Author Topic: No Stalin, no Hitler?  (Read 104386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elisabeth

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #330 on: March 26, 2009, 05:51:02 PM »
Quote
You think utter nonentities like Stavsky, Fadeyev, Surkov, etc
Authors like Fedin, Fadeyev, Markov, etc won several prizes and orders for their outstanding achievements in literature. Their work was highly favored by the critics and was read by millions of people. There is a monument to Konstatin Fedin in his native Saratov. The same cannot be said of mentally unstable outcasts like Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky in their native countries. The Western mass media constructed cults around the likes of Sinyavsky not because of their talent but simply as part of their propaganda warfare against Russia.

Yikes, Zvezda, you really do seem to have a problem with facts. Both of your so-called "mentally unstable outcasts like Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky" won the Nobel Prize for literature, Solzhenitsyn in 1970 and Brodsky in 1987. I suppose you sincerely believe that socialist Sweden (home of the Nobel Prize) was "out to get" the Soviet Union by any means necessary in awarding two great Russian writers (and dissidents) this prestigious prize... Fedin might be famous in Saratov (most Westerners would ask, where the heck is that?) but the names of Brodsky and Solzhenitsyn are famous all around the world, at least amongst the educated.

It seems to me that you have demonstrated a sad lack of knowledge about the state of modern Russian literature. And that you are somewhat surprisingly out of step even with the current Russian government, which outwardly praises the accomplishments of writers like Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky (even if it perhaps inwardly deplores their independence of mind and refusal to adhere to the state's party line).

The way you talk, Zvezda, I would think you belonged to the Stalinist generation, and not of that of the Thaw or even the perestroika period... You seem surprisingly out of sync with just about everybody in the Russian cultural sphere with the possible exception of those representing the Red-Brown coalition. Might I ask, do you like Limonov, by any chance? Or other such writers of the communist-fascist persuasion?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 05:57:30 PM by Elisabeth »

Silja

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #331 on: March 28, 2009, 12:00:29 PM »

Fedin might be famous in Saratov (most Westerners would ask, where the heck is that?)

I've actually been to Saratov, but nobody would draw our attention to such a monument. Apparently, not even Russians consider this writer, of whom I've never heard, worth mentioning.

JStorey

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #332 on: March 30, 2009, 03:13:19 PM »
Yes, let's leave it to Jane Austen and be tolerant of one another's tastes. Most of this is purely subjective in the long run, anyway.

I wasn't going to touch on Gorky only because I found his novel Mother almost as unreadable (and laughable, in a bad way) as Cement or What Is to Be Done?.

Unreadable...  Laughable in a bad way...  Hmm, doesn't sound terribly tolerant to me.  Why such visceral condemnation? 
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 02:59:48 PM by LisaDavidson »

JStorey

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #333 on: April 08, 2009, 02:08:31 PM »

I think what bothers me is to condemn legitimate works so viscerally - as if having no merit whatsoever, just because, I suspect, she doesn't agree with their point of view.    Personally I think writers like Gorky, Chernyshevsky, Gladkov, Sholokhov, etc. should be strongly encouraged to anyone interested in Russian literature, if only because they provide a lesser known and much broader spectrum to a tremendous literary tradition.  A wider range in point of view is vital - I would argue - to our understanding of Russian culture and history.  Certainly, like them or not, none of these novels are "laughable, in a bad way" or "unreadable".  I don't find that sort of criticism to have any constructive value whatsoever.  Are they flawed?  Sure.  But so is "Dead Souls"...

« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 03:17:24 PM by LisaDavidson »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #334 on: April 08, 2009, 03:24:57 PM »
With J Storey's cooperation, I have removed personally unfavorable information from this topic. I trust this meets with the Members' approval.

Elisabeth

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #335 on: April 09, 2009, 09:23:21 AM »
I think what bothers me is to condemn legitimate works so viscerally - as if having no merit whatsoever, just because, I suspect, she doesn't agree with their point of view. Personally I think writers like Gorky, Chernyshevsky, Gladkov, Sholokhov, etc. should be strongly encouraged to anyone interested in Russian literature, if only because they provide a lesser known and much broader spectrum to a tremendous literary tradition.  A wider range in point of view is vital - I would argue - to our understanding of Russian culture and history.  Certainly, like them or not, none of these novels are "laughable, in a bad way" or "unreadable".  I don't find that sort of criticism to have any constructive value whatsoever.  Are they flawed?  Sure.  But so is "Dead Souls"...

Dear J. Storey, obviously I've offended you with my frank comments on certain authors and books, but I fear that you are crediting me with much more influence over members of this forum than is actually warranted. I don't think that my personal opinions about Gladkov's Cement would matter one jot to a person who is determined to read that novel, especially if he or she is at all interested in Soviet prose of the 1920s (and please do note, that I mentioned that Gladkov was a well-known practitioner of Soviet ornamentalism, which is not a criticism, but merely a fact, and BTW, one of great interest to anyone studying the development of literary style in the years immediately following the October Revolution).

I also did say, as I recall, that I regard Gorky as a writer of real talent, and that I do recommend his autobiographical novels. I simply don't happen to like or admire his novel Mother. Unlike his autobiographical novels, I find it soppy, sentimental, and didactic. How on earth can you describe this as a "visceral" reaction?

I also quite like Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don. (Even if it's not by Sholokhov, but by some anonymous Don Cossack writer lost to posterity.) I would, again, highly recommend it.

So excuse me for saying so, J Storey, but you are really not being at all fair to my judgments and opinions. There are plenty of literary works where I don't agree with the author's so-called message but I take real aesthetic pleasure in his/her style and genius. Mayakovsky is a good example. I think he was a superb poet, and even though I condemn his politics, I still enjoy reading his poems, whether or not they're highly political (they usually are).

We just don't agree on what level of literary expertise constitutes a great writer. I don't think Gladkov was anywhere near being a great writer, he was a moderately competent one, the kind who gets his books published every day in the United States by virtue of their sensationalism and immediate relevance to present-day political and social events. (But nowhere did I say one shouldn't attempt to read Gladkov, precisely for this historical immediacy - I only said that I personally found him unreadable.) But I honestly don't believe that one should compare writers like Gladkov and Chernyshevsky in the same breath with writers like Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or even Chekhov. It's the equivalent of comparing Lawrence Durrell with Shakespeare. (And I happen to like Lawrence Durrell, or I did the last time I read him, which was a good twenty years ago!)




« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 09:26:17 AM by Elisabeth »

JStorey

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #336 on: April 09, 2009, 10:36:38 AM »
Elisabeth - Fair enough and well said.  I thought you were a little strong in your condemnation of what I consider some very important contributions to Russian literature, but you have qualified your comments gracefully.  And perhaps I went a little overboard initially in lauding their praises, thus provoking their qualification.

I agree I wouldn't put Gladkov up there with the greats, but I think he is a much better writer than you give him credit for.  And his is probably the only novel that captures so vividly the initial spirit of Soviet life in the early 20's; it is the first book I'd recommend to someone wanting to better understand that perspective.

Chernyshevsky is a tough one because of the obvious flaws in his novel (which, again, he admits himself in the first few pages), but the book is so critically important to understanding modern history I would hate for someone not to experience it because it was reported to be unreadable.  It isn't. 

At least we've given anyone reading this thread (No Hitler, No Stalin - whoops we're a bit off topic) the basic range of opinion regarding these works; I don't think either of us has said anything that hasn't - more or less - been said before.

But Elisabeth, I have gone quite too far in suggesting you might be in favor of book burning - certainly in very poor taste - and for that I most sincerely apologize.

Respectfully,
- JT Storey

Elisabeth

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #337 on: April 09, 2009, 03:07:25 PM »
Dear J Storey,

Thank you for such a gracious apology, but I don't think it was even necessary, because I completely missed any remarks you might have made about book burning. I quite understand how these misunderstandings can occur in the forum - usually, as in this case, they're of no real consequence because both writers were carried away by the intensity of the argument and didn't pause for a moment to consider the fundamentals we have in common. Which is another way of saying, I applaud anyone who reads Gladkov's Cement or Gorky's Mother, because, as you have pointed out repeatedly, they are very revealing and evocative historical documents. Also, we have this in common, dear J., we both believe that Russian literature and indeed even Soviet literature is important. Everybody should read as much of it as possible, and make up their own minds! In a way, Russian literature from the nineteenth century through the twentieth is all of a piece. I know of no other country's literature that is so preoccupied as a whole with moral and ethical questions about the fate of humankind.

But to change the subject somwhat, J., I just came across a very interesting book, which might get us back on track as far as the topic of this thread goes. It's called Lenin's Brain and Other Tales from the Soviet Secret Archives and it's by Paul R. Gregory (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2008). It's all about various "mysteries" from the Soviet era, which have been more or less solved by the opening of formerly secret Soviet archives - such as Soviet scientists' desire to find in Lenin's brain physical proof of his genius, the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, Stalin's tragic relationship with his sons, etc. I'm hoping to get this book from our local university library as soon as possible.

There's another book that interests me very much, by Nicolas Werth, Cannibal Island: Death in a Siberian Gulag (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007). The subject matter is certainly grim but the book has received good scholarly reviews and it seems to provide excellent insights into one very infamous deportation (or "forced migration" of peoples) that took place in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, in this case in May 1933.

There's also Herman Ermolaev's See No Evil: Literary Cover-Ups and Discoveries of the Soviet Camp Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). The title pretty much says what it's about - the Soviet regime's stranglehold on writers, which demanded a whitewashed version of the Gulag in official literature.

Sometimes I literally can't keep track of all the fascinating books that are out there. I'm wondering if anybody here has read any of these books or wants to share with us other books on related topics that they've read and recommend.

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #338 on: April 10, 2009, 01:05:57 PM »
I'm definitely going to check out the Lenin's Brain book.  Sounds like great reading!

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #339 on: April 11, 2009, 10:00:48 PM »
Hitler's rise to power was not about Stalin or Communism. Even without Stalin, even if Russia had remained Tsarist with a Tsar Autocrat on the throne, Hitler would still have risen to power in Germany.

Adolph Hitler's rise to power was really about conditions inside Germany. The treaty that ended World War I was very extremely humiliating to Germany and left Germany with a military so weakened as to be almost a joke. It forced Germany to pay war reparations to most of the World War I Allied powers. Then along came The Great Economic Depression of the 1930's which totally devastated Germany's economy. Humiliated for years, an economy bottoming out, and a population heading toward poverty. Then along comes Hitler promising The German People he would again make Germany proud, and powerful, and prosperous. In The Jews he even had a ready made enemy to rally The German People around.

Yes there was a fear in Germany of Communism and The Soviet Union. But Hitler's rise to power had nothing really to do with Stalin, Communism, or The USSR.

Hitler's rise to power was about a humiliated people facing poverty and a charismatic leader promising to again make them proud, powerful, and prosperous.

This would be my take on the subject.  The German people had a tough go of it after the disastrous Treaty of Versailles.  They wanted to lift their heads and feel proud again.  Hitler was promising that and more.

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #340 on: April 15, 2009, 04:05:31 PM »
But to change the subject somwhat, J., I just came across a very interesting book, which might get us back on track as far as the topic of this thread goes. It's called Lenin's Brain and Other Tales from the Soviet Secret Archives and it's by Paul R. Gregory (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2008). It's all about various "mysteries" from the Soviet era, which have been more or less solved by the opening of formerly secret Soviet archives - such as Soviet scientists' desire to find in Lenin's brain physical proof of his genius, the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, Stalin's tragic relationship with his sons, etc. I'm hoping to get this book from our local university library as soon as possible.

I picked up Lenin's Brain yesterday, Elisabeth, and read most of it by last night.  It's a slender volume but it's packed with tons of information and analysis.  I think you would really like it, even though it's dedicated to Robert Conquest, who, if I am recalling correctly, is not your favorite scholar.   (I think we may have argued in the past about Conquest's claim that the roots of Soviet totalitarianism go back to Russia's distant past as far back as the 15th century)

The overall gist of the book was that basically, a totalitarian regime cannot exist without imposing terror on its population.  And the extent of the terror, and how many people were affected by it is staggering.

Most of the chapters focus on Lenin and Stalin, but extend all the way up through Gorbachev.  For example, one of Stalin's modus operandi was to force his henchmen to fully participate in his blood-curdling schemes to rid the Soviet Union of any and all possible "enemies" of the state.  For instance, in the chapter on the Great Terror, it's explained how the order promulgating the Great Terror of 1938 (in which almost 700,000 innocent people were summarily shot) had to be proposed to the Politburo by Sergei Ezhov, the head of the NKVD.  The order had to be typed up and circulated to each member by currier.  After each member signed, (including Stalin), the proposal was approved and the "plan" carried out.  The planning was meticulous and actually resembled a Five-Year Plan, with orders communicated to each of 65 different regions of the U.S.S.R. with target quotas assigned to each region for the number of those to be shot and the number to be sent to the Gulag.  And just as with a Five-Year Plan, party bosses were expected to exceed their assigned "quotas".  And the actual killings were required to be handled by career oriented military officers rather than random soldiers.  Of course Stalin was behind the whole thing, but he made anyone with a future in the Soviet regime participate with gusto.  And Stalin's plan worked because for decades after his death many of these people he forced to carry out these horrible deeds rose up to be the leaders of the U.S.S.R., all the way through the 1980's.  Even Gorbachev could not bring himself to come entirely clean about the Katyn massacre until the fall of communism.

And btw, the families of those killed in the Great Terror were never told the truth about what happened to their relatives.  Instead they were told the relatives were to be jailed for 10 years with no right of any sort of communication.  So, in the late 1940's, when the families expected to see their loved one's again and nobody showed up (because they were dead the whole time), the government went to the trouble of fabricating phony death certificates for all of these people, showing that they had died in prison of various illnesses. 

I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in modern Russian history.

Offline Terence

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #341 on: April 15, 2009, 06:52:48 PM »
Rich's post reminded me of some interesting reading prompted by someones mention of Figes' book about life under Stalin.  There are 4 interviews translated into English available on the net, http://www.orlandofiges.com/englishMaterials.php  I was fascinated by the Netto interview, stayed up way too late reading it.
These first hand accounts give a real feel for life under Stalin.

T

Zvezda

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #342 on: April 18, 2009, 05:32:09 PM »
Quote
For instance, in the chapter on the Great Terror, it's explained how the order promulgating the Great Terror of 1938 (in which almost 700,000 innocent people were summarily shot) had to be proposed to the Politburo by Sergei Ezhov, the head of the NKVD.

The tragic events of 1937-38 were just an overreaction to very real foreign and domestic threats. About one-third of those given a death sentence were from Polish, German, Finnish, Latvian nationalities that composed about one percent of the country's population. A large proportion of thsoe repressed were also members of the Communist Party, government burreaucrats, and common criminals. When the Russian Government saw how things got out of control, Yezhov and his henchmen were appropriately punished. To call these events "Great Terror" is improper, because repression was carried out by the legal organs of the Russian state; it's not like death squads were not despatched to carry out massacres.

Rich's post reminded me of some interesting reading prompted by someones mention of Figes' book about life under Stalin.  There are 4 interviews translated into English available on the net, http://www.orlandofiges.com/englishMaterials.php  I was fascinated by the Netto interview, stayed up way too late reading it.
These first hand accounts give a real feel for life under Stalin.

Figes' book is rubbish. My grandparents lived in Soviet Armenia from 1946-81, and their lives were not at all like the accounts found in Figes' book. They were regular working-class people who sought and lived normal lives.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 05:37:34 PM by Zvezda »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #343 on: April 19, 2009, 08:37:18 AM »
As moderator for this forum, I am watching where this thread is going.

FA is very strict about any posts that would even have a hint of anti-Semitism.  Please, everyone, post sources if you are going to make any statements that would seems to cross the line in any way.

Personal opinions on this issue are not allowed.  Nor would they be allowed in any cases where posts hint at racisim.

Mariia

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #344 on: April 19, 2009, 09:36:15 AM »
Could the Admin make a rule that would require anyone who posts anything that might be viewed as anti-something also post sources? Because otherwise you're insulting the Jews by suggesting that every other nation can take criticism, except the Jews.