Russia to redouble efforts to honor victims of Stalinism

The government of Russia has announced a sweeping new policy commemorating the victims of past repressions during the era of the Soviet Union.

Not that you’ll hear about in the Western press which will continue to insist Putin sees Stalin as a role model and would like to rehabilitate Stalinism.

The ‘State Policy on Commemorating the Memory of Victims of Political Repression’ was signed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on August 15 and published on the government’s website on August 18. The announcement by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation is here in English and is reproduced below.

The policy was developed by order of President Vladimir Putin, the presidential administration and the Human Rights Council. The HRC requested its formulation in a meeting with the president last October.

The Russian news agency TASS publishes a commentary on the policy on August 19 by Lyudmila Alexandrova.

The writer cites the government document: “Russia cannot become a full-fledged state ruled by law or occupy a leading position in the world community unless it memorializes the millions of its citizens who perished during the years of political repressions.”

Alexandrova continues:

The document sets out the task of laying down the conditions for free access to archival materials and for educational and informative programmes related to repressions and their inclusion in TV and radio schedules as well as in the curricula of secondary schools.

The document envisions a network of museums and memorial sites, creation of an all-Russia Memory Book and identification of mass burials of those purged in the epoch of political repressions.

In addition to it, results of a competition for the best conception of an all-Russia monument to the victims of repressions will be summed up on October 30 when the nation marks the Day of Memory of Political Repression Victims, which will also be erected at the President’s instruction.

Publication of this concept crowns four years of efforts on the part of the Presidential Council for Human Rights and the Kremlin Administration, Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily quotes Sergei Krivenko, a members of the board of the Memorial International Society.

Source: newcoldwar.org

Russia bans Hollywood propaganda film

Russia on Wednesday cancelled the release of a Hollywood thriller set in the Stalin era on grounds it distorts history and would be shown as the country celebrates the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in WWII.

The film, “Child 44”, starring Tom Hardy, Vincent Cassel and Gary Oldman, tells the story of a serial killer who targets children in the Stalin era. It is based on a fantasy novel by British writer Tom Rob Smith and was due to premiere in Russia on Thursday.

Russia’s culture ministry said the film’s distributors in Russia, Central Partnership, had agreed to withdraw a request for a distribution licence after ministry officials viewed the film.

“Films such as ‘Child 44’ should not go out in our country on mass release, earning money from our cinema audiences, not in the year of the 70th anniversary of victory, not ever,” Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky wrote on the ministry’s website.

The move to effectively ban a major mainstream Hollywood film just a day before it was due to premiere was unprecedented.

In recent years, Russia has cracked down harshly on negative depictions of the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, while criticism of those who fought in World War II is frowned upon.

The culture ministry accused the film of “distortion of historical facts and the idiosyncratic treatment of events before, during and after” World War II.

Source: AFP

Berlin Wall: I immigrated to anti-communist South Africa but now…

Watching the excellent CNN coverage yesterday of the 25th anniversary of the breaking down of the Berlin Wall takes me back to 1964 when I was on my way to a new country South Africa from Canada with my South African husband and my son, born in Canada in 1961.

On our way we travelled to Berlin and crossed Checkpoint Charlie to have a look at our first “communist” country. We walked down Unter den Linden street, an avenue of bleakness and despondency. Everything looked grey, even the people. We couldn’t wait to get back to  vibrant West Berlin.

I said to my husband thank Heavens we’re going to a country which has so vehemently rejected Communism. En kyk hoe lyk ons nou!

Our current regime’s cabinet is replete with communists (either overt or still in the closet). True to type, they have purloined the capitalist’s goodies for themselves and left their followers with promises, as did the communists of the greater Soviet Union.

Everybody derided the old National Party for its anti-communism (there’s one under very bed!) but communism in the flesh was no party! Ironically and not surprisingly, none of the so-called communists in our government lived under communism as opposed to living with communists. Most of them were guests of the ruling cliques (who calculated there might be something in it for them in the long run!) but they never suffered as did those hapless souls who for example tried to scale the Berlin Wall and lost their lives in doing so. I wonder how many of our apparatchiks watched the ceremonies yesterday and saw the photos of those who died for a taste of freedom.

These troglodytes of the SACP are a bunch of phonies, driving their BMW’s and pontificating about “the people” while quietly pillaging the country for themselves. And all in the name of democracy, nogal! What a travesty!

– Gaye Derby-Lewis

Queen’s speech on ‘World War Three’ revealed

Queen Elizabeth II and Ronald Reagan
Queen Elizabeth II and Ronald Reagan

British officials drew up a speech for Queen Elizabeth to deliver to the nation in the event of a nuclear war, newly released archives showed on Thursday.

In the speech, the monarch was to urge Britons to remain united and resolute in the face of the “madness of war.” Relations between the Soviet Union and the West had become tense.

Written by government officials, the hypothetical speech was part of a secret exercise designed to prepare Britain for the threat of a possible World War Three, but was never broadcast 30 years ago.

It starts by referring to the queen’s traditional Christmas address to the nation.

“The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth,” she was to have said.

“Now, this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.”

The queen’s speech was imagined to be broadcast in the spring of 1983 against the backdrop of worsening U.S.-Soviet relations, during a year in which then U.S. President Ronald Reagan described the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”.

The queen was to have continued: “I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father’s (King George VI’s) inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 (at the start of the World War Two).

“Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.”

Citing the close bond of family life as the greatest defence against the unknown, the speech also mentioned the queen’s second son Prince Andrew, who was serving in the Royal Navy at the time.

“If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country’s will to survive cannot be broken,” she was to have said.

The papers were released by the National Archives as part of a 30-year rule that sees official records from the Prime Minister’s office and Cabinet Office released to the public. – Reuters

Sales of George Orwell’s ‘1984’ soar on Amazon as America becomes surveillance society

George Orwell
George Orwell

George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” is enjoying a spike in sales in the wake of revelations on surveillance in the United States.

Amazon.com says the book, published in 1945, has gone from No. 13,074 to No. 193 on its selling list, and it is moving higher, The Guardian reported. To put it another way, sales are up 7,000 percent.

In the novel, Orwell imagines a world divided into three large states, all of them exercising near-constant surveillance on their subjects. The government manipulates the news, history and the language.

The novel is set in London, the city where Orwell spent much of his adult life. But his primary target appears to be the Soviet Union, although he was also concerned about trends he saw in the United States and Britain.

It was “1984” that made “Orwellian” a common adjective in English. It is one that has been used a lot since news broke of National Security Agency monitoring of Internet and telephone traffic.

“What does our Constitution mean? What kind of country do we want to be? Kids will grow up knowing that every damn thing that they do is going to be recorded somewhere in a file, and I think that will have a very Orwellian and inhibiting impact on our lives,” U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt., said in a recent interview.

Orwell died in 1950 at the age of 46. But the book remains under copyright in Britain and the United States, so his estate benefits from its new popularity. – UPI

Fifty years after Solzhenitsyn’s prison camp tale

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The Soviet Union 50 years ago allowed publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s landmark account of life in the Stalin prison camps “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, shocking readers by revealing a hitherto hidden horror.

In November 1962, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was looking for a powerful symbol that could help his risky campaign to expunge Stalin’s lasting impact on political and cultural life. He found it in a story by the then unknown author Solzhenitsyn.

The year before, Khrushchev had publicly denounced the late dictator’s crimes and ordered that his body be moved out of the Lenin mausoleum on Red Square. But he wanted to deliver another strong blow to critical conservatives in the Communist Party.

After a long hesitation, Khrushchev approved publication of the text, a story that was a one-day snapshot of a wrongfully-accused man’s life behind prison camp walls somewhere in the wind-swept plains of the vast country.

“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was published on November 18, 1962 in Novy Mir, a prestigious literary monthly. The impact of this story, the first account of prison camps printed in the Soviet Union, was enormous.

“For us, Solzhenitsyn was like a comet that fell from the sky. This story was a huge event,” said literary critic Benedikt Sarnov.

The public fought over the magazine issue, thousands of readers wrote to the author and the editor, wanting to share their own stories, including former prisoners and relatives of people who had been deported or executed.

Solzhenitsyn wrote the story in 1959, drawing from his own experience of eight years in labour camps and prison after police intercepted his letter to a friend which criticised Stalin. He spent a large part of his sentence in the Ekibastuz camp in modern-day Kazakhstan.

“My father died in prison when I was five,” said Arseny Roginsky, a former dissident who now heads the Memorial rights group.

“What struck me in ‘Ivan Denisovich’ was that it talked about things that even my father’s friends talked about, including the ones that spent time in the camps.”

The story quickly rocketed Solzhenitsyn to international fame and was translated into many languages.

Khrushchev succeeded in his plan, and signs of a thaw were seen both domestically and from abroad, signalling a break from the Stalin era.

The thaw, however, was not a lasting one, and Khrushchev began to lean more towards the conservatives in just a few months. He declared the topic of prison camps “dangerous for society”, saying that Stalin’s mistakes should be pointed out along with his successes.

Publication of other prison camp accounts, such as Varlam Shalamov’s “Kolyma Tales” and Eugenia Ginzburg’s autobiography “Journey into the Whirlwind”, did not see the light until the perestroika period.

“If Khrushchev hadn’t attacked Stalin at precisely that moment, my story would have never been published,” Solzhenitsyn, who died in 2008, later wrote.

Khrushchev however could not predict that by enforcing his position against the Stalinists with the help of the story’s young author, he helped Solzhenitsyn to go on and write the Gulag Archipelago, the encyclopaedic narrative about repression under Lenin and Stalin.

“When One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich first appeared, I was inundated with thousands of letters and testimonies,” Solzhenitsyn said in one interview.

“I began correspondence with the most interesting authors. I understood that fate was sending me exactly what I needed: material for writing Archipelago,” he added.

Once Khrushchev was succeeded by Leonid Brezhnev in 1964, things changed drastically for Solzhenitsyn. “One Day” disappeared from libraries. Books were destroyed. In magazines, pages with the story were torn out, and the title and author’s name was blackened out in the table of contents.

Until the end of the Soviet era, the story, along with other works by Solzhenitsyn, could only be circulated via the dissident practice of samizdat, or self-publishing by hand or typewriter.

During the presidency of Boris Yeltsin in post-Soviet Russia, it became part of the official required school reading program, where it remains today. – AFP

Are Mrs. Thatcher’s cuckoos coming home to roost?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher famously stated in the nineteen-eighties that “Anyone who thinks the ANC will form the government of South Africa is living in cloud cuckoo-land.”

For this, she was ridiculed by the British radicals, with Bishop Trevor Huddleston of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the forefront. Since that time, all the anti-apartheid secrets have been revealed, including the active role played by British radicals, especially within the Anglican Church, in undermining what was then still the sovereign government of South Africa.

Whereas the ANC and SACP also enjoyed Soviet and East German support, the financial and organisational muscle for the South African revolution was provided by Sweden and the Anglican Church. Another radical priest, Canon John Collins of St. Paul’s in London, oversaw a vast network of agents who channelled funds in the name of the Defence and Aid Fund into South Africa for political trials and to support the relatives of imprisoned revolutionaries. Under today’s banking laws, money may no longer be laundered in such a fashion.

On the website of the Canon Collins Trust, a document boasts that one hundred million pounds were distributed in support of attempts to overthrow the much-vilified reformist government of PW Botha. Revolution, and not reform, was what everyone had preached back then.

However, as South Africa pursues its dream of an egalitarian society at all costs, there is a certain revolutionary fatigue setting in, even among the most ardent supporters of the ANC. And the second phase of the revolution, or “second transition” as it has been euphemistically called, still lies ahead of us. During that phase, most white farmers will lose their land and large swathes of private industry, including the mines, may be nationalised. Mayhem and ethnic conflict will probably result.

Increasingly, to paraphrase a line from Joyce’s Ulysses, the New South Africa is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake.

Over the past thirteen days, there have been seventeen victims of farm attacks in South Africa. Not all have died, but the death rate is high. Some were horribly tortured. Another ten people were killed at the Lonmin platinum mine at Marikana amid strife between the mine and two competing trade unions.

The American NGO, Genocide Watch, has already classified South Africa as a category 5 (out of a possible 8) genocide risk, with polarisation between groups taking place. On his recent visit to South Africa, Dr. Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch stated that the atrocities committed against Afrikaner farmers “were signs of genocide and that there is enough suspicion that it is being organised”.

Stanton also asserted an intrinsic connection between communist ideology and genocide. In this, he is supported by the post-Maoist philosophers of France, the so-called nouveaux philosophes, who broke with Marxism in the nineteen-seventies and also saw the germ of crimes against humanity in the concepts of Marx and Lenin.

In the minds of the ANC “comrades”, transformation is both necessary and inevitable, echoing classical Marxist-Leninism. Ordinary human lives or cultures will not stand in the way of their grand strategy to effect a radical change in South Africa. In almost every public appearance, ANC leaders use the Marxist cliché “moving forward”, indicating the country’s march towards a millenarian goal.

Afrikaner children at high school listen to the iconoclastic band Fokofpolisiekar, voicing their frustrations with violence, affirmative action and social decay in songs such as “Brand Suid-Afrika”. And certainly the impression that South Africa is burning, sometimes literally, is not amiss. If only the BBC, NBC and other major TV networks overseas had been filming all of this as they did during the seventies and eighties, already there would have been an impression that South Africa was experiencing a crisis.

After almost two decades of ANC rule, it appears that Mrs. Thatcher’s cuckoos are coming home to roost. Like ZANU PF in Zimbabwe, the ANC has not been able to make the transition from a crypto-communist liberation movement waving AK-47s to a political party managing Africa’s only industrial state. In its rhetoric and its thinking, it is stuck in a time warp, sometime before Ché Guevara got shot in Bolivia.

The ANC’s British supporters, as well as Sweden, saw fit to launch the ANC in its successful bid for power in South Africa. In fact, on 27 April 2004, the Swedish ambassador in Pretoria stated on Radiosondergrense, but speaking English, that “without the help of Sweden, the ANC would never have ruled South Africa”.

To many outside South Africa, the ANC still represents the party of Nelson Mandela. To them he personifies the romantic hero, a kind of black Ché Guevara who went to prison to liberate the South African masses. However, to the racial and ethnic minorities who suffer under ANC rule, with its accompanying threats of “kill a Boer, kill a farmer”, the movement is a Frankenstein let loose. The modern ANC was made in Britain, but it has grafted itself onto the South African state, blurring the boundaries between itself and the republic.

Through its culture of tenderpreneurs and high-spending officials, it has arguably become one of the richest political parties in the world, unassailable in the polls. In a vast country where electioneering is prohibitively expensive, oppositon parties face a permanent financial and propaganda disadvantage. The SANDF has been transformed, precisely, into nothing more than an ANC militia, an extension of Umkhonto we Sizwe. So even if the ANC is outvoted in 2019 or 2024 or when Jesus returns, as Zuma has stated, it will probably cling onto power, just like ZANU PF or the Angolan MPLA has done.

Of course, that paragon of human rights and democracy, Robert Mugabe, was also enthusiastically backed by British diplomats at Lancaster House and fêted by Fleet Street as a great African leader. The British penchant for radical chic has found a ready outlet in Southern Africa, to devastating effect.

However, like all radical movements, the ANC will overplay its hand. The question is not if but when. The further issue is how much damage it will do to South Africa and how many more massacres of Afrikaner families will take place before a realignment occurs.