643 Responses - Solzhenitsyn, Ukraine Famine, Stalin

Responses - Solzhenitsyn, Ukraine Famine, Stalin

Newletter published on 13 January 2014

(1) The word "Moslem" - in the German version but not the Russian or
French versions
(2) Solzhenitsn's 200YT is not anti Jewish
(3) Gilad Atzmon on Ukraine Famine
(4) Exchange with Israel Shamir on Ukraine Famine, Solzhenitsyn and Stalin
(5) Peter Singer asks why Stalin is seen as relatively more acceptable
than Hitler
(6) Putin defends statue of Stalin - says he was no worse than Oliver
Cromwell
(7) Putin's No Stalin
(8) Trotsky is memorialised in Mexico but not in Russia
(9) Russian Orthodox Church Under Fire Over Stalin Calendar
(10) Cossacks to Go On Patrol at Sochi Games

(1) The word "Moslem" - in the German version but not the Russian or
French versions

From: "Saleh Elkmeshi" <selkmeshi@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Solzhenitsyn - Banned All Over Again
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:59:17 +0100

Dear Peter;
I hope this finds YOU in the best of health.. I also  hope you recollect
me from years back, after this.
I want to thank you for your Great work and conrtibution to enlightment...
With all due respect..

I downloaded the 200YT book by Solzhenitsyn, and found the guy is out of
foucos, or disorinted in the historical context of 13th century.. when
Mosco was established.

He mixes between Jewish and Moslems and claims the Moslems bought from
Tatars (Moslems) the “pricipalit rights to levy Tribute” ??

Or dose he mean the Keiv Jewish ?? who bought those rights from the Tatars?

Thank you and happy lunatic birth of the Prophet Mohamed…
hearing all kind of fireworks around me in Tripoli.


The invasion of the Tatars portended the end of the lively commerce of
the Kiev Rus, and many Jews apparently went to Poland. (Also the jewish
colonization into Volhynia and Galicia continued, where they had
scarcely suffered from the Tatar invasion.) The Encyclopedia explains:
“During the invasion of the Tatars (1239) which destroyed Kiev, the Jews
also suffered, but in the second half of the 13th century they were
invited by the Grand Princes to resettle in Kiev, which found itself
under the domination of the Tatars. On account of the special rights,
which were also granted the Jews in other possessions of the Tatars,
envy was stirred up in the town residents against the Kiev Jews.”
Similar happened not only in Kiev, but also in the cities of North
Russia, which “under the Tatar rule, were accessible for many [Moslem?
see note 1] merchants from Khoresm or Khiva, who were long since
experienced in trade and the tricks of profit-seeking. These people
bought from the Tatars the principality’s right to levy Tribute, they
demanded excessive interest from poor people and, in case of their
failure to pay, declared the debtors to be their slaves, and took away
their freedom. The residents of Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov finally
lost their patience and rose up together at the pealing of the Bells
against these usurers; a few were killed and the rest chased off.” A
punitive expedition of the Khan against the mutineers was threatened,
which however was hindered via the mediation of Alexander Nevsky. “In
the documents of the 15th century, Kievite [G19] jewish tax-leasers are
mentioned, who possessed a significant fortune.”
Note 1. The word “Moslem” is in the German but not French translation. I
am researching the Russian original.


Best Regards
Saleh M. Elkmeshi.
ICT & MD Services.
Tripoli - Libya.
Mob1:  +218-91-8902782.
Mob2:  +218-92-5094013.

Reply (Peter M.):

 > hearing all kind of fireworks around me in Tripoli.

Are you sure they are not gunshots?

As for the word "Moslem" you refer to: this paragraph is from Chapter 1,
p. 6 in the pdf.

You are right - the word "Moslem" should not be there. It's referring to
Jews, not Moslems - that is, to Jewish Tax-farmers who paid the Tatars
for the right to levy taxes from the people.

In another version of Chapter 1, there is this note (near the bottom of
this page). I think that TJH is the translator:

{quote}
Note 1. The word "Moslem" is in the German but not French translation. I
am researching the Russian original.
The word "Moslem" is not in the French version. It does not appear to be
in the Russian either, though I am struggling to get every word in the
Russian. When I succeed, I will make a final correction. Until then, I
have added a footnote.

Comment by TJH — March 31, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

{endquote}
http://200yearstogether.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/chapter-20-in-the-camps-of-gulag/

(2) Solzhenitsn's 200YT is not anti Jewish

From: "Zvonimir Gavranovic" <zvonimir@warragambaparish.org.au>
Subject: RE: Solzhenitsyn - Banned All Over Again
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:53:50 +1100

Dear Peter,

My brother in Croatia has that book in German that you talk about and I
attempted to read the first volume in German but my German isn't good
enough. In it he starts with Jewish life in Russia from the middle ages
and as far as I could work out he says nothing anti Jewish in it. My
brother who read both volumes he doesn't say anything  anti Jewish. But
it is interesting it has not been published in English.

Regrards
Zvonimir

(3) Gilad Atzmon on Ukraine Famine

Subject: Re: Ukraine Famine: Holocaust And Holodomor (Origins Of
  Anti-Semitism), by Nicholas Lyssson (2009)
From: Gilad Atzmon <giladatzmon@me.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:59:04 +0000

Bless u ...

Comment (Peter M.): Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

NOTE: Gilad is a Jazz musician based in London. He grew up in Israel and
served in the Israeli Army, but eventually came to the conclusion that
he and his fellow soldiers were the Nazis, and the Palestinians were the
Jews. He's since taken up writing - his website has lots of interesting
articles: http://www.gilad.co.uk/

(4) Exchange with Israel Shamir on Ukraine Famine, Solzhenitsyn and Stalin

NOTE: Israel Shamir grew up in the Soviet Union, but migrated to Israel
a few years after the 1967 war. He served in the Israeli Army in the
1973 war, in Egypt. Later he became anti-Zionist, and criticized Jews in
the West for undermining Chistianity - for example via "Modern Art".
During the 1980s he was a correspondent in Moscow for the Israeli
newspaper Haaretz. He lives in Haifa, but has a summer-house in Sweden.
It's somewhat difficult to grasp his philosophy, but it seems to a mix
of Christianity and Communism. He defends Stalin, and applauds Putin's
handling of Pussy Riot. When Swedish Feminists levied charges against
Julian Assange, it was Shamir who released the names of those women, to
that they could not hide behind anonymity.


4.1 SHAMIR TO MYERS

Subject: Re: ADL to Ukraine: Don't Link YOUR Holocaust with OURS
From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:59:57 +0200

Dear Peter,

I noticed a few of your dispatches dealt with the famine in Ukraine (so
called Holodomor), presented as intentional genocide. Indeed there was
an attempt of the Ukrainian nationalists of Orange and other persuasions
to claim that the Russians intentionally caused the famine on order to
kill the Ukrainians. Now, mercifully, this foolishness is over.

Let us try to put this story right. Russians do not consider Ukrainians
to be a different folk. They view them as the French of North-of France
view the French of South-of-France. The idea of Brzezinski and other
cold-warriors was to separate these two groups by building the myth of
Ukrainian search for independence and such myths as holodomor. It was a
non-starter for many reasons: the West Ukraine was not a part of Soviet
Ukraine during so-called Holodomor, yet it suffered a famine, as well.
The West Ukraine did not experience Holodomor, yet it was the only part
of modern Ukraine with nationalist feelings.

The famine of the time is a real thing, no invention. However, Volga
region of Russia proper and Kazakhstan suffered from the same famine as
much as the Ukraine. Famines were not unknown before the 1917 revolution
as well, they were actually more frequent, as described by Leo Tolstoy
and other contemporaries.

What was the reason for famine? Partly nature; partly export of grain to
Europe in order to buy industries. Stalin had a plan to rapidly
industrialise the USSR, as he justifiably expected a great war. Russia
had to industrialise or perish. Grain was needed to feed the city
workers, while the peasants did not want to surrender grain. They
preferred to slaughter cows rather than to pass them to a collective
farm. The government had to provide for the city workers, as otherwise
the workers would ran back to villages and the industrialisation drive
would be over.

Grain was removed from farmers by brutal methods, no doubt. Indeed the
Jewish commissars were heavily involved in these confiscations, and they
had less compassion to the farmers than other people would. For this
reason they were used by the authorities. The authorities used other
ethnic minorities too: Letts (people of Latvia) and Chinese, among
others were active in the confiscations. People of different origin are
often used to enforce government line - for instance, in Israel the
Druzes are used against the Palestinians, and in Jordan, the Circassians
are employed against the people.

Real famine lasted for one year, and probably it was caused (among
others) by excessive zeal of confiscators. It is difficult to know how
many people died: the numbers of actual deaths ranged from 300,000 to 1
million. Greater numbers are of "projected population loss", i.e. of
people who could be born but weren't. Such projected numbers vary from 6
to 10 million.

As the result, Russia and Ukraine were collectivised; the collective
farms eventually achieved a modest prosperity, but it took time. For
quite a while the peasants did not want to go to Kolkhoz; they were
often severely punished. The collective farms were necessary in order to
proceed with industrialisation and to achieve economy of scale.
Elimination of small farms was achieved in almost the same time in the
US by different but equally cruel means (see the Grapes of Wrath). It is
said that 6 to 7 million Americans died of the American Holodomor of the
time.

There are a few conspirationist versions of holodomor: one of them by
Nikolai Starikov attached the blame on the British who demanded to be
paid in grain and refused to accept gold as a means of payment. In this
version, Stalin appears as a a sort of Ceau?escu ready for any sacrifice
to eliminate indebtedness.

It appears that the Holodomor story is out of fashion in the Ukraine
since the Orange movement has lost in the polls. People do not speak of
it, as they do not speak of potato famine in Ireland or of Bengali
famine. Probably you should be more critical to your sources.

Israel Shamir


4.2 MYERS TO SHAMIR

Israel,

Thanks, and I will put your missive out, unless you choose to rewrite it
in the meantime.

But I think that a better approach for you to take, would be to compare
the death toll in the Holodomor with that caused by Privatization and
Deregulation, upon American advice, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

It's often expressed as a collapse in Life Expectancy. I do have figures
on it somewhere, but cannot locate them.

You could accept the higher figure for the Holodomor death toll -
Solzhenitsyn said 6 million - but counterpoise that with a similar toll
at the fall of Communism.

Was not a certain fundamentalism evident in both cases? Does not the
middle ground look better than either extreme?

I don't agree that Collectivization was necessary - not at the price of
so many deaths. It worked ok in areas where people were used to the Mir
(village) as communal property. If Collectivization had been superior, I
doubt that China would have undone it.

It's not that Industrialization was an unworthy goal. But "more haste,
less speed".

The best that can be said of Collectization, I think, is that it worked
once it was established. But the establishment cost, given the brutal
methods and the antagonism of authorities towards peasants, was too great.

You know that I admire your writing. But I think it would be gracious of
you to concede the higher death toll for the Holodomor; just claim a
comparable toll when Communism was dismantled.

If you do agree to take this tack, you could rewrite your piece.

I read that Ukraine suffered particularly badly in the wake of the fall
of the USSR. One sees it when lots of Ukrainian and Russian women seem
to be looking for "Penfriends" overseas, as also happens in other
countries suffering poverty and dislocation. That did not happen during
Soviet times.


4.3 MYERS TO SHAMIR

Israel,

In my view, Gorbachev removed the tyrannical features of life in the
Soviet Union, so that in his middle years it had a lot of good features
and not many bad ones.

Valdas Anelauskas, a Lithuanian dissident during Soviet Times, got a
rude shock when he arrived in America.
He wrote a book called Discovering America As It Is, in which he wrote:

{quote}
Today, after all these years of living here in the United States, I
understand very well that all the bad things which Soviet propaganda
told us about America were not, in most cases, lies at all. More than
that, the Soviets gave us only a particle of the truth of all the
negative sides of how things really are inAmerica. We heard about
poverty, homelessness and unemployment, about consumerism and "trash
culture," about violent crime and racial conflicts, but their manner of
conveying the information was neither believable nor affective. We
couldn't grasp its living reality. [...]

If you compare New York to European or even Canadian cities, it's like a
hell on earth. All the big cities in the Soviet Union of twenty years
ago— Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev—were completely safe at any time. I
remember I could walk safely anywhere at night in Moscow. Now, however,
with the introduction of capitalism, we might well expect all of them to
be becoming more like New York. They are already many times more
dangerous right now than they were just ten years ago and crime has
already become a major problem in all the ex-Soviet countries. [...]

One can see now how disillusioned the majority of people in the former
Soviet countries are today, after they have tried out the reality of
"free markets" on their own backs. Most people that I personally know,
my close friends, relatives, and acquaintances who live in post-Soviet
countries, including my native Lithuania, acknowledge today that even
the Soviet system wasn't so terrible when compared to American-style
laissez-faire capitalism.

{endquote} http://www.efn.org/~rolanda/discovering/intro.html

I'm not backtracking, or being inconsistent. The old proverb comes to
mind, "Virtus in Medio Stat" - Virtue lies in the Middle Ground. Not the
extremes of Communism or Capitalism, but a middle position.

I have found this article on the disastrous Privatization & Deregulation
under Yeltsin; it's by John Ross, a Professor of Economics:

Fall of Soviet Union shock therapy -> GDP fell 36%, male life expectancy
fell 4 years - John Ross
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2012/11/note-to-neo-liberals-earth-orbits-the-sun.html

{quote}
In the former Soviet Union neo-liberal shock therapy, based on full
privatization, was carried out after 1991. Russia's GDP fell 36 percent,
the greatest decline of a major economy in peacetime in modern world
history. Russia's male life expectancy fell by four years, to only 58,
by 1998 and Russia's population today is 7 million less than it was in 1991.
{endquote}

But I would welcome more information from you on this.


4.4 SHAMIR TO MYERS

Subject: Re: ADL to Ukraine: Don't Link YOUR Holocaust with OURS
From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:59:18 +0200

Dear Peter,

I am not all that interested in the famine; Solzhenitsyn's numbers are
usually wild invention of a writer, not to be treated seriously. The
reasons are clear: collectivisation, drive for industrialisation,
excessive zeal in collecting grain. Definitely a crime - not a crime of
genocide, but still a crime. Stalin wrote an article against excessive
zeal, it was published in Pravda. As for numbers, you can see even in
Wikipedia, that 6 million is a number of projected population minus
existing population. Real amount of dead of hunger is much lower, but
still painful.

The losses after collapse of the USSR is a different story; I understand
what you say, but I do not think it is relevant, while comparison with
losses of life in the US in the same years is relevant.


4.5 MYERS TO SHAMIR

Israel,

 > Stalin wrote an article against excessive zeal

Stalin's second wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was enrolled in a college,
and Ukrainian students contacted her and told her about the famine. They
thought that Stalin would help, once he knew.

Nadya was terribly upset about the famine, and told him so. There is no
way that he did not know.

The night before she died, she & Stalin had a terrible row. It may have
been about another woman, Rosa Kaganovich, or it may have been about the
famine. It lead to her death, probably at the hands of Stalin.
http://mailstar.net/wives-of-stalin.html.

 > The losses after collapse of the USSR
 > ... I do not think it is relevant, while
 > comparison with losses of life in the US
 > in the same years is relevant.

Please explain. How do you mean "losses of life in the US"? During which
years?

How would you describe the losses after collapse of the USSR?


4.6 SHAMIR TO MYERS

Subject: Re: ADL to Ukraine: Don't Link YOUR Holocaust with OURS
From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:59:22 +0200

Dear Peter,

I am aware of this version told by two Stalin's enemies, Trotsky and
Khruschov. Trotsky connected the death with excesses of
collectivisation; so did Khruschev who added a female jealousy (he did
not mention Rosa for he knew there is no such a person, so he spoke of a
wife of an army officer). It appears that these were inventions aimed to
besmirch their adversary. You can read critique of this version (or
versions) here http://stalin.su/book.php?action=header&id=14

In short, Rosa Kaganovich never existed. Stalin had no quarrel with
Nadezhda. She was unhappy in Kremlin. She committed suicide. He remained
heart-broken, and frequented her grave. Not much of a womaniser ever,
after Nadezhda's death he lived like a monk for the rest of his life.

Losses of life in the US - I refer to the Grapes of Wrath time (of Great
Depression). They were estimated around 6 million.

Losses of life after the collapse of the USSR - there are various
assessments up to 20 million.

Losses of dignity and quality were terrible, but they can't be assessed
easily.


4. 7 MYERS COMMENT ON SHAMIR

Peter Myers January 13, 2014

I have a website dealing with the death of Stalin's second wife Nadezhda
Alliluieva (Alliluyeva), where I present good evidence that Stalin
murdered her. It took place in a rage, after a terrible argument. It was
not pre-meditated, and Stalin grieved afterwards:
http://mailstar.net/wives-of-stalin.html

That webpage also deals with Stalin's involvement with Rosa Kaganovich,
the sister of Lazar Kaganovich. She became Stalin's third wife; he had
probably been having an affair with her, which would have been a factor
in the argument the night Nadya died. It's said that Stalin was a
changed man after Nadya died - cold and hard.

I also have a webpage on Lazar Kaganovich, featuring excerpts from the
book The Wolf of the Kremlin, written by his nephew Stuart Kahan.

Through that webpage, I have received emails from time to time from
members of the Kaganovich family - descendants and relatives. And,
believe it or not, I put a number of them in touch with one another.
They had been cut off after migrating etc.

Some of them attested to the reality of Rosa Kaganovich.

In particular, Miriam deVore (nee Kanagovich) wrote, "My aunt Florence
Cohen told me that her Aunt Rose was married to Stalin".

She gave permission for me to publish for letter - which contains
something of a family tree.

You can read their statements at my Kanagovich webpage:
http://mailstar.net/kaganovich.html

On a similar note, my webpage on Harry Waton also drew emails from some
of HIS descendants and relatives, and I put THEM in touch with one
another too.

I could never have envisaged such things happening when I started my
website.

(5) Peter Singer asks why Stalin is seen as relatively more acceptable
than Hitler

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/peter-singer-asks-why-stalin-is-seen-as-relatively-more-acceptable-than-hitler

A Statue for Stalin?

Peter Singer

JAN 9, 2014

PRINCETON – Hitler and Stalin were ruthless dictators who committed
murder on a vast scale. But, while it is impossible to imagine a Hitler
statue in Berlin, or anywhere else in Germany, statues of Stalin have
been restored in towns across Georgia (his birthplace), and another is
to be erected in Moscow as part of a commemoration of all Soviet leaders.

The difference in attitude extends beyond the borders of the countries
over which these men ruled. In the United States, there is a bust of
Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial in Virginia. In New York, I
recently dined at a Russian restaurant that featured Soviet
paraphernalia, waitresses in Soviet uniforms, and a painting of Soviet
leaders in which Stalin was prominent. New York also has its KGB Bar. To
the best of my knowledge, there is no Nazi-themed restaurant in New
York; nor is there a Gestapo or SS bar.

So, why is Stalin seen as relatively more acceptable than Hitler?

At a press conference last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin
attempted a justification. Asked about Moscow’s plans for a statue of
Stalin, he pointed to Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the Parliamentarian
side in the seventeenth-century English Civil War, and asked: “What’s
the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin?” He then answered his
own question: “None whatsoever,” and went on to describe Cromwell as a
“cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s
history.” (A statue of Cromwell stands outside the House of Commons in
London.)

“Ambiguous” is a reasonable description of the morality of Cromwell’s
actions. While he promoted parliamentary rule in England, ended the
civil war, and allowed a degree of religious toleration, he also
supported the trial and execution of Charles I and brutally conquered
Ireland in response to a perceived threat from an alliance of Irish
Catholics and English Royalists.

But, unlike Cromwell, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of very
large numbers of civilians, outside any war or military campaign.
According to Timothy Snyder, author of Bloodlands, 2-3 million people
died in the forced labor camps of the Gulag and perhaps a million were
shot during the Great Terror of the late 1930’s. Another five million
starved in the famine of 1930-1933, of whom 3.3 million were Ukrainians
who died as a result of a deliberate policy related to their nationality
or status as relatively prosperous peasants known as kulaks.

Snyder’s estimate of the total number of Stalin’s victims does not take
into account those who managed to survive forced labor or internal exile
in harsh conditions. Including them might add as many as 25 million to
the number of those who suffered terribly as a result of Stalin’s
tyranny. The total number of deaths that Snyder attributes to Stalin is
lower than the commonly cited figure of 20 million, which was estimated
before historians had access to the Soviet archives. It is nonetheless a
horrendous total – similar in magnitude to the Nazis’ killings (which
took place during a shorter period).

Moreover, the Soviet archives show that one cannot say that the Nazi’s
killings were worse because victims were targeted on the basis of their
race or ethnicity. Stalin, too, selected some of his victims on this
basis – not only Ukrainians, but also people belonging to ethnic
minorities associated with countries bordering the Soviet Union.
Stalin’s persecutions also targeted a disproportionately large number of
Jews.

There were no gas chambers, and arguably the motivation for Stalin’s
killings was not genocide, but rather the intimidation and suppression
of real or imaginary opposition to his rule. That in no way excuses the
extent of the killing and imprisonment that occurred.

If there is any “ambiguity” about Stalin’s moral record, it may be
because communism strikes a chord with some of our nobler impulses,
seeking equality for all and an end to poverty. No such universal
aspiration can be found in Nazism, which, even on its face, was not
concerned about what was good for all, but about what was good for one
supposed racial group, and which was clearly motivated by hatred and
contempt for other ethnic groups.

But communism under Stalin was the opposite of egalitarian, for it gave
absolute power to a few, and denied all rights to the many. Those who
defend Stalin’s reputation credit him with lifting millions out of
poverty; but millions could have been lifted out of poverty without
murdering and incarcerating millions more.

Others defend Stalin’s greatness on the basis of his role in repelling
the Nazi invasion and ultimately defeating Hitler. Yet Stalin’s purge of
military leaders during the Great Terror critically weakened the Red
Army, his signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 paved
the way for the start of World War II, and his blindness to the Nazi
threat in 1941 left the Soviet Union unprepared to resist Hitler’s attack.

It remains true that Stalin led his country to victory in war, and to a
position of global power that it had not held before and from which it
has since fallen. Hitler, by contrast, left his country shattered,
occupied, and divided.

People identify with their country and look up to those who led it when
it was at its most powerful. That may explain why Muscovites are more
willing to accept a statue of Stalin than Berliners would be to have one
of Hitler.

But that can be only part of the reason for the different treatment
given to these mass murderers. It still leaves me puzzled about New
York’s Soviet-themed restaurant and KGB Bar.

(6) Putin defends statue of Stalin - says he was no worse than Oliver
Cromwell

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-soviet-leader-joseph-stalin-was-no-worse-than-oliver-cromwell-9016836.html

Vladimir Putin: Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was no worse than Oliver
Cromwell

The Russian President made the comments at a press conference after he
was asked about a monument to Stalin being put up in Moscow

IAN JOHNSTON

Friday 20 December 2013

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was no worse than 17th century English
dictator Oliver Cromwell, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed
at a press conference.

Stalin has been blamed for the deaths of millions of people while
Cromwell slaughtered thousands in Ireland and allegedly sent Irish
Catholics into slavery in the West Indies.

But the scale of the carnage did not seem to matter to the Russian leader.

“What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None
whatsoever,” Mr Putin said on Thursday, according to news service RIA
Novosti.

Mr Putin made the comments at a press conference after he was asked
about a monument to Stalin being put up in Moscow.

The city said recently that it planned to commemorate all Soviet leaders
who had lived there.

The president said that Stalin was just as deserving of a statue in his
honour as that “cunning fellow” Cromwell who “played a very ambiguous
role in Britain’s history”.

However Mr Putin also added a note of caution.

“We must treat all periods of our history with care. It’s better not to
stir things up… with premature actions,” he said.

A statue to Cromwell was put up outside the House of Commons in 1899,
although it has occasionally attracted controversy due to his actions in
Ireland and his opposition to the monarchy.

(7) Putin's No Stalin

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991

Dimitri A. Simes | September 4, 2013

[...]  The number of people murdered by Stalin’s regime is in the
millions, with some estimates as high as sixty million dead. Not only is
there no evidence that Putin has done anything similar, but no one has
accused him of doing so. Under Stalin, all forms of political opposition
were forbidden. Dissenters were often executed or sent to gulags in
Siberia. Under Putin, numerous opposition parties and publications
exist, albeit their opportunities to influence policy are limited.
Furthermore, Stalin pursued an expansionist foreign policy, as evidenced
by his 1939 invasions of Poland and Finland as well as the occupation of
Eastern Europe after WWII. By contrast, since 1990, Russia has been
involved in only one armed conflict with another sovereign nation. Even
then, an independent commission organized by the European Union
concluded that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s invasion of
South Ossetia was the ultimate catalyst for the 2008 Russia-Georgia War.

In July, I had the privilege to accompany a delegation organized by the
Center for the National Interest to Moscow. I took the opportunity to
visit several bookstores. What stood out the most was that in every
bookstore I visited, there was a section dedicated to antigovernment
literature. Clearly the owners of these establishments did not worry
about facing repercussions for facilitating criticism of the Putin
administration. This notable lack of fear was also evident in my
discussions with self-proclaimed members of the Russian opposition.
These people, who I know well and trust, freely expressed their
disenchantment with the current state of Russian affairs. It is a far
cry from Stalin’s time, when one would not dare tell a mere political
joke for fear of being shot or shipped off to a labor camp in Siberia.

[...] My grandmother, Dina Kaminskaya, was a leading human-rights lawyer
during the Brezhnev era. She represented numerous prominent dissidents,
such as Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Litvinov. For having the courage to
defend the enemies of the Soviet government, she was not only expelled
from the Moscow Bar, but ultimately was forced to emigrate from the
Soviet Union or face arrest. In modern-day Russia, this sort of
Brezhnev-era repression is virtually unknown, especially in comparison
to the Stalinist era, which makes Brezhnev’s reign seem liberal by contrast.

[...] To argue that Putin is the moral equivalent of Stalin is not only
misleading, but it trivializes the victims of Stalin’s tyranny.

(8) Trotsky is memorialised in Mexico but not in Russia

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/russia-leader-vladimir-putin-cromwell-stalin

For Russia's leader, Cromwell and Stalin are both Putinites

They revered power above all else and used nationalism to maintain their
grip on it. Both were imperialists

Stephen Moss

theguardian.com, Friday 20 December 2013 05.11 AEST

Vladimir Putin reckons there is no difference between Joseph Stalin and
Oliver Cromwell, and that the former is no less deserving of a statue
than the latter, who, despite cutting off the head of a king, gets pride
of place outside the Houses of Parliament. "What is the essential
difference between Cromwell and Stalin? Can you tell me? No difference,"
he said at his annual press conference on Thursday.

Before considering this urgent question, let's pause to congratulate Mr
Putin on being able to make these comparisons. Could David Cameron talk
confidently of the political legacy of a 17th-century Russian leader?

That said, Putin's comparison is meaningless. If anything, it is Trotsky
rather than Stalin who stands comparison with Cromwell. Trotsky, like
Cromwell, was both revolutionary theoretician and army organiser, and
both were key figures in their respective revolutions. Trotsky is
memorialised in Mexico, where he had sought exile and in 1940 was
murdered by a Soviet agent, but not in Moscow. As well as having Trotsky
murdered, Stalin set about obliterating his rival from Russian
revolutionary history.

Cromwell is accorded a statue because ultimately he was unsuccessful. He
led the parliamentary side in the English civil war and succeeded in
overthrowing the king, but his revolutionary ideals quickly congealed,
he became a quasi-king himself in his role as lord protector and left no
legacy. His son Richard succeeded him, but ruled only briefly before the
restoration of the monarchy. England had not been able to stomach the
idea of a republic, let alone put into practice the ferment of
socialistic ideals that had been unleashed by the civil war. Cromwell
gets his statue in part because he upheld the rights of parliament –
hence the location – but also because he had maintained the status quo.
A statue to a true revolutionary would have been torn down long ago.

Putin gives an honourable mention to Cromwell and Stalin because, in his
eyes, they are both Putinites. They revered power above all else and
used nationalism to maintain their grip on it. Both were imperialists:
Cromwell was the bloody hammer of the Irish; Stalin ruthlessly welded
the disparate republics that made up the Soviet Union into what passed
for a unitary state. It was a brilliant personal achievement that
ultimately achieved nothing. The Soviet Union lasted little more than 70
years – the lifetime of a not very long-lived individual. Like
Cromwell's revolution, it was a historical blip.

Cromwell and Stalin were great exponents of realpolitik who kept the
show on the road, but no more than that. They were master conjurors,
which may be what appeals to Putin as his country teeters between
liberalism and authoritarianism, oligarchical capitalism and state
provision. Putin is engaged in a majestic piece of mythmaking,
constructing an image of "Mother Russia" that connects both the Tsarist
and the Soviet periods. It is engagingly mad pick-and-mix history, and
perhaps, in hymning two men who achieved so little, he is thinking about
the way he will be remembered.

(9) Russian Orthodox Church Under Fire Over Stalin Calendar

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-orthodox-church-under-fire-over-stalin-calendar/492573.html

12 January 2014 | Issue 5286

Reuters

The Russian Orthodox Church has come under heavy criticism on the
Internet this week over a 2014 wall calendar published by a revered
monastery's printing house that features portraits of Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin.

The black-and-white calendar, titled "Stalin" and costing 200 rubles
($6), is advertised as "a great gift for veterans and history fans."
Historian Mikhail Babkin brought it to public attention on his blog on
Jan. 7.

"Disgrace, shame and insult to all those who perished," one person wrote
in one of nearly 200 comments under Babkin's post, referring to the
millions who died because of Stalin's forced farm collectivization and
brutal political repression.

The Russian Orthodox Church, which was severely persecuted under Stalin
but has enjoyed a resurgence since the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, said it dismissed the head of the printing house in July once it
found out about the printing but the calendars had already been delivered.

"The Russian Orthodox Church was subject to the most severe repressions
during Stalin's rule when thousands of priests were deported and
executed. Releasing such a publication in a church establishment … is
morally unacceptable," Vakhtang Kipshidze, a spokesman for the Russian
Orthodox Church, told Reuters.

But reflecting the sympathy for Stalin still felt by many Russians who
credit him with victory in World War Two and giving their country a
superpower status, Kipshidze added:

"Though one should work on the assumption that both in the Russian
Orthodox Church and in Russian society there are differing views on the
role Josef Stalin played in Russian history, and everybody has the right
to hold on to their views."

Critics of the Kremlin accuse President Vladimir Putin of burnishing
Stalin's image and celebrating the Soviet Union's modernizing
achievements to prop up national pride.

Since returning to the Kremlin in mid-2012, Putin has also sought to
appeal to conservative voters to boost his own authority and has
increasingly promoted the Russian Orthodox Church as the standard bearer
for national values.

The church, in turn, has faced growing criticism from critics who say it
has fostered excessively close ties to the Kremlin and sought too
powerful a role in secular life.

"This is business. The Russian Orthodox Church is using its resources to
make money," Andrei Kurayev, a cleric and religious activist, wrote on
his blog. "This is where the trouble is, not in Stalin pictures."

(10) Cossacks to Go On Patrol at Sochi Games

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sochi2014/Cossacks-to-Go-On-Patrol-at-Sochi-Games.html

12.01.2014 | Issue 5286

Vasily Fedosenko | Reuters

Cossacks in their traditional lamb's wool hats and coats with epaulettes
will be patrolling the resort of Sochi for next month's Winter Olympics.

Russia has imposed a security clampdown in Sochi to try to ensure the
safety of the Games, which are a sworn target of Moscow's most wanted
man, the Islamic insurgency leader Doku Umarov.

The Games are a prestige project for President Vladimir Putin, meant to
showcase Russia's modern face more than two decades after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, and the Cossacks bring with them their own stamp of
national pride.

Cossacks traditionally served the Russian tsars on the borders of their
empire and lived in relative freedom but were persecuted in the Soviet era.

Neither part of the police nor the military, they have enjoyed a rapid
revival since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, becoming a
staunchly conservative social force invited by local officials to join
security efforts.

Their brand of Russian Orthodox patriotism has won public praise from Putin.

But critics accuse them of fierce nationalism and their presence can add
to the tension between ethnic Russians and minorities, especially in
cities such as Moscow, where many migrants are Muslims from the North
Caucasus and ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia.

They will join the massive security operation in Sochi, located a few
hundred kilometers from the North Caucasus, where Islamist separatists
are fighting to carve out their own state.

"A total of 410 Cossacks will be on duty on train stations, the airport,
as well as Olympic venues to carry out patrols together with the
police," said Konstantin Perenizhko, a deputy to the regional Cossack
military leader.

They were due to start work Friday, four weeks before the Games start on
Feb. 7.

Cossacks have also been patrolling streets, transport networks and
shopping malls in Russia's southern city of Volgograd after two deadly
suicide bomb attacks there in December.

Alexander Tkachyov, the governor of the Krasnodar region, which includes
Sochi, first launched Cossack patrols with some 1,000 men in 2012.

"We ran surveys among the inhabitants of our region and some 80 percent
of them approve of such activity by the Cossacks because it led to a
visible decrease in street crime," Perenizhko said, adding that the men
on patrols will not be armed.