Idea Transcript
Welcome to The Economist
CLOSE
Welcome to independent thinking and a distinctive world view.
Register
Subscribe now and enjoy full access to The Economist
Register now to enjoy your selection of up to three articles each week.
Back to article
E-mail address
Russia's past
Please keep me up to date about the latest articles by email.
The unhistory man
Advertisement
Economist.com
Audio edition
The Economist
Get full access to Read the full weekly Economist.com including edition in print, on full blog content updated Economist.com or via Register throughout the week and our apps for a range of Russia should do more to condemn Stalin’s crimes—for its own sake our online archive. mobile devices.
Listen to each week's issue of The Economist, read by professional broadcasters.
Readers' comments
The Economist Espresso Get a head start with our new morning briefing direct to your smartphone or inbox.
View Print and Digital subscription offers
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Sort: Newest first
Oldest first
Readers' most recommended « first ‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 next › last »
sk_russian
Sep 5th 2009, 05:49
2 mxc500 Sir, you argue that "perhaps the people of Russia agree with the "official" historical line" I am a Russian sitizen and live in Russia. I must say that I do not agree with the "official historical line" being imposed by the Kremlin and see it as an apology to Stalin and stalinizm far from real history. Starting from 2000 Kremlin has effectively stuffled all independent opinions on Russian TV and uses the latter for partizan propaganda. That is why nobody actually knows what do Russians think not only on the history but on any other subject. Recommend (10)
gfigueiredo
Report
Permalink
Sep 4th 2009, 16:23
Most commented
"Under a new law, anyone who “falsifies” the Kremlin’s version of history, for example by equating Hitler and Stalin, two of the 20th century’s worst mass murderers, may be prosecuted" And what about 2 atomic bombs in Japan? I'm not saying Stalin was a "good boy", but it's always easier to talk about others. Recommend (10)
Report
Synthetic biology Strange medicine
Permalink
Women and work: What's holding women back? Number 16
Sep 4th 2009, 13:06
Airline security: Hackers of the world: United
Stefanek, Cynik and Real Texan were commenting on the Baltic states of today. Do you have any evidence of how today's Baltic peoples persecute Jews or ethnic minorities? In my experience there is very little such tensions in the Baltic countries today (with the exception of some ethnic Russians who complain that they feel marginalized). This is in stark contrast to Russia where racist crimes are commonplace and rarely resolved. Recommend (10)
Cynic_
Report
The finance sector and growth: Warning: too much finance is bad for the economy
Vision or mirage?: Saudi Arabia’s post-oil future
Advertisement
Permalink
Sep 8th 2009, 21:03
Number 16, First of all, I dismiss all and every comparison between Stalinist Soviet Union or Putinesque Russia and modern Latvia. It is at least unreasonable to measure behavior of a full member of EU by any of these two rulers. Another sets of standards applies to Latvia, and there's no point in praising it for absence of state-sponsored extrajudicial killings or summary executions. Then, inter-ethnic relations on the street are indeed generally tranquil, while reserved and sometimes cold-shouldering. On the other hand, a certain legal frame installed by majority MPs & governments is in many aspects minority-unfriendly. The paradox is that this politicos are voted into office by the same majority voters who generally get along with their minority neighbors quite smoothly. As to barriers to employment. I'd rather mention language proficiency tests the law requires for virtually all occupations. These, introduced back in 90s, pushed many non-native speakers of Latvian out of their jobs. Here's just one example. A lady worked as a certified translator at a notary's office. Government introduced a requirement for all such translators to pass Latvian language test for the highest degree of proficiency or to have their right to certify translations revoked. Lady, who translated texts from Russian to English and other way round, lost her job: she spoke Latvian but no way up to the highest degree. Believe me it impacted her well-being. BTW, she was immediately rehired by the same notary, but as an assistant translator for one third of her previous salary and with bogus certified translator who just signed her translations as her own. This new girl was native Latvian speaker who as such under the law was not subject to Latvian language test, but alas knew quite a little of Russian and even less of English. Still, she got half of the salary the first lady initially had. Besides, under the privatization law, everyone was entitled for a number of vouchers proportionally to their age. But citizens - mostly ethnic Latvians - were entitled for 15 certificates more, and Soviet-era settlers (so called non-citizens, almost exclusively of Eastern Slavic origin) - for 15 vouchers less. This was combined with restrictions for ownership (non-citizens were barred, for example, from owning real estate and are still barred from owning certain types of it, like agricultural land and forests). Synergy of these with already-cleansed job market created another layer of inequality. Lastly, I'd like to draw your attention to your point that _all have equal access to (...) social benefits_. It's not exactly true or rather just untrue: temporary disability, maternity and unemployment benefits and old age pensions are strictly proportional to a person's wage. Lower wage (and in private sector, where majority of non-ethnic Latvians are employed, wages are substantially lower, as already proved) results in smaller social benefits. Therefore, while a person technically has equal access to, say, health-care services, in fact (s)he is quite limited in options: health insurance is almost never provided in private sector, and a patient must literally paid his\her way thru health-care system, giving scarce money both officially and, what is much worse, unoficially. Recommend (9)
Report
Ancient one
Permalink
Sep 8th 2009, 00:15
If I were Russian I would, with reservations, support Putin. He is certainly not a nice man, but he will leave his country better than he found it... like Bismarck. Recommend (9)
Stefanek
Report
Permalink
Sep 6th 2009, 10:28
To Number 16 and other Balkan apologists. The history of Latvian Jewry goes back to Medieval times. They contributed much to Latvia's development, but this was never recognised by the Government, who tried to restrict their influence in business matters. I have no access to the Latvian census, but I will take your word for it (although some of your other figures are incorrect) that 9.743 Jews resided in Latvia in 2006. No Jews survived the war in Latvia as such, those that did, had ran away to Russia and came back later. The Jews that live in Latvia today, hail from Russian territories, they came to improve their standard of living. And they are not all Jewish but mixed; not that I have anything against that - I only mention it to illustrate my point. Latvian-Jewish culture is dead - never to return and the same goes for the other Baltic states. Most of the 85.000 Latvian Jews were killed by their compatriots and neighbours. More than half of them were massacred in the Bierkernieky Forest. Some of the overseers may have been German, but the dastardly deed was done by the local population. Don't take my word for it, if you live there, go and have a look at the memorial plaque. As for the statistics produced by Phylarcus, as a Polish Jew, I would like to point out that half the Polish dead, i.e., three million, were Polish Jews. Recommend (9)
sk_russian
Report
Permalink
Sep 5th 2009, 08:59
2 Kuzmich Sir, You State that "...Nobody in Russia even the present day communists think it’s possible to restore Stalin’s regime" I agree: Stalin is to old-fasioned even for Russia; now Putin and his clique are tring to copy Benito Mussilini: state owned economy, state controlled press etc. Add to this even visual similarity of Mr. Putin with his naked torso and late Benito with his mucho cult. Then you ask: "Where do you get these ideas from". I can tell you where: first thing Mr. Putin did was to stuffle the free TV channels. Then he harrased free jutrnalists and those who were not intimidated were simply killed. After this he grabbed property of his political opponents putting the latter into jail. After doing with the 'internal enemies' Putin and his friends started looking abroad. The first wictim was Georgia, who will be the next? And where it will stop, if I may ask you? Recommend (9)
Didomyk
Report
Permalink
Sep 5th 2009, 02:15
kuzmich wrote: "In the first place Nazi Germany was an aggressor that occupied and devastated entire European part of Russia and if it had not been for that aggression Russia would have never occupied Europe." Hmm, my comrade kuzmich, how is it that you make several factual errors in just one sentence ? I suppose, it's your ideological training or just lack of attention ? First, while Nazi Germany indeed devastated a large part of the Soviet Union's european territory, the territories of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states were fully occupied while the European Russia lost perhaps 1/3 of its land at the peak of the German advance. In case you forgot, the European part of Russia stretches all the way to the Ural mountains ! German Wermacht hasn't advanced that far, they haven't even surrounded Moscow. Take a look at a map. You have clearly confused fundamental geographic and political terms. Please understand, the Soviet Union was not Russia. Hitler certainly made his objectives clear, he wanted Ukraine's agriculture and iron ore, Black Sea ports and access to Caspian oil deposits. Second, your definitive statement that "Russia would have never occupied Europe" conflicts with Lenin-Stalin's stated objectives of building a "socialist paradise" by spreading communism right accross Europe. It conflicts with Stalin's army role in the Spanish civil war, with the task of establishing communist "fifth columns" in most European states to undermine governments, it contradicts Soviet media propaganda directed at Europe from the very day Lenin and Stalin managed to take over the Kremlin. I grant your point that maybe, just maybe "Russia" alone would have never occupied Europe, but Stalin and his Russian imperial advisors were smart enough to know that they had to find ideological partners-in-crime among other nations, including the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the Italians, the French, everybody. They did manage to find some fools everywhere. The major differece was that Hitler's Third Reich concept was based on the Germans being the master race, while the Lenin-Stalin's concept was designed for a broad universal appeal, - "proletariat of all countries unite" ! That's how you can fool millions of the "working class" fools ! My final note: to be succesful, Putin needs to invent some sort of universal appeal, his present idea of simply re-creating a Stalinist's Russian empire is unworkable. Recommend (9)
Report
Ivan Khokhotva
Permalink
Sep 4th 2009, 19:18
Guys, don't you find it a bid strange that one of the most recent messages on this board, the one by a "Swiss lawyer" spewing out all the revisionist cliches I hear regularly on Russian television and slagging off the Balts (another favourite Russian pastime) has already garnered a staggering 48 "recommended" points, making it the reader's most recommended post? Do try a bit less hard, comrades, it is becoming quite ridiculous. Haven't you got your own web sites in Russia on which to polish these tricks first? Recommend (9)
Report
Permalink
aleksandrsergeyevichgriboyedov
Sep 4th 2009, 09:17
Part I On Tuesday, the whole world will remember how 70 years ago, Adolf Hitler — nine days after signing the MolotovRibbentrop nonaggression pact with Josef Stalin — invaded Poland and started World War II. Seventeen days after Hitler invaded western Poland, the Red Army invaded eastern Poland. Sept. 1 is also the first day of classes in Russia. Hundreds of thousands of last-year high school students will be given a new textbook recently approved by the Education and Science Ministry that contains a highly distorted version of 20thcentury history. On Friday, Kremlin chief of staff Sergei Naryshkin chaired the first session of the presidential commission “for counteracting attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia’s interests.” He made it clear that the commission’s first task would be to “correct textbooks.” The Education and Science Ministry started this process by approving “The History of Russia from 1945 to 2008 for 11th Graders” by Anatoly Danilov, Alexander Utkin and Alexander Filippov for use in high schools. (In the true Orwellian tradition, the publisher’s name is Prosveshcheniye, or Enlightenment.) The ministry approved about 50 different textbooks, but it is safe to assume that the Danilov book, with a circulation of 510,000 copies, will be read by the overwhelming majority of the country’s 11th graders. This textbook tries to justify Stalin’s crimes during World War II, including his signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Finland in November 1939 and its annexation of the Baltic states, eastern Poland and parts of Romania. It is clear that the Russian state has again placed imperial greatness as the most important value for the country, and it is ready to spend any amount of money and use any means to attain it. Just like during the Soviet period, repression, authoritarianism, militarism and the creation of spheres of influence and satellite states are justifiable prices to pay for building a great nation. After reading the forward to the textbook, you are left with the impression that Russia’s enemies are engaged in an “ideological war” against Russia by falsely labeling Russia a totalitarian country in an attempt to defame and delegitimize Russia’s great Soviet heritage. Moreover, by claiming that Hitler and Stalin adhered to different ideologies, they try to reject the notion that Stalinism and Nazism had the same criminal, totalitarian foundations. This allows the authors to “normalize” the Soviet regime and to claim, for example, that “the Soviet Union was not a democracy, but in terms of social policy and programs, it was the best model of a fair and just society for millions of people around the world.” The strong admiration for the Soviet regime is the golden thread running throughout the textbook and serves as the basis for all of the authors’ claims regarding the exaggerated and fabricated “achievements” of the Soviet Union and for their decision to gloss over the crimes and tragic mistakes committed by the Soviet state. For example, in the chapter on Leonid Brezhnev’s and Yury Andropov’s rule, no mention is made of the state’s repression of political dissidents, the practice of sending undesirables to psychiatric wards or to political camps. Not surprisingly, however, the authors write in detail about how the Soviet Union made “dramatic achievements in developing the country’s fuel and energy industries and mining the natural wealth of Siberia.” It is natural for the textbook’s authors to justify and glorify the Soviet regime because they define Russia’s main strategic goals as becoming a “great country” with a “strong government.” Achieving a high per capita income for its citizens by creating a large middle class, developing culture, science, technology and the arts or creating a civil society with basic checks and balances and human rights guarantees appear to be secondary. Here is one example from the textbook: “The Soviet Union could only achieve its role as an authoritative superpower in international politics with its own blood by relying on its ground forces, which became the most powerful in the world, and thanks to the presence of Soviet troops in countries that were freed after the war.” This argument is used to justify the Kremlin’s installation of pro-Soviet puppet regimes in Eastern European countries after World War II. What’s more, the authors claim that these regimes had the overall support of the people, who were striving for socialist reforms. The authors’ delight over the partitioning of the world during the Cold War is so great that they couldn’t restrain themselves: “Stalin’s Empire and the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence encompassed a territory greater than all past European and Asian powers, even surpassing the empire of Genghis Khan.” In addition, it comes as no surprise that blame for unleashing the Cold War is placed squarely and exclusively on the United States. End Part I Recommend (9)
Cynic_
Report
Permalink
Sep 6th 2009, 22:26
Re nowadays Latvia. A good way to see whether there is (not) discrimination against minorities is to compare demografics for the core group (in case of Latvia -- ethnic Latvians, of course) and minorities in question. Let's get down to the figures. Official data of Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia show that 1. during the period of 2000-2009, resident population shrinked for ethnic Latvians - 2.23 per cent etnic Russians - 10.62 per cent ethnic Belarusians - 15.74 per cent ehtnic Ukrainians - 11.72 per cent ethnis Poles - 10.63 per cent ethnic Jews - 4.53 per cent 2. Reduction in numbers among Russians, Belarusians, Ukranians, Poles and Jews account for some 104 thousand people. According to data from the same source, the overall net outmigration among ALL ethnic groups was 20.6 thousand people in 2000-2008. That means that outmigration alone can not explain such huge a discrepancy among shinkage speed of ethnic groups. 3. The next find is the birth-to-death ratio, easily calculated from raw figures kindly provided by the Statistics Bureau. In 1990 (the last full pre-independence year), this ratio (that shows how quickly the group expands, if the ratio above 1.00 or, vice versa, dies out, if the ratio is less than 1.00) was 1.08 for ethnic Latvians 1.09 for ethnic Russians 1.18 for ethic Belarusians 1.91 for ethnic Ukrainians 0.74 for ethnic Poles 0.25 for ethnic Jews In 2008, after 16+ years of certain state policies it was 0.94 for ethnic Latvians 0.61 for ethnic Russians 0.34 for ethic Belarusians 0.57 for ethnic Ukrainians 0.49 for ethnic Poles 0.27 for ethnic Jews Actually, that means, for example, that ethnic Ukrainians in Latvia had almost four births per every death back in 1990 and almost four deaths per every birth 18 years later. At the same time corresponding ratios for ethnic Latvians went almost unchanged: roughly one birth per every death both in 1990 and in 2008. [b]Usually species die more and breed less when they are in hostile environment.[/b] I warmly invite everyone to check for themselves at www.csb.gov.lv/csp/content/?lng=en&cat=355. The raw data could be found at "Inhabitants and Social Processes. Population - annual data" and the Excel will easily do the rest. Recommend (8)
Number 16
Report
Permalink
Sep 5th 2009, 13:52
anglocalabro - appreciated! Recommend (8)
sardinius
Report
Permalink
Sep 5th 2009, 12:45
This time I support kuzmich vision. I remain very critical of russian legacy and relenteless denial, but I have come to terms with this (perhaps) cultural attitude of russians. One thing for sure, many eastern countries signed separate bilateral agreements with the Germans (but with the russians too) and, some countries, notably one baltic state, bears more liability than others in terms of collaboration with the russian invader. One of the most ferocious ss battalion was named after one of the baltic states. Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention on a disturbing and blatant unjustice. The famous British Act with which the Nurimberg Tribunal tried the Nazi criminals, didn't have any similar process addressing the russian crimes. I do believe this is what allowed the ensuing russian government to keep deporting and torturing well after the end of the conflict. Siberian lagers lasted much longer than German ones and served for the most disparate issues: opposing writers, reluctant scientists, uncollaborative students and so on. Very often disguised as mental care institutions, those lagers provided even human material for scientific experiments and research. Those institutions where not shutted long time ago and, still now, lots of people whose opinions diverge from the regime, get killed, beaten up, poisoned or deported ed imprisoned in secret locations. Recommend (8)
mxc500
Report
Permalink
Sep 3rd 2009, 19:18
Dear a5-- thank you for your comments. You must not think very highly of Russian people if you say "people don't get a chance to form their own views, because they don't get all the information required for that." In this time and age, all possible information is out there for anyone wishing to learn. The fact that some people in Russia choose to blindly accept the government's view on things, so let them be. They are free to do so, airnt they? Recommend (8)
Yuri
Report
Permalink
Sep 15th 2009, 11:12
_Stas Vartikyan You write that stealing from a thief is not stealing. I wonder what your authority is on this one (i.e., writings of an acient jurists, modern day doctrine or dogma. Supreme or International Court decision etc.) Recommend (7)
Cynic_
Report
Permalink
Sep 8th 2009, 12:57
Number 16, First, under the Latvian law citizenship does not entitle a person to ethnicity. A person may regard itself to be ethnic Latvian but authorities won't. It takes an ethnic Latvian (grand)parent to be recognized as ethnic Latvian. Period. So your argument on "self-re-determination" does not stand. Second. Official statistics ignores temporary outmigration - it deals only with registered residents, births and deaths. If a person leaves for the Strawberry Fields of Ireland :-) and dies or gives birth there, all three facts are equally missed by official registrars back at home. Both Eire and UK were top two destinations for outmigrants because of simplicity of registration there and both Irish and British statistics is fairy reliable. These two account for some 70,000 valid registrations by people from Latvia (of all ethnic groups) combined, and that figure does not even remotely match the population shrinkage (even disregarding the fact that some of _gastarbeiters_ returned home). So, "outmigration" argument does not stands either. Thirdly, I am not hinting towards anything. What I _AM_ saying, is that minorites are abysmally underrepresented in public sector (the largest employer of the land). Average salary in the state sector is ~808 EUR (and growing despite crisis), while in private sector, where overwhelming percentage of non-ethnic Latvians are employed, it is ~675 EUR (Q2-2009, pre-tax). Besides, job in the public sector means much more than just money - it means better health insurance & labor conditions, paid sick & maternity leaves, & lots of other nice perks. Judging by the fact that minorities are still gossly underrepresented in higher education (among both professors and students), I see no reasons to believe that situation will change any time soon. To put it bluntly, I believe that minorities on average are worse off than ethnic Latvians. Lower incomes (leading to worse living conditions) and worse access to healthcare (leading to sickness earlier) and poorer social benefits (instilling the feeling of instability) are responsible for higher death rates and lower birth rates. Who and why created this environment after the independence, is another question. PS. Just a couple of quotes: "After 1991, out of all ethnic groups, ethnic Latvians have the highest employment rate in organisations that are funded [directly] by the state budget. 35% of ethnic Latvians and 21% of ethnic Russians work in these organisations..." "In 2002, 10 ministries ... were reviewed over the course of study. 92% ... of employees are Latvian according to their ethnic origin, and 8% are minorities". This work (published by now former but back then future Foreign Minister) deserve some attention: http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/f5f85302cc28ab85c1256e9f00426fd0/$FILE/Pabriks.pdf. Recommend (7)
peterwolf
Report
Permalink
Sep 7th 2009, 21:55
Putin condem Stalin? It will never happen. For that to happen would require Putin and all the other dictators in the Kremlin to admit that the Soviet Union no longer exists. But it does still exist as evidenced by its behavior internally and externally. What has really changed? A different color flag flying over Moscow? What else? A man from another planet looking at Russia today and comparing it with Russia 30 years ago would see no signifcant difference. Recommend (7)
McJakome
Report
Permalink
Sep 7th 2009, 16:49
Stefanek wrote, "Of course Jews suffered in all Nazi-occupied countries, but only in the Baltics did the local populations butcher their own Jewish neighbours." You are neglecting Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Poland, aren't you? Pogroms were conducted in Russia from Tsarist times through Stalin's era, but they weren't German or Nazi. One of my great-grandfathers left Prussia during Bismark's Kulturkampf, and may have been Jewish though his passport said Lutheran. The Jews have been persecuted for being Jews in many places throughout history, and focusing only on Nazi Germany is historical distortion and ill serves coming to terms with one of human nature's darkest sides. Indeed, only focusing on Jewish suffering is a distortion and distraction. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, racism, whatever it is called, and whoever the victims or culprits, is evil and must be exposed and opposed. Recommend (7)
kuzmich
Report
Permalink
Sep 5th 2009, 05:51
Didomyk, Eventually you recognized that European border stretches down to the Urals. Before you had stated Europe ends up with Ukraine and Ukraine was the edge of Europe. Okay next time I’ll measure every inch to where the Germans moved and give you a detailed report. I think you’re the only one here who is brainwashed by DIDO propaganda that manipulates your mind. Everything positive said about Russia you immediately deny and you’re not very inventive and use same old clichés like Stalin, KGB and the like. Using the terms like Russia and the USSR practically means the same and you yourself made several times those “factual errors”. You like to pinpoint in most of your posts that Russia inherited and took responsibilities of the USSR. So don’t be that nitpicker since we’re not having a linguistic debate. I believe everyone should be very objective including you my friend regarding the events of the 30s and WWII. Most often objectivity and true facts desert you Professor. It’s your wishful thinking when you state, ”...his (Putin’s) present idea of simply re-creating a Stalinist's Russian empire is unworkable.” Nobody in Russia even the present day communists think it’s possible to restore Stalin’s regime. Where do you get these ideas from, I wonder. Don’t confuse the posters here with your blunt statements sounding like an old good communist party secretary brainwashing the mob. I tend to agree here with such posters as Misi bacsi, Stefanek and Cynik particular who had a great personal experience living in the Baltic states. Didomyk, you can easily go thru a list of countries which had signed secret separative agreements with Hitler Germany (including Poland and Baltic states) long before Russia signed Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Everyone then had thir own minor deals. No need to beat about the bushes here over and over again. Your package of accusations is well-known. Those travel from one article to another. Recommend (7)
goodog
Report
Permalink
Sep 4th 2009, 21:18
"It also tacitly justifies the loss of freedom at home as a price worth paying to defeat imaginary external enemies." Unheard of! For an article to start off saying "EVERY country highlights the good bits in its history and ignores the bad," it's a painful rhetorical knot not to go ahead and confront the fabricated evidence, falsified intelligence, and fear-mongering about totally BOGUS WMD... those mythological weapons of mass-destruction for which no one who sold them has paid even a political price. When will the Economist demand a) the truth, and b) accountability? Recommend (7)
Report
Permalink
« first ‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 next › last » Contact us
Help
About us
Advertise with us
Staff Books
Careers
Site index
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2018. All rights reserved.
Modern Slavery Statement
Our cookie policy has changed. Review our cookies policy for more details and to change your cookie preference. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accessibility
Privacy policy
Cookies info
Terms of use