"Iron curtain"

Once the border was on the castle. Then the exit from the country became free. What will happen next? Will the Iron Curtain go down to Russia? Eyewitnesses recall the dejavu program

Once the border was on the castle. Then the exit from the country became free. What will happen next? Will the Iron Curtain go down to Russia? Eyewitnesses recall the dejavu program

Alexander Podrabinek: On March 5, 1946, the leader of the British conservatives Winston Churchill performed at the Westminster College of the American city of Fulton with a speech, in which he said: "From Shchezin on the Baltic to the Triesta on the Adriatic, an iron curtain fell on the continent." Then, from this day, the countdown of the Cold War began, and the term "iron curtain" itself entered the international political vocabulary and firmly strengthened in it, denoting a means of self -isolation of the Soviet Union from the free world. True, it should be noted that Herbert Wells wrote about the Iron Curtain in 1904 in his fantastic novel “The Food of the Gods”, and in 1919, French Prime Minister Georges Klemanso spoke of the “iron curtain” at the Parisian peace conference.

The Iron Curtain is one of the brightest signs of the totalitarian regime. Not the only, but very indicative. The ban on leaving the country is the insurance of a totalitarian dictatorship in case of mass discontent of the people with an existing regime. In the Soviet Union, this system lasted until 1991, when the law "on the procedure for leaving the USSR" was adopted, which canceled the need to receive visiting visas in the OVIR - departments of visas and registrations of the Ministry of the Interior.

In the Soviet Union, as, indeed, in other countries of the socialist bloc, there was a system of exit visas. That is, in order to go to another country, it was necessary to get not only an entry visa at the embassy of this country, as in many cases it is necessary now, but also a visiting visa from their own authorities. It was placed in the Soviet passport, and before perestroika it was almost impossible for an ordinary person. It was the privilege of the Soviet and party nomenclature, and the issue of issuing visiting visas to all Soviet citizens was also resolved with it.

The intention to emigrate from the country Soviet power as a betrayal of the homeland. True, this was little embarrassed by those who set themselves the goal of leaving the socialist paradise. A few managed to do this legally.

The most mass category of Soviet emigrants were Jews who declared intention to repatriate to their historical homeland in Israel. In different years, it was harder or easier to do, but almost always a statement of intention to repatriate entailed undesirable consequences. What troubles did the people who submitted applications for the departure to Israel?

Says the head of the Department of Public Relations and the Media of the Euro -Asian Jewish Congress Roman Spector.

Roman Spector: The first is the deprivation of work. And this is probably the worst. The second is an arrest. This did not depend on the quality of participation in some movement, it was in no way connected with the category of refusal. The Jews were hostages by that time, nothing depended on their desire. Some strong gabet power decided how many Jews, when and for what reason to let go. The very idea of vacation, of course, was a reaction to the desire of the Jews to leave the country. At first it was a pronounced, deeply tempered Zionist will, who, with such heroes as Yasha Cossacks, now Yasha Kedmi, lit the Jewry of the whole world, which began to fight for the right of Jews to go to Israel. Since there was some procedure that depended on the presentation, people submitted and fell into two trap. One of them was called a prohibition on leaving the country in connection with the secrecy of work - these are the so -called "secretaries", the second is the relatives of those who were banned, the category of the so -called "poor relatives". And the quantity, the region, all this was planned by the authorities only in order to somehow show that nevertheless Jews have the right to leave, but there were very few such "lucky ones". People fell under the arrest and under the gulag when there was some kind of some kind, everything worked for the sake of some kind of stuffy figure, especially when such a department ordered it. Today's speaker of the Israeli parliament, Knesset Julius Edelstein was in jail because he taught Hebrew. But Ivarite taught many other people, why Yulik was behind bars - this is a question that needs to be addressed not to me, but to those gates who determined this.

A significant number of people who received permission were not sent to Israel or used Israeli visas to end in Austria, Germany, American states and so on. The reverse flow or reemigration, as we call it, was always. This is generally a fairly small stream that did not rise above 7-10%, depending on some circumstances. Since not all Jews were equally ideologically infected and in their behavior the craving to the promised land was not so pronounced, in search of the best share they first went to Israel and some other countries, without finding the necessary social status there, without gaining the necessary work and the necessary earnings, they returned, enriched with the language, with new realities. And the smallest of them replenished the ranks of activists and by that time the prevailing Jewish institutions here, here in Russia.

Alexander Podrabinek: Another category of legal emigrants were dissidents, more precisely, a small part of them, whom the Soviet government released abroad. Why did she do this? Says human rights activist Pavel Litvinov.

Pavel Litvinov: I think that it is simply that they do not remain in Russia. It was believed that they would bring less harm to Soviet power abroad that they will be heard less there. They had a contradiction all the time: on the one hand, they wanted to get rid of dissidents, on the other hand, they did not want to emigrate an easy way, less the degree of freedom. There were different periods. When the democratic movement began in 1967-1968, the emigration was a pure abstraction, that is, no one left, we did not hear that someone went away, no one returned. The Communists could leave, and then not to leave, but to go, sometimes to remain defeators. I remember, we said that in principle there should be freedom of emigration, but this all had nothing to do with the matter. Then the KGB decided to use Jewish emigration in order to shove one of the dissidents. But this was a completely new phenomenon, it began in 1970-71. I think that political emigrants played a large role, in particular, together with Valery Celidze, we published the journal "Chronicle in Protection of Human Rights", reprinted the "Chronicle of current events", published books. I spoke on Radio Liberty, the Voice of America. We corresponded with people in Moscow. Thus, we created additional channels of information, the movement has become truly international. I think that it is unlikely to return to the past practice, but it is impossible to predict, the regime can become so worse that these will be details of additional fascisting the regime. It seems unlikely to me.

Alexander Podrabinek: Ethnic Germans and Pentecostals achieved some success in the struggle for leaving the country, but in general, for most Soviet citizens, the border remained on the castle. However, there is no such castle that the craftsmen could not hack. The flight across the border was dangerous, but not so rare.

The easiest way was used by "defeators" - people who have not returned from the West from tourist trips and business trips. It should be noted that non -returners are a more old concept than Soviet power. At the beginning of the 19th century, after the victory over Napoleon, more than 40 thousand lower ranks of the Russian army remained in the West. Alexander I even wanted to return them to Russia forcibly, but nothing happened.

Of the Soviet "defacers" can be called such famous people as the world chess champion Alexander Alekhin and the USSR champion Viktor Korchni, director Alexei Granovsky, singer Fedor Chaliapin, geneticist Timofeev-Rresovsky, daughter of Stalin Svetlana Alleiluyeva, ballet dancers Mikhail Baryshnikov, historian Mikhail Vysolevsky, actor Alexander Godunov, pianist Maxim Shostakovich, Soviet Ambassador to the UN Arkady Shevchenko, film director Andrei Tarkovsky, winner of the Olympic Games and three times the world champion hockey player Sergey Fedorov, writer Anatoly Kuznetsov. This is the most famous.

And there were also many people, at their own peril and risk of those who fled from the Soviet paradise in a variety of ways. Oceanographer Stanislav Kurilov, whom the Soviet authorities allowed to explore the sea depths exclusively in the territorial waters of the USSR, took a ticket for the ocean cruise from Vladivostok to the equator and back without entering the ports. This did not require receiving a visiting visa. On the night of December 13, 1974, he jumped from the stern of the vessel into the water and with flippers, a mask and a tube, without food, drinking and sleeping for more than two days, about 100 km to one of the islands of the Philippine archipelago. After the investigation conducted by the Philippine authorities, he was deported to Canada and received Canadian citizenship. And in the Soviet Union, Kurilov received an absentee sent for 10 years in prison for treason.

Sitting with me in the same camp in the early 80s Vladimir Bogorodsky, whom the Soviet authorities did not give permission to repatriate in Israel, told how he spat on legal ways to emigrate and simply crossed the Soviet-Chinese border. From the Chinese, he demanded that he fly to Israel or meet with American diplomats in Beijing, but the Chinese communists were no better than the Soviet ones. They offered him an alternative: either stay in China or return to the Union. So instead of Israel or America, Volodya spent three years in Shanghai for three years, and then the relations of Moscow and Beijing warmed up, the fugitive was brought to the Soviet-Chinese border and handed over to the Soviet border guards. He received three years camps for the illegal crossing of the border and was happy that not 15 years for treason to his homeland.

The plane has always been the fastest and most convenient means of movement. Including from the socialist camp to the free world. The daredevils involved in aviation, one way or another, fled abroad on aircraft, as a rule, military.

Most of these shoots took place after the Second World War, but there were cases earlier. So, for example, on May 1, 1920, four aircraft from the 4th fighter air group of the first aviation squadron of the Red Army flew out of the airfield glorious near Borisov to scatter leaflets over the territory of Poland, against which the Bolsheviks fought then. Only three fighters returned back. The former lieutenant colonel of the tsarist army, Pyotr Abakanovich, flew to his "Newpor-24-Bis" to the Poles, landing at the airfield in Zhodino. Then he served in the air forces of Poland, twice fell into a plane crash, during the Second World War was in resistance, fought with the Nazis, participated in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, and after the war he continued the fight against the communist regime in Poland. In 1945 he was arrested, in 1946 they sentenced to execution, but then they replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment. In 1948, he died in the prison of the worships from the beatings of the guard.

In 1948, the Yak-11 training aircraft was stolen to Turkey directly from the flight school in Grozny. Presumably, the cadet entered a military pilot, already having clear intentions.

In the same 1948, the pilots of Pyotr Pirogov and Anatoly Barsov flew out on the Soviet military aircraft Tu-2 from the Kolomyi air base to Austria. The American occupation authorities in Germany provided them with political asylum. A year later, Anatoly Barsov, it is not known for what reason, returned to the USSR, where six months later he was shot.

On May 15, 1967, the pilot Vasily Epatko flew on the MiG-17 aircraft from the Soviet air base in the GDR to the territory of West Germany. He did not land, but was ejected in the area of the city of Augsburg. He later received political asylum in the USA.

On May 27, 1973, the aircraft technician Yevgeny Vronsky flew up on the Su-7 combat aircraft from the Grossenhein of the Group of Soviet Troops in Germany. Having minimal piloting skills obtained on the simulator, Vronsky flew all the flight at the frying forces and even the chassis did not remove the chassis after take -off. After crossing the border of Germany, Vronsky catapulted. His car fell on the forest by Braunschweig and soon the wreckage of the aircraft was returned to the Soviet side, and Lieutenant Vronsky received a political asylum.

On September 6, 1976, Senior Lieutenant Viktor Belenko fled to the MiG-25 aircraft on the Japanese Island of Hokkaido. After studying the aircraft by American experts, the aircraft in a disassembled state was returned to the Soviet Union. After this escape, a button appeared in the missile launch system from the fighter, which removed the lock on shooting on its aircraft. She received the nickname "Belenkovskaya".

But they fled from the Soviet Union not only on military aircraft. In 1970, 16 Jewish refuseniks from Leningrad planned to steal a civilian AN-2 plane, bought all the tickets for this flight. It was supposed to land the plane in Sweden, but all participants in the operation were arrested by the KGB bodies at the airfield, that is, before they managed to do anything. Ultimately, everyone was sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

What the Jewish refuseniks failed to do 30 years later, Cuban refugees managed to carry out. On September 19, 2000, the 36-year-old pilot Angel Lenin Iglesias with his wife and two children flew out exactly the same An-2 from the airport of the Cuban city of Pinar del Rio. All other passengers and the second pilot were also relatives of Iglesias. There were 10 people on board. The plane headed for Florida, but he ended in fuel, and he spent in the Gulf of Mexico. With stiff landing, one of the passengers died. The rest was picked up by the Panama dry cargo, which delivered the saved in Miami.

The joint Russian-French film "East-West" tells about the fate of the family that returned from emigration to the Soviet Union and encountered the realities of the Stalinist dictatorship here. The prototype of the main character was Nina Alekseevna Krivosheina - the Russian emigrant of the first wave, the wife of the White Guard officer Igor Krivoshein, who was sitting at the Nazis in Buchenwald, and under the Communists in the Gulag. Unfortunately, the authors of the film did not bother to mention in the credits that the script was written based on the book of Nina Krivosheina "Four -thirds of our lives." The son of Nina Alekseevna Nikita Krivoshein, a former Soviet political prisoner, sentenced in 1957 to the camp time for the article in the French newspaper Mond with condemning Soviet invasion of Hungary, recalls its colaigers trying to escape from the Soviet Union.

Nikita Krivoshein: I knew Vasya Saburov, who served in the border troops, took, left the tower on the Turkish border and went to Turkey. Then he was in the United States. Then they told him that his homeland forgives him, cannot live without him, he returned and received 10 years. I knew Lev Nazarenko, a resident of Minsk, who got on the train, drove to the Batumi station, had breakfast and on foot in Popper to the Turkish border. There he was met by two shepherds. He received 10 years. I knew a Moscow student who, in those days, was possible, agreed with the Scandinavian crew that they would lead him aboard the aircraft. But being a good son, before departure told his father: "Dad, goodbye. I want to go to Scandinavia in such a way." Dad played Pavlik Morozov on the contrary and immediately called where to. The plane was put in Riga, and he received 10 years. Here are a few examples for you, such examples are still adequately, starting with the Solonevich brothers, who managed to escape from the Solovetsky camps and relocate to Finland, and then to Latin America, not to mention countless non -returners.

Alexander Podrabinek: In the early 90s, the “Iron Curtain” collapsed with the collapse of the international communist system. The departure became free, away visas were canceled, who wanted to emigrate, the rest could freely go to other countries to visit, study, work or rest during a vacation. Article 27 of the Russian Constitution, claiming that "everyone can freely travel outside the Russian Federation," did not remain only on paper - it actually acted and guaranteed the right to freedom of movement.

Clouds began to thicken a few years ago. In 2008, regulatory acts were published in the country that prohibit free travel abroad for certain categories of persons - debtors for administrative fines and taxes, alimony defectors, defendants in court claims. In all these cases, the legislation already existed mechanisms for recovery and coercion - from the arrest of property to administrative and criminal cases. The question of "closing the border" for a citizen began to be decided by a judicial act, but not at the hearing with an honest competition of the parties, but personally by the bailiff. So, for example, in 2012, bailiffs banned 469 thousand citizens from the country. In the first quarter of 2014, 190 thousand Russians, mainly debtors of banks, fell under the ban on departure from the country.

За всеми этими решениями маячит тень Советского Союза: выезд за границу власти расценивают как подарок гражданам, а не как их неотъемлемое право. В самом деле, почему человек, имеющий денежные долги перед организациями или гражданами, не может временно выехать за границу, скажем, на лечение или к умирающему родственнику? Он непременно станет невозвращенцем? Убежит от долгов и попросит политического убежища? В чем еще его может заподозрить наша власть? В том, что он потратит на себя деньги, которые мог бы вернуть в погашение долгов? Как это выглядит с точки зрения закона и права граждан на свободу передвижения?

Своими впечатлениями делится адвокат Вадим Прохоров.

Вадим Прохоров: Статья 27 конституции Российской Федерации, а именно первая ее часть, гарантирует свободу выезда и въезда из Российской Федерации. В развитие данного положения конституции принят федеральный закон о порядке выезда из Российской Федерации и въезда в Российскую Федерацию. В данном законе в 15 статье установлен целый ряд оснований, по которым выезд российских граждан из Российской Федерации может быть ограничен. Какие это основания? Там указано 7 оснований. Первое основание – это доступ к сведениям, составляющим государственную тайну или совершенно секретным сведениям. Второе основание – это прохождение срочной военной или альтернативной гражданской службы. Третье основание – это привлечение в качестве обвиняемого или подозреваемого в совершении преступления, с моей точки зрения, наиболее очевидное основание для ограничения выезда, это в общем-то достаточно справедливо. Четвертое основание – это содержащиеся в местах лишения свободы по приговору суда до отбытия наказания. Пятое – это наиболее скользкое, деликатное основание, как имеющие некие обязательства гражданско-правового характера, как правило, наложенное решением суда, в том числе долговые обязательства, кредитные, не исполненные обязательства. Шестое основание – это когда сообщили заведомо ложные сведения при обращении за выдачей паспорта. И наконец седьмое – это сотрудники, проходящие службу в органа Федеральной службы безопасности, соответственно, до окончания срока контракта. Это основания, по которым может быть ограничен выезд. Если мы посмотрим более детально на эти основания, то понятно, что есть некая коллизия между конституционной нормой, которая позволяет свободно выезжать из страны и въезжать в нее, и требованиями федерального закона, которые позволяют соответствующий выезд ограничить. Некоторые основания мне представляются достаточно логичными. Например, содержащиеся под стражей или подозреваемые или обвиняемые в совершении преступлений. Другое дело, как работает наша правоохранительная и судебная система – отдельный разговор. Но в общем-то преступники или потенциальные преступники должны до решения вопроса по ним соответствующим образом быть ограничены в выезде. Наиболее скользкое основание – это те, кто имеет обязательства гражданско-правового характера, то есть не исполняют соответствующие решения суда, уклоняются, в том числе злостно, от уплаты алиментов и так далее. Здесь действительно есть некий трудноуловимый баланс, потому что с одной стороны это конституционное право на въезд и выезд. Почему необходимо ограничивать человека в этом? С другой стороны я, например, как практикующий действующий адвокат-цивилист прекрасно понимаю, что, к сожалению, правовая и экономическая ситуация в России такова, что зачастую люди вполне сознательно уклоняются от исполнения своих гражданско-правовых обязательств. Здесь есть действительно проблема, можно ли ограничивать конституционное право гражданина на выезд путем защиты прав его взыскателей, его кредиторов. Как мне представляется, вопрос не очевидный, он не имеет однозначного ответа, с моей точки зрения. Надо защищать конституционные права, с одной стороны, с другой стороны, к сожалению, уровень правосознания общества таков, что почему-то долги зачастую почему-то не считаются долгами. Да, ограничение на выезд, как своеобразная долговая яма, можно назвать иначе.

Александр Подрабинек: Возможно, такая система взыскания долгов действительно эффективна. Точно также эффективно, например, пыточное дознание в отношении арестованных преступников – под пыткой они быстро выдают своих сообщников. Еще эффективнее шантаж арестованных судьбой их близких – тут мало кто устоит, чтобы не сознаться в совершенных преступлениях, да и в несовершенных тоже. Однако общий вопрос звучит так: можно ли защищать права одних граждан, нарушая ради этого права других? И если можно, то до какой степени, и где та граница, которую невозможно перейти в правовом государстве?

В 2010 году запрет на выезд из страны коснулся сотрудников ФСБ. Им разрешалось выезжать за границу только по особому решению и только в случае смерти близких родственников или срочного лечения, которое невозможно в России. Точное число сотрудников ФСБ общественности неизвестно, но по разным оценкам это не менее 200 тысяч человек.

В апреле 2014 года внутриведомственными приказами запретили выезд в большинство стран сотрудникам МВД, Министерства обороны, Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний, Федеральной службы по контролю за оборотом наркотиков, прокуратуры, Федеральной службы судебных приставов, Федеральной миграционной службы, Министерства по чрезвычайным ситуациям. То есть тем, кого обычно относят к "силовому блоку". В общей сложности, это примерно 4 миллиона человек. И какие ни какие, а это тоже граждане России, имеющие такие же как у всех конституционные права.

Зачем власти понадобились такие меры против опоры своего режима, не вполне понятно. Нормативные акты эти не опубликованы, официальных комментариев нет. Одни считают, что это своеобразная месть руководителей силовых органов, многие из которых попали под западные санкции в связи с вмешательством России в события на Украине. Другие полагают, что это только первый шаг на пути к тотальному запрету на выезд для всех граждан России. Этакий знак вежливости для общества: начинаем со своих, а потом дойдет очередь и до вас!

Проживающий во Франции бывший советский политзаключенный Никита Кривошеин не верит в возвращение "железного занавеса".

Никита Кривошеин: Я читал о том, что вводятся ограничения государственным служащим, некоторым категориям государственных служащих, людям, работающим в оборонной промышленности, имеющим доступ к государственным тайнам, но такие же ограничения, может быть не такие же, но подобные ограничения до сих пор существуют во Франции для подобных категорий. Я читал о том, что вводятся ограничения для неплательщиков алиментов и людей, не расплатившихся по кредитам – это мне уже кажется смешно, но так или иначе я убежден в том, что курорты Турции и Испании не опустеют.

Александр Подрабинек: Предположение о том, что "железный занавес" вполне может вернуться и снова накрыть континент, не так абсурдно, как это может показаться на первый взгляд. В соседней Белоруссии, например, уже несколько лет запрещают выезд из страны некоторым оппозиционерам.

У нас после захвата в этом году Крыма все, кто хотел сохранить украинское гражданство и не хотел брать российское, в одночасье стали иностранцами. Теперь они должны получать вид на жительство и не могут проводить у себя дома больше 180 дней в году. Лидеру крымских татар, бывшему советскому диссиденту и политзаключенному Мустафе Джемилеву российские власти вообще запретили въезд в Россию и в Крым. Теперь он не может вернуться в свой дом в Бахчисарае, к своей семье и на свою родину, которую ему и его народу удалось отстоять при советской власти.

Итак, прообраз будущего "железного занавеса" действует в обоих направлениях: кого-то как всегда не выпускают отсюда, а кого-то не пускают сюда.

Вопрос о свободе передвижения, о праве покидать страну и возвращаться отнюдь не праздный. Сегодня уже для многих людей он имеет ясное практическое значение. Один вопрос: уезжать или оставаться? Другой вопрос: если уезжать, то когда?