In the Hoover Institution Archives’s Volkogonov microfilm collection, there is a remarkable document dated March 23, 1923 from Joseph Stalin to the Politburo.[i] The document is two pages long and written in Stalin’s hand on his official letterhead as secretary of the central committee. In this “strictly secret” memo, Stalin states that “On Sunday March 17, Comrade Ulianova (N. K.) (Lenin’s wife) confidentially communicated to me ‘the request of Vladimir Ilich (Lenin) to Stalin’ that I, Stalin, take upon myself the responsibility to acquire and administer cyanide poison to Vladimir Ilich. In her conversation with me, she said that ‘Vladimir Ilich is “experiencing unbearable suffering’ and that ‘it makes no sense to keep on living’ and stubbornly insisted that I ‘not deny Ilich his request.” In view of the special insistence of Ulianova and that Ilich demanded my approval (Ilich twice called his wife to his office during our conversation and agitatedly demanded the ‘agreement of Stalin which meant that we had to interrupt our conversation twice), I did not consider it possible to say no, declaring ‘I request that Vladimir Ilich keep calm and he must believe that when it is necessary, I will without hesitation fulfill his request.’ Vladimir Ilich did indeed calm down. I must , however, declare, that I do not have the strength to fulfill the request of Vladimir Ilich and I must refuse this mission, no matter how humane and necessary and which I relate for the information of the members of the Politburo.
All Politburo members, including Lev Trotsky, signed that they had read the memo. One, Mikhail Tomsky, wrote by hand that “I presume that the ‘indecisiveness’ of Stalin is correct. It follows that the members of the Politburo should exchange their views in a strict order of secrecy. Without a secretary present.”
Vladimir Ilich Lenin, the uncontested leader of the Bolshevik state, suffered his first stroke in May of 1922, leaving him partially paralyzed. A second stroke followed in December, and a third stroke in March of 1923 required him to withdraw from public life. Lenin died on January 21, 1924, ten months after his request to Stalin. Throughout his lengthy illness, Lenin experienced periods of improvement, leading his doctors to maintain hope that his situation was not hopeless.
As Lenin faded from the leadership, Stalin allied himself with two of Lenin’s allies, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, to block the charismatic Trotsky. They reached agreements among themselves before Politburo meetings, thereby effectively excluding Trotsky from decision making. In fact, Stalin informed his allies about his meeting with Lenin first. In this undated “strictly secret” memo, he adds that Lenin’s wife could not bring herself to poison her husband and was therefore asking for his assistance. The emphatic joint reply of Zinoviev and Kamenev was “We cannot do this! Ferster (Lenin’s doctor) holds out hope. If only this were not happening. No, No, No!”
Years after his exile from Russia in 1929, Trotsky expressed the view that Stalin did indeed poison Lenin and that he did so, not for the “humane and necessary” reasons mentioned in his memo, but to protect himself. There are no accounts other than Trotsky’s of the Politburo discussion that followed Stalin’s March 23 memo. According to Trotsky, he and other Politburo members argued against assisting Lenin’s death, while Stalin took no position other than to emphasize Lenin’s desire to end his suffering. The Politburo did not vote, but everyone was left with the impression that there could be no further talk of administering Lenin poison.
If Stalin intended to poison Lenin, as Trotsky claimed, why would he inform the Politburo of Lenin’s request? A possible answer is that this would give Stalin the ideal alibi. If poison were detected in Lenin’s body, a reasonable conclusion would be that Lenin’s wife finally got the nerve to do it herself. Also, what would Stalin have to gain from poisoning the incapacitated Lenin? On December 25, 1922, Lenin dictated his final political testament in which he recommended that Stalin be removed from his position as general secretary of the central committee. Stalin was rude and was accumulating too much power. Especially troubling to Lenin was that Stalin had shouted at his wife in the foulest language in December of 1922. Lenin learned of this on March 5, 1923 and immediately wrote to him demanding that he apologize or else all relations between them would end. On the next day, the agitated Lenin suffered his third and final stroke. If Lenin’s condition were unexpectedly to improve enough to attend a politburo or central committee meeting, a proposal from him to remove Stalin would have surely been approved. A third issue with Trotsky’s charge is why Lenin would call for Stalin, with whom he had quarreled, to put him out of his misery? An inebriated Stalin himself recounted the incident in a meeting with writers in 1932: “Ilich understood that he was dying and he actually said to me, I do not know in jest or in earnest, but I will relate to you as a serious request, that I should I should obtain poison for him because he cannot ask his wife or sister. You are the most brutal member of the party.” According to one witness, Stalin spoke these words with a hint of pride.[ii]
We will never know the answer to the mystery: Did Stalin poison Lenin? What we do know is that no one should underestimate Stalin’s criminal instincts. On the evening of February 26, 1939, Lenin’s widow invited her friends to attend her seventieth birthday party. Stalin did not attend but he sent a cake. Later that evening, she was stricken with severe food poisoning and died the following morning. It was the grieving Stalin who carried her ashes at the funeral.[iii] It should also be remembered that by 1939, Stalin had executed almost half of the party leadership and almost one million ordinary citizens. Poisoning Lenin would have been consistent with his later actions.
[i] Dimitrii Antonovich Volkogonov Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, microfilm, collection.
[ii] V. Rogovin, The End Means the Beginning http://trst.narod.ru/rogovin/t7
[iii] Larissa Vasilieva, Kremlin Wives (New York: Arcade Publishing, 1992), p.32.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Lessons from History: The Twentieth Anniversary of the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979. In the nine year war that followed, the Soviets lost 15,000 killed and 54,000 wounded. Tens of thousands of Afghan veterans returned with severe drug addictions and formed criminal gangs. The Soviet Afghan debacle played a key role in the end of the USSR in December of 1991.
Twenty years ago, on February 15, 1989, the Soviet Union completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. It left behind a Soviet-backed government headed by the former chief of the Afghan secret police, Mohammad Najibullah, which controlled Kabul and other cities but not the countryside. Thanks to the disarray of rival forces, the Soviet puppet government lasted until April of 1992 as tribal and religious factions battled for control. The rest is known – the installation of Taliban rule, the harboring of Al Qaeda, and the defeat of the Taliban state in 2001. This twentieth anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal offers a timely benchmark to reexamine the USSR’s Afghan experience, particularly as attention turns from Iraq to the “good war” in Afghanistan. The Soviet withdrawal came after nine years; US and Nato forces are now in their eighth year.
The Soviet experience was succinctly summarized in a top secret memo co-authored by six of Gorbachev’s top advisors (including his foreign minister and KGB head) dated January 23, 1989 (copies of which are in the Hoover Institution archives). The USSR had bound itself by the April 1988 Geneva Accords to withdraw its forces by a deadline of February 1989. The memo to Gorbachev stated that the Afghan government could hold its position “only with the help of our aviation” and warned that opposition forces had reduced hostilities in anticipation of the Soviet withdrawal. The limited ground for hope was the armed struggle among opposition forces, which might escalate after the Soviet withdrawal. Although the Afghan allies “understood the decision for the Soviet withdrawal”, they were pushing hard for continued air strikes from Soviet territory, which would be “critical” to their survival. Although Gorbachev’s advisors appeared skeptical of the ability of Afghan allies to use advanced Soviet weaponry, their possession “might give them confidence in their power.” Neither significant air strikes nor massive weapon deliveries were authorized.
Gorbachev’s advisors did not downplay that the Najibullah regime, which “the entire world associates with us,” was hanging by a thread. Their biggest fear was that America and Pakistan would finally succeed in unifying opposition forces. The most immediate threat, however, was a blockade of Kabul and other cities, preventing foodstuffs from entering. There were no good options, because up to a full division would be required to keep the roads open. Another idea, floated and then rejected, was to call for UN troops, citing the threat of a human catastrophe to keep Soviet convoy troops in place until UN forces arrived. What was left was economic aid, which “despite the many difficulties we and the Afghans encountered in their delivery and distribution, prevented many undesirable turns in the development of the situation.”
The only remaining assistance to the Najibullah regime would be to maintain contacts and keep tabs on the opposition located in Pakistan, Iran and Europe and to drive a wedge between the “extremists” and the “moderates.” The Soviet Union would also use its security council membership to influence the UN and to work with all governments involved in the Afghan conflict, especially Pakistan.
Do the United States and its allies face a Soviet-like debacle in Afghanistan? There are similarities between the Soviet and US experiences. In both cases, the Afghan regime had control of cities but not of the vast countryside. The list of interfering neighbors (Pakistan and Iran) is the same, and the success in training a loyal and effective Afghan military was limited. The Russians and later the Americans and their Nato allies basically have had to fight insurgents on their own. The key differences are that the Soviets installed unpopular puppets, even using disguised KGB forces to execute non-cooperative Afghan politicians, while the Americans insisted on democratic elections. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with almost universal condemnation; whereas the U.S. entry garnered considerable international support, given the ill repute of the Taliban regime. Soviet forces matched the cruelty of their Afghan foes with incredible barbarism and atrocities on both sides. The American and Nato forces have attempted to fight a conventional counter-insurgency war. Although current Afghan opposition forces are far from united, the Soviets had the advantage of facing a much more fractured and factious opposition.
Twenty years ago, on February 15, 1989, the Soviet Union completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. It left behind a Soviet-backed government headed by the former chief of the Afghan secret police, Mohammad Najibullah, which controlled Kabul and other cities but not the countryside. Thanks to the disarray of rival forces, the Soviet puppet government lasted until April of 1992 as tribal and religious factions battled for control. The rest is known – the installation of Taliban rule, the harboring of Al Qaeda, and the defeat of the Taliban state in 2001. This twentieth anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal offers a timely benchmark to reexamine the USSR’s Afghan experience, particularly as attention turns from Iraq to the “good war” in Afghanistan. The Soviet withdrawal came after nine years; US and Nato forces are now in their eighth year.
The Soviet experience was succinctly summarized in a top secret memo co-authored by six of Gorbachev’s top advisors (including his foreign minister and KGB head) dated January 23, 1989 (copies of which are in the Hoover Institution archives). The USSR had bound itself by the April 1988 Geneva Accords to withdraw its forces by a deadline of February 1989. The memo to Gorbachev stated that the Afghan government could hold its position “only with the help of our aviation” and warned that opposition forces had reduced hostilities in anticipation of the Soviet withdrawal. The limited ground for hope was the armed struggle among opposition forces, which might escalate after the Soviet withdrawal. Although the Afghan allies “understood the decision for the Soviet withdrawal”, they were pushing hard for continued air strikes from Soviet territory, which would be “critical” to their survival. Although Gorbachev’s advisors appeared skeptical of the ability of Afghan allies to use advanced Soviet weaponry, their possession “might give them confidence in their power.” Neither significant air strikes nor massive weapon deliveries were authorized.
Gorbachev’s advisors did not downplay that the Najibullah regime, which “the entire world associates with us,” was hanging by a thread. Their biggest fear was that America and Pakistan would finally succeed in unifying opposition forces. The most immediate threat, however, was a blockade of Kabul and other cities, preventing foodstuffs from entering. There were no good options, because up to a full division would be required to keep the roads open. Another idea, floated and then rejected, was to call for UN troops, citing the threat of a human catastrophe to keep Soviet convoy troops in place until UN forces arrived. What was left was economic aid, which “despite the many difficulties we and the Afghans encountered in their delivery and distribution, prevented many undesirable turns in the development of the situation.”
The only remaining assistance to the Najibullah regime would be to maintain contacts and keep tabs on the opposition located in Pakistan, Iran and Europe and to drive a wedge between the “extremists” and the “moderates.” The Soviet Union would also use its security council membership to influence the UN and to work with all governments involved in the Afghan conflict, especially Pakistan.
Do the United States and its allies face a Soviet-like debacle in Afghanistan? There are similarities between the Soviet and US experiences. In both cases, the Afghan regime had control of cities but not of the vast countryside. The list of interfering neighbors (Pakistan and Iran) is the same, and the success in training a loyal and effective Afghan military was limited. The Russians and later the Americans and their Nato allies basically have had to fight insurgents on their own. The key differences are that the Soviets installed unpopular puppets, even using disguised KGB forces to execute non-cooperative Afghan politicians, while the Americans insisted on democratic elections. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with almost universal condemnation; whereas the U.S. entry garnered considerable international support, given the ill repute of the Taliban regime. Soviet forces matched the cruelty of their Afghan foes with incredible barbarism and atrocities on both sides. The American and Nato forces have attempted to fight a conventional counter-insurgency war. Although current Afghan opposition forces are far from united, the Soviets had the advantage of facing a much more fractured and factious opposition.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bukharin's Dream
12. April 1938: Internal NKVD Prison: A Beautiful Dream
Bukharin slept fitfully in his small prison cell in the Internal Prison of the NKVD, in the bowels of the Lubyanka, a half mile from the Kremlin. His nocturnal writing was interrupted by fitful sleep, often indistinguishable from hallucinations. In his dreams, Bukharin would see Stalin and Nadezhda [Stalin’s wife who committed suicide]. In one, Nadezhda came to him and asked “What are they doing with you? I’ll tell Iosif [Stalin] that he should come for you. The dream was so real that Bukharin wanted to awake and immediately write to Stalin to come to take him from this place. He knew that Nadezhda would never believe that he would do something bad against Stalin. Bukharin’s dream continued. He talked with Stalin more than a hour. His wish was that Stalin could see how devoted he was to him. In another more pastoral dream, he found himself playing with his own and Stalin’s daughter, both Svetlanas, in the wooded dacha compound shared by prominent Bolshevik leaders outside of Moscow. Svetlana’s mother was still alive, and she ran the household with discipline. He dreamed of the animals he raised there and the children’s delight as they played with them. He dreamed how, in the evenings, they would gather outside and sing with even Stalin chiming in with his soft but pleasant voice accompanied by the balalaika.As he waked to the harsh reality of his prison cell, he remembered an exchange in the summer of 1928 in which Stalin said to him: “You know why I treasure you…. You are not capable to intrigue? He remembered his answer. “Yes, but at that very time I ran to Kamenev. Whether you believe it or not, this fact stands out in my mind as the original sin stands out for the Jews. My god, was I a child and a fool.”
Excerpt from The Leper and the Bolshevik's Daughter: Nikolai and Anna Bukharin
Bukharin slept fitfully in his small prison cell in the Internal Prison of the NKVD, in the bowels of the Lubyanka, a half mile from the Kremlin. His nocturnal writing was interrupted by fitful sleep, often indistinguishable from hallucinations. In his dreams, Bukharin would see Stalin and Nadezhda [Stalin’s wife who committed suicide]. In one, Nadezhda came to him and asked “What are they doing with you? I’ll tell Iosif [Stalin] that he should come for you. The dream was so real that Bukharin wanted to awake and immediately write to Stalin to come to take him from this place. He knew that Nadezhda would never believe that he would do something bad against Stalin. Bukharin’s dream continued. He talked with Stalin more than a hour. His wish was that Stalin could see how devoted he was to him. In another more pastoral dream, he found himself playing with his own and Stalin’s daughter, both Svetlanas, in the wooded dacha compound shared by prominent Bolshevik leaders outside of Moscow. Svetlana’s mother was still alive, and she ran the household with discipline. He dreamed of the animals he raised there and the children’s delight as they played with them. He dreamed how, in the evenings, they would gather outside and sing with even Stalin chiming in with his soft but pleasant voice accompanied by the balalaika.As he waked to the harsh reality of his prison cell, he remembered an exchange in the summer of 1928 in which Stalin said to him: “You know why I treasure you…. You are not capable to intrigue? He remembered his answer. “Yes, but at that very time I ran to Kamenev. Whether you believe it or not, this fact stands out in my mind as the original sin stands out for the Jews. My god, was I a child and a fool.”
Excerpt from The Leper and the Bolshevik's Daughter: Nikolai and Anna Bukharin
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Will the Real Dmitry Medvedev Stand Up?
Few commentators read Dmitry Medvedev’s November 15, 2008 presidential address in its entirety. Medvedev speaks as a hawk on foreign policy, blasting Tbilisi’s “adventurism” which was a “pretext for NATO naval vessels to enter the Black Sea” and to “speed up the imposition of an American missile defense system on Europe.” Most readers did not go beyond this point, concluding Putin and Medvedev are one. The rest of the address, however, takes a quite different tack. It emphasizes the need to defend the Constitution (which gives him an advantage over Putin) and is full of veiled attacks on Putin’s way of governing. Medvedev is allying himself with popular sentiments on foreign policy while cautiously probing popular weaknesses in domestic policy that he may wish to explore in the future.
Let me cite what I regard as the key anti-Putin quote in the address:
“The cult of the state and the illusory wisdom of the administrative apparatus have prevailed in Russia over many centuries. Individuals with their rights and freedoms, personal interests and problems, have been seen as at best a means and at worst an obstacle for strengthening the state’s might. But the bureaucracy still does not trust free citizens and free activity. This logic pushes it into dangerous conclusions and acts. The bureaucracy from time to time casts fear over the business world, pressuring it to keep in line and not to take what they consider wrong action, takes control of this or that media outlet, trying to stop it from saying what they consider the wrong thing, meddles in the electoral process, preventing the election of what they consider the wrong person, and puts pressure on the courts, stopping them from handing down what they consider the wrong verdict. The result is that the state bureaucracy is the biggest employer, most active publisher, best producer, and is its own court, own political party, and ultimately its own people. This is a completely ineffective system and leads only to corruption. ..But an all-powerful bureaucracy is a mortal danger for civil society. This is why our society must continue calm and steady work to build up its democratic institutions and not delay this work.”
Medvedev is Putin’sonly potential challenger. Perhaps Putin has some means of making sure he stays loyal; perhaps not. Medvedev’s anti-Putin remarks are perhaps “cheap talk”. The typical Russian succession is one of like thinkers. Vested interests have much to lose and will fight change tooth and mail. If Medvedev does replace Putin, will he make a difference? The odds are that he would not, despite his brave words.
Let me cite what I regard as the key anti-Putin quote in the address:
“The cult of the state and the illusory wisdom of the administrative apparatus have prevailed in Russia over many centuries. Individuals with their rights and freedoms, personal interests and problems, have been seen as at best a means and at worst an obstacle for strengthening the state’s might. But the bureaucracy still does not trust free citizens and free activity. This logic pushes it into dangerous conclusions and acts. The bureaucracy from time to time casts fear over the business world, pressuring it to keep in line and not to take what they consider wrong action, takes control of this or that media outlet, trying to stop it from saying what they consider the wrong thing, meddles in the electoral process, preventing the election of what they consider the wrong person, and puts pressure on the courts, stopping them from handing down what they consider the wrong verdict. The result is that the state bureaucracy is the biggest employer, most active publisher, best producer, and is its own court, own political party, and ultimately its own people. This is a completely ineffective system and leads only to corruption. ..But an all-powerful bureaucracy is a mortal danger for civil society. This is why our society must continue calm and steady work to build up its democratic institutions and not delay this work.”
Medvedev is Putin’sonly potential challenger. Perhaps Putin has some means of making sure he stays loyal; perhaps not. Medvedev’s anti-Putin remarks are perhaps “cheap talk”. The typical Russian succession is one of like thinkers. Vested interests have much to lose and will fight change tooth and mail. If Medvedev does replace Putin, will he make a difference? The odds are that he would not, despite his brave words.
Stalin's Reach from the Grave: The Moscow Stalin Conference
Russian and foreign scholars dazzled at the marbled luxury of the Olympic Renaissance that welcomed them on December 5 to the International Conference on Stalinism. Organizers included Memorial (whose Petersburg offices were raided during the conference), and the commissioner on human rights. The Yeltsin Foundation provided the funding. The conference’s goal was to “narrow the gap between the scientific viewpoint and everyday understanding of Stalinism,” which “peddles dictatorship and historical justification of violence, millions of victims, and cleansing through social purges.” Clearly Stalin’s soaring public opinion “rating” were a sore point. More than four hundred signed to attend. Some, including disappointed journalists, had to be turned away.
To the packed crowd, Russia’s top archival historian, Oleg Khelvnyuk, began by listing Stalin’s “mass operations” which killed or imprisoned more than ten million, not counting war victims. Arsenii Roginsky, director of Memorial, followed with an impassioned address on the Stalin paradox – that there were millions of victims but no criminals! Instead of “crime without victims” Stalin somehow produced “victims without criminals,” by creating collective guilt for those who ran Russia after him. My presentation focused on “Was Stalin really Necessary?” stating we must weigh the costs of human life against the benefits cheerfully recited by apologists – rapid industrialization and the victory over Hitler (despite Stalin’s bungling of the first part of the war and his prewar extermination of the entire command structure).
The second day of the conference was devoted to breakout sessions. An agitated journalist, whose apartment had been ransacked that night, wondered whether this was retribution for attendance? Some vocal Stalinists had penetrated the conference (“Under Soviet rule we had everything!”). Eccentrics spun wild theories as anxious moderators to wrested the microphone from their resistant hands.
The conference’s peak was a round table of distinguished writers, film makers, lawyers, and journalists, most old enough to have experienced Stalinism first hand. The moderator, well-known TV commentator Nikolai Svanidze, did his best to control the crowded auditorium. Danil Granin, a war veteran, “frontovik”, recounted the creation of the war-leader Stalin myth as Stalin exiled Zhukov (the equivalent of Truman banishing Eisenhower to Mexico) as the war ended. Sigurd Schmidt, the son of a noted arctic expert, recalled that when the party purges began, people simply stopped talking. Visitors ceased coming to his father’s office. Russian human rights commissioner Vladimir Lukin, lived with his grandmother after his parents, dedicated communists, were imprisoned. Frightened by the racket of a trolley passing by, his grandmother, who had seen her innocent children imprisoned, comforted him that Soviet engineers had designed a quiet trolley but “enemies of the people” had sabotaged it. The greatest fireworks were reserved for the minister of education, Andrei Fursenko, who was repeatedly interrupted by shouts: “And what about the textbook?” The “textbook” was written by a little known historian and had been “approved” for use in Russian schools to teach the next generation about Soviet history and Stalin. The sputtering minister explained that the text had been approved by a meeting of teachers (an old Stalin trick), and even worse texts could have been chosen. As the next speaker was introduced, Fursenko discretely left the hall. The “text” claims that Stalin was forced by circumstances to embark on bold policies that, regrettably, demanded masses of victims. Putin himself is represented as another strong leader who rescues Russia from chaos and humiliation to preserve Russia’s rightful territory.
Did the conference achieve its goal? Scholars have the “facts” on their side, but they are read by a few thousand readers. The pro-Stalinist literature is available on every street corner in bright covers and short texts. These books “prove” that the archives are forgeries and scholars who use them are unpatriotic. Until we learn to communicate with a broader public, Stalin will continue to be a positive historical figure and the Putins and Medvedevs can continue to argue that Russia needs a strong hand.
To the packed crowd, Russia’s top archival historian, Oleg Khelvnyuk, began by listing Stalin’s “mass operations” which killed or imprisoned more than ten million, not counting war victims. Arsenii Roginsky, director of Memorial, followed with an impassioned address on the Stalin paradox – that there were millions of victims but no criminals! Instead of “crime without victims” Stalin somehow produced “victims without criminals,” by creating collective guilt for those who ran Russia after him. My presentation focused on “Was Stalin really Necessary?” stating we must weigh the costs of human life against the benefits cheerfully recited by apologists – rapid industrialization and the victory over Hitler (despite Stalin’s bungling of the first part of the war and his prewar extermination of the entire command structure).
The second day of the conference was devoted to breakout sessions. An agitated journalist, whose apartment had been ransacked that night, wondered whether this was retribution for attendance? Some vocal Stalinists had penetrated the conference (“Under Soviet rule we had everything!”). Eccentrics spun wild theories as anxious moderators to wrested the microphone from their resistant hands.
The conference’s peak was a round table of distinguished writers, film makers, lawyers, and journalists, most old enough to have experienced Stalinism first hand. The moderator, well-known TV commentator Nikolai Svanidze, did his best to control the crowded auditorium. Danil Granin, a war veteran, “frontovik”, recounted the creation of the war-leader Stalin myth as Stalin exiled Zhukov (the equivalent of Truman banishing Eisenhower to Mexico) as the war ended. Sigurd Schmidt, the son of a noted arctic expert, recalled that when the party purges began, people simply stopped talking. Visitors ceased coming to his father’s office. Russian human rights commissioner Vladimir Lukin, lived with his grandmother after his parents, dedicated communists, were imprisoned. Frightened by the racket of a trolley passing by, his grandmother, who had seen her innocent children imprisoned, comforted him that Soviet engineers had designed a quiet trolley but “enemies of the people” had sabotaged it. The greatest fireworks were reserved for the minister of education, Andrei Fursenko, who was repeatedly interrupted by shouts: “And what about the textbook?” The “textbook” was written by a little known historian and had been “approved” for use in Russian schools to teach the next generation about Soviet history and Stalin. The sputtering minister explained that the text had been approved by a meeting of teachers (an old Stalin trick), and even worse texts could have been chosen. As the next speaker was introduced, Fursenko discretely left the hall. The “text” claims that Stalin was forced by circumstances to embark on bold policies that, regrettably, demanded masses of victims. Putin himself is represented as another strong leader who rescues Russia from chaos and humiliation to preserve Russia’s rightful territory.
Did the conference achieve its goal? Scholars have the “facts” on their side, but they are read by a few thousand readers. The pro-Stalinist literature is available on every street corner in bright covers and short texts. These books “prove” that the archives are forgeries and scholars who use them are unpatriotic. Until we learn to communicate with a broader public, Stalin will continue to be a positive historical figure and the Putins and Medvedevs can continue to argue that Russia needs a strong hand.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Moscow Digs in Its Heels On the Katyn Massacre Once Again
On January 29, 2009 the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court upheld the October 14, 2008 verdict of the Moscow regional court to terminate the investigation of the Katyn massacre of Polish officers in April and May of 1940. This October 14 verdict was appealed to the Supreme Court by lawyers representing the relatives of ten Polish POWs executed at Katyn. In its January 29 rejection, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s finding that there had been no proper identification of the victims and rejected the exhumation records for three victims and the documentation of execution for the remaining seven submitted on behalf of their relatives. The second ground for rejection was the fact that the ten year limit of the Russian criminal code in effect on March 5, 1940 when the Politburo ordered the executions, had expired, and the case could not be reopened. Court decisions on cases of this magnitude are dictated by the Kremlin, and Russia’s refusal to recognize the victims of Katyn will continue to rile Polish-Russian relations. For more on the Katyn Massacre, see Exhuming Secrets, Hoover Digest by Paul R. Gregory and Maciej Siekierski. www.hoover.org/publications/digest/22787574.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)