Our policy towards the former Soviet Union has always puzzled me.
Wounding a dangerous adversary, and then walking away… not really caring if it lived or died, but apparently assuming that if it lived… it would be on your terms, not theirs.
Well, you know what they say about assumptions…
Follow me over the fold and see how well they’ve worked out this time.
LA Times Stalin Has Foot Back on the Pedestal
MOSCOW — The last public statue of Josef Stalin in Moscow stands forlornly in a postmodern graveyard of Communist-era monuments here, missing part of his nose.
But more than 500 miles away, in the city once known as Stalingrad, the infamous Soviet leader is getting more respect.
Authorities in Volgograd are planning to unveil a statue of Stalin next week as Russia celebrates the 60th anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany. The dictator’s supporters see it simply as proper recognition of the key role he played in World War II.
And really, what could be more innocent than that? He may have been a tyrant, but he was our tyrant, after all.
To critics, however, the move reflects an ominous and growing infatuation with a tyrant many Russians revere as a symbol of strength — never mind that he killed millions of his own citizens.
“Stalin’s return to the pedestal…. would signify the political rehabilitation of one of the bloodiest dictators in modern history,” said Memorial, a Russian human rights organization…
[…]
At the Reading City Bookstore, a window display is filled with copies of “Stalin: Throne of Ice,” a sympathetic account of the dictator. “Without Stalin, neither this Great Victory nor this country in general would have been possible,” author Alexander Bushkov says. “Those were heroic times, and such people will never be born again.”
The store carries about two dozen titles on Stalin, reflecting the sharp increase in interest over the last year, said Olga Panina, 24, a sales clerk.
“It’s our history. We can’t change it or get away from it,” she said. “During the war, our grandmothers and grandfathers were fighting and dying with the name of Stalin on their lips.
“I don’t think we can whitewash Stalin,” she added. “On the other hand … we should remember that we are all human, and it’s in human nature to make mistakes. Some make small mistakes, and some make huge mistakes.”
Whitewashing history seems to be the “in” thing nowadays… not that it’s every been out of fashion, I imagine. I guess as these days the brushes are working double-time to paint out history even as it happens, one shouldn’t complain about those who wait 60 years.
After all, “mistakes” are only human, even if your “mistake” was to kill millions.
A recent poll by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center found that half of the respondents looked favorably on Stalin, with 20% describing his role in the life of the country as “very positive” and 30% calling it “somewhat positive.” Only 12% described it as “very negative.”
In Russia today, Stalin is a kind of poster boy for those who favor a stronger state and are angered by the post-Soviet erosion of job security and government-paid social benefits.
[…]
Igor Dolutsky, author of a high school textbook banned for being too critical of both Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and Stalin, said that popular memories of the dictator amounted to a myth that could do great harm in the future.
“The essence of this myth is that violence, terror and repression can be effectively used to build a great country,” Dolutsky said. “I think that the return to Stalinist traditions is actually dangerous.”
Putin has taken care not to associate himself too closely with Stalin nostalgia. But he and those around him still benefit from the strong-state symbolism, Dolutsky said.
I’ll just bet he has.
There’s lots more to the article, and very interesting reading.
I am far from an expert on Russia, but years ago when some were looking at Putin’s “reforms”, I was looking at the increasing rumours of his stifling of independent media, because that’s where it all begins. Well, and Bush seeing into his soul and seeing someone he could work with and understand, or whatever… that was fair warning right there.
Not that Putin will turn into another Stalin or anything… I hope. But trying to change over to a capitalist society, or whatever they did, seems to have been a basic disaster for Russia. Between the oligarchs, the Russian mafia, people freezing in the streets, starving to death, and lacking the basic social structure that used to be there, no matter how repressive… I’d say the stage was well set for a strong-man/state government to establish itself.
Hopefully, some of you guys know way more than me about this stuff (not difficult at all), and will give the benefit of your analysis.
This is interesting, and scary. I don’t know much about Russia but I did have a friend who managed to get out of there before the fall of the ussr. His comment on his home, where he spent several years in Siberia,was short and heartfelt.
“Russia has always been a sorrowful place. Under the czars, under the communist party, and under who ever comes next. It will always be a sad place.”
He would never talk too much about it beyond that. Not terribly illuminating but still, a sad place seems apt.
I’ve heard that too; that no matter what, it’s a sad place. Morose and fatalistic and all that. I don’t know many Russians, and none closely and in person, but maybe it’s something, a tradition of sorts, passed on from generation to generation.
Putin has been trying to play the strongman within Russia while trying to look business-friendly and progressive outside of Russia. It’s a very tricky business, but Putin’s pulled it off so far.
The reappearance of Stalin is, as you suggest, not surprising given the reduced power and stature of Russia, given the huge chasm that has developed between rich and poor. And Russia has its terrorism problem as well.
Yes, I forgot to mention terrorism. And the huge, tragic mess in Chechnya, as well.
I think there have pretty much always been big gaps between the rich and the poor, but at least the poor had something at one time, little though it was. Also, as you say, they were somebody… a major world power, feared across the lands, etc, etc.
The loss of that, along with the uncertainty of their lives now, no doubt has contributed to this apparently rosy rear-view look at Stalin and the USSR.
I don’t know if I am looking at the situation with the “Western eyes” of having been raised on stories of the Soviet Union and the KGB and all that, and so distrust Putin’s end goals automatically or what.
It’s more than just whitewashing Stalin, it’s also re-framing his strongest critics. I’ve spoken to some younger Russians who have “heard” that a lot of what Solzhenitsyn wrote about was “debunked” or “exaggerated”.
But if 10% of the Archipelago was true, then Stalin was a monster.
But when you live in a vast, deeply impoverished land where only a tiny fragment of the population lives well, what do you expect? Russia has always been falling apart, ever since it became an Empire and had to use violence to subjugate its minority peoples. Of course they want a “strongman”. Anyone else would get chewed up and spat out by Russian politics.
Which is why even the Moscow Times is hinting that Lukashenko might become the VP in 2008.
Pax
I had to go look him up to make sure I had the right person. He sounds like, given the chance, he’d be right there in the mode of the old Soviet leaders.
I don’t know what all could have been done (or was tried) in shoring up Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it seems like not nearly enough. Possibly that was a strategy to allow the smaller states to break away, while the country was weak. Still seems like a dangerous game, though.
Lukashenko… sheesh. Putin isn’t looking so bad now.
Part of the strategy was to expand NATO east. Part of the strategy was get our paws on the oil and gas fields.
We’ve been fighting a new cold war with Russia all along. See our role in the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. The War on Terror has raised the ante. We are now maintaining troops in several former SSR’s, and tweaking Russia in their sphere of influence.
It could be worse. The breakup of the Soviet Union has been surprisingly peaceful, unless you live in Chechnya, Armenia, or Azerbaijan, or some areas of Georgia and Dagestan.
Soj is great source for this stuff.
Boo you’re right, considering that 14 new countries were born along with 5 separatist and de facto independent regions (Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, Adjara, Abkhazia and South Ossetia), it HAS been remarkably peaceful.
There was a lot of fighting in 1991 and 1992 and while the Russians came in a little heavy on the side of their favorites, they did prevent those civil wars from spreading. Heck, they even stepped in in Kyrgyzstan to keep anti-Uzbek stuff to a minimum.
Nobody ever gives Russia credit for anything but they’re doing remarkably well. Consider how England was after losing its colonies in 1776, 1900 and 1940 and all the violence in Africa in the 1960’s after France and England lost their colonies there.
Pax
Thanks! To you and soj. I knew I didn’t know enough about this topic to understand all the ins and outs.
Actors on the world political stage often make me think of plate spinners running to and fro to keep this or that one spinning before rushing back to catch another before it crashes. Or, sometimes, giving it a push.