Teaching Russian History
Could there conceivably be history that is written from a completely unbiased position? Who better to describe events of historical importance than one who has lived through the events in question? And that historical rendition of events depends, does it not, entirely on the opinion of one who represents one side over the other. There has always been, will always be, human perceptions abetted by human allegiance; events transcribed through the eyes of the affected.And isn't there always more than one side to any given story? Perhaps an all-seeing, all-knowing entity looking down from some heavenly seat could bring an unbiased and clear-sighted observation of any given historical occurrence to posterity so that future generations could apprise themselves of events long past and reach an informed conclusion, but as things stand now, history always reflects vested interests.
There are times when an individual involved in historical events presents a clearer more honest vision than at other times. "Kruschev Remembers" is rather enlightening in its way, enabling the reader to view the times from Nikita Kruschev's point of view, made all the more interesting for his generosity of spirit in unveiling the kind of truth that Russia historically chose to shut out for curious and critical eyes.
Under Vladimir Putin, who took charge of a disintegrated Soviet Union after Gorbachav brought the USSR to collapse through perestroika and a wish to join the company of the West, through his unseating by a furious public and Kremlin, through to the clownish yet serious failures of Yeltsin, Russia has left her humiliation and loss of world leadership behind. President Putin enjoys a high popularity among his people for his iron-fisted KGB-style control.
Russians enjoy a strong leadership, they aren't in the habit of questioning truncation of their perceived freedoms; they demand political stability and stable economics. Gentle tyranny, even on a bit of the forceful side, suits them quite well, as long as it goes hand-in-glove with a kind of brute strength abetted by a power-resurgent state that has restored pride in the soul of the average Russian - and a quiescent and well-fed home market. Authoritarian capitalism.
The new Russian history books seek to placate the bruised feelings of the country's population. Nothing succeeds to bring people together so much as to form a common bond against a perceived enemy, and in this case it is the country's former twin in world politics, one of the two then-super powers. The new history books describe the United States as being determined to create a global empire, leaving Russia in the dust of isolation.
That perception actually does reflect history in the way it unfolded, with the disparate parts of the former USSR seeking and finding refuge away from their former bullying overseer, in the bosom of Europe-friendly institutions like NATO and the European Union, both of which happily side-stepped Russian interests, neither of whom, along with the rest of the world, cared very much when Russia teetered on economic collapse.
That kind of deliberate neglect verging on gleeful observation at the miserable collapse of a world-class tyranny isn't soon forgotten by a proud people. President Putin's firm control of the country, now economically resurgent, and through its energy resources holding its former satellites in thrall, along with much of Europe, is much celebrated in the country; his style of governance is termed "Sovereign Democracy". So there, you can have it all.
Yeltsin's drunken giveaway of the country's great natural resources to his unscrupulous friends and the creation of the Oligarchs really did pave the way for what later occurred; the yanking back of state resources, the hounding and imprisonment of the super-rich raiders. Russians like the message: "obey the law, pay your taxes and don't try to put yourselves above the government".
But describing Josef Stalin as "the most successful Soviet leader ever" rather strains credulity. He was, after all, a mass murderer, engineering starvation in the Ukraine, ordering the mass murder of intellectuals, land-owners, the factory wealthy, any of his Communist colleagues who dared to question his edicts... In his memoires, Nikita Kruschev described Stalin for what he represented, a mass murderer, a criminally psychopathic presence extraordinaire.
Charismatic, yes. The father of the USSR, most certainly. One who could sign a war agreement with Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, then turn about and sign a peace pact with Churchill and Roosevelt, who most certainly knew him for what he was, but who also knew his strengths and had no more stomach for war at that juncture. The Cold War overtook the peace.
How history repeats itself. We're in the unfortunate process of another event unveiling itself, slowly but inexorably, a tepidly-on-the-cold-side, small double-you war.
Labels: Political Realities
posted by Pieface @ Monday, July 30, 2007
<< Home