For a long time our historical science involved in nonsense, in particular, tried to prove that climate of Simbirsk, or Gori, or Ekaterinoslav most contributes to the appearance and growth of the real rulers. Weakness of these attempts proved during perestroika, when it became clear that no climate Simbirsk (where Lenin was born), and climate of Gori (where Stalin was born), and even climate of Ekaterinoslav (where Brezhnev was born), but the climate of northern Caucasus promotes the growth of real princes. Now, when it became clear that sources of our present rise from the North Caucasus, historical science turns its face to this most urgent topic. In particular, the USSR Academy of Sciences is scheduled to issue "History of North Caucasus peoples" in 4 volumes, which will be thoroughly scientifically proven that the real rulers can appear only in the North Caucasus. Just published the first volume of the series – "The history of the peoples of the north Caucasus since ancient times to the late 18th century" (Moscow: Nauka, 1988. – 544 p.). That's about the book I want to offer some rhetorical questions.
Methods of creating books. Authors of the volume – 49 people! Power! Storming of Berlin! If quality can replaced or compensated with the quantity, it certainly would be the best book on the history of that world only knew. If… But the quality, unfortunately, can not replaced by number.
Feudal nonsense. The periodization adopted in this book based on Marx's theory of socio-economic formations. What goes in the application of this powerful teaching the history of the North Caucasus? Join together all these formations, we see that, firstly, there is no country where they would actually change each other. What we gain from that initial formation in some country was changed to slave-owning one, if this does not mean (and do not follows!) future victory of barracks?
The exclusive role of Russia in history. Nationalism in the USSR, as you know, called any slightest doubt about prominent and leading role of Russian authorities. The exclusive role of Russia in the book especially underlined by the fact, that ties the North Caucasus with Iran or Turkey do not systematically taught (them devoted individual paragraphs), and the relationship of the Crimea with North Caucasus quite fallen out of the range of independent subjects (there is no even paragraph, and some episodes are mentioned on occasion).
Proponents of genuine good-neighborly relations with Russia, hoping for some political benefits of citizenship, could not understand that their good behavior is absolutely ignored by masters: while not preventing to the involvement of new countries in the political orbit of the Russian Empire, emperors or throwing their confidants to fend for themselves in national or external complications, or at a convenient moment eliminated these confidants and replaced them with their government. Anyway, a supporter of Moscow's fate was unenviable.
March 13, 1990.
Full text in ukrainian language.