Russia today: two puzzles

Feb 2011
82
7
New Jersey, USA
#1
How to explain this?​

The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/dedenievo.html

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_profile.html
.
.
 
Likes: 1 person
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#2
How to explain this?



The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/dedenievo.html

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_profile.html
.
.

Too many times people rewrite history in their own mind. It may be about a war or an old lover. But over time it seems to become their reality.
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#3
Stalin led the Soviet Union at the time it crushed Nazism and saved Europe, though not an admirable person. I feel - to a much lesser degree - the same about Churchill. 'Great Leaders' are almost always scumbags as individuals: they become labels for periods of time.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#4
Dems and Repubs both idolize Reagan, it's not just Russians that like to idolize leaders of their rivals. Lincoln is another such example.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#5
Dems and Repubs both idolize Reagan, it's not just Russians that like to idolize leaders of their rivals. Lincoln is another such example.
How many Democrats do you know who idolize Reagan? :p Lincoln maybe, but Reagan?
 
Jul 2009
5,684
415
Opa Locka
#6
How many Democrats do you know who idolize Reagan? :p Lincoln maybe, but Reagan?
The Senate has been invoking his name all week attacking the House for not raising the DC. Odd, I know. :p

And Obama has been quite open about his admiration sense before he was president.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#7
The Senate has been invoking his name all week attacking the House for not raising the DC. Odd, I know. :p

And Obama has been quite open about his admiration sense before he was president.
Admiration as a charismatic leader, maybe, but policy-wise (at least the "on paper" policy - in reality both sides have been sellouts and not actually followed/understood what they preached) I doubt it. On the House attacks- that's just because they know the GOP in the House likes him, so it's a strategy, I suppose :p
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#8
Admiration as a charismatic leader, maybe, but policy-wise (at least the "on paper" policy - in reality both sides have been sellouts and not actually followed/understood what they preached) I doubt it. On the House attacks- that's just because they know the GOP in the House likes him, so it's a strategy, I suppose :p
No - for my money it's part of the general decline of democratic control over the pols. I can - just about - remember when MacMillan here seemed an extreme rightist, then Heath worse, then that dreadful woman whatsername about the end of human civilization. In the latter case, of course, I was right (Thatcher was the name, I recall now), and Heath seems to me almost decent when compared with that disgusting scumbag the 'sincere' scoundrel Bliar. I'd guess it is the same in the States, now you are ruled by Murdoch.
 
#9
Dems and Repubs both idolize Reagan, it's not just Russians that like to idolize leaders of their rivals. Lincoln is another such example.
Stalin and Lenin were partners of ambition.

Both were brutal - Lenin died too early to chalk up Stalin's numbers (incidentally Lenin in his testament advised that the party neuter Stalin).

Reagan and Lincoln were both Republicans but the similarities (common party affiliation) between them and the soviets ends there.
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#10
Stalin and Lenin were partners of ambition.

Both were brutal - Lenin died too early to chalk up Stalin's numbers (incidentally Lenin in his testament advised that the party neuter Stalin).

Reagan and Lincoln were both Republicans but the similarities (common party affiliation) between them and the soviets ends there.
Well, I dunno - Lincoln at least meant well. About Reagan and Stalin I have my doubts certainly. Perhaps if the capitalists hadn't attacked the infant Soviet Union in force they might have all come out about equal.
 
#11
Stalin led the Soviet Union at the time it crushed Nazism and saved Europe, though not an admirable person. I feel - to a much lesser degree - the same about Churchill. 'Great Leaders' are almost always scumbags as individuals: they become labels for periods of time.
Great Stalin quotes:

"A man would have to be very brave indeed not to be a hero in my army"

"One death is a tragedy; a milion deaths is a statistic."

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."

"Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs"

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?".