Military Review

Two views on "geopolitics", or how Stalin Bulgakov helped

29
I put the word “geopolitics” in quotation marks, because it’s not a global political game that is unfolding “in all its glory” in Ukraine. And about my book “Geopolitics. How it's done". That is, two views on this "geopolitics". And in general - let's talk about books, journalists. And blatant incompetence.


Two views on "geopolitics", or how Stalin Bulgakov helped


Look first. Informational and impartial.

Reading the information tape, I read a few interesting lines the other day.

RIA News published a material “Testimony of the officer of the“ Berkut ”in which you can read the following:

“The border between Ukraine and the Crimea that appeared spontaneously today is already very similar to the real state border. There is not yet put any marks in the passport, even if you travel with a passport. There are no customs officers here either. But the border guards and the police are already there - from the Ukrainian side, and from the Russian side. When you go from Ukraine, the last one is inspected by the famous "Golden Eagle" - now a division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

Above the roadblock, folded manually from heavy blocks, the flag of St. Andrew flies. At the post on the stool is the book “Geopolitics. How this is done ”, which at leisure, apparently, is read by one of the policemen.”

It's nice that my gift to "Berkut" immediately went into business. Being in Simferopol during the Referendum, I considered it my duty to come to the Berkut base to shake hands with these courageous fighters and convey to them words of support and admiration on behalf of all the patriots of the Russian world.





During the referendum at the base there were very few fighters - the rest ensured order. So that I could only shake hands with a few. But the book presented.

Second glance. Liberal and biased.

Novaya Gazeta publishes a book review under the “absolutely neutral” heading: “Kiselevshchina on the shelves.”

The clarity and clarity with which today on Russian TV news outlets call things by their proper names, liberals do not like. In my opinion - the most interesting news release makes Dmitry Kiselev. I am pleased to watch his program.

But here is what Novaya Gazeta writes. She not only does not like Dmitry Kiselev, but does not like ... books. “Independent journalists” do not like the fact that citizens of Russia can freely find books in bookstores of patriotic authors who are trying to help an ordinary citizen to understand world politics and stories. They are more liberal in their liking for the situation in Ukraine, where Russian TV has already been turned off ...

“The largest book network in St. Petersburg is inundated with books that tell about the global conspiracy against Russia and other conspiracy theories. Why was Kiselevshchina digging on the bookshelves?

In "Bookvoed" explain: this is a business, people are interested in just such work. Some experts believe that booksellers not only satisfy, but also artificially impose demand ... For example, sales hits in the “History and Politics” section were “Geopolitics. How it is done ”by Nikolai Starikov (founder of the organization“ Trade Union of Citizens of Russia ”, whose activists at one time tried to sue Madonna for promoting homosexuality),“ The National Liberation Movement of Russia. Russian Development Code ”Yevgeny Fedorov (State Duma deputy, who proposed to equate“ anti-Russian articles of journalists to a state crime ”),“ A blow to Russia. Geopolitics and Premonition of War "by Valery Korovin (Deputy Head of the International Eurasian Movement), as well as" Through a dull time. Russian view on the need to resist the spirit of the century of this "TV presenter Maxim Shevchenko".

We have to explain to an “independent” journalist: do you want a market? So he is in the book trade in full.

“Director General of“ Bookvoed ”Denis Kotov categorically denied any censorship, if only because“ it is physically impossible to read the thousands of books that come to us. ” “We have only two criteria: the relevance of readers and the availability of publications from suppliers, that is a logistical issue,” the entrepreneur emphasized.

We have to explain to the “independent” journalist that there is no conspiracy and violence against the reader, and the writer Zakhar Prilepin: “Now Starikov’s position has become close and understandable to people - and in this sense, the shops are led by readers. They sell Starikov’s books not according to the intention of the Kremlin or anyone else, but because they sell well. Businessmen will sell what is in demand - be it Starikov, Marinin or Akunin. ”

And then the author of “Novaya Gazeta” lays out the favorite trump of the liberals. Once bookstores sell books by those who dislike the USA and respect Stalin, then booksellers ... cynical people.

“Making money is an inevitable, but not the only task of a commercial publishing house. And when I see, for example, works about Stalin and Bulgakov - the executioner and the victim - standing on the same shelf, I understand that in the degree of cynicism with the publishing business, we can only compare oil and funeral. ”

Well, what can I say. I do not want to offend a lot of honest journalists, but judging by the publications of the “independent media” on the degree of cynicism with journalists of these publications it is useless to compete. As well as the level of competence in the issues about which they write. After all, what Novaya Gazeta published is the height of incompetence. Beyond. Stalin executioner, Bulgakov victim? But the “independent journalist” Alexander Garmazhapova wrote so that there was a feeling that Bulgakov was the victim of Stalin. Neither more nor less. Why, Alexander, so brazenly and shamelessly lie? Or do you know literature and history only from publications of Novaya Gazeta?

I'm in my book “Stalin. We recall together ”devoted an entire chapter to the relations of Stalin and cultural figures. And so now I’ll just bring a fragment from there to O Stalin and Bulgakov. Stalin went to the play "White Guard" Bulgakov about ten times! And he loved her very much. Watched other plays repeatedly.

“In December 1928, the then fighters for the purity of the ranks (members of the“ Proletarian Theater ”association) wrote the so-called“ revolutionary letter ”to the country's leadership:“ Dear Comrade Stalin! .. How to regard the actual “most favored” most reactionary authors like Bulgakov, achieved the production of four clearly anti-Soviet plays in the three largest theaters in Moscow; besides, plays that are by no means outstanding in their artistic qualities, but standing, at best, at an average level)? ” 2 February 1929 of the year they received the Stalinist reply: "Therefore, it must be that there are not enough of their plays suitable for staging."

For zealous purists of purity, Stalin explained: “As for the play“ Days of the Turbins, ”it is not so bad, because it gives more benefits than harm. Because thanks to Bulgakov, the whole world, watching this play, is convinced that “even people like Turbines are forced to put down weapon and to submit to the will of the people, recognizing their work as completely lost ... ". [1] Despite the fact that Stalin expressed support for Bulgakov, the persecution of the writer by the" colleagues "continued - by July 1929, his plays had ceased to go in all Soviet theaters. Mikhail Bulgakov was virtually without livelihoods. In desperate condition, 28 March, March 1930, the writer writes a letter to the Soviet government. In it, he describes his position with the words “now I am destroyed,” “my things are hopeless,” “the impossibility of writing is equivalent to burial alive for me.”

At the end of his letter, which is simply a cry of despair, the writer asks to let him go abroad, since he is not needed at home, and is not needed ...

And then Stalin acts unconventionally for that time. He does not call Bulgakov to himself, he does not charge anyone to deal with this problem. Without delaying the matter indefinitely, he personally calls the writer. Calls through 4 the day after Mayakovsky's death - 18 April 1930. The head of the country calls the persecuted writer with whom he is not familiar and has never met.

“... - Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov?

- Yes Yes.

- Now Stalin will talk to you.

- What? Stalin? Stalin?

And then he heard a voice with an obviously Georgian accent.

- Yes, with you, Stalin says. Hello, Comrade Bulgakov.

- Hello, Joseph Vissarionovich.

- We have received your letter. Read with friends. You will be favorable
The answer is to have ... But maybe the truth is - are you asking to go abroad? What we do to you very much
fed up with?

(MA said he did not expect so much of this issue - and he did call at all
I didn’t expect it - I was confused and didn’t immediately answer):

- I thought a lot lately - can a Russian writer live outside
homeland. And it seems to me that can not.

- You're right. I think so too. Where do you want to work? In the Art Theater?

- Yes, I would like to. But I talked about it, and they refused me.

- And you apply there. It seems to me that they will agree. We would need
meet, talk to you.

- Yes Yes! Stalin, I really need to talk to you.

- Yes, you need to find time and meet, definitely. And now I wish you all
good. "

This call changed the life of Bulgakov. His life was immediately adjusted - “the fighters for the purity of proletarian art” retreated. 19 April 1930, Bulgakov was enlisted as an assistant-director at the Moscow Art Theater. His plays again went on the stages of theaters, he had new orders, he was given permission to travel abroad. Mikhail Bulgakov got some money and his half-starved existence ended. The writer was grateful to Stalin for his help — he admitted in one of the letters: “At the very time of despair ... the general secretary called me ... Believe my taste: he led the conversation strongly, clearly, stately and elegantly. Hope was kindled in the heart of the writer ... ”.

However, his meeting with Stalin, which they agreed, did not take place. Although Bulgakov really wanted her and even wrote to the General Secretary a letter 30 of May 1931: “... I want to tell you, Joseph Vissarionovich, that my dream of writing is to be called personally to you. Believe me, not only because I see this as the most advantageous opportunity, but because your conversation with me on the phone in April 1930 left a sharp line in my memory ... I am not spoiled by conversations. Touched by this phrase (you said: "Maybe you really need to go abroad ..."), I worked for a year not for fear as a director in the theaters of the USSR ... ".

What is significant - despite the patronage of Stalin, the persecution of Bulgakov again resumed after a while. Stalin was not omnipotent, and no one was afraid enough to once and for all leave the writer whose plays the general secretary looks at 18 once and for all. Stalin had what is called in manual mode, to point the plays of Bulgakov to the theater’s repertoire: “According to the artist of Vakhtangov O. Leonidov,“ Stalin was twice in the “Zoykina apartment” (Bulgakov’s play - Ed.). He spoke with an accent: a good play! I do not understand, I do not understand at all, for which she is allowed, then forbidden. Good play, I don't see anything wrong. ” In February, 1932, the year Stalin watched the play of A.N. Afinogenov “Fear”, which he did not like. “... In a conversation with representatives of the theater, he remarked:“ Here you have a good play “Days of the Turbins” - why doesn’t it go? ”He was embarrassed and was told that it was prohibited. “Nonsense,” he objected, “is a good piece; you have to play it, put it.” And within ten days the order was given to restore the staging ... ".

Anyone who begins to study the life of Bulgakov, will see that Stalin played an extremely positive role in it. Helped, read, respected. Do not hesitate to call first and lend a helping hand. Anyone who begins to study the life of Bulgakov will see this.

In addition to "independent journalists." They know that Stalin was bad, Russia is always to blame for everything, and the United States is the “Empire of good”.

So from books and politics, we moved into the field of knowledge, or rather their absence, and emptiness. Which is filled with myths.

Nature does not tolerate emptiness ...
Author:
Originator:
http://nstarikov.ru/blog/38449
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svetlomor
    svetlomor April 15 2014 16: 39
    .
    Is it self-promotion ?!
    1. a52333
      a52333 April 15 2014 17: 05
      +8
      Bulgakov? Or Starikov? Old people need her, do you think? He, at the moment, and so at the peak, if you do not compare with Dontsova ....
      1. dmb
        dmb April 16 2014 09: 07
        -1
        This is you to the point. if to compare with anyone, then only with Dontsova. The level of the scriptures is about the same. The latter, to her credit, does not really hide the fact that she writes waste paper and does not pretend to be a prophet. The manner of presentation is also amusing. To her, Mr. Starikov strongly resembles the character of M. Twain. Merlin. The same arrogance, inflated self-importance and bombast. Who does not believe, read "The Connecticut Yankees", you will find a lot in common. One name "Stalin. Remembering Together" is worth it. One gets the feeling that Starikov was not only not born 20 years after Stalin's death, but also nursed him. As for self-promotion, then of course everyone is free to interpret it in their own way, but personally, in listing the “virtues” regarding the creation of various societies and “accidental discovery” before the checkpoint of my own book, I see only its dear, impudent self-promotion.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 15 2014 18: 12
      +2
      Quote: svetlomor
      Is it self-promotion ?!

      Would you be more satisfied if an unnamed writer, and in the classical version a stranger to the writer tells about a person he does not know personally in an unfamiliar city "N", would describe the above?
    3. Avdy
      Avdy April 15 2014 19: 16
      +8
      Thanks to the author for his books and for the article! I recommend N. Starikov's book "Geopolitics. How it is done" to everyone.
    4. Prokop
      Prokop April 16 2014 04: 50
      +1
      For people interested in geopolitics and historical research, Starikov and his work are familiar with that. For those who are not interested, historians, sensible publicists, etc. it’s useless to advertise, they won’t read anyway. Old people are not beer and not crackers, they don’t need advertising.
  2. Bezarius
    Bezarius April 15 2014 16: 45
    +10
    The example of Stalin and Bulgakov is really impressive.
  3. konvalval
    konvalval April 15 2014 16: 47
    +4
    Well, the liberals are shouting that Stalin is a tyrant.
  4. svp67
    svp67 April 15 2014 16: 51
    +15
    Reading "The White Guard", "Heart of a Dog", "The Master and Margarita" and the rest of Bulgakov's works I always could not understand WHY and HOW could he be published in the USSR? Honestly, I don’t know why Stalin liked him so much, but nevertheless I would like to say THANK YOU to both of them. To one, for his talent and courage, to the other for intelligence and perspicacity !!!
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 April 15 2014 17: 03
      +15
      The printed "Heart of a Dog" is more "anti-Soviet" (and, in my opinion, stronger) than the unpublished "Master and Margarita". And the "White Guard" is generally very relevant at this historical moment.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 15 2014 17: 29
        +2
        Quote: vch62388
        And the "White Guard" is generally very relevant at this historical moment.

        As well as "Notes of the Zemstvo Doctor"
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker April 15 2014 19: 23
        +5
        Quote: vch62388
        The printed "Heart of a Dog" is more "anti-Soviet"

        "Heart of a Dog" can be put on a par with "12 Chairs" and "Golden Calf" as an eternal monument to the satire of the state bureaucracy.
        "White Guard", as well as "Cursed Days" by I. Bunin - notes of eyewitnesses. The "First Horse" by I. Babel can also be included there.
    2. mamont5
      mamont5 April 15 2014 17: 12
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      Reading "The White Guard", "Heart of a Dog", "The Master and Margarita" and the rest of Bulgakov's works I always could not understand WHY and HOW could he be published in the USSR?


      I will not say about "Heart of a Dog" and "Master and Margarita", I do not know. But Stalin loved the "White Guard", and as far as I remember, in the conversation between Stalin and Bulgakov, cited in the article, it was about staging the play "White Guard". Only then the name was changed to "Days of the Turbins". Stalin was very sensitive to the officer corps, and at the first opportunity he returned the officer ranks, gold shoulder straps and the very name - officer.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 15 2014 17: 28
        +1
        There is the novel "The White Guard" and there is the play "Days of the Turbins", they are somewhat different from each other ... Just as there are several versions of "Ivan Vasilyevich ..." it is still interesting to read.
  5. Cossacks
    Cossacks April 15 2014 16: 52
    +6
    N. Starikov! A bold article not everyone will agree. You plus one but big and with all my heart.
  6. mamont5
    mamont5 April 15 2014 17: 03
    +4
    "I considered it my duty to come to the Berkut base to shake hands with these courageous soldiers and convey to them words of support and admiration on behalf of all patriots of the Russian world."

    I subscribe to these words! Thanks to the Berkut guys.
  7. serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov April 15 2014 17: 10
    +3
    For me, a long time ago indicator: if the liberals are scolding something, it means you’re useful !!!! For example, Stalin: I don’t know how it was, because I didn’t live at that time! But he is mainly cursed by such b-that you can see right away was a good man!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 15 2014 19: 10
      +10
      Stalin was a communist, say the communists.
      Stalin was a nationalist - argue nationalists.
      Stalin was scum and insignificance - scum and insignificance declare.
  8. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 April 15 2014 17: 11
    +2
    Both Stalin and Bulgakov lost their fathers in adolescence. Both, before self-forgetfulness, loved RUSSIA
  9. Monk
    Monk April 15 2014 17: 11
    0
    Quote: a52333
    Bulgakov? Or Starikov? Old people need her, do you think? He, at the moment, and so at the peak, if you do not compare with Dontsova ....


    I honestly did not read Starikov at all, and his interviews are somewhat ambiguous. I don’t even know if the historian can be ambiguous.
    1. serega.fedotov
      serega.fedotov April 15 2014 17: 32
      0
      Quote: Monk
      I honestly did not read Starikov at all, and his interviews are somewhat ambiguous. I don’t even know if the historian can be ambiguous.

      The historian must be ambiguous, otherwise he is a propagandist! Although these are also necessary people, unless propaganda is correct!
    2. Wheel
      Wheel April 16 2014 02: 30
      0
      Quote: Monk
      I honestly didn’t read Starikov at all,

      So read, you will learn a lot of interesting things.
  10. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 15 2014 17: 17
    +1
    Stalin was a great man, a great statesman! He had mistakes, no one is safe from them. He had the interests of the country in the FIRST plan, and after the death of his property in his closet were only worn shoes. Compare with current politicians.
  11. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 April 15 2014 17: 22
    +2
    Stalin, surrounded by people who had crushed the foreheads of the people of such a huge country, and who were eager to destroy the people of this country as much as possible, I think it was incredibly difficult to put things in order. I know a lot of historical facts when, not AGAINST, but THANKS to Stalin, people remained alive, somewhere did not die of hunger, before and VICTORY in the Second World War is HIS MUCH SERVICE.
    So it is DIFFICULT for Putin now. Russia is constantly tested "for strength" both from outside and from within, by means of Libera / S / T / s, and even "their" patriots "are" helping "by theft and squandering of the country's resources.
  12. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya April 15 2014 17: 41
    +1
    Well, what kind of people from the "independent" media - sheer confusion and that obviously the bulk of them are children and grandchildren of scoundrels "rotten" Russian writers and philosophers. They even try to portray the President of their country (for the sake of their Western masters) as such a bloodthirsty monster. If everything were so, then you would have been at logging for a long time, and he endures you scum. But do not forget that all patience has a limit! As the saying goes: "Do not be dashing while it is quiet"!
  13. 52
    52 April 15 2014 18: 16
    +1
    N. Starikov! Thank you for the article. You have not discovered America for me, but it’s useful to read to other people, because not everyone in the current pace of life has time for thoughtful reading and studying of history. And you are a person who is trusted.
  14. upasika1918
    upasika1918 April 15 2014 18: 21
    +4
    Stalin ?, Bulgakov ?, Starikov ?, didn’t read, I don’t know how to read ...
    1. Walk
      Walk April 15 2014 18: 40
      +3
      Unfortunately, now there are a lot of those who do not read anything. Games, Internet and films give them all the knowledge about history and life in general.
  15. tokens2
    tokens2 April 15 2014 18: 51
    +4
    Sad ...
    But I think ... sadness-sorrow will wipe away a tear and quietly rush to the buffet wink
    Let us leave the great idols of the past to the past.
    After reading Bulgakov, we yearn for the lost Russian World.
    Judging by the photographs of Starikov, our Russian world has not sunk yet, although there is alarm.
    Article +
  16. siberalt
    siberalt April 15 2014 19: 28
    +2
    Starikov is an advanced historian. For some reason, he wants to believe in everything in this "ohh - ehe". Dm. Kiselev? Cool on "tolerance", but not Kurginyan in polemics. Like every director (not Kiselyov) - there is an element of narcissism from the world created by himself. This is not a vice, but Creativity. But! I would like to see him (SEC) in the role of Churkin in the UN. Although, Churkin is even very - well done! good
  17. ksenofont7
    ksenofont7 April 15 2014 19: 46
    +2
    Article plus. I respect Starikov! hi
  18. Altona
    Altona April 15 2014 20: 01
    +1
    In general, he said nothing new about Bulgakov ... This story of the relationship between Stalin and Bulgakov is broadcast everywhere ... I also like Bulgakov's work ... The same "The Master and Margarita", exactly how he painted the biblical plot ... The Procurator's conversation with Yeshua Ha-Nozri ... All the power of Rome and a seemingly meek tramp ... Relevant in connection with today's events ...
  19. Mkrtumyan
    Mkrtumyan April 16 2014 01: 44
    +1
    Starikov writes very interestingly.