13.11.07 I spoke with a public conversation before the activists of the new - in fact, just beginning to form - the federal youth organization "NET". The format of a public conversation has been settled for a long time: half an hour or an hour I improvise about what worries me the most at the moment, but it seems to me interesting for those who have gathered; Then I answer questions for an hour or two (until these questions or the rental time of the hall end). In this case, basically he told why Russian civilization (and the fact that Russia represents an independent civilization itself, doubts, perhaps, that most naively liberals) is better than European and what is the difference. The topic was so interested in the leadership of the organization that I was offered a talk on the same topic with regional assets. 2013.12.02 held a conversation in Vladivostok. I hope that in the coming year I will be able to go somewhere several times. Or maybe the topic will be interested not only in “NETWORK” - and the geography of speeches will expand.
It is clear that improvisation in the mode of the flow of associations strings onto the red thread many details associated with some current events or with the further development of previously expressed thoughts. Therefore, even conversations on the same main topic are noticeably different. The text below, which includes the main theses of the plot stated in the title, is also written along a stream of associations, with many extensive digressions. Of course, every time you return to this topic, the story will look different.
My reasoning about the advantages of Russian civilization over European civilization is largely based on the idea read in Myths about Russia by Vladimir Rostislavovich Medinsky (by the way, in my opinion, the first in many years Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation who deserved this work). He noted that the population density in Russia was always (even when it did not even reach the Volga, and the whole stretched along the Amber Road - from the Varangians to the Greeks) was several times less than in any European country to the west of it. Accordingly, the value of each human life was many times higher.
This is manifested, in particular, in our attitude to many significant figures of domestic and world stories. The most famous example is Ivan IV Vasilyevich Ryurikov, who received after his grandfather Ivan III Vasilyevich the nickname “Grozny” (the grandfather eventually went down in history as Ivan the Great). I wrote about him and his era in the article “Joseph Richardovich. About dumping guilt on the predecessor. " According to our concepts, he is the fiercest tyrant. To the extent that - the only among the all-Russian rulers! - The monument to the Millennium of Russia installed in Veliky Novgorod by the work of sculptor Mikhail Osipovich Mikeshin installed in Veliky Novgorod (with the participation of sculptor Ivan Nikolaevich Schröder and architect Victor Eduard Alexandrovich Gartman) did not get into the city
By the way, the millennium of Russia on this monument is counted from the moment of Rurik’s ascension to the grand throne to reign in Novgorod. For rulers who were related to Rurik (at least along the female line, like the Romanovs), is a natural starting point. In fact, a single state along the Amber Road arose a couple of centuries earlier.
What is interesting - arose, first of all, thanks to the efforts of the Greek merchants. Then feudalism established throughout Europe. At each convenient place sat cool tillage and tore up three skins from all who could reach. From the local I took a little smaller, so that they did not die of hunger and he had someone to rob next time. But with the passers-by he was boundless in full. To him, they are the second time, most likely, will not be caught. For a similar reason, the quality of food in station restaurants is usually worse than in stationary ones: the passenger liked the food or he was sick all the way, anyway, he most likely will not get to this restaurant again. Sly Greeks are tired of detaching every goon with a gang. So they decided to feed one steep so as to bash only him, and for this he extinguished all the out-of-line people on the route. They chose the Kiev tillage because the northern branch of the Silk Road passed through Kiev, so that money accumulated in this place also from there, and the Greeks had to pay less to grow a serious enough gang. So it turned out to be a single large state at a time when, in the rest of Europe, everyone was squabbling with everyone. This story is briefly described in my article "Russia from the Varangians to the Greeks." It is available in the “National Issues” chapter of the “Policy” section of my site.
Be that as it may, Ivan the Terrible is considered a bloody outlaw. In fact, he personally compiled a list for commemoration in the church - three and a half thousand noble personalities executed according to his orders. In addition, with each of them, several relatives and accomplices died, so it’s all about the fact that Ivan Vasilyevich used about fifteen thousand souls as his conscience. Monstrously a lot!
Only at the same time as Ivan IV were many other rulers. For example, Charles IX Henrych Valois became famous for, among other things, the St. Bartholomew's night organized by him. For this one night - on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day - in France, thirty thousand Protestants were killed at his filing (they were called Huguenots there - according to the French pronunciation of the German Eidgenosse - fellow ally; this variation of Christianity came to France from Switzerland). Twice as much as for all the activities of Ivan the Terrible. Moreover, among the Protestants there were a lot of high nobles who did not want to share their incomes with a distant Pope, so that Charles, as regards the destruction of particularly prominent compatriots, pretty much surpassed Ivan. And no one considers him a bloody tyrant. By European standards, the usual ruler, seriously caring for the unity of his country. Nothing special.
Coincided with the reign of Ivan the Terrible and a significant part of the English dynasty Tudor. The founder of the dynasty - Henry VII Edmundovich - a particularly outstanding personality. His portrait was expressively painted by William Jonovich Shakespeare in the play “Richard III”. True, there this portrait is endowed with the title Richard III Richardovich York. No wonder: it was Henri who overthrew Richard, and almost all of Shakespeare's work took place at Tüdor, so he had to advertise them. But almost all the vileness attributed to Richard in the play are written off from Henry. I would especially note one of his tricks. In the war between the Scarlet and White Roses (Henri Tüdor is related to both the Yorks and Lancaster, so many supported him to end this civil war) all the kings calculated their rule from the moment the predecessor was overthrown. Henry started counting from the moment he raised the insurgency. Thus, all those who supported the legal authority were declared traitors with all the ensuing consequences, including the execution and confiscation of property.
I note: the king is Henry, not Henry. Our modern written tradition has developed mainly in the XVII – XVIII centuries with the active participation of natives of the south of Russia, and in the South Russian dialects the sound "G" represents a ringing version not of sound "K", as in the center and in the north, but sound "X". Therefore, we usually convey the initial "X" in European words with the letter "G": we write "Helvetius" and "Hitler", although the carriers of these surnames quite clearly pronounced them as "Helvetius" and "Hitler")
The son of this wonderful king, Henri VIII Henrich, is best known for his six wives. Two of them, he was executed, two more divorced. The church refused to approve his divorce from his first wife. Then he proclaimed himself the head of the Catholics of England. To this day, the British kings concurrently lead the local church. At the same time, he took advantage of a convenient excuse and plundered monasteries.
By the way, according to the Christian canons no more than three marriages were allowed. Ivan IV faced a similar problem: the church refused to approve his fourth marriage. He received a special conciliation resolution, vowing that in the two weeks between the wedding and the sudden death of his third wife, he never went up on her bed because of her illness. True, historians count three more of his wives, but the information about them is rather contradictory. In any case, he didn’t kill any wife: he sent those who got sick to monasteries, and both of those who died during his life, if they didn’t die by their own death, certainly from his dynastic rivalry poisoning.
But the most famous act of Henry VIII is far from the most dangerous. The law on vagrancy, adopted by him, creatively developing the already very long tradition of British laws on the poor, had much more consequences.
The first, a decree on workers from 1349.06.18 Edward III Eduardovich Plantagenet, ordered the labor of all able-bodied people (who are now outraged by the Soviet persecution of parasites?) And the maintenance of wages that were before the plague of 1348 – 50. The plague claimed about 0.3 – 0.4 population of the country, and the poor affected much more than the rich (the poor are much more difficult to isolate from contact with potential carriers of infection). Entrepreneurs are faced with a shortage of labor and the natural growth of desired wages: when demand exceeds supply, price exceeds value. The law helped to preserve the former - profitable rich - the distribution of wealth levels.
The aforementioned Henry VII faced another problem - an excess of labor. Under him - in 1495 - the parliament ordered “to seize all such vagrants, idlers and suspicious people and chain them into pads [that is, firmly fix arms and legs, so that the person was in an unnatural posture without the ability to move. - approx. auth.] and keep them like that for three days and three nights on bread and water; and after these three days and three nights they set them free, ordering that they no longer appear in the city. ” Obviously, this did not solve the problem: people just wandered to another place hoping to find work there. Therefore, Henry VIII in 1530 strengthened the impact: a person without a certain place of residence and a certain occupation, who did not show signs of disability, was subject to flogging. Patients, invalids and old people, however, were allowed to ask alms from 1531. A regular whipping can soon be made sick and even disabled.
Of course, corporal punishment increased competition for jobs, and the price of labor in England dropped noticeably. But there was almost no increase in jobs due to this (hello to our liberals, who assure that too high salaries generate unemployment). Therefore, the children of Henry VIII had to continue the search for ways to reduce vagrancy.
Under Edward VI - the main character of the novel “The Prince and the Pauper” by Samuel Langhorn John-Marshall Klemens aka Mark Twain - a new law was adopted in 1547. The tramp begging for alms fell to penal servitude for two years and received a V letter stamp so that he could be identified when recaptured: in this case he was executed. The king did not have time to assess the long-term results of the law: 1553.07.06, in 16 years, he died of tuberculosis.
Mary I almost did not intervene in the fate of the poor, but she tried to restore the Catholic religion in the country with submission to Rome. Many church and secular figures who have already felt the taste of money that previously went to the papal treasury, opposed. Since February, they began to execute 1555-th (mostly - to burn at the stake). Before the death of the Queen 1558.11.17 - for more than three years - about three hundred people. The result is quite modest by European standards - probably because of this contrast with the norm, Maria got the nickname “bloody” (the famous layered cocktail named vodka and tomato juice is named after her) as snidechildren call the fat guy a sliver.
But Elizabeth I extended to all the vagrants measures taken by her brother to beggars: anyone caught in vagrancy was pierced with an ear. The annoying beggars, as well as stubborn (that is, caught again), were hung up. According to approximate (poor people did not really think then) estimates of historians, at least 80 thousand people were executed for vagrancy - about 1 / 50 was the maximum population of the country during this period - in a time comparable to the time of the Soviet government, when the total number of executed for political reasons or those who died in prison after conviction for the same reasons — about one and a half million — were somewhat less than the 1 / 100 population of the USSR on the 1937 year (and if you count the dead for reasons that can be somehow linked to oh or expulsion - about two million).
Elizabeth had other records.
She - the only one of all monarchs - officially invested in pirate expeditions (and received a huge profit from them). True, the fleet that grew on these expeditions successfully destroyed as many as eight (!) Invincible Armadas — sea expeditions prepared by Spain to support Catholic Ireland and capture England. The defeat of the first Armada entered the history, because not only in Spain, but also in all of Europe at that time at the time of its sending, everyone was sure that its victory over England was inevitable. Eight failures in a row finally convinced even the Spaniards themselves: the resources of their empire, significantly reduced by these failures, would have to be directed not to seize the new, but to retain the already acquired (which allowed the empire to hold on for a couple of centuries almost within its previous borders).
She is the first who officially executed the monarch, even if he was deposed by his own subjects. Mary Jamesovna Stewart ruled Scotland formally from infancy: she was born 1642.12.08, and her father James V Jamesovich died 1642.12.14. She got the real power of 1561.08.19, having managed to be married before (from 1558.04.24 to 1560.12.05) to the king of France (with 1559.07.10) Francois II Anriche Valois (1544.01.19 – 1560.12.05). But already in 1567, another conspiracy against her went open (promoted by rumors that she herself organized the murder of her second husband to marry a third), and 1567.06.15 loyal to her troops fled, and 1567.07.24 renounced the throne in the benefit of his son from the second marriage of James VI Heinrich Stuart. 1568.05.02 she tried to regain power, but after the defeat of 1568.05.13 her small army fled to England, to her aunt: Mary was great-granddaughter, and Elizabeth was Henry VII's granddaughter Edmundovich Tjudor. But there, she was almost under arrest in Shaffield Castle: Elizabeth was considered illegitimate by Catholic notions, and Mary had more rights to the throne (and the kings of France — and she was a queen and there! —Seed for this throne, for William I Robertovich of Normandy before the conquest of England - 1066.10.14 under Hastings, he defeated the troops of Harold II Godwinovich Wessex - was a vassal of the French king). Numerous conspirators against Elizabeth found a symbol for the enthronement (and the experience of Mary’s rule in Scotland gave them reason to hope that they could keep her under control, threatening a new overthrow). The next group of conspirators entered into a correspondence with Mary, they were discovered (and according to many, the conspiracy was organized) by the British counterintelligence officers, Mary was brought to justice and 1587.02.08 was executed. Before the crowned heads were killed only secretly, so Elizabeth created a dangerous precedent: the crown was no longer saved from the chopping block.
Elizabeth went down in history under the nickname of the Virgin (in her honor is named the British colony of Virginia in the New World, which became 1776.07.04 one of the 13 of the United States of America). Naturally, no one checked it on the gynecological chair. But she was not in official marriages; many alleged lovers did not confirm these assumptions either by word or by noticeable action; in her pregnancy did not notice. As a result, after her death, the Tüdor dynasty was interrupted, and the aforementioned King of Scotland, James VI Heinrich Stuart, was concurrently King James I of England (there is a joke about this: “How many kings were crowned in Westminster Abbey? One: James I. They are officially becoming kings after the coronation, and only he was king before her ”). By the way, his son Charles I fell victim to a precedent created by Elizabeth: overthrown by his parliament in a civil war, he was executed by 1603.03.24.
But in terms of the total number of casualties, all the conspiracies that Elizabeth defeated, and even the battles with the Spanish Armadas, do not seem to achieve the result of the law on vagrancy finalized by her.
True, with the same Elizabeth, laws were passed (in 1597-m and 1601-m) that systematized help for the disabled (at the expense of local residents, of course: there wasn’t enough to spend government money on them). Yes, and a persistent tramp person was recognized after he was offered a normal job with average market pay three times, and he refused it. But judging by the abundance of executed, then the average market payment meant starvation - no less true than in the loop, but slower and more painful. When there are significantly more people willing to work than job opportunities, the market lowers pay to a level that does not guarantee not only the reproduction of labor, but even survival.
Where are these jobs?
Back in the midst of the War of the Scarlet and White Roses in the Netherlands (which then belonged to Spain, since it was ruled by representatives of the same Habsburg dynasty as in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation), manufacturing weaving began to flourish. Increased demand for English wool. It has become profitable to turn arable land into pastures for sheep. But this opportunity was limited: most agricultural land was on long-term lease - often for several centuries already. But at the end of the war - already under Henry VII - the situation stabilized so much that they began to build manufactories in England itself, without fear of their destruction. Wool has become so in demand that all laws and customs that limit the conversion of tillage to pasture, were forgotten or circumvented. The simplest method turned out to be enclosing lands belonging to lords, but remaining in the common use of the peasants — for example, roads from villages to fields. And the lords themselves could fence the fields: I, of course, do not forbid plowing - but my fence, and do not touch it. By the year of 1500, at least 4 / 10 of agricultural lands in England were fenced off. Therefore, the whole era of the ruin of the peasants called "enclosing." Although there were other ways to survive the peasants from the land - for example, raising rents at the slightest opportunity (for example, when renegotiating an agreement with the heirs of the former tenant after his death). Newly built manufactories demanded working hands - but in an incomparably smaller number than the former generous fields of good old England. Hence the enormous unemployment.
True, some historians believe that the main cause of unemployment is not enclosing, but the growth of the country's population in the 16th century from 2.5 to 4 million. The labor market was crowded. Moreover, from time to time fields became more profitable than pastures: a growing population needed at least bread to feed. But in my opinion, the then abundance of land suitable for cultivation, could absorb almost the entire mass of new workers: almost all of them were born in villages or small towns and from childhood were accustomed to rural work. So an excess of the people alone would hardly have caused such consequences. We are accustomed to presenting a picture of agrarian overpopulation in Central Russia in the era from the abolition of serfdom in 1861 to collectivization in 1929 – 33: then the average allotment for one peasant provided only survival from half-starvation. But a significant part of the problems of that time is connected with the fact that the size of the plot did not allow the use of already existing efficient high-performance agricultural equipment. Therefore, in fact, collectivization was needed. The English climate is noticeably more favorable for agriculture, and there even the simplest technologies provided a far better harvest than in the center of Russia. Therefore, the then England could well feed all of its population if it were given the opportunity to rule over its land. In general, it is possible to overfill the labor market only if the exorbitant part of the funds earned by those who are already working, beyond what is necessary for their own existence and reproduction, is taken to the side instead of creating new jobs.
Nevertheless, the very idea of a surplus of population expressed by these historians is, in my opinion, very typical not only for England, but also for all European culture. Indeed, there are almost always more people there than tasks that they are given from the outside. And self-activity, an independent search for a field of activity constantly stumbles upon external constraints. Thus, the workshop system in medieval Europe allowed for any serious work only after many years of study - that is, in fact, supporting work for the master for a small fee - and passing the exam, when the chef d'oevre is the main thing - meticulously evaluated by those who saw the newcomer above all the competitor itself. And it’s impossible to go wherever your eyes look like in Russia: every piece of land belongs to someone who wants to squeeze out their income from it with someone else’s hands. Even today, the intensely advertised freedom of entrepreneurship is sufficient to look at the set of regulations for each type of occupation in order to understand: the vaunted small business survives for the time being, insofar as it does not prevent the powerful people from making a profit (moreover, small business relies primarily on self-exploitation that is, the willingness of a small entrepreneur to work much more than an employee of the same profile, in the hope of getting at least a little more than his salary).
But in our homeland people are always substantially less than is needed to solve the obvious tasks before us. Starting with the task of defense: a country devoid of natural obstacles on extended borders with obviously hostile neighbors has to spend incomparably more forces on self-defense than these neighbors on attacks.
Even the above agrarian overpopulation was very conditional. In the eastern part of the Russian Empire, by that time there was enough land suitable for effective cultivation. The resettlement there was inhibited, in fact, artificially: first by serfdom, then by preserving the community’s mutual responsibility for tax arrears of each member, finally (when Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin broke the community — which threatened the physical survival of each peasant — and tried to organize a mass movement of peasants for East) by the disastrous disarray of the bureaucracy, which by that time had accumulated confidence in its indispensability and, accordingly, lost the desire to work in full force.
By the way, the same decline of the management machine manifested itself in many other ways, collectively giving rise to the decline of the empire, known to us mainly due to defeat from Japan under conditions guaranteeing victory with elementary competent actions of command and political leadership, and the inability of the domestic industry to adapt to the requirements of the First World War. . The idea of changing the country's top leader in the midst of the hardest hostilities, which gave rise to a coup in March (according to the Julian calendar - February) 1917, could also hardly have appeared during normal work - and the normal sense of self - of managers.
In Soviet times, the agrarian overpopulation ended technocraticly — industrial jobs were created for tens of millions of peasants. Legendary industrialization was accompanied by an equally legendary collectivization: the smallest peasant holdings — sometimes a little wider than the boundary grooves between them — were combined into sites large enough so that they could work with large and high-performance equipment. This equipment itself was placed on machine-tractor stations (MTS), large enough to cover the processing of the surrounding lands enough to maintain full repair services and purchase new equipment. After a certain initial period of working out optimal ways for workers of collectivized villages to interact with themselves and with external partners (alas, this period was marked by considerable disruptions and even greater famine - to study it, refer to the book of Elena Anatolyevna Prudnikova and Ivan Ivanovich Chigirin “The Mythology of the Holodomor”) in the countryside has grown at times. The peasants for the first time in a good century were able to eat their fill and supply food to the continuously growing city. Yes, and the city grew just because the need of the village in the workforce has decreased significantly.
Unfortunately, under Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, MTS was destroyed, and all their property was forcibly sold to collective farms - owned by everyone who works in them - and the Soviet - state ones. A significant part of these collective and state farms did not have enough income to independently maintain all the land needed for processing: after all, one MTS served, as a rule, a good dozen nearby agricultural enterprises, that is, it could use fewer machines per unit of cultivated area. However, the history of Khrushchev's numerous attempts to ruin everything — including agriculture — the country's economy deserves a separate discussion.
The fact that collectivization is dictated primarily by technical - and not political! - necessity, it is clear from the experience of the United States of America. In them for a long time family farms were the basis of food production. Their areas were much larger than the holdings of peasants in the center of Russia, since the continent was mastered by relatively few at first migrants. According to the law adopted by 1862.05.20 and entered into force 1863.01.01, every citizen of MUH who did not fight for the South against the North could get 160 acres (65 hectares) for the $ 10 registration fee, and through 5 years of work on this land, it became his property. But by the middle of the 1920-x tractors and harvesters appeared, too expensive to buy for the income from such a plot and too productive to be limited to. The task of adapting the relations of production to the new productive forces was solved by the first Great Depression, which began with 1929.10.24. In its initial period, agricultural products fell sharply in price, because the average citizen could not afford the old food - incomes fell! Farmers could not repay loans based on previous earnings and pay taxes. Since the owners suddenly became inefficient, their property went up to auctions and passed into the hands of those who could afford such costs. And former farmers, at best, have become farm laborers and seasonal workers of the new owners: there was enough efficiency for working with increased voltage and lower wages. True, the new owners needed far fewer workers than they had worked on the same land before: everything was done for the introduction of new high-performance equipment. And the new industrial enterprises of the MUH, unlike the USSR, did not create: in the conditions of depression, even the old ones stopped. So, tens of millions of farmers have gone around the world — churning out the price of labor (as John Ernst John-Ernstovich Steinbeck described very expressively in The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939; truth, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1962) for other works, but the Pulitzer Prize in 1940 is received for this almost documentary novel) and to look for a charitable soup. The demographic decline (that is, the difference between the actual population and the estimate calculated from the previous and subsequent growth rates) over the 1930s in the MUH amounts to 5 – 10 million people - however, modern researchers have found many explanations for this that are not related to the terrible words “death from hunger and / or its consequences. "
The industrialization of the USSR, of course, is in no way caused by the charitable desire to attach peasants liberated by technical progress in the countryside somewhere. It is also generated by hard necessity. At the 1-th All-Union Conference of Socialist Industry Workers Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili 1931.02.04 said: “We are lagging behind the advanced countries by 50 – 100 years. We have to cover this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or they will crush us. ” He made a mistake in estimating the distance for less than five months: the Great Patriotic War began 1941.06.22. And in this war we overwhelmed the enemy - contrary to popular opinion - not with the bodies of our soldiers, but with shells from military equipment produced by new factories.
The very fable "bodies filled up" was composed again by bearers of European culture. Back in the First World War, without a shadow of a doubt, they drove the soldiers in droves to machine guns. Legends of Finnish (in the Winter War) and German (in the Great Patriotic War) machine gunners, going crazy about the need to shoot more and more new soldiers, climbing their dead comrades over the mountain - the echo of the battles of the First World War: the means of defense for several years became much stronger than the means of attack, and the generals were looking for ways to reduce this gap at any cost (as I have often written, they always pay any price from someone else’s pocket). But on the Russian front, the positional impasse was barely felt, and rather quickly ways of successful breakthrough were developed. German assault detachments, in the second half of the war, gnawed the French trenches with their minimum losses, arose in the light of the experience of Russian plasters. And the breakthrough of the Austrian front 1916.06.03 commanded by cavalry general Alexei Alexeyevich Brusilov, although 1916.08.13 already stopped at 80 – 120 kilometers to the west (the then transport did not allow quickly to organize a full supply of so deeply advanced troops), went down in history as an example of a successful offensive with almost equal forces (in the strip of the Russian South-Western Front, at first there were about 512 thousand Russian servicemen against about 420 thousand German and Austrian) on a deeply echeloned and well fortified new defense. By the way, the statistics of losses in this breakthrough proved the effectiveness of the domestic technology of military operations: Russia lost about 500 thousand people (of which 62 thousand were killed or died from wounds, 40 thousand were missing, the rest were wounded), and its opponents are about one and a half million ( among those killed or died from wounds (300 thousand, captured 500 thousand).
By the way, I note: the Suvorov rule “fighting is not a number, but an ability” refers to the individual training of a soldier - the legendary “Science to win” describes the methods of training and organizing the life of the rank and file. The leadership skills, first of all, consist in organizing numbers - choosing the key direction of combat operations and concentrating forces on it that are substantially superior to the enemy. In particular, Brusilov, not having enough information to select a single direction (and fearing the closure of the breakthrough with flank attacks by the enemy), organized 13 offensive points at once, and then maneuvered with forces, advancing where resistance had weakened. Although many opponents consider this tactic to be a manifestation of weakness: they say, he did not dare to beat at one point. However, these opponents cannot boast comparable own successes.
I well remember my grave mistake. I immediately believed in the first book of Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, who riveted the pseudonym "Viktor Suvorov" upon himself, unconditionally. She played an important role in the formation of my protracted anti-Sovietism. True, already in his second book I saw contradictions not only with the first book (which is inevitable in the development of research), but also inside the text (which proves the fallacy of some part of the reasoning). And while reading the third book I firmly understood: the author is not mistaken, but quite deliberately lies. Alas, to my shame, I did not understand the way of lying. Only the book of Aleksey Valerievich Isaev “Antisuvorov” explained to me: Rezun systematically applies tactical rules at a strategic level. For example, he says: a successful offensive requires a three-fold superiority in strength - Germany did not have such superiority over the USSR, which means that Germany was not going to attack the USSR. True, the USSR also did not have three times superiority over Germany - but Rezun is silent about this, painting only Tanks and airplanes: in their number we really exceeded the Germans. But the main thing is that triple superiority is needed only at the tactical level, in the battle that has already begun. The strategist can provide in the chosen place at least threefold, at least tenfold superiority. Consider a numerical example. You have ten divisions, I have eight. I leave half of mine against each of your divisions: you nowhere have three times superiority, and you will not risk attacking. I am collecting the three divisions I have released against yours, adding to the half of the division already there. With a three-fold advantage, I erase your division from the front line. Then I freely walk around your unprotected rear, cutting off the rest of your divisions from supplies and thereby depriving them of combat readiness, so that each of them will easily cope with the half of the division left by me.
True, Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov most often did not have a numerical superiority even in the course of an already established battle. For example, in one of his most famous battles - in the area of the Rymnik River - under his command there were about 7 thousands of Russian troops and 18 thousands of Austrian, and in each of the four Turkish fortified camps there were at least 20 thousands of fighters, and three groups were so close to a friend that represented, in fact, a single force. But here advantage of individual training has affected. And even more - the superiority of the organization: when the cavalry broke into the main camp through an unfinished fortification, the Turks fell into a panic, and Russian troops, under similar circumstances, more than once rallied and beat the broken enemy until he managed to accumulate strength. So the rule of triple overweight works only with other things being equal.
This rule is explained quite simply. One of the pioneers of automotive engineering and aerodynamics, Frederick William Henry-Jonovich Lanchester, while still at NNUMX, derived two equations that allow us to estimate the ratio of the speeds of combat losses. If each of the participants in a combat collision can reach only to the opponents closest to him or if each of the opposing sides firing irrelevant fire on the areas occupied by the other party, this ratio is inversely proportional to the ratio of the parties' numbers. arms everyone can, in principle, hit each participant from the other side and tries to shoot aiming at targets not yet hit, the ratio of loss rates is inversely proportional to the ratio of squares of numbers. The smaller side loses strength faster, the ratio does not change in its favor - and the speed of its losses increases. Having integrated the equation, we get: if at the initial moment of the battle the balance of forces was 3 to 1, then by the moment of complete destruction of the weaker side, the strongest in a collision on cold weapons would lose less than 1 / 10 in their numbers, and on the gunshot - less than 1 / 20. By military standards, such losses are acceptable, because they practically do not violate the organizational structure of the troops, which means that they do not weaken their combat capability.
From here, by the way, it is clear why Hannibal Hamilkarovich Bark won at Cannes. The surrounded Romans were crowded together. Only a tiny fraction of them - at the edge of the crowd - fought the Carthaginians. And they had longer spears than the Roman ones, and for every Roman who was actually involved in the battle, there was an 3 – 4 enemy from different ranks of the Carthaginian system. Therefore, at any given moment, the Carthaginians had the advantage, sufficient for an almost unpunished extermination of the enemy, and did not allow the Romans to reorganize to bring the main mass of forces into operation. Now the mechanism for destroying those surrounded is different: they are cut off from all types of supplies and quickly lose their combat capability (and even a large part of the rear services that are not at all adapted to direct contact with the enemy, is under attack and quickly collapses). But the general principle is the same: the surrounding can oppose to the surrounding only a small fraction of his strength, and therefore loses in the Lanchester equation.
The Lanchester equations also explain why, with equal (and sufficiently long-range) weapons, better trained and / or guided troops win: they can concentrate fire by quickly knocking out one target after another, while the fire of a weakly organized opponent is sprayed, and the probability of being hit by this fire is less .
For example, the fate of the battle of Tsushima decided maneuver Admiral Nakagoro (with 13 years - Heyhatiro) Kichidzemonovicha Togo his ships, well-trained joint maneuvers, crossed the course of the squadron Zinovy Petrovich Rozhdestvensky, able to move only wakefield systems, because throughout the vast path through three oceans ships were brought only coal stock on the shortest route by an economic move and they could not be trained in joint maneuvering at combat speeds. The lead ship of the Russian system was under the concentrated fire of all 6 Japanese battleships and 6 armored cruisers and quickly collapsed. The Russian ships, deprived of a single command (for then the radio was still in its infancy, did not raise flag signals on a ship under heavy fire), sprayed their fire throughout the enemy, and the probability of hitting every Japanese ship was rather small. There were many other factors that determined the ratio of losses in that battle. For example, Russian shells were optimized for deep penetration into particularly vulnerable and therefore armored parts of an enemy ship at a distance of a couple of miles, and the Japanese shot from a greater distance with land mines, whose action on the unarmored bulk of the board almost did not depend on the distance. But without Japanese coverage of the Russian head, the result would have been far less sad: all Japanese ships remained in service, and from 14 Russian ships of the main line - 8 squadron battleships, 3 coast guard battleship, 3 armored cruisers - died (or were flooded by crews because of the impossibility resistance) 6 squadron battleships, 1 battleship coastal defense, 3 armored cruisers, and the rest surrendered.
The last was for the Russian fleet unheard of: before in all of its history only 2-3 ships were captured. This, however, is not surprising: our enemy at sea was most often Turkey, whose fleet did not have a high degree of organization (after all, the Turks went to the Mediterranean Sea during the comparative decline of all its other neighbors, and therefore for a very long time they enjoyed an undeniably huge numerical superiority). This was revealed even in the battle near the port of Navpakt, that is, Shipbuilding (in the Middle Ages - Lepanto) 1571.10.07: the Turkish fleet was almost equal to the fleet of the united Europe, but died almost completely, while the Holy League lost a little more than 1/20 of its forces ( By the way, Miguel Rodrigovich de Cervantes Saavedra was injured in the battle in his left hand, injuring his nerves so that he could not use it until the end of his life; he had to be retrained as a writer; perhaps without this battle there would have been no Don Quixote). And this is despite the fact that the range of the then sea guns was several times greater than the length of the ships themselves, so the outcome of the battle was decided in close combat and boarding - hand-to-hand battles on the decks of ships that hitched side to side. But even against such a background, the result of, for example, the Chesme battle of 1770.07.05–07 is impressive: the Turkish squadron, twice superior to the Russian one (16 battleships and 6 frigates versus 9 and 3, respectively), was driven into Chesma Bay, and there it was partially shot, partially it was burned by fireboats - small rowing boats with a supply of gunpowder and tar (their crews hoped to have time to leave on boats before the wick burns out). In three days, 11 Russian sailors and about ten thousand Turkish were killed. The flaming Turkish fleet is depicted on the victory medal, and one word is stamped over it - “byl” (Russian spelling was formed when each syllable was open, that is, ended with a vowel, and the letter b originally meant a very short sound О, and b - such the short sound is E; even during the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the pronunciation norm changed and the ultra-short sounds completely disappeared, leaving only the softness of the sound in front of b and a short pause in the place of b, but the spelling with traces of the final b was canceled only in 1918).
Of course, the losses of the Turks in many other battles were not so strikingly different from the Russians: the best ratio for them is the 10 of their own dead on the Russian 1. A similar alignment in the wars with the Persians: even with fifty-fold numerical superiority, they turned out to be bits. By the way, the same Persians and Turks invariably beat the Arabs, when those were not headed by European mentors like the legendary Thomas Edward Thomas Lawovich, known as Lawrence of Arabia. This not only indicates the result of a possible Russian clash with the Arabs (for example, when anti-Syrian militants attempt to attack the Russian base in Tartus), but also proves the importance of proper organization of troops and competent command of them.
But the Russians are distinguished by the highest stamina and, when confronted with troops, are equally - and even noticeably better - organized.
King of Prussia Frederick II Karl Friedrich-Vilhelmovich Hohenzollern, nicknamed for numerous successful wars by Frederick the Great, said in his heart: a Russian soldier needs two bullets: one to kill and the second to bring down. In the Seven Years War, he beat everyone except the Russians: even with a perfectly conducted Prussian maneuver, being surrounded, with defeated carts, with fleeing generals, our troops rallied and the slender ranks of Prussian troops overturned with a strong bayonet. While Russia was ruled by Elizabeth I Petrovna Romanova (daughter of Peter the Great), East Prussia became part of Russia (and the great philosopher Immanuel Johann-Georgovich Kant, like all the inhabitants of Konigsberg, took the oath of allegiance - so in 1945 we got back what we already owned), and in Berlin visited Russian troops. Only after the death of the officially childless Empress 1762.01.05, the son of her sister Anna Peter III Fyodorovich Romanov returned everything to the King who was conquered by Russia, whom he used to admire when Karl Peter Ulrich Karl-Fridrikhovich zu Holstein-Gottorp von Unterwalden was called.
Preserved Russian resistance in subsequent wars. I will not list all - I will note only the Great Patriotic War.
The Soviet troops, who were surrounded, fought to the last opportunity, tried to break through to their own, or even went into the partisans. The enormous (about half of the total personnel at the beginning of the war - but, of course, among the prisoners were mobilized) the number of Soviet prisoners in the initial couple of months of military operations is explained not by moral weakness, but by the rapid exhaustion of fuel and ammunition in intense battles and the inability to transport them along the roads controlled by German aviation. Only a negligible fraction of those surrendered voluntarily surrendered, which is noted in German documents pierced by amazement: the Poles and the French, who found themselves in a similar position, surrendered to the Germans immediately.
In 1942, the main thrust of the German strike was the Caucasus (a strike on Stalingrad initially had only to prevent the delivery of Soviet reinforcements). In the first months of the year there were also intense battles in the Crimea. In both of these places, military units were actively used, where a large proportion were mobilized in the South Caucasus. Accumulated statistics combat resistance of national formations. Purely Armenian military units were not inferior to those of purely Russian (in the military sense, Ukrainians and Belarusians were no different from other Russians). Purely Georgian were not bad in the offensive, but in case of serious difficulties they are prone to retreat, and the retreat easily turned into a stampede. Purely Azerbaijani did not represent any significant combat value. The parts where all these three nations were represented in about equally, showed almost the same resilience as the Russians — obviously, the representatives of each nation tried to prove their courage to the others. The units where the Russians were at least half were not at all different from the Russians in battle.
This is again explicable. Russians from time immemorial have become accustomed to acting in the minority, or even alone. And on the plain, where the enemy has no natural obstacles, and there is almost nowhere to hide from him. If the enemy is on horseback, then the environment is a natural state, albeit an unpleasant one. And the only chance to prevent enemies in your native village is to kill them so much that after your death the rest will have neither the strength nor the ability to move on. A Russian, like Fight Cat, is a serviceman of an officer’s assault troop detachment in Arkady and Boris Natanovich Strugatsky’s novel "The Underworld Man" - "there is a combat unit in itself capable of coping with any conceivable and inconceivable surprise and turning it to honor and glory." In the mountains, it is almost impossible to surround the enemy: there are always trails or at least slopes that are rather uneven to find support and leave on them - modern climbers manage to overcome even vertical walls. Therefore, it makes no sense to fight to the last: it is much easier to hide in your village, where the enemy, not so accustomed to the mountains, most likely simply will not reach. And if you still get it - then, most likely, on a narrow path you will have to fight again one on one, without fear of a detour and a backstab. Unless the Armenians, who had long ago mastered the northeastern part of the relatively flat Anatolian Highland, who lived there even under Turkish rule and were forced out by the Turks only during the First World War, in the early Middle Ages acquired defense skills that were comparatively similar to the Russians.
With all this rigidity in battle, the Russians are extremely humane after the battle.
Napoleon Karlovich Buonaparte, retreating from Russia according to the Old Smolensk road ravaged by his own foragers (Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s troops didn’t let him into the well-fed southern regions): in our opinion it was just slush ) ordered the destruction of Russian prisoners, although his advisers warned: after such a military crime, the Russians would be given the right to answer the same. They did not answer: almost all of the captured soldiers of the enemy were dressed, shod, warmed, fed, and many later remained in Russia as home teachers, cooks, and in other nourishing places.
In the Middle Ages, when the concepts of the country and the people were not even properly formulated, the transition to the side of the victor was considered the norm. So, Alexander Yaroslavich Ryurikov - Alexander Nevsky - without hesitation accepted the supremacy of Batu Dzhuyevich Borte-Chinov (his grandfather Temuchzhin Yesuegeevich - title holder of Genghis Khan, that is, the ruler, great as the sea - a descendant of the semi-legendary Borte-Chino, whose ancestors are unknown) and even fraternized with his son Sartak, and all then European nobility accepted his deed as the norm. Accordingly, the prisoners in those days easily became under the new army banner. But in Russia, this tradition of taking prisoners as troops has been preserved even when in Europe it has already changed its loyalty to the oath (and the content of prisoners resulting from it in the camps). True, they did not force them to fight with their compatriots: Germans and Swedes were sent to the south and east, steppe nomads to the western border.
Our liberal younger brothers in reason love to accuse the USSR of not signing the Hague Convention of 1929 on the maintenance of prisoners of war. Like, it gave the Germans the right to mock Soviet prisoners and destroy them with all available means (of which, however, overwork and insufficient food were the most accessible, as always). Meanwhile, the convention itself obliged the states that signed it to comply with it in relation to all prisoners - including from the states that did not join it. That is, the Germans knowingly violated this convention and knew about it. But this is not even the main thing. It is much more important that the USSR immediately after the appearance of the convention announced that it would abide by all of it, with the exception of clauses directly contradicting Soviet laws: it ordered to keep prisoners of different religions separately - and in the USSR the church was separated from the state, that is, the state had no right however, to distinguish between people of different faiths - and to keep the commanding staff separate from the private and with additional benefits - and in the USSR class distinctions were not allowed. In diplomacy, this is called accession with reservations - a very common option. The USSR did indeed comply with the entire convention, except for the two points mentioned (and did not prevent the prisoners from separating themselves by faith or military rank).
True, in 1943, the Germans accused the USSR of destroying 1940 in the spring of several thousand Polish officers captured by 1939.09.17 – 23, when, after fleeing the Polish government from the territory of the country without announcing this or appointing successors (according to international customs, ) Soviet troops occupied the Russian lands occupied by Poland in 1920. Later, in 1990, the top Soviet leaders admitted this accusation. Moreover, it was stated that the Poles had been shot not only near the Katyn village of the Smolensk Region, but also near the village of Mednoye Kalininskaya - now the Tver Region - and near Pyatikhatok, the Kharkov Region. In all, thousands of corpses were hanged on 22 - all Polish officers, whose fate after the military shake-up did not preserve unambiguous information. I will not go into all the absurdities and inconsistencies of this version here: details can be found on the Truth about Katyn website. I will only note: in the collection “Official materials about the massacre in Katyn”, published by the Germans themselves in 1943, there are descriptions and even photographs of material evidence that unequivocally incriminating the Germans themselves in the shooting of these same prisoners near Katyn in August – September of 1941. and in the areas of Medny and Pyatikhatok not a single Polish prisoner was buried: all objects of Polish origin found there by Polish archaeologists at the beginning of 1990, these same archaeologists there were brought and planted there. So Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, suggesting that the USSR could in principle thus avenge a few tens of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war killed by Poles in 1920, is wrong: revenge is not a Russian custom. In general, the outline of the relationship between Russians and Poles and the details of the Katyn forgery are briefly, but distinctly, set forth in the book by Elena Anatolyevna Prudnikova and Ivan Ivanovich Chigirin “Katyn. A lie that has become history. ” I boast: one of the proofs is a photograph of the cartridges found in the Katyn grave, which were obviously produced in Germany not earlier than the summer of 1940, that is, after the date of the shooting declared by the Germans, is described in the book with a quote from one of my speeches on the Internet TV channel of Cyril & Methodius. Of course, I did not notice this discrepancy - I was just lucky enough to state it briefly and clearly.
However, the fighting, we also tried to lead humanely. Thus, General Alexei Petrovich Yermolov for taking hostages and burning entire villages during the Caucasian War was branded as a savage and tyrant, although he only reproduced a small part of the actions of the French who conquered Algeria in the same years, and the British, half a century earlier subdued India, and then gradually mastered Africa. In justification, Yermolov should be noted: this was how he behaved only with those tribes where there was not even a hint of state power, but military democracy acted: those who are stronger at the moment will follow. In the same place, where the tradition of submission to the decision made by the previously established ruler had already been formed, Yermolov agreed with this ruler on traditional for Russia - but absolutely not characteristic of European conquerors - conditions: preserving the old customs in everything that does not directly contradict the general Russian laws, the minimum taxation (much less than at the time of independence: after all, the main source of expenses — defense — was assumed by a great power), the right of new subjects to live anywhere in the empire, to engage in any work, get any education, etc.
Not all nations adopted such an approach: two or three Caucasian tribes emigrated with their full complement, another ten or so divided between Russia and foreign countries - on average, in half. But the majority ultimately found the Russian laws more useful than mountain customs. And some, taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the empire, were completely assimilated: many of today's Caucasians differ from other Russians, perhaps by the origin of their last names. But Russians are generally assimilatory people. Where is remembered by the chroniclers chud and merya? Now they are the same inalienable ancestors of the Russians, like the Drevlyans and the Krivichi, remembered by the same chroniclers. It is understandable: if there are few people, it is much more useful to draw a stranger into your family than to find out who will survive whom.
No wonder the first international conference on the humanization of the laws and customs of war was convened by the Russian emperor Nikolai II Alexandrovich Romanov.
Our pistols, rifles and guns shoot in such harsh conditions (heat, frost, dust, rain, dirt and sand inside and out), which the weapon of any other manufacturer refuses. A recent proposal by former Defense Minister Anatoly Eduardovich Serdyukov to consider the possibility of purchasing any foreign small arms for the armed forces of the Russian Federation stumbled upon an obvious objection: not a single sample purchased could not withstand the standard conditions of state tests. This is again a consequence of the small number of Russians. When a battle is conducted by a large enough group, the failure of one barrel will be compensated by the rest. If the fighters once and twice obchelsya - every shot is vital.
The same Russian rarity brought up the willingness to help another without thinking: if I came across someone who needs help, it is unlikely that someone else would come to him, so there’s no need to wait for further help, but we must act immediately. In Europe, where the population density is much higher, it is customary to first ask if it is your help that is needed or if a person is waiting for some kind of coordinated or just more acceptable support for him. It's funny how this tradition changed on our roads as the fleet grew. Back in 1970, near any one who stopped on the side of the road without a visible target, they immediately began to slow down and ask what exactly was to be helped. And now, most likely, they will pass by without thinking: it’s so clear that a person has already caused an emergency stop or is waiting for a friend — also by car.
Russians are not only always ready for mutual help, but also know how to quickly organize themselves. In any group that has gathered for a common cause, leaders and narrow specialists in specific areas of action, masters of the widest profile, and people in the field who are ready to support everyone, almost instantly stand out. Even peasants who worked alone or on families from time immemorial, in a matter of years learned the skill of joint coordinated work. True, this was facilitated not only by the skill of artel cooperation in the outlying fields and the twenty-five thousand workers sent to the village by the communist party to transfer their own personal experience of complicity in the division of labor, but also the consequences of the first couple of years of collectivization, when everyone hoped to transfer more to others and use , for example, someone else's working cattle, previously scored and eating your own. As a result, the next drought turned into hunger, approximately equal to 1891 and 1921 years combined. The demographic decline in the population of the USSR — that is, let me remind you, the difference between the actual population and the calculation based on the growth rates in the calm years before and after the event — was about three million people, including a million and a half in my small homeland, Ukraine. The current official rulings on this account are called three million victims in Ukraine and seven - throughout the Union. But this is a consequence of a methodical error. The decisions take into account the demographic decline only in regions hit by hunger. But along with collectivization, industrialization was going on - the country created machinery for the village and jobs for those who would be freed up by new machinery and new technology. The demographic statistics of new industrial areas then indicate: four million people from starving regions moved to new places where they got jobs and food. And when the peasants figured out how to work together, the mass hunger strikes, which previously hit the country three times in each decade, stopped. They even stopped remembering starvation death. A catastrophic famine with a demographic loss of about a million occurred only in 1946 – 7, a consequence of World War II, when not only millions of workers died, but agricultural machinery production also stopped, so the next drought coincided with the exhaustion of the safety margin of most of the remaining tractors and combines.
The combination of Russian individualism with the ability to work together and subordinate their interests to the requirements of a common cause seems paradoxical. But people scattered over a huge area, gathering occasionally and for a short time, simply cannot act otherwise: you must first rely on yourself, and if you are lucky enough to get ready, you must quickly use the opportunities that have opened up and not try to drag the blanket over you.
Glorified by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, world responsiveness - the willingness to take any achievements of other cultures to heart and immediately begin to develop them as our own - is also generated by our small number: others get into the village very rarely, so you need to listen carefully to their words and look into the deeds in order to find something useful for themselves and immediately adapt it to local conditions.
Another consequence of the low density of Russians is universalism, the desire for versatility of skills and knowledge. In Europe, it is easy to find a specialist nearby who is focused on a specific task. In our country, it is often easier to understand her than to look for someone who already knows how to cope with it. They have the highest praise "master of golden hands," we have - "master of all trades."
Accordingly, the training system is built in such a way as to facilitate an independent search for solutions. It is based on the assimilation of basic principles and only then, on this solid basis, the acquisition of skills. This system - with the corresponding philosophical justification - was formed in Germany by the middle of the XIX century, but brought to perfection in the USSR by the middle of the XX.
All the diversity of the world we observe is a consequence of the interaction of relatively few fundamental laws. As science develops, many of the rules that previously appeared to be independent are just special cases of more general principles.
For example, the electric and magnetic fields were originally investigated as independent entities, but the efforts of several generations of experimenters at the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries revealed their connections, and James Clerk John-Klerkovich Maxwell found the mathematical expression of this relationship, and based on his equations, many fundamentally new electromagnetic phenomena — for example, the waves underlying all radio communications and optics. In the 20th century, weak and strong interactions of elementary particles were discovered, and it was proved that the weak interaction has a similar nature with an electromagnetic one. There was even the term "electro-weak" - and right there appeared theories uniting with him strong interaction. The recent discovery in the Large Hadron Collider of the effects of collisions of particles corresponding to the picture assumed in the existence of the Higgs boson has become a serious argument in favor of one of the groups of these theories, but the groups competing with it cannot yet be considered refuted. However, it is already clear: sooner or later, a unified theory encompassing the electro-weak and strong interaction will be built. And theorists are already working on the possibility of including in a single description gravity, which binds together the entire Universe. All four existing interactions that determine the very existence of the world and the whole diversity of its features are manifestations of the same fundamental regularity, which has already been studied well.
Understanding the fundamental laws is not just interesting - it is also very useful. One of the creators of the first encyclopedia in the world - French - Claude Adrien Jean-Claude-Adrienovich Schweitzer (he translated his surname into Latin - Helvetius) - two and a half centuries ago said: “knowledge of some principles easily compensates for the ignorance of some facts” (and Ever since encyclopedias try to write about principles first of all and add facts as needed, for example, biographies, since birth dates are random). Of course, for such compensation it is also necessary to be able to derive facts from principles. But when this skill is mastered - from one principle it is possible to derive incomparably more facts than we could have known and learned separately.
To remember that a triangle with sides 3, 4 and 5 is rectangular, it will take a little less effort than to comprehend one of the myriad of proofs of the most famous of the many theorems of Pythagoras Mnesarkhovich of Samos (and the mathematical and philosophical school created by him). And the knowledge of the equality of the square of the hypotenuse to the sum of the squares of the legs, together with the knowledge of some of the simplest elements of the theory of integer equations created by Diophantus of Alexandria (alas, historians have not yet figured out his patronymic name), makes it possible to compose formulas for calculating the entire infinite set of right-angled triangles with an integer aspect ratio (and even very prime: any pair of integers m and n (m> n) gives a right-angled triangle with sides m2 - n2, 2mn, m2 + n2).
My (and my brother Vladimir - unlike me, clever) father, Professor Alexander Anatolyevich Wasserman has been engaged for more than half a century, among other things, in developing methods for drawing up equations of state - formulas relating pressure, temperature and density of a substance. The equation is derived from the results of several hundred (for materials that are especially important in science and technology — thousands) of experiments. Then, it is possible to calculate the properties (and not only density, but many others) at any point, for some reason, interested the scientist or engineer. It is difficult, time consuming and expensive to conduct experiments at all these points (and with some combinations of conditions it is almost impossible). The equation itself includes several tens of coefficients — it is incomparably simpler to write them down than to work with experimental data tables. Yes, and you can even calculate properties at a particular point using the equation. True, for some particularly important substances, for convenience, properties tables are calculated, calculated on the basis of the same equations of state (for example, tables compiled with the participation of the father occupy a dozen thick volumes). But as more and more compact personal computing tools spread, the tables are replaced by calculation systems that directly use the equations (the father again was involved in the development of several such systems).
From these examples it is clear: understanding the pattern requires incomparably less effort than memorizing at least a small fraction of the facts drawn from it. Factocentric education is a monstrous waste of forces and means.
In addition, a person who is familiar with the facts, but does not know the laws generating these facts, cannot distinguish a new reliable fact from an error and even conscious disinformation. But it was precisely this that became the main reason for the mass planting of factocentrism instead of the already mastered higher level - the understanding of the principles. After all, in the current commerce - not to mention the current policy - there are too many people willing and able to benefit from the mass deception of everyone who can reach it. It is clear that they are very disturbed by people who are able to independently recognize deception. Therefore, all over the world, law-centered education is being crowded out long ago and clearly outdated facto-centric (as, indeed, in many other areas - from the relapse of capitalism in most socialist countries to the reinforced planting of different forms of belief in the supernatural - a rollback to the past is observed).
When I was studying, a typical program of a Soviet technical university as a whole looked like this. In the first course, the fundamentals of the most general sciences were studied - mathematics, physics, chemistry (although philosophy was studied in the second year: from the humanities and social disciplines, the first went through the history of the CPSU, and most often reduced it to a dry list of various inclinations because it is understandable just on the basis of other sciences, passed later: philosophy - in the second year, political economy - in the third, scientific communism, that is, the theory of development and change of social formations - in the fourth, based on its current and I try to understand, I think that just the history of the CPSU had to endure in the fourth year, respectively, moving the rest a year earlier). The second course went to those aspects of the general sciences that are directly in contact with the direction of the university, and some more specific disciplines related to this area. At the third, the sciences that were directly used in the field of activity for this university and this faculty were studied. The fourth focused on gaining the skills of this activity - from laboratory work to independent research. Finally, the fifth course was taken by pre-diploma practice and a thesis project.
Let's compare it with the Bologna system, which is currently fashionable. In theoretically perfect form, it looks like this. For four years the undergraduate degree has been training the student for specific recipes in his chosen field. Then, if he didn’t go to work right away, for two years the magistracy teaches him the basics of the sciences from which the previously studied recipes flow. Thus, the bachelor does not know and does not understand the nature of the recipes he has memorized, but he applies them blindly and with any change in the subject area — for example, the appearance of new types of technology — he has to go to refresher courses (which is beneficial for their owners and teachers Bachelor and / or his employers). The master in two years manages to forget the lion's share of what they drove into him at the undergraduate degree (it is very difficult to memorize without understanding) and is not suitable for immediate practical work.
The consequences are already known. In the European universities now teachers from the former USSR are very much appreciated. Indeed, in Europe, they began to implant this system long before 1999.06.19 in Bologna representatives of 29 countries signed an agreement recognizing it to be the only true and binding one (now 47 countries from 49 ratify the cultural convention written in 1954) Council of Europe). The bulk of European teachers are already bolognaised in their heads. They do not represent educational value. Serious experts have to take where there was no Bologna. True, along the way, with the filing of the same Council of Europe - destructive not only in this respect - it is being intensively implanted in our country. Where to get specialists, when the post-Soviet space too is completely zolonized, no one (neither in Europe nor, unfortunately, in our Ministry for the Elimination of Education and Science) thinks like accomplices of insane tea-drinking in the story of Charles Latuidia Charles Dodgson aka Lewis Carroll “Alice in the Country Wonders ”, as the dishes were smoked, they were transplanted to empty seats at the table, without thinking about what would happen when the clean cups and plates ran out.
I suppose if we consider any other significant - and not purely external - difference between Russians from Europeans (and from Asians), we will be able to identify a similar chain of cause-effect relationships that goes back to the relatively low population density of Russia. After my lectures on this topic, I have repeatedly answered questions regarding such differences, and invariably found such chains. I hope this will work in the future.
So I will not go over the differences anymore - perhaps I have already considered almost everything that is really important. It now remains to find out why I am talking not only about the differences, but about the advantages of Russian civilization over European. And why do I talk about Russian civilization as opposed to the fashionable statement today that there is a single path of development where Western Europe and North America have advanced further, and all countries and peoples who are not trying to catch up on this path are uncivilized.
The last thought was most clearly expressed in 1992 by Francis Yoshihirovich Fukuyama. His book, The End of History and the Last Man, states: after the collapse of socialism, the spread of liberal democracy in the whole world is inevitable, and this is where the evolution of society and culture will end.
But next year Samuel Phillips Richard-Tomasovich Huntington published an article entitled “The Clash of Civilizations”, and in 1996, he published a book with the same title. He singled out a dozen civilizations. Of these, nine (alphabetically: African, Buddhist, Western, Hindu, Islamic, Latin American, Chinese, Orthodox, Japanese) exist and interact at the moment. In his opinion, the main historical contradictions arise between civilizations (which, in my opinion, is incomplete: for example, both world wars originated within the same Western civilization). He predicted, in particular, the confrontation of Islam and the West and advised that representatives of all civilizations should be included in the UN Security Council. In his opinion, civilizations that rely on one clearly distinguished state, rather than being distributed among dozens of equivalent, are more stable - therefore Orthodoxy and Buddhism, in his opinion, is stronger than Islam, and Western civilization is alive as long as it has an unconditional hegemon (now it’s the United States America, before them - the British Empire, previously - the Spanish).
Huntington is not original. The coexistence and interaction of civilizations was considered long before it. For example, Arnold Joseph Harri-Volpich Toynbee counted more than two dozen civilizations in human history, not counting those that did not form if there were preconditions for emergence (for example, Far Eastern Christianity, combining missionary sermons with local customs, was quickly destroyed by spiritual and secular authorities, because way of subordination of peoples alien foreign influence) or stopped in development. By the way, Toynbee divides the Orthodox civilization into two essentially different branches - the original (in Greece, in the Balkans) and the Russian.
So, there are always a lot of civilizations, and the outcome of their competition cannot be predicted with Fukuyama confidence. The opposite opinion - about the unconditional and final victory of Europe as a whole and of the United States of America (as the extreme expression of the European tradition) in particular - in our country is defended only by the inhabitants of Moscow and St. Petersburg: in these megacities population density is comparable to that of Europe. the task is easy to find a specialist who is ready to solve it, and therefore the psychology of the inhabitants is similar to the European one. But neither Moscow nor St. Petersburg can exist without all of Russia (even the current Russian Federation is too small for them). Therefore, it is necessary to focus not on them, but on Russia as a whole - with its small number of people, abundance of tasks and awareness of the diversity of decision options (that is, the multiplicity of possible civilizations).
Does this mean that all civilizations are equal? Should one admit unconditionally fashionable multiculturalism today, which proclaims drumming as valuable as classical ballet, and female circumcision - the amputation of the clitoris - as honorable as a monogamous marriage?
One of the creators and pillars of libertarianism — the only true proclaimed doctrine of the unconditional utility of economic freedom of the individual without any regard for society — Friedrich Avgustovich von Hayek in the book Pernicious Self-Reliance describes the evolution of society as a result of the competition of different groups that adhere to different customs. Whose customs turned out to be more useful at a given time and place - that group survives and spreads further. It is funny that the singer of individualism considers societies as the subjects of development. But at least the criterion of comparison of civilizations, proposed by him, is clear: who has lived longer, longer and stronger, he is right.
From this point of view, the Russian civilization is undoubtedly among the best: although we are many times smaller than all our neighbors, we have occupied the largest part of the planet among all the states - 1 / 6 - inhabited land (even in the current state of temporary disintegration of the country, one of its parts is the Russian Federation - takes 1 / 7). True, our lands are of low value for agriculture. But we have the world's largest forest reserves, not to mention minerals: not only are they more than any other country, but in addition we are easier to develop them than many other countries, just because we don’t have to worry too much about agriculture.
It should be noted that almost all of these lands are occupied peacefully. Serious resistance to the Russians was provided perhaps by the Chukchi - their martial arts are still carefully studied by specialists - and some tribes of the North Caucasus. Mountains in general bring up the readiness to feed on force - the local nature there is too poor, there are too few feeding possibilities. Therefore, the mountaineers of the whole world are similar in character to each other much more than their flat neighbors. For example, the Gascon Charles Ogier Bertranovich de Baz de Castelmore d'Artagnan, who came to Paris to join the royal musketeers, is very similar to a typical Chechen who is trying to enter a security agency in Moscow, and the noble robber Scotland Rob Roy Donalditch Graff, the school graduate class teacher in Moscow, the school graduate class teacher in Moscow. , indistinguishable from the many equally noble robbers from the Georgian novels.
We almost always had to fight in self-defense. The prophetic Oleg avenged the unreasonable Khazars for the systematic overlap of our trade: they controlled a large part of the Silk Road and did not want to compete with Amber. In the North Caucasus, we first fought off raids on flat fields and pastures: the hungry highlanders tried to plunder crops that were unthinkably generous by the standards of almost barren rocks. Cossacks in their essence are precisely irregular frontier troops. Then he had to climb the mountains to block the raids in the bud. But seriously, we took up the mountaineers only when Armenia and Georgia asked Russia to include them in their structure to protect them from systematic extermination by Turkey and Persia. The mountaineers plundered caravans going through the passes to new lands — they had to completely occupy the Caucasus in order to subordinate the robbers to the laws. For a similar reason, Central Asia was conquered: the local nomads drove the Russians into slavery. Even the partition of Poland was a matter of necessity: the local gentry simply did not imagine any other way of feeding than to conquer all the new lands (and when the neighbors were too strong, the nobles robbed each other; hitting an armed raid on a neighbor's estate was considered noble fun; the last hitting Adam Bernard Mikolaevich Mickiewicz sang in the poem “Pan Tadeusz” - the Poles still consider it to be a glorious memory of nobleman freedom, destroyed by evil, which had already happened after the division and pacified by the appearance of the Russian infantry company. and Muscovites). True, the gentry can also be understood: the peasants died out too quickly - how can you not become extinct, if from Monday to Saturday is inclusively engaged in serfdom, that is, you work in the state economy, and you only work in your land on Saturday and Sunday night? Sundays on Mondays (well, on Sunday it’s impossible to work at all - holy day). It was necessary for the gentry to get everything new cattle - this word originally meant working cattle. For comparison: since the birth of serfdom in Russia, the law prohibited the serfdom for more than three days a week, so that the peasants had time not only to feed the nobles, but also themselves. Naturally, the Russian peasants resisted the Polish invasions by all available means.
And those who were not fortunate enough to be in the Polish government regularly rebelled. The next uprising began in 1648 as an ordinary disassembly between the gentry Chaplinsky and Khmelnitsky, the Cossacks joined the Khmelnitsky, demanding an increase in the number of people included in the register for issuing bureaucratic allowances - this happened there more than once. But, unexpectedly for the Cossacks themselves, they were supported by so many buckwheat farmers, that is, simple peasants, that the uprising turned into a natural war, and it became clear that after such a bloodshed, the Poles would not agree. Zinoviy Mikhailovich Khmelnitsky (he was baptized exactly as Zinovy, and Bogdan was a nickname) had to spend almost all the trophies gained during the capture of Dunkirk, where he was a mercenary under the command of that same d'Artagnan, to bribe deacons of the Posolsky order, that is, in the recount for our days, the heads of departments of the ministry of foreign affairs of Russia, so that they will finally agree to let his petition on accepting lands controlled by Cossacks into Russian citizenship be on instances. Russia resisted for a long time: it only four decades ago came out of the Time of Troubles, and the experience of that time was not encouraging in the upcoming struggle with Poland. But the words “We of the Russian people and the Orthodox faith” that constantly repeated in the petitions of not only Khmelnitsky himself, but also of several of his predecessors, finally worked: they don’t give up their Russians. 1654.01.18 (on the Julian calendar - 8) in Pereyaslav, the Cossack Council decided to switch to Russian citizenship. Poland, as one would expect, immediately began a war with Russia, so the liberation of all Russian lands occupied by Poles and Lithuanians, while the Horde controlled the main part of Russia, took almost another century and a half (and if you take into account Galicia and Subcarpathian Russia, almost two). But I repeat once again: on the Russian side, it was the liberation of their lands and their people, and not aggression.
How did we manage to systematically defeat all those who encroach on our lands - not only backward ones like the mountaineers and nomads, but also formally progressive ones like the Poles, the French and the Germans?
Already mentioned, Toynbee considers the main distinctive feature of each civilization to be the usual format for answering a call. In particular, the Russian civilization, in his words, when a threat appears, first shrinks, as it were, away from it, but then expands just as sharply, absorbs the source of the threat into itself and turns it into one of its sources of strength.
Isn't it very similar to the worldwide responsiveness described by Dostoevsky? The feeling of the value of every life, every manifestation of culture, every course of action generates a willingness to constantly check all these options and manifestations for usefulness, a willingness to find a common language with each person, to find him the most suitable place in the common cause.
It is almost impossible to destroy such a civilization: if it does not disappear overnight (say, as a result of a nuclear war), then sooner or later it will find a way to turn any threat into its part (or at least organize mutually beneficial interaction with it; so Germany defeated by us in the Great Patriotic War, she realized the reason for the appearance of the Russian inscription "the ruins of the Reichstag is satisfied" and became - first of all its eastern part, and after reunification, and all of it - one of the most friendly countries of the European Union tion of).
In 1941, the main strike force of the German invasion was tank groups with an optimal ratio of the tanks themselves, self-propelled artillery, fast artillery tractors, infantry on armored personnel carriers and trucks, and supply trucks. This ratio the Germans have worked in previous large campaigns - Polish and French. Soviet tank corps, which almost did not have other types of equipment, other than tanks, could not withstand such a perfect military machine. But already in 1943, our tank armies had a composition, if not as successful as the German one (no one, except the Germans, had at that time well-established mass production of sufficiently effective armored personnel carriers), then at least acceptable for a deep breakthrough. Even the Battle of Kursk was completed not by the stamina of our defense (the Germans still managed to gnaw, for both their attacks on the wings of the Kursk arc were very concentrated, but we simply did not have time to transfer the troops from calm sectors to the direction of German movement), but a deep breakthrough of the Soviet troops to the north arc. After that, the Germans failed to prevent any of our breakthroughs: their troops, like ours in 1941, either got encircled or retreated under its threat.
A quarter of a century ago, our country seemed to have collapsed under the weight of sophisticated economic and propaganda pressure from outside. And what? Now the most popular foreign channel in the world is Russia Today (for example, in the United States of America it is watched much more than by the BBC or al Jazzira), and its creator and permanent leader Margarita Simonian Simonyan has become part-time editor-in-chief of the same name “Russia Today”, created on the spot by the openly pro-American Russian Information Agency “News". Russian industrialists are actively buying overseas production (it’s funny that in the accounts of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, all our investments abroad are in the form of capital flight, hence the constant moaning about the monstrous amount of this leakage), so only frankly non-economic measures can prevent our expansion: , the ruined General Motors tried to sell Opel, but as soon as our KamAZ wanted to buy it, the American government immediately allocated a huge subsidy to GM so that the company would refuse to sell.
Now the main threat for us comes from overseas. I myself am not averse to speculate about the Russian inscription “The ruins of the Capitol are satisfied” or the Stalin Strait between Canada and Mexico. But given the historical experience, I believe: the United States of America after its defeat in the economic war (and its signs were seen even when the Russian Federation recovered from the 1998.08.17 default) will reconsider their views leading to the current impasse, cleaned of leadership who could not such a revision will become, if not ally to us, fully, then at least as friendly as Germany or Italy, which also felt our power in the Great Patriotic War.
Optimistic. But the support of this optimism is our entire Russian civilization, which has become better than its neighbors, precisely because for many centuries we have had - and in the foreseeable future - per unit of occupied area is much smaller than our neighbors.