"IVAN THE TERRIBLE NEVER CAME TO CHANGE THEIR FAITH. HE JUST TRICKED THE CATHOLICS HEAD"
— Andrei Ilyich, recently, Vladimir Putin said that Ivan the terrible could not have killed her son and became the victim of calumny, which is circulated against him Nuncio of the Pope in retaliation for the failure to convert Orthodox Russia to Catholicism. It is obvious that the President was referring to Antonio Possevino, the representative of Gregory XIII. How would you comment on such an interpretation of the famous historical story?
— Putin is right that the terrible did not kill his son — that there is no evidence. In fact, we are dealing with historical slander. On the death of his son Ivan IV of Tsarevich Ivan, we know only one person, this person is a foreigner, a Jesuit who is interested in discrediting the Russian Tsar.
— According to Antonio Possevino, the Prince stood up for his pregnant wife that Ivan allegedly beat because she appeared before the king in three dresses, as they supposed, and in one. And in the end the son came under the hot hand of the father.
Isn't this just what Possevino came to Moscow as intermediary for the conclusion of a peace Treaty with Poland after Russia was defeated in the Livonian war and, indeed, tried to persuade Ivan the terrible to the adoption of Catholicism, believing that he, given the weakened condition of the state, to make concessions. But Ivan IV realized that it is not only religious matters but also in the geopolitical. And in this respect, as in matters of faith, he always stood on a firm, concrete position.
In General, Ivan the terrible, and Joseph Stalin — one of the most slandered the Russian rulers. And it's clear why: they built a strong Russia and rigidly to stop attempts of the West to establish control over it — political, economic, ideological. When Russia turned the shoulders. It was under Ivan the terrible Russia was, in fact, an Empire after the annexation of Kazan, Astrakhan, and a large part of Siberia. It by Ivan the terrible oprichnina created the autocratic power, which, as she specifically was called, there are four centuries and, as a guarantee of Russian power provokes rejection of the West.
— By the way, mad has not considered the possibility of the shift of Orthodoxy to Catholicism in exchange for the mediation of the Vatican in the peace Treaty with the Commonwealth?
— In any case. Ivan the terrible never came to change their faith. He just tricked the Catholics head until the conclusion of Yam-Zapolsky world. Ivan IV was a specific sense of humor. It was all black and mocking. In discussions with Possevino he completely outplayed cunning Jesuit.
But there is evidence that the representative of the Vatican was met in Moscow with honors.
— Of course. There is diplomatic etiquette. Possevino took on a Russian scale, but the king knew that it came to the enemy. And he played the game "to strangle in embraces" — at first. And then when it was done, nearly beat Jesuit.
— However, Possevino has helped to conclude a peace Treaty with the Commonwealth.
— Well, I don't tried Possevino. A peace Treaty would still be signed because the other party was also drained of blood. Stefan Batory failed to take Pskov, and at the end of the war the Russians and the poles hung on each other like two exhausted boxers. Unfortunately, in the beginning, Russia has twice missed the chance to defeat in the Livonian war for Alexei Adasheva, who either by mistake, or deliberately did not finish the Livonian order in 1558 and 1559, when victory was almost in his hands. Because of this, the Adach fell into disgrace. And then it ran.
— So terrible was perceived in the West as the enemy...
Yes. Since stood guard Russian interests. And it was during the reign of Ivan the terrible in Europe, there were two terms of subordination of Russia. One of the Habsburg developed in conjunction with the Vatican, and the second English. Its author is the famous astrologer, mathematician and spy spy John Dee who signed his reports to Queen Elizabeth I, —"Agent 007". This "agent" has developed the concept of the Green Empire. According to her, England had to take control of North America and Northern Eurasia. The English were trying to economically subjugate Russia after the Troubles: English (and Dutch) merchants very hosted us, to the extent that the established wholesale prices in the North of Russia, despite the protests of Russian merchants. And only Alexis, using the fact that in England Charles I was beheaded, invited the English merchants and said to them: "the British all the land has committed great evil thing, the sovereign of his Carlos the king killed to death: for such an evil deed in the Moscow state, you can not have a chance".
"White and fluffy" rulers do not happen — they just do not live. Ivan the terrible was less cruel than his time"
"COMPARED WITH THEIR WESTERN CONTEMPORARIES IVAN IV ALMOST "WHITE AND FLUFFY"
— By the way, Putin also said that Ivan the terrible was not "white and fluffy", but superzhestoky a man of him "made". Like, his bloodlust is a legend. Especially against the background of European rulers of the time.
— "White and fluffy" rulers do not happen — they just do not live. But compared with its Western contemporaries Ivan IV almost "white and fluffy". It is enough to compare him with Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Spanish king Philip II, Duke of Alba. For the one massacre of St. Bartholomew in France destroyed as many people as Ivan the terrible and could not imagine. Thus the massacre of St. Bartholomew was a response to the fact that the Huguenots "cut" of Christian religious wars in Europe were fought with the blood, which Russia never dreamed of. Exceptional violence until the aestheticization of death is characteristic of the West. Visitors to the medieval Western city met the gallows with the corpses in Russia, this was not. Penalty to Beethoven's music in Nazi concentration camps — from the same series. During the reign of Henry VIII was destroyed 70 thousand people — just because they were homeless. And they became homeless because they were driven from their land by large landowners who needed land for sheep breeding. "Sheep ate people" — this famous phrase characterizes the England of the XVI century. And if you read what did German peasants during the peasants ' war in 1525, and then what did the peasants victorious lords!..
XVI century — generally very cruel time. Ivan the terrible was less cruel than his time, because he had to defend himself. As Klyuchevsky said: "He was beaten, not to be beaten". But even then, as the terrible beat his opponents, does not go to any comparison with the Western brutality of the rulers. Of all the people executed on his orders, Ivan IV was recorded in the Synodikon in order to pray for the repose of their souls. As an Orthodox and very pious man, he was concerned about the souls of the executed. But that such commemoration was made, for example, Charles IX of France, Philip II of Spain or Henry VIII in England, I personally can't imagine.
— That is, in your opinion is it that Ivan IV received the nickname of Grozny?
— Why? Deserved. He really was Terrible. In this word there is nothing wrong. Here's the English translation — Ivan the Terrible, which means Ivan the Terrible, is negative. In the Russian language Grozny means "fearsome", for example enemies. A leader must inspire fear to his enemies both within the country and abroad. "Terrible" is not synonymous with cruel and so on. By the way, Ivan IV was not the first Grozny in Russia. Nickname was and his grandfather Ivan III. But the less you know about it. Because Ivan IV, he was eclipsed as he created a huge Empire and had gone beyond the territory which had been collected by his father and grandfather.
— You say that the terrible's son was not killed. But authentic primary source documents about the death of Tsarevich Ivan was not preserved. How, then, to determine historical truth? Based on what?
— Well, certainly not on the basis of a single testimony of a spy-Jesuit. Excellent logic: documents about the death of Ivan has not survived, then killed him. With the same success we can say that he was abducted by aliens. "Information" is refuted by Possevino medical analysis. When the Kremlin opened the tomb in which he lay, Ivan, Jr., his skull was in poor condition, however no damage of the frontal bones he discovered. But found in the bones is very large, just huge levels of arsenic. By the way, Ivan the terrible too. However, in Soviet times our scientists and historians have tried to explain this by the fact that they are both, apparently, been treated for syphilis. But this poison was so much that no syphilis is associated can not be. That is, both of them slowly poisoned and dumped everything on Ivan the terrible.
Poisoning is a signature style of killing rivals in Western Europe. Their opponents poisoned, for example, Borgia and Catherine de Medici! In Russia there was no such tradition. Interestingly, the son of John Dee who developed the concept of the Green Empire, under the name Diev had worked as a pharmacologist and physician at the Russian Royal court in the early seventeenth century, preparing medicines and poisons. Judging from the available sources, most likely, it was he who prepared the poison by the order of Dmitry Shuisky, to poison his nephew, the famous young commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuysky. In late XVI – early XVII century we had a lot of doctors-the British.
— That is the death of his son on the conscience of the terrible aliens who hunted the last of the Rurik?
Maybe. By the way, the wife of Ivan the terrible, Anastasia is also found in the hair of arsenic. Even have convincing-looking version of some historians, according to which the dynasty of Rurik deliberately led to the final. And the results that benefited the Romanovs, which from the genealogical point of view the chances for the throne was very vague.
"The Romanovs the same with Ruric were relatives... It was not a "relationship" and "property"
"KARAMZIN IS NOT SO SHAMELESS A FORGER, AS RADZINSKY, BUT HE REALLY WANTED TO HIS LYRICS WERE LIKE THE ROMANOVS"
— The Romanovs the same with Ruric were relatives...
— It was a kinship, and property: Anastasia, beloved wife of Ivan IV, who died in August 1560, was the sister of Nikita Romanovich Zakharyin-Yuriev — that name in the middle of the XVI century, worn by those, who in the XVII century began the Romanovs. The fact that no more than 10 percent of Russian noble families of the time had names originating from the names of their holdings, from the property (shuiskys, Obolensky, etc.). As the power in Russia, whether Moscow XIV–XVI centuries, St.-Petersburg of the XVIII century or the twentieth and early twenty – first centuries, has always been more important than ownership, and the service is more important than ownership. Therefore, the names of the main mass of the untitled nobility was not from the names of the most successful, in modern language, careerists. The classic example is the story of the Romanov family. The son arrived in the end of XIII century (family history) of Prussia Glands of Cambelli of Divanovich got the name Andrei Ivanovich Mares. His son Fyodor the Cat moved with Dmitry Donskoy, and the family became known as Koskiniemi. Mikhail Koshkin at the end of the reign of Basil III (end of 1520-ies) occupied in the bureaucratic hierarchy, the second place after Basil Shuisky. When son Michael born was called Saharonim-Koskiniemi, and subsequently Suharikami-Uretimi. Nikita Romanovich Zakhar'in, St. George was the brother of Anastasia, wife of Ivan IV, and father Fyodor, who became the Romanovs, and whose son (the grandson of Nikita Romanovich) Michael, the first Tsar, to put it mildly, very mediocre —and at some point, alien to Russia and Russian — Romanov dynasty. So what about the relationship of the Romanov and Rurikovich in the sixteenth century say no, they intermarried much later marriage of Alexander II and Princess Yurievsky, which ultimately cost Alexander II life. But that's another story.
— What can you say about the interpretation of Karamzin, who wrote that the Prince Ivan during the terrible negotiations on a peace Treaty with the Commonwealth wanted to go to Pskov to fight with the troops of king Stefan Batory Foundation, which Ivan suspected the son in rebellion, he decided that he wants to overthrow him from the throne and raised his hand.
— Karamzin is one of falsifiers of Russian history. He described it this way to liked Romanov. Had to prove that they are much better Rurik to Ivan the terrible and his successor, Fyodor drove the country to a standstill, and the Romanovs brought it up. Although it was during the reign of the Romanovs came to us a stranger to tradition. First, in the form of reforms of Alexei, a Nikon, with the help of Jesuits and the Uniate priests from Ukraine. And then, Peter, West European tradition that has split the country into two socio-cultural way of life with a very heavy long-term consequences.
I repeat: to believe Karamzin is not worth it. Of course, it is not so shameless a forger, as some Radzinsky, but he really wanted to his lyrics like the members of the Royal family. By the way, Alexander I and Nicholas I Romanov nothing had. Officially, the decision on the termination of the male line of the Romanovs was made in 1730. Since the mid-eighteenth century, this is generally not the Romanovs, not to mention the low Russian blood. The General history for the last 2 thousand years are not many of these dynasties. This, of course, Rurik, Genghis Khan, the Merovingians, the Hohenstaufen. But in any case not a Windsor or Bernadotte. By the way, in the European monarchist-aristocratic circles all know who pedigree, and who — just walk out.
— That is a bastard.
— Not necessarily. Just got an old, almost ancient dynasty with a long history. And there is a "remake". But there are bastards, "camoflauges" under the legitimate rulers, and a society that for various reasons takes. Here's a basic example. In France knows that Louis XIII could not have children. But Louis XIV is his son. For a long time wondered who the father is. Someone thought Mazarin, but this version has disappeared over time. Perhaps there was some kind of nobleman, who made the child of Anne of Austria. Formally it is believed that the father of Louis XIII, although he has no relation. With the Romanovs all too easy. Was the Paul I the son of Peter III? Was Nicholas I son of Paul? As for Ivan IV, you always have to ask the question: who benefits? In this case, who benefits to create a disgusting image of Ivan the terrible?
The painting "Ivan the terrible kills his son" by Ilya Repin
"DENIGRATING IVAN THE TERRIBLE, OUR OPPONENTS WANT TO PROVE THAT THE ORIGINS OF RUSSIA WAS CRUELTY, DIRT AND BLOOD"
— So Ivan IV denounced the framework of a systematic campaign of Western Europe, and he became a victim of information war?
— Of course. Ivan the terrible is one of the "points" of the information war of the West and our liberals against the Russian state. It is no accident is the subject of this war. Ivan IV was one of the originators of our state, created by the autocracy and power, that is, the cornerstones of the New (Modern) history of Russia — strong Russia, which as such does not need the West and its "fifth column" in us. The attacks on Ivan the terrible — hitting the base of the Russian state. Here the same logic as with the so-called "de-Stalinization". Not in Stalin's case, and that the main victories of Soviet Russia is the Stalinist era: industrialization, the victory in the great Patriotic war, nuclear weapons, which still ensures our security and does not allow US to treat us the same way as with Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
The attacks on Stalin — it strikes at the Soviet Union. And — wider and deeper — throughout Russian history. No wonder that "the limping devil perestroika" Yakovlev said that his perestroika, they were breaking not only the Soviet Union and communism, but thousands of years model of Russian history. Ivan the terrible and Joseph Stalin, their rule — reference point, the axis of this story; pull them — and the rest will fall. Denigrating Ivan IV, our opponents want to prove that the origins of Russia was the cruelty, the mud, the blood and the attitude we need to build with this in mind. We are not defending Ivan the terrible, we protect the truth about Ivan the terrible. This is the first. Second: it's a battle for our country in the information war.
— Who, in your opinion, harmed the image of Ivan the terrible – enemies from abroad or liberal Russian historians?
— Of course, its. Its always damage much more than other people. For example, the first steps in identifying the regimes of Stalin and Hitler were made in the West. However, the true scale of this fraud received through the efforts of the liberal party, perestroika and post-perestroika punks.
- By the way, three years ago in Moscow Manege with the huge success of the interactive exhibition about the Romanov and the Rurik, which was supervised by the Ministry of culture and the Russian Orthodox Church. And at one of the stands was a reproduction of the famous painting of Ilya Repin. And it was also noted that even then, against our state has unleashed an information war.
The problem is that the external enemies of Russia were able to implement the Russophobia in Russia itself. Not by chance we have a term "the Smerdyakov aspect is always". Smerdyakov, one of the heroes of "the Brothers Karamazov", regrets that the intelligent nation – the French – have not won a stupid Russian nation. And then, they say, we all would have been well. The percentage of Russophobia in the XIX century was quite high. These people were oriented on Western standards. Mainly British people. And in the XX century for the Americans, i.e. the Anglo-Saxons. And Repin just got on a historical fake. As a man of liberal views and, incidentally, a Freemason, he Ivan the terrible did not like and portrayed a false version of the painting.
— When began the era of information warfare against Russia?
In the strict sense of the information war against Russia began after the Napoleonic wars. Unleashed it the British, because they saw Russia as the main enemy in Eurasia. In 1820-ies the British launch of the project "Russophobia" and begin to form a negative attitude to Russian as wild, autocratic, reactionary. This was the preparation for the European war against Russia, this war was the Crimean. And for 25-30 years, the British have achieved. On the eve of the Crimean war in the West has developed an extremely negative attitude towards Russian people have quite different political views. For example, the Archbishop of Paris was talking about Russia as the devil incarnate, as Karl Marx called on to destroy Russia as a bulwark of reaction. Of course, after the Crimean war, the information war against Russia has not stopped, and has evolved incrementally. But what is happening in recent years, has even "records" of the Cold war. This is very similar to training to justify a new war against Russia.
Going back to Ivan the terrible, I note that in people's mind he was a just king, who punished the evil boyars.
— You rely on any opinion polls?
— What could be polls in the XVI–XVII centuries? Abruptly there are things – stories, songs of the people, they are impossible to deceive. Here is an example. In our history there were three major Cossack and peasant uprising. Bolotnikov, Razin and Pugachev. Razin and Pugachev composed many songs and tales, and with a plus sign. And Bolotnikov none. This suggests that, in popular memory he left – didn't deserve it. But Ivan the terrible remained, and with the sign "plus". In contrast, for example, from the same Peter I, who generally remained in folk memory as the Antichrist.
And Stalin remained. According to recent polls, 62% consider him the greatest figure of our history with a "plus", and in the age cohort 18 to 24 years old is 77%. And this is despite flows't know in the last 30 years. As they say, "burzhuiny fought, fought, but only the broken". But in the nineteenth century the consciousness of the educated Russian people has been so treated, so it has introduced the image of king monster, that on the monument to the Millennium of Russia in Veliky Novgorod Ivan the terrible was not. But Peter the great – a true king-a monster and a proven synoubiytsa – in the foreground. The king, in which the population declined by 25%, which destroyed the country's economy so that it is recovered only by the middle of the XVIII century in the center of the composition. He is a hero. Why? Because the Westerner and the nice liberal and Western consciousness.
"Catherine's reign — wrath for more than 90 percent of the Russian population"
"NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO TURN OUR HISTORY, ESPECIALLY ITS ACHIEVEMENTS IN SOLID SET DARK SPOTS"
— And now we have some craze — one after another, make the show about Catherine II.
— "Golden age of Catherine" is a myth. The "gold" he was a very small part of the population, for the majority of nightmare, otherwise would not have happened, the most powerful in the history of Russian Cossack-peasant uprising of Pugachev. Because Catherine was an impostor on the throne, she had to take steps in the direction of the nobility. But, as noted by one of our historian, of the 33 million inhabitants of Russia under Catherine only 3 million did really well. But for others, life was hell. At the time serfdom is basically slavery. A serf was forbidden even to complain of their masters, and the landlords received the right to personally deport peasants to Siberia. But Paul I, who did a lot for the plight of the serfs, went down in history as crazy. Because it infringed upon the interests of the nobility (and rightly so), nobiliary historiography presented him crazy.
I repeat, we must pose the question: who benefits? Catherine's reign — wrath for more than 90 percent of the Russian population. I'm not talking about what she has ravaged the country and left a debt of 200 million rubles. This debt Russia disentangle before the beginning of the 1840-ies, when Yegor Kankrin financial reform. And look what Catherine writes about Pushkin: it is not a rosy picture, and very negative. But of Nicholas I, which we also slandered Pushkin responded with great sympathy. Because it was a worthy king, unlike Catherine and her grandson Alexander I.
— By the way, how do you feel about Medina books about myths about Russia?
I haven't read the books Medina and I can't say anything about it.
— The fact that even 9 years ago when there were these books, I was interviewing him — then the Deputy of the state Duma. It was published under the title: "the Russians are not quitters and are not drunks, and Ivan the terrible — not a tyrant".
— If Medina said so, of course, he's right. But talking about it and to Medina.
— I mean, he was worried that the textbooks written about the terrible usual standard: oprichnina, rack, terror; that the emphasis on the fact that he was bleeding the country, he lost the Livonian war so the son was killed for nothing. And hushed that entered the regular army, the prototype of the jury, in fact, established a Parliament, increased the territory of Russia. It is necessary to create positive PR, that in contrast to the West's problems, and not to stick out of the dark pages of history. You also say that the Europeans know how to taboo unpleasant topics.
— So. As explained to me by a French scholar in France in mainstream science say about the colonial atrocities of the French in Asia and Africa is considered bad form. We need to talk about what they brought education, the political organization of modern democracy, the Parliament, the French language. A negative tabourets. Do the same thing the British, the Americans. Although they have black pages in history by orders of magnitude more than we do. Of course, we have a dark page, and not have to hide them. But no one can afford to turn our history, especially its achievements in a solid set of dark spots. In addition, we need an adequate picture of the West, and then in textbooks over the last 25 years, all dark on the West removed, and highlighted achievements. Democracy, for example. But what price was bought this is democracy and for whom is also a big issue. That this democracy is fake and formal, I'm not talking.
We must clearly understand who and what denigrates our history and, in particular, of Ivan the terrible. Assessing his personality, we must raise the question: what did he do for Russia? And have done a lot: laid the foundations of Russian statehood risked his crown and life, cleaned up what prevents Russia to develop. Put in place the Church and did much else. Monuments to Ivan the terrible, as well as to Joseph Stalin, should stand in the cities of Russia.
I think the residents of Tatarstan this is not exactly agree. Although the conquest of Kazan on the side were terrible and the Tatars...
— During the storming of Kazan a significant part of the Russian troops consisted of Tatars. Then in the Kazan khanate was two groups. One on the side of the Russian Tsar, the other against. Therefore, the storming of Kazan is in part "the dispute between Tatars". In any case be a national problem of the XX — beginning of XXI century to carry on the old days, everything was different, and nationalism was not exact.
"The President responds to changes in the public consciousness. The only question is whether what he said about Ivan the terrible, pre-election move, or is it a shift in worldview"Photo: kremlin.ru
"TO EXECUTE THE DECREES OF THE PRESIDENT, WE NEED A NEW EMERGENCY COMMISSION"
— Why do you think the theme of the terrible calls a lot of attention today? For example, on the website of our newspaper a small news about the Putin's statement appeared a lot of comments. Write completely different, but the discussion is very interesting.
— I repeat: Ivan the terrible, and Joseph Stalin — is a reference point in our history. The attitude to them reveals what is the position of man: he is on Russia's side or on the opposite. For me, the hater of Ivan the terrible and Stalin — or Russophobe or working for the interests of others an idiot (in the Greek sense of the word: a person who lives as if the surrounding world does not exist). I understand what reaction could cause such a question, but it's not my problem.
Around the monument is terrible in the eagle was also a big discussion. And the local Governor Vadim Potomsky and is distinguished by the exotic version. They say that the son of the terrible died of illness on the way from Moscow to Saint Petersburg.
— What can you do? As Pushkin wrote? "We all learned a little something and somehow". If we count and list the errors and nonsense, who did and said all (I emphasize all) of the post-Stalin leaders of our country, the list will be bigger than the error Patomskogo. God bless her, Potomsky has committed a gaffe. Importantly, Potemski a monument to Ivan the terrible set, this overrides everything else, and it is thanks to him.
— Is it possible, in your opinion, to spend some of the historical Parallels of the era of the terrible with the current reality. For example, between the guardsmen and security forces, the same Asgardia? Can we expect any reprisals?
— Oprichnina is a phenomenon, appropriate to its time. Ivan the terrible was a brilliant technologist. Faced with a situation where all the institutions worked against edinodushno centralization of Russia, he invented his "the hyperboloid of engineer of Grozny". That is, oprichnina, which in essence was the extraordinary Commission, designed to compensate for the fact that are unable to provide other institutions. In this respect the situation is similar with the current. We do not work the institutions is in General Russian tradition. According to various estimates, only 5 or 10 percent of presidential decrees implemented. In order to satisfy at least 90% and even better 100, need new emergency Commission. Whether it Asgardia or other security forces? I very much doubt.
Between the nobles and the governors, the officials, too, when don't you think?
— It still would have been a very free interpretation.
— Aren't you surprised that Putin raised the issue of the terrible? Why he said this now? It is obvious that this was done for a reason.
— It doesn't surprise me. First, elections are coming. Conducted public opinion polls in which Ivan the terrible and Stalin in high places, and Stalin actually first. The President responds to changes in the public consciousness. The only question is whether what he said about Ivan the terrible, pre-election move, or is it a shift in worldview. But this we will know after the election.
In parapolitical circles there are speculations that the Kremlin can not decide the agenda for the next presidential term. Here and there stories including that the challenge for the future — protecting the past.
— The past and the need to protect always. The more that information war of the West against Russia will be expanded and become more acute. And the stronger Russia is, the stronger the reaction. A few years before the Ukrainian crisis, the organizer and first head of "Stratfor" (Stratfor, a private American analytical company — approx. ed.) George Friedman said that Russia will try to get up from his knees, she gets the crisis in Ukraine. And so it was, despite the fact that getting up off its knees was a partial, awkward and inconsistent. In addition, as soon as get up from his knees, have outright beat the enemy and not expect retaliation. More independent than will Russia behave, the more it will demonstrate the sovereignty, all the more cruelly against us will be waged information war. And above all the war in the history. Because he who controls the past, controls the present and the future. And understanding this truth finally hatch our guide: better late than never, need is welcome. It is a necessary though insufficient condition for victory.
Tags: Russia , Masons , USSR