(Un)documenting Stalinism?
By Sean at 8 December, 2008, 10:36 am
There isn’t much by way of new information about the raid on Memorial. Why the human rights organization was raided still remains a mystery. Work has renewed at the organization’s office but day to day activities remain disturbed. After all, the police did confiscate a laundry list of materials. According to a statement issued by Memorial, those materials include several hard drives that contain “biographical information of tens of thousands of victims of Stalinist repression collected by Memorial over the last 20 years, a unique collection of photographs and copies of archival documents on Stalinist terror, the results of searches of camp cemeteries and firing ranges in the territory of the former USSR, and an archive of audio interviews with former GULAG prisoners.”
Memorial, of course, wants their stuff back unmolested and as soon as possible. When Irina Flige, the director of Memorial St. Petersburg, presented this request to the investigative committee, they told her that an official response will take about a month.
The seizure of historical documents relating to terror unsurprisingly raises the specter of Stalinism and its place in Russian historical memory. Stalin still remains a controversial figure. He’s continues to be loved and hated, sometimes in the same breath. Historians have provided no satisfactory unified narrative for this complex period of Russia’s history. This failure is not for lack of documentation. The problem is more than how one interprets those documents continues to have political resonance for the present.
Still, the Memorial raid does raise the issue about documents and whether, as Clifford Levy argued in a recent article in the NY Times, “many archives detailing killings, persecution and other such acts committed by the Soviet authorities have become increasingly off limits.”
The declassification of documents has ebbed and flowed in the last 15 years. In the 1990s, the archives were simply opened without any process of declassification. The process was formalized in the mid-1990s with the law “On the process of declassification and extending the period of classification of archival documents of the Soviet government.” Moreover, declassification committees are underfunded and understaffed. There is also little incentive. Now there seems to be a cultural atmosphere that suggests that Russians want to move on. They’ve heard enough about the horrors of the Soviet system and seem to either not care anymore or would rather look to the future rather than the past. There have been instances at the federal level to re-classify documents. A partial list for 2005 and 2006 can be found here. But these seem to have little do with Stalinist terror.
The amount of available materials on the Soviet period are enormous. According to Sergei Mironenko, the director of the State Archive of the Russian Federation, said the following in response to a question about materials on Stalinism in a press conference yesterday:
“I cannot say for certain, but I presume that three-fourths of such documents have been declassified. A quarter remains classified,” he said. “According to our laws, any document must be declassified automatically after 30 years. Unfortunately, this law is not fulfilled,” he said. “Russia has a very awkward and costly declassification system. It takes 27 resolutions of experts to declassify any document,” Mironenko noted. It is difficult to get access to declassified documents, as well, he remarked.
One should emphasize that the 30 years does not pertain to documents relating to individuals. There is a 75 year wait for those unless you get special permission from any surviving family members. Also, getting access to declassified documents depends on what you’re working on. It’s has always been a dance with archivists to get materials if you are interested in seeing blood. I’ve gotten the “You’re requesting a lot of negative material” talk from archivists and I don’t do any research on terror. Part of the reason for this is that most archivists were trained in the Soviet system, so their first impulse is to protect information and not dole it out. The other reasons is that they are particularly sensitive about foreigners sniffing around their archives looking to, in their view, defame their national heritage. Given the legacy of English language historiography on Russia, I can’t say I blame them.
It is important to remember that not all declassifications pertain to Stalinism. For example, one of the holdings declassified this year was the Commission on Paper under the Council of People’s Commissars SSSR, 1928-1929. Anyone interested in what has been declassified in the last few years are encouraged to take a look at Rosarkhiv’s yearly bulletins on declassification. This of course doesn’t include regional archives where access can be hit or miss and depend more on the temperament of local archivists.
Basically, while the Memorial documents are important and must be returned, they are but a drop in a vast ocean of available documentation.
Still, the issue is about historical memory, and in particular the memory of Stalinism. Many are often aghast that Stalin retains a positive image among many Russians. Again and again you hear people ask why Russians have yet to contend with Stalinism. Yet, I wonder whether those who repeatedly ask this question are really asking for Russians to contend with Stalin the way they want them to. They want Russians to see Stalinism as a singular death machine where one man, Stalin, stood at the apex. History is far more complicated and contingent and unfortunately, Stalinism cannot be reduced to this no matter how many victimologies you construct, no matter how many mass graves you dig up, or even however many documents you declassify. if it was our job would be all too easy.
This is why I agree with Slavoj Zizek’s statement that “We should . . .admit that we still lack a satisfactory theory of Stalinism.” Namely, Stalinism was a historical phenonmena, and frankly, to locate its horrors only in the personage of Stalin is whitewashing the millions of people who actively participated in those horrors. In my view, really contending with Stalinism would mean understanding it as a phenonmena where the line between perpretrator and victim was blurred. It would mean coming to terms with the perverse carnivalesque at its core. It would require Russians to look into the mirror and peer deeply into themselves, not to locate victims or even perpretrators, but to ask how a society could cannabalize itself.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“They’ve heard enough about the horrors of the Soviet system and seem to either not care anymore or would rather look to the future rather than the past.”
You’re doing this thing here where you’re confusing the Stalin era with the Soviet system. When most Russians think “Soviet system,” they think of the Brezhnev era, which while heavy on absurdity was low on horror.
I think about Soviet system as an era from Lenin to now
So, Ivanov, – is it safe to assume Putin is building concentration camps? Let’s assume this, – it would make a great post on SRB, – compatible with other posts. We should contact Kasparov about this – I’m sure he has a clue about Putin’s concentrations camps in Russia.
America is so lucky that it has democracy and hardly any people in prisons. I bet that America, as the most democratic country in the world, has hardly any people in its penitentiary system. What do you think?
Can one judge about a country’s democracy by the number of people in its prisons?
Prez. of R. Dima.
I don’t give a shit about democracy or whatever it’s called. What’s the point to talk about something that doesn’t exist?
Soviet system is not about concentration camps (it’s actually a German design). But if you mean labor camps – anyway this is not a Soviet invention.
What I’m talking about in the state of mind of people. Here in Iceland it’s kind of more Soviet than in the late USSR.
Ivanov,
I agree with you on “democracy”. The talk about democracy (or the absence of it in Russia) reminds me the talk about “building of communism by 1980″ in the USSR under Khruschev. Some kind of a carrot invented to distract people’s minds from the simple fact that their lives are meaningless.
I wrote that post on “democracy” as to challenge people who believe it exist. If it exist, one mus be able to define and quantify
it, right?
Overall, the logic behind the statement “Russia doesn’t have democracy”, is as silly as “Kasparov is not the President of Russia, therefore Russia has no democracy”.
More than 2.1 million people are in jail in the US at any one time; that is about one in 140 Americans, or as many people as live in Namibia, or nearly five Luxembourgs – and it is a number that continues to rise. They are guarded by about 120,000 prison guards.
Not a sophisticated analysis: I’m ashamed and disappointed that many Russians view Stalin more positively than negatively. Imagine if the same proportion of Germans felt the equivalent about Hitler. We would feel that there is something really screwed up about the Germans. I wonder how much of it is a willful sort of blindness. My guess is that many Stalin admirers somehow turn a blind eye or forgive all the suffering, repressions, censorship, and the millions of deaths because he made the Soviet Union a feared world power.
Stalin, of course, did not act by himself. Perhaps that’s another reason so many say they admire him. Millions of people collaborated in the Stalinist enterprise and their children were probably inculcated with a sense of veneration and gratitude toward the Great Vozhd.
Dimochka, your schtick is getting annoying. It is obvious you either not reading the contents of this site or have no ability to comprehend what you are reading. Why don’t you go to some real anti-Russian sites (like La Russophobe). Maybe you can apply your your density to cancel theirs.
“Imagine if the same proportion of Germans felt the equivalent about Hitler.”
If Hitler had won the war, they probably would.
““Imagine if the same proportion of Germans felt the equivalent about Hitler.”
Moreover, though the proportion almost certainly is not as a high, many Germans (and Austrians, and lots of Central and Eastern Europeans) have an opinion of Hitler that is not unambiguous. Especially in the case of people old enough to actually remember him.
Given the legacy of English language historiography on Russia, I can’t say I blame them.
Eh? The legacy being what, exactly?
In my view, really contending with Stalinism would mean understanding it as a phenonmena where the line between perpretrator and victim was blurred.
I’d agree with this. The more I read about Stalin, the more I think that the people who did the killings in the first wave were the ones killed in the second wave, and so on. I find it hard to believe that all victims were innocent when so many of Stalin’s willing executioners were dispatched shortly afterwards.
It would require Russians to look into the mirror and peer deeply into themselves, not to locate victims or even perpretrators, but to ask how a society could cannabalize itself.
This too. Stalin’s terror could never have happened had thousands of ordinary Russians been willing to take part in the mass murder of their neighbours, friends, and families. No wonder the question of how and why remains unanswered.
“Stalin’s terror could never have happened had thousands of ordinary Russians been willing to take part in the mass murder of their neighbours, friends, and families.”
The thing is, from the standpoint of the ordinary person there was no mass murder. It was only the murder of “that guy I don’t like.” It’s only “mass” when you add up all the little murders.
I like Stalin because birthrates were high and population was growing despite all the woes and evil-doing.
Dimochka, your schtick is getting annoying. It is obvious you either not reading the contents of this site or have no ability to comprehend what you are reading. Why don’t you go to some real anti-Russian sites (like La Russophobe). Maybe you can apply your your density to cancel theirs.
———————————————-
Candide,
Yet another post that doesn’t refer to what I’ve said, rather – to offend me. You are a very insecure person, you know? Arrogance can always be traced to insecurity.
You can rant all you want that Russia has no “democracy” and “Kasparov is not President of Russia”, but the truth of the matter is – you (or your parents) made a fatal mistake many years ago by immigrating to the USA. Now you are trying to compensate your disappointment by dumping on Russia and Russian people. Why don’t you concentrate on your life in the USA? Some very bad times are ahead. Think about it. Forget about Russia.
Doom is both arrogant and secure, thank you very much.
Doom is both arrogant and secure, thank you very much.
———————————————-
With all due respect – that’s impossible. It’s like being “smart and stupid” at the same time.
Check with a professional about this.
Seriously, I think you may be misunderstanding the connotations of the English words, assuming you’re not joking.
Eh? The legacy being what, exactly?
Where should I start? I’ll give a few examples. The one where the roots of Stalinism are found in Ivan Grozny (Hitler gets the same treatment btw see Goldhagen). Or the one where Stalinism is born of some sort of genetic disposition toward authoritarianism. Or the Mongol thesis. Or the one from the totalitarian school (Pipes, Conquest, Figes belongs to this too) where Soviet society was brainwashed, atomized, and terrorized into obedience or that Stalinism is the fulfillment of Marxist ideology. I especially like the Freudian psycho-histories of Stalin from the 1970s which argue that his brutality is a result of his childhood. There are many. Another trend is to suggest (Conquest did this many years ago but retracted it but I think he believes it since he’s never used archives despite two new editions of his Great Terror being published since 1991) that all the archival evidence are falsified by the Bolsheviks. If some of these ideas were posed in other historical fields (except Nazi Germany) they would have been ran out of the profession.
If you are interested I can provide a comprehensive bibliography. I believe I have one somewhere.
A good indication is Shelia Fitzpatrick’s account in the Slavic Review of how she was treated in the 1980s when she argued that there was social mobility under Stalin.
As for Chris’ comment:
The thing is, from the standpoint of the ordinary person there was no mass murder. It was only the murder of “that guy I don’t like.” It’s only “mass” when you add up all the little murders.
Absolutely. Only history gives us a singular narrative that allows for the dots to be connected. I think one problem historians have is that we squash time. So a process that takes a year is smashed into something that looks like days. All the periods of respite, calm, and reversal are removed. If we imagine how these years unfold as people lived them–minutes, hours, days rather than months and years–I think we might be able to understand things like mass terror as a series disparate, mediated, little acts that prevent to those who lived it from putting it into a comprehensible narrative. I think a good example of this is Chukovskaya’s Sofia Petrovna.
Sean, how much knowledge was there at the time of the sheer scale of the Terror? If I was in a town in Buttfucknowhereovna and we had had just identified the evil traitors who were poisoning the dairy, would I have any idea that this same drama was being played out in towns and villages all across the country, or would I think my town’s event was singular?
“(Hitler gets the same treatment btw see Goldhagen).”
Don’t forget all those fashionable attempts in the 40s and 50s to link Nazism to Hegel, Martin Luther, German child-rearing practices, or whatever you thought “the German disease” had its roots its.
“when she argued that there was social mobility under Stalin.”
Isn’t this self-evident?
If I was in a town in Buttfucknowhereovna and we had had just identified the evil traitors who were poisoning the dairy, would I have any idea that this same drama was being played out in towns and villages all across the country, or would I think my town’s event was singular?
Good question. Frankly, I don’t know. My guess is that maybe there were a few people who connected the dots, but I would imagine that most didn’t.
“…from the standpoint of the ordinary person there was no mass murder. It was only the murder of “that guy I don’t like.”
Completely wrong.
There was a lot of murder of the “liked ones” and “loved ones”, that were never forgotten but were kept silent.
In my extended family two people disappeared into GULag in 1930-s. They left wives, children and relatives that loved them dearly and cherished their memories but didn’t speak out for a long time.
“Not liked” by the people who denounced them, not the people who loved them.
“It would require Russians to look into the mirror and peer deeply into themselves, not to locate victims or even perpetrators, but to ask how a society could cannabalize itself.”
Well said, Sean. Except that it’s also important to locate victims and perpetrators–to find out as much as possible where and when a person was killed or sent to a camp, as well who where the executioners. In other words, the more credible data we have the better all this can be studied and analyzed.
I’m not an apologist of the Tsarist regime. Revolutions don’t take place when the populace is content. However, one of the things that makes the Stalin Era so horrifying is that compared to it the rule of Nikolai II was an example of tolerance, freedom of expression and humaneness. The indignant condemnations of, say, Kropotkin and Tolstoy sound quaint and trivial when we compare the troubled reign of the last Tsar with what followed after him (Lenin and Stalin.) Or how about the living conditions of Lenin and Stalin during their Siberian exile? And let’s remember Trotsky. According to him, besides writing for hours on end, during his imprisonment in Tsarist Russia he openly indulged in reading from a large selection of books. How many of Stalin’s prisoners could claim the same?
Chris mentions that people were probably not too aware of the Terror since they had limited access to information. Maybe so. But that’s another big difference. Compare the flow of information and extent of censorship during the last Tsar with the times of Stalin.
Is this wish, sovjet or prikaz, Sean?
Except that it’s also important to locate victims and perpetrators–to find out as much as possible where and when a person was killed or sent to a camp, as well who where the executioners.
Well yes, but the process was also mediated by a whole bunch of other people. The victim-perpetrator binary doesn’t work in most cases (it does in some but not all). For example, some were denounced from regular people, some were sent to troikas based on “investigations” by lower NKVD officers and then approved for imprisonment and execution by district level troikas. Some were real criminals who because of changes in the law were now sentenced to 8-10 or shot. Some were in prisons already, committed a crime in prison and then shot as a result. Some were NKVD today and then arrested and shot the next. Some were politicals, priests, “kulaks” and other so called former classes. Some were arrested because of a confession (usually forced and false). I’m told that one of the first questions an interrogator asked was “Who is with you?” Terror based on connections made it grow exponentially very quickly. Some were social deviants of a variety of sorts.
My view is that the violence tended to be more in webs of relations rather than hierarchies.
A few things I was told this weekend over dinner with Getty. One was that regional party secretaries were lobbying Stalin for mass operations in 1937. And another was that even after he was exiled to Alma Ata, Trotsky was being consulted on Orgburo matters as late as 1929. Apparently he made a few trips to Moscow to attend meetings.
There were major differences between Tsarist and Stalinist penal policy for sure. I just wouldn’t take Trotsky’s or Lenin’s experience as anything close to the norm. One big difference in addition to the some Kolya mentioned was that the Stalinist employed populist participation. This inevitably leads to chaos. The more I think about the terror the more I wonder if it wasn’t more like a civil war.
Take your pick, ivanov.
1. There are much more people in every family that “disappeared” in 1941-1945.
2. Stalin is considered to be the political leader who managed to win Hitler who caused more losses to Russian families.
So total balance of 1+2 is likely positive than negative for Stalin.
PS. Story of my family. Grandfather spent 10 years in camp years … and survived the war. Another grandpa and grandma died when forced to move to “explore the East of the country”.
But almost all other relatives in Ukraina and west part of Russia disappeared during the war (as well as their villages). So my father had respect for Stalin cause he survived and lived when there was “order” and no need to install metal doors and bars everywhere.
I don’t need a mirror…
It can’t be the water. We all know Iceland water is very pure…
It seems to me that the closest historical parallel to the Terror might be not anything done by Hitler but rather the European Witch Craze. Even the narratives are similar. They were also both mass phenomena.
Stalin still remains a controversial figure. He’s continues to be loved and hated, sometimes in the same breath.
Is there a generational aspect to this, i.e. my son’s great-great grandfather was a shaman of a Siberian settlement somewhere near the shores of Lake Baikal. The shaman was a village healer/leader, so he was a Stalin target, denounced and killed. Then, absent parents, the great grand-father was more-or-less raised by the state and founded his life and career with some allegiance to Stalin and the state. Grand-father knowing both stories is ambiguous neither real hot, nor real cold re: Stalin & state.
On the topic of “truth and reconciliation,” it meant a lot to said grand-father when he found (on the Internet) the shaman’s name listed and cleared of any crimes that he was accused on during the Stalin era. In this case, digging up history and recognizing a wrong publicly was a very positive, healthy thing. I’m saddened to think that this Memorial event would curtail such progress.
I’m always looking for the power/money angle in things. Daniel Yergin, in his book about the History of the Oil Industry, “The Prize”, notes that Stalin was a worker in the Nobel’s/Rothchilds’ Baku oil fields pre-revolution. He always understood that oil equals power/money, and Yergin suggests getting control over those fields was one of Stalin’s primary drivers. Could there be anything in those archives re: deals involving Western corporations, promises made to Georgians, etc. that would be better left ‘lost’ right now. Just a thought.
I think someone has suggested this comparison to witch crazes. I just can’t remember right now. It is an avenue worth thinking about. If memory serves me, Robert Thurston in his mostly panned Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia suggests mass hysteria as a thesis.
”This too. Stalin’s terror could never have happened had thousands of ordinary Russians been willing to take part in the mass murder of their neighbours, friends, and families. No wonder the question of how and why remains unanswered.”
Maybe they were just terrified? I’m not sure Russians as a whole people would have willingly participated, per se, although I’m sure many people used it to settle scores. The Soviets were pretty brutal during the Civil War and newly made Cheka officers had been sorting out whoever annoyed them countrywide for years afterwards. By the time the Terror came, maybe the Russians were just terrified, and felt that the only way to preserve onself was to shaft their neighbour.
I’ve often given Mike Averko a hard time for defending Nikolai II, but there is no doubt whatsoever Lenin and Stalin took the Russians to a place of brutality they had never been before and I think they just shat themselves and pointed fingers anywhere – as long as it wasnt at themselves.
By the time the Terror came, maybe the Russians were just terrified, and felt that the only way to preserve onself was to shaft their neighbour.
This is a notion that is often asserted but rarely proved with any available evidence. What we do know is that according to NKVD assessments of the public mood, rumors, and letters during the terror is that most people either didn’t care (they were more concerned about rising bread prices and hardships of their daily lives) or felt that the elites deserved it since the impression was that they were all corrupt anyway. See Chapter 7 of Sarah Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia You can read part of it on google books here
Personally, I’ve always found apathy and/or approval as a far more terrifying notion than widespread fear.
”Personally, I’ve always found apathy and/or approval as a far more terrifying notion than widespread fear.”
In fairness you know a lot more about this than I, I just threw that out there. I think people like me, after reading Bulgakov and Rybakov, think that the authors represent the masses, when I suppose they dont really. The idea that apathy allowed this to happen is truly chilling, and I wonder would this have occurred elsewhere, is it a peculiarity to Russia? Probably not. But if Paddies or Brits start vanishing on mass I dont think there’d be apathy here.
Many Germans claimed they had no idea about what was going on in the nearby concentration camps…
And as we all know – Germans were much more civilized people than Russians…
I don’t think the psychology is hard to understand. The government, which you trust, says that there are a lot of spies trying to kill you and you should be on the lookout.
How come the windmill keeps breaking down? It must have been those spies! Let’s see, who around here looks like a spy? I’ll bet it’s that bastard Fred across the street. He’s weird, and I never trusted him. I should probably report him.
Pretty simple, doesn’t require any postulation of mass delusion or evil intent. Same thing happened in the witch hunts.
“Many Germans claimed they had no idea about what was going on in the nearby concentration camps…”
The camps in Germany proper were forced-labor camps. The actual death camps were in Poland.
“I think someone has suggested this comparison to witch crazes. I just can’t remember right now. It is an avenue worth thinking about.”
By the way, The Hammer Against the Witches is online in English translation. If you read it (and it is very entertaining!) I’m sure you will recognize a lot of themes, as well as becoming an object of fear for all the Dark Lord’s servants: http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org
The legal transcripts (court proceedings) of the Salem Witch Trials are also online, although the spelling is both archaic and atrocious. It’s like they were written by Averko. e.g.:
(Indictment v. William Barker, Jr.)
1st Paper
Case of William Barker Witchcraft-Aug 1692-May 1693)
Province of the Massachusetts
Bay in New England Essex Ss An’o Rr’s & Reginae Gulielmi & Mariae Angliae &c Quarto Anoq’e Dom
1692
The Jurors for o’r Sov’r lord and Lady the King & Queen pr’sents that William Barker Junior of Andver in the County of Essex aforsaid sometime in the month of August last in the yeare 1692 afors’d Wickedly Mallitiously & felloniously a Covenant withe the Devill did make & Signed the Devills Booke and by the Devill was Baptized & before him Renownced his form’r Baptisme & Promised to be the Devills for ever and ever By which wicked & Diabollicall Covenant the Said William Barker is become A Detestable Witch Against the Peace of o’r So’r lord & Lady the King & Queen their Crowne & Dignity And the laws in that Case made & provided.
(Reverse)
Billa Vera
*Robert Payne
Foreman
ponet se
Not Guilty
Court of Ispswich
Ipswich 2 Tuesday May
1693
( Suffolk Court Records Case No. 2761 Page 102 )
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=BoySal1.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/oldsalem&tag=public&part=19&division=div2
Why is the comparison of Stalin Terror with Medieval Europe witch hunts is an “avenue worth thinking about”, but comparison with Ivan Grozny Terror is right out?
I think if you close your eyes on Grozny and ‘oprichnina’, together with the following ‘Smutnoye Vremya’ (Time of Troubles) you are deliberately losing large part of the Russian picture.
I was thinking about the social dynamics of mass hysteria like witch hunts as an analytic not the actual historical event. In this sense, Grozny’s elimination of the rival nobles and Stalin’s move against regional secretaries might say something about methods of elite rule and efforts of the center to consolidate power. In this sense Grozny might be an interesting way to think about the terror. What I reject about the Grozny/Stalin thesis is that there is a direct historical line between the two, that the former inevitably begot the latter. This is ahistorical and basically removes 400 years of history.
Not to mention that W. European medieval kings were pretty brutal against their noble rivals too. The way Grozny consolidated the medieval Russian state wasn’t all that unique from the way states were consolidated in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries.
“Not to mention that W. European medieval kings were pretty brutal against their noble rivals too.”
Who hasn’t done that? The Ottoman Sultan normally killed all of his brothers. This is just typical premodern power politics.
I also am not easy with the term “hysteria” used for either the witch hunts (which lasted in Europe for a hundred+ years) or the Terror. Given the assumptions of the people participating in them (such as, witches are real), they were more or less rational.
Given the assumptions of the people participating in them (such as, witches are real), they were more or less rational.
Fair enough. Didn’t witch hunts flare up and subside at certain periods or in certain locations? My historical knowledge of them is limited.
I guess what intrigues me is when what was consider “irrational” is now considered “rational” and vice versa. So something like the Kirov Law of Dec 1 1934 would not have been rational before Kirov’s murder. Or the Patriot Act would have not been rational for Sept 11.
On a similar note, I like Kai Erikson’s analysis in Wayward Purtians in how before you can remove someone from a community they must be Othered or at least the discourse of Otherness needs to be expanded to suddenly include people who before wouldn’t be included or view as a danger to the community.
“Didn’t witch hunts flare up and subside at certain periods or in certain locations? My historical knowledge of them is limited.”
So is mine, but if memory serves, it was largely in what is now Germany (ha! see? genetic German evil) from around 1350 to around 1450, but then it peaked again a few hundred years later (like in Salem).
But really I think a lot of the “hysteria” talk about such things depends on the assumption that “we” (the speakers) are normal and so the behavior of “them” is some kind of abberation from that norm.
Incidentally, the last (known) execution of a person for witchcraft in Europe (it still goes on today in other places of course) was 1811.
Why is the comparison of Stalin Terror with Medieval Europe witch hunts is an “avenue worth thinking about”, but comparison with Ivan Grozny Terror is right out?
I think if you close your eyes on Grozny and ‘oprichnina’, together with the following ‘Smutnoye Vremya’ (Time of Troubles) you are deliberately losing large part of the Russian picture.
————————————————
Indeed, if you close the eyes on America’s involvement into Vietnam War which was financed with a printing press and the inflation that followed, causing high interest rates in the early 80s … – you are losing a large part of the American picture.
Another factor that made Stalin’s repression easier is that the Bolsheviks destroyed the independent press, pamphleteers (whether legal or not) and book writers that used to spread information unflattering to the government. Gorky was a celebrity in pre-revolutionary Russia. And remember Chekhov’s trip to Sakhalin and the book he wrote about the appalling conditions he found among the convicts there (it was his longest work). Imagine a Stalin-era writer gaining access to Gulag labor camps and then writing (and publishing!) a scathing book about what he saw.
In addition, the Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian judicial system, which made tremendous strides during the last fifty years of the monarchy (primarily during Alexander II). The Russian Bar circa 1910 was quite independent and “progressive”. Alexander III and Nikolai II tried to limit its independence, but not always successfully. Juries acquitting people the Tsarist regime wanted in prison was not too uncommon.
Kolya,
Actually, Gorky did see the “conditions” while visiting the labor camps and the building site of “Belomorkanal”, but he wrote what was required by the system.
“1. There are much more people in every family that “disappeared” in 1941-1945.
2. Stalin is considered to be the political leader who managed to win (against) Hitler who caused more losses to Russian families.
So total balance of 1+2 is likely positive than negative for Stalin.”
Wouldn’t Stalin’s signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the naive belief the Germans would live up to it, and no response to Operation Barbarossa until most of Ukraina was conquered, make him partially responsible for the deaths of USSR citizens?
“Wouldn’t Stalin’s signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the naive belief the Germans would live up to it”
I think the general consensus nowadays is that Stalin had no such belief.
“The Russian Bar circa 1910 was quite independent and “progressive”. Alexander III and Nikolai II tried to limit its independence, but not always successfully.”
Beilis got off.
A year or so ago I thought of looking for descendents of Beilis and got as far as finding several Beilises in the NYC phonebook.
That’s right. Stalin is the killer of Ukranian people, “everyone knows that”.
Just let’s remember how easy and smooth Hitler took over all those civilized Netherlands and Frances.
Even night clubs in Paris continued pompous shows, what a war!
If I turn your question upside down and say that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the most efficient way to stop Hitler?
Imagine a Stalin-era writer gaining access to Gulag labor camps and then writing (and publishing!) a scathing book about what he saw.
Well let’s be reasonable here. Press restriction under Stalin is obvious. In fact, there is a noticeable difference in the contents of Soviet journals in 1927 and 1929. It’s like night and day.
And while the Tsarist press was more open, illiteracy was also over 80%. So I would call it a wash.
I’ve been told that there are boxes and boxes of notebooks in the basement of the Central Party Archive in Moscow that contain memoirs of zeks returning after 1956. Apparently someone planned on a memory project of sorts or prisoners began sending them in voluntarily. But the notebooks remain uncatalogued and therefore technically closed to researchers.
If I turn your question upside down and say that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the most efficient way to stop Hitler?
===============================================
What would happened if Stalin didn’t sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Sean, I know that your regular readers know that there was considerably less freedom of expression during Stalin than during Nikolai II. I made the point, though, because through the years I have come across people who DIDN’T know that. They sort of assumed that Stalin was simply continuing a practice that existed before. The same with his repressions. They assume that Stalin was bad, that he screwed up Lenin’s legacy, but that his repressions was also more of a matter of continuity: that after a few years of Lenin, Russia reverted to it’s usual totally repressive self with Stalin.
By the way, I don’t agree with your statement that it’s sort of a wash because while the press was freer before the revolution than during Stalin, fewer people could read back then. Newspapers and pamphlets and so on propagated information not only to those who could read. Those who could read talked to those who could not. The pamphlet or newspaper was only the first in a long chain, the rest was spread by of word of mouth. During Luther’s time only about five percent of Germans were literate and yet the printing press played a crucial role in the spread of Lutheranism and Protestantism in general.
“I’ve been told that there are boxes and boxes of notebooks in the basement of the Central Party Archive in Moscow that contain memoirs of zeks returning after 1956.”
I wonder whether the project, or whatever it was, came to halt while Khruschev was still in power or whether it stopped after his ouster.
Kolya,
By the way, how would you comment this unfortunate episode that happened to Peter Schiff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvL4u-MrVM
It seems CNN has imposed censorship.
That’s why I belive some of my posts have disappeared from here after they have been published.
“Newspapers and pamphlets and so on propagated information not only to those who could read.”
How was the distribution system? I.e., how effectively would the contents of a newspaper in Petersburg make it out to peasants in Ukraine?
“Newspapers and pamphlets and so on propagated information not only to those who could read.”
How was the distribution system? I.e., how effectively would the contents of a newspaper in Petersburg make it out to peasants in Ukraine?
————————————————-
In the USSR illiterarcy was liquidated pretty fast (by early 30s), one of the reasons – so that the people could be exposed to propaganda.
Another media – was radio – every dwelling in the USSR had a radio (mandatory), so that the people could listen to propaganda from 6:AM till 12 midnight.
Where should I start? I’ll give a few examples.
I am aware that you think a lot of English language Russian history us crap, I was asking what the resulting legacy is. All you’ve done is give examples of crap English language Russian history.
Incidentally, if you think English language Russian history is crap, in which language do you consider Russian history to have been dealt with competently?
“I am aware that you think a lot of English language Russian history us crap, I was asking what the resulting legacy is.”
Crap understanding of the Russian present, for one.
“Another media – was radio – every dwelling in the USSR had a radio (mandatory), so that the people could listen to propaganda from 6:AM till 12 midnight.”
Yeah. I meant in the laste tsarist era though.
The idea that apathy allowed this to happen is truly chilling, and I wonder would this have occurred elsewhere, is it a peculiarity to Russia? Probably not. But if Paddies or Brits start vanishing on mass I dont think there’d be apathy here.
I’d like to think that such a thing could not happen in the UK. I repeat, I’d like to think.
“if you think English language Russian history is crap, in which language do you consider Russian history to have been dealt with competently?”
This assumes that there is such a language.
“I’d like to think that such a thing could not happen in the UK. I repeat, I’d like to think.”
As concerns the UK as it exists now that is almost certainly true. But if the UK were to have gone through similar experiences as Russia had from c. 1880-1940 (or whenever), it would no longer be the same UK. That’s the problem with these kinds of comparisons.
I think the general consensus nowadays is that Stalin had no such belief.
On the evidence I have seen as presented in reasonable history books, Stalin constantly flip-flopped between not trusting the Germans at all and not believing anyone who doubted that the Germans had wholesome intentions.
“Stalin constantly flip-flopped between not trusting the Germans at all and not believing anyone who doubted that the Germans had wholesome intentions.”
I think one problem with determining what Stalin thought about anything was that he was careful about hiding what he really thought. Personally, without having the luxury of being able to have a seance with Dead Stalin, I think trusting the Germans would have been crazy for anybody, especially paranoid Stalin. Which does not mean that he would not have denounced anybody who contradicted his official position that he was trusting them.
Crap understanding of the Russian present, for one.
Hardly. People have a crap understanding of the US, Germany, and Italy: it is not a result of poorly written historical works.
This assumes that there is such a language.
I had assumed that there are historical works in existence which address Russian history competently, yes.
But if the UK were to have gone through similar experiences as Russia had from c. 1880-1940 (or whenever), it would no longer be the same UK.
But given the British did not go through similar experiences, I think perhaps such events could not have occurred. One of the things which surprised me the most from Lawrence James’ Rise and Fall of the British Empire was how accountable parliament was, how vociferous the press was, how much opposition there was to government, and how fierce the debates were even at the height of the British Empire. British politicians have never had the freedom to abuse the population in the way the Russia rulers did.
“People have a crap understanding of the US, Germany, and Italy: it is not a result of poorly written historical works.”
I think it is in part. More precisely, since most people don’t actually read historical works, it’s in the way in which such ideas trickle into public consciousness. Isn’t this why people are so scared of Holocaust revisionism?
“But given the British did not go through similar experiences, I think perhaps such events could not have occurred.”
Britain was part of the Witch Craze, wasn’t it? It had blood libel trials, etc.
Incidentally, if you think English language Russian history is crap, in which language do you consider Russian history to have been dealt with competently?
Where did you get the idea that I think that all books on Russia in English are crap? There are bad books, sure. There are even good books with bad interpretations. There are bad books that you can’t ignore because of their impact i.e. Conquest.There are even historians that I generally don’t like but still think they they have one or two good books. For example, I think Martian Malia’s book on Herzen is quite good, but I wouldn’t recommend anything he’s written on the Soviet period. The same goes for Pipes. His Russia Under the Old Regime is decent, his Soviet works are nothing but ideological rants.
The legacy of English language historiography is that Russian history still has not completely thrown off the examining Russia’s past through a Cold War prism. Speaking as an insider, it’s tough to overcome your training since what we read is so mired in political debates of the 1970s and 1980s. After all, this profession was born as a result of the Cold War, funded with Cold War money, and until the Soviet collapse has had a close relationship with the US government.
Interestingly, the opening of the archives has done little really to change all this. All it’s allowed is for each side to harden their position.
Sadly, Russian language historiography is even worse though there are some notable exceptions.
Actually, the best books (in all languages) on Russian history are on the Tsarist period. It has less stinkers because it was never fully consumed by Cold War politics.
“Sadly, Russian language historiography is even worse though there are some notable exceptions.”
I have a lot of (what I consider to be) very good Russian stuff. What are you basing your statement on? Radzinsky? Stuff like that?
(What I like about going through the history section of a Russian bookstore is the wealth of primary sources. I would much rather read a book BY Catherine the Great than a book ABOUT Catherine the Great, thank you very much.))
“I would much rather read a book BY Catherine the Great than a book ABOUT Catherine the Great, thank you very much.”
You must be the type that has full collections of Lenin & Stalin works and reading them diligently every day.
Russian illiteracy before the Bolshevik takeover may be a myth.
I read travel notes by some Englishman, who traveled Russia from end to end in early 1900-s, and he described Russians everywhere as voracious readers, even saying that Russian masses are clearly more literate than the English. He traveled on Trans-Siberian and was amamzed how Russians of all ranks, in every compartment, were constantly reading books. He stated that such a scene was impossible to see in England. He went as far as to say that English gov’t needs to take lesson from that, and do something to improve the literacy of English masses.
All that makes elementary common sense. All the positive traits of Russian people can be easily traced back to pre-Revolutionary times. Communists did few positive things but spread propaganda to take the credit for everything good.
What are you basing your statement on?
Admittedly, your access is better than mine. I think my knowledge of new history books is about 1-2 years behind. And few Russian books stores in LA carry academic books.
My impression is more about social histories, which I’m primarily interested in. There are some good ones–Zubkova, Kozlov, Lebina–but most of the ones I come across tend to be a list of dates and facts (which has some use in regard to reference and to mine footnotes) but little by way of interpretation. It seems to me that most Russian lang. history books are mostly about Great Men and Big Events. For example, I’ve only found two decent social histories on the Civil War. Zhin’ v katastrofe by Narskii and another book about Jews which I can’t remember the title of. There is also a small tirazh book on peasants in Ryazan during the CW that’s decent. Granted, there isn’t a really good social history of the Civil War in English. There are only scattered articles. Over all, in English there is a body of good social history.
But this is changing. Rosspen is putting out some great stuff. And the document collections are invaluable. Life is hard for Russian historians just on a pure economic level. They have little institutional and financial support to do research, publish, and participate on an international level (again besides a few exceptions.)
Btw do you ever go to this bookstore Nina (http://www.kniginina.ru/)? I love that place and it has a bunch of these self-published low tirazh books.
Russian illiteracy before the Bolshevik takeover may be a myth.
I read travel notes by some Englishman, who traveled Russia from end to end in early 1900-s, and he described Russians everywhere as voracious readers, even saying that Russian masses are clearly more literate than the English. He traveled on Trans-Siberian and was amamzed how Russians of all ranks, in every compartment, were constantly reading books. He stated that such a scene was impossible to see in England. He went as far as to say that English gov’t needs to take lesson from that, and do something to improve the literacy of English masses.
All that makes elementary common sense. All the positive traits of Russian people can be easily traced back to pre-Revolutionary times. Communists did few positive things but spread propaganda to take the credit for everything good.
———————————————
You failed to mention that judging by the graffitis found on the walls of the St. Sofia Cathedral in Kiev, average people living in the XI century Kiev could read and write. The Communists took the credit for that too.
“The same goes for Pipes. His Russia Under the Old Regime is decent, his Soviet works are nothing but ideological rants.”
That’s funny. I don’t think much of his Old Regime book.
Chris, I wrote:
“Newspapers and pamphlets and so on propagated information not only to those who could read.”
And you ask me how well propagated those newspapers were. I don’t know. But there were local papers too. I also mentioned pamphlets. Much of anti-government information was spread via pamphlets from local presses. Spread around some of those pamphlets and the rest is word of mouth.
Tim, for what is worth, if you read some of the Russian newspapers during the times of Nikolai II, you would be surprised by how critical of the regime many of them were. Some of them were even openly hostile to the government. For instance, Socialist Revolutionary Maria Spiridonova murdered a general in 1906. She was spared the death penalty primarily because she garnered a lot of popular support thanks to sympathetic press accounts. (Ironically she was executed during Stalin.)
I also want to mention that the Bolsheviks consolidated power after a bloody civil war in which millions were killed: Reds, Whites, Greens, Anarchists, and so on. So it’s not that the people apathetically submitted to whatever it was. Needless to say, after years of WWI, Civil War, hunger and disease, Russia was exhausted by 1923.
“I also want to mention that the Bolsheviks consolidated power after a bloody civil war in which millions were killed: Reds, Whites, Greens, Anarchists, and so on. So it’s not that the people apathetically submitted to whatever it was. Needless to say, after years of WWI, Civil War, hunger and disease, Russia was exhausted by 1923.”
This basically what I meant when I said that the UK with Russian experiences would not be the same UK.
“You failed to mention that judging by the graffitis found on the walls of the St. Sofia Cathedral in Kiev, average people living in the XI century Kiev could read and write. The Communists took the credit for that too.”
Nope. That means the people writing on the walls of the cathedral in Kiev could read and write, not average people. For one thing, average people did not live in Kiev.
Existence of graffiti on the walls of Pompei does not mean your average inhabitant of the Roman Empire was literate.
Bizarro glad to be able to make contribution to discussion of Russia, like Richard Pipes.
Chris, you mentioned the Beilis case (1913). That is indeed a good example. For anti-Semitic reasons they wanted to railroad and convict him of murdering a Christian thirteen-year-old. At the end, though, he was acquitted by a jury of Christian Orthodox. Of course, Beilis was fortunate in that his case became a cause celebre and some of the best defense lawyers in the country took on his case (pro bono).
I read about it years ago, so I didn’t remembered much about it. Wikipedia, though, has a good entry on him. According to Wikipedia, upon his release Beilis and his family moved to Palestine. In 1920 they immigrated to the US, where he died in 1934.
Britain was part of the Witch Craze, wasn’t it?
Okay, I concede: possible such events could have happened in the UK several centuries ago. I was basing my thinking on the time after the establishment of parliamentary democracy.
I think it is in part. More precisely, since most people don’t actually read historical works, it’s in the way in which such ideas trickle into public consciousness.
So badly written Russian history is in part responsible for misunderstanding Russia, because even though most people don’t read it – or indeed any history – it somehow trickles into public conciousness (presumably the good historical works do no such trickling)? Sorry, I’m not convinced.
If you’re looking for a correlation between ignorance of a country and volume of poorly written history about that country, you’re going to struggle.
“Okay, I concede: possible such events could have happened in the UK several centuries ago. I was basing my thinking on the time after the establishment of parliamentary democracy.”
But Russia was not a parliamentary democracy. It was a medieval, or barely postmedieval, country. Where people thought like medieval people think. As I have said before, the average person in Russia in 1880 probably lived little differently from the average person in Chaucer’s England and had a similar worldview.
By the way, Beilis case compares quite favorably with the contemporaey Leo Frank case in the US. The difference is actually like between life and death, because Beilis lived and Frank didn’t.
Early XX century Russia was one of the most progressive and promising countries. If not the War and goddamn Commies…
“If you’re looking for a correlation between ignorance of a country and volume of poorly written history about that country, you’re going to struggle.”
I think you’re being deliberately stubborn. These books are used as textbooks. Obviously they have an impact. Not as great as that of Hollywood movies, but it is there.
“Early XX century Russia was one of the most progressive and promising countries.”
If by “progressive” one means “murdering hundreds of Jews every few years,” sure, it was at the forfront of humanity. Don’t forget the incredible Tsarist Space Program and the cure for cancer Rasputin almost completed.
“At the end, though, he was acquitted by a jury of Christian Orthodox.”
Sure. Note, however, that the conclusion of the jury was that the child had in fact been killed by a Jew in a ritual murder, just not by Beilis. So don’t pretend they weren’t anti-Semites.
“…the average person in Russia in 1880 probably lived little differently from the average person in Chaucer’s England and had a similar worldview.”
That’s what happens when a King of Pedants throws all caution to the wind and starts pulling unsubstantiated crap right out of his rear.
All those tens of thousands of Jews fled the Russian Empire in the early 20th century because they hated the tolerant, progressive environment.
Also, they were passionately opposed both to the Tsar’s attempts to provide free fusion-powered flying cars to every member of the population and to the presence of magic space ponies in the government.
Chris, I have no idea whether the jurors were anti-Semites, I just know that they acquitted him despite the best efforts of the prosecution.
Yes, there were barbaric anti-Jewish pogroms. The vast majority of those pogroms, however, occurred during the Civil War years (1918-20) and most of them were in Ukraine. In the 19th Century pogroms were not nearly as common as people suppose. The main ones were in 1881-82, after the assassination of Alexander II. If memory serves me correctly, according to Jewish sources about 500 Jews were killed during pogroms during the 19th Century (most of them in 81-82.) Of course one death is one death too many, but it’s a smaller number than most people imagine (the Jewish population in Imperial Russia was between 4 and 5 million.) From 1902 (or 3?) to 1906 there were several bloody pogroms. I think the total death toll was less than 3,000. These numbers, though, paled in comparison with what happened during the civil war.
I have to correct myself. I overstated the number of deaths. In the 19th Century fewer than 300 Jews lost their lives because of pogroms. During the pogroms from 1903-06 about 2,000 Jews were killed. Once again, one pogrom death is a death too many. It’s just that from my experience, most people assume that during the Tsarist regime the pogrom death toll was much higher. The Civil War, alas, is a different story.
But Russia was not a parliamentary democracy. It was a medieval, or barely postmedieval, country. Where people thought like medieval people think.
Yes: hence such events could happen in Russia, whereas they are unlikely to happen in Britain. You seem to be trying to convince me that were Britain like Russia, then similar events could have happened in Britain, and I’m wondering why.
I think you’re being deliberately stubborn.
And I think you are equating simple ignorance with misunderstanding.
These books are used as textbooks. Obviously they have an impact.
Actually, it is far from obvious. I can only speak from the UK perspective, but I would guess the misunderstanding of Russia resulting from school textbooks or poor history books to be negligible compared to general ignorance of Russia.
Where did you get the idea that I think that all books on Russia in English are crap?
You suggested that Russian might be unwilling to release archival documents because of the (presumably negative) English language historical works covering Russia. If you don’t believe that all works are crap, then for your statement to make any sense you must at least believe that the net output of English language history is crap.*
The legacy of English language historiography is that Russian history still has not completely thrown off the examining Russia’s past through a Cold War prism.
If the subject is 20th century Russian history, which an awful lot of it is, then it is pretty difficult to ignore the Cold War when evaluating material. I’m sure there are books covering events unrelated to the Cold War which are crap because of the reasons you state, but I am doubtful that they outweigh the ones aren’t in volume and importance.
*Incidentally, the reason that a lot of writing on Soviet Russia has been so poor is because Soviet Russia was an extremely difficult place to access and gain access to information from. Writing accurately on the USSR must have been a daunting task for a foreign historian, and no doubt the reconciliation of what is now known and what was thought to be known now is what you, I believe, are misinterpretting as simply shoddy work from the outset.
Tim, for what is worth, if you read some of the Russian newspapers during the times of Nikolai II, you would be surprised by how critical of the regime many of them were.
I know how vociferous the opposition was in Russia, what surprised me about the British is how much the government required public opinion to stay in power and continue their policies. (When the British suffered a setback abroad in its Empire, the government was booted from power: often by a party who wanted to scale back the imperial activities.) By contrast, I don’t think Nicholas II listened very much (although probably more than is assumed).
“I don’t think Nicholas II listened very much (although probably more than is assumed).”
I get your point. Nikolai certainly didn’t listened the right people. It seems that he simply disbelieved most published criticism directed at his regime. Moreover, he had the unique talent of disregarding good advice and trusting bad advice. His wife didn’t help. Although Russia was moving away from autocracy, any opportunity he had Nikolai tried to move things back. He’s a good example of the inherent weakness of any autocratic monarchy: too much depends on the monarch’s particular ability and personality.
“Yes: hence such events could happen in Russia, whereas they are unlikely to happen in Britain. You seem to be trying to convince me that were Britain like Russia, then similar events could have happened in Britain, and I’m wondering why.”
Because if Britain were like Russia, then it would basically be Russia, but Britain isn’t Russia, because it has a different past than that of Russia. Much as it is unlikely that people in Britain will be killed by rampaging mammoths, because Britain is not in an Ice Age, but if it were in an Ice Age, they would be. What’s your problem? Do you want to argue for the sake of arguing?
“In the 19th Century fewer than 300 Jews lost their lives because of pogroms. During the pogroms from 1903-06 about 2,000 Jews were killed.”
I thought this was the period in which Russia was supposedly the most progressive country in Europe, far superior to England and France.
Incidentally, Jews were only a fraction of the people killed in the pogroms. Other targets were intellectuals, seminarians, and other yucky people.
“I thought this was the period in which Russia was supposedly the most progressive country in Europe, far superior to England and France.”
Who claimed that? I didn’t. Candide didn’t either.
You are right that not only Jews were killed during pogroms, but they were certainly much more of a target than the others you mentioned. There was usually a trigger but most pogromschiki were opportunist going after loot. In any event, I don’t recall reading of any pre-revolutionary pogroms against intellectuals or seminarians that resulted in much bloodshed. (This does not mean it didn’t happen, I simply don’t know about it.)
“Candide didn’t either.”
Didn’t he?
“I don’t recall reading of any pre-revolutionary pogroms against intellectuals or seminarians that resulted in much bloodshed. (This does not mean it didn’t happen, I simply don’t know about it.)”
If you can get a copy of it I recommend S. Stepanov’s “Chernaya Sotnya.” Here’s the ethnic breakground of the 1905 pogroms based on ethnicity of victim (dead/wounded):
Jews: 711/1207
Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians: 428/1246
Armenians: 47/51
Georgians: 8/15
Azerbaijanis: 5/7
Poles: 4/6
Latvians: 2/1
Germans: 1/7
Greeks: 1/0
Karaite Jews: 1/0
Moldovans: 0/7
Lithuanians: 0/2
Caucasian peoples: 10/53
Undetermined nationalities: 404/932
Seminarians and university students were considered “westernizers” and bad. Seminaries were hotbeds of revolutionary sentiment at the time — seems that quasi-Marxist one Stalin went to was not an exception. In particular they were targets in Yaroslavl for some reason. The entire staff and student body of the University of Kiev attempted to flee the city, only to be met at the train station by pogromshchiki.
Speaking of which, I read an article a while ago (can give the reference later if you want), and it seems that although the Orthodox hierarchy were generally of political views ranging from very to rabidly conservative and promonarchy, the rank-and-file clergy were not, especially at the village level, and were in fact rather leftist. The church apparently conducted periodic purges of such undesirables.
What’s your problem? Do you want to argue for the sake of arguing?
It is you who chose to argue with me; I made a statement that I don’t think the Great Terror could occur in Britain, you responded by saying – for reasons I cannot fathom – that if Britain was more like Russia, they could have happened.
Sigh.
Let me rephrase things in another fashion.
Obviously such things are highly unlikely to occur in Britain at present. For one thing, there is no Stalin in Britain (until Brown stages his Night of the Long Knives, that is). For another, Britain has a high educational level. For another, it is an industrialized, economically developed and more-or-less stable country. That is, the factors that contributed to the Terror. It is certainly CONCEIVABLE that such things could happen in Britain. However, for them to have any likelihood of occuring, Britain would have to suffer some serious, nonprobable but possible change, such as, a war on such a scale that it destroyed the country’s industrial capacity, a monumental plague with similar effects, or another catastrophe resulting in a radical shift in the structure of British society. So obviously they are unikely in Britain in its current form, but countries are not immutable.
Is that clearer now? What the hell are we arguing about anyway?
Just saw this article by Memorial’s founder (dated a couple of days ago). Seems relevant to the original topic of the post.
Thanks for posting that link, Lyndon. There is a lot of food for thought in there. Still wonder why the Memorial offices were penetrated and ‘memory’ confiscated.
Today’s radio news is all about Obama appointing a Secretary of Education. Contemplating a ‘So What,’ I found a few points in this article.
Thanks, Lyndon. In 1990 in Moscow I met Arseny Roginsky in the office of a mutual acquaintance who at the time was one of the editors of Novy Mir. Both of them have done time before–imprisoned by the Soviet government.
I just read Roginsky’s article. Once again, thanks for the link, Lyndon. And Tess, thanks for reminding us about the raid to Memorial and about the confiscated material. Let us hope they receive it all back.
A quote from Roginsky’s article:
“To simplify drastically, this conflict of memories goes like this: if state terror was a crime, then who was the criminal? The state? Stalin as the head of state? But we won the war against Absolute Evil, and so we were not the subjects of a criminal regime, but a great country, the embodiment of everything good in the world. It was under the rule of Stalin that we overcame Hitler. Victory means the Stalinist era, and the terror means the Stalinist era. It is impossible to reconcile these two images of the past, except by rejecting one of them, or at least making serious corrections to it.
And this is what happened – the memory of the terror receded. It has not disappeared completely, but it has been pushed to the periphery of people’s consciousness.”
I have to admit, though, that I cannot quite relate to folks who somehow give Stalin a pass, a man who killed millions of his own citizens, because under him Hitler was defeated.
Lyndon, or anyone else: without success I tried to find the Russian version of Roginsky’s article. As far as I know, it’s not in the polit.ru site. Any ideas whether it’s posted somewhere online?
By the way, the name of the person in whose office I met Roginsky name was Vadim Borisov. A good man. Alas, he drowned about 10 or 12 years ago.
http://www.polit.ru/institutes/2008/12/11/memory.html
Kolya, I hope you keep a diary. Sounds like you have seen some interesting things.
It appears that Open Democracy is doing a series on Memorial. To save everyone here a few clicks, other articles in the series are here and here.
Roginsky claims his own dreams or whatever. My father thought about Stalin as the greatest leader of USSR but he never thought about USSR as the “everything good”. He was not SUCH stupid. And he finished only 3 classes in the school. But was able to figure it out.
It’s Roginsky’s problem.
Again my father was able to reconcile both. I have no problem with this either.
Looks like we were living in different worlds with Roginsky.
Ivanov, did you read the beginning of the quote? Roginsky wrote, “to simplify drastically”. The point is that somehow many people ended respecting and even admiring Stalin DESPITE the fact that they knew that he killed many of their own countrymen and that he sent to camps even more. As if the fact that Hitler was defeated somehow ameliorates Stalin’s terror.
“Again my father was able to reconcile both. I have no problem with this either.”
Too bad. That’s fucked up.
“Looks like we were living in different worlds with Roginsky.”
That’s for sure.
BTW, thanks to both db and Lyndon.
“…somehow many people ended respecting and even admiring Stalin DESPITE the fact that they knew that he killed many of their own countrymen and that he sent to camps even more.”
Kolya,
Anyone who read Machiavelli knows that people respect and admire bloodthirsty tyrants BECAUSE they are bloodthirsty, not DESPITE of it.
We’ve been through this before Kolya, but there is no logical contradiction between the statements (irrespective of their truth value)
1. Stalin murdered lots of innocent people
2. Stalin was instrumental in defeating Hitler
“It is impossible to reconcile these two images of the past, except by rejecting one of them”
This sentence is nonsensical.
Neither my father nor me read Mike.
My point was – if Roginsky didn’t understand this “somehow” – he didn’t understand the Russians. Therefore – this is his problem.
For sure he doesn’t represent neither my father nor me. He lives in his black and white dreams. My father dropped school in 1941 (he was 10) and had been working since then. FOR Roginsky. Whose father didn’t die in Leningrad because he was was sent “by Stalin” to “camp” where Roginsky was born (nice camp indeed), got to school then to university, got free education etc.
For sure – we are from different worlds. I’m not sure which of the worlds is fucked up more but being pravozashitnik doesn’t mean being wiser than “ordinary” person.
“Stalin was instrumental in defeating Hitler”
Stalin was instrumental in saving his own ass in Kremlin when USSR battled Nazi Germany, that’s what he was instrumental in.
Stalin was also instrumental in surrendering to Germany in 1917, in treaty of Rapallo in 1922 and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, among other things. All those actions benefited German militarism that finally unleashed WWII.
Stalin was also instrumental in surrendering to Germany in 1917
Um, no. That would be 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and my memory is that it was Trotsky and Lenin (and given the political situation they were in, they kind of had no choice). Stalin was simply the lowly Commissar of Nationalities and had little influence over any negotiations.
As for Rapallo, do you have any evidence? Again, Stalin’s main role in 1922 was Party matters, not foreign affairs. The main negotiator on the Soviet side was Chicherin and at this point Stalin did not have any real political power to effect these policies.
All those actions benefited German militarism that finally unleashed WWII.
Yeah, Stalin is to blame for Hitler too. Stalin probably caused Lenin’s stroke, hired Fanny Kaplan to shot him, gave Dzerzhinsky a heart attack, and probably infected poor Sverdlov with influenza. Really, there is a lot to pin on Stalin and for good reason, but there is no need to propagate myths.
Speaking of historical memory, here’s a story about a 3 year old named Adolph Hitler.
“Stalin probably caused Lenin’s stroke, hired Fanny Kaplan to shot him, gave Dzerzhinsky a heart attack, and probably infected poor Sverdlov with influenza.”
No, not those things. Stalin is only responsible for things Candide doesn’t like.
BTW, can’t one make a very good case that surrenduring to Germany was in Russia’s best interests? It seems to have been pretty damn popular in the Russian population, as opposed to, like, continuing to be laughtered. I mean, what kind of an argument is “he surrendured! BOOO!” in the abstract?
What myths, Sean?
First, I didn’t say Stalin did all those things themselves but that he was ‘instrumental’ in doing them. Of course he was instrumental in surrender to Germany in 1917 as a faithful follower of Lenin, which he undeniably was.
To say that Lenin was forced to accept German terms for surrender by the political situation in 1918 is either ignorant or disingenuous on your part. ‘End to War’ was one of the main points of Lenin’s program long before the events of 1917. Quite often Lenin was almost alone in his insistence on ‘End to War’. You can find records of almost all leading Bolsheviks strongly criticizing Lenin about this issue and sometimes even censoring him in the Party press. The idea of surrender was hugely unpopular. You mention Trotsky, but even he was against the surrender, advocating his own ‘No Peace, No War’ approach, and quitting the Brest-Litovsk negotiations at some point. The only leading Bolshevik that almost always supported Lenin in this issue was Stalin.
Lenin managed to prevail on this issue and turn it to his own advantage, because as soon as Germany sued for peace against the Allies and fell victim to the internal chaos that ensued, Lenin cancelled all the obligations to Germany and Bolshevik propaganda started working very hard to convince people that the whole surrender never really happened.
Rapallo was different because there was no serious disagreement among the leading Bolsheviks on that treaty. But to say that Stalin, whose hold on power is usually dated starting the same year 1922, had nothing to do with Rapallo treaty is simply preposterous. Of course he was consulted and of course he didn’t object. The Treaty of Rapallo allowed Germany to escape the provisions of Versaille treaty and begin to secretly train its military inside the USSR. All those clandestine German military excercizes were conducted through the years when Stalin was consolidating the power in his own hands. So of course he was ‘instrumental’ in following this policy, which allowed German militarism to survive and regain its strength.
I see you didn’t deny Stalin’s role in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, so I won’t dwell on it, except to say that in view of Brest-Litovsk and Rapallo, Stalin’s policy in 1939 seems a lot like continuation of the approach that Lenin started in 1917. Perhaps Stalin hoped that as the West Europe plunges into another long War, Russia will be able to stay out and benefit (btw, that was the US initial approach too).
“Stalin was instrumental in defeating Hitler”
——————————————–
Stalin my a*s. He destroyed his own army, or at least its Officer Corps (out of insecurity) and let Hitler occupy most of Russia (USSR).
The Russian people was instrumental in defeating Hitler. Even Stalin himself admitted the fact, – at the banquet dedicated to the Victory in WWII in 1945 he famously gave the toast: “I drink for the great Russian people!”
“…can’t one make a very good case that surrenduring to Germany was in Russia’s best interests? It seems to have been pretty damn popular in the Russian population, as opposed to, like, continuing to be (s)laughtered.”
One can make any good case one wants, if one wants to make a complete fool on oneself.
Surrender to Germany in 1917 was about as ‘popular’ as it was in 1941, the only difference was that in 1917 if you advocated surrender the Bolsheviks would prop you up and in 1941 same Bolsheviks would shoot you on the spot.
Surrender is never ‘popular’. ‘End to War’ is always ‘popular’. There is a big difference. Just watch Obama handling the Iraq issue for the next 4 years.
P.S. Incidentally, one can make a very good case that if Russia didn’t betray the Allies in 1917 and managed to fight for just one more year, it would share the fruits of victory and stomp out the German milirarism forever.
P.S. Incidentally, one can make a very good case that if Russia didn’t betray the Allies in 1917 and managed to fight for just one more year, it would share the fruits of victory and stomp out the German milirarism forever.
———————————————–
История не терпит сослагательного наклонения
Chris, you wrote:
“We’ve been through this before Kolya, but there is no logical contradiction between the statements (irrespective of their truth value)
1. Stalin murdered lots of innocent people
2. Stalin was instrumental in defeating Hitler”
You are correct. There is no logical contradiction there, that’s why I didn’t claim there is one. Whether we like it or not, the person leading the nation at the time of a victorious war usually gets the credit. So Stalin was credited by most Soviet citizens for the defeat of Hitler. At the same time, Soviet citizens also knew that he killed and imprisoned many of their own fellow citizens.
My point is that there was something morally screwed up in people who lauded, respected and even admired Stalin, a man who killed and imprisoned so many of his own. Does the fact that the USSR became a superpower and Hitler was defeated during Stalin somehow overcompensates for what he did to all those millions of Soviet citizens? In my view, those who say “yes” are fucked up.
A normal person cannot admire someone who has caused so much suffering and killed so many of his own. That’s why so many people engaged in a sort of willful ignorance, blindness or denial. That’s why many people are irritated at organizations like Memorial who don’t want Russians to forget what happened.
I recommend you guys read Roginsky’s essay. A few excerpts from the beginning:
/////
“Historical memory is the retrospective aspect of collective consciousness. It informs our collective identity through our selection of the past we find significant. The past, real or imaginary, is the material with which it works…
the memory of Stalinism in Russia is almost always the memory of victims. Victims, not crimes. As the memory of crimes it does not register, as there is no consensus on this.
To a great extent this is because popular consciousness has nothing to hold onto from a legal point of view. …
There are no legal decisions that inspire any confidence – and there have not been any trials against participants of the Stalinist terror in the new Russia, not a single one.
There are other reasons too. We killed our own people.
When popular consciousness has to come to terms with historical tragedies, it does so by assigning roles of Good and Evil. People identify themselves with one of the roles. It is easier to identify oneself with Good, i.e. with an innocent victim, or better still with a heroic battle against Evil.
Incidentally, this is why our Eastern European neighbors, from Ukraine to Poland and the Baltic States have no serious problems with coming to terms with the Soviet period of history, while in Russia, people identify themselves with victims or fighters, or with both at the same time. Whether or not this has anything to do with history is quite another matter – we’re talking about memory, not knowledge.
It is even possible to identify oneself with Evil, as the Germans did (not without help from the outside), in order to distance oneself from this evil: “Yes, unfortunately we did that, but we’re not like than anymore and we’ll never be like that again”.
But what can we do, living in Russia?
In the Soviet terror, it is very difficult to distinguish the executioners from the victims. For example, secretaries of regional committee in August 1937 all wrote death sentences by the bundle, but by November 1938 half of them had already been shot themselves. …
Unlike the Nazis, who mainly killed “foreigners”: Poles, Russians, and German Jews (who were not quite their “own” people), we mainly killed our own people, and our consciousness refuses to accept this fact.
In remembering the terror, we are incapable of assigning the main roles, incapable of putting the pronouns “we” and “they” in their places. This inability to assign evil is the main thing that prevents us from being able to embrace the memory of the terror properly. This makes it far more traumatic. It is one of the main reasons why we push it to the edge of our historical memory.”
/////
Stalin my a*s. He destroyed his own army, or at least its Officer Corps (out of insecurity) and let Hitler occupy most of Russia (USSR).
The Russian people was instrumental in defeating Hitler. Even Stalin himself admitted the fact, – at the banquet dedicated to the Victory in WWII in 1945 he famously gave the toast: “I drink for the great Russian people!”
I would say this falls into the category of post-war myths.
Some historians contend that the Большая чистка were not damaging to the Soviet Army as earlier post-war historians cite. In fact, Viktor Suvorov, in his The Cleansing (Очищение) states the case that the purges improved the Army. He documents that only 1/3 of the officers “purged” (ok, murdered) were actual army officers (the other 2/3s being NKVD and commissars.)
Further summarized below is a portion of a review of “Stalin’s Wars” by Geoffrey Roberts and ‘Europe at War, 1939–1945′ by Norman Davies written by Benjamin Schwarz of The Atlantic Monthly:
This consensus, most baldly stated by Roberts, concedes that no leader in history was responsible for graver military failures—from his stunning miscalculation concerning the German attack to his insistence on premature and obscenely wasteful counteroffensives in 1941 and much of ’42. But also evident is the iron resolve Stalin displayed in the Battle of Moscow, his perspicacity in calling Zhukov to command the effort, and the harsh will he helped summon in his subjects throughout the war. (Stalin’s pistol- at-the-head command—“Not a step back”—issued on the eve of Stalingrad inspiringly conveyed to the Soviets the desperation of their situation, and the dry ruthlessness with which the state would tackle it.)
Most important, Stalin transformed himself and the military he commanded. Beginning in late 1942 with preparations for the Battle of Stalingrad, his newfound grasp of military strategy and operations is as inexplicable as it is plain. He orchestrated every level of the Soviet war effort—from the miraculous economic recovery to high diplomacy to operational planning—even as he encouraged argument from, and increasingly heeded the counsel proffered by, the remarkable group of military advisers with whom he surrounded himself: Zhukov, Chief of Staff Alexander Vasilevsky, and Chief of Operations Aleksei Antonov—all men of penetrating intelligence, exceptional abilities, and extraordinary character. With this triumvirate, along with such commanders as Konstantin Rokossovsky, Stalin put in the service of his state the finest generals of the Second World War.
The improved organization, equipment, supply, training, and command of the Red Army won the Battle of Stalingrad, thereby turning the tide in the war. By Kursk, the Red Army was precisely choreographing an operation of unprecedented scale. From then on, it was conducting ever more sophisticated and devastating “deep operations”: extremely rapid, combined-arms advances that penetrated far into the Wehrmacht’s rear areas—the most inventive and shattering feats of arms achieved by any military during the war. The Soviet army had undergone probably the most profound and rapid turnaround of any military organization in history.
To be sure, part of Stalin’s accomplishment lay in his allowing his most talented subordinates to do their job, an attribute of all great warlords. From late 1942 on, he encouraged greater initiative and flexibility within the high command, and he presided over a military organization that fostered increased operational and tactical dynamism and innovation. But the new accounts—which even draw on transcripts of telephone and telegraphic conversations with his front-line generals—all go further than that, and put Stalin at the center of the Soviets’ awesome military achievement. Davies’s conclusion, that the victory was Stalin’s, would seem inarguable. Roberts’s unpalatable one, which goes one step further, will confound those who like their history neat:
‘To make so many mistakes and to rise from the depths of such defeat to go on to win the greatest military victory in history was a triumph beyond compare … Stalin … saved the world for democracy.’
What a load of sycophantic drivel!
Stalin stupid mistakes, that cost hundred of thousand soldiers’ lives apiece, were not limited to early in the war, but continued throughout, culminating in atrociously idiotic frontal assault on Berlin in 1945, when about 300,000 Red Army soldiers were sacrificed for some obscure propaganda objective. Stalin’s ego alone killed millions of soldiers unnecessarily by the end of the war.
Many Soviet defeats simply disappeared. For example, everyone heard of the victorious Operation Uranus (Stalingrad offensive) but few know about Operation Mars (Rzhev offensive), that was equally big but ended in complete disaster and was wiped out from history.
“Viktor Suvorov, in his The Cleansing (Очищение) states the case that the purges improved the Army”
Well, I certainly think this guy grossly overstates his case. Obviously Stalin and the Red Army improved as the war went along. It’s hard for me to imagine that if Tukhachevsky, Blyukher, Yakir, Vatsetis and other officers with proven talent and initiative were not shot in 37-38, the Red Army would so badly blunder in Finland (39-40). And I have little doubt they would have been better prepared to meet Hitler’s attack. At least Rokossovsky was not shot, but he did languish in prison from 37 to 40.
Purging the Red Army of old cadres was not an atrocity. The atrocity was the murder of them all.
My God, they believe in Souvorov …. in Santa Claus too?
Does the fact that the USSR became a superpower and Hitler was defeated during “Stalin somehow overcompensates for what he did to all those millions of Soviet citizens? In my view, those who say “yes” are fucked up.
A normal person cannot admire someone who has caused so much suffering and killed so many of his own. That’s why so many people engaged in a sort of willful ignorance, blindness or denial. That’s why many people are irritated at organizations like Memorial who don’t want Russians to forget what happened.”
—————————
I’m a little late to the party here. I’m a mom. It’s Christmas time. Sorry.
My contribution comes from a conversation held between our high school-age son and elementary school daughter.
Daughter: (who is doing the Civil War Unit at school) “Slavery was terrible and cruel.”
Son: (enrolled in Freshman course with a title like Civics) “Yes, cruel. But, slavery might be called the ‘best mistake the US ever made.’ Without the work slaves were doing, the US colonists might not have even won the Revolutionary War. They wouldn’t have been able to industrialize, or do any of the stuff that came after. Slavery was really bad, I’m not saying it wasn’t. But, it’s hard to say what would have happened without slaves.”
My points: 1) In US Schools, we spend a lot of time ‘remembering’ slavery and working to draw the lessons from it. 2) Nuanced understandings of the resultant evils and gains are possible – at least to a 14-year old, if not to a 9-year old 3) To Cyrill, US public school education can be quite impressive. At least, I was impressed.
So Tess also talk about America here; I don’t see a problem – why shouldn’t be other allowed to talk about US (especially in comparison with Russia)? It seems some people understand by “democracy” criticism of Russia as a “non-democratic and backward” state. America doesn’t have corruption, economic problems?
American Presidents didn’t get killed?
“Son: (enrolled in Freshman course with a title like Civics) “Yes, cruel. But, slavery might be called the ‘best mistake the US ever made.’ Without the work slaves were doing, the US colonists might not have even won the Revolutionary War. They wouldn’t have been able to industrialize, or do any of the stuff that came after. Slavery was really bad, I’m not saying it wasn’t. But, it’s hard to say what would have happened without slaves.”’
A variant of the some argument (well, observation, since it’s almost certainly true) is that the strength of the US was made much easier by the extermination of the native population.
Kolya doesn’t like things like this, since he thinks causality is moral.
(Just a gentle jibe there, Kolya.)
Chris, I don’t quite get your gentle jibe, but that’s okay. In any event, I agree with what Roginsky wrote about how Stalin is viewed in today’s Russia.
Kolya.
Russia is somewhat bigger than Roginsky thinks it is. It is his private opinion not the numerous opinions of the different generations of Russians living there.
So Tess also talk about America here; I don’t see a problem – why shouldn’t be other allowed to talk about US (especially in comparison with Russia)?
———————————
I’ll keep my America/Russia slavery-to-Stalin comparison on this thread, in an attempt to be less annoying. First, I don’t think my son’s comment about the two-sides of slavery left room for even a gentle jibe to Kolya. I’m basically in agreement with K that people that feel qualified to put Stalin’s evils and the accomplishments of Stalin & the Russian people on a set of scales and say “We measured. Good outweighs evil. Let’s just forget the evil. Sweep it right under the carpet.” That is FU’d. The suspicion with the Memorial disk confiscation is that someone at some level (not known) of the Russian government feels qualified to make that value judgment.
My son’s message to his younger sister was not “Slavery was worth it.” He didn’t take that next step. And no one can. It’s history, not science. No ‘proof’ experiment can be run. He was grappling with keeping the two sets of outcomes in his own mind. That’s already a lot – in fact, all we can do.
BTW we have another data point that FD is 13 because he cannot reason as well as a 14-year old public school student – at least my last post blew right by him.
This also might be a BS. For several reasons.
First – we DON’T know what was evil and what was good. One day burning witches was good. Then it got not so good as you know. And your example, tess, about slavery.
Second – I’m not measuring to forget. I’m trying to remember all that happened. What’s wrong with that? Let’s say that sometimes evil makes mistakes aka good things
Third. I listened to Roginsky and came to the conclusion that he is wrong. Does my opinion worse than his only because he calls himself pravozashitnik?
“My son’s message to his younger sister was not “Slavery was worth it.” He didn’t take that next step. And no one can. It’s history, not science. No ‘proof’ experiment can be run. He was grappling with keeping the two sets of outcomes in his own mind. That’s already a lot – in fact, all we can do.”
I’m not going to develop this idea at this point, but I think, or I think I think, that the contradiction (which is inevitable) arises because the human mind is not equipped to think morally on the (temporal or numerical) scale required. It finds itself in conflict, because human value judgments are bsed on two different things—the inherent worth of an act and the outcome of the act— and the former can be good while the other is bad and vice versa. This is normally not a problem, because human ethical judgments usually are focussed on small groups of people and small time spans, but when the parameters are increased things become very murky. When the “ethical faculty,” as some philosophers used to call it, tries to extend itself outside of those spheres, it finds itself spinning out what some guy called Kant called antinomies of reason (but not pure reason in this case).
For instance, the statements
1) slavery in the US was evil; and
2) due to the economic basis built by slavery, the US is better off than it otherwise would have been
are likely BOTH TRUE. So, who is more important — the people who suffered horribly during slavery, or the people benefiting from it today?
A similar situation obtains in the free will vs. determinism debate, BTW.
(To put things in its most cosmic scope, the entire history of success of homo sapiens sapiens post 20,000 BC or so rests upon the extinction of an entire intelligent species, homo neanderthalensis. So, was the extinction of this entire species of thinking beings good or bad?)
Interesting comment, Chris. Very quickly, though:
“1) slavery in the US was evil; and
2) due to the economic basis built by slavery, the US is better off than it otherwise would have been”
I think many historians actually dispute the second statement. And they dispute it from the economic development point of view.
Regardless of whether the second statement is correct, though, I get your point. Interesting.
Kolya.
Slaves were the most effective “machinery” of the time over there. Their productivity was practically same as of free farmer, they cost not much, maintenance – easy.
In fact most of US slaves were in better situation than “free” peasants in other parts of the world.
“In fact most of US slaves were in better situation than “free” peasants in other parts of the world.”
If they survived the Middle Passage, maybe.
Chris.
Today many “free” agricultural workers around the world are in fact slaves.
But my point is – good is always an integrated part of evil and vs.
“Slaves were the most effective “machinery” of the time over there. Their productivity was practically same as of free farmer, they cost not much, maintenance – easy.”
In economic terms, pound per pound free farmers in the U.S. were much more productive than slaves. Also, most of the 19th century pre-civil war industry in the U.S. did not have slaves. Most major factories were in slave-free states. That’s one of the reasons the North had a much stronger economic base.
Most major factories were in slave-free states. That’s one of the reasons the North had a much stronger economic base.
Not to feed the American topic beast more, but there was an vital relationship between manufacturing and slavery in antebellum America. Northern farmers were more productive but their produces were increasingly severing a burgeoning urban population in non-slave state cities. Urbanization was increased by growing manufacturing. Cotton textiles were one main source of American industrialization and the raw cotton came from slave states. No one process can be viewed individually. The North had a much stronger economic base because manufacturing and banking were the future, agriculture based on slave labor was not. I would say that American early industrialization was in part based on exploiting its periphery, mainly the South (Kind of like how British industrialization was based on the exploitation of its colonies). I think the economic unevenness between the North and South that resulted remains to this day.
The big question is, and to attempt to turn the discussion back to Russia, is how essential was gulag labor to Soviet industrialization. I haven’t read up on the topic so I don’t know.
Sean, to quickly go back to the US, I’m pretty sure that what you wrote is correct. It does not follow from that, however, that without slavery the US would have not become a strong economic power. I’m not a historian and the names escape me, but I know that there are several scholars who explored this issue from the economic perspective and they concluded that slavery was not necessary for America’s prosperity. We cannot wipe out the historical importance of slavery, my point, though, is that it’s not a given that “but for slavery” the US would have not become prosperous. Actually, some wrote that, independent of the morality of the issue, in the long run slavery probably had a deleterious effect. (By the way, I’m not assuming that that’s consensus view among current historians–I don’t even know if there is a consensus view.)
“I think the economic unevenness between the North and South that resulted remains to this day.”
Without a doubt.
The big question is, and to attempt to turn the discussion back to Russia, is how essential was gulag labor to Soviet industrialization. I haven’t read up on the topic so I don’t know.
———————————————–
Nobody would know. Millions have perished. Overall, the slave labor (according to “Archiplag GULAG by Solzhenitcyn) didn’t produce high quality work.
It does not follow from that, however, that without slavery the US would have not become a strong economic power.
Well that is counterfactual and in my opinion not a job of a historian but the task of science fiction writers. That is unless we have access to some alternative earth. The fact remains that the US did become an economic power and slavery was part of that process. The question is how vital was it to American proto-industrialization. This I don’t have an answer for (I don’t know the literature) but I do know that slavery was part of the process. I leave “What if . . ” scenarios to Marvel Comics.
It’s like all those historians who’ve asked how would the Soviet Union been different if Lenin lived or Trotsky won out. Well, they didn’t and history is about dealing with what information we have available not information we can propose and speculate.
On gulag labor, well my limited understanding of is that most gulag labor was used in mining, timber, and extracting other raw materials. Projects like Belomor were important but not the whole use of salve labor. Quality is not really an issue when felling trees.
Chris wrote:
“human ethical judgments usually are focussed on small groups of people and small time spans”
That’s true. Our biology (including our behavior, social and otherwise) is adapted to small groups. The vast majority of our time as Homo sapiens was spent in rather small groups (hundred or fewer). It’s interesting that at that level human societies were rather non-hierachical and what “guardedly egalitarian” (on the alert for cheaters.) Hierarchies, chieftains, social classes started to developed with larger groups. Another interesting thing is that chimpanzee societies are hierarchical even though their groups are small–the social dynamics of chimpanzees in the wild differ from the social dynamics of early man. (I’ll leave at that, in the last couple of decades there has been a lot interesting work done on this.)
Sean, I did not do justice to the scholars I had in mind–they are not folks involved in alternative history.
Also Sean, all this started from the following statement:
“2) due to the economic basis built by slavery, the US is better off than it otherwise would have been”
Using your words, we cannot state that “the US is better off than it otherwise would have been.” We don’t know because it didn’t happen. We cannot conclude that “but for slavery” the US would have not been as prosperous.
A sixty-year-old smoker died of lung cancer. We cannot conclusively state “but for his smoking” he would have not died at sixty.
Kolya, admittedly doing justice to scholars is difficult to do in this forum. In fact, I’m probably not doing justice to your points. They are interesting, as always, so forgive me.
It is also true that most historians don’t do alternative history, but there are some who work from conterfactual premises.
For example, Stephen Cohen published an article in the Slavic Review a few years ago arguing that the Soviet Union could have been saved if certain things would have happened. Now granted Cohen is not a historian, he only plays one occasionally, and the article is interesting. But he and others have made a career with arguing that Stalinism was an aberration of Leninism. Now this is fine and can be debated. I don’t have a problem with this argument. But I think it is important to recognize that this argument is based on an assumption that the Soviet Union would have been different, if not better, if Bukharin would have won (it is also worth noting that these people tend to be politically pro-Leninist but anti-Stalin). Now I can accept different. But different how? We will never know. Better? Who knows? It is a question we can never answer.
Also Sean, all this started from the following statement:
“2) due to the economic basis built by slavery, the US is better off than it otherwise would have been”
I didn’t see this. I don’t read all the comments that closely. Well, yes, I agree if we are trying to understand this question historically, then we can’t say that the US is better off than it otherwise would have been because to make that judgment we would have to know what the US would be like without the historical experience of slavery. We can never know this without a inter-dimensional portal of some sort.
Actually, the above quote seems to be more about a political statement rather than a historical one. I assume the context was one of these “Russia is . . . but the US is ALSO . . .” arguments that are fashionable among some here.
“Actually, the above quote seems to be more about a political statement rather than a historical one. I assume the context was one of these “Russia is . . . but the US is ALSO . . .” arguments that are fashionable among some here.”
Nah, that was my comment making a philosophical point about the nature of ethical judgments.
2) due to the economic basis built by slavery, the US is better off than it otherwise would have been”
I think many historians actually dispute the second statement. And they dispute it from the economic development point of view.
Very true. I would like to see ANY evidence that corroborates the statement about slavery. If anything, it’s consequences delayed economic and social advancement of the South way after 1861, making it 1961 instead.
But I think it is important to recognize that this argument is based on an assumption that the Soviet Union would have been different, if not better, if Bukharin would have won (it is also worth noting that these people tend to be politically pro-Leninist but anti-Stalin).
Sometime in 1980-s I happened to come across a book published in the USSR but out of print by then. It was Bukharin’s Экономика переходного периода (or a shorter version of задачи пролетариата в переходный период) with Lenin’s footnotes – the page was actually split into two columns for Bukharin’s text and Lenin’s. The amount of virtual blood in the book would make Freddy Kruger an Easter bunny. Stalin did not realty invent any of the terror methods. He borrowed quite heavily from Lenin, Bukharin and Trotsky.
On gulag labor, well my limited understanding of is that most gulag labor was used in mining, timber, and extracting other raw materials.
I do not know what proportions were, but I recall my grandfather’s stories of building Murmansk and Kandalaksha railroads. He was the ГИП and according to him, most of the work was done by prison labour. He had some sort of a drinking relationship with the chief of the local labour camp that and he was not onbly allowed to look at the list of new arrivals, but also to keep several of convicts sort of paroled at his word. Not because the system was lenient (as the Tzar’s system was when Lenin got exiled) but because even then a chiewf of a labour camp could have been bought денатуратом.
Speaking of “DOCUMENTED” Stalinism. Just a friendly reminder to Sean that December 21, is Stalin’s birthday.
I guess A-bomb was of very good quality
Also in many cases the conditions of “free” workers were same or worth. As I told – one of my grandfathers survived the War in camps (1939-1949) but other one – “free” – died in 1941 as result of hard work, little food and lack of doctors (many of them were in Gulag – treating Solzhenitsyn).
“That’s true. Our biology (including our behavior, social and otherwise) is adapted to small groups. The vast majority of our time as Homo sapiens was spent in rather small groups (hundred or fewer).”
This is why (IMHO), our capacity for sympathy/empathy/outrage turns off after a period of time exceeding three generations (the period of time in which one could have actually known people from previous eras). The murders committed by Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot create outrage, but those committed by Nero or Genghis Khan are purely academic, even though all will real. If you were to stick Aunt Mable’s corpse in a case and set it up for public viewing, that would be an abomination, but you can do it with an Egyptian mummy. The catacombs of Paris are a tourist attraction. Few people worry about what the repercussions of our actions will be for people living hundreds or thousands of years in the future. This is because our minds do not handle large stretches of time well. If it’s further back than our great-grandparents’ day, or further ahead than our great-grandchildren’s, it might as well be fiction.
PS. in a few centuries, people will blow off the murders committed by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot just like we blow off those of Nero and Genghis Khan.
Overall, the slave labor (according to “Archiplag GULAG by Solzhenitcyn) didn’t produce high quality work.
I guess A-bomb was of very good quality
Also in many cases the conditions of “free” workers were same or worth. As I told – one of my grandfathers survived the War in camps (1939-1949) but other one – “free” – died in 1941 as result of hard work, little food and lack of doctors (many of them were in Gulag – treating Solzhenitsyn).
———————————————-
Ivanov,
for me it’s hard to judge, for those members of my family what ended up in GULAG, never came back, actually nobody heard from them (once they were arrested) or knows where they are buried. Maybe there were doctors, I don’t know.
Solzhenitsyn was not a historian and Gulag Archipelago, taken as a work of history rather than as a former zek throwing his clippings on the floor, is crap.
Although it is true AFAIK that the Gulag was inefficient, which IIRC is one reason why Beria (not Khrushchev, BERIA) had it closed down. But that was not the point, which to a large extent was to develop areas of the USSR where people would not willingly go to work. Inefficient work is better than no work.
You should talk to Upravlenie FSB of the region where members of your family had been arrested. UFSBs keeps the records and are in charge of answering such inquiries.
back, actually nobody heard from them
You should talk to Upravlenie FSB of the region where members of your family had been arrested. UFSBs keeps the records and are in charge of answering such inquiries.
———————————————-
They were arrested not in Russia proper, but perished (presumably) in Siberia. Thanks for the tip though