Translated material
Stalin is not too late
Irina Shcherbakova, Head of the Memorial educational programs*, that the Criminal Code is also applicable to history
“The past was not legally evaluated and condemned. This means that in the wave of intensive nostalgia, which began in the second half of the 90s, the phrase appeared: "How well we lived well." And enough, they said, to remember all sorts of tragedies, let's look at the future. ” Well, the future has come.
In the next episode of the Podkasta "Advisory Room", the presenters speak with Irina Shcherbakova, one of the founders of the Memorial Society*, the head of the educational programs "Memorial". This organization has been preserving the memory of the Stalinist repressions for thirty years and during this time the power in every possible way prevented historians, not wanting to take responsibility for repressions committed on behalf of the state. Irina Shcherbakova believes that this is connected, in particular, with the fact that the authorities do not meet resistance from part of society. And part of the society begins to play along with the state in search of new “enemies” and the destruction of memory - because it is “easier to live”.
Listen where it is convenient
Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Castbox
Decoding
Vera Chelishcheva. Hi all! This is a podcast "Advisory Room". This is us, his leading. I am journalist Vera Chelyishcheva.
Zoya Svetova. And I am a journalist Zoya Svetova.
Vera Chelishcheva. Today our guest is Irina Shcherbakova, a philologist, one of the founders of the international "memorial"*. We are forced to say that he is recognized as a “foreign agent” and was liquidated by the court. Irina is also the head of the Memorial educational programs. The “Memorial” for about 30 years of its existence literally granted the memory of the Gulag, the memory of repression, the memory of different wars.
Unfortunately, the “Return of the Names” is no longer held, but the project “Last address” has remained, although different people tear the signs of “The Last Address” ...
We wanted to talk with Irina that in the second year it somehow very sharply became clear that this uncomfortable memory, the memory of repressions, about past wars, such a non-patriotic ”-now it turned out to be not needed. And it really interferes, including the authorities itself.
In the second year, such a phenomenon as deputy Andrei Gurulev, who calls “part of the population, disagreeing with the position of the authorities” - “rot”, even appeared in his own year. He says that these people need to not only be isolated, but also destroyed. And for these words there was nothing to the deputy. Then he changed his anger to mercy, literally recently stated that yes, they should not be destroyed, but for these people a gulag should be revived so that they joyfully “wave”, I quote, “Kyle in the Kolyma tract.” And he adds that this is not only his personal opinion, but also the opinion of the people.
Irina, tell me, how did we come to all this, to the fact that a person who is endowed with power speaks of the revival of the Gulag? Why did this work with memory, with the memory of repressions, about different wars? At what point did this happen?
Irina Shcherbakova. This happened, not immediately, not at the same time. What is memory work? Those who instrumentalize the story , some pages from this memory are cleaned, they also work with memory, only differently. Why did the question of the past at the end of the Soviet era arose so acute? Because it was clear that the country is in a terrible crisis, that absolutely everyone is actually unhappy, that the changes are needed, reforms are needed. Gorbachev also understood this. But these reforms were directly related to the state model that was created in the past.
People by 99% almost did not really believe in any bright communist future. In any case, then it seemed to me that. It became clear to people that still we need to deal with the past.
Because the system was laid in the Stalin era and continued to exist. There was an understanding that it was still necessary to reform the regime, and on the other hand, this was combined with human and family memory. It was clear (they did not know the numbers, but it was clear) that millions of people were subjected to repression. And there were alive victims, witnesses of all this. In general, it was a very strange situation when there were millions of witnesses and victims in the country, and nothing about it in public space. One small story, and I mean in the officially permitted space, and not in what was underground. This is “One Day of Ivan Denisovich” in 1962. And more, in fact, nothing: not a single board, not a single monument. And this is somehow connected, even the own memory of the victims and own, so to speak, life and fate, so to speak, and so on with the fate of the country.
“Tell us, finally, the truth, you lied to us, you lied to us all these years, we seemed to know nothing at all. Tell us, finally, the truth, open the archives, we want to know. ” And it was a powerful movement. On its wave then a "memorial" arose.
Journalism has connected, then the media, printed. And finally, an incredible thing happened in general, because in the middle of the 89th year, the “New World” finally began to print Solzhenitsyn's “Gulag Archipelago”. Now, just 50 years, there is publication in the West of this book. And this was completely so perceived as an absolute turn or even a revolution in the mass consciousness.
But this was only the basis, and so that state reforms were actually carried out seriously and deeply, there should be a very intensive work of the whole society, various institutions, state structures.
But after all, the life of the 90s developed in a completely different way, in a very difficult, economic crisis, who affected the life of millions of people who should somehow adapt and survive to these new conditions, and on the other hand, in constant struggle with those who wanted the revival of the Soviet system and resisted all kinds of reforms of the market economy.
The real elite did not arise, because people of the old system remained in managerial places. I'm not talking about Yeltsin himself.
And from such a struggle, from the fear that everything is hanging in the balance, that the Communists will overcome it anyway, so again, they will begin the fight against the market economy and all will fly to Tartarara, such a staggering, swinging, populist politics began.
But still, it was a time without censorship, and a public organization, such as a “memorial”, managed to contribute to the adoption of two laws that still support the study of the Soviet past.
The first is the 1991 law "On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression." The only law states that the state is to blame, and that it apologizes to the victims of political repression, it rehabilitates them all and, moreover, opens the secret archives. After all, a huge part of the memory, so to speak, was completely classified, and few people imagined what was in these archives.
In 1992, the “Law on Archives” followed, which, in general, then became the basis for the so -called archival revolution and gave historians from different countries to come and start working in the archives of the “Memorial”. Since then, hundreds of thousands of documents and various evidence have been published. And the “memorial” worked on this memory of repressions and the arbitrariness of the state, which was preserved in people, thus contrasting the state memory of these human stories.
This has become our work for more than 30 years. And the state has ceased to participate in this. Back in the 90s, it participated situationally: nevertheless, the Communists win the elections- let's launch all sorts of revealing films dedicated to the past on the TV channels ... But no state program arose. And moreover, the narrative about the past was not created and did not arise.
After all, people cannot read these hundreds of documents. And in their heads they should still have some kind of idea of the past.
Well, when compared with how it happened after the defeat of fascism in Germany, Nuremberg processes passed. Most, after all, people in West Germany not only agreed that fascism was evil, that it was a terrible dictatorship, which led to the destruction of millions of people in the Holocaust, that this was condemned by an international court. And now we condemn it all, we are building democracy.
By the way, it was really very with such a slogan at first:
“But now let's set a line and we will build our new democracy.” But then it turned out that it was also impossible without work on the past.
So we thought then, we hoped that now we would have a story, that there was such a past, repressive, and millions of people became absolutely lawlessly victims. And this will become the basis for the construction of a new society and democracy. But our story turned out to be much more complicated. And I repeat, the change of elites, in general, did not arise, and this fact that this one did not arise because the reforms were cut off, our justice was not truly reformed, the organs that were responsible for repressions, state security organs were not reformed.
Well, this is the past, has not been assessed and condemned in any way.
On the contrary, in the wave of such intensive nostalgia, which began in the second half of the 90s, the phrase appeared: "How well we lived well." Nostalgia for this Soviet era. And enough for us, so to speak, to remember all sorts of tragedies. Let's look into the future. Of course, the memory of the victims must really be preserved. But so to admit that the state for this is responsible, that the state system was absolutely criminal - no. This work was not done.
And this created the soil already for the fact that it came to zero. Well, there are still some different things, you can even say about it quite interestingly, about the fact that
The words "Pravda", "fact" began to be interpreted in absolutely any way. We generally have a post -truth, but what is a fact? You can interpret them so and interpret them: "Everyone has their own truth."
But this relativism in this regard, which arose from the second half of the 90s, led to the fact that it began in two thousandths, when such a quasi-historian became simply one of the most important components. And even the basis of falsified history, what the authorities understood by state memory, appealing to this nostalgia. So this such massive instrumentation began, which intensified, intensified, and there is no need to talk about history. We can only talk about propaganda.
Zoya Svetova. I wanted to ask about the "last address." Let me remind the audience - this is a completely unique project of the Memorial. Set small signs of the “last address” on those houses where people lived who were repressed in Stalin's times. The same houses from where they were taken away. For example, my grandfather lived on a garden ring. He was arrested in 1936. And on this house where he lived, we set together with the “Memorial” such a small sign of “The Last Address”. I wanted to ask: Ira, you say that the state has ceased to support these memory programs? We know that recently the “last address” signs began to tear off or all sorts of nasty things began to write, they began to spoil them. People do this themselves, without ordering from the state? Where does such hatred of these signs come from?
Irina Shcherbakova. Well, hatred of this exposure of the past and what the state has done, to the history of repression. By the way, we all talked about the victims, but the “memorial” was engaged in not only victims, but, for example, the culprits and biographies of the culprits. The reluctance to admit this from the very beginning, it was in the 90s. Our so -called Communist Party resisted this. Naturally, they defended this past, this Stalinist image of the past. And one way or another, she tried to counteract the memorial all the time, to prevent monuments to the victims.
All this took place in the struggle, well, for 70 years, people were brought up in one, and then a fracture occurs-and people should immediately have a completely new attitude towards the past or they had to recognize their own responsibility for this past or for the attitude to this past.
In general, these forces, of course, were in the 90s. But here's the question of what? Always, people in society feel signals, sometimes even some kind of spoke, while they only begin to rush in the air, as it was, in general, in the two thousands of years, when it was only possible to catch where this wind blows. Well, for us, I mean, for the “Memorial”, there were absolutely clear signals from the very beginning: the return of this Soviet symbols, anthem and so on.
It was already quite clear what the attitude to the past began to defeat, its excuse and so on. But, of course, people are caught, people are catching these signals that are sent, as it were, from the state, especially when such a state vertical is built and when propaganda and the role of the state begins to play a completely different role in education and education. Schools, universities, museums and so on. In general, all these signals are very read, very caught, especially when there is no confrontation on the other side of society.
For example, we see now in Germany, when the right ones raised their heads very much and try to win the elections, and receive voices that German society still resists this very much, hundreds of thousands of people go out into the streets. This protest did not happen and did not happen. And this gives the resentment some freedom of action.
And we don’t have to drop this lower outline of the initiative from accounts, because we see, for example, a wave of rising denunciations. They are written on people who do not think so, they say something wrong, they wear something wrong.
There are structures that supposedly represent the public, but in fact fulfill their own desires and fulfill the order. It can be directly formulated, in fact, from some people who also seem to act on their own initiative, but in fact, some state forces are behind this.
And, of course, the people who do this are sure, in any case, that there will be nothing for them, that no one will catch their hand, that they will not be punished.
If you remember when the attack on the “memorial” began in 2016, about the same people who now tear apart the same type of people, I think. And then it was an attack on the participants of the school competition, right on schoolchildren and teachers. It was also some Rubicon. In the very center of Moscow, at the entrance to the Cinema House. Each time, at these awarding ceremony, we invited the winners of the school competition to Moscow. And it was always such a solemn action. In the House of Cinema, it was in 2016. And there were these people who were ready to pour paint, with portraits of Stalin, and with greening in their hands, tried to pour teachers entering the house of the movie, shouted: “traitors”, “Western litter” and so on. This seemed completely wild, unusable for schoolchildren and teachers from the province. Then this continued until the liquidation of the Memorial.
And already in the end it acquired such pogrom forms when dozens of people burst into the building of the Memorial. You can recall China, for example, a cultural revolution. Such people are always located. It is important here how much society is opposed to this. Because if these were some single, as they say, excesses that would cause general outrage, I am absolutely sure that they would stop this activity. In Moscow there are cameras on each literally corner, and not only in Moscow. And they would have been caught a long time ago and they would have to pay huge fines. It would be so easy to get off with this story.
Vera Chelishcheva. Thank you very much, Irina. You just said about the school contest, and recently it was literally information that the “Memorial” returned to him. I will remind our listeners that two years ago, when at the end of 2021 the Memorial society was liquidated, the Memorial was forced to suspend a school competition, which is called “A person in history. Russia - XX century. " You have held it over twenty years, this is a wonderful competition. And students from different parts of the country participated in it. They prepared an essay, wrote essays, research and poems, and even photographs, and made films on the history of the 20th century, on the topic of repression. This is so unique, in fact there was a project, and everyone who followed the “memorial” was very upset when you were forced to say that the school competition would not be held anymore. And you have now explained the reasons, including when you have already opened open even on children. Well, recently there was a message that you are returning to this competition. Tell us how this will happen at all, given the agenda and the reality in which we are now in Russia. I mean, how will schoolchildren take part in it?
Irina Shcherbakova. We called the competition: "Man in history, Russia, XX century, Soviet, post -Soviet experience." Well, firstly, still now a completely different situation. The Internet works, the mail is still working. And many things in this competition are done online. We really never called schoolchildren and adolescents to write about repressions directly. The competition is called "Man in History. Russia. XX century ". It was important for us, and not all works were devoted to this at all, and they were different, and with different, by the way, attitude to the Soviet past. Zoya still, it seems to me, has read our work of schoolchildren for many years and knows what we are talking about. А кому это интересно, может посмотреть на сайте «Уроки истории», там вывешено сборники. Более 25 сборников этих работ мы выпустили.
Нам было важно, чтобы у самих участников формировалось свое представление на основании каких-то фактов, знаний, которые они там обретали, источников, которых они находили, чтобы они сами формировали свое отношение к прошлому и чтобы они думали сами.
Это было, вообще-то, главной задачей нашего конкурса.
Вот в этом смысле мы эту работу продолжаем. Только мы ее, конечно, модифицируем, в том смысле, что им, может быть, уже не нужно будет писать такие длинные тексты. Работа эта будет отчасти устроена по-другому. Нужно будет вступать с нами в диалог.
Это будут исторические мастерские, которые мы предлагаем, и они будут работать в течение нескольких месяцев. У нас уже в прошлом году был такой пилотный проект, и там участвовали школьники отовсюду, потому что, как мы знаем, есть очень большая диаспора, и она самая разная. И это семьи, которые в 90-е годы оставили Россию, и это те, кто уехали уже в недавнее время. И на самом деле объединяющим пока является две вещи. Это все-таки еще пока проходит на русском языке. Но я думаю, что и тут мы как-то расширим постепенно рамки. Ну и главное, это все- таки должно иметь отношение к прошлому XX века. И, значит, имеется в виду не только Россия, а имеется в виду весь Советский Союз.
Если мы в нашем школьном конкурсе раньше ограничивались историей России XX века, то теперь мы это назвали: советский-постсоветский опыт. И мы чрезвычайно расширяем границы нашего участия. У нас будут программы и для более младших подростков. В данный момент, мы открыли этот конкурс для тех, кто постарше. Это 16-19 лет, это молодые люди, которые могут сами принимать решения, участвуют, они в этом, не участвуют. И, в общем, в этом смысле осознавать свою, я бы сказала, историческую ответственность.
Мы очень стараемся с людьми работать индивидуально. Мы всегда на самом деле это делали. Но вы прекрасно понимаете, что ситуация не такая, что мы можем работать, как мы раньше работали с очень большой сетью школ. То есть, те школы, с которыми мы работаем, они тоже не российские государственные учреждения. Но это не означает, что интерес к этому прошлому имеет вообще границы. «Мемориал» же всегда называл себя международным. Сейчас снова объединился в такую ассоциацию мемориальских организаций. И мы всегда считали, что на самом деле, наша память об этом прошлом она вообще-то границ не имеет, потому что люди по миру перемещались, оказывались в самых разных местах.
А главное, это может быть для нас историей семей. Мы это видели и в нашем школьном конкурсе, и сейчас мы это видим с гораздо большей силой, как эти связи разрушаются, как рвутся нити, связывающие поколения, и рвутся вертикальные и горизонтальные связи.
А почему нам кажется, это важно? Потому что вопрос о самоидентификации, кто я и откуда, вообще для людей имеет очень большое значение. Мы видим, что на этом можно очень многое построить, потому что вот эти вот чувства какой-то обиды, ресентимент или озлобленность такая, она создала почву для того, что у нас сейчас происходит. И почему люди так легко поддаются мифам, искажениям. И почему они готовы обвинять в своих бедах кого угодно, только не самих себя.
Я даже знаю это, простите, по собственному жизненному опыту. Я ведь из еврейской семьи, но с совершенно потерянными корнями. Конечно, ни языка, ни религии, абсолютно ничего. Но в стране, где я росла, в обществе с латентным антисемитизмом, я чувствовала его постоянно. Это вдруг сваливается на тебя, например, при приеме в ВУЗ, или на работу, или на улице просто так.
Вот у меня была такая совершенно замечательная бабушка, которая была вообще то, ученицей Выготского, нашего главного человека в психологии. У нас две, может быть, мировые величины— это Лурье и Выготский, который очень много занимался проблемами памяти, подростковой памяти. Но вот он рано умер в 30- е годы, а все его учение было растоптано и уничтожено. Возродилось оно только в 70- е годы. Но бабушка была верной его ученицей и работала над тем, чтобы у меня была вот эта память, чтобы я понимала, где корни, что это было, почему это было так. И, знаете, это мне очень помогало, потому что у меня не было вот такой травмы, и даже когда я испытывала по отношению к себе какую- то такую неприязнь. Но я понимала, и я знала, что это такое и с чем мне придется столкнуться, и почему.
Сейчас, когда рвутся связи, когда людей отделяют огромные расстояния — важен, особенно подросткам, просто рассказ о том, что было с семьей, что было с тобой, что было с прошлым и как. Это психологически и исторически очень важная вещь.
Zoya Svetova. Yes, it's true. Потому что, если ты не знаешь, откуда ты вышел, то ты не понимаешь вообще смысла жизни. Мне кажется, это тоже очень важно, когда ты изучаешь свою родословную, когда ты узнаешь, кто были твои дедушки и бабушки, это очень многое дает для сегодняшней твоей жизни. И ваш конкурс, конечно, это очень интересный проект. И именно поэтому, мне кажется, власть именно на этот проект ополчилась.
Vera Chelishcheva. Я хотела бы заметить, что ваш прекрасный школьный конкурс — это такой своеобразный антидот, наверное, тому, что сейчас происходит в школах вот с этими «разговорами о важном», где сплошной «ура-патриотизм». Вот я начала учиться в средней школе в конце 90-х, и я помню, у нас были прекрасные еще учебники истории, если можно так сказать, где нам рассказывали вот эти нарративы.
И про ГУЛАГ, и про репрессии я уж не могу сказать, насколько там в цифрах была неточность, но нам этот рассказ давали. А сейчас просто учебники переделывается, и события трактуются, как это нужно, как это выгодно.
Что ж, мы вынуждены заканчивать. Мы говорили с прекрасной Ириной Щербаковой, одним из основателей международного «Мемориала», руководителем образовательных программ этой организации, которую Минюст считает «иностранным агентом». Мы говорили о том, как важно работать с памятью, с прошлым, с неудобным прошлым, которое засовывают сейчас под сукно, на антресоли, что сейчас происходит с памятью в нашей стране. И вообще, есть ли какая то надежда на то, что когда-то эту неудобную память достанут с антресолей, как ее начали доставать в 90-е.
И, конечно, мы говорили о школьном конкурсе «Мемориала», который, слава богу, возрождается.
А вы слушайте нас подкаст на Yutube и на Aple podcast. Like and write comments. It is very important for us. Ирина, спасибо большое. For now!