Russian theorist of history Lappo-Danilevsky classified primary sources into two categories - 'remains' (остатки) and 'myths' (предания). Let's discuss the difference between these two categories on example of this medal commemorating the annexation of Crimea in 2014 (thread)
'Myths' are sources that are purposefully created to convey a certain narrative for the future readers. E.g, a chronicle, a speech, a book. Meanwhile, a 'remain' is created for practical purposes and not for the future readers. Accounting books, court cases, military orders
For example, much of the narrative on Ivan the Terrible's reign, specifically the Oprichnina terror is based on the court chronicle - Litsevoy Svod. It was purposefully created (by Ivan himself?) to convey a certain interpretation of events for the future audience. That's a myth
Meanwhile state cadastre documents made for taxation purposes, посошные книги, that illustrate extreme desolation of much of Central Russia by the end of his reign, were not created to convey any message for the audience, but for practical administrative purposes. That's a remain
Sounds simple. A myth is created on purpose, while a remain is a byproduct of a normal life process (business, administrative, legal, personal). In practice it's a bit more complicated. The same source can be either a 'myth' or a 'remain' depending on which data we draw from it
As a general rule, we use a source as a myth when we draw from it the very info its creator wanted to convey to us. But we can use it as a remain when we draw from it that info which the authors didn't really intend to give to us, but gave unwillingly
Let's consider Ivan the Terrible's Sinodik - where he listed people he killed or executed. There are about 3000 names there - mostly of nobility and elite. A typical passage 'Bojar X, his three sons, 10 gentlemen and the household servants - uncounted (без счета);
From here we can conclude that Oprichnina included indiscriminate massacres of the general population. Whom nobody counter, because nobody was interested. They were killed just because they happened to be there
So let's look at the medal again. What's interesting here? The dates of the military operation. The end date - March 18 when Russia officially annexed Crimea sounds logical. But the beginning - February 20 - is more tricky
Putin declared that he ordered the operation on February 23, after ex-President Yanukovich escaped to Russia. So the logic is: Ukraine used to have legitimate government which we recognised. It was illegally overthrown so now we have open hands
But why does it start with February 20 then? Most probably because the real order was given then, when Yanukovich was technically still in power. Which means that the operation was ordered and prepared during the regime which Russia considered legitimate
Which presents conflict in a very different way. Russia retrospectively presented its actions as reactive, while they probably were very, very proactive. More like seizing the opportunity than reacting to a crisis
So in a sense this medal might disclose a state secret. Which is very typical. Consider the Winter War with Finland in 1939. It started on November 30, 1939 - officially as a defensive response to a Finnish provocation
Which is a lie. Soviets planned the attack well in advance. How do we know it? From a Soviet military song "Принимай нас, Суоми-красавица"
Read the lyrics describing the Soviet invasion
Ломят танки широкие просеки,
Самолёты кружат в облаках,
Невысокое солнышко осени
Зажигает огни на штыках.
Tanks are breaking through the forest
Planes are circling in the clouds
The low autumn sun
Is shining the bayonets
*The low autumn sun*. If the war started on November 30 was a reactive response, would we have these lyrics? Unlikely. Apparently, the war was decided and prepared very well in advance - and planned in autumn. The army was prepared, the logistics organised, the songs written
But apparently as it often happens with big enterprises, the war had to be delayed. And delayed. And delayed. And launched much later than it was originally planned. So they kept the original lyrics about the autumn in the song about the war that had been scheduled for the autumn
Why did they keep it? One reason - changing the written lyrics and keeping the rhymes could be laborious. More real reason - nobody in the staff noticed it during all the hurry with preparation for the war. So now we have a nice source-remain on the real plans of Soviet leaders
End of thread
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think about
But let’s make a crash intro first
1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.
Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia
(Operation Danube style)
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable
In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them.
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.
The question is - why.
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.
The single most important thing to understand regarding the background of Napoleon Bonaparte, is that he was born in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean, in the words of Braudel, is a sea ringed round by mountains
We like to slice the space horizontally, in our imagination. But what we also need to do is to slice it vertically. Until very recently, projection of power (of culture, of institutions) up had been incomparably more difficult than in literally any horizontal direction.
Mountains were harsh, impenetrable. They formed a sort of “internal Siberia” in this mild region. Just a few miles away, in the coastal lowland, you had olives and vineyards. Up in the highland, you could have blizzards, and many feet of snow blocking connections with the world.