People of Works and Accomplishments. Joseph Stalin. Threshold 49
J. V. Stalin, The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP(B), April, 1922
Yulia Ivanova
People of Works and Accomplishments. Joseph Stalin. Threshold 49
Witnesses: M. Jilas. Charles P. Snow, Nikita Khrushchev, J. Gray, Sv. Alliluyeva
* * *
'... The phenomenon of Stalin is very difficult and has to do with not only the communist movement and the then external and internal features of the Soviet Union.
Here rises the problem of relations and the idea of man and the leader of the movement, the role of violence in society, values of myths in human life, the conditions of convergence of people and nations.
Stalin belonged to the past, and the debate on these and similar issues, if they begun, then it happened only recently.
I will add that Stalin was, as I said, a lively, passionate, impulsive, and highly organized and in control of yourself person. Unless, otherwise, he would be able to manage such a huge modern state and to lead such dire and complex military action?
So I think that concepts such as a criminal, a maniac, and the like, are minor and illusory when there is a dispute over political identity.
It should be wary of errors.
In real life, there can be no politics, free from the so-called lower passions and motives. Already, thus it is, the sum of human aspirations, politics cannot be removed from any criminal or from the compulsive element.
It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to find the compulsory border between crime and political violence. With the emergence of each new tyrant thinkers forced anew to produce their research, analysis and synthesis.
In conversation with Stalin initial impression of him as a wise and courageous personality not only faded, but on the contrary, deepened.
The effect of intensified its eternal, terrifying suspicion.
A ball of bristling nerve, he could not forgive anyone to talk a little bit risky hint. Even a change of expression of the eyes of any of those present escaped his attention ...
But Stalin is a ghost who wanders for a long time and will wander about the world.
From its heritage denied everything, even though many people left who draws out of power.
Many people other than their own emulate Stalin. Khrushchev, denying him, admired him simultaneously.
Today's leaders are not enthusiastic about, but bask in the rays of its sun.
And Tito, fifteen years after the break with Stalin revived respect for his statesmanship.
But I myself did not suffer, trying to understand what it is my 'thought' about Stalin? Not caused by a tenacious and his presence is in me?
What is Stalin?
The great statesman, 'demonic genius', a victim of dogma or a maniac and a bandit, seizing up the power?
What was his Marxist ideology, as he then used the idea?
What he thought about his exploits, of himself, his place in history?
Here are some questions, seek answers to that compels his personality. I appeal to them as to hurt the fate of the modern world, especially communist and because of them, I would say, extended the timeless values.'
(M. Jilas).
* * *
'Until now it looks a little fantastic, that in addition to his other concerns and positions Stalin assumed the duties of the Supreme Literary Critic.
But he actually read the manuscript of most famous writers prior to publication, and partly for reasons of political, but, obviously, out of pure interest, too.
Amazingly, where he found the time? Nevertheless, reliable evidence - are innumerable. Stalin carefully introduced into the manuscript corrections in green and red pencil.
For us in the West, is not easy to understand that writers and written word in Russia are much more important.
And this is one of the reasons that Stalin took over the role of supreme censor: if you think that the written word affects people's behavior, then lose sight of him not going.
The price of our complete literary freedom in the West is that in reality, as soon as it comes down to, no one believes, as if literature has some value.
The Russians form the time of Pushkin since convinced that literature directly involve business. Therefore, the place and function of their writers in a society very different from what falls to the western counterparts.
For the place and its significance for Soviet writers have to pay: often, denial of civil rights, sometimes life.
A writer for them it's the voice of the people to such an extent, what we often totally unable to comprehend either, nor appreciate.
In tsarist Russia, where there were no other legal means of opposition, many writers have assigned its functions to itself, became a means of protest.
Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, Gorky - they are all engaged in business that was going on in our society would be politicians.'
(Charles P. Snow).
* * *
'We cannot say that his actions were the actions of a mad despot.
He believed that it was necessary to do so in the interests of the party of the working masses in the name of defending the revolutionary gains. And this a tragedy'
(N. Khrushchev).
* * *
'Then Churchill detail revealed a secret plan to Anglo-American offensive in the Mediterranean region, codenamed 'Torch'.
Stalin listened attentively, with growing interest.
'So may God help you in this matter, he said.
He asked many questions, and then briefly outlined the importance of this operation.
'This remarkable feature of his plan, made a deep impression on me,' Churchill wrote, 't showed how quickly and completely mastered the problem of Russian dictator, had not previously known to him.
Few people could have a few minutes so deeply understand the reasons and motives, over which we fought so long.
He immediately figured out all over.'
(J. Gray).
* * *
'When I left, my father took me aside and gave me money.
He began to do so in recent years, following the reform of 1947 abolished the free maintenance of families of the Politburo. Until then I had existed without any money, except for university scholarships, and forever occupied with his 'rich' nannies who received a hefty salary.
After 1947 his father sometimes asked in our occasional meetings, 'Do you need money?' to which I always responded 'no'.
'You're lying,' he said,' how much do you need?
I did not know what to say. But he did not know the current account with money or even how much things cost; he lived his pre-revolutionary idea that a hundred rubles was a colossal sum.
And when he gave me two or three thousand rubles, God knows, for a month for six months, or two weeks, then thought that he gave a million...
The whole of his salary every month evolved into packages on his desk. I do not know if he had a savings book, probably not.
He did not spend money them nowhere and had nothing to spend it. All his life, villas, houses, servants, food, clothing - all paid for by the state, for which there was a special office somewhere in the MGB.
And there its accounting, and it is unknown how much they spent... He himself did not know. Sometimes, he pounced on his generals of the guard at Vlasik with abuse:
'Parasites! Profiting from here, I know how much money you have flowing through the sieve!'
But he knew nothing, he just instinctively felt that the huge amounts of money fly away...
He tried once to revise his farm, but it did not work out - he slipped some made-up numbers.
He was furious, but it never could have known.
With his all-powerfulness he was powerless, helpless against the terrible system that has grown around it like a giant honeycomb; he could not break it, or at least control it...
General Vlasik disposed of millions on his behalf, for the construction, on a trip of huge special trains but the father could not even really figure out where, how much, who...'
(St. Alliluyeva).
'Do you live as a parasite, all found?' - he asked once in a rage.
And knowing that I'm paying for their lunches ready the dining room he calmed down.
When I moved to town in his apartment - he was happy enough is enough free live...
In general, none so hard as he tried to impart to their children about the need to live on its own.
'Cottages, state apartments, cars - all this does not belong to you, do not consider it as your own property,' he used to say. "
(St. Alliluyeva).
* * *
'That's what conversation took place in Djilas, Stalin in 1944, at a time when Roosevelt and Churchill congratulated each other with the agility with which they get along with Uncle Joe:
'You may think on the sole ground that we are allies the British, as if we have forgotten who they are and who is Churchill?
They are nothing more fun, like to outline our allies around the finger. During the First World War, they are constantly deceived by Russian and French.
As for Churchill, he is a person who is in your pocket will carry off a penny, if you're behind him will not watch. Yes, yes, carry off a penny from his pocket!
And Roosevelt? Roosevelt is not such a person. This guy arm runs only for a large coin.
But Churchill is ready for a penny...'
(Charles P. Snow).
'From his point of view, Russia had to take care of herself; there is no one to rescue her.
Soviet system, or destined to survive in Russia, or perish in it.
The country needs to rely on itself. This point of view he covertly set out long before the Revolution.
To speak frankly to the end he never had, but it is certain that the internal logic of his political life was based on this.
Over the years, Stalin was more convinced that no developed society would not tolerate the revolution.
The centralized state power from year to year becomes more and more unshakable. Apparently made an impression on him and adaptability of capitalist structures.
The original proposition of Stalin was true.
Judgment is (or more accurate it's intuitive foresight) provided Stalin with commitment and strength...
The country had the power to pull into a modern industrial state for half a generation; otherwise it would be hopelessly behind.
What would Stalin not done, in that he was clearly right.
Absolute solutions were not accepted them as long as there has not been won by the struggle for power. Start with the fact that almost all the time while he was alive, Lenin, Stalin acted cautiously.
In the sly he took over the party apparatus, while others either did not notice that he did, or thought it a routine organizational work to which he was fit.
Stalin knew more. He took over the party machine frame, as realized, he who controls the staff, manages the lion's share of state structures. Appointment, promotion, bias reduction to someone at the table are collected all these personal things, and belongs to the real power...
I recall once in the late 40's I had to call a friend, officer (since then he became an important person) on the appointment, which concerned both of us.
I mentioned the Treasury. Voice of a friend on the telephone fell to a reverent whisper:
'They know an awful lot about it.'
Well, Stalin knew an awful lot of promising appointees in the Communist Party.'
(Charles P. Snow).
'Without wasting time, he began (in some measure he forced to do so, because the course of these processes is inexorable and inevitable, there is one reason why his enemies were so weak) to the greatest of the industrial revolution.
'Socialism in one country' was to start working.
Russia in the decade had to make about the same as in England that lasted 200 years.
This meant everything was in heavy industry, the primitive accumulation of capital shortage for workers only slightly more than a means of livelihood.
This meant the necessary effort, never one country is taken.
'It was a deadly jerk! And yet here Stalin was right.
Even now, 60 years, close to the technique, not inferior to the most advanced in the world, to distinguish the traces of the primitive darkness of which had to pull the country.
Stalinist realism was cruel and devoid of illusions. After the first two years of industrialization, responding to pleas to withhold the movement, which bear country is no longer in power, Stalin declared,
'Retaining the pace means falling behind. A those falling behind are beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, I do not want to!
Old Russia was continually beaten for backwardness. It was beaten by the Mongol khans. It was beaten by the Turkish beys. It was beaten by Swedish feudal lords or the Polish-Lithuanian gentry. It was beaten by British and French capitalists. It was beaten by Japanese barons.
All beat it for backwardness. Backwardness, military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness.
They beat it because it was profitable and with impunity.
Remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet, ,You are poor, thou art abundant, Thou art mighty, thou, and impotent, Mother Russia.,
'We are lagging behind the advanced countries in the 50 - 100 years. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.'
Until now none of this moderately impartial people argue there is nothing.
* * *
Industrialization itself meant deprivation, suffering, but not mass atrocities. The collectivization of agriculture has given a much more bitter fruit.
Implementation of the ambitious industrialization required more food for the cities and less working on the ground.
Peasant farming is not suitable for...
In the Soviet Union, both processes have to be carried out in the same months in the same two or three years. With the horrific loss of life. A whole class of rich peasants (kulaks, that is, farmers who used hired labor) was razed to the ground...
It's hard not to admit a kind of collectivization, in fact, dictated by events. The old Russian peasant agriculture, by Western standards, were in the Middle Ages.
So spend it with a perfect skill and humanity of collectivization would be difficult. In fact, it had a very badly, worse than ever, and today's Russia is still paying for it.
... Just do not think that Stalin, Churchill, despite the recognition, perceived these events as the personal suffering.
People status and accomplishments, even prone to kindness / what he has nobody noticed / not made of that test - otherwise they would not be human deeds and affairs.
Decisions that affect thousands or millions of lives are taken without any particular emotion, or, if we use the more precise technical terminology without affect ...
So did Asquith, an unusually hearty man, saying the decision on the offensive on the Somme in 1916.
So did Churchill during World War II.
So did Harry Truman, signed the order on the application of the atomic bomb.'
(Charles P. Snow).
Home page
