"Nazism and cynicism"
Leonid Shakhov, Zhizn', 8-14 Jun 2009
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has equated German Nazism and Stalinism. "In the 20th century European countries tested on themselves two powerful totalitarian regimes- one National Socialist, the other Stalinist- which brought with them genocide, violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity," reads the council's resolution.
The conclusion is debatable. Not to mention biased. So the already less than warm relations between Russia and the Council of Europe become that much cooler...
Isn't that how it would appear to Russia, whose people suffered more from Stalinism than the rest of all European nations combined? In essence, Stalinism here is entirely secondary - at issue is the equation symbol placed between Nazism and modern Russia. But if I were in the place of the European deputies, I would be careful of parallels between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which produced the decisive contribution in the downfall of fascism.
But if we're even going to discuss this topic, we need to remember all dictators. Regimes like those of Franco, Mussolini etc. were not at all humanitarian. But for some reason no one talks about them. Like no one ever judges the American regime which ensured the atomic anihilation of Japan. Nor are we subject to the condemnation of Lithuanian, Latvian, Romanian and Estonian regimes for the destruction of 100,000 foreign citizens.
Likewise those great democracies - France, Britain, America, etc. - should also be subject to judgment in the lead up to the second World War and Stalin's supposedly secret agreement with Hitler. [ ] Each of them played its own game against (or with) Hitler... to the detriment of the others.
Our losses in World War II wouldn't have been so huge if there hadn't been these backroom, duplicitous dealings. Rather if all European nations had stood with us, and most importantly fought like us, against fascist Germany Hitler would have been sent from this world sooner. But certain European countries played a double game, others surrendered without a single shot, while others even went to the side of Hitler. And because of this Stalin was faced with such senseless sacrifices in order to overcome the common enemy.
Historical conclusions are always controversial. Looking at the past with a naive, open perspective is the fate of the victors. And of the free. But the time to discuss the questions of history came long ago, not in parliamentary but other venues. In the academies. Otherwise you won't find the truth.
In the council's text is contained an appeal for all countries to open their archives. Opening archives is not difficult. But what use is it, if their eyes are closed?
The scandalous decision of the European Council also has a different subtext. A financial one. True, it's not discussed aloud, but, as it appears to me, it dominates the rest of the document.
According to the council Stalinism, alongside Nazism, is guilty of unleashing the second World War. Following this logical chain, responsibility for the crime of the century lies with the Soviet Union and Russia, its historical successor. Calculating on that, a number of countries are presenting Moscow with financial bills (compensation for occupation, genocide, etc.). The council's resolution adds another weapon to their arsenal.
That means that it's not as sorrowful as it sounds - that the question is really about money. And all the elevated words about human rights and democracy were a smoke screen. The truth is that Nazism isn't as bad as cynicism. You can't beat cynicism...
0 comments:
Post a Comment