Russia: another bout of restalinization? ("Russian service" Voice of America "", USA)
“Give back the name of victory. Stalingrad. " With such inscriptions on February 2, minibuses owned by private companies took to the streets of Volgograd, St. Petersburg and Chita. The action was sponsored by activists of the Communist Party and two public organizations - “People’s Commissariat historical reliability ”and“ Trade Union of Russian Citizens ”.
On the same day, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech dedicated to the 70 anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. There, in particular, there were such words: “Stalingrad will certainly remain forever a symbol of the invincibility of the Russian people, the unity of the Russian people. And as long as we respect ourselves, our history, respect and love our Motherland, our language and our culture, our historical memory, Russia will always be invincible. ”
And shortly before this, the deputies of the Volgograd City Council made a decision according to which 6 once a year would officially call the city Stalingrad. It would seem that this initiative should cause a positive reaction in the camp of fans of the “leader of all times and peoples”, who have long dreamed of returning the name of their idol not only to the city on the Volga, but also to the squares and avenues of all settlements of the country.
However, Nikolay Starikov, the head of the Trade Union of Citizens of Russia, the author of the recently published book “Stalin - we remember together,” was not satisfied with the initiative of the Volgograd deputies. In his blog, he wrote: “Such a solution can not arrange us. This is a miserable compromise ... Stalingrad should be called Stalingrad 365 days a year. And this is our position. ”
Renaming Volgograd - a pledge of investment, or a manifestation of blasphemy?
The uncompromising version of the complete renaming of Volgograd to Stalingrad can be realized, if a referendum is held in the city, and the majority of residents favor this option.
So says the speaker of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko, who supports the idea of a referendum. Speaking about the battle on the Volga, she did not fail to emphasize: “This battle is known throughout the world as a turning one. Not everyone knows that in Paris there is a metro station "Stalingradskaya". But you need to ask the residents about the renaming, you need a referendum. In this matter, there are both their own pro and con. ”
And the chairman of the Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, said that he was ready to organize a referendum in Volgograd, if a decision was made. Finally, the vice-premier of the Russian government, Dmitry Rogozin, wrote on Twitter: “I never hid my unequivocally positive attitude towards this, including from an economic and investment point of view.”
Meanwhile, some Russian politicians oppose the actual rehabilitation of Stalinism. Nikolai Levichev, Vice-Speaker of the State Duma, Chairman of the Fair Russia party, does not hide his negative attitude towards the possible return of Stalin’s name to the country's geographic map: “The attitude to Stalin was expressed in 1961 when Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd. To rename back, even for a time, a wonderful Russian city in honor of the bloody tyrant who destroyed millions of his own citizens and caused irreparable damage to the nation’s gene pool is a blasphemy. ”
Then Levichev cited historical parallels: “For some reason, none of the normal people would think of renaming the street in honor of Hitler or Pol Pot,” and concluded his thought as follows: “The de-Stalinization of the country is a difficult and long process. It can be promoted only by the enlightenment of citizens, the creation of objective historical television programs, and so on, but it’s certainly not a strange game with renaming for the sake of someone's immediate political interests. ”
"Stinobus" entry denied?
The deputies of the City Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg from the Yabloko faction, Grigory Yavlinsky, Boris Vishnevsky and Alexander Kobrinsky, in their turn, came out strongly against the appearance of so-called “Stalinbus” on the streets of the city. In an address to the governor of St. Petersburg Georgy Poltavchenko, they emphasize: “any glorification of Stalin, any justification of Stalin’s crimes and mass repressions against his own people is in itself a crime”.
At the same time, the appearance of “Stalinobus” on the streets of St. Petersburg immediately after the city celebrated another anniversary of the liberation from the Nazi blockade, which “was known to military historians for a long time, was possible, largely thanks to the connivance of the Soviet command, which led Stalin. During the blockade, people died of starvation, and Stalin’s confidants did not deny themselves anything.
In their letter, the deputies of the city parliament of St. Petersburg refer to the statement of the head of the department for external church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Volokolamsk Illarion.
Vladyka calls Stalin “a monster, a spiritual monster who created a terrible, anti-human system of government based on lies, violence and terror, who unleashed genocide against the people of his country and is personally responsible for the death of millions of innocent people, and in this respect is quite comparable to Hitler. "
“We already live in another country”
The correspondent of Voice of America talked about attempts to re-Stalinization with historians and public figures.
Stanislav Bernev, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Head of the Archive of the FSB Directorate for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, is quite skeptical about renaming. According to him, "changing the name of the city to 6 days in a year is not serious, and I am sure that these are just words."
The historian also believes that one can hardly expect complete renaming of Volgograd to Stalingrad. Moreover, Bernev stresses, “the very phrase“ the hero-city of Stalingrad ”sounds strange because when the city on the Volga was awarded this title, it was already 4 of the year called Volgograd”.
In January, 2014 will mark the 70 anniversary of the complete lifting of the Leningrad blockade. Ahead of the possible initiative of supporters of the left parties, Stanislav Bernev is sure that “there is no point in renaming St. Petersburg back to Leningrad. We still live in another country. ”
By the way, at the end of 90, the then governor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Yakovlev, approved the decision, according to which, on holidays and memorable days, the city on the Neva bore two names at once: St. Petersburg and Leningrad. This undertaking, however, was quickly forgotten.
"If you rename - then in Tsaritsyn"
Nikita Petrov, a researcher at the Memorial Society, believes that there is “another aggravation of the“ nostalgic-patriotic ritual, ”and at the same time an attempt to drag Stalin’s image into the public consciousness.” Similar “aggravations”, reminds the historian, are happening every year on May 9, so there is nothing new in this. Only now to the anniversary of victory in the war are added the anniversary of major battles.
According to Nikita Petrov, there will be no final renaming of Volgograd, but “the government plays this game and consciously supports such sentiments. The power indulges a certain part of society, distracting it from pressing and very serious problems. ” At the same time, a Memorial researcher stresses that the attempts to whitewash Stalin have nothing to do with perpetuating the memory of war heroes.
In quantitative terms, among Russians there are not too many supporters of the idea of “returning to Stalin,” the expert is sure. Representatives of the younger generation simply know little about those times: “People who have not lived for a second under the Soviet regime already perceive it as a kind of historical reality, and they have a completely natural atrophied sense of danger that comes from Stalin’s symbols,” Nikita believes Petrov. And the older generation, in his opinion, see the symbols as harmless things, not realizing that a return to the toponymics of the names of the creators of terror is fraught with the threat of a return to the practice of Stalinism.
The historian believes that if we rename Volgograd, it would be most appropriate to return to him the name he wore from 1589 to 1925 year - Tsaritsyn. “By the way, during the civil war there was a famous defense of Tsaritsyn, in which the future general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Stalin received. And so this whole undertaking with the alleged “return of the historical name of the city” is full of demagogy and substitution of concepts. When every effort is being made to fashion some kind of positive image of Stalin, this is, of course, unconsciousness and just moral deformity, ”Nikita Petrov is convinced.
"In sweet dreams, Putin sees himself as Stalin"
The President of the Foundation for Applied Political Studies INDEM, Georgy Satarov, was born in Stalin's time, but does not feel nostalgia for Stalinism. He compared the ongoing processes with the attempts to build a new building of bricks, picked up on the fragments of a collapsed fortress.
In addition, the government, according to Satarov, feels his own illegitimacy, and, as a result, “is looking for some kind of historical backup. This is a universal reflex of any authority - remember that the leaders of the Great French Revolution appealed to ancient times, and the Bolsheviks, in turn, cited the French Revolution as an example, ”recalls the head of the INDEM Foundation.
In addition, according to Georgy Satarov, Vladimir Putin himself is seeking support for self-identification in such figures of the past as Peter the Great and Stalin. “Probably, in his sweet dreams, he tries to take their historical place, and compares himself with them. This is consistent with his character and characteristics of his past profession, ”the political scientist believes.
At the same time, Georgy Satarov adds, such ideas are supported by a part of Russian society. Although the majority of the population is absolutely indifferent to what is happening. Moreover, such an attitude would be maintained even if Putin identified himself with historical figures of another kind, for example, with Alexander the Second, with Roosevelt or with John F. Kennedy. “He, too, would find the support of a certain part of society, but most would be equally indifferent,” the expert believes.
Returning to the image of the new tower, built from the wreckage of the old one, the president of the INDEM Foundation warns that this building “is creaking at least. After all, the previous tower was sealed with both ideology and fantastic fear. But neither one nor the other now. Many people are now leaving their country. But not out of fear, as in Soviet times, but from disgust, ”concludes Georgy Satarov.
Information