Among historians, two clear camps have formed, and they (to paraphrase Mikhail Zoshchenko) have “expressed their ideology to the fullest.” At times this discussion between supporters and opponents of “decommunization” (and, by the way, that term is sometimes used to mean the laws that have been passed, while other times it implies a sort of broader, indistinct ideological project) has been reminiscent of parallel Komsomol meetings. At those meetings, they condemned and called for the extermination of – depending on party affiliation – nationalism or communism. Underlying this irreconcilable rhetoric was a fairly obvious similarity in the two sides’ approach to discussing problems. What does this similarity consist of? Above all, a conception of the historian as doctor.