Among the many quotes of historical figures and politicians, one of the most famous is this: "History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood." Many attribute its authorship to Joseph Stalin, to which there is written confirmation. But he was not the first to use it, and not in the exact wording. To a greater extent, it is the result of adaptation in translation from German and its modernization. But the meaning of the expression should be extremely clear to each of its readers.
Blame the Expression
The author of the statement “History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood” is Heidelberg professor Karl Humpe. But in its wording only the meaning of the expression is captured, although it is spelled differently. In German, it looks like "Die Geschichte kennt kein Wenn". Literal translation allows you to get the expression "History does not know the word if." Also, this phrase in a conversation with Emil Ludwig, a writer from Germany, was used by Joseph Stalin. In his interpretation, it sounds like "History does not know the subjunctive mood."
The meaning of the statement
The traditional content of the phrase is a Russian adaptation of the expression of Karl Hampe. As happened in history and earlier, similar expressions and quotes are expressed by several people, which is not a fact of plagiarism. JV Stalin used it in the context of a specific topic of conversation with the writer. Although, of course, for Joseph Vissarionovich it meant the same thing as for Karl Hampe.
The expression "History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood" has an extremely simple meaning. It lies in the fact that historical science cannot use “if”. As a scientific discipline, it must take into account the facts, documented or described by contemporaries. She needs to accept the evidence obtained in the course of research and not allow an ambiguous interpretation, using the malicious “if”. Historical events did take place, and now only their actual consequences are important. And it doesn’t matter what would happen if ...
Historical hypotheses and assumptions
Many of the drawn-out and, it seems, completely implausible hypotheses remain unproven and are only suitable for historical works of art, which is also useful as an exercise for the mind. But in official politics or science, hypotheses based on “if” could not be applied. Stating that history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, the author had this in mind. And in the case of JV Stalin, there is a clear need to openly acknowledge the sacrifices that had to be made in order to establish the power of the proletariat.
In a conversation with E. Ludwig, the leader of the USSR also recognized as an indisputable fact all the events of the First World War, sincerely believing that things should not get to the second such catastrophe. He perfectly understood that the phenomena and events that took place in history had already happened, and because of the revision of the point of view regarding them, the essence would not change.
History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Who said this phrase is no longer important. It is the so-called quotation-bastard, but as accurately as possible describes the only correct approach to the study of this science and the interpretation of its facts.
The problem of modernity
Today, national movements in various small states and provinces of large countries are very developed. In an effort to gain more freedom in international politics or to add weight to their statements, their leaders try to use distorted historical facts. Often in the course of distortion or opposition, the subjunctive mood appears. Sometimes without it, some activists or simply illiterate people manage to achieve their goal.
But it should be remembered that history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Therefore, the easiest way to cooperate on an equal footing in international relations is to acknowledge your history. In no state is it ideal and noble. And there is a possibility that the new political regime may redraw it again so that it matches the new realities, using the useless “if”.
More precisely, skillful speculation in history can bring some short-lived advantages. But this is dishonorable in relation to society itself, which is always impossible to deceive. By accepting your story and the mistakes of your ancestors, you can avoid them in the future. Evading realities and using “if”, more mistakes can be made.
This is the process that should be most feared, and countries and regimes that allow history to be revised to increase the role of their state cannot be trusted. There are facts and events that are pointless to deny, because it is simply impossible to remove them from textbooks and public opinion. And the statement that history does not suffer a subjunctive mood should be an indicator that we all accept the reality of the past as it was.