Log in

View Full Version : Russia turns its back on the Krushchev



A.J.
26th January 2007, 14:48
Russia turns its back on the man who denounced Stalin

BBC

From Jeremy Page in Moscow

WHEN Nikita Khrushchev took the podium on the last day of the Communist
Party congress 50 years ago today, his words were so shocking that some
fainted.

The Soviet leader had done the unthinkable, denouncing his predecessor
Joseph Stalin, who had died three years earlier.

So sensitive was Khrushchev's "secret speech" that his daughter, Rada
Adzhubei, did not learn of it for two weeks, when excerpts were read
out at party meetings. "I was shocked, like everyone else," Mrs Adzhubei, now
76, told The Times in her apartment a few hundred yards from the Kremlin.
"Millions knew about these things, but millions did not know. And we
were all brought up in an atmosphere where Stalin was the great leader — it
was in the air we breathed."

Few people would disagree in the West, where the speech caused a
sensation when it was leaked to the foreign press months later. Poland's leader,
Boleslaw Bierut, died of a heart attack after reading it a month
afterwards. But in Russia, the anniversary is being marked by a reassessment of
Khrushchev's role in history that, analysts say, reflects the
increasingly repressive climate under the Kremlin of Vladimir Putin.

The only official commemoration is a tiny exhibition in the Historical
Museum, featuring a few documents and memorabilia including
Khrushchev's embroidered Ukrainian shirt. Russian state television has cancelled a
planned documentary on the subject, and a growing number of academics
and journalists are portraying the "secret speech" as an act of revenge.

"Since then we have lived increasingly useless and dirty lives," wrote
Yelena Prudnikova, a St Petersburg-based journalist, in her recent book
Stalin: The Second Murder. "The country, deprived of high ideals in
just a few decades, has rotted to the ground."

Stalin, meanwhile, is enjoying a revival; several statues are planned
in his honour and a museum is being opened next month in the city of
Volgograd, previously named Stalingrad.

A recent poll by the AllRussian Public Opinion Research Centre found
that 50 per cent of respondents thought Stalin's role in history was positive.

Today's Kremlin neither promotes Stalin nor denigrates Khrushchev, but
President Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as the
"greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

The "secret speech", which led directly to the Hungarian Uprising later
in 1956 and the Sino-Soviet split in 1960, opened the cracks in the system
that eventually destroyed the Soviet Union.

Mikhail Gorbachev, who was a young Party activist in 1956, told a
conference this month that the "secret speech" had inspired him to launch the
liberal reforms of the 1980s.

"I do not think that a concept like perestroika could have appeared
without it," he said.

Russia, he said, was now going through a political backlash similar to
the one under Khrushchev's successor, Leonid Brezhnev.

Stalin's rehabilitation began in 1965, when Brezhnev mentioned him
positively in an address, while the "secret speech" was not published
in the Soviet Union until 1988.

Thus, many Russians still see Stalin not as a brutal tyrant, but as the
man who oversaw the victory against Nazi Germany, and turned the Soviet
Union into a superpower.

Khrushchev's reputation, on the other hand, remains tarnished. In the
past five years, several Russian academics have produced evidence showing
that Khrushchev personally signed orders for thousands of people to be
executed or sent to labour camps.

Mrs Adzhubei, a retired biologist, says she has no illusions about her
father's past. "You had to sign the orders, because if you didn't your
name would be on the next list," she said. "They were all guilty, but some
were more guilty than others for the destruction of the glorious USSR."


:) :hammer:

Cheung Mo
26th January 2007, 16:38
Stalin was an imperialist, a propagator of authoritarian Victorian morality, and a Russian chauvinist first and a socialist second. The only thing good that can be said of Stalin is that the other side of the Cold War was just as bad but benefits from less bad press in the West.

Jazzratt
26th January 2007, 21:05
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 04:38 pm
Stalin was an imperialist, a propagator of authoritarian Victorian morality, and a Russian chauvinist first and a socialist second.
I may or may not disagree, but could you provide a source?

The Bitter Hippy
26th January 2007, 21:23
evidence for enforcement of Victorian morality: the repeal by stalin of the lenin-era liberalization decrees that made abortion and divorce easy.

also--The pressuring of women to return to the traditional roles of housekeeper (as well as working!)

Jazzratt
26th January 2007, 22:00
Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 26, 2007 09:23 pm
evidence for enforcement of Victorian morality: the repeal by stalin of the lenin-era liberalization decrees that made abortion and divorce easy.

also--The pressuring of women to return to the traditional roles of housekeeper (as well as working!)
Cool, thanks. :)

KC
26th January 2007, 22:24
Yeah, that's great news!

<_<

refuse_resist
27th January 2007, 04:16
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 04:38 pm
Stalin was an imperialist, a propagator of authoritarian Victorian morality, and a Russian chauvinist first and a socialist second. The only thing good that can be said of Stalin is that the other side of the Cold War was just as bad but benefits from less bad press in the West.
Ok, first of all... Stalin was not Russian, he was Georgian. An imperialist? ROFLMAO&#33;&#33;&#33;

At the same time in the United States that racist terror groups like the KKK had millions upon millions of members and were lynching people like crazy, ethnic minorites in the Soviet Union were reaching high positions in the government for the first time ever under Stalin&#39;s leadership. He did so much to unite all the different groups from all the SSR&#39;s and did a lot to stop racial discrimination. People like Paul Robeson and WEB DuBois took note of this and saw the U.S. and the Soviet Union (under Stalin) as the complete opposites of one another.

Mikhail Frunze
27th January 2007, 05:23
In concern to Khrushchev, his legacy was highly negative for socialism. His slanderous speech against Stalin provoked fascistic insurrections in Poland and Hungary in 1956. His brutal intervention in Hungary was overkill and to a considerable extent deteriorated the international prestige of the USSR. His erratic economic policies in of agriculture for example was destructive. His theory that peaceful coexistence with the successors to Nazi Germany was a pipedream. The way he backed down to Kennedy&#39;s blackmail and reckless provocations in concern to Cuba was cowardly and undermined the credibility of the USSR. Foreign policy wise, Khrushchev provoked the Sino-Soviet split which resulted in China&#39;s defection to the imperialist camp. There were foreign policy blunders in Congo and the eventual downfall of the anti-imperialist socialist liberation fronts in Ghana and Mali.

Kosygin and Brezhnev were considerably worse. The USSR in the mid 1970s had become immensely militarist, economically stagnant, and corrupt. However, there was still major success with concern to foreign policy when socialist revolution was established in Ethiopia, Angola, Yemen, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Afghanistan, and the liberation of Vietnam.

The USSR would have turned out to have been in far better shape had Malenkov, Molotov, and Kaganovich maintained their hold on power. The legacy of Khrushchev is overwhelmingly negative due to his utter failures in foreign policy and economic stagnation domestically. Stalin&#39;s successors contributed very little in the form of progress for the workers&#39; state.


President Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as the
"greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

Although it is not due to geopolitics, the vast majority of the Russian people lament the illegal dissolution of the USSR. This criminal destruction of the USSR has resulted in an enormous catastrophe experienced by the Russian people exceeded only by the 1941-45 war and the Mongol terror. In Russia today there are more abortions than births. Russia today compared to Russia in 1991 also has the following:
> has a lower birth rate
> has a lower life expectancy
> has a higher crime rate
> has a higher suicide rate (second highest in world, according to WHO)
> has a higher rate of illicit drug abuse
> has a higher rate of prostitution
> has a higher rate of alcohol abuse
> has the highest rate of HIV growth outside Africa
> has a higher rate of teen pregnancy
> has a higher rate of abortion (more abortions than births)
> has a higher rate of poverty
> has a higher rate of unemployment


Stalin was an imperialist

That is ridiculous. Stalin was an anti-imperialist who helped to liberate the Chinese people when the communists defeated the fascist regime. Stalin was supportive of national liberation struggles worldwide. Although at times the USSR had to be restrained from giving conspicuous assistance to the likes of ELAS and CCP because this would provoke an imperialist backlash. The Republic of Mahabad and the Azeri People&#39;s Government were abandoned because this would give the British an excuse to maintain their military presence in Iran.


the repeal by stalin of the lenin-era liberalization decrees that made abortion and divorce easy.

The difficulty of abortion made perfect sense in the context of an unprecedented demographic catastrophe experienced during 1941-45. However, abortion was never banned. Those whose health was endangered were entitled to an abortion.


and a Russian chauvinist first and a socialist second.

There is not any serious evidence to substantiate that. Stalin was not even Russian but was Georgian. You seem to insinuate that Stalin&#39;s policies undermined the rights of minority groups when in fact it was during Stalin when entire ethnic groups had their identity molded when they had alphabets created for them. It was during Stalin, for example, when the "Ukrainian" identity developed. Virtually every national group in the 1930s USSR was allotted territorial unit with which to preserve their culture.


also--The pressuring of women to return to the traditional roles of housekeeper (as well as working&#33;)

You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about. It was during the 1930s when large scale employment among women developed. Women were expected to be mother heroines but not to the exclusion of their duty as a proletarian.

Janus
29th January 2007, 04:12
A recent poll by the AllRussian Public Opinion Research Centre found
that 50 per cent of respondents thought Stalin&#39;s role in history was positive.
It seems to me that these polls are biased in that they don&#39;t necessarily represent support for Stalin himself but rather nostalgia for the "glory" of the old USSR.

Mikhail Frunze
29th January 2007, 07:52
I think that is largely a misunderstanding. The international prestige of the USSR was of little relevance to ordinary people. People in Russia are upset today because they were significantly better off before perestroika and especially before the Dec. 91 CIS coup. In evaluating Stalin&#39;s contributions to the country, most Russians are of the opinion that his overall legacy was positive. In contrast, the vast majority of Russians today despise Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The fact of the mater is that peoples&#39; negative feelings of Stalin have not decreased over the years but have rather increased due to the bombardment of anti-Stalin propaganda since 1956.

Janus
29th January 2007, 19:43
The international prestige of the USSR was of little relevance to ordinary people.
Not only in terms of international prestige but also living conditions and standards. It&#39;s these factors that influence the poll more so than people&#39;s personal dislike of Stalin himself.

Guerrilla22
29th January 2007, 19:46
I&#39;ve read other accounts that quite a few Russians have favorable opinions of Stalin. Probaly because when Stalin was in power people took their country seriously.

Joseph Ball
31st January 2007, 22:07
Thanks for a great post Mikhail Frunze. The memory of Stalin is a beacon for the oppressed peoples of the world. He created the world&#39;s first socialist economic system and saved the world from the Fascist barbarism that would have surely engulfed it without his great leadership and the heroic sacrifice of the Soviet people. The reason why so much calumny has been heaped on him by the bourgeoisie and the revisionists is because his example is so feared by them.