WHY IT IS WRONG WAY TO STUDY HISTORY BY MEMOIRS

by Дмитрий Шеин

Actually there are three reasons to be very careful when using the memoir as rather the source of historical information than the good amusement or non-harmful time-killer.

First is an academical definition of memoirs as genre: the roots of them stay at the "didactic-but-amusement" compositions... sorry who just mentioned Alexander Duma's "D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers"? Yeah, it is very good example of enlightening adventure novel - the noble proponents, the dastardly opponents, the spectacular adventures and the glorious feats... it is quite allowable to deviate of real history and of real biography of D'Artagnan, Marshal of France. To our main topic, the memoirist is not responsible for authenticity of historical events he mentioned. At pages of his memoirs he could defeat Nazi Germany by himself without any assistance, to behead Hitler, to break apart the Tiger tank with his hands and to cut Tiger turret with his bayonet - and to remain the memoirist rather than science fiction writer. Yes of cause I'm exaggerating but the members of group mentioned that Guy Sajer's "The forgotten soldier" memoir is actually an half-fantasy. As a result memoirs are the entertainment composition free of any author's responsibility for authenticity of content. One of my favourite examples is the part of Zhukov's memoir: first edition of his memoir was published at Brezhnev's times, Brezhnev himself participated Great Patriotic War so it was form of bon ton amongst memoirists to mention the front meetings with future General Secretary of CPSU. Zhukov was not the exclusion so he wrote in memoirs that during his voyage to North Caucasus front on 1943 Spring he (marshal and deputy of Stalin), the chief of Air force Novikov, the chief of Navy Kuznetsov and well-known HQ member general Shtemenko want to meet the sub-colonel Brezhnev to ask him are the Red army soldiers at small bridgehead near Novorossiysk able to repulse the heavy assault of Nazi but the sub-colonel was too busy to meet one Marshal, two Generals and an Admiral so they had to return to Moscow skip the meeting with sub-colonel Brezhnev...

The second reason of careful estimation of memoirs as historical source is the psychological nature of memoirism. The green historical explorers often muddle together the diaries with the memoirs but they are completely different kinds of historical source. The difference is the fact that diaries are wrtitten directly during historical events or in shortest time after them while memoirs are compiled after decades. So the author of memoir is psycologically completely another man than the participant of historical events. It is impossible to return the own personality of three-decades old so the reminiscences of green desperate and reckless second lieutenant are actually written by experienced prudent and cautious general, and it is affected the content greatly. As an example of such an difference, on the eve of Great Patriotic War many Soviet youth enlisted voluntarily since they were afraid that Nazism would be beaten before their conscription. So try to imagine the kind of thought of such a young boy in his first action when he ambushes the approaching enemy column: wow, at least he could participate the real action! He would shoot at Nazies, and may be he would kill some of them, and may be even he would be awarded to medal! And now switch the control to 1970th when experienced battalion's commander writes his memoir. He could faithfully try to reminisce these old times but he is professional with great combat experience behind his back... so he will write that their position was covered well, and the enemy could not easily deploy it's column and encircle the proponent, and the distance and all the shooting marks were chosen correctly, and it was the good luck that the sun during sunset shines into enemy direction so an enemy aiming opposite to sun was almost impossible, and the enemy platoon was green and inexperienced so they flee at panic after first two salvos and explosion of first the hand grenade... And - look at the first reason - it will be significantly more interesting to reader to read SUCH an description than ragged shreds of reminiscences of green GI: wow! At least I'm at a real action now! Wow! They are over there! The are approaching! And I'm firing! And all the guys are firing! It is noisy! It is loud! Something explodes! They are fleeing!.. and that's all, folks, our serg order us to retreat hiddenly...

The third reason is possibly the main reason and is of psychophysiological nature. Until recent time the scientists suggested that there are two different ways of recollection of some event. First, the recollection of an "external" event is rather composition just as stage director constructs the spectacle by piece: he reads the description, he composing the entire scene in his mind and finally he ordering an actors whom to stay where and whom to do what. Second, the recollection of "own" events participated by reminisciencer is rather playback of video tape: the same sequence of scenes and pictures, of words and actions every time. But recently the scientists declares that there is the sole way to recollect something in somebody brain, and it is an "stage director" way: every time when reminisciencer recollects an event he re-construct the scene by some key points he remembers. What does it mean for history and for memoirs? It means that not only the attitude of memoirist toward events he describing but rather the description itself is affected greatly by the mood of memoirist during writing of memoir. So it is senselessly to hope to read the good description of historical events with possible emotional attitude of them ("During the war I think that it was an act of bravery but now I'm recognizing that it was senseless brutality!") but rather one would read the description affected greatly by current mood of memoirist - the long detailed description of action which memoirist recognizing as "good" and silence or short dry words about "bad" things.

As a result, if one want to study history he has to read rather diaries and documents than memoirs. That's all, "wall-of-text" mode off