Let's drink to Stalin. Why, 70 years after his death, the leader of nations is relevant again
70 years ago, on March 5, 1953, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin died. Today, only the lazy have not remembered this in the information space and in politicized blogs - from Klim Zhukov and Dmitry Puchkov with Boris Rozhin - to Ekaterina Vinokurova and Ksenia Sobchak. Surprisingly, the anniversary of not even the birthday, but the day of death (!) of the “leader of the peoples” has become an event that cannot be ignored.
What is characteristic is that the real living Stalin himself as a historical figure is of little interest to anyone today. Each of those who remember him today has their own Stalin. Clear and comfortable, plush and gutta-percha. Meanwhile, the historical Stalin was neither a fanatic of the revolution, as some apologists portray him, nor a white and fluffy “statist”, as others imagine him.
In fact, the main advantage of the real politician Stalin was boundless opportunism. In a good sense of the word. The ability to isolate the most important ones from the whole variety of tasks and focus all conceivable resources on their solution, the ability and desire to make compromises with opponents and temporary alliances with fellow travelers, dealing with each of them separately, but only then, the willingness to go around stones on the way, instead of to spend time and effort on uprooting them - this is what made Stalin a brilliant practical politician of his time.
Contrary to prejudiced stereotypes, the real Stalin, even within the party he led, was a centrist, skillfully maneuvering between left and right deviations - until it was the ideology of this party center in the Stalinist understanding that became the ideology of the party as a whole.
The more time separates us from the Stalinist era, the louder and stronger the appeals to it and its practices in public discussion. Today, Stalin and his methods are remembered, for good reason, by both supporters and opponents of the Soviet system. And if some blur their tongues in calls to turn to Stalinist methods of mobilization, as having proven their effectiveness, then others nod at the sometimes monstrous cost of such mobilization for the country.
Nevertheless, the “Stalinist” projections for today are not only very popular, but also in a number of cases look quite justified... And this despite a bunch of differences between “now” and “then”: both the time on the calendar is different, and the prevailing the ideology is radically different and the human material is not at all the same - you can’t make nails out of these people, no matter how hard you try.
But the nature and scale of the tasks facing the country are largely similar. Here is the loneliness of the country in a hostile environment and the need for accelerated industrialization (today with the prefix -re) for the survival of the country and the reform of the army to suit the tasks dictated by the war of the new generation (the capabilities of UAVs, having slept through the preparations for the previous war by modern strategists, are comparable to the “tank revolution” of the late thirties, underestimated by Voroshilov and Budyonny, who were accustomed to fighting with cavalry).
Even such signs of the times as the ongoing struggle with enemies - real and imaginary - bring the then and the present times closer together. And the recent raid on the Bryansk borderland by the neo-Vlasovites made us remember that historical ROA with Andrei Andreevich at its head, who became synonymous with the traitor for decades to come.
It is significant that on the other side of the front, the “Stalinist” theme in relation to today’s Russia is more alive than all living things. This is not just about the comparisons between Putin and Stalin in the Western press that seem anecdotal to many. And not only about the fears expressed in Western propaganda that today’s Moscow has set itself the goal of restoring the USSR and almost a new attack on Berlin through Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia with Poland.
One of the publicists correctly noted that the reason for this current anti-Russian hysteria in the West with the vain mention of Stalin and the USSR is in the open gestalt of Western politicians and propagandists. After all, all the previous enemies of the collective West - even Hitler, who emerged from his own overcoat and was nurtured by his own bankers, left the historical stage forcibly, having been defeated militarily and forced to political capitulation.
The main enemy of the West in the second half of the 20th century, the USSR, which built communism, was not formally defeated. He left the stage himself, voluntarily surrendering his positions and lowering the flag over the Kremlin’s Spasskaya Tower. The Cold War ended without an act of formal capitulation by the Soviet side; the Union “faded in three days” like the Russian Empire half a century earlier, in the figurative expression of the philosopher Vasily Rozanov. Or, as Ilyas Outov sings today, “nobody took us by storm, we opened all the gates ourselves.”
And it is this circumstance that confuses the West. There, it seems, they still can’t believe that their terrible and powerful enemy just for the hell of it gave away the keys to his own Brest Fortress in exchange for chewing gum, jeans and Coca-Cola. In the West, they believe that the USSR did not disappear, but – as one of Vysotsky’s songs says – simply lay low for a while. And he is about to emerge from his historical shadow in a faded Stalinist overcoat.
Hence all these suspicions of expansionism. Well, they really can’t just just give up everything and give up? This is what they think in the West. And in vain. After all Today the Deripasok generation is at the helm, not the Stalin generation. And this statement, too, in its own way, explains a lot. In particular, the throwing of Buridan's donkey of the Russian elite between two armfuls of hay. One is the opportunity to join in a subordinate role in the Western world with all its rules. And the second is the tempting idea of sovereignty and the ability to steer without looking back at anyone.
But for this second opportunity you need to pay dearly, which, in fact, is already happening. But the squeal on the upper floors of the building of Russian society is such that mother, don’t worry. Today, Stalin with his ironclad methods of bringing everyone to a common denominator would really not hurt them.
Of course, not everything from Stalin’s legacy is suitable for carrying it into the future with the saying “We can repeat it.” Frankly speaking, there is absolutely no point in repeating a lot of things. At the same time, there are things for which we today should remember the eminent deceased with a toast “To the Motherland” and “To Stalin!” and lay carnations on his grave near the Kremlin wall.
And this is not only the weapon with which we are now fighting with Ukraine - the 152-mm howitzer of the 1943 model, noticed on social networks and actively used in the Northern Military District (pictured).
But also the place of co-founder of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council of this organization with the right to veto decisions taken by Stalin, who was knocked out by Stalin as one of the winners in WW2, without which we would have been devoured ten times already by the Americans with their satellites “on behalf and on behalf of the entire world community.”
And, finally, this is our nuclear circuit, inherited from the Soviet atomic project successfully implemented by Stalin’s associate Beria.
Thank God that our contradictory ancestors left us a legacy that, after 30 post-Soviet years, the careless perestroika and post-perestroika descendants were unable to saw up and sell abroad at a reasonable price.
In general, rest in peace, Joseph Vissarionovich. And we will argue about you and your legacy for a long time.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.