
Russia's sacred myths - techterrier
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37595972
======
navait
An interesting analogy to this is Stalin and the film _Ivan the Terrible_.
Stalin commissioned the film because he admired Tsar Ivan, and thought of
himself in his mold. His version of Ivan was a great man who was surrounded by
corrupt boyars intending to sell out Russia, and only he has the strength to
unite the country against them. Ivan is loved by the common people, but hated
by the sophisticated, "europeanized" nobility, who are traitors.

Stalin loved Part I, but was unhappy with Part II, since it didn't fit his
myth of Ivan. He banned the film and nearly had the director, Sergei
Eisenstein executed.

~~~
DominikR
You might be surprised to find that many Russian emperors who are viewed in a
positive light in the West are viewed negatively in Russia and vice versa to
this day.

It is actually quite logical since Russia and the West often have had
conflicting interests for centuries. What was good for Russia was often bad
for the West and what's good for the West was often bad for Russia.

Current example: Putin. (not an exactly an emperor but certainly in power for
decades) Insane support in Russia from the common people and viciously
vilified by Western elites and media. (for common people though it is mixed
here, they are not in a conflict with Putin)

~~~
triplesec
This is mostly because there is no free press in Russia since Putin ascended
to the throne, and the elections are all fixed.

~~~
kafkaesq
"No free press" is a bit of an overstatement. There is still a comparatively
free press in the RF -- but it's been successfully marginalized. And that's
precisely the approach -- _marginalizing_ dissenting voices, rather than
automatically banning them (in all but extreme cases) which characterizes
Putin's neototalitarian style.

Because you just don't need to ban dissenting voices, when your propaganda is
successful enough.

And BTW, popular support for Putin really is quite genuine. To a point where
he almost doesn't need to fix elections (it just makes him feel a bit "safer")
or manipulate the press. This may not much much sense in the West, but it's
the way things are, nonetheless.

~~~
DominikR
> which characterizes Putin's neototalitarian style

First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he
likes. If he did and people would hate him for that then he wouldn't have the
power to turn a landslide defeat into a victory by fixing something. So there
are real restraints on his power that are directly tied to the support he gets
from the population.

But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a
"neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF,
the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as
I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with
Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. So what exactly is "neo"
about his totalitarian style when it's obviously gotten better?

Russia never was a democracy by Western standards and it is highly unlikely
that it will ever be one.

For me as a Libertarian I'd actually desire to get rid of democracy or at
least restrict government influence so much that democratic elected officials
have next to no influence. That's because I don't want to be robbed by the
majority that always tends to vote for laws in order to steal from those who
are successful so they themselves can be lazy.

~~~
marklgr
> That's because I don't want to be robbed by the majority that always tends
> to vote for laws in order to steal from those who are successful so they
> themselves can be lazy.

Keep you randism for yourself please, it's really annoying to have to suffer
listening to that ideology when it brings almost nothing to the discussion.

~~~
DominikR
Didn't know this is your safe space. You could move to a country where only
one ideology is allowed.

------
grabcocque
Every nation has its own foundational myths. God knows the way Americans
mythologize their founding fathers to so far beyond the bounds of credibility
doesn't bother them.

~~~
georgeecollins
You could get a completely misleading idea of the US in WWII from countless
movies, even one as recent as Pearl Harbor, when people ought to have enough
perspective to know better.

The idea is people who point out a movie like Pearl Harbor is inaccurate
aren't attacked in the US.

~~~
a2tech
The difference is you can't be jailed in the US (or fined) for pointing out
factual errors in the movie.

~~~
DominikR
I very much doubt that this article is 100% accurate on the reason for the
fine. The Russian government doesn't defend Communism and the USSR in any
shape or form.

What triggers them is any suggestion that the Nazis were good and suggesting
the surrender of St Petersburg to the Nazis would have been great definitely
falls into that category for the majority of Russians.

On top of that St Petersburg really has a problem with violent Neo Nazis
groups, or at least had - don't know how it's today.

I'm actually pro freedom of speech to a degree that most people in Europe are
not (I would allow them have their stupid demonstrations) but the truth is
that in most countries some ideologies are forbidden. Nazism is forbidden in
most parts of Europe or how about showing public support for ISIS.

I'm 100% sure it is forbidden everywhere in Europe (maybe with UK being the
only exception).

~~~
kafkaesq
_The Russian government doesn 't defend Communism and the USSR in any shape or
form._

Well, it's not like anyone's trying to get the USSR officially reconstituted.
But there does seem to be a very deep undercurrent of respect about what the
USSR _stood for_ (as a form a "Greater Russia", in effect), independent of the
CPSU's hegemony over it.

As exemplified by, for example, Putin's famous statement about its collapse
being "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". And the
widespread contempt for Gorbachev for having presided over it (or at least for
having caved into under far too generous terms for Russia's geopolitical
adversaries).

~~~
DominikR
I agree, I understand his statement mostly as rejecting the way how the
transition was made and for the chaos that ensued after the collapse. (which
was truly horrific even without the wars)

~~~
kafkaesq
But also in that Russia lost its historic Great Empire position (in
particular, with respect to the Baltics and Ukraine), along with a good chunk
of its superpower status in the world, generally. Which he didn't have to
mention directly, but that's the "chord" that quote seems to strike, in a
broader context.

------
tsukikage
...seriously, BBC? "War flick not historically accurate" is news now? Are we
going to get an article this length for every similar film Hollywood has spat
out?

~~~
kozak
"1984 becoming reality" is actually the news. It's not about the movie as
such. The bottom part of the article tells us about someone who it being
severely fined for stating a well-known historical fact, because according to
the official Russian propaganda, this well-known fact (USSR initiating the WW2
together with Germans) is not considered to be truth in Russia.

~~~
offa
Am Russian, can confirm. I actually had an argument about that with a friend
of mine a few days ago, in his eyes (and many other Russians both home and
abroad) we are the ones who have saved the world while the Allies stood by and
watched. The notion is deeply engrained in the Russian cultural memory now,
and seeing how WW2 is still tremendously important to the majority of the
population I do not see it changing any time soon.

~~~
shuntress
I do believe there is some truth to that. Its too complex to make a serious
judgement that "The Russians could have won on their own". Though it does seem
clear that making an enemy of Russia was a bigger mistake than making an enemy
of the USA.

The losses sustained by Russia during that time are absolutely staggering and
probably contribute to the "Are you guys even helping at all?" line of
thought.

~~~
Koshkin
It is easy to come to blaming others for something that is, to a high degree,
one's own fault. Much of the losses sustained by the Soviets during the war
were due to the pitiless practice of a forced sacrificing of soldiers' lives
in trying to achieve military objectives. All sides were doing that, but
nothing can be compared to the scale on which it was practiced by the Soviet
military command.

~~~
wbl
And the alternative would be to have the line break. The Germans were within
miles of all of of Moscow, besieged Leningrad for months, and we all know
about Stalingrad and the attempt to cross the Volga. Losing would have
unthinkable consequences, and the casualties were also due to German
executions of POWs.

~~~
ptaipale
It was not always just desperately holding the line. There was definitely an
aspect of actually exterminating unwanted elements by sending them to missions
that couldn't be accomplished or which could only be accomplished through
overwhelming losses.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat)

------
strictnein
If you want a deep (and I mean _deeeeeeep_ ) dive into where some of this
comes from - "Eurasianism":

Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism

[https://www.amazon.com/Black-Wind-White-Snow-
Nationalism/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Black-Wind-White-Snow-
Nationalism/dp/0300120702/)

> "According to the Soviet mythology, 28 soldiers from the Red Army's 316th
> Rifle Division, mainly recruits from the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Soviet republics"

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are both part of the Eurasian Steppe which play a
big role in this invented history of Eurasianism

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe)

~~~
guard-of-terra
But it's not Russian nationalism, it's pan-sovietism.

------
antocv
This is such blatant disgusting propaganda.

Russia has myths, Soviet mythology etc, which accidently happened yesterday in
historical terms.

Real western democratic freedom loving surveilling states have history and
fact checking.

------
ommunist
The Labour leader was recently fired off her office and quite literally
ostracyzed for a glimpse of thought expressed orthogonally to mainstream
Holocaust propaganda in the UK. So I guess there are many systems of self-
censorships, political taboos and all this is for public good. It does not
matter what people believe in, if you are maintaining system of these beliefs.
In Russia it is WW2, in the US it is "everyone can become a millionaire", and
so on. It is rather pointless to play anything on the field of managed public
opinion, where the BBC is one of the major players

------
guard-of-terra
...but it's a Soviet myth, not a Russian one. Unfortunately there's not too
much people who feel the difference.

------
thr234234
Post-soviet countries are very sensitive to WW2 history. Similar thing on west
would be to question, how many people died in Holocaust.

> _In January 2014, independent liberal broadcaster Dozhd TV came under
> attack. It was accused of smearing the memory of WW2 veterans by asking
> whether residents of wartime Leningrad could have been saved by surrendering
> the city to Nazi forces._

Zero? Germans were planning genocide to get their _Lebensraum_

> _The public discussion of WW2 history has also been curbed by a
> controversial 2014 law against the rehabilitation of Nazism._

omg

~~~
ptaipale
Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Elsewhere, conquered Soviet
civilians and POWs suffered horribly, but not everyone was killed.

However, a more reasonable question is whether a timely evacuation of
Leningrad would have saved more of the residents. Stalin intentionally left
much of the civilian population in the siege.

And it is indeed a problem if a law "against rehabilitation of nazism" is used
for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.

~~~
open_bear
> Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation.

No it does. German documents clearly say "if they try to flee the city - shoot
them". Hitler had specific plans to destroy it completely after the war.

> but not everyone was killed.

Out of 27 million deaths only 8 millions were combatants. Do the math on
civilians.

> is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad

Leningrad is a major industrial and cultural center, second city in the USSR,
its loss would've dealt a colossal moral blow to the Soviet people. It also
tied a lot of Nazi forces, that could've been used elsewhere (i.e. Stalingrad
battle).

> Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege.

No he didn't. Siege started in September, only 3 months after Nazis attacked.
It is not possible to evacuate 3+ million city in such a short time. 659,000
were evacuated before the siege began, and 30,000 after. Many people didn't
want to leave their homes.

> is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.

No it is not.

~~~
ptaipale
This doesn't look like the start of a useful debate, so I'll just say that
Stalin prioritized military and ideological victory over sparing the civilian
population of Leningrad. Other leaders in other countries made different
choices.

