Stalin полностью

193. The film, applauded Izvestiya (Sept. 2), “answers like nothing else the cultural demands of our country’s populace. The masses are showing an unheard of interest in history . . . They want to see the paths that have brought them to glory.”

194. Tolstoi, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, XIII: 355. See also Petrone, Life Has Become More Joyous, 159 (citing RGALI, f. 962, op. 3, d. 287, l. 34); and Tucker, Stalin in Power, 114–8.

195. Garros et al., Intimacy and Terror, 209 (Galina Shtange). The depiction of Peter was so over-the-top positive that the American worker John Scott, who saw the film in Magnitogorsk, guessed that Peter the First had been imported. Scott, Behind the Urals, 236. See also Siegelbaum and Sokolov, Stalinism as a Way of Life, 211 (I. K. Karniush to Krest’ianskaia Gazeta, Oct. 30, 1938).

196. Back in April 1926, Stalin had ridiculed comrades who imagined Ivan the Terrible or even Peter as Russia’s industrializers (“not all industrial development constitutes industrialization. The heart of industrialization, its basis, consists in the development of heavy industry, . . . the production of the means of production, in the development of its own machine-building”). At a Central Committee plenum in Nov. 1928, Stalin had said, “when Peter the Great, having dealings with the more developed countries of the West, feverishly built factories for the supply of the army and strengthening the country’s defenses, this was the original attempt to leap out from the limits of backwardness. It is fully understood, however, that not one of the old classes, neither the feudal aristocracy nor the bourgeoisie, could resolve the task of liquidating our country’s backwardness.” In 1931, speaking to Emil Ludwig, Stalin had again brushed off the parallel with Peter, because Soviet modernization efforts were not on behalf of the landowners or merchants but the working class. Sochineniia, VIII: 120–1, XI: 248–9, XIII: 104–5.

197. There is an anecdote that has Stalin rebuking Vasily when he caught his son attempting to trade on his name: “You’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, no, not even me!” Montefiore, Court of the Red Tsar, 6 (citing only “Artyom Sergeev”).

198. As Giuseppe Boffa observed, “no matter how numerous its ties with Russia’s past (and certainly it does have many), Stalinism is still a modern phenomenon, well rooted in our century.” Boffa, Stalin Phenomenon, 58. See also Rees, “Stalin and Russian Nationalism,” 77–106 (esp. 93–5).

199. Koliazin and Goncharov, “Vernite mne svobodu!,” 78–95 (Pyotr Tyurkin). Union and autonomous republics lobbied against too much time devoted to teaching Russian (time devoted to native languages would increase in 1938–39). Many locales lacked trained instructors to teach the Russian language. Russian was taught in fewer than half of Turkmenistan’s 728 schools, one-third of Kyrgyzstan’s 667, and one-seventh of Kazakhstan’s 330, and even when taught the quality of instruction was low. Blitstein, “Nation-Building or Russification?,” 256 (citing RGASPI, f. 17, op. 114, d. 840, l. 76–7).