The Gulag Archipelago

Continued from previous post:
_http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm said:
[...]
Industrial sabotage

The murder in December 1934 of Kirov, the chairman of the Leningrad party and one of the most important people in the Central Committee, sparked off the investigation that was to lead to the discovery of a secret organisation engaged in preparing a conspiracy to take over the leadership of the party and the government of the country by means of violence. The political struggle that they had lost in 1927 they now hoped to win by means of organised violence against the state. Their main weapons were industrial sabotage, terrorism and corruption. Trotsky, the main inspiration for the opposition, directed their activities from abroad. Industrial sabotage caused terrible losses to the Soviet state, at enormous cost, for example, important machines were damaged beyond possibility of repair, and there was an enormous fall in production in mines and factories.

One of the people who in 1934 described the problem was the American engineer John Littlepage, one of the foreign specialists contracted to work in the Soviet Union. Littlepage spent 10 years working in the Soviet mining industry - from 1927-37, mainly in gold mines. In his book In Search of Soviet Gold, he writes: "I never took any interest in the subtleties of political manoeuvring in Russia so long as I could avoid them; but I had to study what was happening in Soviet industry in order to do my work. And I am firmly convinced that Stalin and his collaborators took a long time to discover that discontented revolutionary communists were his worst enemies."

Littlepage also wrote that his personal experience confirmed the official statement to the effect that a great conspiracy directed from abroad was using major industrial sabotage as part of its plans to force the government to fall. In 1931 Littlepage had already felt obliged to take note of this, while working in the copper and bronze mines of the Urals and Kazakhstan. The mines were part of a large copper/bronze complex under the overall direction of Pyatakov, the People's Vice Commissar for Heavy Industry. The mines were in a catastrophic state as far as production and the well-being of their workers was concerned. Littlepage reached the conclusion that there was organised sabotage going on which came from the top management of the copper/bronze complex.

Littlepage's book also tells us from where the Trotskyite opposition obtained the money that was necessary to pay for this counter-revolutionary activity. Many members of the secret opposition used their positions to approve the purchase of machines from certain factories abroad. The products approved were of much lower quality than those the Soviet government actually paid for. The foreign producers gave Trotsky's organisation the surplus from such transactions, as a result of which Trotsky and his co-conspirators in the Soviet Union continued to order from these manufacturers.

Theft and corruption

This procedure was observed by Littlepage in Berlin in the spring of 1931 when buying industrial lifts for mines. The Soviet delegation was headed by Pyatakov, with Littlepage as the specialist in charge of verifying the quality of the lifts and of approving the purchase. Littlepage discovered a fraud involving low quality lifts, useless for Soviet purposes, but when he informed Pyatakov and the other members of the Soviet delegation of this fact, he met with a cold reception, as if they wanted to overlook these facts and insist he should approve the purchase of the lifts. Littlepage would not do so. At the time he thought that what was happening involved personal corruption and that the members of the delegation had been bribed by the lift manufacturers. But after Pyatakov, in the 1937 trial, confessed his links with the Trotskyist opposition, Littlepage was driven to the conclusion that what he had witnessed in Berlin was much more than corruption at a personal level. The money involved was intended to pay for the activities of the secret opposition in the Soviet Union, activities which included sabotage, terrorism, bribery and propaganda.

Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov, Radek, Tomsky, Bukharin and others much loved by the Western bourgeois press used the positions entrusted to them by the Soviet people and party to steal money from the state, in order to enable enemies of socialism to use that money for the purposes of sabotage and in their fight against socialist society in the Soviet Union.

Plans for a coup

Theft, sabotage and corruption are serious crimes in themselves, but the opposition's activities went much further. A counter-revolutionary conspiracy was being prepared aimed at taking over state power by means of a coup in which the whole Soviet leadership would be eliminated, starting with the assassination of the most important members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The military side of the coup would be carried out by a group of generals headed by Marshal Tukhachevsky.

According to Isaac Deutscher, himself a Trotskyite, who wrote several books against Stalin and the Soviet Union, the coup was to have been initiated by a military operation against the Kremlin and the most important troops in the big cities, such as Moscow and Leningrad. The conspiracy was, according to Deutscher, headed by Tukhachevsky together with Gamarnik, the head of the army political commissariat, General Yakir, the Commander of Leningrad, General Uborevich, the commander of the Moscow military academy, and General Primakov, a cavalry commander.

Marshal Tukhachevsky had been an officer in the former Tsarist army who, after the revolution, went over to the Red Army. In 1930 nearly 10% of officers (close to 4,500) were former Tsarist officers. Many of them never abandoned their bourgeois outlook and were just waiting for an opportunity to fight for it. This opportunity arose when the opposition was preparing its coup.

The Bolsheviks were strong, but the civilian and military conspirators endeavoured to muster strong friends. According to Bukharin's confession in his public trial in 1938, an agreement was reached between the Trotskyite opposition and Nazi Germany, in which large territories, including the Ukraine, would be ceded to Nazi Germany following the counter-revolutionary coup in the Soviet Union. This was the price demanded by Nazi Germany for its promise of support for the counter- revolutionaries. Bukharin had been informed about this agreement by Radek, who had received an order from Trotsky about the matter. All these conspirators who had been chosen for high positions to lead, administer and defend socialist society were in reality working to destroy socialism. Above all it is necessary to remember that all this was happening in the 1930s, when the Nazi danger was growing all the time and the Nazi armies were setting Europe alight and were preparing to invade the Soviet Union.

The conspirators were sentenced to death as traitors after a public trial. Those found guilty of sabotage, terrorism, corruption, attempted murder and who had wanted to hand over part of the country to the Nazis could expect nothing else. To call them innocent victims is completely mistaken.

More numerous liars

It is interesting to see how Western propaganda, via Robert Conquest, has lied about the purges of the Red Army. Conquest says in his book The Great Terror that in 1937 there were 70,000 officers and political commissars in the Red Army and that 50% of them (i.e., 15,000 officers and 20,000 commissars) were arrested by the political police and were either executed or imprisoned for life in labour camps. In this allegation of Conquest's, as in his whole book, there is not one word of truth. The historian Roger Reese, in his work The Red Army and the Great Purges, gives the facts which show the real significance of the 1937-38 purges for the army. The number of people in the leadership of the Red Army and air force, i.e., officers and political commissars, was 144,300 in 1937, increasing to 282,300 by 1939. During the 1937-38 purges, 34,300 officers and political commissars were expelled for political reasons. By May 1940, however, 11,596 had already been rehabilitated and restored to their posts. This meant that during the 1937-38 purges, 22,705 officers and political commissars were dismissed (close to 13,000 army officers, 4,700 air force officers and 5,000 political commissars), which amounts to 7.7% of all officers and commissars - not 50% as Conquest alleges. Of this 7.7%, some were convicted as traitors, but the great majority of them, it would appear from historical material available, simply returned to civilian life.

One last question. Were the 1937-38 trials fair to the accused? Let us examine, for example, the trial of Bukharin, the highest party functionary to work for the secret opposition. According to the American ambassador in Moscow at the time, a well-known lawyer called Joseph Davies, who attended the whole trial, Bukharin was permitted to speak freely throughout the trial and put forward his case without impediment of any kind. Joseph Davies wrote to Washington that during the trial it was proved that the accused were guilty of the crimes of which they were charged and that the general opinion among diplomats attending the trial was that the existence of a very serious conspiracy had been proved.

Let us learn from history

The discussion of the Soviet penal system during Stalin's time, on which thousands of lying articles and books have been written, and hundreds of films have been made conveying false impressions, leads to important lessons. The facts prove yet again that the stories published about socialism in the bourgeois press are mostly false. The right wing can, through the press, radio and TV that it dominates, cause confusion, distort the truth and cause very many people to believe lies to be the truth. This is especially true when it comes to historical questions. Any new stories from the right should be assumed to be false unless the contrary can be proved. This cautious approach is justified. The fact is that even knowing about the Russian research reports, the right is continuing to reproduce the lies taught for the last 50 years, even though they have now been completely exposed. The right continues its historical heritage: a lie repeated over and over again ends up being accepted as true. After the Russian research reports were published in the West, a number of books began to appear in different countries aimed solely at calling into question the Russian research and enabling the old lies to be brought to public attention as new truths. These are well-presented books, stuffed from cover to cover with lies about communism and socialism.

The right-wing lies are repeated in order to fight today's communists. They are repeated so that workers will find no alternative to capitalism and neo-liberalism. They are part of the dirty war against communists who alone have an alternative to offer for the future, i.e., socialist society. This is the reason for the appearance of all these new books containing old lies.

All this places an obligation on everybody with a socialist world outlook on history. We must take on the responsibility of working to turn communist newspapers into authentic newspapers of the working classes to combat bourgeois lies! This is without doubt an important mission in today's class struggle, which in the near future will arise again with renewed force.


Mario Sousa
15 June 1998
[/quote]
I could have left the paragraphs in red out, if I only was interested in the "facts" and arguments. At the same time they also tell where the writer is coming from, just as I made some notes about Den TV in a earlier post.
 
There is a video on rutube.ru _https://rutube.ru/video/cf5d21ba64d5364499d041cc563c1285/
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's lies by "Andrei Fursov (Andrey Fursov) - Russian historian, sociologist, writer, organizer of science." I could not embed, as it is not a youtube.

The video has English subtitles and is around 4 minutes long. He mentions the progress that was made by the Sovjet Union and some conditions that made it possible, at around minute 2, he mentions Solzhenitsyn and calls The Gulag Archipelago for impressionistic.

If there really is as much difference between the reality in terms of numbers and what Solzhenitsyn maintains, as is claimed by his critics, it is a lesson in itself of how effective the campaign in the West has been carried out. Much of the anti Russian sentiments of today has in the minds of a significant part of the population roots in all the exaggerations of preceding decades. It is an ongoing project.
 
thorbiorn said:
In the second half of the video there was an interview with Yevgeny Spitsyn mainly about Solzhenitsyn. Spitsyn is a historian who has written a History of Russia - a full course for teachers and students.
....
In the video, beginning at 33:33 they discuss the work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, (He was born on december 11, 1918, so it will be 100 years in 2018). Spitsyn is a very strong critic of Solzhenitsyn. Below are some notes from the interview, and then I have made some comments.

First, they maintain that Solzhenitsyn was a traitor, because of what he wrote, and the views he held and criticizes the language and style too. Spitsyn says his writings are not at all on the level a classic, he is no Pushkin, no Dostojevskij, he is a writer of very minor significance, who was used by well known structures like CIA, MI6 and others to attack the Sovjet Union and later Russia. The Nobel price was not given to him because of his literature, but in order to promote his authority in the world. The nobel price of Svetlana Alexievich in 2015 had a similar goal. None of them will remain in the history of literature, none of them represent anything neither on the personal level or professionally as authors, although he suspects that some in the leadership of Russia sees Solzhenitsyn as some kind of spiritual guru, because they themselves don't represent anything.

Spitsyn says that they tried to improve the authority of Solzhenitsyn, in Russia after the collapse of the Sovjet Union, but it did not succeed. As you know, he went back to Russia and Spitsyn tells us he went on a tour of Russia, but the interest in what he had to say was very limited.

Spitsyn expects that a lot publicity will come when the 100 year celebration of Solzhenitsyn will take place, but there will not be much celebration in Russia.

They discuss the historical facts behind the writings of Solzhenitsyn and Spitsyn says that he had no documents in his hands. Whereas Solzhenitsyn claims that the repression during Sovjet times amounted to 40 million people then 110 million people, Spitsyn says that according to documents, between 1921 and 1953, 3,7-4 million people were arrested for political crimes according to paragraph 58-59 which included 32 types, including banditry, which is like gansterism and racketeering. Of these people, 682.000 were given the death sentence. This has to be compared to a total population of about 192 million before world war two, without the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Moldova.

For me Geopolitics is like Astronomy. You can go out, look at the sky and think "Gosh, stars, Moon, Milky Way and there goes a meteorite. OK, got it.". The person may be convinced that nothing complicated is going on up there as he HAS A FULL VIEW of "what is going on". However the "Ah ha" moments that can awaken us can only come if someone shows us something like retrograde motion of the planets from multiple observation OVER TIME, allows us to HAVE A LOOK in a telescope and see the Andromeda galaxy or take us up in the Shuttle up in Space to get a spacial view. Same goes with Geopolitics.

Geopolitics requires long term observation along with detailed analysis. Combine that with a wider global view and then the "dance" starts to make more sense. In part you get that from living (those that take interest) but the rest must come from reading history and travel. When these are combined you will (my conviction) start to see peculiar "patterns of the historical dance". Now how good your understanding is will greatly depend on how good your information is. That ole' adage "Knowledge is Power" is oh so very very true here.

To understand the Russian Revolution I think it is next to impossible to get a coherent picture without understanding how Trocky got to New York and left it returning back to Russia in 1918. Not to understand basic physics makes it very difficult to take the blinders off of 911 provided to us by MSM. JFK official story can be deconstructed by understanding JFK's policy direction and getting a grasp that a cheap Carcano could only be fired by God to do what we are told it did in 1963. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 starts to look quiet differently once you realize that the US had its missiles secretly stationed in Turkey. Most certainly not pointed at just the heavens. Thus having as much information as possible can allow us to try and understand intelligently why certain geopolitical moves are being made by various geopolitical actors. The tricky part is knowing if you have enough, "Know what you don't know.".


The Nobel Prize is a two sided coin used in the geopolitical game. When the Elites want to elevate and "insure" their "geopolitical tool" they make sure the person gets it. Good examples of this for me are Menachem Begin and Andrei Sakharov.

Menachem Begin, the terrorist of the infamous IRGUN gets a Peace Prize !!!! The same one who helped to blow up the headquarters of the British administration in Palestine, Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, with heavy loss of civilian life and damage. OK, he's all for Peace ;)

Sakharov on the other hand was someone who did nothing for the Soviet people with his so called "dissent" and yet got a Nobel. If 1990 Soviet disintegration was partly due to his work then that was some bitter fruit to swallow by the Soviet people. All the PR in the US media is a huge clue who was his sponsor to gain such fame. Sakharov could have done far more good for his people in the classroom then putting on his theatrics with Elena Bonner of a lonely fighter in the middle of nowhere. But to see through this one needs to look at the situation rationally and not through the prism of Hollywood films and CNN "experts".

My reading on Solzhenitsyn is that he was a good Russian in the FULL meaning of that word. IMHO he got pushed out of Soviet Russia and took the ticket thinking that he could do more outside. However once he landed in the US and spent some time at Yale and other places, he quickly understood that his view of the West was one huge mistake. That is why he isolated himself in Vermont and after a while completely disappeared from the US media. So I doubt he was an "agent" of the West.

We can argue all we want about his numbers but his writing gave a big boost to historical writing about that bloody period in Russian history. He was in the middle of the grind stones of history and had a right to tell HIS story as best as he could as HE WAS THERE. He was in the Red Army fighting as an officer, so would have seen a small part of the "political kitchen" as well as the resulting "dishes" coming out of it. He had no access to Soviet archives at that time so he can be forgiven. However calling him a traitor is a bit way overboard.

Spitzen on the other hand is a man who is interpreting history from what he read and was told. He was born in 1966. He is someone who didn't have any contact with the past of which Solzhenitsyn personally experienced. Even in the transition out of the Soviet period he was just a teenager. This difference in life experience can not be lightly dismissed, so Alexander Solzhenitsyn is in my pantheon of Russian historians. His best work came out just before his death, "200 yrs. Together". Good luck finding this published in English. Wink, wink ;-)

The Masters of the Material World have learned to play the game from all sides. The moment you think you have identified their agents you maybe shocked later to find out that those pointing out these agents are themselves agent of the Masters. You're on your own in the minefield of history. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sid
Having mentioned and quoted several of the people who have offered to critiques of the work of Solzhenitsyn and his person, what about his defence? Althoug I can't set up a defense, there are some videos where Solzhenitsyn speaks, and there is one recorded in 2008, after his passing, where his son speaks. From this one might be able get some more evidence, before the expressing an opinion.

In one recording he speaks about the US:
The Freedom of Evil in America.- SolzhenitsynHe highlights some serious challenges for the American society. He also speaks of evil as having existence and not being just a result of social circumstances as some think. Here are some quotes:
Solzhenitsyn said:
"The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?"
"The entire 20th century is being sucked into the vortex of atheism and selfdestruction ..."
"We can only reach with determination for the warm hand of God ..."
Today of course there are some MSM outlets and politicians who will be quick to identify the evil as Russia, but I doubt that is he would have agreed to that, at least in his later years. He criticized the Sovjet Union, but he also criticized the Western world, just less mentioned:
Solzhenitsyn, on Civilization, Self-Restraint and Right Living

The following interview is not with himself, but his son who provides some characteristics of Solzhenitsyn as a father, a person and a thinker.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's son speak out

When Solzhenitsyn came back to Russia in 1995, he apparently tried to help society through a difficult time, after the collapse of the Sovjet Union, which some would say, he himself helped to bring about when he was used as a tool by Western political forces in the 1970'ies. In the following video he tries give his country direction as a teacher or maybe a priest would. Might that be why the historian Spitsyn suspects some in positions of power sees Solzhenitsyn as a guide?
One Minute Per Day In this video, there was
Solzhenitsyn said:
[...]Back when, our great Russian educator Ushinsky wrote: "The goal of school is to turn the egotistical heart into an all-compassionate one" How true it is, and for that matter more valuable than an education. Yet what do we do? Today we do the exact opposite: we suppress the seeds of morality in our kids and we prepare them for an egotistical life, for egoism. Economics ends up triumphing the heart. Forget any notion of just raising kids to be honorable, to be true to their word. Not because it might bring them money but just for the sake of keeping their word.

To conclude this post, Solzhenitsyn may have been used by Western forces, he may have missed out on some or even several points regarding the estimated extend of the Gulag system, just as some writings like 200 years together has been is critized:
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together _https://ia800308.us.archive.org/33/items/AleksandrSolzhenitsyn200YearsTogether/Aleksandr%20Solzhenitsyn%20-%20200%20Years%20Together.pdf (Some chapters are missing in the pdf, or were not translated, but there are still 400+ pages).
Apart from some factual errors and lack of data on which to base his conclusion in this last publication, the topic of the book is very controversial. But then how did this book come about? At the end of the book, Solzhenitsyn writes:
In 1990, while finishing April 1917 and sorting out the enormous amount of material not included in The Red Wheel, I decided to present some of that material in the form of a historical essay about Jews in the Russian revolution.

Yet it became clear almost immediately that in order to understand those events the essay must step back in time. Thus, it stepped back to the very first incorporation of the Jews into the Russian Empire in 1772. On the other hand, the revolution of 1917 provided a powerful impetus to Russian Jewry, so the essay naturally stretched into the post-revolutionary period. Thus, the title Two Hundred Years Together was born.
His last words gives the impression that the book came about a result of circumstances as a byproduct of anothe work, which was the real target.

Knowing what I know now, after the last few posts, I will still read Solzhenitsyn in the future, because some of his writings exemplify aspects of the human condition that are a reality in the world we live in, and I can learn from that. If, as the Russian pedagogue Ushinsky should have said, one purpose of education is to develope compassion, then knowledge of human suffering and the dilemmas that confront human life in practical living can only be helpful.
 
Another comment by the historian Andrey Fursov - "The Gulag Myth" (with English subtitles):

"He wrote the book The Gulag Archipelago, which isn't a scientific study but impressionism..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgUsZJPeRIU
 
Since there are such varied opinions about Solzhenitsyn, I decided to post a little more. In the course of a few posts, it should be possible to present some of the issues that have led to argument. What about the extent of the Gulag and the role of Stalin?

I recalled one researcher, Grover Furr, who is mentioned in this thread Grover Furr: Stalin was demonized https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,38193.0.html It does not mention Solzhenitsyn, but refers to the time of Stalin. There is a link to a Youtube where Grover Furr claims that there is little evidence for the huge amounts of victims of the Gulag as is claimed by some western scholars:
Possibility of Being said:
]
Grover Furr's BLOOD LIES Disproves Tim Snyder's BLOODLANDS' Accusations Against Stalin and USSR (58 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxYdGSIP0d0

Grover Furr talk on his book "Khrushchev Lied" (48 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0
The audio of the first talk about Grover Furr kan also be found on _https://rutube.ru/video/edf87706b0f4ab33870b0c10664fce0d/ Grover Furr on the great myths about the Soviet Union He says that the West after World War two had a need to vilify Stalin in order to be able to be able to make Stalin equal to Hitler. From our own observations this has been a repeating phenomenon: Milosevic=;Saddam Hussein=; Gadaffi=; Assad=Hitler One can make a search of each option and one will get many hits.

In the end of the above audio, he reflects on what historical evidence is. That was interesting even if one does not agree with his conclusions regarding Stalin, by following his suggestion, one may do ones own research and reach a justified conclusion.

Another talk is "Grover Furr on the big lies about Joseph Stalin" _https://rutube.ru/video/2b14b512227df5a491a2b9a58907b8b4/ In this, Grover Furr offers evidence that many of the early accusations against Stalin in the 1930'ies, were fielded by Trotsky and his supporters and that they have been repeated by various interested parties ever since, because although not Trotskist themselves his alleged exaggerations happened to serve their interests.

The page of Grover Furr is here: _https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/ and his books here: _https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=grover+furr Grover Furr is criticized here: _https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics#Grover_Furr where I also suspect and ad hominem attack:
In any discussion involving communism or the USSR, citing Grover Furr as a credible source loses you the argument immediately and gets you laughed out of the room.
I think the energetic and spirited approach which brought Grover Fuss to learn not only French, German and Russian, but also to acquire a working level of Ukrainian and Polish which allowed him to search and read original documents, deserve a more educated response than that. Well, apart from listening to a few of his lectures, I've not read any of his books, only an article about the Katyn massacre in which appears to be meticulous in his search for sources.

In one of the above videos, Grover Furr comments on the claim made by Tim Snyder. Snyder estimates about 15 million victims of the Gulag, which is already a huge reduction from the 40-50-110 million that were talked about in the 1970'ies an onwards and were also promoted by Solzhenitsyn. Another scholar, that Furr mentions, has landed on 6-8 million, which is half of 15 million, although the double of the numbers Spitsyn quotes based on Russian sources. For comparison, Jordan Peterson is on tens of millions killed by Stalin, listen to minute 3:30 in "'This is not wide spread knowledge' Jordan Peterson on Soviet History" _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPfWThToClo From this I gather that the legacy of Solzhenitsyn in terms of the numbers he claimed died is strong and well maintained, in spite of research done later by, lets say, the opponents of Grover Furr.

Even if the actual number of people affected by the Gulag and expulsion were not into the 40-50 millions, I don't see any reason why what Solzhenitsyn writes about the life in the Gulag can not be true and educative. I would be chocked if even 10.000 were affected and the Sovjet sources talk about a few million. The difference is however, that the exaggerated number smells of propaganda with a purpose.

Leaving the issue of the number of victims. In the interview with Spitsyn that I mentioned a few posts back, he spoke with utter contempt about the work on linguistic extensions that Solzhenitsyn had worked on. At the time I did not undertand what he was talking about. Now, I have found a possible explanation, because Solzhenitsyn was interested in language and compiled a different type of dictionary:
_http://www.solzhenitsyn.ru/proizvedeniya/russkiy_slovar_yazikovogo_rasshireniya/ said:
RUSSIAN DICTIONARY OF LINGUISTIC EXPANSION /
Comp. A. I. Solzhenitsyn. 3-e Izd. Moscow: Russian way, 2000. 280 p.

"The best way language enrichment is the restoration of first accumulated and then lost wealth," writes in the Preface to his Dictionary, the author A. I. Solzhenitsyn. Modern oral and written speech is noticeably lacking, becomes poor and dull, and we unreasonably refuse even viable full-fledged words, which can lead to a premature death. "Dictionary of language extensions" means collection of words, related from commonly used language volume, but for various reasons this use dropped. The task of the Dictionary is to remind them, that is, "live in our language", in the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

I don't understand why Spitsyn is upset with Solzhenitsyn because he enjoys and works with the language he writes in and loves, Russian. While I can not evaluate the work done, the tendency Solzhenitsyn has noticed of reduced richness of the language can also be found in other parts of the world. English literature of the 19th century probably used a greater vocabulary than many novels of today. Have a look at _https://www.geriwalton.com/jane-austens-vocabulary-from-emma/ Will children who grow up on an intellectual diet partially consisting of movies and comics will have a smaller more limited vocabulary than children who are tasked with reading classical literature? If they don't have a well developed vocabulary, will it put them at a disadvantage in terms of acquiring abstract concepts? Trying, as Solzhenitsyn does, to counter this development of poorer language can not be wrong.
 
Chacara said:
Another comment by the historian Andrey Fursov - "The Gulag Myth" (with English subtitles):

"He wrote the book The Gulag Archipelago, which isn't a scientific study but impressionism..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgUsZJPeRIU
Thank you Chacara for the link. In the video, Fursov claims that American scientists in the 1990'ies studied the question of the extent of the Gulag in the years between 1922 and 1953 concluded around 4.5 million people were affected by the Gulag of which around 700,000 to 750,000 were shot. This is pretty close to what the Russian historian Spitsyn mentions. In any case, it is not tens of millions or 110!

Apart from the issues of the numbers, another issue that has been raised by a few voices, for example by Mario Sousa, whom I quoted in a previous post, is that Solzhenitsyn at times made expressions that showed sympathy with fascist politics and ideas. I tried to track this trend and found I found a collection of such instances in a blog which calls itself In Defence of Communism, but the writer does not offer references for each instance, except to Mario Sousa, mentioned prviously who also did not give a source. The page is here:
_https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2016/08/solzhenitsyn-rotten-legacy-of-fascist.html

I looked for other sources making similar claims to see if they could offer something substantial:
_https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/6vc3zg/solzhenitsyns_nazi_sympathies/
They conclude it has little substance. One member of that forum offers a link to _https://books.google.com/books?id=kg2uAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT402&lpg=PT402&dq=solzhenitsyn+letter+Nikolai+Vitkevich&source=bl&ots=AwO_EteRbv&sig=pY06MohGHCOEpeP716czAxPGlt8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=solzhenitsyn%20letter%20Nikolai%20Vitkevich&f=false
In the book, it is explained what the situation was in Germany and what happened when Solzhenitsyn was arrested at the end og WW2 after having written a letter to his friend Nicolai Vitkevich, another Red Army officer.

_https://www.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/3xtx2h/me_when_someone_talks_about_the_fascist/
One of the forum members gives a link to an article in Spanish based on an interview with Solzhenitsyn. The number of 110 million Gulag victims is mentioned:
_http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1976/03/21/094.html
There was another link to an interview also in Spanish: _http://laquimera.typepad.com/laquimera/2009/07/recordando-a-juan-benet-a-propósito-de-solzhenitsyn.html
This is all on this topic.

Regarding the quality of his artistic work I found a review of a book written by Paul N. Siegel, _https://www.amazon.com/Great-Reversal-Politics-Art-Solzhenitsyn/dp/0929405056/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1512500640&sr=8-5&keywords=Politics+and+Art+in+Solzhenitsyn whose fundamental stand is on the left. His criticism of Solzhenitsyn is based on reading his works and interpreting them for their artistic and political value. In 1994, Alan Wald wrote in the magazine of Solidarity - a socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization:
_https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2776 said:
Mapping Solzhenitsyn's Decline
— Alan Wald
The Great Reversal:
Politics and Art in Solzhenitsyn
by Paul N. Siegel
San Francisco, CA: Walnut Publishing Co. 198 pages,
$9.95 paperback.

NO WRITER HAS been more intimately associated with the complex fate of the Russian Revolution than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who returned in late May 1994 to the former Soviet Union after nearly two decades of exile in Vermont.

The eminent poet and translator Boris Pasternak (1890-1960), author of the important but overrated novel Dr. Zhivago (1957), is indelibly associated with stoic, near-passive resistance to the efforts of Stalin's regime to destroy the liberatory artistic impulses unleashed by the October 1917 Revolution.1 But Solzhenitsyn, born later (1918) and living through not only the worst of the Stalinist terror but also the dismantling of the USSR in 1989, has a more contradictory and troubling relationship.

According to the documentary evidence of Solzhenitsyn's own early novels, and certain public statements made around the time of their publication, the Nobel Prize-winning author began as a kind of “Tolstoyan-Leninist” during the era of his most influential works, The First Circle (1964) and Cancer Ward (1966), as well as the novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch (1962).

To some observers he seemed to symbolize a principled opposition to the bureaucratic tyranny of Stalinism, one that stood for the restoration of democratic control of production by the producers, and the extirpation of all forms of elitism, prejudice, chauvinism and ideological justifications for the exploitation of one part of humanity by another.

Yet a reactionary transformation was apparent by the time of August 1914 (1972) that grew with intensity in The Gulag Archipelago (1974) and reached a culmination in Lenin in Zurich (1976) and a revised and expanded 1989 edition of August 1914.

During this phase Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Soviet Union and relocated himself in the United States, where he began to claim that his earlier works had been misrepresented by literary critics; these novels were, he now insisted, actually antisocialist and quite consistent with his later, conservative and even anti-Semitic views.

During 1993-94, as the former Soviet Union deepened its crisis, torn among ex-Stalinist managers, greedy free-marketeers, and outright proto-fascist forces, Solzhenitsyn announced his plan to return as a moral and political guide.

A Trajectory of Decline

Paul Siegel's short but rigorous study has the virtue of offering a cogent perspective on the changes that have occurred in Solzhenitsyn the man, as well as in his art.

In truth, the unreliability of authors as retrospective interpreters of the “real” meaning of their earlier writings is so notorious that Siegel has no difficulty in locating as his theme a famous dictum by novelist D.H. Lawrence, “Trust the tale, not the teller.”

Siegel presents Solzhenitsyn's trajectory as one of steady artistic decline, with the worst personality traits of the novelist -- arrogance, egomania, overconfidence and paranoia -- coming to the fore, partly due to the difficult circumstances under which he worked and wrote.

The political as well as artistic concerns of Siegel's book are ones of considerable importance to a wide range of socialist activists and cultural workers in the 1990s. The primary political problem confronting Solzhenitsyn, the one over which he eventually stumbled and fell, involves his understanding of the origins and evolution of the tyranny of Soviet totalitarianism.

Whatever one's own view of the precise development of that process, it is hard not to be full of admiration for the systematic way that Siegel documents a growing disjuncture between Solzhenitsyn's treatment of the subject and a large part of the historical record, including the record of his own earlier opinions.2

At the same time, Siegel is unambiguous in affirming that artistic decline is not a mere consequence of embracing reactionary politics; in contrast, he cites favorably Rosa Luxemburg's defense of the equally reactionary Dostoyevski. A counter-example to Solzhenitsyn, Dostoyevski is a writer whose art improved as he grew more conservative.

Thus Siegel attributes the deterioration of Solzhenitsyn's aesthetic quality mainly to failures in the areas of literary characterization and in his selection of various narrative techniques. These aspects are further compromised by Solzhenitsyn's growing tendency to distort history, in supposedly historical works, to such a degree that artistic integrity is necessarily affected.

The Great Reversal is a refreshing antidote to that trend in contemporary Marxist literary scholarship substituting rhetorical ambiguity and continual deferral of meaning for clarity and communication, thus rendering much criticism inaccessible to an audience beyond other specialists.

Siegel combines meticulous close readings of Solzhenitsyn's major novels with straight-forward political exegesis, followed by an appendix containing a useful glossary of fictional characters.

Moreover, Siegel's treatment of the complex relation between Leninism and Stalinism is also valuable as a timely educational tool in the face of the onslaught of the latest wave of banal “discoveries” by one-time radicals that the former simply produced the latter.

On the other hand, Siegel, in this sixth book of his own scholarly writing,3 continues to work with a very traditional notion of aesthetic value, more or less associated with that adulation of Shakespeare (shared, of course, by Marx) so characteristic of all Marxist literary critics prior to the 1960s, Communist and Socialist as well as Trotskyist.

This book's research, too, is based entirely on the intelligent reading and selection quotation of secondary sources and translations, but not on the investigation of primary sources.

Still, for the general reader, Paul N. Siegel has produced a superb map of the rise and decline of Solzhenitsyn as a writer and as an icon of heroic resistance to authoritarianism. For anyone who wishes to be informed about the pivotal artistic and political problems in the novelist and his work, The Great Reversal is a kind of vindication of the continuing relevance of the classical Marxist and Trotskyist outlook.

ATC 56, May-June 1995

One can find many reviews of the work of Solzhenitsyn and after his his passing orbituaries, for instance:
_http://www.academia.edu/10005054/Alexander_Solzhenitsyn_A_False_Prophet said:
This obituary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn appeared in the
Weekly Worker, 4 September 2008. Key words

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Soviet Union, Stalinism, Cold War. Note on the author

Paul Flewers is a socialist historian and a member of the Editorial Boards of New Interventions and Revolutionary History. His book The New Civilisation? Understanding Stalin’s Soviet Union, 1929-1941, was recently published by Francis Boutle.
* * *
Alexander Solzhenitsyn died on 2 August at the age of 89. Back in the 1970s, both before and following his expulsion from the Soviet Union, he symbolised the Western image of the Soviet dissident, the lone writer standing steadfastly against the might of the totalitarian Soviet state, fighting to reveal the truth about the Soviet Union against the distortions assiduously promoted by its rulers in the Kremlin. Although
Solzhenitsyn’s record as a dissident was inevitably raised in the obituaries, he had been out of the public view for some years, not merely after his return to Russia in 1994, but prior to it, as a result of his extreme Cold War views becoming somewhat outdated during the glasnost period, the broadly considered feeling that his artistic abilities were fading, and the growing alienation from his increasingly cranky conservative views.
[...]

Another way of approaching Solzhinitsyn is to read some interviews:
_https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/02/14/the-exile-returns
February 14, 1994 Issue
The Exile Returns
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn posed such a threat to the Soviet Politburo that it exiled him after the publication of “The Gulag Archipelago,” but for twenty years the West was also a reluctant audience for his uncompromising views. Now, having completed his historical opus, the author is going home, to seek a role in the new Russia.
In the above text, there is an introduction that explains in details how Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Sovjet Union and a little further down there is an interview with him just before he left the US.

In Russia, after he died, there was in Komsomolskaya Pravda a reprint of an interview from 2006:
_https://www.kompravda.eu/daily/24140.5/358660/ said:
04.08.8 - 02:33
Alexander SOLZHENITSYN: the Word "fascism" we throw irresponsible
One of his last interviews to the Russian press
[...]
An interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the newspaper "Moscow news" [28.04.2006]
Part of the above can be found on _http://relcom.politics.narkive.com/YbrgrWNy
[/quote]

About a year before he passed away, the German magazine Der Spiegel carried a long interview:
_http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-alexander-solzhenitsyn-i-am-not-afraid-of-death-a-496211.html said:
AUS DEM SPIEGEL AUSGABE 30/2007
SPIEGEL Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn
'I Am Not Afraid of Death'
In an interview with SPIEGEL, prominent Russian writer and Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn discusses Russia's turbulent history, Putin's version of democracy and his attitude to life and death.
July 23, 2007 12:00 AM Print Feedback
[...]
From the later interviews, it appears Solshenitsyn realized what western capitalism with NATO as its boot can be like. Fortunately he lived long enough to see, and there is little reason not to highlight this insight next year, when Solzhenitsyn would have turned 100 years.
 
Hi Thorbiorn, I see you have done quite a bit of work here to bring out information about Solzhenitsyn. Bravo.

OK, I'm not a professional historian but I have read quite a bit of Russian early history. To challenge specific statistics is way out of my league and for me not that interesting anyway. I am convinced of one thing though, all sides lie when it is in their interest. Our problem is deciding when the lying starts and ends. Not an easy task for sure.

One of my "detection methods" is to monitor how intense the information storm is and who is transmitting it. Thus if CNN starts to round the clock drum into me that "Client #9" is the biggest scumbag in the US I KNOW that Eliot Spitzer was doing something RIGHT and he had to be stopped. Same goes for attacks on other leaders in the world. Just observe who is doing the attacking and try to guess why they are doing this. To do this effectively one NEEDS TO KNOW history rather well.

I will just take this fragment from Spigel

SPIEGEL: Thirteen years ago when you returned from exile, you were disappointed to see the new Russia. You turned down a prize proposed by Gorbachev, and you also refused to accept an award Yeltsin wanted to give you. Yet now you have accepted the State Prize which was awarded to you by Putin, the former head of the FSB intelligence agency, whose predecessor the KGB persecuted and denounced you so cruelly. How does this all fit together?

After reading this I think I have a fairly good idea why he did what he did.

1) Gorbachev - the savior of Soviet Union who got a foundation in San Francisco thanks to ... Yes, who ?????? Well obviously the Capitalists Elite gifted this to him. If I was a Soviet/Russian citizen and I knew this I would not even show up anywhere close to this guy much less shake his hand.

I just entered a few words into Google and chose the 1st site that had info about what I am talking about here ,Presidio gift,
http://www.kenraggio.com/KRPN-Gorbachev-PresidiumtoPresidio.htm

2) Yeltsin - This guy was a manipulated drunk who sold the Soviet Union for pennies. The mere fact that President Clinton gave Yeltsin so much attention and "love" is a signal that Yeltsin was doing something that was agreeable to the US Elites. Since it was good for US it HAD TO BE bad for the Soviet/Russian people. No one will convince me of this not being true.

Have a taste of how bad it was,
https://isteve.blogspot.lu/2014/02/the-rape-of-russia-explained-by-anne.html

So again, what I said for Gorbi goes also for Yeltsin IF I WAS Solzhenitsyn I would have ignored him completely.

Now we come to Putin. The repeated "KGB agent" who is everywhere all the time. Same litmus test, West hates him = Putin is doing something the US Elites DON'T LIKE and it must be good for the Russian People.

So what is the problem with Solzhenitsyn ? I read his books and I have no problem with them. Number accuracy, OK justifiable. Hated the Soviet gov., OK the left will have a problem with this. Artistic merits, give me a break. No one is trying to make him into a Dostoevsky as far as I can tell. But there is one problem with Solzhenitsyn, Putin took a liking to him. For me that is the "Bingo". Solzhenitsyn AGREED to meet Putin because Putin was doing something right for HIS PEOPLE !!!!

... but for twenty years the West was also a reluctant audience for his uncompromising views.

There we have it in a few words. Solzhenitsyn was not an agent of the WEST but an agent of the Russian People. That is how I interpret Solzhenitsyn.

The use of "reluctant audience" does a great job of camouflaging the fact that Solzhenitsyn must have seen the rot in the US system which today is wide open for viewing for those who have their eyes open.

My advice is to study the Russian history from the last tsar to WW II. Try to understand WHY Stolypin was eliminated. (Hint: positive reforms would stymie FUTURE plans for some people.) Was the Russian Revolution russian ? How is it possible that Armand Hammer was able to do business with Lenin's Soviet Union and the US gov. had no problem with this ? ......

http://templeton01436.blogspot.lu/2017/11/heres-what-real-us-russian-collusion.html

Business is Business ;) ;)
 
Hi_Henry thank you for your reflections, links and suggestions of how to analyse the situation.

Pjotr Stolypin, it turns out, was murdered in Kiev by a _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Bogrov which has:
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Bogrov said:
[...]On 14 September 1911, Dmitry Bogrov shot the Russian prime minister Pyotr Stolypin, in the Kiev Opera House, in front of Tsar Nicholas II and two of the imperial princesses. Stolypin died four days later. This act was committed ostensibly in order to decapitate a successful and popular conservative reform movement and thus hasten violent revolution. However, it has been alleged[by whom?] that Bogrov was permitted to act at the behest of extreme right-wing elements in the Tsarist secret police who detested Stolypin because of his agrarian reforms and his flair for parliamentary government. (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn extensively investigates and gives full credit to this conjecture in his historical novel August 1914).[...]
One could as you indicate say more about this, but....

I found that the testimony of Anne Williamson can be found on: _http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/banking/92199wil.shtml
which was reposted by the following:
_https://solari.com/blog/anne-williamson-testimony/?doing_wp_cron=1512571792.6828091144561767578125
_https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2714-The-Rape-of-Russia-by-Anne-Williamson#.WigBLIDyD2I
_http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Economics&Finance/+Doc-Economics&Finance-GovernmentInfluence&Meddling/BankstersInRussiaAndGlobalEconomy.htm and this pages integrates her views in an article: _https://gizadeathstar.com/2014/08/look-back-anne-williamson-rape-russia/

And there is a review of her unpublished book by Paul Likoudis, possibly first posted around the year 2000?
HOW CLINTON AND COMPANY AND THE BANKERS PLUNDERED RUSSIA IN THE '90S
_http://www.globaltruth.net/how-clinton-and-company-and-the-bankers-plundered-russia-in-the-90s/ reposted here: _http://www.jrbooksonline.com/faem/letters/likoudis.htm

There is a later article by Anne Williamson:
How George Soros Got His Mojo Working in Ukraine
_https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/anne-williamson/bloody-evil-george-soros/ reposted on
_https://kiorana.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/russia-in-the-90s-3-the-contagion/
For more articles by Anne Williamson: _https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/anne-williamson/
Basically, Anne Williamson describes a lot of what made Solzhenitsyn sad when he returned to Russia.

Anne Williamson is also mentioned in this article in Russian, which has many other references: _https://m-introduction.livejournal.com/830016.html that begins here: _https://m-introduction.livejournal.com/829912.html which refers to a book by Alexandra Zhdanovskaya "Where are Russia, the IMF, the world Bank and the WTO?", released in 2015, there are two volumes: —Куда ведут Россию МВФ, Всемирный Банк и ВТО? Книга 1. Механизмы создания зависимости
Главная / Куда ведут Россию МВФ, Всемирный Банк и ВТО? Книга 1. Механизмы создания зависимости[...]

One question I was wondering about in relation to Spitsyn's claim that Solzhenitsyn isn't a classic was to look up what the readers think and I tried different languages and pages of Amazone
_https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_6?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=solzhenitsyn&sprefix=solzhe%2Caps%2C191&crid=I2XM1O6AKHQU
_https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=solzhenitsyn&sprefix=solzh%2Caps%2C248&crid=T0QAKHYSTIO4
In the American there is an equal number of reviews for The First Circle and A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and as far as I can see they are joined, with I do not understand.
_https://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_7?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=solschenizyn&sprefix=solsche%2Caps%2C177&crid=2V2M34E5BI45I&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Asolschenizyn
_https://www.amazon.fr/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?__mk_fr_FR=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=soljenitsyne&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Asoljenitsyne
The books do not have the same star average in all countries, but the general impression is that many like his books, also among Chinese readers _https://www.amazon.cn/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_6?__mk_zh_CN=亚马逊网站&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=solzhenitsyn&sprefix=solzhe%2Caps%2C4399&crid=V8YV1R78IYZ9
where Cancer Ward which was what really gave him the Nobel Price also has good reviews: _https://www.amazon.cn/gp/product-reviews/B00BN080K8/ref=pd_luc_rv_lh_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

The book Warning to the West has good reviews too: _https://www.amazon.com/Warning-West-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/0374513341/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1512580179&sr=8-7&keywords=alexander+solzhenitsyn

On the way through all the links, I learned that the last book, literally translated as "200 Years Together", is out in a new English translation: _https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucifixion-Russia-Russians-translation-Solzhenitsyns/dp/1548660272/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512563717&sr=1-12&keywords=solzhenitsyn#customerReviews

Finally, if one knows Russian well, there is a fast and animated reading of
"Один день Ивана Денисовича" Солженицын Александр on _https://knigaaudio.online/69-solzhenitsin-odin-den-ivana-denisovicha.html
Read by Solzhenitsyn himself.
 
The title of this book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is probably familiar to all who have listened to Jordan Peterson's work.

I am only around 40 pages in right now, but the horror of what he describes in the book has been occupying my thoughts for the past 2 days.

Having read Political Ponerology beforehand really gives this a much needed backlight for understanding just what the hell is going on in these pages. I can imagine that to the average person with no understanding of ponerology, Solzhenitsyn's work would be incomprehensible. It is so far removed from our every day reality that we could simply not imagine living in such madness.

The current rise of the radical left and PC, anti-free-speech culture in Western states also gives more appropriate context for reading the Archipelago. It really is no wonder that Peterson recommends this as required reading for everyone on the planet.

I will leave this excerpt below, which is as powerful an anecdote as can be found for illustrating the dangers of political correctness and the censoring of free speech. Look just how bad it can get:

I was listening to audible book of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago after hearing from JBP many times. It is the same impressions. One has to wonder the mindset of those blue caps "Give me the person, we will build the case against them", waves of arrests that lock up the old structures and create new structures and in general "spy mania" Stalin created. Obviously, One has to wonder how Russian people, in general, failed to suspect the night arrests that reminds us of "black bags" of "V for Vendetta". Probably, the situation is not bad under Tsar'ist Russia and so they are not suspecting.

Maybe what Solzhenitsyn wrote may not be a "Noble prize for Literature" material, but it is revolutionary of the time. As usual, different forces use them. This explains why Russians were ecstatic to get rid of Soviet Union. Unfortunately, they saw another face of the beast, lucky to be saved by Putin. This explains why Putin encourages the "Orthodox church" as a sort of "Order", when West dumping Church as pedophilia soaked organization and doubts about the historical fact is clearly challenged.

From Wiki
There had been works about the Soviet prison/camp system before, and its existence had been known to the Western public since the 1930s. However, never before had the general reading public been brought face to face with the horrors of the Gulag in this way. The controversy surrounding this text, in particular, was largely due to the way Solzhenitsyn definitively and painstakingly laid the theoretical, legal, and practical origins of the Gulag system at Lenin's feet, not Stalin's. According to Solzhenitsyn's testimony, Stalin merely amplified a concentration camp system that was already in place. This is significant, as many Western intellectuals viewed the Soviet concentration camp system as a "Stalinist aberration"

In the end, we have to wonder how US/UK bought the media narration to fight in World wars, German's bought the Hitler non-sense whether Communism exist or not.

Even if the Solzhenitsyn numbers exaggerated by 2 or 3 times, what happened in those gulag days is too much (at least for me). It's all the same horror story everywhere.

JBP is right in warning leftists about what happens when the civilization mindlessly destroy the existing order that only helps few pathological people getting in power and repeat it all over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chu
I was listening to audible book of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago after hearing from JBP many times. It is the same impressions. One has to wonder the mindset of those blue caps "Give me the person, we will build the case against them", waves of arrests that lock up the old structures and create new structures and in general "spy mania" Stalin created. Obviously, One has to wonder how Russian people, in general, failed to suspect the night arrests that reminds us of "black bags" of "V for Vendetta". Probably, the situation is not bad under Tsar'ist Russia and so they are not suspecting.

What was striking to me while reading it were the obvious parallels with today's world, even though it's not a fullblown global dictatorship and a lot is done in the name of "freedom and democracy". The scheming, the disregard for truth, the cruelty of the few towards the masses, the victim mentality, the paranoia, the propaganda to cover their actions, people's fear to stand up, a sewn distrust in fellow human beings, etc. Does that ring a bell?
 
Uh huh . . . difficult to swallow if one has read 'The Mitrokihin Archives' (both Vol-I and II) published by the UK.

Wikipedia - Mitrokhin Archive - Wikipedia

"These are a collection of handwritten notes made secretly by KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin during his 30 years as a KGB archivist in the foreign intelligence service and the First Chief Directorate. When he defected to the United Kingdom in 1992 he brought the archive with him in a baby's pram with which he crossed over to the British Embassy. Mitrokhin made no attempt to contact any Western intelligence service during the Soviet Era. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union (in 1992) he traveled to Latvia with copies of material from the archive and walked into the American embassy in Riga. Central Intelligence Agency officers there did not consider him to be credible, concluding that the copied documents could be faked. He then went to the British embassy and a young diplomat there saw his potential and after a further appointment one month later with representatives of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) operations followed to retrieve the 25,000 pages of files hidden in his house, covering operations from as far back as the 1930s."
 
i refer to the:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union

By Mario Sousa
Member of the
Communist Party Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries
Sweden
KPML(r)
From Hitler to Hearst, from Conquest to Solzhenitsyn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
what a piece of crap ! ! !
i've read each and every book written by Alexander Solzhenytsysn - try reading 'Cancer Ward' or 'The Love Girl and The Soldier' or 'The Inner Circle' . . . it'll blow your socks off ! ! !
 
Somewhere I encountered a mentioning of a book by Varlam Tikhonovich Shalamov called the "Kolyma Tales." (Колымские рассказы, Kolymskiye rasskazy), see the Wiki here The Kolyma Tales - Wikipedia and about the author: Varlam Shalamov - Wikipedia They write on the English Wiki that they need some more citations, but there are other languages, if one either knows them or uses a machine.

Kolyma Tales are on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Kolyma-Tales...3468468&sr=8-1&keywords=kolyma+tales+shalamov It is also available in Russian and Spanish, besides supposedly having been published in French and German, but these two languages, I could not find.

The author spent about 17 years in the Gulag system and the book consists of a collection of shortstories based on the lives and histories of people that he met or situations he experienced himself. They reveal the history of the time, as post cards from a different world, like snapshots of people and events. Although the topic is similar to that of Solzhenitsyn's, the style is different, being short and descriptive usually revolving around a single theme. In some of the tales one also gets a glimpse of what happened to some of the people later on after the end of the life in the camps.

On the cover of the Penguin Twntieth-century Classics edition, it included "When he first came across an anthology of Shalamov’s poetry, Solzhenitsyn said that he ‘trembled as if he were meeting a brother’." On Переписка с Солженицыным А.И. // Варлам Шаламов there are some of the letters that Varlam wrote to Solzhenitsyn between 1962 and 1966. The first seems to be in respons to and a comment on the publication of One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich, apparently some of the conditions Varlam knew were worse. Still, he is full of praise for Solzhenitsyn's book.
November 1, 1964.
Dear Alexander Isaevich!

I did not sleep for two nights - read the story [1], reread it, remembered it ...

The story is like poetry - everything is perfect in it, everything is expedient. Each line, every scene, every characteristic is so concise, clever, subtle and deep that I think that from the very beginning of its existence the "New World" did not publish anything so integral, so strong. And so necessary - for without an honest solution of these very issues, neither literature nor social life can go forward - everything that goes with the ignorance, bypassing, deceiving, bringing, brings and will only bring harm.

Let me congratulate you, yourself, thousands of survivors and hundreds of thousands of dead (if not millions), because they also live with this truly amazing story.

Allow me to share my thoughts about both the story and the camps.[...]
And he goes on to compare his own experience of life in the camps with what Solzhenitsyn writes in his book.

There is a youtube documentary about the Kolyma camps and I noticed an excerpt from the book by Shalamov, it is in the beginnig, when they say that stones bury people:

For a series of interviews with women who were in the camps:
Shalamov writes on this subject too, and he does not seem to be too far off.


For a story of woman, born in a Polish and Jewish family in Rovno in what is now Ukraine. Her destiny was much lighter than what many of the people in Kolyma camps experienced, even though she also ended up in a camp:
For a short presentation of Solzhenitsyn's lessons from the Gulag, which at the end of the presentation is related to a Stoic approach to life, have a look at:

The Gulag Archipelago and The Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom