The Communist Party of the Russian Federation analyzed the new history textbook from a national patriotic position

On Monday, deputies of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma, together with experts, discussed the nuances of teaching history in Russian schools. They mainly focused their attention on the new unified history textbook. The participants approved the change in the political and ideological paradigm, reflected in the manual. However, experts and party members mercilessly criticized the authors’ methodological approach, factual inaccuracies and cost of benefits – although, it seems, without much hope of correcting the shortcomings.

As Kommersant has previously repeatedly reported, the new all-Russian history textbook for grades 10–11 consists of four books: two “History of Russia” and two “World History.” Work on the textbooks was carried out under the leadership of Vladimir Medinsky, assistant to the president, chairman of the Russian Military Historical Society; publications from the moment of presentation are in the center of public attention and cause heated controversy. Its next round was opened by the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and a graduate of the Oryol Pedagogical Institute Gennady Zyuganov with a list of examples of the primary importance of school education for the preservation of statehood and sovereignty. “During interrogations, the fascist generals showed that they lost the war rather not to the Red Army, but to the Soviet teacher, scientist, engineer,” the politician pointed out, also talking about how later the seconded were convinced of their lagging “at the school desk and on the student bench.” in the USSR, analysts of the United States, which lagged behind the Soviet Union in the space race.

Whether Mr. Zyuganov liked the new history textbook remained unclear, but he appreciated the positive trend, because “many previous” textbooks could not educate “a class specialist, an excellent citizen and patriot.” “I am glad that a serious step forward has been made, but, unfortunately, many specialists with a national patriotic orientation were not involved in this work,” complained the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But, however, he immediately added that any educational literature requires “clarification and verification in practice” and therefore, apparently, “people’s patriotic” experts have a chance to catch up.

The assembled specialists of Gennady Zyuganov did not disappoint. The first of them, historian Vardan Baghdasaryan, casually praising the manual for reassessing the events of the Civil War, October 1993 and Soviet military operations in Finland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, suggested as many as ten points for correction. “The textbook will be corrected as a result of criticism from colleagues from Chechnya, and, in addition to those situations, the following circumstances should probably be taken into account…” the scientist began, after which he literally “smashed” the chapters on the Katyn execution, famine and collectivization, Stalin’s repressions, and at the same time another several paragraphs describing the difficult events of Soviet history, as Mr. Baghdasaryan considered, in the “liberal” paradigm. As Kommersant previously reported, criticism in Chechnya and other regions of residence of peoples subjected to deportation under Stalin was caused by the wording in the paragraph on deportations.

The following speakers warmly supported the initiative of their colleague, and through their collective efforts the hypothetical “list for correction” grew to almost 40 points. They called for correction not only of the facts, but also of the presentation of the material, coupled with methodological recommendations such as a list of references. “Like novels (by Vladimir.— “Kommersant”) Sorokin got there, I can’t rationally explain: I can’t find more Russophobic and vile works than “Blue Lard” or “The Day of the Oprichnik,” – Stanislav Anikhovsky, Secretary of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Central Committee, was perplexed. “They write: “as one contemporary said” – who, some guy on the street said that? “As many believed” – who are the many? Indicate the opinion of a specialist! There was so much shouting about these textbooks, as a result, major historians and the historical community were not involved in the preparation,” complained the head of the Penza communists, deputy chairman of the regional legislative assembly, Dmitry Filyaev.

In turn, deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, on the eve of consideration of the draft budget for 2024, focused on the financial side of the issue. Deputy Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Dmitry Novikov personally forked out money at the bookstore and took the receipts with him: a textbook for the 10th grade cost him 1,280 rubles, for the 11th – 2,620 rubles. “At what prices are schools supplied with teaching aids? By these?” — the deputy could not believe his eyes. His Duma member was supported by Central Committee member Nina Ostanina, who discovered a million-dollar shortage of funds for textbooks in several Russian regions. “We believe that these funds need to be allocated not in regional, not in municipal budgets, but in the federal budget,” Ms. Ostanina pointed out. “No matter how we practice analyzing such textbooks, if a teacher takes and copies on a photocopier, and then distributes … »

“Those who have gathered here understand perfectly well that history is politics facing the past. And (although.— “Kommersant”) a compromise on ideology is impossible, we need a conclusion,” Nikolai Osadchiy, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, summed up the speeches. As such a conclusion, he proposed to reflect in the resolution the collected methodological recommendations and the requirement to introduce state examination of university textbooks: “We are not aiming at a school textbook, although examination is needed here too. It is clear that it is being carried out, but it is not clear who is carrying it out and how.” Mr. Novikov, in turn, promised to accumulate the theses voiced and use them, among other things, for discussion with relevant departments.

Grigory Leiba