RUSSIAN CULTURE AS A PRODUCT OF HISTORY

IN THE VIEWS OF V. V. KOZHINOV

CULTURAL STUDIES

UDC 008:001.8

RUSSIAN CULTURE AS A PRODUCT OF HISTORY

IN THE VIEWS OF V. V. KOZHINOV

Dubkova Anastasia Mikhailovna

2nd year Master’s student

Faculty of Law

Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social Sciences

nastja_post@mail.ru

ORCID: 0009-0001-1500-8799

Abstract. The article examines the views on Russian culture and the role of Russia in the modern world of the outstanding educator, historian, philosopher and publicist Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov (1930 – 2001). The author touches upon the issues of total suppression of Russian self-consciousness and Russian self-identity in the era of totalitarianism, when V. V. Kozhinov’s views were formed, and Kozhinov’s role in the revival of Russian culture and Russian thought. Agreeing with V. V. Kozhinov, the author comes to the conclusion about the uniqueness of Russian culture and that the Western model of society is unacceptable for Russia.

Keywords: Russian people, mentality, society, historical path, cultural values, intelligentsia, Western society, communal consciousness, individualization.

Introduction

Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov (1930 – 2001) left a mark on Russian culture primarily as an outstanding literary critic, historian, philosopher, and publicist. He played a decisive role in the life and spiritual formation of many people in our country. The works of Vadim Valerianovich, especially the latest ones on the history of Russia, are extremely relevant for any thinking person, and you constantly return to them – bright articles and books. They reveal the pain and problems of today.

Vadim Valerianovich loved literature and sincerely admired people who seemed talented to him. He did a lot to popularize young or undeservedly forgotten authors. The most striking examples are the philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin and the poet Nikolai Rubtsov, once consigned to oblivion and literally “rediscovered” by them.

Kozhinov published 118 articles and 30 books on Russian literature, history, and philosophy. He is known primarily as the author of fundamental historical and historiosophical works: “Russia. The Twentieth Century”, “The History of Russia and the Russian Word”, “Great Creativity. The Great Victory”, “Victories and Troubles of Russia”. His position is completely understandable from them. Speaking from a patriotic position, he sought to prove that Russia has its own historical path, which is different from the path of the “West” and the path of the “East”, that Russia has its own original culture, and attempts to impose on Russia a mentality and a foreign culture alien to its people could never and will never be crowned with success.

Kozhinov gave an ideological outlet to the ideas of understanding Russia, which in the nineteenth century were first hesitantly raised by the Slavophiles, then continued the Russian religious renaissance, but also rather sluggishly. In the Soviet era, this topic was completely prohibited, and with the beginning of the so-called “perestroika” in the late 80s of the last century, when, against the background of the collapsing Soviet Union, the question of the historical path of our country arose again, it was Kozhinov who tried to fill this vacuum.

Kozhinov cannot be called a Slavophile. But the words of Valentin Oskotsky^[1] about Kozhinov’s “Eurasianism” cannot be recognized as correct either. Kozhinov himself said: “I do not belong to any trends.”^[2] It can be said unequivocally that Kozhinov was against the imposition of the so-called liberal or Western idea of development on Russia, which was developed from the late 80s to the end of the 90s by the ruling elite of the USSR (and then in Russia). Vadim Valerianovich warned that the West imposes its so-called “cultural values” on us not so that “barbarian Russia” joins the “European culture” and “rises from its knees”, but on the contrary, in order to “bring Russia to its knees” and destroy its own culture. As Felix Kuznetsov said, “I think that it was from the acquaintance with Vadim (Kozhinov – A.V.) my journey back to Russia, to the Russian, patriotic idea, began. Before that, I was, so to speak, more liberal.”^[3]

Kozhinov’s book “Victories and Troubles of Russia”, published by the publishing house “Algorithm” in 1999 and has survived many reprints, is mainly devoted to Russian culture. But it also touches on many other, broader topics that are inextricably linked with Russian culture, its emergence, formation and development. This work of Vadim Valerianovich is, as it were, a summary and generalization of the views of this outstanding person.

Formation of V. V. Kozhinov’s views

Kozhinov’s work “Victories and Troubles of Russia” has a subtitle: “Russian Culture as a Creature of History”.

It would seem that the culture of any nation is a product of its history, and there is nothing surprising in this. But we must understand in what era Vadim Valerianovich lived, and how his views were formed. He was born in 1930, in an era when the Soviet totalitarian regime suppressed everything Russian, when Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Rozanov were banned, when Orthodox churches and shrines were destroyed and destroyed, and when the word “Russian” was almost a curse word. Everything that had been achieved by the thousand-year history of our country was vilified, and the words “Mother Russia” could only be pronounced in a mocking context.

On February 5, 1931, J. V. Stalin published the following reasoning: “The history of old Russia (its entire history in general) consisted, among other things, in the fact that it was constantly beaten… The Mongol khans were beating. The Turkish Beks were beating. The Swedish feudal lords were beating. They were beaten by the Polish-Lithuanian lords.”^[4] In his report to the Sixteenth Party Congress (June 27, 1930), he devoted an entire section to exposing the “deviation towards Great-Russian chauvinism”: “It is not difficult to understand that this deviation reflects the desire of the moribund classes of the formerly ruling Great Russian nation to regain their lost privileges. Hence the danger of Great Russian chauvinism as the main danger.” ^[5] The editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Izvestia” N.I. Bukharin in an article dated January 21, 1936 writes that “the Russians were the nation of the Oblomovs, and the word “Russian” was synonymous with the gendarme.”^[6] Russian historical figures Alexander Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky, Peter I, Suvorov were called exclusively derogatory names.

In 1932, an “opera” based on the play “Bogatyrs” by Demyan Pridvorov-Bedny was staged on the stage of the Chamber Theater in Moscow, which was an unparalleled mockery of the “golden age” of Russia, Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich, his glorious heroes and the Baptism of Russia. The magazine “Worker and Theater”, choking with delight, wrote: “The performance has a number of bold projections into the present, which increases the political effectiveness of the play. Epic heroes act as a gendarme secret police. Prince Vladimir himself… by the end of the performance, he takes on the image of the penultimate Tsar-Derzhimorda.”^[7]

However, starting from 1934, the attitude towards Russians in the USSR began to change unexpectedly for the better, and soon the whole country was delighted with the apotheosis film poems “Peter the Great” (1937), “Alexander Nevsky” (1938), “Minin and Pozharsky” (1939), “Suvorov” (1940).

On February 14, 1936, Bukharin published a “repentant” article in Izvestia, which he edited, on the subject of slander against the Russian people. “In the autumn of 1936, the Bulgakov’ house was struck by the defeat of the “Bogatyrs” in the Chamber Theater because of the “mockery of the baptism of Russia”.^[8] In 1937, the year of Pushkin’s death was solemnly celebrated, and in the same year the Christmas tree was again allowed, calling it “New Year’s”.

It should also be recalled that in 1929-1930 most of the most prominent historians of Russia of different generations were arrested on charges of “monarchist conspiracy” and other similar sins: S. V. Bakhrushin, S. K. Bogoyavlensky, S. B. Veselovsky, Y. V. Gautier, B. D. Grekov, V. G. Druzhinin, A. I. Zaozersky, N. P. (not to be confused with D. S.) Likhachev, M. K. Lyubavsky, V. I. Picheta, S. F. Platonov, S. V. Rozhdestvensky, B. A. Romanov, E. V. Tarle, L. V. Cherepnin, A. I. Yakovlev and many others. But just a few years later, all of them – with the exception of Lyubavsky, Platonov and Rozhdestvensky, who, alas, did not live to see their release – not only returned to work, but were soon awarded the highest honors and awards. To this it should be added that almost all the “accusers” of S. F. Platonov and others, beginning with the militant Marxist historians G. S. Friedland and M. M. Tsvibak and ending with the leaders of the OGPU and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Y. S. Agranov and Y. H. Peters, were repressed in 1937-1938. A truly symbolic act was the republication in the same 1937 of the main work of the main accused, S. F. Platonov, who died in 1933, and the election in 1939 of recent “enemies”, Y. V. Gautier as a full member and S. V. Bakhrushin as a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences^[9].

V. V. Kozhinov explains Stalin’s turn towards the “rehabilitation” of the historical past in the following way: after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Nazi Führer said: “The goal of all politics is one thing: to regain political power,” and then “the seizure of new living space in the East and its merciless Germanization.”^[10] “Realizing that the brewing war would essentially be a war not of fascism against Bolshevism, but of Germany against Russia, Stalin naturally began to think about the need to “mobilize” Russia, and not Bolshevism. Apparently, this was the main reason for Stalin’s support for the “restoration” that in one way or another, but naturally, took place in the 1930s in the very existence of the country.^[11]

Let us now turn to another problem—the scientific and technological development of the country. On November 30, 1932, Stalin’s following judgments about Russia were published: “… Our country was extremely backward… We follow the United States because it is a country that stands high scientifically and technologically. We would like the people of America to be our teachers in science and technology, and we to be their students.”^[12]

Realizing that our scientific and technical thought before the seizure of power by the Communists was no worse than in the West, Kozhinov notes the turn of the authorities in the late 1930s to the Russian scientific and technical potential, which had previously been mercilessly suppressed. The most prominent scientists (A. N. Tupolev, S. P. Korolev, G. A. Ostroumov, and others) were thrown into prisons, and only before the war were they transferred from the camps to freedom or left in a state of slavery as prisoners, but they were allowed to work in their specialty.

For example, on June 7, 1938, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was arrested. During the investigation, he was announced: “Our country does not need all your pyrotechnics and fireworks and are even dangerous.” In the spring of 1939, Sergei Pavlovich was sent to Kolyma, where he would carry wheelbarrows with gold-bearing sand in the Maldyak camp.

However, already on June 13, 1939, when he had not yet reached the camp, the “case” was reviewed; in November, Korolev was sent back to Moscow, and soon he began working in the design bureau subordinate to the NKVD, although still on the problems of jet aviation, and not cosmonautics (according to Korolev’s own words, it was only from 1943 that he was “able to work a little again” in his true field).

From the information published to date, it is not entirely clear why in 1939 there was an unexpected turn in the fate of S. P. Korolev, but there are still sufficient grounds to believe that this was caused by the first successes in the creation of jet engines in the West, as a result of which the authorities realized the significance of Korolev’s “fireworks”.

And now “on February 9, 1946, Stalin declared: “… Particular attention will be paid to… for the extensive construction of all kinds of research institutes that can enable science to develop its forces. I have no doubt that if we provide due assistance to our scientists, they will be able not only to catch up, but also to surpass the achievements of science outside our country in the near future” (vol. 16, p. 15).

The “forecast” turned out to be surprisingly correct: just eight years later, in 1954, the first nuclear power plant in world history began operating in the USSR and the first jet passenger airliner Tu-104 was created, in 1957 the first artificial Earth satellite entered orbit, in 1961 the first manned flight into space took place^[13].

In short, both the victory in the Great Patriotic War and the primary achievements in scientific and technological development were due to the overcoming of the “denial” of Russia with its “accursed past” – an overcoming that began in the mid-1930s and continued in the post-war period.

This was the basis for the worldview of Kozhinov, who was a true patriot of our Motherland.

Geographical theory of V. V. Kozhinov

Kozhinov believes that Russia was not in the same conditions in its historical development compared to European peoples.

“More than half of the territory of the Russian Federation is located a little south or even north of the 60th parallel of northern latitude, that is, in a geographical zone that, in general, is considered unsuitable for the “normal” life and activity of people.^[14] On the basis of this, he concludes about the uniqueness of the highly developed civilization that appeared in such northern latitudes: “the statehood and civilization of Rus, formed a millennium ago near the 60th parallel of northern latitude and in the zone of continental climate, is indeed a unique phenomenon; If we put the question “theoretically”, it should not have happened at all, because nothing like this has taken place in other similar territories of the planet. Meanwhile, in judgments about Russia, the unique conditions in which it was formed and developed are rarely taken into account, especially when it comes to certain “advantages” of Western countries in comparison with Russia.^[15]

He believes that the point is not only that Russia created its civilization and culture in the climate of the 60th parallel (moreover, continental), that is, not so far from the Arctic Circle. No less significant is the fact that such important cities of Russia as Smolensk, Moscow, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, etc., are located approximately on the 55th parallel, and in Western Europe, in addition to the Scandinavian countries, there is only Scotland, also “insulated” by the Gulf Stream, to the north of this parallel. As for the United States, its entire territory (except for almost deserted Alaska) is located south of 50 degrees, while even the southern center of Russia, Kiev, is located north of this degree.

Russia was formed in a space that was radically different from the space in which the civilizations of Western Europe and the United States developed, and it is not only a matter of geographical, but also geopolitical differences. Thus, the enormous advantages of waterways, especially the ice-free seas (and oceans) that wash the territories of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, etc., as well as the United States, are the basis of geopolitical “superiority.”

Kozhinov also answers the question of why the territories of Asia, Africa and America, located to the south of Western countries (including the United States), in the tropical zone, clearly and in many respects “lagged behind” Western civilization. He gives the most concise answer to this question as follows. If in the Arctic (or at least close to it) geographical zone, enormous efforts were required for the elementary survival of people and their activities, in fact, were limited to these efforts, then in the tropical zone, where, in particular, the land bears fruit all year round and there is no need for labor-intensive dwellings and clothing that protect from the winter cold, survival was given as if “for free”. and there was no urgent stimulus for the development of material civilization. And the countries of the West, located mainly between the 50th and 40th parallels, represented, from this point of view, a kind of “golden mean” between the North and the South.

Vadim Valerianovich gives us an answer to the question of why such a highly developed civilization as the Russian civilization was formed in such northern latitudes. He takes it for granted. As a result of the work and high culture of the Russian people. At the same time, he never refers to God, since in his writings he carefully avoids this topic.

Russia and Asia according to V. V. Kozhinov

In the era of the 90s, Vadim Valerianovich repeatedly encountered the opinion of opponents of our Motherland, who argued that Russia was a colonial power, and all the Asian peoples that were part of our country were enslaved by the Russians. In response to this, Kozhinov writes: “Russia began to annex the territories of Asia (that is, the Trans-Urals) only at the end of the XVI century, but the joint history of the Eastern Europeans-Slavs and Asian peoples began eight centuries earlier, at the time of the very emergence of the state of Rus. For many peoples of Asia then led a nomadic way of life and constantly moved along the vast plain stretching from the Altai to the Carpathians, often entering the borders of Russia. Their relations with the Eastern Slavs were diverse, ranging from fierce battles to quite peaceful cooperation. How complex these relations were is evident from the fact that one or another warring Russian prince often invited the help of the Polovtsians, who came in the middle of the 11th century from the Trans-Urals and settled in the southern Russian steppes. Moreover, even earlier, in the 9th-10th centuries, Russia entered into complex relations with other Asian peoples – the Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Torks, etc.^[16]“

On the other hand, Kozhinov entered into polemics with the ideologists of “Westernism” of the time (E. T. Gaidar and others), who proposed to “change the main vector” and “abandon” everything “Asiatic” in Russia^[17]. Having visited the Asian part of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the British statesman George Curzon, who ruled India from 1899 to 1905 (with the title of “Viceroy”), wrote: “Russia undoubtedly has a remarkable gift for winning the loyalty and even friendship of those whom she has subjugated by force… The Russian fraternizes in the full sense of the word… He does not shy away from social and family contact with alien and inferior races,” which “the British have never been capable of,” Kozhinov said^[18].

Kozhinov considers the temporary conquest of Russia by the Mongols in the 13th century to be a positive factor for the formation of centralized Russian statehood, since the Mongol yoke united the Russian lands to unite against a common enemy^[19].

Kozhinov on Russian Society and the Concept of “Intelligentsia”

Kozhinov believed that the main difference between Russia and the West was that it lacked, or at least very poorly developed, society as an independent and, to a certain extent, self-sufficient phenomenon of the country’s existence. In the West, in addition to the state and the people, there is a society that, despite the fact that it includes various or even opposing forces, at the right moment is able to appear on the historical arena as a powerful force that has absorbed the predominant part of the country’s citizens and a more or less unified force capable of forcing both the government and the population as a whole to reckon with itself.

This assertion aroused objections or even bewilderment, because not only in our country, but also in the West, it is believed that it was precisely the USSR that was characterized by “communalism” and “collectivism”, constantly and vividly expressed in direct relationships between people, while the people of the West are much more focused on their own, private, personal interests; they are much more characterized by all kinds of “individualism”.

However, Vadim Valerianovich believed that the society existing in Western countries not only does not oppose the private, personal – in the final analysis, “egoistic” – interests of its members, but proceeds entirely from them. It appears as a powerful cohesive force precisely when the actions of the government or any part of the country’s population threaten the personal interests of the majority.

He gave an example: during the US war in Indochina, which began in 1964 and lasted about ten years, American society came to the conclusion that this war did not meet the interests of its members and, in fact, had no prospects, organized mass protests and forced the authorities to stop it.

He cited many similar examples of the “victories” of society over the government in Western countries. For example, in 1958, General de Gaulle was elected President of France, and in 1965 he was re-elected for a second seven-year term. Under him, the country largely revived its status as a great power, but it was for “pragmatic” reasons that de Gaulle, who was considered the “father of the nation”, was actually overthrown by French society during a referendum on April 28, 1969.

Referring to the French ambassador to Russia, Maurice Palaeologus, Kozhinov said that the state institutions of Russia that existed from 1906 to 1917 (namely, the State Duma and political parties) in fact expressed the will not of a “society” uniting the majority of the population, but of the intelligentsia, this specific Russian phenomenon.

The intelligentsia is a purely Russian phenomenon; even the term itself, although it comes from a Latin word, has been borrowed by other languages from Russian. Intellectuals are often considered to be all people of “intellectual labor,” but in reality they belong only to those who in one way or another are politically and ideologically active (and, of course, have a lively and constant interest in politics, etc.); they do form a kind of society within Russia. of the society that exists in the West and whose co-members at the right moment are the prevailing or even absolute majority of the country’s population. It may be objected that we will still “catch up” with the West, and the minority of the population, which is the intelligentsia, will become the majority^[20].

However, Western society, as Kozhinov believed, is a completely different phenomenon from our intelligentsia; among other things, belonging to it in no way implies involvement in politics, ideology, etc., because, as already mentioned, this society is based on purely private, and ultimately “egoistic“ , the interests of its members, who are united in opposing any political and other tendencies only insofar as these tendencies cause or are capable of causing damage to their own personal existence.

In Kozhinov’s opinion, it could be argued with good reason that in Russia (at least as of 1999) the creation of a society of the Western type was unthinkable. For after all, the Russian intelligentsia “society” – for all its piety before the West – has always brought to the fore not so much the interests of its members as the interests of the “people” (albeit differently understood by various intellectual trends), that is, it has, to use a fashionable term, a completely different mentality than Western society.

Kozhinov’s evidence

Russia’s inability to follow the Western path

 

As an example of the incompatibility of Russian and Western cultures, Kozhinov cited post-war Japan. In 1945, this country was occupied by Allied forces, and the Americans tried to impose a Western way of life on the Japanese people.

The Japanese economy is fundamentally and profoundly unique, Kozhinov wrote. It is often said that the Japanese are very, even extremely extensive, borrowing Western inventions, know-how, technological ideas, etc. But all this can ultimately be borrowed by people from any country.

In a multifaceted study written in 1985 by a number of foreign experts, which was published in our country in 1989 under the title “How Japanese Enterprises Work”, it is unequivocally stated that the “application of American management methods” begun in Japan after 1945 turned out to be unsuccessful. And by 1956, “the main features of the Japanese system of government… The most important of these are the system of lifetime employment and the process of collective decision-making” (p. Elsewhere in this study, it is said that “individualism pushes the American to start his own business and to erect a psychological barrier around himself that allows him to demonstrate self-confidence to others,” while “the ideal canonized by Japanese culture is interdependence, not individualism” (pp. 55, 66).

All this is based on centuries-old national traditions: “In examining the sources of Japanese management philosophy, we must turn to the Tokugawa era (which began in 1603), when Japanese culture finally reached its classical expression… The best traditions of Zen Buddhism are still preserved in the consciousness of the Japanese.” And these traditions were “necessary to interpret and improve… in accordance with the needs of industrial development… The Appeal of the Political Elite to Certain Elements of the Feudal Heritage … a key factor in the modern development of Japan” (ibid., pp. 38-39).

This “appeal” to the “feudal legacy” was carried out with such consistency that the popular reporter Vladimir Tsvetov, who had been in Japan since the 1960s and spent a total of eight years there, stated in his book “The Fifteenth Stone of the Ryoanji Garden” (1977): “In July 1986, the Law on the Movement of Labor Force came into force in Japan. You get acquainted with it, and the pictures of Russian serfdom described in the history textbook appear in your memory” (p. 360).

It is extremely important to emphasize that in creating their flourishing economy, the Japanese not only continued centuries-old traditions, but literally revived and resurrected these traditions.

Isamu Yamashita, chairman of one of the largest Japanese corporations, Mitsui Zosen, told about this: “After World War II, the spirit of the village community, which had existed for many centuries, began to deteriorate. Then we revived the old community at our industrial enterprises… First of all, we managers have a responsibility to preserve community life… Reproduced in the city… The communal spirit is exported back to the village during the summer and winter “exodus” of the city dwellers, galvanizes the communal consciousness there, and as a result receives an additional impetus itself” (pp. 36, 47).

In this regard, V. Tsvetov admitted that in the end he “realized how right the Japanese managers were when they likened to alchemists those Western journalists, economists, sociologists who tried to look for the key to the faster Japanese rates of economic growth and labor productivity than in other developed capitalist countries, the reasons for the higher quality of products” (p. The decisive role, as it became clear, is played not by technology, but by the fundamental foundations of national existence.

And it must be said with all certainty that Japan, if we put the question seriously, has by no means “overtaken” the United States (and the West as a whole). For the very thesis “to catch up and overtake” is only a primitive propaganda cliché. a situation that is completely inapplicable to the most complex development of the economy (not to mention human existence as a whole). It is impossible to “overtake” in the economy, more significant success can only be achieved on a different, one’s own path.

Of Japan, we can even say that it is not moving “forward” with the United States, but “backward”; It is no accident that Japanese economists constantly recall the “feudal legacy”. And the development of the Japanese economy clearly shows that the Western economy, entirely based on the “individual”, on the main content of the “bill of rights”, turned out to be less capable of growth and improvement than the “communal” Japanese economy.

The achievements of the Japanese are so impressive that the author of the preface to the Russian edition of the book “How Japanese Enterprises Work”, Prof. D. N. Bobryshev, said: “The initial socio-cultural conditions in our national economy are more adapted to the perception of Japanese methods and approaches than, say, American ones, with their strict focus on individualization, strict prudence, and personal career” (p. 7).

Conclusion

Of course, in many respects one can argue with Vadim Valerianovich, but one thing is certain. He loved his Motherland and loved his people. What did he want to say with his works? “The proposal to “transplant” the Japanese “model” into Russia, which is rooted in a completely different history, is without a doubt as utopian as the current experiments to transplant the Western model^[21].

The main conclusions that Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov wanted to bring to the current generation are:

1. The Russian people are not “backward” in comparison with the “European” peoples.

2. Russian culture is unique.

3. Russian culture is a treasury of world culture.

References

1. V.V.Kozhinov. Russia’s Victories and Misfortunes. Conclusion. http://e-libra.ru/read/145276-pobedy-i-bedy-rossii.html

2. V.V.Kozhinov. Between the state and the people. An attempt at impartial reflection on the intelligentsia. (Moscow Magazine, 1998, No 6, pp. 124–137)

3. V.V. Kozhinov. Russia, XX century, book 1, M. Eksmo-Press

4. E.T. Gaidar. The State and Evolution. Moscow, 1995.

5. Smelyansky A. Mikhail Bulgakov in the Art Theater. Moscow, 1989

6. Emelyanov Y. V. Notes on Bukharin. Revolution. History. Personality. Moscow, 1989.

7. I.V. Stalin. Collected Works. vol. 12, 13, Moscow, 1951.

8. “Izvestia”, January 21, 1936.

9. Zhurnal “Rabochiy i teatr”, 1934, No 1.

10. Brachev V. S. “The Case” of Academician S. F. Platonov. Voprosy istorii, 1989, No5, pp. 117-129.

11. Perchenok F. F. Akademiya nauk na “velikom perelom” [The Academy of Sciences at the “Great Turning Point”]. “Links”. Historical Almanac. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1991, pp. 163-236.

12. “Top Secret! Only for the command!” Documents and materials. Moscow, 1967

13. Journal Hall. Valentin Oskotsky. What inheritance do we refuse? http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/2001/6/oso.html

14. Russian binding. Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov. http://www.pereplet.ru/avtori/kozhinov.html

15. Russian binding. Alexander Dorin. Vadim is necessary. http://www.pereplet.ru/text/dorin25ynv02.htm

1. The Journal Hall. Valentin Oskotsky. What inheritance do we refuse? http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/2001/6/oso.html ↑

2. Russian binding. Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov. http://www.pereplet.ru/avtori/kozhinov.html ↑

3. Russian binding. Dorin A. Vadim is necessary. http://www.pereplet.ru/text/dorin25ynv02.html ↑

4. Emelyanov Y. V. Notes on Bukharin. Revolution. History. Personality. Moscow, 1989, p.291 ↑

5. I.V. Stalin. Collected Works. vol. 12, Moscow, 1951, pp. 370-371 ↑

6. Izvestia, January 21, 1936. ↑

7. Journal “Worker and Theatre”, 1934, No 1, p. 14 ↑

8. Smelyansky A. Mikhail Bulgakov in the Art Theater. Moscow, 1989, p. 360 ↑

9. Brachev V. S. “The Case” of Academician S. F. Platonov. Voprosy istorii, 1989, No5, pp. 117-129.; Perchenok F. F. Academy of Sciences at the “Great Turning Point”. “Links”. Historical Almanac. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1991, pp. 163-236. ↑

10. “Top secret! Only for the command!” Documents and materials. Moscow, 1967, pp. 42,43 ↑

11. Kozhinov V.V. Russia, XX century, book 1, Moscow, Eksmo-Press, p. 92 ↑

12. I.V. Stalin. Collected Works. vol. 13, Moscow, 1951, p. 149 ↑

13. Kozhinov V.V. Victories and Troubles of Russia. http://e-libra.ru/read/145276-pobedy-i-bedy-rossii.html ↑

14. Kozhinov V.V. Victories and Troubles of Russia, ch. 1. http://e-libra.ru/read/145276-pobedy-i-bedy-rossii.html ↑

15. Ibidem. ↑

16. Ibidem ↑

17. E.T. Gaidar. The State and Evolution. Moscow, 1995, p. 187 ↑

18. Kozhinov V.V. Victories and Troubles of Russia. http://e-libra.ru/read/145276-pobedy-i-bedy-rossii.html ↑

19. Ibidem ↑

20. V.V.Kozhinov. Between the State and the People. An attempt at impartial reflection on the intelligentsia. (Moscow Magazine, 1998, No 6, pp. 124–137) ↑

21. Kozhinov V.V. Victories and Troubles of Russia. Conclusion. http://e-libra.ru/read/145276-pobedy-i-bedy-rossii.html ↑