WHY IT IS WRONG WAY TO STUDY HISTORY BY MEMOIRS
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWHpKwrEMpq5-5skoLNzMH4_7MEn2LAhCPXHoBUsn7E3ZiZkzvja9wlzyKvf0QjS9JAN0QlSq1P0vznjZ_LlzuwHfgEFyQ9plaGss1N7BdEifgO-zyupL_cvVc3wOghFPH9Ev59hSoOOo/s640/00189_frid00973.jpg)
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 bayone...