Translated material
Who will cancel Nuremberg?
The new law on liability for public rehabilitation of Nazism is discussed by historian Nikolai Svanidze, lawyer Karina Moskalenko, historian and publicist Boris Sokolov, Soviet -time dissident Pavel Protsenko. The host is Alexander Podrabinek.
Alexander Podrabinek: On April 23 this year, the State Duma finally adopted the law on liability for public rehabilitation of Nazism. Corresponding amendments are proposed to be made to the criminal and administrative codes. The Criminal Code is supplemented by Article 3541 - “Rehabilitation of Nazism”. The article says:
“The denial of the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the Court and the punishment of the main military criminals of the European countries of the axis, the approval of the crimes established by the specified sentence, as well as the spread of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, connected with the accusations of crimes established by the specified sentence, committed by a fine of up to 300 thousand rubles or up to 300 thousand rubles or up to 300 thousand rubles imprisonment for up to three years. ”
Alexander Podrabinek: The same actions, but using the official position or means of information, “as well as with the artificial creation of evidence of the prosecution” is punishable by a fine of up to half a million rubles or imprisonment up to five years. Historian Nikolai Svanidze considers this law terrible.
Nikolai Svanidze: The overall impression is quite terrible, because it is called the "Punishment Law for the Rehabilitation of Nazism." In fact, punishment in it is supposed to be much more significant, for the truth about the actions of the Soviet leadership during the Great Patriotic and Second World War. And not only, since there is another one, as lawyers say, the short story from Mrs. Yarova’s light hand - now you can’t really say something about the ice battle.
Alexander Podrabinek: The name of the new article in the Criminal Code is very ambiguous, since in the language of law “rehabilitation” is a complex of legal measures to cancel unjust decision and restoration of justice. Thus, judging by the name, the new article of the Criminal Code should describe the rehabilitation procedure of Nazism. However, who can cancel the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal? And was this the goal of legislators? Rather, it is just legal illiteracy and the desire to give the legal concept of household shade. Lawyer Karina Moskalenko does not find words to characterize even the name of this law.
Karina Moskalenko: The law that concerns the rehabilitation of Nazism is at least illiterate, this is the law of the stump -lump.
Alexander Podrabinek: She is of low opinion about its content.
Karina Moskalenko: The law makes a very strange impression. If we abstract from the laws adopted recently, which one way or another narrowing the sphere of development of social thought, the breadth of views, the possibilities of some alternative assessments, and ask why such a law is needed? So many years have passed since the Second World War for so many years, fascist Germany has long completed its existence, modern Germany does not support the ideas of Nazism. What are the problems, what is the relevance of such a law and is there relevance?
Alexander Podrabinek: Given that the average salary in the country is about 30 thousand rubles, then the fine stipulated by law looks unbearable for an ordinary Russian citizen. The term of five years is also unlikely to seem small to anyone.
But that's not all. Criminal liability is introduced for "the spread of the explicit disrespect for the society of information about the days of military glory and commemorative dates of Russia related to the protection of the Fatherland, as well as the desecration of symbols of the military glory of Russia, committed publicly." Punishment is also up to five years in prison. Is it possible to punish for disrespect of memorable dates? Lawyer Karina Moskalenko.
Karina Moskalenko: Tell me, what are the dates, where is the specifics in this law?
Alexander Podrabinek: The Code of Administrative Offenses is supplemented by a very similar article about the “public distribution of expressing explicit disrespect for society about the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia related to the protection of the Fatherland, or the public desecration of symbols of military glory of Russia, including the media and information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet”. This is the same “rehabilitation of Nazism”, but in a lightweight version. It is punishable by an administrative fine of 400 thousand rubles to one million. The penalty is large, but without imprisonment. Why do almost the same articles appear immediately in the criminal and administrative codes?
Karina Moskalenko: This is a regular technique. For example, “hooliganism” is also a fairly rubber article, and administratively punishable hooliganism. If law enforcement officers seem that you do not need to handle very hard, you should not be subjected to very serious punishment, then you can limit yourself to administrative. You see, there is also a field for arbitrariness. If someone needs it so that you are very strictly punished, then you can always justify a heavier composition, the composition of a criminal offense, and not an administratively punishable act.
Alexander Podrabinek: One of the co -authors of the bill, the head of the Duma Security Committee, Irina Yarovaya, explained the need for the law as follows:
“... so that no one will ever be able to reject and refute the main and undeniable historical conclusion that during the Great Patriotic War and World War II the USSR defendant, that our people were the liberator people.”
Alexander Podrabinek: Thus, the legislator quite frankly offers to shut up to anyone who dares to question the official interpretation of the role of the USSR in the Second World War. Does this resemble something from the relatively recent past of our country or Germany?
This is what historian Nikolai Svanidze says about this.
Nikolai Svanidze: In fairly tough authoritarian regimes, not to mention totalitarian, history is a very large part of the entire ideological program of the state, and the attitude to history is very special. It is no secret what attention was paid to Stalin's stories. Say, some kind of remark of the historian in relation to, say, Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great was just a deadly sentence, it is like saying something to Stalin himself. This law is a manifestation of how history now begins to be considered - as the advanced front of our ideology, therefore it should be only that and not otherwise. It is possible to the left and right, but it is impossible at the back, and from this side it is also impossible. This is very much, of course, resembles a recent past.
Alexander Podrabinek: All the same deputy Yarovaya appeals to European law: “We propose today to do exactly what other European countries have made, based on the main international legal act: to establish criminal liability for the rehabilitation of Nazism, for the denial of the facts established by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, for the justification of crimes established by the Nuremberg Tribunal.”
Indeed, for example, the §130 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany (“incitement against peoples”) punishes deprivation of liberty for up to five years or a monetary fine of those who, “guided by the ideas of National Socialism, publicly or at the Assembly, dispute or downplay the seriousness of the perfect act specified in § 220a.” This paragraph is about a specific type of crime - genocide.
However, this German law is not pursuing for doubts about the justice of the verdict of the Nyurnberg tribunal and not for the justification of the ideas of National Socialism, but for the propaganda of the genocide, the fact of which was established by the Nuremberg Tribunal. The difference is obvious.
The Germans worry about their past and are insured from repeating errors in the future. We would, if we wanted to go the same way, we had to adopt a law on liability for denying the crimes of communism. But we have no question of national repentance! On the contrary, we emphasize the accuracy of our path, the sinlessness of the Soviet leadership and the production of domestic history. Why, in the end, can this be brought?
Nikolai Svanidze: We are talking about the imperial past, it can be both communist and pre -communist. This is what is perceived as our original traditions. Therefore, there is a fairly idealistic idea of the pre -Petrine history of our country, about Moscow Rus': a certain ideal principality or kingdom, where everyone went in white, where everyone believed in God, where morality and spirituality flourished, where the leg of Western man did not look, that is, before the discovery of America. That's how everything was good before the discovery of America, especially in our country! This is fraught with several consequences. This is fraught primarily by the covers of historical truth, that is, the habit of lying specially and especially the habit of lying to their children, who to lie especially immoral and soullessly and very dangerous in their consequences. Say, if you do not tell the children about secret protocols to the Molotov -Ribbentrop Pact, how in full accordance with these protocols the Soviet Union on September 17, 1939 entered the territory of Eastern Poland, as it was then called, - released. Poles of a different opinion on this. About how the Baltic countries were annexed about the Finnish war - if the children can’t tell all this, the children will not understand where in the current politics, in the current international situation, in international relations the legs are growing. Why are the Baltic states so strange? Why are they reluctant to recall the Soviet Union with such reluctance, unlike us? Why do we have such a difficult relationship with Poland? They will not understand this, they will be offended. But you have to not be offended, you just have to read the book. And in the book all this will not be written, because it is prohibited. And the teachers of history will be afraid to tell the children the truth, because someone will hit, and the teacher will sit or pay such a fine that it would be better to sit down, because he did not have such money, he did not even see them in the eye. This all together creates unbearable conditions for history classes for professional historians, for journalists, for teachers, just for citizens of the country.
Alexander Podrabinek: In what all this will lead to, Karina Moskalenko agrees with Nikolai Svanidze.
Karina Moskalenko: To the intimidation of the population, to ensure that our fellow citizens again become afraid of freedom of expression of opinion, to be afraid of the authorities.
Alexander Podrabinek: The rehabilitation of national socialism is only an occasion for the next legislative campaign. The meaning of the laws adopted not in the confrontation of the long -dead Nazism, but in the phrase "as well as the spread of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War." It seems that it is here the true object of deputy care. The current authoritarian power in Russia cannot allow hula to power in general, even if it is a story of 70 years ago. For who critically comprehends the story, he may also be critical of the present. Moreover, the Kremlin has a lot of workpieces from our past.
We talk about the interweaving of the past and present with the historian and publicist Boris Sokolov. In the new law, the concept of “aiding Nazism” exists. Under this law, people who fall under this definition-“accomplices of Nazism” should be held accountable, that is, those people who somehow in some kind of time or, perhaps, constantly supported Nazism. Does it not turn out that those people or those states that first supported Nazism, and then fought with it, can fall under this law?
Boris Sokolov: I do not really understand what is meant “states that supported Nazism”, then fought with him. The Soviet Union is meant?
Alexander Podrabinek: For example, the Soviet Union had allied relations with Germany for two years, and then opposed it. Also, some European countries have changed their position.
Boris Sokolov: Of course, there were such. The last 8 months of the war, Romania fought as part of the Nazi coalition. But in principle, anyone can fall under this law, it is quite wide for use. If desired, the one who writes on the history of the Second War, on the history related to National Socialism, will fall under it.
Alexander Podrabinek: For example, the story of General Vlasov, who was first the leader of the Volkhov Front and fought with the Germans, and then served under their leadership. How should historians be in the light of this law to respond to General Vlasov?
Boris Sokolov: I don't understand either. If someone positively responds about his hostilities near Kiev or near Moscow, when he was still a Soviet general, whom Stalin was accepted, then, probably, you can also bring such historians to this law if you wish. It all depends solely on the arbitrariness of the law enforcer. This, obviously, will allow you to impose very serious judicial restrictions on any historical knowledge. That is, for example, books where history is not given on the basis of a single history textbook that is going to introduce, can be prohibited because they will fall under the scope of this law. And anything can fall under the action of this law.
Alexander Podrabinek: Boris Vladimirovich, in the Soviet Union there was an article 190 approx. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, similar articles in the Union republics, which provided liability for the distribution of knowingly false fabrications about the Soviet system. Many dissidents were planted on it. For example, Pavel Prudenko’s sentence to three years in prison for the spread of samizdat with historical information. Or the sentence to Joseph Dyadkin is also by three years in prison for the spread of art samizdat on the topic of history. Article 354 approx. Which is now proposed to introduce into the legislation, provides for liability for the distribution of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR. Do you think this accidental coincidence or legislator deliberately reproduces the norm from the Soviet Criminal Code in today's laws?
Boris Sokolov: It seems to me that this is almost a tracing -paper of the Soviet norm, just the terminology is slightly different - fabrications about the USSR, as I understand it, in some versions of the fabrication of the Russian army.
Alexander Podrabinek: That is, this is supported by the tradition of persecution for dissent?
Boris Sokolov: Almost yes. It will be possible to plant, if not everyone, then a lot of historians, and quite well -intentioned and not involved in any dissidents. Obviously, you will have to make the application of the law somehow very selective.
Alexander Podrabinek: So we are often selectively applied in our country.
Boris Sokolov: Yes, for us this is not news. As far as I understand, even the profile committee of the Federation Council rejected the law adopted by the Duma precisely under the pretext that then it would be necessary to hold those historians who, in a positive sense, will quote the special opinion of Soviet judges in the Nuremberg trials.
Alexander Podrabinek: So not only the historian thinks. Lawyer Karina Moskalenko adheres to a similar opinion.
Karina Moskalenko: I think this is a very clear and very visible bridge from the present time to the past. We well remember how these norms were interpreted. We remember how many people went to prison, in a colony for expressing some kind of official position. This is a very dangerous symptom.
Alexander Podrabinek: Perhaps someone will seem unreasonable to someone that they will put him in prison for history that does not coincide with the bosses. However, this was so recently.
Sentence. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Kalinin Regional Court ... I considered in an open court ... September 18, 1980, the case on charges of Dyadkin Joseph Getzelevich. The Judicial Collegium established: Dyadkin repeatedly distributed obviously false fabrications that defeat the Soviet state and social system, which boils down to the fact that the October Revolution and Civil War led to vain victims and collapse of the economy ... The assistance of the USSR is characterized by aggression, and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of the Second World War.
The Judicial Collegium sentenced: to admit the guilty of Dyadkin Joseph Getzelevich under the article 190 Prime of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, to impose a 3 years of imprisonment.
The name of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Киевский городской суд, рассмотрев в открытом судебном заседании в городе Киеве дело по обвинению Проценко Павла Григорьевича, установил: подсудимый Проценко систематически занимался изготовлением и распространением… произведений, содержащих заведомо ложные измышления, порочащие советский государственный и общественный строй… Суд приговорил Проценко Павла Григорьевича признать виновным… и назначить ему наказание в виде лишения свободы в исправительно-трудовой колонии общего режима на 3 года.
Александр Подрабинек: Диссидент советских времен Павел Проценко рассказал, когда и за что его посадили.
Павел Проценко: Меня арестовали 4 июня 1986 года по статье 187 1 прим. УК УССР. Это аналог статьи 190 прим. РСФСР, называется «Распространение заведомо ложных измышлений, порочащих советский и государственный строй». Мне инкриминировали часть материалов, связанных с историей, исторических текстов. Прежде всего это моя работа, посвященная положению религии в УССР, начиная от 1917 года и кончая текущим моментом. Вторая работа, которую они изъяли при аресте, была связана с биографией подпольного епископа Варнава Беляева. Как они указали в обвинительном заключении, там 154 листа, хотя в других текстах указывали, что там 200 листов. То есть это набор черновиков, разных листочков, связанных с биографией подпольного епископа, который был арестован в 1933 году и умер в 1963-м. Формулировка статьи подводилась таким образом, что содержание текстов является клеветой на советский государственный строй. Соответственно, я изготавливал клевету на советский государственный строй и ее публиковал. Причем публиковал в одном экземпляре, ведь черновик - это нечто эфемерное, но это трактовалось так, что это все равно предназначено по некоторым признакам для самого широкого распространения.
Александр Подрабинек: Что понималось следователями КГБ под самым широким распространением, если рукопись была в единственном экземпляре, известно только им самим. Однако в наше время слово, напечатанное в единственном экземпляре и размещенное в интернете, сразу может стать достоянием сотен и тысяч людей. Поэтому усилия законодателей направлены на то, чтобы воспрепятствовать распространению неудобной для властей информации и одновременно предотвратить появление нежелательных сведений, воздействуя на авторов – писателей, журналистов, просто блогеров.
Павел Проценко говорит, что случаев привлечения к ответственности авторов исторических сочинений было немало.
Павел Проценко: Были постоянно подобные случаи, когда людей сажали за распространение исторических текстов. В частности, когда я уже сидел и ожидал своего суда в Киеве, в Москве судили дьякона Владимира Русака за его трехтомную историю Русской православной церкви после установления советской власти. Ему за это дали, правда, по другой статье 8 лет и плюс сколько-то ссылки. There were many such cases.
Александр Подрабинек: Что же представляет собой нынешний закон о противодействию реабилитации нацизма с точки зрения угроз свободе слова? Кому как ни бывшему советскому политзаключенному и судить об этом.
Павел Проценко: Я считаю, что и по формулировкам, которые уже фигурируют в печати, которые предлагают включить в этот закон, и по существу этого закона - это, несомненно, прямая калька с 190 статьи, по которой меня судили, и со статьи 70. Но тут еще есть свидание с более старыми временами. Например, в 1880 году, когда был убит Александр Второй, реформатор, его наследник Александр Третий, император, своими указами ввел закон, который назывался он Закон об исключительном положении. Это даже не закон, а подзаконный акт, указом был введен. Он начал действовать с 1880 года и действовал вплоть до 1917-го. Он означал следующее: когда создается некое исключительное положение, а оно у нас было до 1917 года, то обычные законодательные акты отменяются и все действует в ускоренном порядке. В 1917 году мы перешли полностью на исключительное положение, до 1991 года. В связи с этим положением «тройки», которые выдумал Сталин, тоже были прообразом того ускоренного судопроизводства. Они опирались, в частности, на этот указ императора Александра Третьего, на это законодательство об исключительном положении.
Один из моих героев в 1909 году в юнкерском училище в Москве предложил ученикам написать письмо таким же юнкерам, только в Японии, с целью примирить их после русско-японской войны, и что это будет акт мира. На него стукнули начальнику его училища, генералу. В тот же день вечером состоялся обыск у этого моего героя, ему было вручено постановление, что в 24 часа он обязан вместе со своей семьей отправиться на Кавказ. This is a real story. Я очень надеюсь, что наши власти в Кремле, если они еще хотят быть хоть как-то цивилизованными и говорить о европейских ценностях, лучше бы такие законы не принимали. Госпожа Яровая говорит о том, что слишком стали много ерничать в последнее время по поводу Великой отечественной войны, но это, как ей кажется, ерниченье выльется потом в ерниченье со стороны судебных следователей, карательной системы, которая просто издевается над мыслями людей. Мыслепреступление - что может быть хуже?
Александр Подрабинек: Вернемся ли мы целиком и окончательно в те времена, о которых рассказал Павел Проценко, пока еще не очень понятно, но то, что мы движемся в этом направлении, очевидно. Борис Соколов считает, что новый закон вполне может быть использован как основание для политических репрессий.
Как вы думаете, к чему приведет этот закон в смысле повседневной практики, каково будет правоприменение? Понятно, что оно будет выборочное. Насколько этот закон станет орудием репрессий против общества?
Борис Соколов: Я думаю, что он легко может стать орудием репрессий против издательств. Какие-то книги на историческую тему, которые не будут устраивать власть, будут подвергаться преследованиям по этому закону, эти книги будут запрещаться, их авторы и издательства подвергаться штрафам. Издательства будут остерегаться издавать какие-то книги по истории Второй мировой войны, которые не содержат официальной точки зрения.
Александр Подрабинек: И что будет с историей как с наукой в России?
Борис Соколов: Я не слишком высоко оцениваю и сейчас историю как науку в России. Я думаю, что она просто исчезнет, по крайней мере, в легальных формах, и издавать будут тогда российские историки научные труды на Западе, наверное.
Александр Подрабинек: Конечно, Борис Соколов абсолютно прав, когда утверждает, что вопросы истории не должны решаться с помощью Уголовного кодекса. И это касается как нацизма, так и коммунизма. В этом смысле первая поправка к американской конституции, гарантирующая гражданам свободу слова, остается труднодостижимой мечтой не только для России, но и для многих европейских стран.
Однако в смысле свободы слова и защиты ее законом пропасть между сегодняшней Россией и Западной Европой остается, несравненно, большей, чем между Европой и США. Вот в чем, например, сегодняшние различия между Германией и Россией? Германия, пережив нацистский тоталитаризм, боится его повторения. Россия, пережив коммунистический тоталитаризм, грезит о его возвращении.
Надо ли удивляться, что мрачные воспоминания о прошлом становятся спутниками нашей жизни?
Alexander Podrabinek: On April 23 this year, the State Duma finally adopted the law on liability for public rehabilitation of Nazism. Corresponding amendments are proposed to be made to the criminal and administrative codes. The Criminal Code is supplemented by Article 3541 - “Rehabilitation of Nazism”. The article says:
“The denial of the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the Court and the punishment of the main military criminals of the European countries of the axis, the approval of the crimes established by the specified sentence, as well as the spread of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, connected with the accusations of crimes established by the specified sentence, committed by a fine of up to 300 thousand rubles or up to 300 thousand rubles or up to 300 thousand rubles imprisonment for up to three years. ”
Alexander Podrabinek: The same actions, but using the official position or means of information, “as well as with the artificial creation of evidence of the prosecution” is punishable by a fine of up to half a million rubles or imprisonment up to five years. Historian Nikolai Svanidze considers this law terrible.
Nikolai Svanidze: The overall impression is quite terrible, because it is called the "Punishment Law for the Rehabilitation of Nazism." In fact, punishment in it is supposed to be much more significant, for the truth about the actions of the Soviet leadership during the Great Patriotic and Second World War. And not only, since there is another one, as lawyers say, the short story from Mrs. Yarova’s light hand - now you can’t really say something about the ice battle.
Alexander Podrabinek: The name of the new article in the Criminal Code is very ambiguous, since in the language of law “rehabilitation” is a complex of legal measures to cancel unjust decision and restoration of justice. Thus, judging by the name, the new article of the Criminal Code should describe the rehabilitation procedure of Nazism. However, who can cancel the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal? And was this the goal of legislators? Rather, it is just legal illiteracy and the desire to give the legal concept of household shade. Lawyer Karina Moskalenko does not find words to characterize even the name of this law.
Karina Moskalenko: The law that concerns the rehabilitation of Nazism is at least illiterate, this is the law of the stump -lump.
Alexander Podrabinek: She is of low opinion about its content.
Karina Moskalenko: The law makes a very strange impression. If we abstract from the laws adopted recently, which one way or another narrowing the sphere of development of social thought, the breadth of views, the possibilities of some alternative assessments, and ask why such a law is needed? So many years have passed since the Second World War for so many years, fascist Germany has long completed its existence, modern Germany does not support the ideas of Nazism. What are the problems, what is the relevance of such a law and is there relevance?
Alexander Podrabinek: Given that the average salary in the country is about 30 thousand rubles, then the fine stipulated by law looks unbearable for an ordinary Russian citizen. The term of five years is also unlikely to seem small to anyone.
But that's not all. Criminal liability is introduced for "the spread of the explicit disrespect for the society of information about the days of military glory and commemorative dates of Russia related to the protection of the Fatherland, as well as the desecration of symbols of the military glory of Russia, committed publicly." Punishment is also up to five years in prison. Is it possible to punish for disrespect of memorable dates? Lawyer Karina Moskalenko.
Karina Moskalenko: Tell me, what are the dates, where is the specifics in this law?
Alexander Podrabinek: The Code of Administrative Offenses is supplemented by a very similar article about the “public distribution of expressing explicit disrespect for society about the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia related to the protection of the Fatherland, or the public desecration of symbols of military glory of Russia, including the media and information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet”. This is the same “rehabilitation of Nazism”, but in a lightweight version. It is punishable by an administrative fine of 400 thousand rubles to one million. The penalty is large, but without imprisonment. Why do almost the same articles appear immediately in the criminal and administrative codes?
Karina Moskalenko: This is a regular technique. For example, “hooliganism” is also a fairly rubber article, and administratively punishable hooliganism. If law enforcement officers seem that you do not need to handle very hard, you should not be subjected to very serious punishment, then you can limit yourself to administrative. You see, there is also a field for arbitrariness. If someone needs it so that you are very strictly punished, then you can always justify a heavier composition, the composition of a criminal offense, and not an administratively punishable act.
Alexander Podrabinek: One of the co -authors of the bill, the head of the Duma Security Committee, Irina Yarovaya, explained the need for the law as follows:
“... so that no one will ever be able to reject and refute the main and undeniable historical conclusion that during the Great Patriotic War and World War II the USSR defendant, that our people were the liberator people.”
Alexander Podrabinek: Thus, the legislator quite frankly offers to shut up to anyone who dares to question the official interpretation of the role of the USSR in the Second World War. Does this resemble something from the relatively recent past of our country or Germany?
This is what historian Nikolai Svanidze says about this.
Nikolai Svanidze: In fairly tough authoritarian regimes, not to mention totalitarian, history is a very large part of the entire ideological program of the state, and the attitude to history is very special. It is no secret what attention was paid to Stalin's stories. Say, some kind of remark of the historian in relation to, say, Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great was just a deadly sentence, it is like saying something to Stalin himself. This law is a manifestation of how history now begins to be considered - as the advanced front of our ideology, therefore it should be only that and not otherwise. It is possible to the left and right, but it is impossible at the back, and from this side it is also impossible. This is very much, of course, resembles a recent past.
Alexander Podrabinek: All the same deputy Yarovaya appeals to European law: “We propose today to do exactly what other European countries have made, based on the main international legal act: to establish criminal liability for the rehabilitation of Nazism, for the denial of the facts established by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, for the justification of crimes established by the Nuremberg Tribunal.”
Indeed, for example, the §130 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany (“incitement against peoples”) punishes deprivation of liberty for up to five years or a monetary fine of those who, “guided by the ideas of National Socialism, publicly or at the Assembly, dispute or downplay the seriousness of the perfect act specified in § 220a.” This paragraph is about a specific type of crime - genocide.
However, this German law is not pursuing for doubts about the justice of the verdict of the Nyurnberg tribunal and not for the justification of the ideas of National Socialism, but for the propaganda of the genocide, the fact of which was established by the Nuremberg Tribunal. The difference is obvious.
The Germans worry about their past and are insured from repeating errors in the future. We would, if we wanted to go the same way, we had to adopt a law on liability for denying the crimes of communism. But we have no question of national repentance! On the contrary, we emphasize the accuracy of our path, the sinlessness of the Soviet leadership and the production of domestic history. Why, in the end, can this be brought?
Nikolai Svanidze: We are talking about the imperial past, it can be both communist and pre -communist. This is what is perceived as our original traditions. Therefore, there is a fairly idealistic idea of the pre -Petrine history of our country, about Moscow Rus': a certain ideal principality or kingdom, where everyone went in white, where everyone believed in God, where morality and spirituality flourished, where the leg of Western man did not look, that is, before the discovery of America. That's how everything was good before the discovery of America, especially in our country! This is fraught with several consequences. This is fraught primarily by the covers of historical truth, that is, the habit of lying specially and especially the habit of lying to their children, who to lie especially immoral and soullessly and very dangerous in their consequences. Say, if you do not tell the children about secret protocols to the Molotov -Ribbentrop Pact, how in full accordance with these protocols the Soviet Union on September 17, 1939 entered the territory of Eastern Poland, as it was then called, - released. Poles of a different opinion on this. About how the Baltic countries were annexed about the Finnish war - if the children can’t tell all this, the children will not understand where in the current politics, in the current international situation, in international relations the legs are growing. Why are the Baltic states so strange? Why are they reluctant to recall the Soviet Union with such reluctance, unlike us? Why do we have such a difficult relationship with Poland? They will not understand this, they will be offended. But you have to not be offended, you just have to read the book. And in the book all this will not be written, because it is prohibited. And the teachers of history will be afraid to tell the children the truth, because someone will hit, and the teacher will sit or pay such a fine that it would be better to sit down, because he did not have such money, he did not even see them in the eye. This all together creates unbearable conditions for history classes for professional historians, for journalists, for teachers, just for citizens of the country.
Alexander Podrabinek: In what all this will lead to, Karina Moskalenko agrees with Nikolai Svanidze.
Karina Moskalenko: To the intimidation of the population, to ensure that our fellow citizens again become afraid of freedom of expression of opinion, to be afraid of the authorities.
Alexander Podrabinek: The rehabilitation of national socialism is only an occasion for the next legislative campaign. The meaning of the laws adopted not in the confrontation of the long -dead Nazism, but in the phrase "as well as the spread of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War." It seems that it is here the true object of deputy care. The current authoritarian power in Russia cannot allow hula to power in general, even if it is a story of 70 years ago. For who critically comprehends the story, he may also be critical of the present. Moreover, the Kremlin has a lot of workpieces from our past.
We talk about the interweaving of the past and present with the historian and publicist Boris Sokolov. In the new law, the concept of “aiding Nazism” exists. Under this law, people who fall under this definition-“accomplices of Nazism” should be held accountable, that is, those people who somehow in some kind of time or, perhaps, constantly supported Nazism. Does it not turn out that those people or those states that first supported Nazism, and then fought with it, can fall under this law?
Boris Sokolov: I do not really understand what is meant “states that supported Nazism”, then fought with him. The Soviet Union is meant?
Alexander Podrabinek: For example, the Soviet Union had allied relations with Germany for two years, and then opposed it. Also, some European countries have changed their position.
Boris Sokolov: Of course, there were such. The last 8 months of the war, Romania fought as part of the Nazi coalition. But in principle, anyone can fall under this law, it is quite wide for use. If desired, the one who writes on the history of the Second War, on the history related to National Socialism, will fall under it.
Alexander Podrabinek: For example, the story of General Vlasov, who was first the leader of the Volkhov Front and fought with the Germans, and then served under their leadership. How should historians be in the light of this law to respond to General Vlasov?
Boris Sokolov: I don't understand either. If someone positively responds about his hostilities near Kiev or near Moscow, when he was still a Soviet general, whom Stalin was accepted, then, probably, you can also bring such historians to this law if you wish. It all depends solely on the arbitrariness of the law enforcer. This, obviously, will allow you to impose very serious judicial restrictions on any historical knowledge. That is, for example, books where history is not given on the basis of a single history textbook that is going to introduce, can be prohibited because they will fall under the scope of this law. And anything can fall under the action of this law.
Alexander Podrabinek: Boris Vladimirovich, in the Soviet Union there was an article 190 approx. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, similar articles in the Union republics, which provided liability for the distribution of knowingly false fabrications about the Soviet system. Many dissidents were planted on it. For example, Pavel Prudenko’s sentence to three years in prison for the spread of samizdat with historical information. Or the sentence to Joseph Dyadkin is also by three years in prison for the spread of art samizdat on the topic of history. Article 354 approx. Which is now proposed to introduce into the legislation, provides for liability for the distribution of knowingly false information about the activities of the USSR. Do you think this accidental coincidence or legislator deliberately reproduces the norm from the Soviet Criminal Code in today's laws?
Boris Sokolov: It seems to me that this is almost a tracing -paper of the Soviet norm, just the terminology is slightly different - fabrications about the USSR, as I understand it, in some versions of the fabrication of the Russian army.
Alexander Podrabinek: That is, this is supported by the tradition of persecution for dissent?
Boris Sokolov: Almost yes. It will be possible to plant, if not everyone, then a lot of historians, and quite well -intentioned and not involved in any dissidents. Obviously, you will have to make the application of the law somehow very selective.
Alexander Podrabinek: So we are often selectively applied in our country.
Boris Sokolov: Yes, for us this is not news. As far as I understand, even the profile committee of the Federation Council rejected the law adopted by the Duma precisely under the pretext that then it would be necessary to hold those historians who, in a positive sense, will quote the special opinion of Soviet judges in the Nuremberg trials.
Alexander Podrabinek: So not only the historian thinks. Lawyer Karina Moskalenko adheres to a similar opinion.
Karina Moskalenko: I think this is a very clear and very visible bridge from the present time to the past. We well remember how these norms were interpreted. We remember how many people went to prison, in a colony for expressing some kind of official position. This is a very dangerous symptom.
Alexander Podrabinek: Perhaps someone will seem unreasonable to someone that they will put him in prison for history that does not coincide with the bosses. However, this was so recently.
Sentence. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Kalinin Regional Court ... I considered in an open court ... September 18, 1980, the case on charges of Dyadkin Joseph Getzelevich. The Judicial Collegium established: Dyadkin repeatedly distributed obviously false fabrications that defeat the Soviet state and social system, which boils down to the fact that the October Revolution and Civil War led to vain victims and collapse of the economy ... The assistance of the USSR is characterized by aggression, and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of the Second World War.
The Judicial Collegium sentenced: to admit the guilty of Dyadkin Joseph Getzelevich under the article 190 Prime of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, to impose a 3 years of imprisonment.
The name of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Киевский городской суд, рассмотрев в открытом судебном заседании в городе Киеве дело по обвинению Проценко Павла Григорьевича, установил: подсудимый Проценко систематически занимался изготовлением и распространением… произведений, содержащих заведомо ложные измышления, порочащие советский государственный и общественный строй… Суд приговорил Проценко Павла Григорьевича признать виновным… и назначить ему наказание в виде лишения свободы в исправительно-трудовой колонии общего режима на 3 года.
Александр Подрабинек: Диссидент советских времен Павел Проценко рассказал, когда и за что его посадили.
Павел Проценко: Меня арестовали 4 июня 1986 года по статье 187 1 прим. УК УССР. Это аналог статьи 190 прим. РСФСР, называется «Распространение заведомо ложных измышлений, порочащих советский и государственный строй». Мне инкриминировали часть материалов, связанных с историей, исторических текстов. Прежде всего это моя работа, посвященная положению религии в УССР, начиная от 1917 года и кончая текущим моментом. Вторая работа, которую они изъяли при аресте, была связана с биографией подпольного епископа Варнава Беляева. Как они указали в обвинительном заключении, там 154 листа, хотя в других текстах указывали, что там 200 листов. То есть это набор черновиков, разных листочков, связанных с биографией подпольного епископа, который был арестован в 1933 году и умер в 1963-м. Формулировка статьи подводилась таким образом, что содержание текстов является клеветой на советский государственный строй. Соответственно, я изготавливал клевету на советский государственный строй и ее публиковал. Причем публиковал в одном экземпляре, ведь черновик - это нечто эфемерное, но это трактовалось так, что это все равно предназначено по некоторым признакам для самого широкого распространения.
Александр Подрабинек: Что понималось следователями КГБ под самым широким распространением, если рукопись была в единственном экземпляре, известно только им самим. Однако в наше время слово, напечатанное в единственном экземпляре и размещенное в интернете, сразу может стать достоянием сотен и тысяч людей. Поэтому усилия законодателей направлены на то, чтобы воспрепятствовать распространению неудобной для властей информации и одновременно предотвратить появление нежелательных сведений, воздействуя на авторов – писателей, журналистов, просто блогеров.
Павел Проценко говорит, что случаев привлечения к ответственности авторов исторических сочинений было немало.
Павел Проценко: Были постоянно подобные случаи, когда людей сажали за распространение исторических текстов. В частности, когда я уже сидел и ожидал своего суда в Киеве, в Москве судили дьякона Владимира Русака за его трехтомную историю Русской православной церкви после установления советской власти. Ему за это дали, правда, по другой статье 8 лет и плюс сколько-то ссылки. There were many such cases.
Александр Подрабинек: Что же представляет собой нынешний закон о противодействию реабилитации нацизма с точки зрения угроз свободе слова? Кому как ни бывшему советскому политзаключенному и судить об этом.
Павел Проценко: Я считаю, что и по формулировкам, которые уже фигурируют в печати, которые предлагают включить в этот закон, и по существу этого закона - это, несомненно, прямая калька с 190 статьи, по которой меня судили, и со статьи 70. Но тут еще есть свидание с более старыми временами. Например, в 1880 году, когда был убит Александр Второй, реформатор, его наследник Александр Третий, император, своими указами ввел закон, который назывался он Закон об исключительном положении. Это даже не закон, а подзаконный акт, указом был введен. Он начал действовать с 1880 года и действовал вплоть до 1917-го. Он означал следующее: когда создается некое исключительное положение, а оно у нас было до 1917 года, то обычные законодательные акты отменяются и все действует в ускоренном порядке. В 1917 году мы перешли полностью на исключительное положение, до 1991 года. В связи с этим положением «тройки», которые выдумал Сталин, тоже были прообразом того ускоренного судопроизводства. Они опирались, в частности, на этот указ императора Александра Третьего, на это законодательство об исключительном положении.
Один из моих героев в 1909 году в юнкерском училище в Москве предложил ученикам написать письмо таким же юнкерам, только в Японии, с целью примирить их после русско-японской войны, и что это будет акт мира. На него стукнули начальнику его училища, генералу. В тот же день вечером состоялся обыск у этого моего героя, ему было вручено постановление, что в 24 часа он обязан вместе со своей семьей отправиться на Кавказ. This is a real story. Я очень надеюсь, что наши власти в Кремле, если они еще хотят быть хоть как-то цивилизованными и говорить о европейских ценностях, лучше бы такие законы не принимали. Госпожа Яровая говорит о том, что слишком стали много ерничать в последнее время по поводу Великой отечественной войны, но это, как ей кажется, ерниченье выльется потом в ерниченье со стороны судебных следователей, карательной системы, которая просто издевается над мыслями людей. Мыслепреступление - что может быть хуже?
Александр Подрабинек: Вернемся ли мы целиком и окончательно в те времена, о которых рассказал Павел Проценко, пока еще не очень понятно, но то, что мы движемся в этом направлении, очевидно. Борис Соколов считает, что новый закон вполне может быть использован как основание для политических репрессий.
Как вы думаете, к чему приведет этот закон в смысле повседневной практики, каково будет правоприменение? Понятно, что оно будет выборочное. Насколько этот закон станет орудием репрессий против общества?
Борис Соколов: Я думаю, что он легко может стать орудием репрессий против издательств. Какие-то книги на историческую тему, которые не будут устраивать власть, будут подвергаться преследованиям по этому закону, эти книги будут запрещаться, их авторы и издательства подвергаться штрафам. Издательства будут остерегаться издавать какие-то книги по истории Второй мировой войны, которые не содержат официальной точки зрения.
Александр Подрабинек: И что будет с историей как с наукой в России?
Борис Соколов: Я не слишком высоко оцениваю и сейчас историю как науку в России. Я думаю, что она просто исчезнет, по крайней мере, в легальных формах, и издавать будут тогда российские историки научные труды на Западе, наверное.
Александр Подрабинек: Конечно, Борис Соколов абсолютно прав, когда утверждает, что вопросы истории не должны решаться с помощью Уголовного кодекса. И это касается как нацизма, так и коммунизма. В этом смысле первая поправка к американской конституции, гарантирующая гражданам свободу слова, остается труднодостижимой мечтой не только для России, но и для многих европейских стран.
Однако в смысле свободы слова и защиты ее законом пропасть между сегодняшней Россией и Западной Европой остается, несравненно, большей, чем между Европой и США. Вот в чем, например, сегодняшние различия между Германией и Россией? Германия, пережив нацистский тоталитаризм, боится его повторения. Россия, пережив коммунистический тоталитаризм, грезит о его возвращении.
Надо ли удивляться, что мрачные воспоминания о прошлом становятся спутниками нашей жизни?