia with its center in Kiev was a kind of imperial state. There was a center (Kiev and Kiev region) and there were colonies that paid tribute to the Rusyns. Among those who paid tribute were both Lithuanian and Finno-Ugric tribes. From the chronicle of Nestor: “And this is the essence of yazitsi, who give tribute to Russia: chyud, merya, all, muroma, cheremis, mordva, perm, pecheras, yam, lithuania, zimigola, kors, noroma, lib: si is your own language of property, from the tribe of Afetov, who live in the countries of the midnight. " All the conquered lands were also considered Rus. But the population of these colonies was not ethnically Rusyns. And they did not consider themselves Rusyns. They were "Russian people" only in the sense that they paid tribute to Russia. Well, there were one faith (the common church) became after Russia conquered these tribes. There was cultural influence, yes. For a long time only the Kiev region was considered to be Rus in the narrow sense. Then Chernihiv and Pereyaslavl regions ethnically became Rus. And much later (at the end of the XII century) the inhabitants of Galicia and Volyn became Rusyns. Then the Galicia-Volyn principality began to be called Rus. There were no other Rusyns anywhere. And there was no other Rus anymore.

MIRACLE (FINNO-UGORSK Tribes)

The Finno-Ugrians, who paid tribute to Russia, lived between the Volga and the Oka and in the Urals. In Russia, these territories were called Zalesie. This is the central part modern Russia... Zalesye was annexed to Russia somewhere in the X-XI century. At that time, Russia had already existed for a century or two. And the Rusyns were formed as an ethnic group. There is no exact data on the conquest of Zalissia. It is only known that it was not immediately conquered, but when Russia became stronger. When the "conqueror" appeared. At the end of the 11th century, a separate principality was formed in Zalesye: Rostov-Suzdal. It had two centers: Rostov and Suzdal. In the XII century, another center appeared: Vladimir. It is this land that is called Rostov-Suzdal or Vladimir-Suzdal Rus in the literature of the 19th century. But there is not and was not in the chronicles of many Rus: Kiev, Northern or Seroburomalinova. Moreover, Rostov-Suzdal or Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. This was invented by the historians of the Russian Empire in the 19th century. "Kievan Rus" is the same artificial name as "Russia". There was only one Russia. She was called "Rus".

FORMATION OF MOSCOW (RUSSIAN) ETHNOS

In the 10th century, the Rostov-Suzdal land was mainly inhabited by Finnish tribes. It was on these lands that the ethnos of the modern Russian people began to form. Like any metropolis, Kiev influenced the conquered peoples. Slavic settlers in Zalesye, of course, mixed with the Finnish tribes. And, of course, the Finno-Ugrians and other tribes became Russified over time. They adopted the language and the Orthodox faith. But to this day, the Russian provinces keep the history of the Finno-Ugrians, not the Slavs.

Russian people This costume has nothing to do with Slavic clothing. Muscovite folklore is also atypical for the Slavs. Fictions about "the most Slavic", the first and main Russian people are simply ridiculous. Cities in the Finno-Ugric lands were sometimes called in the Russian manner. Nevertheless, the rivers and most of the settlements still retain their Finnish names. For example, a bunch of rivers and a tributary has a Finnish ending (-wa, which means "water"). Zalesye, one might say, was on the outskirts of Russia. The peoples inhabiting it, because of the difficult living conditions, were in misery. Trade routes almost none. There are forests and swamps all around. Therefore, the Kiev princes did not consider these lands "a tasty morsel". Almost no attention was paid to them for a long time. Rusyns from their rich and warm lands in Zalesye did not bring down crowds. There were few Rusyns settlers. In general, Russia never moved to Muscovy en masse. And Muscovy was not originally Ruska, and Muscovites were not Rusyns.

The Muscovite ethnos was formed as a hybrid somewhere in the second half of the 12th century. Rusyns, as an ethnos with a separate state and name, have existed since the 10th century. That is, modern Russians are the youngest East Slavic ethnos. Not the elder, but the younger. Not a brother, but a neighbor.

RUSSIA AND MIRACLE

The Finno-Ugrians (Chud) themselves did not call themselves Rus. On the contrary, they opposed themselves to Rus in their chronicles. What colony would not oppose itself to an alien metropolis? This opposition is clearly visible in the Laurentian Chronicle and in the Ipateevsky Chronicle. And they describe the events of the XII-XIII centuries. That is, even in the XII century and at the beginning of the XIII century, the Novgorod-Suzdal land was not considered Russia. Neither the Rostov-Suzdal land, nor Ryazan, nor the Smolensk region, nor the Vladimir land. Russia was only the land of the glades, that is, the metropolis on the Kiev lands. And yes, Kiev is the mother of Russian cities; mother of Russia - the land of Polyanskaya. And other cities of expanding Rus, which the future Muscovy never belonged to.

The Russians believe ..., attention: that their first state (Rus) appeared about 400 years earlier than they themselves ... and that it was precisely their state.

CONQUEST OF RUSSIA BY THE TATARS

At the beginning of the 13th century, due to internecine wars, Russia weakened and fell under the onslaught of the Tatars. The Tatars conquered Russia, Poland, Hungary, and the northern Balkans.
Returning from a victorious campaign, the Tatars created their own state. This is how the state of the Golden Horde appeared on the lower Volga. The lands of Russia did not enter the Golden Horde as part of the state, but became its vassals. Now Russia itself was forced to pay tribute. The disintegration of Russia further separated the lands of Russia and Zalesye from each other. Culturally, ethnically and politically.

MOSCOW, OR THE MOSCOW STATE

Where did Muscovy come from? The Finno-Ugrians were first under Rus, then under the Tatar Horde. Partly under the influence of Russia, they became Russified, and under the influence of the Horde, they otatarized. Moreover, they otarized very much. But the influence of Russia is deliberately exaggerated by Russian historians. And the influence of the Horde is deliberately understated. It comes to the ridiculous: they practically deny the influence of the Horde on Muscovy. And this despite the fact that the Muscovite lands were under the Golden Horde for almost 300 years. What are these 300 years for us? Ha ha! We didn't even notice! So that's it. Only after the collapse of the Golden Horde, were formed:
Muscovy
Kazan Khanate
Kasymov Khanate
Crimean Khanate
Astrakhan Khanate
Siberian Khanate

Moscow as a small settlement with this Finnish name was mentioned in the surviving writings only from the middle of the 12th century. In the 16th century, this name spread to the entire Moscow principality. A common thing for those times: the city of Rome gave the name to the Roman Empire, Moscow - the Moscow.
Actually, then the Moscow principality itself appeared on the international arena, only in the 16th century. This is the beginning of Russian statehood.
Most of the peoples of Europe, as Yevgeny Nakonechny writes, begin their history with the emergence of their independent states in the 9th-10th centuries.
The Russians are probably the only ones who believe that their first state (Rus) appeared about 400 years earlier than they themselves.

But it was different: first, the Muscovite ethnos appeared in the second half of the 12th century. Then, in the 15th century, the Moscow state appeared, and in the 16th it seemed to the neighbors. About which Marx wrote: "Amazed Europe, at the beginning of the reign of Ivan III barely noticing the existence of Muscovy, squeezed between Lithuania and the Tatars, was stunned by the sudden appearance of a huge state on its eastern borders."

So, Moscow, Muscovy, the Moscow state. It was ruled by a prince, and the first Tsar of Moscow appeared in the 17th century. That is, at first the Tatar khan was replaced by the prince, and later the prince was replaced by the tsar. The center was moved to Moscow. But, under the Moscow prince, the nobility remained almost in full Tatar composition.

The policy of Muscovy was a continuation of the policy of the Horde. What, in fact, Karl Marx wrote about. And Marx, and Gumilev, and Platonov. Many actually wrote. Then Catherine II simply rewrote history (more precisely: she continued this business). And those historians who wrote the truth had a very sad fate.

LIP ROLLED IN HALF WORLD

The Moscow principality was the successor of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. Which itself was part of the Golden Horde for almost 300 years. If Muscovy was someone's successor, it was the successor of the Golden Horde. Muscovy was not and could not be the successor of Russia. What kind of Russia? Which side? Trubetskoy: "The Moscow state arose thanks to the Tatar yoke. The Moscow tsars, far from completing the" gathering of the Russian land ", began to collect the lands of the western ulus of the Great Mongolian monarchy: Moscow became a powerful state only after the conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. The Russian tsar was the heir of the Mongolian Khan. "The overthrow of the Tatar yoke" was reduced to the replacement of the Tatar khan by the Orthodox tsar and to the transfer of the khan's headquarters to Moscow. "

So that's it. On the one hand, Muscovy collected the Horde lands, and on the other, the lands of Rus. He still collects. Crimea is also the land of the former Golden Horde. So Muscovy declared itself the successor of both Russia and the Golden Horde. She rolled the royal lip halfway around the world, still cannot pick it up.

Until 1721, only the name "Moscow" or "Moscow State" was officially used. Until that time, there was no official Russia, allegedly the heiress of Russia. Because until that time the Muscovites had not yet managed to steal either the name or the history of Russia. Then the name of the Moscow state was deliberately changed.

In 1721, the Muscovy captured the lands of Rus, the name of Rus and the history of Rus. They made a rebranding, as they say: they stole the name Rus and turned Muscovy into Russia. This name is not popular. It's artificial. But it was with this that the myth-making of Great Russia or Great Russia began.

Less than 100 years later, Russia-Muscovy began to be called the true Russia. Muscovites began to be called Russians or Great Russians. Rusyns-Ukrainians suddenly became "Little Russians". The lie was repeated so many times that it seemed to be true.
But it didn’t become true. At the same time, the conquest of Russia by Muscovy was no longer recognized. What conquest? One land, one people. How can you conquer your people? No. Combine the maximum by bringing it together. Good deed, huh? A lie that has a beginning but has no end. A meanness, analogous to which in history it is difficult to find.

When Muscovy changed its name, the Rusyns changed the name of their land. In order not to identify Russia and Muscovy, Russia began to be called Ukraine more often. And they began to call themselves more often not Rusyns, but Ukrainians. Because different peoples should be called differently.

Now Rusyns-Ukrainians are being told that they were not there. That the people did not have a name, therefore there was no people. That there were no people, because they did not have a name. That the Rusyns-Ukrainians did not have their own state.

Where did the elder brother come from? It was invented only in the 30s of the XX century. That is, this concept is only about 70 years old. The elder brother is like Russians to Ukrainians and Russia to Ukraine. Also to all other peoples of the USSR, Russia is also an older brother. Stalin is the father, and Russia is the elder brother.

The three "Slavic peoples" were declared equal, but the Russians were always written first. The Russian people became the first among equals. Some are known to be always more equal than others. No, though. Is nationality important? In no case. Therefore, the 5th column was required (nationality). Therefore, the peoples of the USSR were deported on the basis of the entry in this column. Therefore, now Russia justifies its aggression in Ukraine by "protecting the Russians." It doesn't matter that there are only half of Russians in Crimea. It doesn't matter that there are even fewer Russians in the eastern regions of Ukraine. Who cares about other peoples and nations? Only the Russians are ahead and higher, the rest will move.

The myth about the primacy and seniority of Russians is still being promoted. How else to restore the Russian Empire or the semblance of the USSR, led by Russia? On what basis would it be otherwise to seize the Ukrainian lands again?

Three (non) fraternal peoples:

The ancestors of the Ukrainian people are the tribes that lived on the territory of modern Ukraine (Volinyans, Derevlyans, Glades, White Croats, Uliches, Tivertsy and Siverians) and did not move anywhere. In the 10th century, Rusyns had already formed as a separate ethnic group.

The tribes occupying the territory of modern Belarus (Dregovichi, Krivichi, Radimichi mixed with the Balts, who settled on this territory before them) became the ancestors of the Belarusian people.

Ilmen Slovenes formed a separate Pskov-Novgorod ethnos, which only in the 15th-16th centuries was partially destroyed and partially assimilated by Moscow.

On the lands of Zalesye, Slavic settlers mixed with Finnish tribes and the youngest East Slavic ethnos was formed - Muscovites, future Russians. It was somewhere in the second half of the 12th century. It was then that the "Velikorosy" appeared on the historical stage. The first of them was Andrey Bogolyubsky. He became famous for destroying Kiev in 1169. Burned, killed, robbed, took prisoner. They don't destroy their cities like that. Only strangers. It was not something like a "civil war" between the Rusyns. Russia and Kiev were strangers to the prince from Zalesye and his army. By the way, the Russian church recently recognized him as a saint.

The facts of the historians-liars, who substantiate the great power, do not bother. For this purpose, lying is the very first remedy. Lomonosov, Miller, Soloviev, Klyuchevsky, Pokrovsky and a bunch of other scientists wrote that the basis of the people of Muscovy is the Finno-Ugric tribes (Chud). Some of them said that in Russians 1/5 of Slavic blood. And all this would not be important if the Russians themselves did not want to be the first and main Slavic people.

In addition to the article.

PS. Muscovy before Peter I considered itself a part of the Islamic world. Moscow weapons at one time were entirely "Muslim". Not only were Arabic words applied to it, but even whole verses from the Koran and Islamic prayers. Why this was done and how to explain it today, about this in the article → "Muscovy before Peter I".

Prince Alexander Nevsky begs Khan Batu to spare the Russian land. Painted engraving of the 19th century.

Muscovy (Russia) paid tribute to the Crimean Khan, its sovereign and master, the successor of the Golden Horde, until 1700. The Tsar of Muscovy met the Crimean ambassador on Poklonnaya Hill, mounted him on his horse, himself on foot, under the bridle, led the horse with the Crimean ambassador to the Kremlin, set him on his throne and kneeled before him ...

1. Tsar Peter I renamed the state with the name Muscovy to Russia already in the 18th century, in 1721.
2. The Moksha tribe named their river Moscow, and the translation of this name, from the Moksha language, sounds like "dirty water". Any other languages ​​of the World cannot translate the word Moscow. The word "Kremlin" is Tatar and means fortifications on a hill.
Z. In the Middle Ages, all cartographers of Europe wrote and drew the border of Europe along the borders of Rus (Rus is the territory of present-day Ukraine). Muscovy - ulus, with its Finnish peoples, has always been a component of the Horde, and Europe justly attributed it to Asia.
4. Muscovy (Russia) paid tribute to the Crimean Khan (!), Its SUPERIOR and OWNER, who was the legal successor of the Golden Horde, until 1700. The Tsar of Muscovy met the Crimean ambassador on Poklonnaya Hill, mounted him on his horse, himself on foot, under the bridle, led the horse with the Crimean ambassador to the Kremlin, set him on his throne and kneeled before him (!?).
5. In 1610, in Muscovy, on Boris Godunov (Murza Gudun), the Chengizid dynasty (a relative of Genghis Khan) ended, and Alexei Koshka from the Finnish family of the Mare was erected on the throne, and when he was crowned in the Kingdom, the church gave him the surname Romanov, who allegedly came from Rome was ruled by Muscovy.
6. Catherine II, after the occupation of the last free Rus Power - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the territory of Belarus) in 1795, ordered by her order to call the Finno-Ugric tribes of Muscovy some kind of Great Russians, and Ukrainians - true Russians - Little Russians.
7. No one has ever seen in the original the agreement on reunification between Muscovy and Ukraine, allegedly signed by B. Khmelnitsky and Tsar A. Romanov.
8. For several centuries, archaeologists of Muscovy have been looking for artifacts confirming the authenticity of the Kulikovo battle, but so far unsuccessfully, only the fable about D. Donskoy's victory over Mamai is still being sung, in all voices.
9. The Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk regions of Russia are the former Slavic-Russian Principalities, and had nothing to do with the Finno-Ugric Muscovy, until the Muscovy-Horde occupied them, respectively, in 1462, in 1478 and in 1654. And in other regions of Russia (Muscovy), Slavic tribes and peoples have never lived.
10. The Golden Horde and her daughter, Muscovy, are the only countries in the world that kept their own people in slaves. This explains the eternal backwardness of Muscovy, rich in natural resources, from the relatively deprived European countries for natural resources. After all, the efficiency of work free people much higher than slaves.

Alexander Volkonsky

Historical truth and Ukrainophile propaganda

Foreword by Nikolai Starikov. Ukrainianophile propaganda - a glance into history

How to push brothers against each other? Tell them that they are not relatives, that they are not brothers and not one family. That one of them is the main enemy of the other. The classic principle is divide and conquer. It has been used countless times in history. Unfortunately, in the history of our country too. The civil war at the beginning of the 20th century is a terrible testimony to this. Then we were able to be divided into white and red. This resulted in millions of deaths, a destroyed country, lost territories, an unprecedented drop in living standards. The book you hold in your hands contains facts that can help you understand the truth and open the eyes of many.

Today, when we observe the tragedy of the civil war in Donbass, we must remember what its true causes are. And they are as follows: the creation at the end of the 19th century of the ideology of Ukrainians. Creation of a myth about a separate Ukrainian people, a Ukrainian state that has nothing to do with Russia and the Russian people.

They created this myth, which today brings a bloody harvest in the Donbass, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They did it not because of a good life - in the Habsburg empire there was a whole region (Galicia) inhabited by Russians. This unity of the Galicians with the rest of the Russian people, which in the Russian Empire officially consisted of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians, was officially recognized by Vienna. From 1772 to 1848 the Austrian government officially called them Russen.

"But in 1848 the Governor of Galicia, Count Stadium, drew Vienna's attention to the danger of such a name, and instead of Russen, for the first time, the name Ruthenen was introduced to designate the Russian population of the Carpathian region." However, the name Ruthenia and the term "ruthene" to denote the Russian population of Galicia did not take root. Then the Austrian politicians put into action the second option.

At the very end of the 19th century, the Ukrainian party was quickly formed, books “on the history of the issue” were published, and the official propaganda of the Habsburg empire launched the term “Ukrainian” in relation to the Galicians. At first, the term "Ukrainian-Russian" was used, and then the second part somehow "disappeared". Those who agreed to become Ukrainian received preferences, funding, and benefits. It turned out to be a strange situation - the parents were Russian, their son was Ukrainian. Because that was how it was possible to go to college.

In general, the idea of ​​Ukrainians, which was quickly adopted by the special services of Austria-Hungary, contains not only a defensive part. The empire not only wanted to defend itself against its Slavic "fifth column", which, being Russian by blood, felt its connection with Russia. It was also about a geopolitical attack - with a good course of events, one could try to create an "independent Ukraine". Why in quotes? Because one of the Habsburgs was to become its head. Having split the Russian Empire, the Austrians were going to annex the southern Russian territories under the Ukrainian flag. But this required a lot of work. In Austria-Hungary, a persecution of everything Russian begins. In 1912, the Kaiser's government for the first time calls the Russian population of its country "Ukrainians". The teaching of the Russian language is terminated, newspapers in Russian are closed, instead of them appear “in Ukrainian”, public and educational unions and educational institutions are liquidated.

With the outbreak of the First World War, this activity turns into a bloody color - the Russians who met the Russian army with bread and salt later, during the retreat of our troops, are shot, hanged and sent to the Theresienstadt and Thalerhof concentration camps. Tens of thousands of people are dying. Some of the most active executioners, along with Hungarians and Germans, are those who call themselves Ukrainians. The beginning of today's tragedy of Donbass there - in 1914-1915.

AM Volkonsky's book "Historical Truth and Ukrainian Propaganda" was written and first published in Italy in 1920. This detailed analysis all that unthinkable lies and falsifications that were used to create that myth, which today has already reached the point of absurdity in the works of some Kiev historians writing about the "ancient ukras who created the pyramids."

Here are just a few quotes from the book:

“Today's newspapers contain an appeal by Mr. Petliura to the“ Ukrainian people ”G. Petliura declares in it that the“ Muscovites ”are age-old enemies of the“ Ukrainians ”. But the truth is just the opposite: Moscow Russians are never enemies of Russians in Little Russia were not; moreover, only the wars of Moscow against Poland freed the Little Russians from the rule of their age-old enemies - the Poles and returned Ukraine to the political orbit of the Russian world ”.

“The Russian word“ ukraina ”(Polish ucraina) means“ borderland ”... the Russian adjective ucrainij means that which lies at the edge, near the edge ... This meaning of the word is very significant, for it is clear: that which is called Ukrainian is not something independent; such a name can be given to a known area only from the outside, by the government or the people, who considered this area as a kind of appendage to their state. "

The facts described in Volkonsky's book, of course, do not include scary story The great Patriotic War when Ukrainian nationalists went to serve the Germans. However, these political forces and were created by the Austrian Germans before the First World War. And in the army of the Habsburgs, even a corps of "Sich Riflemen" was formed, where they tried to recruit prisoners of the Russian army who were ready to betray their Motherland. During the world battle, Russia also had similar "projects" - suffice it to recall the Czechoslovak corps, which almost entirely consisted of former servicemen of the Austro-Hungarian army. But there is one serious difference - the Czechs did not commit crimes against their fellow citizens and did not differ in atrocities against prisoners.

During the Second World War, Ukrainian nationalists committed terrible crimes in the service of the German Nazis. Against the Jews, against the Poles, against the Russians. And against the inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine. Many Nazi concentration camps were guarded by Ukrainian nationalists.

After the defeat of the Third Reich, our "allies" carefully took all the opponents of Russia-USSR to their place. On one condition - that they were not Russians and would like to fight everything Russian. The Latvian SS men fled to London, and the Ukrainian ones to Canada. In 1991, the entire ideology of hatred "towards Muscovites" was transferred to the territory of Ukraine. The tragedy is that part of the Russian people, misled by propaganda and lies, is fighting against everything Russian. Essentially - with ourselves. And the next round of this tragedy is unfolding before our eyes today in Donbass.

Original taken from geogen_mir в FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF RUSSIA. Why is the history of Russia the greatest mystery on Earth?

This material was conceived as an attempt to answer the question of why our true history is being hidden from us. A short historical excursion into the field of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what they give us as the history of the Russian people. In fact, the truth may at first shock the reader, as it was a shock for me, so much different from the official version, that is, a lie. I came to many conclusions on my own, but then it turned out that, fortunately, there are already works of several modern historians of the last decade who seriously investigated the issue. Only, unfortunately, they, their works, are not known to the general reader - academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, they really do not like the truth. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth. And today has come the day when we need her in order to answer -
Who are we?
Who are our ancestors?
Where is Heavenly Iriy, in which we must draw strength?

V. Karabanov, ARI. 09/01/2013 05:23

FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF RUSSIA

Vladislav Karabanov

To understand why we need historical truth,

you need to understand why the ruling regimes in Russia-Russia

a historical lie was needed.

History and psychology

Russia is degrading before our eyes. The huge Russian people are the backbone of the state that decided the fate of the world and Europe, under the control of crooks and scoundrels who hate the Russian people. Moreover, the Russian people, who gave the name to the state located on its territory, is not the owner of the state, is not the manager of this state and does not receive any dividends from this, even moral ones. We are a people defeated in our own land.

The Russian national consciousness is at a loss, the realities of this world are falling on the Russian people, and they cannot even stand up, group themselves in order to maintain balance. Other peoples are pushing the Russians, but they convulsively gasp for air and retreat, retreat. Even when there is nowhere to retreat. We are crowded on our land, and there is no longer a corner in the country of Russia, a country created by the efforts of the Russian people, in which we can breathe freely. The Russian people are so rapidly losing their inner sense of the right to their land that the question arises of the presence of some kind of distortion in self-consciousness, the presence of some kind of defective code in historical self-knowledge, which does not allow relying on it.

Therefore, perhaps, in search of solutions, you need to turn to psychology and history.

National self-awareness is, on the one hand, an unconscious involvement in an ethnos, to its egregor filled with the energy of hundreds of generations, on the other hand, it is the reinforcement of unconscious sensations with information, knowledge of its history, the origins of its origin. In order to gain stability in their consciousness, the people need information about their roots, about their past. Who are we and where are we from?
Each ethnic group must have it. Among peoples in antiquity, information was recorded by folk epics and legends, among modern peoples, whom it is customary to call civilized, epic information is supplemented with modern data and is offered in the form of scientific works and research. This information layer, which reinforces unconscious sensations, is for modern man a necessary and even obligatory part of self-awareness, ensuring its stability and mental balance.

But what will happen if the people are not told who he is and where he is from, or they tell a lie, they invent an artificial story for him? Such people endure stress, because their consciousness, based on information received in the real world, does not find confirmation and support in the ancestral memory, in the codes of the unconscious and images of superconsciousness. A people, like a person, seeks support for their inner self in the cultural tradition, which is history. And if he does not find it, it leads to disorganization of consciousness. Consciousness ceases to be integral and disintegrates into fragments.

This is the situation in which the Russian people find themselves today. His story, the story of his origin is invented or distorted so much that his consciousness cannot focus, because in his unconscious and superconscious, he does not find confirmation of this story. It is as if a white boy were shown photographs, as it were, of his ancestors, where only black Africans were depicted.
Or vice versa, an Indian raised in a white family was shown to be like the grandfather of a cowboy. He is shown to relatives, none of whom he resembles, whose way of thinking is alien to him - he does not understand their actions, views, thoughts, music. Other people. The human psyche cannot stand such things. The same story with the Russian people. On the one hand, the story is absolutely not contested by anyone, on the other hand, the person feels that this does not fit his codes. The puzzles don't match. Hence the disintegration of consciousness.

Man is a creature that carries complex codes inherited from ancestors and, if he realizes his origin, then he gains access to his subconscious and thus is in harmony. In the depths of the subconscious, each person has layers associated with the superconsciousness, the soul, which can either be used when a consciousness with correct information helps a person to find wholeness, or are blocked by false information, and then a person cannot use his inner potential, which oppresses him. Hence, the phenomenon of cultural development is so important, or if it is based on lies, then this is a form of oppression.

Therefore, it makes sense to look closely at our history. The one that tells about our roots.

It somehow turned out strangely that according to historical science, we more or less know the history of our people since the 15th century. From the 9th century, that is, from Rurik, we have it in a semi-legendary version, supported by some historical evidence and documents ... But as for Rurik himself, the legendary rus that came with him, historical science tells us more conjectures and interpretations than real historical evidence. That this is speculation is evidenced by the heated debate around this issue.

What is this rus, which came and gave the name to the huge people and state, which began to be called Rus? Where did the Russian land come from? Historical science, as it were, leads the discussion. As they began to conduct at the beginning of the 18th century, they continue. But as a result, they come to the strange conclusion that it does not matter, because those who were called Rus"Did not have a significant impact" on the formation of the Russian people. It is in this way that historical science in Russia has rounded up the question. So - they gave the name to the people, but who, what and why - does not matter.

Really never find the answer to the researchers. Are there really no traces of the people, there is no information in the ecumene, where are the roots of the mysterious Russia, which laid the foundation for our people? So Russia appeared out of nowhere, gave a name to our people and disappeared into nowhere? Or were you looking badly?

Before we give our answer and start talking about history, we need to say a few words about historians. In fact, the public has a deep misconception about the essence of historical science and the results of its research. History is usually an order. History in Russia is no exception and was also written to order, and despite the fact that the political regime here was always extremely centralized, it ordered an ideological construct, which is history. And for the sake of ideological considerations, the order was for an extremely monolithic history, not allowing deviations.

And the people - rus spoiled a slender and necessary picture for someone. Only in a small period at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, when in tsarist Russia there were some freedoms, there were real attempts to understand the issue. And almost figured it out. But, firstly, no one really needed the truth then, and secondly, the Bolshevik coup broke out. In the Soviet period, there was nothing to say about objective coverage of history, it could not exist in principle. What do we want from employees writing to order under the watchful eye of the party? Moreover, we are talking about the forms of cultural oppression, which was the Bolshevik regime. And to a large extent the tsarist regime as well.

Therefore, it is not surprising that heaps of lies that we face when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which is not true either by its facts or conclusions. In view of the fact that there are too many blockages and lies, and on this lie and inventions another lie was built, its offshoots, so as not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on really important facts.

The past out of nowhere

If we read the history of Russia, written in the Romanov era, in the Soviet era and accepted in modern historiography, we will find that the versions of the origin of Russia, the people who gave this name to the huge country and people, are vague and unconvincing. For almost 300 years, when it is possible to count down attempts to understand the history, there are only a few established versions. 1) Rurik, the Norman king, who came to the local tribes with a small retinue, 2) He came out of the Baltic Slavs, either cheer, or Vagrs 3) Local, Slavic prince 3) The story with Rurik was invented by the chronicler

The versions widespread among the Russian national intelligentsia are also based on the same ideas. But recently, the idea that Rurik is a prince from the West Slavic tribe Vagrs, who came from Pomerania, has become especially popular.

The main source for the construction of all versions is the "Tale of Bygone Years" (hereinafter PVL). A few stingy lines have spawned countless interpretations that revolve around several of the above versions. And all known historical data are completely ignored.

Interestingly, somehow it turns out that the whole history of Russia begins in 862. From the year that is indicated in the "PVL" and begins with the vocation of Rurik. But what happened before is practically not considered at all, and as if nobody is interested. In this form, history looks only like the emergence of no one public education, and we are not interested in the history of administrative structures, but in the history of the people.

But what came before that? The year 862 looks almost like the beginning of history. And before that, there was a failure, almost emptiness, with the exception of a few short legends of two or three phrases.

In general, the history of the Russian people that we are offered is a history that has no beginning. From what we know, one gets the feeling that the semi-mythical narrative began somewhere in the middle and from a half-word.

Ask anyone, even a certified specialist in history Ancient Rus, even an ordinary person, then, as for the origin of the Russian people and its history until 862, all this is in the field of assumptions. The only thing that is proposed as an axiom is that the Russian people descended from the Slavs. Some, as it were, nationally minded representatives of the Russian people, in general, ethnically identify themselves as Slavs, although the Slavs are still more a linguistic community than an ethnic one. This is complete absurdity.

For example, it will look ridiculous if people who speak some of the Romance languages ​​- Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian (and its dialect, Moldavian), discard the ethnonym and begin to call themselves “novels”. Identify yourself as one people. By the way, the Gypsies call themselves that - Romals, but they hardly consider themselves and the French tribesmen. The peoples of the Romance language group are, after all, different ethnic groups, with different destinies and having different origins. Historically, they speak languages ​​that have absorbed the foundations of Roman Latin, but ethnically, genetically, historically and spiritually, these are different peoples.

The same applies to the community of Slavic peoples. These are peoples who speak similar languages, but the destinies of these peoples and their origins are different. We will not detail here, it is enough to point out the history of the Bulgarians in whose ethnogenesis the main role was played not only and maybe not so much by the Slavs as by the nomadic Bulgarians and local Thracians. Or the Serbs, like the Croats, take their name from the descendants of the Aryan-speaking Sarmatians. (Here, and further, I will use the term Aryan-speaking, instead of the term Iranian-speaking used by modern historians, which I consider to be false. The fact is that the use of the word Iranian immediately creates a false association with modern Iran, in general , today, quite an oriental people. However, historically, the very word Iran, Iranian, is a distortion of the original designation of the country Arian, Aryan. That is, if we talk about antiquity, we should use the concept not Iranian, but Aryan)... The ethnonyms themselves are presumably the essence of the names of the Sarmatian tribes "sorboi" and "khoruv", from which were the hired leaders and squads of the Slavic tribes. The Sarmatians, who came from the Caucasus and the Volga region, mixed with the Slavs in the region of the Elbe River and then descended to the Balkans and there they already assimilated the local Illyrians.

Now with regard to Russian history proper. This story, as I have already indicated, begins, as it were, from the middle. In fact, from the 9-10th century A.D. And before that, in the established tradition - a dark time. What did our ancestors do and where were they, and what did they call themselves in the era of Ancient Greece and Rome, in the antique period and during the period of the Huns and the great migration of peoples? That is, what they did, what they called and where they lived directly in the previous millennium is somehow inelegantly silent.

Where, in the end, did they come from? Why does our people occupy a huge area of ​​Eastern Europe, by what right? When did you come here? In response, silence.

Many of our compatriots are somehow used to the fact that nothing is said about this period. In the notion prevailing among the Russian national intelligentsia of the previous period, it does not seem to exist. Russia flows immediately from almost the Ice Age. The idea of ​​the history of one's own people is vague and vaguely mythological. In the reasoning of many, there is only the "arctic ancestral home", Hyperborea, and the like, matter of the prehistoric or antediluvian period.
Then, more or less, a theory about the era of the Vedas was developed, which can be attributed to a period of several millennia BC. But actually to our history, the transition to real events, we do not see in these theories. And then, somehow at once, bypassing a couple of millennia, practically out of nowhere, Russia appears in 862, the time of Rurik. The author in no way wants to enter into polemics on this issue and even somewhat divides theories according to the prehistoric period. But in any case, Hyperborea can be attributed to the era of 7-8 millennia ago, the era of the Vedas can be attributed to the times of the 2nd millennium BC, and maybe even earlier.

But as for the next 3 millennia, times that directly rest on the era of the creation of the historical Russian state, the time of the beginning of a new era and the time preceding the new era, practically nothing is reported about this part of the history of our people, or is reported false information... Meanwhile, this knowledge provides the keys to understanding our history and the history of our origin, respectively, our self-consciousness.

Slavs or Russians?

A common and uncontested place in the Russian historical tradition is the approach that Russians are a primordially Slavic people. And, in general, almost 100% equals Russian and Slavic. This does not mean a modern linguistic community, but, as it were, the historical origin of the Russian people from the ancient tribes identified as Slavs. Is it really?

Interestingly, even the ancient chronicles do not give us grounds to draw such conclusions - to deduce the origin of the Russian people from the Slavic tribes.

Here are the well-known words of the Russian primary chronicle under the year 862:

“Deciding for ourselves: let us look for a prince, who would volodol“ by us and judge by right. ”Idosh across the sea to the Varangians to Rus; now he’s afraid of the call of Varyaz Rus, as all friends are called his own, friends are Urmane, Anglyane, friends of Gute , taco and s. Resha Rus Chyud, Slovenia and Krivichi: "all our land is great and abundant," but there is no outfit in it: let you go to reign and govern us. " And when three brothers were chosen from their generation, they girdled all of Russia by themselves, and came; the oldest Rurik Sede in Novyegrad; and the other is Sineus on Beleozero, and the third is Izbor'ste Truvor. From those nicknamed the Russian land of Novugorodtsi: they are people.

It is difficult to learn something new, but in these chronicles, in different versions, one can trace one important fact - rus named as a kind of tribe, people. But then no one considers anything. Where then did this Rus disappear? And where did you come from?

The established historical tradition, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, assumes by default that Slavic tribes lived in the Dnieper region and they are the beginning of the Russian people. However, what do we find here? From historical information and from the same PVL, we know that the Slavs came to these places almost in the 8-9 centuries, not earlier.

The first completely indistinct legend about the very foundation of Kiev. According to this legend, it was founded by the mythical Kiy, Schek and Khoriv, ​​with his sister Lybid. According to the version given by the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, Kiy lived on the Dnieper mountains with his younger brothers Shchek, Khoriv and his sister Lybed, built a city on the high right bank of the Dnieper, named after his elder brother Kiev.

The chronicler immediately reports, although he considers it implausible, the second legend that Kiy was a carrier on the Dnieper. So what is next!!! Kiy is named the founder of the town of Kievets on the Danube !? These are the times.

“Some, unknowingly, say that Kiy was a carrier; There was, then, at Kiev a ferry from the other side of the Dnieper, which is why they said: "For the ferry to Kiev." If Kiy had been a carrier, he would not have gone to Constantinople; and this Kiy reigned in his family, and when he went to the king, they say that he was rewarded with great honors from the king to whom he came. When he was returning, he came to the Danube, and chose a place, and cut down a small town, and wanted to sit in it with his kin, but those who lived around him would not give him; and to this day the inhabitants of the Danube city call that settlement - Kievets. Kiy, returning to his city of Kiev, died there; and his brothers Shchek and Horeb and their sister Lybid immediately died. " PVL.

Where is this place, Kievets on the Danube?

For example, in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron about Kievets it is written - “The town, which, according to Nestor's story, was built by Kiy on the Danube and still existed in his time. I. Liprandi, in his "Discourse on the ancient cities of Keve and Kievets" ("Son of the Fatherland", 1831, vol. XXI), brings K. closer to the fortified city of Keve, which is narrated by the Hungarian chronicler Anonymous Notary and who was located near Orsov, apparently in the place where the Serbian city of Kladova is now (among the Bulgarians Gladov, among the Turks Fetislam). The same author draws attention to the fact that, according to Nestor, Kyi built K. on the way to the Danube, therefore, maybe not on the Danube itself, and points to the villages of Kiovo and Kovilovo, located 30 versts from the mouth of Timok. "

If you look at where the present Kiev is and where the above Kladov is with the nearby Kiovo at the mouth of the Timok, then the distance between them is as much as 1,300 kilometers in a straight line, which is quite far away even in our times, all the more so for those. And what, it would seem, is in common between these places. We are clearly talking about some kind of innuendo, substitution.

Moreover, the most interesting thing is that Kievets really was on the Danube. Most likely, we are dealing with a traditional history, when settlers, moving to a new place, transferred their legends there as well. In this case, Slavic settlers brought these legends from the Danube. As you know, they came to the Dnieper from Pannonia, pressed in the 8-9 century by the Avars and the ancestors of the Magyars.

Therefore, the chronicler writes: “When the Slavic people, as we said, lived on the Danube, they came from the Scythians, that is, from the Khazars, the so-called Bulgarians, and settled along the Danube, and were settlers in the land of the Slavs.” PVL.

In reality, this story with Kiy and Polyany reflects even ancient attempts not so much to tell as to distort real facts and events.

“After the destruction of the pillar and after the division of the peoples, the sons of Shem took the eastern countries, and the sons of Ham took the southern countries, while Japheth took the west and the northern countries. From the same 70 and 2 languages ​​came the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth - the so-called Noriks, who are the Slavs.

After a long time, the Slavs settled down the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs, the Slavs dispersed throughout the land and were nicknamed by their names from the places where they sat. " PVL

Clearly and not ambiguously, the chronicler says that the Slavs lived in other territories than the lands of Kievan Rus, and are an alien people here. And if we consider the historical retrospective of the lands of Russia, it is clear that they were by no means a desert, and life was in full swing here since ancient times.

And in the same place, in the "Tale of Bygone Years," the chronicle brings to the reader information about the settlement of the Slavs even more clearly. We are talking about moving from west to east.

After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian (more often they indicate the provinces of Rezia and Norik). From those Slavs, the Slavs dispersed throughout the land and were nicknamed by their names from the places where they sat. So some, having arrived, sat down on the river by the name of Morava and were nicknamed Morava, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: White Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volokhs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, then these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Lyakhs, and from those Poles went the Poles, other Poles - Luichi, some - Mazovians, others - Pomorians

Likewise, these Slavs came and sat down the Dnieper and called themselves glades, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, while others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and called themselves Dregovichi, others sat down the Dvina and called themselves Polotsk, along the river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from her the Polotsk people were named. The same Slavs, who sat down near Lake Ilmenya, called themselves by their name - the Slavs, and built a city and named it Novgorod. Others sat along the Desna, and along the Seim, and along the Sule, and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and after their name and the letter was called Slavic. " (PVLIpatiev list)

The ancient chronicler, whether it was Nestor or someone else, needed to depict history, but from this story we learn only that not very long ago the Slavic families moved to the east and northeast.

However, for some reason we do not find a word about the people of Russia from the chronicler of the PVL.

And we are interested in this rus- the people who are with a small letter and Russia, a country that is with a capital. Where did they come from. To be honest, PVL is not suitable for the purpose of finding out the true state of affairs. We find there only isolated references, of which only one is clear, that rus there was and it was the people, and not some separate Scandinavian squads.

It must be said here that neither the Norman version of the origin rus neither West Slavic is satisfactory. Hence, there are so many disputes between the supporters of these versions, because choosing between them, there is nothing to choose from. Not a single second version allows us to understand the history of the origin of our people. Rather, it confuses. The question is, is there really no answer? Can't you figure it out? I hasten to reassure the reader. There is an answer. In fact, in general terms it is already known, and it is quite possible to compose a picture, but history is a political and ideological tool, especially in a country like Russia.
Ideology here has always played a decisive role in the life of the country, and history is the basis of ideology. And if the historical truth contradicted the ideological content, then it was not the ideology that was changed, the history was adjusted. That is why the traditional history of Rus-Russia is in many ways presented as a set of false statements and omissions. This silence and lies have become a tradition in the study of history. And this bad tradition begins with the same PVL.

It seems to the author that there is no need to slowly lead the reader to true conclusions regarding the past. rus-Rus-Russia, consistently exposing the lies of various historical versions. Of course, I would like to build a story, creating an intrigue, gradually leading the reader to the correct conclusion, but in this case it will not work. The fact is that avoiding the historical truth was the main goal of most historians, and the heaps of untruths are such that hundreds of volumes would have to be written, refuting one nonsense after another.

Therefore, here I will take a different path, outlining our real history, along the way explaining the reasons for the silence and lies that determined the various "traditional versions." It must be understood that, with the exception of a short period at the end of the era of the Romanov Empire and our present day, historians could not be free from ideological pressure. Much is explained, on the one hand, by a political order, and on the other hand, by the readiness to fulfill this order. In some periods it was fear of reprisals, in some a desire not to notice the obvious truth in the name of some political hobbies. As we delve deeper into the past and reveal the historical truth, I will try to give my explanations

The extent of the lie and the tradition of deviating from the truth were such that for many readers the truth about the origin of their ancestors will be a shock. But the evidence is so indisputable and unambiguous that only a stubborn dumbass or pathological liar will dispute a perfectly clear truth.

Even at the end of the 19th century, it was clearly possible to state that the origin and history of the people of Russia, the state of Russia, that is, the past of the ancestors of the Russian people, is not any mystery, but in general terms it is known. And it is not difficult to build a historical chain of times in order to understand who we are and where we are from. Another question is that this was contrary to political attitudes. Why, I will touch on this below. Therefore, our history has not found its true reflection. But sooner or later the truth must be presented.

When history books lie. The past that did not exist [with illustrations] Balabukha Andrey Dmitrievich

Historical truth

Historical truth

With interruptions, the Hundred Years War, which lasted from 1337 to 1453, was an exclusively family matter - the right to the French throne was disputed by the closest relatives (not without reason in the history of England this period is called "the time of the French kings"). For our heroine, this is of decisive importance: in any other situation, her story would be either completely different, or impossible at all.

The august wife of the French crown bearer Charles VI the Mad, Isabella of Bavaria (better known as Queen Isabeau), had such an ardent temperament that of her twelve children, only the first four, apparently, were due to her husband. The fathers of others were the king's younger brother, Duke Louis of Orleans, and also a certain Chevalier Louis de Bois-Bourdon. Zhanna, born on November 10, 1407, was her last child, an illegitimate daughter who was brought up into the family of impoverished noblemen d'Arcs. Born in adultery, she was nevertheless a princess of the blood — the daughter of the queen and the brother of the king; this circumstance explains all the strangeness of its further history. And even the nickname of the Maid of Orleans testifies not to the heroic command of the troops near Orleans (by the way, the military leaders were others, truly outstanding - the aforementioned Count of Dunois, Jeanne's half-brother, and also our hero - Gilles de Rais), but of belonging to the Orleans house of the dynasty Valois.

The very next day after the official presentation at the Chinon court, Jeanne talked with the Dauphin Karl, and - and this is noted by all witnesses - she was sitting next to him, which only the princess of the blood could afford. When the Duke of Alençon appeared, she unceremoniously asked:

- And who is this?

- My cousin Alencon.

- Welcome! - Joan said sympathetically. - The more of us, in whom the blood of France flows, the better ...

Recognition, you see, is completely direct.

By the way, in battles Jeanne used not only the sword of the great constable, but also a battle ax specially forged for her, on which was engraved the first letter of her name - J, crowned with a crown. The evidence is, frankly, eloquent. It was simply unthinkable to appropriate for oneself a heraldic attribute that did not belong by right, and even of such a rank, in the 15th century. A few days after Jeanne was wounded in the vicinity of Paris on September 8, 1429, she donated this weapon of hers to the Abbey of Saint-Denis as a votive offering. To this day, a tombstone-like stone slab has survived, which depicts Jeanne in armor - in her left hand she grips a battle ax with a clearly distinguishable "J" under the crown. There is no doubt that it is the Virgin of Orleans who is depicted, for the inscription on the plate reads: “Such was the equipment of Jeanne, which she gave as a gift to St. Denis ".

The "voices" calling on Joan to fulfill a high mission are also made more understandable if we recall not the d'Arcs family, but about her real ancestors and relatives: her grandfather, Charles V the Wise, was married to Joan of Burgundy, who went down in history as Zhanna Madness; father, Louis Orleans, suffered from hallucinations; half-sister Catherine of Valois, wife of King Henry V Plantagenet of England, also; their son Henry VI is again known as the Mad ...

Historians have known all this for a long time. Including - and that Jeanne was not at all burned at the stake: after all, royal blood is sacred (the account of the executed august persons was subsequently opened by the unfortunate English queens - first the wife of Henry VIII, then - Mary Stuart); a monarch or prince of blood can be deposed, captured, imprisoned, killed, finally - but in no way executed.

Manuscript No. 11542, kept in the British Museum, says in a dull voice: “In the end, they ordered her to be burned in front of all the people. Or some other woman who looks like her. What many people had and still have different opinions". The so-called "Chronicle of the rector of the cathedral of St. Thibault in Metz "is much more categorical:" In the city of Rouen in Normandy, she was erected on the fire and burned. So they say, but since then the opposite has been proven! " The very circumstances surrounding the execution are suggestive. Firstly, before her execution, Joan was not admonished, and this rite in the XIV-XV centuries was obligatory for everyone, except for children and the righteous. The virgin, accused of having intercourse with the devil, by someone, was not a righteous woman in any way! From this circumstance, the historian Robert Ambelain concludes: "... she was denied this highest sacrament, because it was known that she was by no means going to die." Secondly, eight hundred English soldiers literally drove the people out of the Old Market Square, where the fire was made. Then, under an escort of 120 people, a certain woman was brought there, whose face was hidden by a low pulled down hood. But usually those sentenced to be burned went with their heads covered only with a paper cap or a crown.

Who was actually burned then in Rouen? Some historians believe that it is a kind of witch (either Jeanne la Türkenne, or Jeanne Vanneril, or Jeanne la Guilloret). Others - as if a certain nun died at the stake, convicted of lesbian love or bestiality, who voluntarily preferred a quick death to a long extinction in dungeon. I'm afraid we will never know.

But it is proved that until February 1432 the Virgin of Orleans was in honorary captivity in the castle of Bouvreuil in Rouen, then she was released, on November 7, 1436 she married a certain widowed knight Robert des Armoise, Senor Tischemont (a great way to legally change a name!), And in 1436 she re-emerged from oblivion in Paris, where she was recognized by her former companions, and was treated kindly by Charles VII (gently embracing her, the king exclaimed: "Virgin, darling, welcome again, in the name of the Lord ..."). Jeanne d'Arc (now Dame des Armoise) died in the summer of 1449.

Everyone knows about it - except those who do not want to know. The only pity is that the name of these unwilling ones is legion. However, it is not surprising: after all, living in the usual paradigm of the myth is much calmer and more convenient, while in a professional environment any attempts on the myth are most often perceived as heresy. Of course, they will not be erected on the fire (the times are not the same!), But they will certainly look sideways, in an academic career you can put a big fat cross with an unwavering hand.

From the book In the end author Polevoy Boris

3. Truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth Before the Tribunal has already passed a long line of witnesses, citizens of different states, people of different professions, different intellectual levels. From their testimony, often simple, ingenuous, the face of Nazism appears even

From the book When history textbooks lie. The past that did not exist [with pictures] the author Balabukha Andrey Dmitrievich

Historical truth Intermittently stretching from 1337 to 1453, the Hundred Years War was an exclusively family matter - the right to the French throne was disputed by the closest relatives (not without reason in the history of England this period is called "the time of the French kings"). For our

From the book "On the current moment" No. 3 (75), 2008 the author USSR Internal Predictor

4. Russia and the behind-the-scenes rulers of the West: historical reality and historical necessity The second fundamental conclusion is as follows:

From the book Political Class No. 42 the author Political class magazine

Deontological war with Russia. Historical truth in the role of propaganda

From the book Dollar Imperialism in Western Europe author Leontiev A.

1. The myth of the "peaceful" growth of American capitalism and historical truth It is necessary first of all to expose one legend. The lackeys of American imperialism and, above all, right-wing socialists like Leon Blum, Karl Renner and Co. spread the myth that the United States allegedly

From the book Fashizophrenia the author Sysoev Gennady Borisovich

Chapter 12. Union: Truth and "Ukrainian Truth" Truthful facts are also needed to manipulate consciousness. There was the Great Famine of 1933 - today Ukrainian official and semi-official propaganda is building a false and absurd myth, creating “ new version»Our history. In it alone

From the book Everything You Wanted to Know About the Jews, But Were Afraid to Ask the author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

The first truth The truth about a single people, or Who are the Jews? It is insane to neglect Judaism; it is useless to scold the Jews; it is better to understand Judaism, although it is more difficult. B. C. Soloviev Indeed ... Who are they? Many people are sure that they know: Jews are such

There will be no other Russia from the book the author Belyakov Sergey

The fourth truth The truth about the Judaic civilization The aristocracy of the garbage dictates the fashion for morality. I don't give a damn, but my heart is bitter, And sadness hits the liver. Street song of 1992 What is civilization? “Civilization is a collection of people standing between the people and

From the author's book

The fifth truth The truth about the Jews of Eastern Europe Having set off across the white world, Ready for any unknown, the Jew populates the planet, Changing in the image of the area. I. Guberman In Ancient Russia The chronicle tale about the "test of faith" tells that the Jews also praised the prince

From the author's book

The sixth truth Truth about the appearance of Jews in the Russian Empire, or Greetings from the Commonwealth Through kings and pharaohs, Leaders, sultans and tsars, Mourning the death of millions, A Jew walks with a violin. I. Guberman Award for the bravery of the Russian troops In 1772, the first

From the author's book

Truth Seventh Truth about the love of Jews for the land In the world there is no faster and faster, faster and faster (like a bird), Than a middle-aged sick Jew Seeking an opportunity to feed himself. I. Guberman Attempt to transform into peasants Catherine II also wanted to resettle Jews to new

From the author's book

The eighth truth The truth about the role of Jews in the Russian Empire When happiness is drawn from a full bowl, When everyone is cheerful and cheerful, Aunt Pesia remains a pessimist, Because Aunt Pesya has a mind. I. Guberman Beginning It is very difficult to say whether Alexander II wanted

From the author's book

Truth ten The truth about the role of Jews in the "liberation movement" Growing in attics and cellars Russian spiritual greatness. That will come out and hang on the posts of each other for the slightest difference. I. Guberman Adventures of Shvonder in Russia Over the decades of Soviet power

From the author's book

Truth eleventh The truth about participation in the revolution Demons rush swarm after swarm In boundless depths, Squealing plaintive and howling Breaking my heart. A.S. Pushkin One of the secrets of empiresEmpires are generally quite mysterious formations. One amazing feature: each

From the author's book

Truth Thirteen The truth about Russia without Jews Gentlemen still live in Britain today. All of them are 70 or 80 years old. K. Hutie Three Types of Jews in Russia Karen Hutie published her book in 1993. Today, English gentlemen are not 70-80, but 80-95 years old. Many of them, and after ten,

From the author's book

A machine gun in the hands of a child: the historical truth and mythology of war Prologue weekdays they wore order strips on their jackets, otherwise

Igor Melnikov, specially for "Belarusian Partisans", 12:14 16/03/2015

Vitebsk region, Mogilev region and Gomel region have never been "primordially Russian" lands. This is the historical truth.

Recently, new collectors of the "Russian lands" have become more active.

For example, Kirill Averyanov-Minsky, a well-known hater of everything Belarusian, published another anti-Belarusian opus with a claim to historical research.

The annexation of Crimea and the war with Ukraine finally turned their heads. In certain Russian circles, it has become fashionable to talk about a certain Slavic unity of the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian peoples. Pseudo-analysts and similar historians are trying to prove Moscow's rights to "primordially Russian lands", allegedly illegally "torn away" from Russia at different times.

For the last five years, the activities of the "Western Russian fifth column" on the territory of Belarus are aimed at convincing the Belarusians that throughout their history their lands were associated with the "Third Rome", and all other stories of the history of Belarus were either invented by nationalists , either have a Polish or, more simply, a western footprint.

The adherents of “one and indivisible” do not stop at anything, challenging even the Belarusian authorities. Do you remember the story of how, after his speech in parliament on April 22, 2014, Alexander Lukashenko scolded the then Vitebsk leadership for the fact that they did not “figure it out” with the former official of one of the regional youth affairs departments of Vitebsk, Andrei Gerashchenko? “There, somewhere near Kosinets, I don’t want to give his last name, I don’t remember any more, some activist began to declare that, you see, the Russian language is being infringed upon -“ hurray, hurray, Crimea, there is Russia ”and so on.

I regret that he has not yet been thrown out of there. You understand? These are provocateurs. They create grounds for contradictions in our country, ”Lukashenka said a year ago. And what, were there any sanctions against this supporter of the "Russian world"? No. His "creations" are still sold in bookstores the Belarusian capital. Central Belarusian TV channels invite him to their events. But people like Gerashchenko threaten not only the national identity of our people, but also the current Belarusian authorities.

While the domestic intelligentsia is quietly and peacefully trying to promote the Belarusian language, culture and history to the masses, the adherents of Western Russianism are actively seeking to create conditions in Belarus for a kind of “Russian spring”, which will be accompanied by the emergence of “people's republics”, the stronghold of which will be “polite little green men ". It is these ideas that are actively promoted through anti-Belarusian Internet resources operating, including on the territory of our country (for example, zapadrus.su imperiya.by, etc.).

A reasonable question arises as to who poses a real danger to the official authorities: Belarusian historians and culturologists, who return to Belarusians their national consciousness, or supporters of the “united and indivisible” Russian empire, who question the borders of the Belarusian state and invite “spontaneously emerging self-defense "In Russian camouflage?

The answer, I think, is obvious. Kirill Averyanov-Minsky, deprived of the opportunity to enter Belarus, burst into another opus. This time the “expert” drew attention to the events related to the enlargement of the territory of Soviet Belarus in the 1920s. They say that in vain these Belarusians were given the Vitebsk region, the Mogilev region and the Gomel region, because these territories are supposedly primordially Russian and have never belonged to Belarus. To substantiate his thoughts, the Russian imperialist quotes the then (period of the 1920s) "responsible" comrades who opposed the "withdrawal" of regions from the RSFSR and their transfer to Belarus. But have these eastern Belarusian regions always been part of Russia?

Let's make an excursion into the past of our country in order to understand who and from whom took Vitebsk, Mogilev and Gomel. So, the city on the Vitba River in ancient times occupied an important position on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and until 1021 belonged to the Grand Dukes of Kiev. Later Vitebsk passed into the possession of the Polotsk prince Bryachislav Izyaslavich, after whose death in 1101, became the center of the Vitebsk principality. In 1320 Gedymin's son Olgerd became the prince of Vitebsk. 50 years later, Jagailo became the new owner of the city on Vitba, and then the first castles appeared here. In 1444, by the charter of the Grand Duke Kazimir Yagelonchik, Vitebsk was given the right of self-government (which was confirmed several times in the 16th century). Since the beginning of the 16th century, the city on Vitba has been attacked by its eastern neighbors. It was from this moment that Moscow's struggle for the Belarusian Vitebsk began. The city was besieged in 1502 and 1516.

And three years later, the Moscow troops managed to capture the Lower Castle (while a significant number of local residents were killed). During the Inflant War of 1558-1582. "Guests from the East" again besieged the Belarusian Vitebsk, but they could not take it. In March 1597, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III Vaza endows Vitebsk with the Magdeburg Law. At this time, a voivodeship was created on the territory of the Vitebsk region (Vitebsk and Orsha provinces). In the middle of the 17th century, Vitebsk was one of the largest cities in the ancient Belarusian state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

But in 1654, the Moscow state fell upon the Rzeczpospolita. During this war, Vitebsk was taken by Russian troops. After that, a significant number of residents of the city, Vitebsk artisans and craftsmen were taken prisoner and forcibly taken to the East. The city was returned to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania only in 1667. During the Northern War in 1708, by order of Peter I, the city on Vit'ba was burned down.

Finally, as a result of the First Partition of the Commonwealth in 1772, a significant part of the Vitebsk Voivodeship with the city of Vitebsk was transferred to the Russian Empire. In turn, Mogilev was first mentioned in the chronicles of the XIV century. Then it belonged to the Grand Duke Svidrigailo.

In 1526 a new castle was built in the city on the Dnieper. In 1577 Mogilev acquired the Magdeburg Law. In the 16th century, the Dnieper Outpost played an important role in the economic life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But, as you know, Moscow was not going to peacefully coexist with the “half-blooded” Grand Duchy of Lithuania and was striving to “collect Russian lands”.

During the Inflant War of 1558-1582. Mogilev was attacked by Moscow troops, as a result of which a significant number of its inhabitants died. Throughout the XVI-XVIII centuries. the city on the Dnieper was actually the center of Orthodoxy on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The famous Mogilev printing house worked here. But in 1654, brothers of the same faith from the East seized Mogilev. The troops of the Commonwealth were able to recapture the city only in 1661. At the same time, King Jan II Kazimir gave Mogilev a new coat of arms, which has survived to this day. By the way, even today you can see the ancient Belarusian "Pursuit" on this symbol.

The next test for the city was the Northern War, as a result of which Mogilev suffered from Russian and Swedish troops. In 1772, the city on the Dnieper, together with the Mogilev volost (economy), was torn away from the Commonwealth and became part of the Russian Empire.

Finally, Gomel was first mentioned in chronicles in 1142. Since the XIV century, the city on the Sozh was a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the war of the Moscow state against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1500-1503. the owners of the city went over to the side of Moscow. In 1535, the troops of the Grand Duchy under the command of Yuri Radziwill, using modern terminology, liberated the city from the separatists. Since that time, Gomel has been the center of the Gomel eldership. During the Inflant War of 1558-1582. the city was burned down by the Moscow troops. The tragedy was repeated in 1632-1634. when the Cossacks attacked Gomel.

During the war of 1654-1667. the Belarusian city was captured by the Cossacks of Hetman Ivan Zolotorenko, who interacted with the Moscow troops. As a result of the Andrusov armistice in 1667, Gomel returned to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Polesie city also got it during the Northern War, when Russian troops were in the city. In 1772, the city on the Sozh, together with the Gomel volost, became part of the Romanov empire. In 1775, Catherine II donated these territories to the eternal hereditary possession of the Russian military leader P.A.Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky. The royal rescript indicated that Gomel was given "for amusement." In 1779, the Gomel starostvo included 82 villages with 12,665 households.

In total, as a result of the First Partition of the Commonwealth, Russia annexed 92 thousand km2 of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a population of 1.3 million.

Later, on these lands, Paul I created the Belarusian province, which then Alexander I divided into Vitebsk and Mogilev (the latter included Gomel). Immediately after the incorporation of the East of Belarus into the Russian Empire, Catherine II ordered "all business to be done in the Russian language."

The Russian provincial and zemstvo courts, created soon after, also used only the “great and mighty”. The Moscow Orthodox Church, also pursuing a policy of Russification. At that time, the bishop of the Minsk Orthodox diocese V. Sadkovsky declared: “I will uproot you, destroy you, so that your accursed Lithuanian (ie Belarusian) language and you do not exist. I am sending you to the links. "

In 1782, the tsarist authorities created a Commission for the organization of public schools, and a few years later, Russian main and small public schools began to appear in Belarus.

On March 15, 1789, such an institution was opened in Mogilev ... In 1839, the empire liquidated Uniatism in Belarus, in fact, the Belarusian religion. A year later, the use of the name "Belarusian provinces" was officially prohibited in relation to the territories occupied as a result of the three divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

As a result, until October 1917, Belarus was officially called the Northwestern Territory of the Russian Empire. The russification policy of the tsarist authorities led to the formation of the “tutayshastsi syndrome” among the Belarusians.

This is largely due to the fact that at the time of the proclamation of the BNR and the BSSR, many residents of the Belarusian territories did not understand the significance of what the independence of their homeland brings them. Unfortunately, this problem is still relevant today.

Thus, it becomes clear that in the 1920s the Bolsheviks "gave" to the Belarusians what had belonged to our people for centuries. Vitebsk region, Mogilev region and Gomel region have never been "primordially Russian" lands. These territories were historically part of the ancient Belarusian state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

This is the historical truth.

“An article under the heading“ Dissenting opinion ”is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. The point of view of the editorial board of “Belarusian Partisan” may not coincide with the point of view of the author.
The editors are not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and acts exclusively as a carrier.
You can send your article to belpartisan@gmail.com for posting under the heading "Minority opinion", which we will publish. "