6 Answers

  1. There is one more thing. The Stalinist grandmothers, of whom there are still quite a few, found Stalin for the most part and remember him alive. Well, for example, they spent their childhood with him. Some even have youth. When you remember your youth as a happy time, because you worked in a factory, met your husband, sang in a labor choir, and mostly your neighbors were shot, then it is very difficult for you to admit that your happy youth was a time of bloody robbery. It's like signing off that you flushed your life down the toilet. Because you sang about Stalin, and he turned out to be an executioner and a murderer. And you may know in your mind that this is true, but you will never be able to admit it, because your grandson will ask how it is, Grandmother, that you served the executioner and the murderer. How did you sing “Stalin is our fighting glory”, Grandma, if he killed your neighbors? And there is simply no answer to this question. Because admitting your own mistake is hard, it's always easier to insist hoarsely that you're right. And so the grandmother from herself in every possible way drives the idea that Stalin is a murderer and executioner, and then the brain begins to twist. Because we have to deny all the other negative things about Stalin. Any word, any doubt – this is a denigration. And then Stalin becomes a saint. In my grandmother's mind.�

    I understand that this is not quite an answer to the question. This is the genesis of the Stalinist grandmother. But it seems to me that this principle works with most of the others as well.

  2. There are, in general, three interrelated problems here.

    (most of the following – IMHO)

    Problem 1. Talking about this very often lies. They lie, as you know, in the direction of increase. What began with the statement, in my opinion, Solzhenitsyn about 100 million shot/repressed “personally by Stalin”. As a result of the rather poor intellectual potential of a significant part of our liberal (formerly anti – Soviet) intelligentsia, such clearly delusional figures of victims of Stalin's rule began to be replicated by this very intelligentsia … and alienate a certain part of the population, which has a slightly higher IQ. Which could break in exactly the opposite direction. Some particularly interesting people from this population began to say that Stalin was not to blame for anything at all.�

    And in any case, when you are told first about 100 million, and then it turns out that during the famine of 1932-33 5-8 million people died, and it seems that a little less than a million were shot during the repressions – these last figures no longer look terrible.

    It's the same with genocide. Genocide generally refers to the destruction of an ethnic group. Deportations, for all their brutality, were not aimed at extermination (the only possible exception is the Cossacks). Like the famine in the USSR of 1932-33, which did not have a national connotation.

    Item 2. Private, follows from item 1. “De-Stalinizers” of the sample of the early 2000s (for earlier I will not say) very “smart” chose the subject. The same deportations. I speak for myself. mid-2000s. Ekho Moskvy works almost constantly at home. So, when I, somewhere in 2006/07, became seriously interested in history, I was surprised to learn that, it turns out, Stalin did not deport only Chechens. I've only ever heard of them.” And I have not heard about the equally (and perhaps even more) cruel fate of the Kalmyks or Karachays and many others. Well, you understand. The second Chechen War, the people relatively recently stopped patrolling the territory adjacent to the house after the 1999 bombings, Nord-Ost, Beslan… and this people are told that T.Stalin was a bastard because he deported Chechens. Well yes. It was during this period (year 2008-09) I have heard arguments about the criminally liberal Comrade Stalin. Especially since he likes the amazing system of “death camps” from T.Hitler got it – and he, you see, does not use it. The liberal is rotten. Makes Kazakhs and Chechens cohabit when they could just… hmm. Well, you understand. The liberal public chose the wrong object, oh, not the right one.

    Item 3. Reaction of foreign states. Which is an attempt to equate the USSR with Germany. Which is wrong in itself. And in the course of which they, foreigners, appeal to incorrect premises, like the same genocide.�

    So it turns out that hyper-criticism of the Stalinist period does not give a normal look at the real problems and, possibly, crimes of the Stalinist period

  3. Do you have data on how many people there are and what justifies them? a huge amount is how much? For example, a hundred thousand is a huge number and at the same time less than one thousandth of all Russians.�

    By the way, what exactly we are talking about, “crimes of Stalinism” is a vague concept.

  4. Because it is difficult for the collective consciousness to separate the theme of victory in World War II, which today has become an important component of Russian ideology, from Stalinism. And ideology tends to simplify, to give one side of reality for the whole picture. Ideology is always subjective.�

    In modern Russia, the historical policy of the USSR in relation to the Stalin era is quite contradictory. On the one hand, a number of measures are being taken to implement the de-Stalinization program, and on the other hand, to justify its methods of managing society. (recently, by the way, the second trend prevails)�

    Speaking of measures to “normalize” Stalinism, which lead to the emergence of a large number of people who justify crimes�Iosif Vissarionovich and his regime, one can recall the publication of school textbooks and methodological manuals for teachers on the history of Russia of the XX century, edited by A. A. Shkolnikov. Danilov and A. Filippov, in which Stalin's repressions are called “costs” and are presented as a necessary means of political management in a difficult time for the country, they say that Stalin's repressions were primarily the result of a difficult international situation and there were no other viable alternatives for Soviet Russia.�

    In addition, the absence of a national monument and museum complexes to the victims of the Stalinist-era terror, the refusal to declassify the KGB archives prevent the public consciousness from assimilating the tragic experience and creating a sense of civic responsibility.

  5. When I was young, like at the end of high school, I had a picture of Stalin on my monitor, which used to hang in my great-grandfather's apartment until he died. I wasn't exactly a fan of personality, but I pretended to be a Stalinist. Someone was emo, someone goth, someone alternative, and I'm a Stalinist. Young people are drawn to totalitarianism, because they perceive the world very simply, and totalitarian methods of government are the only methods that their still stupid heads understand.�

    References to Solzhenitsyn and other publicist writers are completely inappropriate, they reflect specifically personal, and sometimes very emotional perception, and there are much more competent studies in criticism of the Stalinist regime.

    Next, I will enter into a polemic with the answer of the namesake:

    Well, let's say that under Stalin, not 100 million officially died, but one and a half, as according to official data today. What does this change? One and a half million is a lot. At the same time, we understand that there are a minority of criminals there, and at that time they were criminalized in situations for which today there is sometimes an administrative offense. Under the article, an accountant could go, who was a scapegoat when the loan was not reduced to a debit, or even a simple seller, for failure to pay the amount of 5-7 rubles. And do not find fault, they desecrate Stalin, ololo, these are criminals. There was even the legendary “ten”, when they could not prove anything, no clue, a person was drawn full of nonsense in the case and sent to the camps for 10 years. There is a wonderful group in the VK Immortal Barrack, which publishes materials of those rehabilitated after the XX Congress. Their sea.

    Stalinism is the name of a certain regime of existence of the people, when the lawlessness of the power apparatus gave rise to an extremely vicious era. For example, you are the chief engineer of a plant, and you have a five-year plan of four years. You report that an expensive machine in your company is running out of steam, and if you do not switch to normal mode, it will break, and all plans will fly, and not just their over-fulfillment. You are naturally ignored and condemned as an unreliable element. And then the machine is covered, guess who will be blamed for this-incompetence of the party assets of the plant, or sabotage of the chief engineer?�

    Answering the question-many people see the regime of Stalin's rule as a kind of model, contrastingly different from the spontaneous reforms of the 90s and the corrupt regime today, as well as the embodiment of the imperial greatness of our country. Stalin is a sacred figure for his apologists, and they are extremely annoyed by his desacralization and direct reference to incompetence and serious mistakes in organizing large-scale reforms. But the main fault of Stalin still lies not in his direct crimes, such as party purges or targeted terror ( repressions in the army or the case of doctors, for example), but in that very crude and primitive policy of social and economic development, which cost enormous victims, primarily indirect ( collectivization), the number of which we cannot say today, as well as the crimes of deportations of peoples, when

    PS Apologists of Stalinism rarely see themselves in the place of victims, they very coolly operate with millions of dead bodies of the distant past, and it is easiest for them not to notice them. In my opinion, the identification of Stalin with Hitler is incorrect, because Hitler had a number of advantages. Hitler is a scoundrel, but he did not try to destroy his own people, he destroyed his neighbors, for the benefit of his own. Stalin destroyed by incompetence more than he destroyed purposefully. A fool, worse than a criminal sometimes.

  6. To be honest, in my opinion, the opposite process is going on today – both the government and society as a whole, on the contrary, see the time of the Soviet government as terrible. For example, it is advantageous for today's corrupt government to show the USSR as a “prison of peoples”, because at the moment the country is sinking to the bottom, and if someone starts to resent it, they are told about a “totalitarian scoop”

    Now directly to Stalin. I am certainly a normal person and do not approve when many people could be imprisoned for literally nothing, like Gumilev, and even the most ardent Stalinist would hardly approve of it. But it is important to understand that many people who were held under Article 2, i.e. “Treason to the Motherland”, were punished for corruption. I looked at the Internet materials of many cases of the 30s, and there is banal corruption. Of course, you can assume anything, as described in the material above, but thoughts that are not supported by facts are worthless.�

    Plus, many people, due to a lack of banal knowledge of history, do not know many facts and do not know how to evaluate the information received. As a result, we get an absolutely stupid Stalinist , a typical “Sharikov”, from whom the most important thing is to take everything away, divide it up, and shoot the rest, and I am very ashamed of such people.�

    Well, one last thing. There are never absolutely bad rulers and absolutely good ones. Stalin, of course, did a lot of good things for the country, but his entourage often used harsh repressive measures, and in the 30s (it was in the 30s, in the 40s and 50s that this was a completely different Stalin, who was overcome by senility and suspicion) he did not approve of such methods. It was not for nothing that Stalin criticized the repression of collectivization and shot Yagoda and Yezhov, who were most responsible for the repression. You just need to look at those times not from the position of a Stalinist or liberal, but a normal literate person who is able to assess events, taking into account all the factors of that era.�

    I hope I gave a balanced and interesting answer))

Leave a Reply