Stalin, Medvedev, Big Brother, and Rewriting History

“From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of double think- greetings!”

-George OrwellGeorge Orwell, 1984

Many of Russia’s cultural projects since Gorbachev have been devoted toward presenting a new face to the diplomatic community, and to the world as a whole. Following the incalculable suffering of its people from both World War I, World War II, and Stalin’s appalling disregard for anything but the strength of his power base, it seems paramount that Russia emerge as a new role model in the global community, to show the world that the ‘Russian spirit’ of which its people are so proud is still alive and well, and able to overcome its rather bleak post-1917 past. But there are fine distinctions between patriotism, nationalism, and the path towards totalitarianism that the latter opens; and the recent decision by President Medvedev to essentially rewrite history should constitute a significant blow to Russia’s prestige. The path to cultural progress does not lie in monopolizing whatever version of history seems most agreeable: it lies in acknowledging both the savory and unsavory elements of the past and working to make sure the latter do not reoccur in the future. Medvedev needs to become aware of this, for the sake of both government and country, or else risk the possibility of gradually sliding back toward the old Soviet ways.

Medvedev’s project boils down to the following: a commission is being created to counter what he regards as a “falsification of history”, a falsification aimed at slandering Russia for the sake of a political agenda. What specific agenda this might be, and who is behind it is a constant mystery: the point is that the stance of the President, and presumably of the Kremlin in general, is that the global community has long held a prejudice against Russia and its people on the basis of overblown or downright false accounts of history. As of now, the aim of the commission seems to be focused on the events during and surrounding World War II: war crimes committed by Soviet troops, Stalin’s purges, and the long-disputed question of the true nature of the opposition between the USSR and the Third Reich. In addition to this, legislation is currently under consideration to criminalize any form of impinging on “historical memory”; in other words, criminalizing any deviation from accepting one, and only one account of history.

The question that first arises here is whether the global community is indeed slandering Russia’s history. Undoubtedly there exists a great amount of resentment and antipathy toward the atrocities committed by the Red Army and under Stalin (and to a lesser extent, Lenin), but one has to consider whether such resentment is unfounded or not, and whether Medvedev is simply jumping to the conclusion that any criticism of his country is essentially unjust. The best analogy that can be drawn here is the similar resentment toward the events occurring in Hitler’s Germany and by its troops: there are few events in recent history that conjure up more indignation from historians, politicians, and any historically aware citizen than the crimes committed in Malmedy, Auschwitz, Dachau, and so many others. Yet this is not seen by the German people as slander: it is a justified opposition to a period of horrifying crimes, and has been acknowledged as such for the sake of Germany restoring itself to something greater. In this sense there is not much of a difference with Stalin-era Russia: the crimes committed under his rule are undeniable, and approach the realm of historical fact as much as anything else. The issue, then, is how Russia should react to this.

And how have they? Ironically, by starting a regression back into a state of affairs warned against by Orwell in 1984. Granted, there is no singular account of history and it is presumable that some historians actually do regard some Soviet war crimes as purely fabricated. But there are certain historical accounts that are generally agreed upon, and this shared space of discourse is what is accepted as fact. It is basically undeniable that the Holocaust occurred; when Ahmadinejad and Bishop Williamson denied this, they not only made fools of themselves but also insulted all the victims of such an atrocity. Likewise for those who would deny the Vatican’s involvement with Mussolini and Hitler, and this extends equally to the actions of the Soviet Union. It is a historical FACT that the Red Army was indispensable in toppling Nazi Germany, but equally factual that they came as conquerors more than liberators. It is a historical FACT that tens of millions of people died as a result of Stalin’s tyrannical auto-theocracy. It is a historical FACT that Lenin, Stalin, and Dzerzhinsky orchestrated the Red Terror. And it is a historical FACT that historical records were falsified to a disturbing extent by the Soviet Union, such as Stalin’s treatment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the ironically titled Falsifiers of History. These facts are as close to undeniable as any historical fact can be. No ethical individual can deny them without sacrificing his or her integrity.

Yet that is exactly what Medvedev’s project is aimed at. This is nothing more than a case of overblown nationalism reminiscent of the Soviet era, aimed at denying or suppressing historical records in favor of whatever records are selectively held to be authoritative by the government. One might have hoped that the practice of falsifying history and suppressing dissent was in decline, yet this legislation is a harsh reality check; indeed, it shows the strangely prophetic power that Orwell wielded in writing 1984. The situation gives credence to the concept of thoughtcrime, to Medvedev’s willingness to cater to deluded nationalism on the principle of “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”, and to the denial of the right to say that two plus two equals four. If Russia does indeed desire to help its cause of presenting a bold new face to the global community, of showing that a Russian should be proud to be a Russian, the solution does not entail turning a blind eye to the unflattering elements of the nation’s history; such an action, such blatant lying only insults both others’ and one’s own character. The solution is the precise opposite: to acknowledge such events unequivocally so as to show the world that they are in the past, and in the past they shall remain.

It is the duty of the international community to condemn this sinister little piece of legislation and encourage Russia to exemplify the spirit of the great nation that it is. It is all of our duties to do so, and to keep a watchful eye for when whiffs of totalitarianism such as this attempt to sneak past us. If the dictum quoted at the top of the article is indeed the future of the Russian community under Medvedev, then I confess that it seems a bleak one. Yet if the future is not that, but rather espoused by the dictum that directly precedes it, then perhaps there is room still for optimism.

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone … greetings!”

Cited: Orwell, George. 1984. 1949. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.