One of the noteworthy results of the recentof the opinion poll, dedicated to the Civil War in Russia, was a socially marked large-scale social rehabilitation of the leaders of the White Movement. First of all, in the eyes of the youth.
If the older generation, brought up on the textbooks of the "History of the USSR" and the films about Chapaev, gives a weighted average estimate to Admiral Kolchak - 18% (24% of sympathies - 42% of antipathies), then for those who are up to 30, the supreme ruler of white Russia is certainly a hero. 25% rankings with 42% sympathy and 17% antipathy.
A bored participant in the February coup d'etat to General Denikin, of course, got less sympathy, but he also came out of hard "minuses" in the senior group to stable zeros in the youngest - 19% of sympathies for 19% of antipathies.
Unfortunately, the survey did not include other, more charismatic figures of white - Crimean reformer Wrangel in Circassian, the winner of the Turks Yudenich, a kind of holy white - General Drozdovsky, chivalrous Kappel, eerie-aesthetic Ungern. Sympathy for many of them among the youth would have been even more pronounced.
There is no doubt that White contributed not only to the disappearance of the compulsory ideological pressure of the Soviet government, but also to PR.
Especially with him was lucky Kolchak, who is working and the reputation of a major polar explorer, and quite decent in quality film "Admiral" with reflected in it a romantic story with Anna Timiriyeva.
Well, what's wrong with that? Chapaev is one hundred percent product of Soviet public relations (a successful book by Furmanov and a successful film by the Vasilyev brothers).
However, it is not so far up to the domination of the white imagery over the red, but at least to their equality in the public consciousness is still extremely far. The author of these lines clearly saw this himself, when he wrote a small column dedicated to the legendary match between Russia and Spain.
Russian football players in white uniform furiously fought off the "red furies". At the head of the defense stood Kutepov, so that Kornilov, Markov, Mamontov and others were directly suggesting. In the stands, waving tricolor flags, our maidens were cheered by maidens in kokoshniks, boyars, the tsar in Monomakh's cap, and the players themselves were baptized fiercely after the goals scored (or beaten).
Our opponent was a great team from the state, which is now on the verge of civil war. On the one hand, Catalan separatism, affecting the relations in the team, on the other - the general atmosphere in the country where the leftist parliamentary coup took place recently.
The new Prime Minister Sanchez refused to swear allegiance to the Bible and expressed his intention to throw out the remains of General Franco from the Valley of the Fall, the caudillo monument of national reconciliation created, where the remains of nationalists and Republicans are buried. Spain covers the leftist tsunami, and the country is drawn into the internecine slaughter - this is the estimate of many Spaniards.
Of course, it was impossible to resist the temptation to describe this battle in the metaphor "white against the Reds" with such introductory statements. And this I have not yet begun to notice a visual similarity with Franco Stanislav Cherchesov, who amused many on the Web. A very dissatisfied supreme ruler rose up to punish ungrateful descendants.
The reaction to this text surpassed all expectations. There was a friendly, I'm not afraid of this word, angry howl of the offended religious feeling. Riding was a reproach: "Yes, how dare you to use the moment of triumph and unity for the red-white battles!".
Strange, according to conscience, a reproach from the mouths of representatives of ideology, one of whose leaders at the time of the greatest and purest national celebration in the twentieth century said: "Gagarin flew into space, but did not see God."
But this reaction made me think - and how would someone react if I used the left cultural symbolism to describe the same plot? I would write about the "two Che" - Cherchesov and Che Guevara, would call Fernandez "our interbrigadovtsem," and earned for us a penalty Pique - the "fifth column", would have noticed "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls - he calls the Spaniards." I would joke that "Akinfeev told the Spaniards" No passaran "and promised to send advisors to Madrid on the football line ...
Most likely, those who were indignant with the "white imagery" would like it. Well, the right, unless contemptuously shrugged shoulders: "What to take from a man who studied in the Soviet school and grew up on Soviet books and films."
The fact remains. And here, and around the world, the cultural symbolism associated with the left, not only moderately left, but also with the most desperate left radicalism, up to mass murder and terrorism, is absolutely legitimate.
You can walk in a T-shirt with a Che terrorist and be proud of it. You can hang funny pictures on the walls with Marx, Lenin and Mao. You can admire the regime of North Korea. It is possible to sign petitions in support of Ilyich Ramirez Sanchez (the terrorist "Shakala"). Even Russian nationalism managed to get hold of some public legitimacy, first of all in the left form that the national-Bolshevik Eduard Limonov gave him and the young generation that followed in his footsteps.
On the contrary, the "right" associated with nationalism, illiberal conservatism and monarchism, is heavily tabooed. This is all immediately stamped "Hitler".
If you use a star and a sickle and a hammer, then you do not have to explain anything to anyone. If, for example, you choose a cross as a symbol, then "indignant atheists" will inevitably crowd around you. To forbid the red flag of FIFA in the stadiums of the championship did not come (and the more characteristic that our fans use the national flag), but the "imperial" was immediately banned.
And then Russia faces a systemic long-term problem.
If we define ourselves as a country that continues a thousand-year historical Russia, if we recognize the existence of the Russian nation, if we respect our "spiritual bonds" (from ethnic symbols with boyars and kokoshniks to the Orthodox religion), we can not live in the conditions of total domination of the "left-patriotic "Symbolism and a semicircle of" right ".
If only because our country is right before our eyes, it becomes more and more conservative and more and more clearly opposes itself to the western left mainstream.
This is how we are perceived in the rest of the world - the Russians firmly revere traditions, do not understand all this global "gay parade," respect their history and great patriots. While in America monuments are being demolished, it is not that General Lee - the "slave owner of Washington", in Russia erect monuments to Alexander III and Nicholas II.
It is this image of Russia that creates a magnetic attraction to us in Europe and America - from the tramp drivers to the rightists who came to power in Italy and Austria. It is here that the right-wing international, the international of patriots, who support each other in the struggle to preserve their identity, arises.
The world saw in Russia a unique chance
- a society that, without racism, male chauvinism and neo-Nazism, manages to support the Christian and European civilizational identity, to build an attractive paradigmconservative modernity.At the same time, at a high technological level. We are envious and imitate a little.
It turned out for us, we will be honest, quite by chance. First of all, thanks to the personal tastes of Vladimir Putin, formed during the brief early Brezhnev fashion on the whites and able to absorb the powerful intellectual influence of Ivan Ilyin and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who are now buried near the necropolis of the Donskoy Monastery.
But we are not yet systematically ready to preserve and develop this spontaneously arisen image of Russia. In our subconscious we literally sew a coordinate grid "red-left-good-our" and "white-right-bad-enemies".
The US tried to end its civil war at the level of memories soon after its end. The northerners recognized the truth - they fought for freedom and justice. But for southerners, the right to honor and courage was recognized - they fought in the minority as knights. It was the heroes of the southerners - Lee, the "Stone Wall" Jackson, Stuart and others - who turned out to be the heroes of the nation, as exemplified by the cadets of military academies.
The joint honor of both the Yankees and the Dixies was the basis of the American national consensus until the last decades. The current attack on the Confederate heritage gives the impression of an organic part of America's overall decline. The sunset is inevitable if the trampistic political breakdown fails.
In Spain, General Franco also tried to end the civil war as soon as possible. Despite the bitter terror on both sides during the fighting, the Spanish caudillo tried to quickly get rid of right-wing radical, neo-Nazi elements, widely opened the country to liberal and left-wing emigrants. Except for war criminals.
Critical attitude to the Franco regime (if it did not go into subversive activities) was not punished. The war was also seen as a national uprising against the forces of world communism, which sought to ruin the Spanish nation and the Catholic Church, and as a common tragedy of the divided people.
Already in 1940, Franco ordered the construction of a huge memorial Valley of the Fallen, expressing the idea of national repentance and reconciliation. Certainly, on the right, national, Christian formula. But all the same - reconciliation. Under the shadow of a huge cross, surrounded by a Benidictan monastery, the bones of 33 872 victims of the civil war rested. Among them, Franco himself found rest, which now the leftist government intends to throw out of the monastery created on his initiative, and the memorial itself is planned to be declared a "monument to the victims of Francoism".
Especially revealing is the desire of the government to throw out of the complex and the remains of Jose Primo de Rivera, leader of the Spanish phalanx thrown into prison by Republicans even before the start of the Franco insurrection and shot by the Reds without any guilt in November 1936. If Franco could be accused of political terror, Primo himself was a victim of political terror. However, the terror of the left for terror does not count.
Even in China, despite the political opposition of the ruling Communist Party and the Kuomintang playing an important role in Taiwan, the approach to the figure of Marshal Chiang Kai-shek is being revised - "Chinese Bonaparte" is recognized as a politician who acted in the national interests of the country and desired it.
And only Russian society still remains a prisoner of communist propaganda in assessing the Civil War.
The Soviet government did not allow and did not want any national reconciliation, and did not recognize any right to honor and patriotism for the whites.
Imagine the "Valley of the Fallen" in red manners, where Chapaev and Drozdovsky rested side by side, even with Lenin in the center, it was impossible. On the contrary, even after such a unifying event as Victory in the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet government never ceased to draw its legitimacy in the Civil War, appealing to the commissars in dusty helmets.
In the early Franco-Russian era, on the wave of a general revival of Russian ethnicity, a short cultural renaissance of the White Guards took place. Cute smart officers appeared on the screens, and even sang about the Russian field.
And when a red icon of military patriotism was needed, the word "officers" again sounded.
And the participation of heroes in the Civil War in Russia was not emphasized (although in the Spanish Civil War one of the heroes fought).
However, Gorbachev's "new thinking", which was based on "returning to Leninist principles," White was not needed, and the rehabilitation of Kolchak, like Bukharin's rehabilitation, did not bring about reconstruction.
After a short "rebound" in the period of the collapse of the communist regime (when, however, most of the memory of White was "captured" at the level of the songs about the "lieutenant Golitsyne"), the Reds moved into a decisive memorial offensive.
First, White was associated with the liberal reforms of 1990. Despite the fact that these reforms were carried out not by a man with the surname Wrangell or Kolchak, but by a man with the name Gaidar.
Secondly, the neo-Stalinists tried to close with the neo-monarchists on the national-Bolshevik formula: the tsar was overthrown by the liberals and destroyed the country, and the Bolsheviks of the tsar were not overthrown and the country was recreated.
This, of course, was an absurd formula - the Bolsheviks hated the monarchy stronger than the liberals. The tsar and his family were shot by them, and they "recreated" not Russia, but the Soviet Union. As a result, collapsed exactly along the boundaries drawn by the Bolsheviks. But as a basis for the "red-black" bloc against the "blue" for a while it worked.
The Soviet concept was reanimated, according to which the Civil War was only a veil of foreign intervention.
The thesis that "whites served an external enemy who wanted to dismember Russia," very conveniently allowed to go down to any insults - "spies, traitors, shot right" - with respect to the same Kolchak.
True, the fact that the Civil War began with the surrender of the Reds to Germany, from the occupation of all Western Russia by the Germans, and the Turks - Transcaucasia, that the White grew as a resistance movement to those who opened the front to the enemy in the world war - all this is ignored in the neo-Soviet discourse . As well as the fact that the Entente's intervention pursued only the goal of excluding the control of the strategic ports of Russia by the Germans, the Allies did not plan any territorial seizures in Russia and, alas, did not provide any real assistance to the whites.
Sometimes the red apologetics takes simply "on the pont." For example, putting forward the concept of "white terror" against the concept of red terror. Although we have fundamentally incompatible concepts.
Never and nowhere has White resorted to a stratocid - terror on a social basis. They could not have thought of "shooting all the workers" or "taking all the poor people hostage". At the same time, destruction on the basis of social origin (beyond any, even illusory personal guilt) was the essence of the Red Terror. And the ratio of victims of the repressive policies of red and white modern demographers set at the level of 4: 1.
As a result, a paradoxical situation has arisen in our public consciousness when some Orthodox, conservative-patriotic and nationalist-minded citizens literally croak at the mention of those who laid their lives for Russia to remain united and indivisible, for the churches not to blow up the priests shot, so that the peasants could plow their own, and not the collective-farm land.
Sometimes it comes down to absurd cynicism: the same people say that White lost because they allegedly wanted to take away from the peasants and return the land to the landlords (at the same time, they forget about the communist squads and food detachments). And then they say with the same mouth that the massacre of Soviet power over Tambov peasants and collectivization were justified, since it is God's punishment for the land selected by the peasants from the landowners.
The principle of cowards and crosses has not been canceled, but as regards the white movement, he is more just than ever. Most of the accusations against whites are being built up against him - God punished Kornilov, who was guilty before the Tsar, and punished the Communists, who shot the tsar, apparently. Cooperate with a direct external enemy - the Germans - you can, but you can not cooperate with allies (albeit inferior).
In fact, at the heart of all this vulgarity is the banal desire to be on the side of the winner and justify it at any cost. Since the Reds won, it follows that the truth of the national history was behind them. And now it's enough daring to blame in Russophobia those who oppose the regime, whose task it was to liquidate the Russians by dissolving the "Soviet people" in a "multinational historical community".
Of course, such a historical "right-wing Hegelianism" ("everything real is reasonable", everything that happened and was right) is categorically unacceptable.
Peoples can make mistakes, including protracted ones, and their heroes may not be aware of the fact that over the years - centuries. Unfortunately, the abuse of historical slanderers often falls on the collar. A nation can go wrong and return soon. And maybe not return at all.
The burden of centuries does not prevent, for example, the conservative British and today to ask the question, was not the fatal historical mistake the 16th-century church reformation. We in Russia are increasingly asking about the fatal role of absurd church schism and the persecution of Old Believers. And as applied to the recent past, few people today consider the hero of the "winners" of October 1993. Heroes for us for the most part are those who were then defeated.
To the Civil War, this principle "the winner is not always right" is especially applicable. And it's completely shameless to take away from Whites the right to memory and honor.
The Russians, reborn as a nation and traditions that strengthen it, of course, should honor the people who fought for a united Russia, and not for the International. For the Fatherland, and not for the world revolution, for the Faith, and not for the dissection of the relics and the godless five-year plan. And the social slogans about the "good of the common people" after three famines for 25 years and the introduction of collective farms can hardly be taken into account either.
Regardless of who and how they treat the Reds, they sympathize or heroize them, they can not be either the main or even the only heroes of modern Russia. At least because they fought for "a world without Russia and Latvia."
Against such a world without Russia White fought. And they fought heroically, courageously, being in the minority, in conditions of scarcity of people and resources.
This is the example, the resource of human achievement and self-denial, which we lack. Ice campaigns of the Kornilovites, the transfer of the Drozdovites from Iasi to the Don, the defense of the Crimea, the tragic destinies of Markov, Drozdovsky, Kappel, Kolchak ...
The knightly image of the losers can become a pledge for the winners - the Americans demonstrated this on the example of their civil war. And on the contrary, the present leftist folly in front of our generation will make the American army incapacitated.
And of course, it is the image of white heroes that is relevant, if we once expect to see a truly united Russia.
I recall the portraits of Kolchak, Wrangel and Denikin hanging from the hero of Donbass Mikhail Tolstykh (Givi) along with photographs of the victory marshals and modern Russian commanders, and I understand that only such a cross-cutting identity can make us really strong spirit.
I do not call for an administrative sweep of our symbolic field from the red, left, communist. God forbid us to ape for the nebiri (although when 6000 monuments to Lenin in the country dare to make protests against a few monuments to Nicholas II, then there is a provocation of such "fights").
All we need is to purify our own brain from the subconscious left bias screwed into us. And sincere memory, honor and respect for those who fought and died for Russia. Release from fear to pay them tribute and consider them symbolic figures of our national consciousness.