The attitude of modern youth to the Great Patriotic War

Scientific supervisor: Lukovtsev Valentin Stepanovich

The 65th anniversary is approaching Great Victory of the Soviet people over the Nazi invaders in the Great Patriotic War. Over these years, a lot has happened in the history of the USSR, and then Russia. The communist regime was replaced by democracy, the views and values ​​of the victorious people changed, and several generations of Russians grew up. There are fewer and fewer combatants, home front workers, wartime children alive - all those who can be called living witnesses of history.

Who keeps the memory of the Great Patriotic War in modern Russia? What do modern youth know about her? What do our schoolchildren study in history lessons? Fortunately, in our city there are young people who are interested not only in current problems, computers and television, but also in their history. The history of the great exploits of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. And there are teachers who know how to interest children, make them fall in love with their subject and make them truly literate people.

The period of the Great Patriotic War, in my opinion, is the most difficult period in the history of our country. There is nothing more terrible when thousands, millions of people die not only on the battlefield, but also in peaceful villages, defending themselves, their families, their homeland. But even an extremely difficult life, filled with grief for the dead, could not break the fortitude and strength of character of the people fighting fascism.

Of course, the memory of the events of the Great Patriotic War is sacred. It is important to preserve this memory because its participants saved the Motherland, strangled Nazism, and defeated the fascists. Without their true patriotism, love for their free and independent Motherland, faith in truth and justice, without their fearlessness and dedication, we would not exist, there would be no future. This memory must be preserved, since it is history, and without history, as we know, one cannot move forward.

Everyone knows that many feats at the front were accomplished at a time when people were ready to give themselves and their lives for the Fatherland. But even without intense heroic work in the rear, it would have been impossible to defeat the terrible enemy. Each of these people is a real hero who knows nothing more valuable than the freedom and independence of his native country.

To identify young people's knowledge about the Second World War, a survey was conducted among students. 23 students from different courses took part in the survey. Respondents were asked to answer basic questions about the Great Patriotic War, its battles and heroes. It would seem that it would be much easier to answer questions taught in middle school, however, everything turned out to be much more difficult. Unfortunately, the majority of modern youth have a very vague idea of ​​the events of the Great Patriotic War, or, worst of all, this knowledge is completely absent.

So, for example, 87% (20 people) of respondents were able to name the exact date of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

Only 17% (4 people) remember the feat of Alexander Matrosov.

Heroic Defenders Brest Fortress 22% (5 people) did not forget.

About the most grandiose tank battle on Kursk Bulge 26% (6 people) remembered.

Only 30% (7 people) could talk about the duration of the siege of Leningrad and the first counter-offensive of the Red Army near Moscow.

91% (21 people) know which country started hostilities.

78% (18 people) were able to name the name of the political leader of the invading country.

Which countries were allies of the USSR in the fight against German occupiers 39% (9 people) know.

74% (17 people) watch films about the war.

39% (9 people) read books about the Second World War.

48% (11 people) know someone from their family who participated in the Second World War.

To the question “In your opinion, are the events of the Great Patriotic War sufficiently covered today and does the younger generation need this information?” 78% (18 people) gave a positive answer.

To summarize, we can say that modern youth knows and remembers very little about the events of the war years. Not all survey participants were able to name exact dates the beginning and end of the Great Patriotic War.

The main source of information about the events of the war years for today's youth are feature films about the Great Patriotic War. It should be noted that films shot in Soviet time truthful, realistic, reliable. But history textbooks are still an important source of information. Based on films shot in last years, most young people judge the events of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, it is very important that they do not distort historical reality.

It's sad that few people read books on military topics. And many people confuse the events of the War of 1812, described by L.N. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace” with military actions of 1941-1945. Most young people respect the events and participants of the Great Patriotic War, but, unfortunately, today we remember veteran soldiers only on the eve of Victory Day.

Some of today's youth have a commitment to any youth subculture. And the results they showed once again give reason to assert that subcultural movements lead to personality degradation. Apparently, studying the glorious history own people It’s “not fashionable” now. It is much more useful, in their opinion, to be aware of all the details of the lives of the stars of Western show business.

I believe that WWII veterans are endowed with a special way of thinking. They have a winning mentality. And while we have the opportunity to adopt the best from our ancestors, we must take advantage of it.

To do this, you need to have many conversations with participants in the Great Patriotic War. Veterans come to schools and tell schoolchildren about their war years. It is extremely important that the memory of the Great Patriotic War remains in the heart of every citizen of our country. It must be passed down from older generations to younger ones.

By interviewing veterans, we can not only hear their stories, but also benefit our heroes. Now we have a serious task - to preserve the memory of veterans and their feats, as well as to prevent the falsification of the history of our country. In addition, veterans will simply be pleased to know that the younger generation cares about them and all their hardships were not in vain.

From the stories of my grandfathers, I know that in my family there were also participants in the war. My great-grandfather and my uncles died on the battlefield. Grandfather and grandmother were Churapcha settlers. Another grandfather is a veteran of the home front. It’s good that they are nearby, since childhood they have made me understand what terrible times those were. We must carefully preserve their stories so that we can later pass them on to our children and grandchildren. With the help of my grandfather and mother younger sister writes a report on the topic “Seri kemin o5oto”. It is very good that she began to be interested in the events of those times from childhood.

I really hope that this will never happen again in our country and our friendly countries.

Psychologies

What are we really talking about when we remember the war?

Lev Gudkov, sociologist

Lev Gudkov:

We are not talking about the war itself, but about victory. . Today we are dealing not with living memory - there are almost no witnesses left - but with a myth, an ideological construct: triumph in the war is presented as a triumph of the Soviet regime, and it justifies repression, famine, collectivization. This view is reproduced by everyone government institutions: propaganda, rituals, school, art. As a result of propaganda, the Great Patriotic War completely overshadowed the World War in the minds of Russians. Two-thirds of those we survey say that we would have won without the help of our allies: we don’t want to share our triumph with anyone. But there is another, dark, everyday side of existence in war - this is the experience of a soldier, the experience of existing in extreme conditions fear, dirt, pain, hard work, inhumane relationships. It is repressed into the collective unconscious.

Maria Timofeeva, psychoanalyst

Maria Timofeeva:

Under Stalin, they tried to forget about the war, to erase it altogether. The front-line soldiers were silent: they were afraid, they didn’t want to remember... When, 20–30 years later, they began to speak, it was within the framework of a myth, and not personal experience.

L.G.:

The state cult of victory and, accordingly, the myth of the war arose only in 1965, when, after coming to power, Brezhnev made Victory Day a holiday. At the same time, a language of private existence began to emerge, in which one could talk about existential experience and the fear of death. Cinema and literature played a very important role in the emergence of this language - Grigory Baklanov, Konstantin Vorobyov, early Yuri Bondarev, Vasil Bykov... Then individual experience with all passions, complexes, inexpressible feelings and ethical conflicts began to find expression. But this part of the experience was never included in the state military canon.

Why exactly that victory and in last decades has become the core of national identity?

L.G.:

The more we feel our inferiority, the more keenly we feel pride in victory - but today there are no special achievements, we have nothing to be proud of. Against this background, victory is the main symbol and support for the country. It blocks the awareness of both the historical experience and the moral experience of people in the war. This is a means to rethink the cost of war, the cost of victory and, of course, the responsibility of state leaders for starting a war.

Why are we unable to believe that we could have won with less bloodshed? Because the death toll is one of the components of the sacralization of victory. And when it turns out that the Germans have four times fewer human losses, a reaction of displacement occurs. The fact that the USSR and Hitler's Germany were allies and started this war together, was completely ousted from the consciousness of Russians. But the understanding that we were attacked, the myth that we are a victim, justifies us as a people, and victory elevates us in our own eyes, gives us significance and value.

Mikhail, judging by your performance “The Weight of Silence”, today in society there is a huge interest in the private experience of experiencing war...

Mikhail Kaluzhsky, director

Mikhail Kaluzhsky:

This is true. We see a gigantic gap between the mass ideologized perception of history and the acute private interest in the individual experience of that war. We live in a situation of total lack of information about what actually happened in 1941–1945. The archives have not been opened, we do not know the exact number of those who fought and died. A private person, experiencing his family history as a story of drama, tragedy, breakups, he really wants to tell about it. During the discussions that take place after each performance, the audience immediately begins to tell personal stories.

Everyone has their own story about the war, about how it really was and what is not written about in textbooks

Because, in general, there is no such place where you can talk about the fate of your family or discuss and comprehend the past. There are almost no attempts to make oneself the subject of historical narrative. And the need for this is huge. Each of us has our own story about the war, about the evacuation, about the German and our camps, about the barrier detachments, about how it really happened and what is not written about in history books.

Why is it so important to talk about this?

M.T.:

I had a patient, a front-line soldier. We made a lot of circles in the conversation before he finally told his story. At the beginning of the war, he got his foot into the caterpillar of his tank, ended up in the hospital and that’s it - he didn’t fight anymore. And he doubted all his life - did he do it on purpose or was the injury accidental? He was glad that he was alive, and for almost fifty years he lived with a destructive feeling of guilt for this joy. He never talked about it before meeting me.

To start living life to the fullest, you need to talk, analyze your own past

For a psychoanalyst, the past almost completely determines a person’s mental makeup: in order to start living life to the fullest, you need to talk about and analyze your own past. A person who has experienced trauma feels the fragility of existence, lives with the feeling that nothing is reliable, nothing is established, nothing can be sure of. Time passes, and suddenly something happens in his life for which he cannot find an explanation. He may experience painful symptoms and conditions, and he does not understand where they come from. This applies not only to those who survived the war, but also to their descendants - transgenerational transmission of trauma occurs (For more information about this, read the text Understanding the laws of your destiny - approx. Psychologies).

L.G.:

The consequences of military experience, if it has not been worked out and comprehended, manifest themselves, for example, in coarsening, inability to complex forms interaction with other people, in repressing any complex ideas. A very primitive division into friends and foes, an almost tribal consciousness, becomes the norm: friends are always right, strangers are always enemies. This inability to understand or even take into account the point of view of another is an extremely important consequence of the canonization of the language of war, the language of violence.

Why in the 80s and 90s, when many witnesses were still alive, when archives were opened, did the truth of man in the war not become part of public perceptions?

L.G.:

For this to happen, we need individuals with authority who are listened to; we need means of analyzing the past, social institutions that would sanction the analysis, set its framework - this is a trauma, this is a crime, this is a mistake. But this was not and is not the case in our society.

M.K.:

We have a narrowed, irrational perception of history... There is such a perverted logic in the state that if we debunk myths or admit Stalin’s crimes, then we today will feel infringed and inferior.

L.G.:

The collective reaction to the history of the war is “we know very little about this, and we must forget about it, because it is impossible to figure out who is right and who is wrong...” The mass consciousness today is characterized by the absence of mechanisms that could record the past: not the mythical, but real. As a result, most of our fellow citizens have a very short time horizon: many do not remember what happened five years ago and do not plan their lives more than six months in advance.

But, you must admit, when they write “Thank you grandfather for the victory!” and they tie St. George ribbons to cars, there is something positive about that. What do those who do this really need?

M.T.:

We all have a need to feel well identified, to belong to something we can be proud of. But in our country, identification is impossible, because the role of a “good object” turns out to be a false, unacceptable construction. After all, both the ethnic group and the state are unconsciously perceived by us as clan and family. And what kind of family is this?

Is this the kind of family that devours its children, is this the kind of mother that sends its children to death? Or are they wonderful parents: strong, wonderful, victorious in the most terrible war? There is an image of an ethnos as a tent with a pole in the middle on which everything rests: it can be a faith, a leader, an idea. But we don’t have this pole. What can we actually grab onto? Only for Gagarin and for the Patriotic War.

M.K.:

Tying St. George's ribbons is a ritual, kind of like rooting for the national football team. But along with this passion for the external attributes of national unity, in recent years there has been a clearly visible fashion for everything documentary. One of the main hits of last winter was the first published siege notes by Lydia Ginzburg. This shows the great need for evidence, for personal history.

L.G.:

Patriotic feelings are completely natural. It’s bad that no other symbols arise around the war other than triumph over Germany and the West in general.

Perhaps it was easier for Germany: it was the bearer of evil, it had something to repent for. But what about us, who were both aggressors and victims in this war, and victors who live worse than the vanquished?

M.T.:

The generation of participants in the events is not able to work with trauma. Their children (the second generation) feel the trauma through their parents, and for them ordinary human goods become much more valuable than they could be. That is, just survive, just live a normal life.

The third generation is already separated from traumatic events for a longer period of time - it may have enough mental strength to deal with that scary experience, which the second generation wanted to forget about. And so the “grandchildren” of the war ask the “children”: “How did you live? Where were you during the evacuation? Did you have food? What was there?” And in response they hear: “Why do you need this? We forgot about it, we don’t remember it.”

L.G.:

We have only one way - to talk about the past. Recognize that the crime of others is not an excuse for our people. Rationalizing victory based on untruths causes us to see the world in black and white and fail to consider the experiences of others who are different from us. We must try to understand the other, accept his point of view. But for this there must still be interest in the other, and not the perception of him as alien and hostile.

But the word “crime” is not associated with the Great Patriotic War at all...

L.G.:

Because we are dealing with the cult of victory. The higher the rank of this symbol and celebration, the more strongly all traumatic consequences are repressed and the higher the aggressiveness in society. Our level of aggressiveness in relationships is very high. And this direct consequence unprocessed difficult experiences.

What can you say to a person who is worried about this, who thinks about it, who wants to somehow clarify their relationship with the past?

M.T.:

From the point of view of a psychologist, giving up a part of your own soul is never in vain. We always pay for it somehow. For example, insufficient self-realization or “flattening” of one’s existence. In any case, life will be less full, less real, and will take place at a different level of functioning. Although some people find it easier to live in ignorance, dealing with the past can be too painful.

L.G.:

You know, changes in society occur when they are assimilated by women and enter the female consciousness. I'm talking about value changes that they will pass on to their children, about changes in people's attitudes. That's why it's so important for women to understand this: if we don't work with the past, it will haunt us.

Someone said that power in Russia belongs not to democrats, not to liberals, not to patriots, but to triumphers. Yes, perhaps so. And on the days of various kinds of parades, anniversaries and rehearsals, this becomes especially obvious.

This is how modern Russian authorities to the Victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War?

Their main attitude towards this victory is the liquidation of the USSR.

Of course, they will object to me that the USSR was liquidated by Yeltsin and his comrades. But to whom did Yeltsin’s comrades hand over the reins of power? Who built the Yeltsin museum, and with budget money? Who named the economic forum after Gaidar and takes part in it every year?

Where is Chubais? On trial? In exile? Retired?

Who called the USA our partner?

Let me remind you that American corporations collaborated with Hitler and avoided responsibility, and many Nazis who were not put on trial after the defeat later worked in the United States for the government and intelligence services. AND American government has not yet recognized or condemned it.

And who recognized Poroshenko and signed the Minsk agreement with him, within the framework of which the population of Donbass is methodically destroyed, and destroyed not only by artillery, but also by an economic blockade - who?

The successors of the liquidators of the USSR, the victorious country, are in power in Russia. Anti-Soviet, collaborators.

Those in power in Russia are those who surrendered or recognized the surrender of the USSR to the enemy, who called the enemy a partner and recognized the results of the anti-people and anti-Russian coup in Ukraine.

Why then does this government hold the Victory Parade on such a grand scale?

Why does the current government, which has a very dubious attitude towards Victory in World War II, hold parades on such a scale as if they personally defeated Hitler just yesterday?

The Kremlin cannot cancel the holiday or move it to May 8th and call it a day of remembrance, as they did in Ukraine - this is clear. It cannot because the treacherous nature of the modern Russian government will be too obvious.

But why are parades held on such a grand scale?

For the sake of triumph.

The triumphants are in power.

Not liberals, not democrats, not patriots, but triumphers.

And they create the image of Triumphal Russia.

You might ask, what's wrong with this?

Firstly, this triumph takes on painful proportions and forms. More than 70 years have passed since Victory Day, and they celebrate it as if everything happened yesterday, as if they were directly involved in the defeat of the Nazis. They celebrate the Victory more widely than the Soviet Union celebrated, which had much more reasons for this.

Secondly, in the course of this triumph, a substitution is carried out. Liquidators of the USSR, anti-Soviet people, celebrating Soviet victory- this is a substitution. This is hypocrisy, deceit. It's like a traitor drinking to the health of the one he betrayed. This is a crafty triumph.

Thirdly, turning Victory Day into a military-technical and other show is not entirely appropriate, taking into account the very content of Victory in a difficult war. This show replaces the very memory of the war, the memory of the victims, the memory of the price at which victory was achieved.

But most importantly -

Triumph becomes an end in itself and a cover for reality.

All the activities of triumphers gradually come down to finding or creating another reason for another triumph.

They started the operation in Syria - a triumph, announced the end of the operation - a triumph, the Syrian army, after the completion of the Russian operation, liberated Palmyra - a triumph, a multiple triumph.

They dropped bombs on terrorists - triumphant retribution. We destroyed a column of enemy fuel tankers - a triumph.

And all these triumphant events are repeated many times every day on federal channels with the most triumphant comments.

Please note what epithets accompanied the reports about the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria - everything was submitted to superlatives. And it continues to apply even after the official completion of the operation.

The military successes ended - an orchestra was sent to liberated Palmyra to give a triumphal concert.

Everything is done for the sake of creating the image of a triumphant Russia, a victorious Russia, for the sake of the image of a wonderful government that leads Russia forward, from victory to victory, from triumph to triumph.

For the same purpose, the Olympics were held - the best, most triumphant of all the Olympics. The Football Championship will be held for the same purpose.

What's wrong with the Olympics and the Championships?

There is nothing bad, only the costs are disproportionately higher than the practical return. Impractical.

They will tell me that everything cannot be reduced to practical impact; a holiday is also needed, including a sports holiday.

Yes, we need a holiday too.

Only we get a complete holiday. A complete triumph.

The Olympics are a triumph, Crimea is a triumph, Syria is a multiple triumph. Victory in World War II is again a triumph.

And on June 12 - Russia's independence from the victorious country in World War II - there will be a triumph again. They will celebrate Russia Day as if it did not exist before June 12, 1990.

But if before June 12, 1990, Russia did not exist or it was enslaved by the Soviet Union, from which it freed itself, why is the USSR’s victory in World War II celebrated on such a grand scale?

Because any reason for triumph is suitable for triumphers.

And if there are not enough reasons, they are invented, created, an orchestra is sent to Palmyra, they remember the anniversary of the baptism, or, in extreme cases, point out the decline of Ukraine, so that against the backdrop of what is happening in the former Soviet republic, the very fact of the existence of Russia, saved by Yeltsin’s successor from Yeltsin’s adversary, seems triumphant .

All for the sake of triumph - permanent, enchanting, undeniable.

Triumph over everything!

But for what?

So that, behind the constant triumph flowing through all channels, society does not pay attention to the problems, to the economic situation and to the political swamp with the triumphant kleptocrats lingering in power.

So that society does not wonder where the real winner of World War II went, why the liquidators of the USSR and their followers are celebrating the Soviet victory.

So that society does not wonder why the United States calls us a world evil, and we call them a partner, why our partners became accomplices of fascism, the victory over which we celebrate every year.

So that society does not wonder why the Minsk agreements have been in force for more than a year, and Donbass is still being shelled. And why is Donbass being shelled in general, why is happening there what we saved Crimea from with such triumph.

So that society does not pay attention to the discrimination of the Russian people on territorial grounds, to the exodus of Russians from the former Soviet republics, to the 20% of poor people in Russia, to overdue loans, to the lawlessness of collectors, one in one similar to the racketeering of the 90s, to much, much more other.

So that society forgets about the defeat in the Cold War.

So that society does not think that the triumphants in power are liquidators of the USSR, defeatists, kleptocrats, corrupt officials and simply enemies of the people.

The defeatists put on the mask of victors.

Collaborators turned into triumphants.

And they themselves probably get great pleasure from their image. Of course, who wants to feel like a defeatist and a traitor - it is much more pleasant to feel like a winner and receive numerous congratulations, bathe in glory, enjoy triumph - day after day.

And the most important thing is that the society itself is delighted.

It is also more pleasant for the people to feel like a victorious people than a defeated people. It is much more pleasant to celebrate victory in World War II than to remember where the winner went.

It is much more pleasant to put on a striped ribbon and rejoice in the victory over fascism than to think that this victory has long been lost and needs to be won again.

It is much more pleasant to celebrate the return of Crimea than to think about what happened to Donbass, not least because of this very return.

And generally speaking -

It's much more pleasant to celebrate than to work.

And as long as they manage to celebrate, celebrate victory after victory, triumph after triumph, the authorities and the people will do this.

Triumphantism became a kind of consensus between the authorities and society. The people are grateful to the authorities for returning them the feeling of victory after the bitterness of defeat. The people are grateful to the authorities for the sweet illusion of well-being, for the granted nirvana, for the opportunity to celebrate day after day.

Triumph has become a kind of drug for both the authorities and society.

The authorities are avoiding the need to solve economic and political problems, distracting the people with holidays and various triumphal events.

The people happily accept the offered opportunity to escape from their problems and fall into a triumphant nirvana.

Both the authorities and the people, by mutual agreement, are moving away from real problems, running away from reality - just like ordinary drug addicts.

But this does not change the reality and the problems do not become smaller; on the contrary, they grow.

Therefore, year after year, greater doses of triumph are required to distract from real problems. That is why the celebration of the 71st anniversary of the Victory is comparable in scale to the 70th anniversary. That is why federal television channels began to show not only the Parade itself, but also rehearsals for it.

And this will continue until the triumphalism exhausts itself, until the moment comes when no doses of triumph will help.

And then the people will suddenly sober up from the problems that have piled up, see their true magnitude and experience shock.

And their mask will fall off the triumphants - in an instant.

And having realized this, the triumphants will scatter to the corners, their power will fall, and the problems that our society has been trying to escape from for many years, plunging into a sweet triumphal nirvana, will still have to be solved, only with a different government.

But it’s too early to think about this.

I haven't drunk all the vodka yet.

The power of the triumphants is still strong.

The triumph has not yet been exhausted - the triumph over everything.

Judging by the survey data presented by the Levada Center on the anniversary of the start of the Great Patriotic War, the attitude Russian society to a number of related assessments in recent years, starting from the 60th anniversary in 2005, has not changed dramatically, but quite significantly.

One of the most noticeable changes that the Center itself draws attention to is the increase in the number of people ready to go to the front, even if today were 1941. Just a year ago, in 2012, answering the question “What would you do if war started now, like in 1941?”, 44% said they were ready to go to the front: 21% would volunteer, another 23% - on call. Today, almost the same number would be willing to volunteer - 20%, but 29% of Russians would volunteer if they were drafted.

The increase is mainly due to the category of those who previously responded that would not have been subject to conscription: there were 26% of them, now 19%. This in itself could indicate that there are fewer people in the country of non-conscript categories, that is, the elderly and the sick. But, given that there have been no changes in this regard, since the mortality rate in the country has decreased, and the issue of the health of a person of military age in connection with military service in today's Russia has to do not so much with health, but with the ability and desire to obtain the certificates necessary for a white ticket , the point, it seems, is precisely that people simply no longer are frightened by the word “conscription.” In any case, according to another recent survey, 56% of respondents answered that they would prefer that their child go to serve in the army upon reaching conscription age.

It is also noteworthy that every tenth person surveyed last year and slightly less (9%) this year responded that if war broke out, they would look for an opportunity to leave for one of the safe countries. Which is not surprising when applied to certain social groups, given that, according to the same data from the Levada Center, 24% of representatives of the so-called middle class would generally like to buy their children out of military service even in peacetime.

At the same time, the attitude towards the question of who owns the victory in the Great Patriotic War has noticeably changed. A year ago, respondents were more susceptible to a certain provocative opposition between contenders for the main merit in the Victory: 62% said then that the main merit belongs to to the Soviet people, 8% - that Stalin, 4% - that the Communist Party, and only 23% realized that this victory was a common Victory and took place thanks to the common contribution of both the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and communist party, and all the people. Today, the number of those who separate the people from the party and Stalin has decreased by 10%, they have become 52%, and the number of those who do not share these three principles has increased exactly the same - to 33%.

A somewhat similar picture can be seen in the answers to the question about the subject of primary responsibility for multimillion-dollar losses. If a year ago 30% blamed Stalin for them and 20% blamed the Communist Party, then today, according to both indicators, the number of those holding this point of view has fallen by one and a half times: 21% of Russians now blame Stalin for the losses, which is 9% less than last year’s value, and the party - 13% (7% less). At the same time, a year ago, 28% of the blame was placed solely on the enemy, that is, almost two times less than on the leadership of the USSR combined; today there are more such people - 37%, that is, the majority now place the main blame for the deaths of people on those who were the cause of their death - on the enemy. The relationship is thus leveled out. The point is not to consider it right or wrong, but that it becomes more common sense and natural.

Although, strictly speaking, blaming the leadership of the country that won the war for those killed in the war not the enemy, but the leadership of the country that won the war, is in itself something absurd and can either be born in some kind of inflamed consciousness, or be deliberately introduced into the consciousness of society for its decomposition. It is unnatural to blame the commander who won the war for large losses, no matter who he was, if only because no one knows and will never know whether they could have been smaller. One way or another, the result is assessed - victory or defeat. And a victory that comes easily is not perceived as a Great Victory.

But, be that as it may, the question was asked and has been asked for more than one year. Since 2005, the number of those who believe that the Soviet Union did not prepare for war so as not to provoke Germany into an attack has increased - from 31 to 33%. Strangely enough, even the number of those who believe “that the USSR did not have time to transfer the economy to a war footing and was not prepared for war” fell (from 37 to 25%), as well as those who believe that “the Red Army was significantly worse trained and armed than German troops” (from 32 to 25%). And the number of those who still believe in the myth that “the leadership of the Red Army was bled dry by the Stalinist purges of the late 30s” decreased by a quarter - from 40 to 30%.

All these figures can probably be assessed in different ways: some will be pleased with them, others will be sad. But they are what they are.

Something is changing in society, and it just needs to be seen and recognized.

(quoted in part)

Fortunately, the Great Patriotic War did not affect me or my family. No one in my family fought. Of course, you can’t say that. It would be more correct to say that none of my family was at the front. All citizens Soviet Union did something so that the soldiers who fight and die there at the front could win. Someone dug trenches, someone stood at the machine at the factory, someone looked after the wounded in hospitals, and someone gave away the last crust of bread. My grandmother was a home front worker, so I can’t say that she didn’t fight. Everyone fought at that time, but everyone fought in their own way: some with a machine gun in their hands on the front line, and others fought standing at a machine in the rear.
Many years have passed, but the memory of this terrible war is still alive in our hearts. Now, of course, it’s hard for us to imagine the events of that time, and looking at the smiling old veterans, it’s hard to believe that they survived the horror and chaos of the war. Look at them. Orders and medals rest on their chests. Here is a medal for courage, but for courage... Medals are not given just like that, which means the person deserves this award. These people defended their country and their homeland during the war, and if so, it means that they did not live their lives in vain.

I cannot imagine all the horror they had to endure. Let's mentally move back to when today's veterans were young and did not yet know that there would be a war. Can you imagine what they had to go through? And now they are standing at the parade as if nothing had happened and smiling. But look them in the eyes. They are crying. They cry because war is scary. Nowadays, modern youth have formed a clear opinion that war is romance, and May 9 is another reason to go out and have fun with friends. Tell me, is it necessary to celebrate Victory Day? After all, now no one remembers those terrible days. Nobody treats this day as a memory of victory anymore. Victory in one of the most terrible wars on the ground. After all, if we had not won then, who knows what he would have become modern world? Nobody remembers those terrible events and senseless deaths. I say “meaningless” because the death of a soldier is always meaningless. Who is a soldier? A soldier is, first of all, a citizen. Who is a citizen? A citizen is a person, just a person who wants to be happy. But instead of just living and enjoying life, the soldier picks up a rifle and goes to the front. What happens to the soldiers at the front? At the front, a soldier will kill the enemies of his country, kill fiercely and fanatically. The soldier knows that if he does not give his life now, then later all those he loves may die: his family, friends, children, his beloved who is waiting for him at home. Think about the fact that none of the politicians who start wars have ever fought. That's why I say that the death of a soldier is meaningless, because during the battle he is far from political intricacies. During a battle, a soldier knows one thing - he must fight, otherwise those he loves will die, and the death of a loved one is even more terrible than his own death...

Now there are millions of books about the great Patriotic War. By reading one of these books, we can learn about a war in which we were not present. But we will never be able to understand the full horror of war. Why is Memorial Day gradually turning into just another holiday for us? Because our generation no longer remembers that terrible time, and then it will be even worse. Humanity tends to forget. More will pass several decades, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will no longer understand the meaning of this holiday. Well, once upon a time there was a war. So what? And in a few decades, this day will no longer be marked in red on the calendar, because no one will need the memory of this war. Although no one needs her today. This is the second year that a campaign has been taking place in our city: St. George ribbons are being distributed to people. For what? So that people remember. Take a closer look at them, these ribbons are tied to bags, tied on the wrist, and braided in hair just because it is unusual and beautiful. And only veterans wear St. George ribbons near their hearts. They remember. I also want to remember, but I can’t, because I wasn’t there yet. You know, sometimes it seems to me that it’s good that humanity forgets everything. Yes, it’s good that in a few generations people will forget this damn war, because war is very scary.

P.S. You read school essay, which I wrote for my younger brother.