Drapery of Lenin's Mausoleum - Idiocy and Schizophrenia

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Doctor of Historical Sciences Yuri Nikolaevich Zhukov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a member of the Dissertation Council of the IRI RAS, a full member of the Russian Geographical Society. His main areas of research are the history of the Soviet state and political history.

Zhukov is the author of 19 books, of which 8 are scientific monographs devoted to the study of the Stalin era, as well as the formation and activities of Soviet bodies for the protection of historical and cultural monuments.

On the eve of the 150th anniversary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, Dr. Zhukov agreed to give an interview IA Krasnaya Vesna.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: Tell me, does the figure of Lenin have any meaning for you personally?

Yu. N. Zhukov:You see, I am a historian. Therefore, for me the past matters everything, but not like it does for all other people. And so I know for sure: Lenin created such a party that changed our country in a radical way, directly and indirectly influenced the whole world, because capitalism understood that if it does not begin to reform itself, everything will end in revolutions.

And, not wishing to perish, capitalism had to adapt to the situation, had to make huge concessions to the working class, the peasantry. And in this in everything, there is a merit of Lenin.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: How do you feel about the draping of Lenin's mausoleum on May 9?

Yu. Zh.: Negative. This is the behavior of an ostrich, which, in case of danger, buries its head in the ground: "I don't see, so there is nothing around." Idiocy, schizophrenia, bullshit.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: At our first meeting, you indignantly touched upon such an aspect that the troops on May 9 are marching under the "Vlasov flag". Can you elaborate on your thesis?

Yu. Zh.: I can. The fact is that our revolution lasted the entire 17th year. March to early November. Already around the summer of 1917, under the provisional government, the tsarist flag was abolished: white-blue-red, the flag of autocracy. At the same time, they ennobled the two-headed eagle borrowed from the Habsburgs, took off three crowns, took the scepter and orb out of their paws. And in the end, the red flag became our national flag. Under this flag, under the red banners, we fought in the Great Patriotic War, won and hoisted this very red flag over the Reichstag as a symbol of victory.

The tricolor, white-blue-red flag was used by traitors to the motherland, the Vlasovites. This was their flag. Under it they fought against us. And therefore, when today, on May 9, our troops march across Red Square carrying these tricolor flags, which on May 9, 1945 were Vlasov's, flags of traitors, traitors to the motherland, our enemies, I feel unwell.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: You also said that we should celebrate September 1 as the day of the republic.

Yu. Zh.: Certainly!

IA Krasnaya VesnaCan you explain?

Yu. Zh.: I can. The fact is that on September 1, 1917, Russia was proclaimed a republic.

There are only two forms of state existence in the world - monarchy and republic. We proclaimed ourselves a republic and were never ashamed of this word and said, "Soviet republic". Soviet REPUBLIC. Now, according to the Constitution, we are neither fish nor meat, a kind of amorphous Russian Federation. What is this, a monarchy, a republic? Not said.

And I think we need to be proud that we are Republicans. Antimonarchists. And instead of a fantastic holiday in the summer, some kind of state unity, incomprehensible, celebrate September 1 - as the day of the republic. This would really be a reminder to every person that in our country it is not a monarchy, no matter what it hides under, but a republic. That is, the power of the people. Respublica.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: Please comment on the statement of Vladimir Putin about the "atomic bomb" that Lenin, according to the president, "planted under Russia", about "communism as a beautiful but harmful fairy tale" and similar statements.

Yu. Zh.: I, at one time, in the book "The First Defeat of Stalin", wrote a little differently. A demand on behalf of Lenin (Lenin did not say this, this was conveyed by Kamenev at a meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee), Lenin allegedly demanded that the USSR be formed from union republics that have the right to withdraw at any time. That's what I meant.

Moreover, I disclosed that this article in the Constitution was not supported by any norms. Like this? And if, say, some republic demands an exit? How should this proceed, how should it be formalized? This was a blank spot in our legislation. And so it went off like a time bomb under the Soviet Union.

As soon as the CPSU (formerly the RKPb, VKPb), the party that tied the entire territory of the country together and controlled its life, and directed its life, was destroyed, the Soviet Union collapsed. That's all. Therefore, you need to know exactly and understand who said what, how and why.

In other words, I will repeat. The words allegedly spoken by Lenin and conveyed by Kamenev at the plenum played a fatal role, Stalin's idea of creating a unitary Soviet state was rejected, and the Soviet Union was formed from four union republics. Why did this happen? This is very easy to understand.

At that moment in our country, in Moscow, in the Kremlin, they were expecting a revolution in Germany and its victory. And it goes without saying that Soviet Germany and Soviet Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Transcaucasia should, according to the logic of things, immediately unite into a single country.

But it's funny if developed Germany, the second in industrial level in the world, with a powerful proletariat surpassing ours, joins Russia as an autonomy. Stupidity. Therefore, in order for the victorious Germany to unite with us on an equal footing, they came up with this form - the Soviet Union.

But there was no revolution in Germany. And after that it would be necessary to back up. To achieve a return to the practically true, Stalin's demand, about the unitarity of our country. One country, one language, one citizenship and so on, and not a mythical division into the RSFSR, Belarus, Ukraine, Transcaucasia.

Unfortunately, no one canceled this constitutional provision on the possibility of withdrawal. Although all the lawyers who dealt with the problems of the Constitution knew this, understood, talked about the seriousness, the danger of this, but only in their own circle.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: That is, we can say that Putin's words are correct?

Yu. Zh.: In what sense? If he repeated me, meaning that we are talking about the formation of the USSR, then yes.

IA Krasnaya Vesna: How do you think Stalin continued Lenin's work or led the country in a different way?

Yu. Zh.: Of course, he continued. Why? I'll explain now:

Lenin contrasted the tactics and strategy of the Bolsheviks with the tactics and strategies of social democracy. And in this he was right.

It was thanks to the radicalism of our Bolshevik Party that we had a revolution in October, which consolidated a completely new system. Without the Party this would have been impossible, without Lenin it would have been impossible.

But, as always, there was a natural overlap. We assumed that the revolutionary proletariat of Europe would support us. He did not support us. This means that it was necessary to somehow change the further path of the country's development; adapt to new conditions.

By this time, Lenin at first fell seriously ill, then died, and could not say anything about this. But Stalin correctly assessed: since Europe is not yet ready, we cannot abolish Soviet power and the path to socialism. And he said: "No, we will not cancel, we will turn our country into a developed industrial power."

And he did this in order to replace industrial Germany in a complex, revolutionary process. That's all. And he achieved it. He made the Soviet Union one of the world's two superpowers. And after that, our satellites appear, so to speak, satellites, the countries of people's democracies in Eastern Europe, Mongolia, China, North Korea, and then Vietnam.

But here a new figure was needed, the same figure as Stalin, who continued to change under the influence of the new situation that had developed by the beginning of the 50s.

But Stalin is at first seriously ill, then dies. And Khrushchev, due to his illiteracy (do not forget, he has two classes), he never read either Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin, or anyone. A nugget, so to speak. He came up with the path of development, which, in the end, turned out to be a collapse for us.

Therefore, Stalin is really Lenin's successor, who did not repeat what Lenin said in his time, but, in accordance with the new situation in the world and in the country, moved our country forward and higher.