Putin and Stalin
Revising reality in Russia
In most countries, the future is impossible to predict, but the past doesn't change. In Russia, it's just the opposite.
President Vladimir Putin, when he is not busy restoring autocracy to a country that has known little else, has taken on the task of refreshing Russian history with a novel perspective—his own. He is on record lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." It was worse, apparently, than World War I, worse than World War II—worse, even, than the creation of the Soviet Union.
Last year, the president informed a group of history teachers that Russia "has nothing to be ashamed of" and that it was their job to make students "proud of their motherland." His government has tried to help by commissioning guidelines and books that present a more balanced picture of Joseph Stalin, described in one approved volume as "the most successful Soviet leader ever."
That sentiment could be taken as ironic—on the order of praising a slag heap as the most picturesque of its genre. In fact, Putin really wants to commend a dictator who, if he was not the most savage and destructive criminal of the 20th century, certainly ranks in the top three, with Hitler and Mao. The efforts at rehabilitation may be working. One poll found that 54 percent of young Russians think Stalin was "a wise leader."
To reach that conclusion, you have to excuse or forget the biggest events of Stalin's quarter-century rule, which left vast piles of corpses. His first notable "achievement" was trying to raise agricultural output by forcing millions of peasant farmers into collective farms—while wiping out supposedly prosperous farmers whom he condemned as vicious class enemies. In what a Marxist scholar later called "probably the most massive warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens," hordes of peasants were killed or sent to Siberia.
The new textbooks suggest that Stalin's methods, though harsh, served the important need of bringing about economic progress. But the collectivization drive brought on a famine that was one of the worst the world has ever seen.
In Ukraine, shortages were so severe that starving people were driven to cannibalism to survive—forcing authorities to post signs that said, "Eating dead children is barbarism." In combination with the mass executions and deaths in concentration camps, the famine cost more than 14 million people their lives.
But Stalin didn't attack only his class enemies. His allies were equally at risk. During the Great Terror of the 1930s, he launched a purge of close aides, officials as well as ordinary members of the Communist Party, secret police, diplomats and military commanders. This frenzy killed millions, many of them worked to death in the vast network of labor camps that became known as the Gulag Archipelago.
Putin's propaganda celebrates Stalin for winning World War II. But if not for his paranoia and gullibility, the war would have been far easier to win.
If Stalin's plans had worked out, the Soviet Union would not have stood against the Nazis. At the outset, he entered into an alliance with Hitler which allowed him to recover Russian land lost in World War I, annex various Baltic nations and swallow up a chunk of Poland.
His reward was to be double-crossed in 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Writes historian Paul Johnson, "Stalin, who trusted nobody else, appears to have been the last human being on earth to trust Hitler's word." In the conflict that followed, there is no telling how many soldiers died because the Red Army had been purged of its best officers by Stalin.
The new texts compare Stalin to Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who unified Germany in the 19th century. But though Bismarck fought his neighbors on the battlefield, he didn't make war on his people. The latter habit is what distinguishes Stalin. If his record is grounds for pride, what could possibly be grounds for shame?
Putin's people deserve sympathy for the burdens the past has placed on them, but those don't justify his attempt to promote self-deception. Germans have proven it is possible to build a thriving nation without being blind to one's own history. Russians should respond to this campaign not with pride but with fear. If a government can justify what Stalin did, it can justify anything it wants to do.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Stalin himself engaged in a similar process of rehabilitating the memory of Ivan the Terrible, rechristening him "Ivan the Great."
And in his own time, Ivan himself was invited back to the throne, after having stepped down in the midst of widespread criticism of his atrocities. After a couple of years, the Russian public began to look back fondly on its "strong leader."
"...a dictator who, if he was not the most savage and destructive criminal of the 20th century, certainly ranks in the top three, with Hitler and Mao..."
This ranking is valid only in terms of body count. In terms of long-term damage done, the ranking is Mao, Stalin, Roosevelt (Franklin).
In most countries, the future is impossible to predict, but the past doesn't change. In Russia, it's just the opposite.
Got to hand it to you Steve. Not many have the urr... self confidence, to begin with a Yakov Smirnoff joke.
joe
"Ivan Grozny" is best translated as "Ivan the Great." Changing it from Ivan the Terrible is not so much a "rehabilitation" as a correction.
But, to be fair to you, "Great" in English, as well as Russian--and probably most other languages--does not really imply "good." Perhaps a better translation would be "enormously important for various reasons."
In this so called article is proof positive that west's propaganda knows no limits. Despite all west's efforts to sabotage Russia in all sorts of ways, Russia is well on its way to take its place in the world it justly deserves.
Scop,
I appreciate the Russian lesson, but don't whitewash here - Stalin did make a project of rehabilitating Ivan's memory, for the purpose of ginning up public support for that type of "greatness."
It was not a linguistic correction.
joe
no whitewash intended, but Stalin was entirely correct in this case. Ivan's name was always "the Great"; only appalled Englishmen called him terrible.
It's not just linguistic. It's fact.
In this so called article is proof positive that west's propaganda knows no limits. Despite all west's efforts to sabotage Russia in all sorts of ways, Russia is well on its way to take its place in the world it justly deserves.
Its place in the Third World, to be precise.
Just a little quibble: I don't think the Hitler-Stalin pact really counts as evidence for Stalin's gullibility. If my memory of history classes serves me right, Stalin fully expected Hitler to break the pact (or do so himself) within, say, eight years or so, giving him time to restore his purge-ravaged military. Unfortunately for him, Hitler broke the pact way, way earlier. Oops.
Regis - That may have been revisionism. It is known that Stalin did nothing for the first few days of the invasion. He may have gone off on a Yeltsin-type bender.
I think the Germans must have played some little psy-ops game on Stalin.
For over a day after the Wehrmacht rolled across the frontier, Stalin was insisting "No, they aren't!" to the military personnel who reported that there was an invasion underway.
Stalin somehow came to believe that reports of hostile German activity were false, to the point of insisting on it even when they were correct.
In terms of long-term damage done, the ranking is Mao, Stalin, Roosevelt (Franklin).
I'd love to hear you elaborate on this.
I recall reading somewhere the opinion that Britain and France should have declared war on both Germany and the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland.
Interesting thought. Then the Finns would have been our allies instead of our foes.
Of course, then the Western allies would really have had their hands full.
"But though Bismarck fought his neighbors on the battlefield, he didn't make war on his people. The latter habit is what distinguishes Stalin."
Bismarck was vastly better than Stalin and did much, much less damage. That much I'm with you on.
There was a little incident, however, in which Bismarck waged war on a portion of the German people. This was the famous *Kulturkampf,* the persecution of the Catholic Church in a failed effort to Germanize it.
elaboration:
We are still paying for the damages done by the big evil three communist dictators, and we will be for another century or so, at least.
We've pretty much completely recovered from the debts of the other evil bastards in history.
Is it wrong of me to want a sign that says "Eating dead children is barbarism" in Russian to hang up in my cubicle at work?
Anyone know where I can get one? Perhaps a reproduction, or even just a decent scan I can print out...
Sorry, I was being a tad trollish. Just the anarcho-capitalist in me oozing out. Sometimes, he's hard to control.
FDR was not an evil bastard. I may despise his policies and legacies, but he was not in the same class as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. But he was a bastard, you know. 🙂
I recall reading somewhere the opinion that Britain and France should have declared war on both Germany and the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland.
Interesting thought. Then the Finns would have been our allies instead of our foes.
Of course, then the Western allies would really have had their hands full.
Goddamn Isaac, I never thought about the FULL meaning of protecting Poland from invasion...
Right now, Americans would be celebrating the Glorious Duo of Stalin and Hitler...
🙁
(cries)
FDR was not an evil bastard.
Now, now. Let's not be too hasty in our search for balance...
Sorry, I was being a tad trollish. Just the anarcho-capitalist in me oozing out. Sometimes, he's hard to control.
FDR was not an evil bastard. I may despise his policies and legacies, but he was not in the same class as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. But he was a bastard, you know. 🙂
Thanks, scop. That makes sense 🙂
well, you know...sometimes one must vent a bit.
Didn't mean to be a troll.
Not that I am prejudiced against trolls, you know. Some of my best friends are trolls.
So, a body count of some 30 million Russians isn't enough to make Stalin's popularity numbers drop below 50%?
Makes me wonder just how fucking stupid people can be.
-jcr
M,
I would say that FDR was indeed an evil bastard, but that Stalin, Mao and Hitler went beyond FDR's garden-variety evil. FDR was evil like a typical politician. The other three were utterly depraved.
-jcr
Scop,
It happens to the best of us.
I thought We've pretty much completely recovered from the debts of the other evil bastards in history. referred to Lennin, Stalin, and Mao, which would have been very insightful. We've had 60 years to recover from the Nazis, and mabye 20 to recover from the Bolshies.
jcr,
How many of those 30 million were actually Russians? I imagine his approval is a bit lower in Ukraine.
Well, speaking of gullible, it was FDR who fell in love with "Uncle Joe", ignored the comparitively sagacious Churchill's advice to never trust Stalin, and in the process allowed the Russian machine to envelope hundreds of millions of innocent souls in a world of darkness for several decades. I consider such impudent ignorance to be a kind of evil. To make friends with the Devil is one thing ... to trust him is unforgivable stupidity. Yes, FDR was evil.
Scop,
I don't speak Russian, but I have some familiarity with Slavic languages. I was pretty sure that 'grozny' does indeed mean terrible, horrible, menacing, etc. So I looked it up in a Russian dictionary:
???????
(????????? ????, ?????) terrible, formidable, redoubtable; (??????????) menacing, threatening; (???????) stern; (????????) ferocious
??????? ?????? - menacing look
??????? ???? - formidable enemy
??????? ????????? - terrible danger
???? ??????? - Ivan the Terrible
http://www.rambler.ru/dict/ruen/00/21/67.shtml
So I think what you wrote was misleading at best.
why does it bother me more when joe apologizes for fascists and communists but when Putin does it doesn't bother me so much?
Oh yeah...joe should know better.
Not to mention his own wife.
Eleanor Roosevelt may have had many faults from the libertarian point of view but she knew exactly what kind of monster Stalin was. And she told her husband what she thought on several occasions.
It's mildly ironic to me that Putin is putting Stalin on a pedestal since to my eye at least, he's actually a lot closer to Hitler in style. Like the Nazis, United Russia peddles a rhetoric of "national rebirth" (exploiting feelings of national humiliation), plays on racial and ethnic enmity to stir up populist support, and channels mass public emotion into ad hoc political enforcement (cf. "Our Guys," Putin's youth mob).
Of course, Stalin attempted every one of these, but he sucked at them where Hitler excelled. Stalin's strengths were in concealment, redundancy, instilling terror in his subjects with seemingly random acts of state brutality, and mountains of lies that nobody really believed but everybody was afraid to talk about openly - the sorts of things that a consummate paranoid would be good at.
Of course, apparently the Special Camps are still in operation, so maybe Putin has picked up at least one of his hero's obsessions.
Of course, our most recent spendthrift, war mongering, civil rights bashing, government enlarging president thinks he can do business with this latest Russian thug (but he has such a nice soul, making a parallel between FDR/Stalin and Bush/Putin.
The thing is, Putin is unlikely to match Stalin's brutality, while Bush is quite likely a worse president than FDR, and I never thought I would say that about any president in my lifetime.
???? ???, ???? ?????.
John C. Randolph:
"So, a body count of some 30 million Russians isn't enough to make Stalin's popularity numbers drop below 50%?"
could you, please, elaborate ? I knew about 3.4 mil. dead in the Ukrainian famine and under 10,000 dead during the purges (executed or died in labor camps). Then I heard about 24 million dead up to 1953, but those seem to include the war losses, who were estimated at 20 million right after the war, 3/4 of them civilians, and all of them blamed on the Germans. Now you come with 30 million. I raise to 50 millions ... Who raises more ? ... just take care, don't go over 250 mil. or you'll claim that Stalin killed singlehandedly all the population of Russia.
While having statues and portraits all over the place, Stalin did not run Russia alone ... he was just one of the guys jockeying for the top position, and he had a somewhat secure position at the top only since mid '30s.
The "military commanders" Stalin purged were those that lost the war with Poland and were not able even to defeat Rumania during 1919-1920.
If you believe any leader can hold to power without the support of an important part of it's people (or a large robot army, but those are not yet available), then you need to get out more ...
"why does it bother me more when joe apologizes for fascists and communists but when Putin does it doesn't bother me so much?
Oh yeah...joe should know better."
Eh. About a four and half on the troll-meter.
Try harder, joshua.
You're right BakedPenguin, Bush is like FDR. The press tries to paint a anti-government Bush with their gentle coos of "Old People, Bush is trying to destroy Social Security!" when we all know the unforgivable truth that he wants to save it.
"'Ivan Grozny' is best translated as 'Ivan the Great.' Changing it from Ivan the Terrible is not so much a 'rehabilitation' as a correction."
Actually, "grozny" does mean terrible, but terrible in the sense of "awe inspiring," not necessarily "horrible." So while "Ivan the Terrible" is not strictly a mistranslation it is a bit misleading.
***
"Do you ever dream about Stalin?" "Not often,
but sometimes. The circumstances are very unusual--I'm in some sort of destroyed
city, and I can't find my way out. Afterwards I meet with him. In a word, very
strange dreams, very confused." -- V. M. Molotov to Feliks Chuev.
I had a teacher in junior high school (back in the early 1980's) who though of it this way -
This is Russia. Imagine a prisoner chained in a cell. Once a day, an aristocrat comes in and kicks the prisoner in the shins. Then, one day, another man shows up, and starts kicking the prisoner in the shins hourly while requiring the prisoner that thank him for getting rid of the aristocrat.
I guess a modern coda would be that the man is no longer a prisoner, but still sits in the cell, asking when someone will come in a kick him in the shins.
Writes historian Paul Johnson, "Stalin, who trusted nobody else, appears to have been the last human being on earth to trust Hitler's word."
Historian Paul Johnson doesn't know what he's talking about. Stalin did not "trust" Hitler - in fact, there's every kind of evidence that he was preparing to attack first. He miscalculated and decided in the spring of 41 that Hitler would not attack that year, and because he was surrounded mostly by cowardly kiss-ups, nobody was able to convince him that Hitler could attack so quickly.
Stalin was a bloodthirsty psychopath, but he was not stupid, as this article portrays him. Those who doubt it should consult the opinion of Winston Churchill, who knew a thing or two about statesmanship.
Finally, saying that Putin is "restoring autocracy" is wrong. Autocracy was always there: Yeltsin's "democracy" was mostly just talk to get money from "useful idiots" such as Bill Clinton. Yeltsin created Putin - not unlike Lenin created Stalin.
As Ivan Lenin has pointed out, Stalin did not trust Hitler. The reason for his agreement with Hitler in WWII, in my understanding, is to buy time to prepare for war.
As it turned out, Hitler attacked before Stalin was prepared to do the same.
Stalin was a butcher, no doubt about it. But he hardly stands alone. The great tragedy is that so many other Russians willfully engaged in the purges.
I guess a modern coda would be that the man is no longer a prisoner, but still sits in the cell, asking when someone will come in a kick him in the shins.
Not hardly. It's more like the man is out on parole and has a job. He now blames some foreigner for his past kicks in the shin, however.
Sounds like the Ivan Grozny discussion has been resolved. I was going to point out that grozny in no way means "great". Terrible is, in fact, the closest albeit imperfect translation.
As Ivan Lenin has pointed out, Stalin did not trust Hitler. The reason for his agreement with Hitler in WWII, in my understanding, is to buy time to prepare for war.
As it turned out, Hitler attacked before Stalin was prepared to do the same.
There's trust, and there's trust. Both Ivan Lenin (who wins "best name for this comments exchange") and W. Shedd are right: Stalin fully expected to fight Hitler in time. Strategically he had no illusions about Hitler's final intentions.
But Paul Johnson is also right: tactically Stalin ignored notice of imminent invasion from: FDR, Churchill, the bravest of his own advisors, and a German defector (who brought notice on the eve of the invasion and was shot on Stalin's orders for the trouble). He took Hitler's word over not only his own allies, but over overwhelming evidence laid before him.
This should not be surprising, as Stalin suffered from the same delusion as Hitler and most dictators: he was confident that what he needed to be true was true. Since he did not feel ready to fight the Germans in 1941, clearly the Germans would not invade, no matter what anyone thought. He came up with many excellent-sounding justifications for this belief, but I suspect the belief came first---founded on the bedrock of arrogant certainty which is the absolute dictator's trademark.
Some words about the famine: The kulaks were not rich farmers. They were successful farmers. They had the least motivation to join the collective farms. They and their families were starved in the millions. Soviet agriculture never recovered. Take away his fish, a man goes hungry. Take away his fishing pole, his family starves. At one time German cinema rivalled Hollywood in popularity. Hitler abolished the Jews and German cinema has never recovered. Something analogous happened to Soviet agriculture.