Stalin Era

1. Economic and Political Weekly April 19, 2003
1554
RUSSIA
Looking Back on Stalin
In the 1980s there had been a surge of anti-Stalinist sentiment in
the then Soviet Union and several publications had come out based
on hitherto undisclosed material, documents and memoirs. By
contrast, the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin’s death on March 5
this year brought to the surface evidence of growing nostalgia
among sections of Russians for Stalin.
remember all the horror and terror perpe-
trated by Stalin.
In contrast to the above reactions, many
sections of Russian society were apprecia-
tive of Stalin. Gennadi Raikov, head of the
People’s Deputy Faction in the Duma,
asserted that “despite all his defects, Stalin
made Russia great”. A somewhat similar
viewwasexpressedbyNikolaiKharitonov,
head of Duma’s Agro-Industrial Group,
who said that Stalin was a statesman who
created a great state and for whom the
motherland was more important than him-
self. The reference evidently was to the
‘great collectivisation’ programme that
Stalin undertook in 1929 for creating
thousands of huge collective farms in the
country. Stalin abolished private owner-
ship of land for building communism in
the countryside by forcibly sending mil-
lionsoflandlords(kulaks)andevenmiddle
peasants who dared to resist his policy to
Siberia and the Far East. The institutions
ofcollectiveandstatefarmingintheSoviet
Union had generated much debate in
politicalandeconomichistoryintheUSSR
and the rest of the world.
The chief of the Communist Party of
Russia, Gennady Zyuganov, confessed
before a gathering of party workers on
R G GIDADHUBLI
M
arch 5, 2003 marked the 50th
anniversary of the death of Josef
Stalin who ruled the Soviet
Union with an iron hand for about three
decades.TheRussianmedia,boththepress
and TV, reported the event quite widely,
conveying the sharply contrasting views
and reactions of the Russian public as also
of the various political parties. TV chan-
nels, including NTV and ORT, broadcast
documentaries on Stalin. The daily news-
paperTribunacarriedtheviewsofVladimir
Zhirinovsky, head of the Liberal Demo-
cratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and deputy
speaker of the Duma. Zhirinovsky con-
demnedStalinforkillingmillionsofpeople
in the Soviet Union including many
Bolshevik leaders and asserted that Stalin
should never have become the head of
the government. Several other papers also
carried the views of Russian leaders.
Oleg Morozov, head of the Russian Re-
gions Group in the DUMA, opined that
Stalin’s villainous acts outweighed his
positive contributions. A somewhat muted
response was that of Aleksandar Kalikh,
a human rights activist, who said that
contemporary Russia does not want to

2. Economic and Political Weekly April 19, 2003 1555
March 2 that a decade back his party had
failed to live up to Stalin’s legacy and to
“preserve Soviet power”. He added that
Russia did not exist without socialism and
Sovietpower.Apparentlythereisnodearth
of cranks among the rank and file of the
party in Russia today. At the gathering of
party workers, one of the lower rank
leaders proposedaseriousattemptto clone
Stalin, no doubt hoping that thereby the
Soviet Union would be reborn too.
Stalin was not a Russian by nationality
but a Georgian and Stalin was not his
family name, but a nick-name given by his
comrades looking to his ‘steel like’ quali-
ties. He was the son of Jugashvili, a cob-
bler by profession, and was born in Gori,
asmalltowninGeorgiawhichbecameone
of the 15 republics of the former USSR.
On March 5 in his home town and at the
Stalin embankment in Tbilisi, capital of
the now independent state, a few hundred
Georgian communists under their party
leader, retired General Pateleimaon
Giorgadze, recalled the historic role of the
one-time hero. Blaming Mikhail Gorba-
chev particularly for the demise of the
Soviet Union together with Georgia’s
present president, Eduard Shevarnadze,
Giorgadzse predicted that “Stalin’s cause
will be revived and the communists will
inevitably come to power in Georgia”.
Afewopinionpollswerealsoconducted
in Russia on the eve of Stalin’s 50th death
anniversary. According to one such poll,
one-thirdofRussianswelcomethereturn of
a leader like Stalin. The All Russia Centre
fortheStudyofPublicOpinion(VTsIOM)
carried out a poll in 100 cities and towns
over 40 regions of the country. According
to Yurii Levada, director of the centre, 53
per cent of respondents approved of Stalin
overall, 33 per cent disapproved of him
and 14 per cent did not state their position.
ThePublicOpinionFoundationconducted
a national survey on February 22 covering
1,500 adults throughout the country.
According to the survey, 36 per cent of the
respondentssaid“theSovietdictatorStalin
did more benefit to Russia than harm”, 29
per cent said the opposite and 34 per cent
did not commit themselves.
It is evident that there are sharp differ-
ences on the assessment of Stalin. What
is surprising is the growing number of
political figures as well as ordinary people
who positively assess Stalin’s contribu-
tion. Catherine Fitzpatrick, a noted com-
mentator on international affairs from
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, has
wondered why Stalinism has not inspired
the same kind of horror as Nazism. Alek-
sandarYakovlev,aformercommunistparty
politburo member and Russian historian,
has proposed the explanation that “there
hasbeennode-Bolshevisationcomparable
withthede-NazificationinGermany”. Stalin’s
terror is not even being talked about. In
the1980stherewasasurgeofanti-Stalinist
sentiment in the then Soviet Union and
several publications came out based on
hitherto undisclosed material, documents
and memoirs. Aleksandar Solzenytsin’s
works, including Gulag Archipelago, had
revealed the horrors of the concentration
camps. But after a decade of the break-up
of the Soviet Union many writers now
prefer to be silent on the subject.
Significantly,theRussianStateArchive,
the Archive of the Federal Protection
Service and the Archive of the Federal
SecurityService(FSB) jointlyputtogether
an exhibition on notable events of the
Stalin era. It is very unlikely that such an
exhibition could have been organised
without the approval of Kremlin. The
exhibition presented recently declassified
documents and medical analysis reports,
including documents relating to the so-
called Doctors’ Plot. This was the name
given to the conspiracy by Stalin and his
inner group to successfully eliminate sev-
eral Bolshevik revolutionaries including
Mikhail Frunze and Kirov by forcing them
to undergo medical treatment, including
surgery, by doctors appointed by Stalin
whichledtotheirdeath.Stalin’sownillness
and death also created much controversy,
with some Russian analysts contending
that Stalin was poisoned. Artem Sergyev,
Stalin’s adopted son, has claimed in an
interview on ORT that Stalin’s inner circle
including Georgi Malenkov and Nikita
Khruschev “left Stalin to die without
summoning medical help”. Khruschev,
who after coming to power played a key
role in ‘destalinisation’, is charged with
having imprisoned Stalin’s son Vasilii on
charges of “betraying the motherland”.
The growing appreciation of Stalin in
Russia as reflected in the opinion polls
couldbeexplainedindifferentways.Many
Russians give credit to Stalin for the vic-
tory of the Soviet Union in second world
war.Asecondexplanationrunsinterms of
the common Russian’s desire for a strong
leader to rule the country with an iron
hand. Sergei Kovalev, a Soviet era politi-
cal prisoner and now a Duma member of
the Party of Union of Rights Forces, has
said that Stalin’s popularity was on the rise
because “the current Kremlin leadership
continues to propagate the idea that the
countryneedstoberuledbyastronghand”.
Related to this is the view that Stalin made
the Soviet Union a Great Power. Another
explanation is that the nostalgia for Stalin
is a reaction to the prevailing conditions
in the country. After the Soviet break-up,
living conditions of a large section of the
population have worsened which is re-
flectedintheriseintheincidenceofdiseases
and in the death rate. It is estimated that
morethanone-thirdofthepopulationlives
below the poverty line. Post-Soviet Russia
has been experiencing the social ills of
beggary, rising crime and general decline
of law and order. Corruption has grown
in the country affecting the life of the
common man. Basic necessities such as
meat, which is a staple diet of Russians,
have become almost unaffordable. Un-
employmenthasaffectedatleast15-20per
cent of the able-bodied population. At the
same time a new class of super rich ‘New
Russians’ has emerged in a short span of
half a dozen years. The wide disparity in
incomes and living standards is very much
disliked by the people at large. So it is
understandable that over one-third of the
population feels that they were better off
in the Soviet era. Some of these complex
emotions, particularly of the older genera-
tion, were given expression to by a widow
of a second world war veteran. When her
husband died a few years back, she placed
his war medals near the coffin with a
portrait of Stalin. Catherine Fitzpatrick
writes that this Russian widow now hardly
recalls the terrible years when the youth
of the country were forced to join the army
andgotowar.Butshecertainlyremembers
“anerawhenatleasttherewaswork,cheap
food and cheap rent and far less crime –
andatimewhenpeoplelookedoutforeach
other”. Maksim Sokolov, a commentator
on ORT, explains that the increasing
support for Stalin is a protest against the
current leadership whom people hold
responsible for the hardships they face.
Half a century after his death, Stalin is
rememberedandcontinuestoevokestrong
andmixedreactions.Thedifferencesabout
his role may be partly due to differences
in the composition of the population, with
the older generation protesting against the
denial of the minimum comforts in life
after the Soviet break-up. The growing
nostalgia for Stalin is also an expression
ofthefeeling,rootedinhistory,thatRussia
needsastrongandpowerfulleadertorevive
Russia’s role as a Great Power of the
world. EPW