Vdovin and Barsenkov's tutorial needs a peer review

The book "The History of Russia. 1917 - 2009" by Vdovin and Barsenkov,
both Professors of the Moscow State University, was published three
times but now it is at the center of a row. The Dean of the History
Faculty of the University, Professor Sergey Karpov, Doctor of History,
corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has shared
his opinion.

Sergey Pavlovich, how can you comment on the public discussion of
Vdovin and Barsenkov's book "the History of Russia. 1917 - 2009"?

Unfortunately the discussion is being held not according to the laws
of the scientific dispute but in a journalistic and even politically
engaged manner. The book needs a peer review. Of course intolerance
should be opposed, but such tutorials are to be appraised by
specialists, by the scientific community itself.

And how the book is going to be appraised?

We have formed a special commission in which the experts of different
Departments of our Faculty, the institutions of the Russian Academy of
Sciences and the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and
human rights activists are going to work together to appraise the
book. Their opinion will then be discussed by the Academic Senate of
the Faculty.

What is your personal opinion? What are the advantages of this
tutorial and what is wrong in it?

I am not a specialist in the history of Russia of the twentieth
century. I specialize in the history of the medieval Byzantine Empire.
That is why I would prefer to trust the opinion of the specialists
rather than my own. However I have noticed that the book is saturated
with the facts provided by unreliable sources. It is obvious that the
authors have done a great work collecting the data, but they didn't
manage to analyze it in a proper way.

You are underlining that this book is a tutorial rather than a
textbook. What does this mean?

The textbook is something recommended as a normative manual and a
tutorial is any kind of a book no matter how tendentious or arguable
it is. Tutorials are used with a critical approach.

Why have the tutorial been recommended by the scientific organizations?

The procedure of the discussion of such books is the same as when
dissertations are discussed. The experts listen to the official
opponents who present their review. In the case of Vdovin and
Barsenkov's book these reviews were rather favourable about their
work.

What do you think about the ethics in history writing?

I believe that a historian should remain objective, but the main
purpose of writing history ids to teach the audience a moral lesson. A
historian should be very accurate in narrating facts, especially when
they deal with disputed events.

What has happened to Professors Vdovin and Barsenkov? Do they still
work at the Faculty?

Yes. I believe that no one would be in favour if they were somehow persecuted.