Late in August 1903 “The Banner”, a newspaper edited in Petersburg (editor P.A. Krushevan) started to publish the “Protocols of the Zionost wise”. More than a hundred years have passed by now, and still these “protocols” give the “progressive world public” no rest. Through the river Lethe (Greek mythology = river from which the dead drink of forgetfulness; translator’s note), were leaking the theories of Bakunin’s and Kropotkin’s social anarchy, which were finally recognized as being part of the untenable marxism; Keynism was followed by Friedman’s monetarism; Fascism produced theories like, for example, geopolitics – the Uited States declared the whole world the “scientific” zone of their interests; they receited O. Spengler and F. Fukuyama, and then those fell into oblivion again.
This is only one example of the achievements of the “socialist world of thoughts” since the very moment, when the “Zionist wise” appeared on the scene. Who might be interested in this thought, apart from a few “limited” experts? And as for the “protocols” – the intzerst has not diminished till nowadays, in spite of their clumsy stylistics, which are far from being a literary and official language. Most probably somebody felt alarmed and irritated by such a never-ending interest; it is said that exclusively the “scum of the Russian society” (Berdyayev) and people, who are unable to read an write properly, do believe in the existence of a Jewish world conspiracy. So we tolerate that only the “Russian scum”, as well as a few illiterate persons believein the devil’s work of conspiracies and palast revolutions as being the “driving elements of history”. Which category do Sergey Kim, Aleksey Babiy and the historian Grigoriev belong to, who all presented themselves as opponents of Sergey Maslov during the sensational TV dispute about the erection or non-erection of a Stalin statue?
While the deputy of the Krasnoyarsk municipal council, Sergey Maslov, from the dialectical point of view, was talking about the statue as a remembrance of the great deeds and fatal mistakes of our ancestors, his opponents talked a hopeless nonsense about Stalin’s forcible accession to power and the consoiracy of the NKVD against the Russian people. None of the named persons consented to Maslov’s entirely scientific statements: Y.V. Stalin appeared as a historical indispensability, as a factual being like, as we say, the rising sun the day before yesterday, as the objective course of a series of historical events.
At first there were executions, extrajudicial executions of judgements, simply murders committed on the people.In the army and naval formations they killed officers, in the villages – big land owners, in the towns – those belonging to the “bourgeoisie”, as well as policemen, at the railroad stations – all, who looked well-dressed or expressed themselves in choice and correct Russian (according to evidence given by A.I. Denikin). After the Bolsheviks had risen to power, the “batki” movement received a great impetus: Makhno, Angel, Grigoriev and others. The “batki” fought against both the Red and the White – for the “Peasant State”. The motto of the white guard officers and red commissars was “shoot them” without much thinking – just “their way”.
Not only Lenin and Trotskiy, but also shining lights of literature tending to the “liberal” direction, such as the Nobel prize winner Bunin or the satirist Panteleymon Romanov, wrote about the drowsiness, cultural backwardness, immorality, keenness and other inadequacies of the peasantry. Mikhail Soshchenko described the antisocial characteristics in their absoluteness – townspeople who had just come to this place from among the farmers. By the way, today’s entire market demagogy “When you are that clever, why do you live in poverty then?”, “Man strives for more, not for less”, “If man does not steal, they punish him to no avail” or “To a clever person things will take a turn for the better even in a bad place” – was borrowed from Panteleymon Romanov. In actual fact, however, the author put these words into the toothless, evil-smelling, shameless mouths of some disgusting slim-spitters, who nonetheless utter these satirically meant manifestations with their “Blend-a-med” smile in all seriousness.
How was Stalin to withstand this nonsense of outbreaking elements and protect himself against them? There was only one way: by commencing a merciless, inexorable fight both against the conspirators and the manifest enemies of the people. To give a clear example – Marshal Tukhachevskiy and the “military opposition”. Being a former noble man from Smolensk and ex-first lieutenant of the tsarist army, who had merely completely the Aleksandrovsk military school, he became famous, strictly speaking, by a serious of retaliatory strikes during the civil war. Having run into the regular Polish army near Warsaw, the troops met with a crushing defeat under Tukhachevskiys command, a defeat they had never suffered before. The Poles took 120000 soldiers prisoner at one blow. After this defeat the tsarist generals committed suicide by shooting themselves, as did, for example, the general of the cavalry, Aleksander Vasilevich Samsonov. However, Tukhachevskiy did niot refuse Trotskiy’s proposal to command the Red Army. And imaging what silly ideas got into his head: he considered an automatic firearm to be an “arm of the police officers”, in his opinion light tanks were “jumping” and “flying”, and soldiers on field duty would not tear away from the trenches, but “individually” dug themselves in.
A very descriptive panorama of his initiatives was the destruction of the Red Fleet with regard to Engels’ “Anti-During”. Mikhail Tukhachevskiy was against the activation of a regular army, the construction of aircraft carriers, liners – and cruisers. He was not aware of the importance of railroads, either – the stratetic Far-East wa, for example, was merely connected with the country by two track sections of the Trans-Siberian Mainline. Tukhachevskiy’s friendship with Germany and its Wehrmacht must exclusively be explained by his luxurious stay in German war captivity. Tikhachevskiy was supported by the entire command staf of the Red Army, which had been steeled during the numerous crusial tests at the time of the fratricidal war. The majority of the Red Army commanders had been raised to their positions by Lev Trotskiy, the ideologist of the “permanent revolution” and “the disappearance of borders and states”.
As for the national make-up, the military leaders of the Red Army were mainly Jews: Yakir, Uborevich, Gamarnik and others. Y.V. Stalin’s attitude towards the other nations inevitably lead to irreconcible antagonisms with their “international” views and convictions. These contrasts intensified in particular after the outbreak of the cicvil war in Spain, which revealed the groundlessness of such an “internationalism”.
Immense forces were behind Tukhachevskiy and his Zionist society, so that Stalin was compelled to appeal to the Soviet people which was supporting him. In order not to leave the pretention without giving reasons, I would like to quote Y.V. Stalin’s commonly known measures to strengthen the defence potential of the country, which, for some reason or other, had been considerably neglected by Tukhachevskiy.
On September 1st, 1939, on its 4th special session, the USSR Supreme Soviet passed the Law on Universal Compulsory Military Service”. Already in 1938 a program concerning the building of ships for the navy had been made up. At that time they began with the construction of the Baikal-Amur-Mainline. These measures, however, came too late. As for the international relations Stalin’s politics were of an utterly passive, cautious and wary kind – he scattered the Internationale after having shut the mouths of the apologets of the “world revolution”, and exclusively took up negotiations about friendship and cooperation, merely with governments that were dear to him, i.e. which, in some way or other, suited his plans.
The intended French-Soviet cooperation was shattered by Great Britain. The English-French-Soviet discussions which went down in the history of diplomacy as the Moscow Negotiations of the year 1939, were dragged on by the English side to infinity. The more, since Stalin called in doubt the honesty of the English after the agreements made in Moscow. And then, on August 20th, 1939, an entirely unexpected telegram reached Stalin. It had been sent by Hitler. The telegram came to a great surprise, although Stalin and the Germanministry of foreign affairs had been having exploratory talks conerning an approach towards the Soviet-Union since late June: “I suggest once again that you receive my foreignminister on Tuesday, August 22nd, or on Wednesday, August 23rd, at the latest. The minister of foreign affairs of the German Reich will have plenary powers for the elaboration and signing of a nonaggression treaty …”.
Hitler revealed his plans to Stalin and the whole world – an invasion of Poland ( could it be otherwise?), for the USSR had no common borders with Germany. This fact probably did not even make Stalin feel embarrassed – all things considered, Poland had categorically refused to accept our friendship. What confounded Stalin was something completely different: Hitler was in the know of the situation that prevailed during the negotiations in Moscow. It was a matter of fact that the members of the British and French diplomatic missions were not authorized by their governments to drop any decisions, which was conscientiously kept a secret by the Soviets. In other words: the negotiations were held “just in pretence”. It was sure that no information would leak out from the Soviets; consequently, Hitler knew all circumstances and conditions subject to the negotiations from the English and French. More likely, one had even reason to believe that the informagtion had come from the English. Now Stalin had nothing to “mask” himself, and a titmouse in the hand is better than a crane in the sky, the more since the Red Army was fighting against German allies, the Japanese, at the river Khalkin-Gol – and the signing of the contract with Hitler created differenes and disputes among the opponents of the Soviet-Union.
This is exactly the point, when the citizen of Krasnoyarsk; Aleksey Babiy, while describing the German-Soviet relations, got entangled in lies and became hysteric, thuis contradicting his own previously made statements. Strictly speaking, he either tells lies “for good order’s sake” or, what is even worse, he is entirely ignorant. In case of any juridicial inquiry I will be in a position to confirm: Babiy’s lies and foolish talk are obvious. Firstly, he refers to the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”. Such adocument never ever existed. In the course of the very process Babiy has in mind, the Soviet-Union concluded treaties: the Nonaggression Treaty of August 23rd, 1939, and the Border and Frienship Treaty of September 28th, 1939. There were some more treaties and agreements with Germany yet, however, they probably remain outside the sphere of interest of the Anti-Stalinists.
Babiy was impertinent and incautious enough to proclaim that the Soviet-Union, after having signed the treaties, entered the Second World War by taking sides with Germany. For this lie, no matter whether it was an expression of his polulistic intentions or a result of the hopeless Babiyist ignorance, he has to be brought to trial – for he inflicts mental disease upon people, who know about this subject only too well.
The pact of August 23rd, 1939, was concnluded on the purpose of avoiding the Fascist German troops to cross the Soviet border, which was defined as demarkation line at that time. The appearance of the field army at the Soviet border might have caused a serious border incident. The term “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” was borrowed from foreign sources. A pact is a treaty, but this expression is being used for treaties subject to a greater political importance. This very term stresses the importance of the international relations between Fascist Germany and the Soviet-Union. However, there was nothingimportant about this treaty at all: the Soviet-Polish border had already been defined in the Roman Peace Treaty in 1921. Poland, having realized its “sovereignty in some parts of the former Russian Empire”, engaged itself towards England, the USA, France, Italy and Japan to defend the rights of the national minorities: White Russians and Ukrainians. Ribbentrop persistently recommended to the Soviet government to occupy Poland by Soviet troops. Stalin, however, did not do that – not even in the very moment, when the Germans crossed the demarkation line, which had been defined by the “secret protocol”. In September 17th, 1939, the 17th day of World War II, two circumstances became evident: at the Khalkin-Gol the Red Army won the decisive battle; the representatives of Slavoi-Skladovskiy’s government and the commander-in-chief, Marshal Ryds-Smigly, took a flight from Poland. The “secret protocols” regarding Poland were immediately published in the “Pravda” (“Truth”; translator’s note), and the Soviet troops of the military special districts based in White Russia and the Kiev region crossed the Soviet-Polish border in accordance with the decision of the Soviet government.
The crossing of the border by Soviet troops was justified by the pretext of defending the national minorities – Ukrainians and White Russians, against the German occupators, so that none of the countries would protest against this action. Now, 66 years later, Babiy makes a protest, after having compiled numerous thoughts and pieces of knowledge, which he received from newspaper scribblers, who are unable to read and write properly. Whenever journalist Burlaku’s authority is needed with regard to the “Stalin question”, well … then everything becomes quite clear, of course …
The historic Grigoriev declared, most probably to insult the stalinists, that the “most audacious tasrs” make good statues, such as Fyodor Ivanovich and Aleksey Mikhailovich. Fyodor Ivanovich (1557-1598), the last representative of the Rurikovichs, was such a genious in his insignificance that after his death (by the way, he did not leave any property behind), crooks of all colours intended to ascend his throne. His policy prepared the outbreak of the peasants’ war and the Polish-Swedish intervention of Russia. Aleksey Mikhailovich (1629-1676) created the Order of Secrecy – the prototype of today’s special state security institutions -, including torture chambers and various kinds of torture methods. He introduced the hunt for all run away peasants for an unlimitted period of time, carried out reforms of the the church and oppressed the reskolniks (sectarians; translator’s note) in an utterly cruel manner. He drowned the Moscovitan revolt of the year 1662 in blood, suppressed Stenka Razin’s rebeles in a very bestial way and brought their commanders to the scaffolf. So what?
Any state you choose is an instrument of violence. Any person engaged in the sphere of politics will turn to be an executioner – if necessary. Someone remembers Gandhi, but India, too, finds itself compelled to organize special state security institutions, dispose of an army and a criminal code.
The question put to Sergey Kim with fake naivity about whether or not the Stalin bust is of any artistic value, sounded utterly ridiculous. If I had been the person to answer it, I would have replied by a counterquestion: “Would metal doors and gratings in front of the windows of all houses contribute to a more esthetic sight of the street-scape of a town?” – But this is not yet thewhole of it. Does Sergey Kim consider the miscreation on Mira Prospect, not far from the Central Department Store, to be a work of art? For, if the “man with the umbrella” were to appear as the eighth wonder of the world, then tourists would stream to Krasnoyarsk in crowds.
Konstantin Maievskiy (Krasnoyarsk)
“Krasnoyarsk Newspaper”, November 2004