, second, you know, choosing between karamzin and midinsky, i would still vote for the benefit of kamzinte, after all, politics is relevant and less, and common sense is more than in the midin textbook, and even more so you can make a certain such uh well, you can make a discount on what karamzin wrote more than 200 years ago, but in general it is obvious that in russia it is not a state view of the past, it is rather an exception that happens extremely rarely and only in periods of m. the view of the people almost immediately after the transin, the history of the russian people of the field was published, but this multi-volume volume did not enjoy such fame as karamzin's history of the russian state . it is obvious that the course of russian history was written not so much from the state positions, but from the social ones. klyuchevska's experiments with non-state history are actually quite interesting took place in the 20s, when, on the one hand , communism actually nullified all imperial traditions