Former anti-Stalinist - about the path to enlightenment
I have always had a negative attitude towards Stalin, especially after reading the books of Solzhenitsyn. Regularly driving around with lectures on the Union, I indignantly listened to questions about when Stalin was rehabilitated. Moreover, this question was asked not only by older people who went through the war, but also by many people of my age, i.e. born after the Great Patriotic. At that time I didn’t understand them at all: “How is it,” I thought, “so many people were destroyed, so many mistakes were made ...”
My attitude to Stalin began to change only in Canada, after reading books about the Stalin period, written in 70-e-90-e. Previously, I could not imagine the extent to which you can falsify history. In most of the "scientific" books, Stalin was portrayed almost as an idiot, but Western politicians were great strategists and tacticians.
After reading all this abracadabra, a meeting with the book by Ludo Martens "Another Look at Stalin" turned my attitude towards the "father of nations" at 180 degrees. Yes, the author is the chairman of the Workers' Party of Belgium, i.e. man of left views. But it must be borne in mind that even the leaders of many left-wing parties in the West, even those that are called communist, avoid touching on the topic of Stalin so as not to frighten their “electorate” dubbed by bourgeois propagandists. Martens is not afraid of this, since he is interested in the truth about Stalin. It was easy for me to double-check quotes and numbers, referring to the sources that he used. And I have never found fraud anywhere. Moreover, I could find similar assessments and facts in the works of other authors not mentioned in the book of Martens. Finally, on everyone’s shoulders, I dare to hope, his own head, the insides of which presuppose the ability to distinguish truth from brainless propaganda. For example, two professors, M. Geller and A. Nekrich, once wrote a book "Utopia in Power. History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the present." It has such a place: in 1939, "an estimated 8 million Soviet citizens, or 9% of the total adult population, were in concentration camps." In a footnote, “clarification”: “Estimates of Soviet prisoners in camps in 1939 range from 8 million to 17 million. We took a low number, perhaps too low, although, despite this, it is still eloquent.” With an abundance of various sources, there was no source for this figure. From where it is taken, by whose estimates - is not said. Naturally, such authors can not be trusted. They simply earned on anti-communism. Due to this, and lived. To Martens, his book hardly brought even one cent, since in the West it was forbidden to be sold and it was possible (in 1995) to get it out only from the Internet.
I did not dwell on the sources in detail because I was going to write a lot about Stalin. And in order for the inexperienced reader not to succumb to the magic of published figures, in particular, about the Stalin period, since many of them are ideological lies.
The Russian reader is familiar with the era of collectivization from textbooks and books, nevertheless, in a nutshell I want to remind you of why it took Stalin to start collectivization.
Its necessity was dictated by both external and internal reasons, and among the latter not only the social side played an enormous role (the aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside), but also the purely economic side. Although in the period of the NEP, in 1922-1926, agricultural production reached a pre-revolutionary level, however, the situation as a whole was extremely depressing. As a result of the spontaneous free market, 7% peasants (2,7 million) were again without land. In 1927, 27 million peasants were horseless. In general, 35% belonged to the category of the poorest peasants. The majority, middle peasants (about 51-53%), had antediluvian tools. The number of rich-fists ranged from 5 to 7%. Fists controlled about 20% of the grain market. According to other data, on the fists and the top layer of the middle peasants (around 10-11% of the peasant population) in the 1927-1928. accounted for 56% sales of agricultural products. As a result, "in 1928 and 1929, the bread and then sugar, tea and meat had to be rationed again. Between October 1, 1927 and 1929, prices for agricultural products increased by 25,9%, grain prices in the free market increased by 289 % ". The economic life of the country, therefore, began to determine the fist.
The modern “democratic” press in Russia writes about the kulaks as the best part of the Russian peasantry. Professor E. Dilon, who lived in Russia for several decades, made a different impression of them. He writes: "Of all the human monsters that I have ever met while traveling (in Russia), I can’t remember more evil and disgusting than a fist."
Naturally, after the beginning of collectivization, the dispossession of kulaks began, estimated by the anti-communist press as the Stalinist “genocide” against the kulaks and “good peasants”. R. Conquest in his works names such a number of victims: 6,5 million. The kulaks were destroyed during the collectivization, 3,5 million. They died in the Siberian camps.
Many historians, including the German scholar Stefan Merle, in their works revealed the falsifications of Conquest, the "source" of which were the emigre circles, to which the Anglo-American ideologist referred. After the declassification of the Gulag archives, the real statistics of the victims of Stalinism, including those concerning the kulaks, were published. Martens, referring to Nicholas Bert, V. Zemskov, Arch Getty, Gabor Rittersporn, and others, cites the following figures. It turned out that in the most severe period of expropriation, in 1930-1931, peasants expropriated the property of 381 026 kulaks, who together with their families (and this is 1 803 392 rights) were sent to the East (i.e., Siberia) . Of these, 1 1932 1 reached the place of settlement by 317 in January 022; the rest of the 486 000 people fled along the way. This is instead of 6,5 million Conquest.
As for the "3,5 million killed in the camps," the total number of dispossessed never exceeded the 1 317 022 person numbers. Moreover, in 1932 and 1935. the number of people who left the camp exceeded the number of people who arrived at 299 389. From 1932 to the end of 1940, the exact death toll for natural reasons was 389 521 people. This number included not only dispossessed but also "other categories" that arrived there after 1935.
In general, only part of the 63 thous. Fists of the "first category" were shot "for counter-revolutionary activities." The number of people who died during the deportation, mostly from hunger and epidemics, was about 100 thousand people. Over 1932-40 about 200 thousand fists died in the camps for natural reasons.
Even more brazen lies - the figures on the "famine" in Ukraine in 1932-34. The variation is as follows: Dale Dalrymple names the number in 5,5 million, Nikolai Prikhodko (who collaborated with the Nazis during the war) - 7 million, U. H. Gamberlen and E. Lyons - from 6 to 8 million, Richard Stalet - 10 million ., Hosley Grant - 15 million. In the latter two cases, it must be borne in mind that the population of Ukraine in 1932 was equal to 25 million.
An analysis of the sources of these figures showed that part of it came from the Hearst press, known for its pro-Nazi sympathies, some were fabricated during the McCarthy period (1949-1953), some came from the fascist "sources" and from the Ukrainian émigrés who collaborated with Nazism.
For example, many Ukrainian hunger specialists often referred to data provided in Thomas Walker's articles published in Hearst newspapers in February 1935. This journalist "gave" a figure - 7 million deceased and many photographs of dying children. Canadian journalist - Douglas Tottl in his work “Fake, Hunger and Fascism: the myth of the Ukrainian genocide from Hitler to Harvard” revealed a lot of falsifications about all the figures mentioned, including those given by Walker. It turned out that this is not a journalist at all, but a criminal who escaped from the Colorado prison, having served 2 years instead of twisted 8 years. I decided to make some extra money on fake about the USSR (there was a lot of demand), somehow in England I received a transit visa to move from Poland to Manchuria, and thus spent 5 days in the Soviet Union. After returning home, he was arrested some time later, and admitted in court that “his leg had never stepped into Ukraine”. And his real name is Robert Green. The photographs depicted the dying children of a hungry 1921. And such “sources” Hearst newspapers at one time produced a lot.
The situation in Ukraine was really difficult. In 1932-33 hunger claimed from 1 to 2 million lives in the country. At the same time, conscientious scientists cite the four causes of the then tragedy. The first is connected with the opposition of the kulaks, who on the eve of collectivization destroyed livestock and horses (so that the “commies” did not get it). According to Frederick Schumann, in the period 1928-1933. the number of horses in the USSR decreased from 30 million to less than 15 million, cattle from 70 million heads (including 31 million cows) to 38 million (including 20 million cows), sheep and goats - from 147 million . to 50 million, pigs - from 20 million to 12 million. The second reason is drought in some regions of Ukraine in 1930-32. The third is the typhoid epidemic that was rampant in Ukraine and the North Caucasus at that time. (Even Hasli Grant, the author of 15 million, points to typhoid). In addition, the restructuring of agriculture in a collectivist manner led the illiterate and at the same time angry peasants who, naturally, could not break the wood.
Of course, these numbers in 1-2 million people - not 5-15 million, although also considerable. But one should not forget that this was a period of the most severe class struggle: the most severe on both sides: on the part of the poorest peasants, and on the side of the kulaks. "Who is who" not only in the sense of exploiters or exploited, but also in the sense of: past or future. Because the victory of the Stalinist line on collectivization pulled 120 million peasants from the Middle Ages, illiteracy and darkness.
"GREAT CLEANING" 1937-1939 YY.
The anti-communists can exercise their brains on the causes of the famine in capitalist Russia 1891, which covered 40 million people, of whom, according to official data, more than two million died; famine 1900-1903 (also about 40 million people were covered, 3 million adults died); hunger 1911, when he died, however, less - 2 million. I understand that for them, anti-communists, these “famines” are not interesting. They are not paid for.
Pay for another. For example, for the terrible fables about the "unreasonable" repression of the Stalin regime against the Trotskyists, Bukharinites, about Stalin's terror during the "Great Purge", in particular with regard to the military elite, including Tukhachevsky. However, the memoirs of the participants of various conspiracies very eloquently refute the myths created during the time of Khrushchev. Among them, for example, are the revelations of G.A., who escaped to 1948 in England. Tokayev, Colonel of the Soviet Army, Party Secretary of the Air Force Academy. Zhukovsky in 1937-48., Very frankly described the goals, methods and methods of overthrowing the military tip of the "Stalinist regime."
One of the powerful propaganda myths in the West, as well as in today's Russia, is the myth of terror in 1937-1939. Already mentioned Conquest in his works cites the number of people arrested from 7 to 9 million. It is taken from the memories of former prisoners who claimed that from 4 to 5,5% of the Soviet population were in prisons or deported. True, another professional anti-communist, Zb. Brzezinski, in one of his works, stipulated that there could not be exact estimates, and the error could vary within a few hundred thousand or even a million.
More detailed information of Conquest is as follows: by the beginning of 1934, 5 million people were driven into the gulags during the 1937-38 years. - more than 7 million, i.e. 12 million people are recruited, of which 1 million were shot, and 2 million died for various reasons within two years. As a result, to 1939 in the Gulag there were 9 million people, "not counting those who were there under criminal articles." The subsequent calculation leads Conquest to the following figures: during 1939-53. average mortality in gulag was 10%. And the number of prisoners was constant, an average of about 8 million. Consequently, during this time about 12 million people were destroyed. The Medvedev brothers increase these numbers: the gulag ranged from 12 to 13 million.
After the publication of the Gulag materials it turned out: in 1934, there were thousands of people in the Gulag system from 127 to 170. A more accurate figure is 507 307 people, if we mean non-political prisoners. "Political" was 25-35%, i.e. about 150 thousand people. Conquest to them "added" more 4 850 thousand people.
In 1934, there were actually 127 thousand people, and a maximum of 500 thousand in 1941 and 1942. During the Great Purge, the number of prisoners increased from 1936 to 1939 to 477 789 people. According to Conquest, about 855 thousand people died per year in the Gulag (if we bear in mind its figure in 12 million people), in fact 49 thousand people died in peacetime.
Similar fakes were fabricated against the “old Bolsheviks” and other victims of the “Stalinist terror”.
As can be seen from these figures, the victims of Stalinism turned out to be ten times smaller than they are represented in anti-communist propaganda. But they were. Was it possible to do without them? Of course you can ... theoretically. If:
a) the fists did not resist collectivization;
b) the Bukharinites would not protect them;
c) Trotsky would not organize conspiracies and would not associate with Hitler's Germany (as reported by Churchill);
d) Tukhachevsky would not plot an anti-Stalinist conspiracy;
e) the soviet Soviet bureaucrats would think more about the case, and not about their pockets, etc.
And all together they would not oppose socialism, for which Stalin and his comrades fought. Do not be Stalin smarter and smarter than all of them, the big question is what would become of the USSR, and with the whole world. But the then Soviet people, and above all the communists, unlike the current democrats, hardly began to lick the Germans their boots, as the Europeans did. So in all these “purges” there was a great reason not only from the point of view of the interests of the Soviet state, but also from the point of view of the whole of Europe, and, perhaps, of the whole world.
American scientists write a lot about Stalinist totalitarianism. I can offer them a theme for further writing: how many Jews would be left on earth, had it not been for this "totalitarianism." Discuss, guys, at your leisure.
Stalin was certainly a dictator. But not only because of his character, as Lenin pointed out. Time and circumstances made him a dictator. You need to imagine that time, for example, the end of 20's. In Italy - fascism, in Germany, the Nazis are eager for power with the anti-communist and anti-Soviet program. The democratic powers — Britain and France — instigate and support this fascism against the USSR. In the East, Japan is preparing for war, either with China or with the USSR. Domestically, the NEP. Although there is some improvement in economic terms, hostile classes are reviving again, which leads to "the intensification of the class struggle", especially in the countryside. The economy is agrarian. The external threat is real. The old Bolsheviks still dream of a world revolution. Enemies of all stripes are beginning to become active. What can be a democracy in these conditions? Under such circumstances, there could be only a rigid dictatorship, which was formed in the 30-s.
Stalin turned out to be an astute strategist and tactician in the realization of the goal of "building socialism in one country." Even before the revolution, he was the only Leninist guard who did not rule out the possibility that "Russia will be the only country following the path of socialism", while the majority in the party counted on social. revolution in European countries. Under Stalin, the foundations of socialism were laid in the USSR. The process of laying itself took place in extraordinary circumstances that demanded harsh measures against all enemies of socialism, internal and external. However, harshness against the enemies of the new society, ultimately, turned out to be a boon to the majority of the population, as well as to strengthen the Soviet state. During the Stalinist leadership, incomplete 30 years, the agrarian, impoverished, dependent on foreign capital, the country became the most powerful military-industrial power on a global scale, the center of a new socialist civilization. The impoverished and illiterate population of Tsarist Russia has become one of the most literate and most educated nations in the world. Despite the relative loss of intellectual potential due to the emigration of the pro-Syar and bourgeois intelligentsia during the years of revolution and civil war, a new Soviet creative and scientific intelligentsia emerged, not inferior to the previous generation. In other words, even the initial stage of socialism, with its mistakes and tragedies in the process of folding a new society, demonstrated the enormous inner potential of socialism as a system that simply liberated the socialist genes of the Russian man from the former shackles and chains of European modernization, including in the form of capitalism. A simple thing happened: the liberated inner essence of the Russian man has finally found its support, i.e. external form in the form of a socialist superstructure and base, introduced by Lenin and strengthened by Stalin.
Stalin, of course, made a lot of tactical mistakes, but strategically turned out to be a cut above the then politicians of the whole world. He beat them all and won not only the war, but also defended socialism, which later spread to one third of the world. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union became a superpower. What is the price? - Scary. But I would like to know what the current critics of Stalin would have done at that time? And by the way, I probably know. Would sell Russia even to Hitler, though Churchill, though to Roosevelt. Because it is precisely this very people that they hate.
Facts Against Falsehood
- Oleg Arin