Why to the historian to argue with the novelist?
… When the Russian armies under command of the general Rennenkampf and the general Samsonov in August, 1914 intruded in East Prussia, Germans had to throw urgently troops from the West on the East. Charged to save East Prussia Ginderburgu and Lyudendorfu.
the Chief of an operations section of a staff Max Hoffman developed the plan, impudent to adventurism … At interaction of two Russian armies Germans were threatened by a complete disaster. To calm the chiefs, Max Hoffman, started a baize about what he, being in years russko - the Japanese war by the observer at the Russian army, saw how in station buffet of Mukden Samsonov and Rennenkampf exchanged slaps in the face.
He convinced the administration that Rennenkampf will not help Samsonov. This myth began to walk on literature. It is thought, it is possible to understand Valentin Pikul, the novelist who took a gofmansky baize for the historical truth. It is more difficult to understand the historian who writes in the scientific article:
“Let`s quote the famous Soviet writer Valentin Pikul: “... The last time he battled against Japanese; after fights near Mukden it came to the platform of the station - directly from attack! - to train withdrawal. When the general Rennenkampf got into the car (by nickname “Yellow Danger“), Samsonov burst it on a red ugly face:
- Here to you, the general, for imperishable memory... Carry!
Rennenkampf fled by the car. Samsonov in rage shook by a lash after the leaving train:
- I led the lava in attack, hoping that this nit will support me from the flank, and he stayed all night long in the gaolena and even from there did not expose a nose...“ to Everyone who read Pikul`s miniatures this bright episode is for certain known to
. The writer obviously considered him by the artistic triumph, including this scene and in texts of the novels“.
Yury Bakhurin, historian. The station for two: to a question of “a Mukden slap in the face“ of Samsonov of Rennenkampfu
Pozvolitelno to ask a question: if the historian decided to tell the truth about “a Mukden slap in the face“ of Samsonov Rennenkampfu, then why to quote Valentin Pikul, the author of a work of art, but not historical research?
It should be noted that the late Valentin Pikul haunts also other historian. Rudolf Ivanov is a caucasiologist, professor, polemizing with Valentin Pikul, began with the publication of article “Bayazet`s Defense: the truth and fiction“, and then published the story which called “Bayazet`s Defense: truth and lie“. The historian Rudolf Ivanov does not differ in special modesty.
“The real truth about defense Bayazeta it is free or involuntarily disappeared from the world of the whole 127 years“, - he declares. The historian obviously applies for “real truth“ which he opened for the whole world.
With not smaller success it is possible to pull out, for example, from L. N. Tolstoy`s novel a fragment in which Andrey Bolkonsky`s feat in battle at Austerlitsa is described and to accuse the writer of distortion of the historical truth. The problem is that as Andrey Bolkonsky`s prototype the writer was served by Ferdinand (Fedor) von Tisengausen, a wing - Alexander I`s aide-de-camp. The lion Thick author`s will attributed to the prince Andrey that feat which was made by other person. The son-in-law of the commander Mikhail Kutuzov, a wing - the aide-de-camp Fedor Tizengauzen, literally in the face of the father-in-law stopped the receding battalion upset with the French fire, picked up the fallen banner and carried away soldiers in attack, was seriously injured and then died within three days hard.
So why to the historian to get into dispute with the novelist?
The historian and the novelist have the different rights: the historian is obliged to say about what was, and the novelist has the right to write about what could be.