Ο Πρόεδρος της Γερμανίας, Γιόαχιμ Γκάουκ, χαρακτηρίζει «κομμουνιστική και δικτατορική» την Ανατολική Γερμανία — προφανώς συνδέοντας τους δύο αυτούς χαρακτηρισμούς: http://www.kathimerini.gr/757014/opinion/epikairothta/politikh/diplh-prosvolh.
Σοβιετικά
- Thread starter Costas
- Start date
Costas
¥
Cold War Journalism, Soviet & US (Rachel Appelbaum / Dissertation Reviews)
A review of Notes from the Rotten West, Reports from the Backward East: Soviet and American Foreign Correspondents in the Cold War, 1945–1985, by Dina Fainberg.
A review of Notes from the Rotten West, Reports from the Backward East: Soviet and American Foreign Correspondents in the Cold War, 1945–1985, by Dina Fainberg.
Γκριζάρω επειδή δεν είναι ακριβώς «σοβιετικό» το θέμα, αλλά τη δεκαετία του '80, ο Γ. Καρατζαφέρης χρησιμοποίησε την μέθοδο της βιντεοκασέτας για να προσεγγίσει ένα ευρύ κοινό παράγοντας και διανέμοντας (ακόμη και στις λαϊκές αγορές) φιλονεοδημοκρατικές/αντιπασοκικές βιντεοκασέτες. (Εκείνη την εποχή, για όσους δεν είχαν γεννηθεί πριν από τη Μεταπολίτευση, δεν υπήρχαν ιδιωτικά ραδιόφωνα, δεν υπήρχαν ιδιωτικά κανάλια -- μόνο κρατικά, απόλυτα ελεγχόμενα από την εκάστοτε κυβέρνηση, δεν υπήρχε ίντερνετ --για την ακρίβεια δεν υπήρχαν καν πολλά πολλά PC, δεν υπήρχαν κινητά τηλέφωνα -- για την ακρίβεια, χρειαζόσουν μέσο για να βάλεις σταθερό τηλέφωνο και, γενικά, ήταν μια πρωτόγονη εποχή όπου, όμως, δέναμε τα σκυλιά με τα λουκάνικα. :devil:)
SBE
¥
Συνδυάζοντας το πιο πάνω με την είδηση (για μένα είδηση ήταν) ότι η πιο δημοφιλής αμερικάνικη ταινία στη Σοβιετική Ένωση ήταν η Τούτσι, δεν μπορώ να μην σκεφτώ ότι ύστερα από δεκαετίες μορφωτικής και πολιτιστική ανύψωσης του λαού (λέμε τώρα), βρίσκουν μια ευκαιρία να δουν δυτικό σινεμά και πάνε και βλέπουν τον Τσακ Νόρις και τον Βαν Νταμ.
Αυτό δένει και με αυτό του δόχτορα πιο πάνω, μετά από τις προσπάθειες της κρατικής τηλεόρασης τη δεκαετία του '80 να μας ταϊσει με το κουταλάκι βαριά κουλτούρα, έρχεται η ιδιωτική κι η δορυφορική* τηλεόραση και τρέχει ο κόσμος να δει σκουπιδαριό (αν και η δικαιολογία ήταν ότι όλοι ήθελαν ανεξάρτητη ειδησεογραφία).
* Είμαι σίγουρη ότι όλοι θυμούνται το RTL και το μεταμεσονύχτιο πρόγραμμά του
Αυτό δένει και με αυτό του δόχτορα πιο πάνω, μετά από τις προσπάθειες της κρατικής τηλεόρασης τη δεκαετία του '80 να μας ταϊσει με το κουταλάκι βαριά κουλτούρα, έρχεται η ιδιωτική κι η δορυφορική* τηλεόραση και τρέχει ο κόσμος να δει σκουπιδαριό (αν και η δικαιολογία ήταν ότι όλοι ήθελαν ανεξάρτητη ειδησεογραφία).
* Είμαι σίγουρη ότι όλοι θυμούνται το RTL και το μεταμεσονύχτιο πρόγραμμά του
Costas
¥
Skeletal Remains and Soviet Violence
(Dissertation Reviews)
Posted on May 19, 2014 in Russia | 0 comments
A review of State-Sponsored Violence in the Soviet Union: Skeletal Trauma and Burial Organization in a Post World War II Lithuanian Sample by Catherine Elizabeth Bird.
Studying the state has always been somewhat problematic for anthropologists. Even when we try to be global, studying in a village, instead of the village, as Clifford Geertz (The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973, p. 22) recommended, we are somewhat methodologically bereft when it comes to studying the state and its instruments of power (Michel Bouchard, “The State of the Study of the State in Anthropology.” Reviews in Anthropology, vol. 40, no. 3, 2011, pp. 183-209). Rarely do researchers have access to the inner sanctums of power, whether the state war rooms or corporate boardrooms. Moreover, state sanctioned violence is even more problematic as anthropologists would not, should not, be observing, let alone participating, in large-scale state executions of political prisoners. Anthropologists must thus rely on indirect sources to analyze the inner workings of power. Catherine Elizabeth Bird in her thesis “State-Sponsored Violence in the Soviet Union: Skeletal Trauma and Burial Organization in a Post World War II Lithuanian Sample” seeks to understand the behavior of the executioners, state security personnel, in order to understand their actions and motivations through physical and skeletal remains. Bird provides and innovative example as to how anthropologists can study the state; a model that could be applied to a number of contexts outside of mass executions carried out by agents of the state.
Central to the very definition of the state is the monopoly that the state has on violence, and as Bird’s research highlights that violence can be quite intensive and extensive when carried out as a form of state terror on a population. Though the state can rarely monopolize entirely violence, it can nonetheless ensure that other social actors who infringe on its monopoly are summarily sanctioned. Failed states are those who can neither curtail nor contain violence and quite often watch passively as violence is appropriated by others to serve their own agendas. Totalitarian states, in contrast, exercise their monopoly ruthlessly and invariably use state-sanctioned violence as a tool, usually coupled with ideology and propaganda, to ensure the primacy of the power of the state and its bureaucracy. Nonetheless, the control of the very agents tasked with carrying out the orders of the highest state officials is always problematic: the violence unleashed against individuals within the populace could be turned back against the very individuals identifying the enemies of the state and condemning them to death. Joseph Stalin who unleashed state terror on the populace of the Soviet Union, perhaps understood this too well. In the 1930s, the secret police would not escape the purges, as the NKVD director Genrikh Yagoda would be executed and the new director would execute all the higher agents that he feared were loyal to Yagoda. The NKVD was the latest incarnation of the “Chekists” or secret police established at the time of the Russian Revolution and the secret police forces would have a succession of reincarnations and acronyms to name it from VCheKa, GPU, OGPU, NKVD, KGB and in contemporary Russia FSB. Yagoda’s successor, Nikoay Yezhov would eventually be executed in turn and Stalin’s lieutenant Lavrenti Beria was arrested and executed following Stalin’s death. The Soviet leadership was ruthless in executing the executioners lest they seek to seize power.
Bird’s thesis provides an intriguing account seeking to analyze the skeletal remains of the victims to understand the idiosyncratic behavior of their executioners. It is somewhat unorthodox, but a compelling research project that seeks to better understand state sanctioned and managed violence. History examines the state officials who sign the orders, but the agents carrying out the orders at the behest of the state are invariably overlooked. Bird thus provides a timely account of the victims of state violence, precisely when state violence is on the rise and when words such as “genocide” and “Fascist” are being lobbied about in the growing conflict in Ukraine while the “Great Patriotic War” (World War II) is continually being sanctified to justify the contemporary actions of the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union’s de facto successor state. The millions who were victims of the Soviet state have been blocked out of the popular consciousness in Russia, while school children in this state continue to go out to disinter and identify fallen soldiers (Lucy Ash, “Digging for their lives: Russia’s volunteer body hunters,” Vol. 2014: BBC News) as they are sacred to the state narrative and certainly better represent the ideals of the state, the sacrifice of individuals for the state, and thus ensure the identification of the population with the state.
Following an analysis of skeletal remains from one burial site and comparing four mass burial sites for the victims of state violence (two in Lithuania, one in Ukraine and one in Russia), Bird succeeds in differentiating differences in the practices of the agents. Though the state seeks to ensure its standards in executions, Bird uncovers a shift in the evidence with improvisation of violence increasing in the site she studied directly, possibly due to factors such as training, prisoner compliance, sadism and desensitization to violence. Bird then reviews the literature on violence and the state and builds upon the work of Paul Gregory (Paul Gregory, Terror by Quota: State Security from Lenin to Stalin: An Archival Study. Yale University Press, 2009) who identifies principals (individuals issuing orders), agents (those who carry out those orders) and enemies. Bird (p. 35) notes how the Soviet security apparatus “identified enemies of the state,” but the real question is whether totalitarian states need enemies in the same way that violence is central to the success of expansionist states. Bird (p. 35) writes that “enemies” were “arrested for the social danger they posed” but perhaps enemies were simply needed to whip up the hysteria of the enemy at the gates, as a means to solidify the ideological power of the state. In essence, enemies were arrested not for any real danger they posed, social or political, but simply to prove the existence of posited counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs to rouse the masses. As Bird writes, “confessions of guilt proved more important than evidence of crimes” and enemies are thus oftentimes more important to totalitarian states than the winning wars as both external and the threat of fifth column internal enemies justifies the use of violence by the state. Yet, in spite of this need, the practice of executing these “enemies” was highly secretive as it was necessary for the populace to both know and not know of the state violence; the fear was necessary for discipline, but the state did now want the details to be known.
The challenge with analyzing the remains of those executed during Soviet times is the reticence of contemporary states to study past state violence. The contemporary Russian State and the FSB, for example, have blocked research into the mass grave site found close to the Rzhevsky artillery range near Toksovo, a small city some 20 miles north of St. Petersburg (Anna Badkhen, “Soviet Union’s past remains buried. Human rights group trying to uncover full truth behind Stalin’s bloody reign.” SFGate, 8 Aug. 2003) that could hold the remains of some 32,000 victims of state violence. Rarely is it possible to find both the physical remains of the executed and the documentation that can be tied to specific clandestine mass graves. Russia has little interest in pursuing such research and other states may find the remains, but will be unable to locate the paperwork tied to the interred remains. The case that Bird (p. 63) studied, the mass graves located on the Tuskulenai Estate in Lithuania was exceptional in that the graves were discovered after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the state security documents were discovered in 1994. The Lithuanian President then established a working group to investigate and the team included archaeologists, anthropologists and forensic experts. The Tuskuleniai site yielded a total of 724 individuals buried in 45 mass graves. This particular location featured burial pits that could be dated with precision and thus could provide researchers the ability to see if there were any changes between July 1945 and January 1947. Random samples of dated burial pits were analyzed and this material was then compared to skeletal data from three other locations analyzed in the 1940s and chronicled in the forensic literature: Vinnytsia (Ukraine), Katyn (Polish nationals executed and buried in the Katyn forest including thousands of Polish army officers, police officers, members of the Polish intelligentsia and others) and Rainiai (Lithuania). One of the goals was to determine whether the method of execution complied to state standards: full compliance being a gunshot to the back of the head versus partial compliance (shooting the victim but not in the back of the head) and non-compliance whereby another mechanism of force was used to execute a prisoner. Once the wounds were identified and recorded, the study sought to understand if the violence had changed over time and between the security personnel carrying out executions. In the case under study, the timeline and identity of the personnel was known and burial pits could be tied to one of two specific execution squads (pp. 100-101 and p. 124). Finally, a mortuary analysis was conducted to better understand how the executed prisoners were then interred. In total, the remains of 155 individuals from 12 burial pits were analyzed.
Following a thorough analysis and description of the skeletal remains, Bird provides an intriguing overview of the changing modus operandi over time at the Tuskulenai. Whereas the earlier burial pits conformed strictly to state directives, single gunshot to the back of the head, the victims in the latter burial pits are more likely to have been subject to blunt for trauma and were less likely to have been killed by gunshots. Thus, the earlier execution squad, Dolgirev’s squad conformed more closely to state directives, while the latter squad, Prikazchikov’s, was less likely to conform (p. 198).
Finally, Bird’s comparison of her forensic analysis of the material from Tuskulenai with the three other sites, demonstrates a great deal of variety between locales when it comes to conforming with state guidelines in executing prisoners. Though Katyn is excluded as it was impossible to judge whether there had been blunt force trauma, virtually all the prisoners seem to have been executed with one gunshot to the back of the skull. In Vinnytsia, there was close to complete conformity with the recorded skeletal trauma with little evidence of blunt force trauma and once again all the victims having been killed with one gunshot. In the Rainiai burials, conformity to state standards was close to inexistent. There is much evidence for sharp force trauma (47%) and close to all the victims (93%) exhibited blunt force trauma and many over 4, 5 or 6 episodes (p. 255). Finally, in this site, there is a significantly higher number of gunshot wounds to the body and not solely to the head as was the case in the other locales (p. 254). This raises interesting questions as to why there was such discrepancy in this particular site.
Though the research is focused on the scientific forensic analysis, Bird does venture into providing some possible explanations as to differences that were seen in the remains that were analyzed. In the case of the Tuskulenai case, she notes that the partisan war was intensifying and that “it was expected that agents would improvise violence rather than comply with state guidelines” (p. 286). The challenge when seeking to prove such hypotheses is that the agents may have been acting on verbal commands and instructions given to them, so it is not possible to prove conclusively that the variation was based on the agency of individual agents or even execution squads. Bird then provides some of the explanations that could account for the Rainiai case. She notes that given that the German invasion was unexpected that the Soviet authorities had not developed a clear plan for the prisoners and that agents were forced to improvise and that the prisoners were killed in the chaos following an order to evacuate (pp. 290-291). Also, it is possible that the executioners in this site were not solely the secret police, the NKVD, but also the Red Army. The soldiers, not constrained by the same rules, would have resulted in a greater variation in the violence seen in the human remains excavated.
Bird certainly set about on a challenging task, which was to push the forensic anthropology envelope to extrapolate her research findings to analyze the behavior and potential agency of individuals. It does highlight some of the weaknesses of anthropology when it comes to the analysis of states and state violence. There is a theoretical gap as Bird (p. 304) had to seek a way to proceed beyond a Weberian model of bureaucracy. However, this thesis provided a telling example as to how to proceed in researching the state and actions of the state. Bird (pp. 306-307) sought to compare the evidence from one site to a larger regional collection and then sought to develop hypotheses to explain the variation. It examined the larger history and politics, while not evacuating the agency of individuals in carrying out the policies set by the highest political organs of the state. The research does demonstrate “that while violence may be ordered by state leaders, its implementation relies on the discretion of individual agents.” Anthropologists studying the state and state violence must thus embark on a multidisciplinary study that cut across geographic zones and seeks to understand the behavior of individuals across the ranks. This research would entail both the direct study of the agency of individuals, but would also seek to study the indirect evidence of actions and policies that are taken by the state, often in secret behind closed doors. Thus, but continually navigating between the individual, the national and, increasingly international, while examining both policy (contemporary and historic) and how individuals implement the rules that are established, sometimes ignoring them, occasionally improvising to implement policies set by the rulers and policy-makers. This research strategy spearheaded by Bird to study the human remains of victims of state violence and the actions of their executioners working within the framework of the state could be applied to a variety of other topics both in the past and in the present.
Michel Bouchard, PhD
Department of Anthropology
University of Northern British Columbia
[email protected]
Primary Source
Primary skeletal and archaeological material from the Tuskulenai (Lithuania) site and published literature that documents the skeletal and archaeological data from the mass grave sites of Vinnytsia (Ukraine), Katyn (Russia) and Rainiai (Lithuania).
Dissertation Information
Michigan State University. 2013. xx and 332pp. Primary Advisor: Norman J. Sauer. Available online at: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A1078/datastream/OBJ/view
(Dissertation Reviews)
Posted on May 19, 2014 in Russia | 0 comments
A review of State-Sponsored Violence in the Soviet Union: Skeletal Trauma and Burial Organization in a Post World War II Lithuanian Sample by Catherine Elizabeth Bird.
Studying the state has always been somewhat problematic for anthropologists. Even when we try to be global, studying in a village, instead of the village, as Clifford Geertz (The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973, p. 22) recommended, we are somewhat methodologically bereft when it comes to studying the state and its instruments of power (Michel Bouchard, “The State of the Study of the State in Anthropology.” Reviews in Anthropology, vol. 40, no. 3, 2011, pp. 183-209). Rarely do researchers have access to the inner sanctums of power, whether the state war rooms or corporate boardrooms. Moreover, state sanctioned violence is even more problematic as anthropologists would not, should not, be observing, let alone participating, in large-scale state executions of political prisoners. Anthropologists must thus rely on indirect sources to analyze the inner workings of power. Catherine Elizabeth Bird in her thesis “State-Sponsored Violence in the Soviet Union: Skeletal Trauma and Burial Organization in a Post World War II Lithuanian Sample” seeks to understand the behavior of the executioners, state security personnel, in order to understand their actions and motivations through physical and skeletal remains. Bird provides and innovative example as to how anthropologists can study the state; a model that could be applied to a number of contexts outside of mass executions carried out by agents of the state.
Central to the very definition of the state is the monopoly that the state has on violence, and as Bird’s research highlights that violence can be quite intensive and extensive when carried out as a form of state terror on a population. Though the state can rarely monopolize entirely violence, it can nonetheless ensure that other social actors who infringe on its monopoly are summarily sanctioned. Failed states are those who can neither curtail nor contain violence and quite often watch passively as violence is appropriated by others to serve their own agendas. Totalitarian states, in contrast, exercise their monopoly ruthlessly and invariably use state-sanctioned violence as a tool, usually coupled with ideology and propaganda, to ensure the primacy of the power of the state and its bureaucracy. Nonetheless, the control of the very agents tasked with carrying out the orders of the highest state officials is always problematic: the violence unleashed against individuals within the populace could be turned back against the very individuals identifying the enemies of the state and condemning them to death. Joseph Stalin who unleashed state terror on the populace of the Soviet Union, perhaps understood this too well. In the 1930s, the secret police would not escape the purges, as the NKVD director Genrikh Yagoda would be executed and the new director would execute all the higher agents that he feared were loyal to Yagoda. The NKVD was the latest incarnation of the “Chekists” or secret police established at the time of the Russian Revolution and the secret police forces would have a succession of reincarnations and acronyms to name it from VCheKa, GPU, OGPU, NKVD, KGB and in contemporary Russia FSB. Yagoda’s successor, Nikoay Yezhov would eventually be executed in turn and Stalin’s lieutenant Lavrenti Beria was arrested and executed following Stalin’s death. The Soviet leadership was ruthless in executing the executioners lest they seek to seize power.
Bird’s thesis provides an intriguing account seeking to analyze the skeletal remains of the victims to understand the idiosyncratic behavior of their executioners. It is somewhat unorthodox, but a compelling research project that seeks to better understand state sanctioned and managed violence. History examines the state officials who sign the orders, but the agents carrying out the orders at the behest of the state are invariably overlooked. Bird thus provides a timely account of the victims of state violence, precisely when state violence is on the rise and when words such as “genocide” and “Fascist” are being lobbied about in the growing conflict in Ukraine while the “Great Patriotic War” (World War II) is continually being sanctified to justify the contemporary actions of the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union’s de facto successor state. The millions who were victims of the Soviet state have been blocked out of the popular consciousness in Russia, while school children in this state continue to go out to disinter and identify fallen soldiers (Lucy Ash, “Digging for their lives: Russia’s volunteer body hunters,” Vol. 2014: BBC News) as they are sacred to the state narrative and certainly better represent the ideals of the state, the sacrifice of individuals for the state, and thus ensure the identification of the population with the state.
Following an analysis of skeletal remains from one burial site and comparing four mass burial sites for the victims of state violence (two in Lithuania, one in Ukraine and one in Russia), Bird succeeds in differentiating differences in the practices of the agents. Though the state seeks to ensure its standards in executions, Bird uncovers a shift in the evidence with improvisation of violence increasing in the site she studied directly, possibly due to factors such as training, prisoner compliance, sadism and desensitization to violence. Bird then reviews the literature on violence and the state and builds upon the work of Paul Gregory (Paul Gregory, Terror by Quota: State Security from Lenin to Stalin: An Archival Study. Yale University Press, 2009) who identifies principals (individuals issuing orders), agents (those who carry out those orders) and enemies. Bird (p. 35) notes how the Soviet security apparatus “identified enemies of the state,” but the real question is whether totalitarian states need enemies in the same way that violence is central to the success of expansionist states. Bird (p. 35) writes that “enemies” were “arrested for the social danger they posed” but perhaps enemies were simply needed to whip up the hysteria of the enemy at the gates, as a means to solidify the ideological power of the state. In essence, enemies were arrested not for any real danger they posed, social or political, but simply to prove the existence of posited counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs to rouse the masses. As Bird writes, “confessions of guilt proved more important than evidence of crimes” and enemies are thus oftentimes more important to totalitarian states than the winning wars as both external and the threat of fifth column internal enemies justifies the use of violence by the state. Yet, in spite of this need, the practice of executing these “enemies” was highly secretive as it was necessary for the populace to both know and not know of the state violence; the fear was necessary for discipline, but the state did now want the details to be known.
The challenge with analyzing the remains of those executed during Soviet times is the reticence of contemporary states to study past state violence. The contemporary Russian State and the FSB, for example, have blocked research into the mass grave site found close to the Rzhevsky artillery range near Toksovo, a small city some 20 miles north of St. Petersburg (Anna Badkhen, “Soviet Union’s past remains buried. Human rights group trying to uncover full truth behind Stalin’s bloody reign.” SFGate, 8 Aug. 2003) that could hold the remains of some 32,000 victims of state violence. Rarely is it possible to find both the physical remains of the executed and the documentation that can be tied to specific clandestine mass graves. Russia has little interest in pursuing such research and other states may find the remains, but will be unable to locate the paperwork tied to the interred remains. The case that Bird (p. 63) studied, the mass graves located on the Tuskulenai Estate in Lithuania was exceptional in that the graves were discovered after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the state security documents were discovered in 1994. The Lithuanian President then established a working group to investigate and the team included archaeologists, anthropologists and forensic experts. The Tuskuleniai site yielded a total of 724 individuals buried in 45 mass graves. This particular location featured burial pits that could be dated with precision and thus could provide researchers the ability to see if there were any changes between July 1945 and January 1947. Random samples of dated burial pits were analyzed and this material was then compared to skeletal data from three other locations analyzed in the 1940s and chronicled in the forensic literature: Vinnytsia (Ukraine), Katyn (Polish nationals executed and buried in the Katyn forest including thousands of Polish army officers, police officers, members of the Polish intelligentsia and others) and Rainiai (Lithuania). One of the goals was to determine whether the method of execution complied to state standards: full compliance being a gunshot to the back of the head versus partial compliance (shooting the victim but not in the back of the head) and non-compliance whereby another mechanism of force was used to execute a prisoner. Once the wounds were identified and recorded, the study sought to understand if the violence had changed over time and between the security personnel carrying out executions. In the case under study, the timeline and identity of the personnel was known and burial pits could be tied to one of two specific execution squads (pp. 100-101 and p. 124). Finally, a mortuary analysis was conducted to better understand how the executed prisoners were then interred. In total, the remains of 155 individuals from 12 burial pits were analyzed.
Following a thorough analysis and description of the skeletal remains, Bird provides an intriguing overview of the changing modus operandi over time at the Tuskulenai. Whereas the earlier burial pits conformed strictly to state directives, single gunshot to the back of the head, the victims in the latter burial pits are more likely to have been subject to blunt for trauma and were less likely to have been killed by gunshots. Thus, the earlier execution squad, Dolgirev’s squad conformed more closely to state directives, while the latter squad, Prikazchikov’s, was less likely to conform (p. 198).
Finally, Bird’s comparison of her forensic analysis of the material from Tuskulenai with the three other sites, demonstrates a great deal of variety between locales when it comes to conforming with state guidelines in executing prisoners. Though Katyn is excluded as it was impossible to judge whether there had been blunt force trauma, virtually all the prisoners seem to have been executed with one gunshot to the back of the skull. In Vinnytsia, there was close to complete conformity with the recorded skeletal trauma with little evidence of blunt force trauma and once again all the victims having been killed with one gunshot. In the Rainiai burials, conformity to state standards was close to inexistent. There is much evidence for sharp force trauma (47%) and close to all the victims (93%) exhibited blunt force trauma and many over 4, 5 or 6 episodes (p. 255). Finally, in this site, there is a significantly higher number of gunshot wounds to the body and not solely to the head as was the case in the other locales (p. 254). This raises interesting questions as to why there was such discrepancy in this particular site.
Though the research is focused on the scientific forensic analysis, Bird does venture into providing some possible explanations as to differences that were seen in the remains that were analyzed. In the case of the Tuskulenai case, she notes that the partisan war was intensifying and that “it was expected that agents would improvise violence rather than comply with state guidelines” (p. 286). The challenge when seeking to prove such hypotheses is that the agents may have been acting on verbal commands and instructions given to them, so it is not possible to prove conclusively that the variation was based on the agency of individual agents or even execution squads. Bird then provides some of the explanations that could account for the Rainiai case. She notes that given that the German invasion was unexpected that the Soviet authorities had not developed a clear plan for the prisoners and that agents were forced to improvise and that the prisoners were killed in the chaos following an order to evacuate (pp. 290-291). Also, it is possible that the executioners in this site were not solely the secret police, the NKVD, but also the Red Army. The soldiers, not constrained by the same rules, would have resulted in a greater variation in the violence seen in the human remains excavated.
Bird certainly set about on a challenging task, which was to push the forensic anthropology envelope to extrapolate her research findings to analyze the behavior and potential agency of individuals. It does highlight some of the weaknesses of anthropology when it comes to the analysis of states and state violence. There is a theoretical gap as Bird (p. 304) had to seek a way to proceed beyond a Weberian model of bureaucracy. However, this thesis provided a telling example as to how to proceed in researching the state and actions of the state. Bird (pp. 306-307) sought to compare the evidence from one site to a larger regional collection and then sought to develop hypotheses to explain the variation. It examined the larger history and politics, while not evacuating the agency of individuals in carrying out the policies set by the highest political organs of the state. The research does demonstrate “that while violence may be ordered by state leaders, its implementation relies on the discretion of individual agents.” Anthropologists studying the state and state violence must thus embark on a multidisciplinary study that cut across geographic zones and seeks to understand the behavior of individuals across the ranks. This research would entail both the direct study of the agency of individuals, but would also seek to study the indirect evidence of actions and policies that are taken by the state, often in secret behind closed doors. Thus, but continually navigating between the individual, the national and, increasingly international, while examining both policy (contemporary and historic) and how individuals implement the rules that are established, sometimes ignoring them, occasionally improvising to implement policies set by the rulers and policy-makers. This research strategy spearheaded by Bird to study the human remains of victims of state violence and the actions of their executioners working within the framework of the state could be applied to a variety of other topics both in the past and in the present.
Michel Bouchard, PhD
Department of Anthropology
University of Northern British Columbia
[email protected]
Primary Source
Primary skeletal and archaeological material from the Tuskulenai (Lithuania) site and published literature that documents the skeletal and archaeological data from the mass grave sites of Vinnytsia (Ukraine), Katyn (Russia) and Rainiai (Lithuania).
Dissertation Information
Michigan State University. 2013. xx and 332pp. Primary Advisor: Norman J. Sauer. Available online at: http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A1078/datastream/OBJ/view
Costas
¥
Να και μια...λεξιλογική πινελιά στον σοβιετικό ολοκληρωτισμό:
(Wikipedia)
Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov
Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov (Russian: Дми́трий Серге́евич Лихачёв, also Dmitri Likhachev or Likhachyov; 28 November [O.S. 15 November] 1906 in St. Petersburg – 30 September 1999 in St. Petersburg) was an outstanding Soviet Russian scholar who was considered the world's foremost expert in Old Russian language and literature. He has been revered as "the last of old St Petersburgers", "a guardian of national culture", and "Russia's conscience".
In 1928, at the end of his studies, Likhachyov was arrested and accused of being a member of the students’ club “Cosmic Academy of Science,” which was simply a playful name for a group of like-minded youths. Shortly before his arrest, Dmitry Likhachyov had presented a short report, in which, either jokingly or seriously, he claimed that the new spelling rules were “demonic” and worse than the old ones. This document was used as proof of his “counter-revolutionary” ideas. After nine months in jail, the young scientist was unlawfully exiled without trial and spent five years in the USSR’s largest labor camp, situated on the Solovetsky Islands.
(...)
In the same year, he was arrested for his speech deploring the Bolshevik reform of Russian orthography.
Το άρθρο είναι μέτριο (ήδη: report vs. speech), μακάρι να βρει κάποιος περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες σχετικά με αυτό το περιστατικό της νεανικής του ζωής: εγώ ρώσικα δεν ξέρω.
(Wikipedia)
Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov
Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachov (Russian: Дми́трий Серге́евич Лихачёв, also Dmitri Likhachev or Likhachyov; 28 November [O.S. 15 November] 1906 in St. Petersburg – 30 September 1999 in St. Petersburg) was an outstanding Soviet Russian scholar who was considered the world's foremost expert in Old Russian language and literature. He has been revered as "the last of old St Petersburgers", "a guardian of national culture", and "Russia's conscience".
In 1928, at the end of his studies, Likhachyov was arrested and accused of being a member of the students’ club “Cosmic Academy of Science,” which was simply a playful name for a group of like-minded youths. Shortly before his arrest, Dmitry Likhachyov had presented a short report, in which, either jokingly or seriously, he claimed that the new spelling rules were “demonic” and worse than the old ones. This document was used as proof of his “counter-revolutionary” ideas. After nine months in jail, the young scientist was unlawfully exiled without trial and spent five years in the USSR’s largest labor camp, situated on the Solovetsky Islands.
(...)
In the same year, he was arrested for his speech deploring the Bolshevik reform of Russian orthography.
Το άρθρο είναι μέτριο (ήδη: report vs. speech), μακάρι να βρει κάποιος περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες σχετικά με αυτό το περιστατικό της νεανικής του ζωής: εγώ ρώσικα δεν ξέρω.
Costas
¥
Έργα και ημέρες της Αγίας Σοβιετικής Αυτοκρατορίας του Ρωσικού Έθνους:
Το πογκρόμ κατά των Ελλήνων της ΕΣΣΔ
Του Βλαση Αγτζιδη* / Καθημερινή
Τον Δεκέμβριο του 1937 ξεκίνησε η «Ελληνική Επιχείρηση» (Gretseskayia Operatsia) κατά των Ελλήνων της πρώην Σοβιετικής Ενωσης με την υπογραφή του Ιωσήφ Βησσαριόνοβιτς Τζουγκασβίλι, κοινώς Στάλιν. Ηδη είχε εξοντωθεί το σύνολο της εσωκομματικής αντιπολίτευσης.
Η απόλυτη κυριαρχία της σταλινικής ομάδας στην εξουσία, όπως συμβολικά θα αναδειχθεί με τις Δίκες της Μόσχας του '36, θα μετατρέψει τη χώρα σε μια ματωμένη φυλακή. Επικεφαλής των δυνάμεων εσωτερικής καταστολής όρισε τον Λαυρέντι Μπέρια, την ομάδα του οποίου η Απόφαση του 20ού Συνεδρίου του ΚΚΣΕ (Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Σοβιετικής Ενωσης) περιγράφει ως «εγκληματική σπείρα». Ο ίδιος ο Στάλιν θα πιστεύει ότι διαθέτει το Αλάθητο και θα επιβάλλει μια δικτατορική πολιτική, που πρωτίστως θα στραφεί κατά των κομματικών του συντρόφων. Στην ίδια απόφαση του 20ού Συνεδρίου αναφέρεται ότι: « εσυκοφαντήθηκαν και άνευ ενοχής εδεινοπάθησαν πολλοί τίμιοι κομμουνιστές και άλλοι εξωκομματικοί Σοβιετικοί πολίτες».
Για τον σταλινισμό, ο Γκι Ντεμπόρ στην «Κοινωνία του θεάματος» έγραψε: «Ο σταλινισμός υπήρξε η βασιλεία του τρόμου ακόμα και μέσα στην ίδια τη γραφειοκρατική τάξη. Η τρομοκρατία που θεμελιώνει την εξουσία της τάξης αυτής, πρέπει να πλήξει, επίσης, κι αυτή την ίδια την τάξη γιατί δεν έχει καμιά νομική υπόσταση, που θα μπορούσε να την επεκτείνει και σε καθένα από τα μέλη της Κάθε γραφειοκράτης είναι απόλυτα εξαρτημένος από μια κεντρική εγγύηση της ιδεολογίας, που αναγνωρίζει ένα δικαίωμα συλλογικής συμμετοχής στη «σοσιαλιστική εξουσία» της όλων των γραφειοκρατών που δεν εξολοθρεύει. Αν όλοι οι γραφειοκράτες αποφασίζουν από κοινού για όλα, η συνοχή της ίδιας τους της τάξης δεν μπορεί παρά να εξασφαλιστεί μόνο διαμέσου της συγκέντρωσης της τρομοκρατικής τους εξουσίας σ' ένα μόνο πρόσωπο».
Τα «τιμωρημένα έθνη»
Μία από τις συνέπειες του σταλινισμού ήταν ο διαχωρισμός των εθνών σε «προοδευτικά» και «αντιδραστικά». Η ομάδα των «αντιδραστικών εθνών» περιελάμβανε τους Ελληνες, τους Κορεάτες, τους Γερμανούς του Βόλγα, τους Τατάρους της Κριμαίας, τους Τσετσένους κ.ά. Ο σταλινισμός θεωρούσε ότι όλοι αυτοί είχαν «μητέρα-πατρίδα» στον καπιταλιστικό κόσμο. Ετσι, ανεξαρτήτως των πολιτικών φρονημάτων, οι πολίτες αντιμετωπίστηκαν μόνο ως έχοντες «αντιδραστική» εθνική καταγωγή. Το 1937-38 οι Ελληνες γίνονται θύματα ενός φοβερού πογκρόμ. Πρώτα, απαγορεύτηκε η λειτουργία των ελληνικών σχολείων, των θεάτρων, των πολιτιστικών κέντρων, των εκδοτικών οίκων. Εκλεισαν οι ελληνικές εφημερίδες, οι οποίες ακολουθούσαν σκληρή σταλινική γραμμή. Καταργήθηκαν οι Αυτόνομες Ελληνικές Περιοχές (μία στη Νότια Ρωσία και τρεις στην περιοχή της Μαριούπολης).
Οι μεγαλύτερης έκτασης συλλήψεις Ελλήνων έγιναν στην κοιλάδα του Κουμπάν, στη Νότια Ρωσία. Η μυστική αστυνομία συνέλαβε μαζικά τους Ελληνες άνδρες από 16 ετών και άνω. Στην περιοχή αυτή δεν υπήρχε ελληνική οικογένεια που να μην είχε θύματα. Οι επιζώντες θυμούνται έντονα τις σκηνές των συλλήψεων και των πορειών των συλληφθέντων με τη συνοδεία έφιππων αστυνομικών. Οι αρχές γύριζαν από σπίτι σε σπίτι στις ελληνικές κοινότητες και προέβαιναν σε κατάσχεση των πάντων, ελληνικά διαβατήρια, φωτογραφίες και γράμματα από την Ελλάδα. Οι Ελληνες κάτοικοι της περιφέρειας του Κρασνοντάρ, όπου έγιναν οι περισσότερες συλλήψεις, εγκατέλειπαν τα σπίτια τους τρομοκρατημένοι και κατέφευγαν σε σπίτια ντόπιων για να σωθούν. Η κύρια κατηγορία που απαγγέλθηκε στην Ελληνική Περιοχή ήταν ότι οι κάτοικοί της ανήκαν σε παράνομες ελληνικές εθνικιστικές οργανώσεις, που στόχευαν στη διάλυση της Σοβιετικής Ενωσης και στη δημιουργία ελληνικής δημοκρατίας στη νότια Ρωσία.
Τα κριτήρια των συλλήψεων
Οι καταστάσεις των υποψήφιων συλληφθέντων συντάσσονταν στα κομματικά γραφεία των οργανώσεων των περιοχών. Τα κριτήρια επιλογής σχετίζονταν σε μεγάλο βαθμό με τα προσωπικά αισθήματα των υπεύθυνων κομματικών. Στους καταλόγους περιλαμβάνονταν όσοι στα παλιότερα χρόνια εξασκούσαν κάποιο ελεύθερο επάγγελμα και οι πλέον ευκατάστατοι. Επίσης, ανάμεσα στους πρώτους συλληφθέντες ήταν όσοι εξακολουθούσαν να έχουν την ελληνική υπηκοότητα. Αλλο κριτήριο αποτελούσε και η πιθανή αλληλογραφία με συγγενείς στην Ελλάδα. Το «αδίκημα» της αλληλογραφίας με άτομα που ζούσαν σε καπιταλιστική χώρα, οδήγησε πολλούς Ελληνες να απαγορεύσουν στην οικογένειά τους να στέλνει ή να δέχεται γράμματα από την Ελλάδα. Ο αριθμός των προσώπων που θα έπρεπε να περιλαμβάνει η κατάσταση οριζόταν από τις περιφερειακές οργανώσεις. Η συνολική διαδικασία άγγιζε τα όρια του παραλόγου, εφόσον οι κεντρικές υπηρεσίες έδιναν μόνο τον αριθμό αυτών που θα έπρεπε να συλληφθούν.
Ο Κοσμάς Τσιμιάνοφ από το χωριό Μερτσάνσκογε του Κρασνοντάρ αναφέρει:
«...έπαιρναν ένα τηλεγράφημα που έγραφε: 500 άτομα, δίχως να έχει ονόματα. Ο αριθμός αυτός μοιραζόταν. Εχουμε 20 ραγιόνια, άρα αντιστοιχούν 25 άτομα σε κάθε ραγιόνι. Αλλες φορές ερχόταν τηλεγράφημα για 100 άτομα. Το έστελναν στο σοβιέτ. Εκείνοι με τον αστυνομικό, συνολικά πέντε άτομα, έλεγαν ποιον θα δώσουν, εκείνον, εκείνον, εκείνον! Τους συγγενείς τους δεν τους πείραζαν. Στον κατάλογο δεν έβαζαν γέρους, αλλά μόνο ανθρώπους που μπορούσαν να δουλεύουν».
Για όσους τελικά συμπεριλάμβαναν στην κατάσταση, εφεύρισκαν διάφορες κατηγορίες, όπως «έβρισε τον Στάλιν» ή «ανατίναξε ένα γεφύρι» ή «έκανε σαμποτάζ σε εργοστάσιο» ή «συμμετείχε σε εθνικιστική ομάδα» κ.λπ.
Τον Αύγουστο του 1938, δίχως να έχει προηγηθεί δημόσια ανακοίνωση, έκλεισαν όλα τα ελληνικά σχολεία. Η διδασκαλία άρχισε να γίνεται κυρίως στη ρωσική γλώσσα, αλλά αρκετές φορές στη γλώσσα της Δημοκρατίας στην οποία ζούσαν. Με τον ίδιο τρόπο, σταμάτησε η έκδοση των ελληνικών εφημερίδων και περιοδικών, ενώ έκλεισαν και οι ελληνικοί εκδοτικοί οίκοι. Τα τυπογραφεία καταστράφηκαν. Χαρακτηριστικός είναι ο τρόπος καταστροφής του εκδοτικού οίκου «Κολεκτιβιστής». Τα τυπογραφικά στοιχεία του πετάχτηκαν στην Αζοφική Θάλασσα συμβολικά, «ώστε να μην ξανατυπωθεί στη Ρωσία ελληνικό βιβλίο». Εκλεισαν επίσης και οι ελληνικές θεατρικές σκηνές. Καταστράφηκαν σκόπιμα τα περισσότερα στοιχεία της πολιτιστικής δράσης των Ελλήνων. Πολλοί Ελληνες, επίσης, από φόβο, κατέστρεψαν μόνοι τους πολλά στοιχεία, ένα μέρος των οποίων αφορούσε την ίδια τη θεατρική παραγωγή. Αντίστοιχη ήταν και η τύχη των ελληνικών εκκλησιών.
Στον δρόμο για το Γκουλάγκ
Συγκλονιστική είναι η περιγραφή του Παύλου Κερδεμελίδη, πρόσφυγα της Μικρασιατικής Καταστροφής του '22 από τον Πόντο. Εγκαταστάθηκε στην Κριμαία, απ' όπου συνελήφθη το 1937 για να περάσει 13 χρόνια της ζωής στα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης της Σιβηρίας. Ο κυρ Παύλος είναι ένας από τους ελάχιστους Ελληνες από τους περίπου 50.000 που στάλθηκαν στα στρατόπεδα κατά την περίοδο των διώξεων 1937-38 που επέζησε και αφηγείται τις δραματικές στιγμές που έζησε:
«Μας φόρτωσαν σε ενενήντα βαγόνια, εικοσιπέντε χιλιάδες άτομα, και μας πήγαν χίλια πεντακόσια χιλιόμετρα από το Γκόρκι, στη Σιβηρία. Εκεί ήταν δάση. Μας έβγαλαν, ανοίξαμε δρόμο και φτάσαμε σε μια πεδιάδα. «Εδώ θα μείνετε», μας είπαν. Μέσα στο δάσος, δίχως σπίτια, δίχως τίποτα. Μέσα στο χιόνι. Ετσι σε έξη μήνες από εικοσιπέντε χιλιάδες έμειναν μόνο εξακόσιοι... Εκεί δουλεύαμε. Κόβαμε ξύλα και τα στοιβάζαμε. Γύρω μας ήταν φαντάροι με αυτόματα. Ολα τα ξύλα σάπισαν εκεί βέβαια. Ηθελαν να μας εξοντώσουν. Οι περισσότεροι πέθαναν. Κανείς δε θα μάθει πόσοι ήταν αυτοί οι άνθρωποι Πηγαίναμε για δουλειά τέσσερεις-τέσσερεις. Γύρω τα σκυλιά και τα αυτόματα. Ενα βήμα δεξιά, ένα βήμα αριστερά, πυροβολούσαν χωρίς προειδοποίηση »
Στη δεκαετία του '40, οι διώξεις ολοκληρώνονται με τη βίαιη μεταφορά μεγάλου μέρους του ελληνικού πληθυσμού στην Κεντρική Ασία. Η τελευταία εκτόπιση έλαβε χώρα στις 13 Ιουνίου 1949. Τα σταλινικά στρατεύματα περικύκλωσαν τα ελληνικά χωριά του Καυκάσου και υποχρέωσαν τους κατοίκους τους να τα εκκενώσουν μέσα σε λίγες ώρες. Η υποχρεωτική αυτή εκτόπιση υπήρξε η τελευταία πράξη μιας σειράς βίαιων ενεργειών των σοβιετικών αρχών κατά της ελληνικής μειονότητας, η οποία ανερχόταν σε 450.000 άτομα περίπου. Οι διώξεις αυτές, που αποτελούν μία από τις πλέον άγνωστες σελίδες της νεότερης ελληνικής ιστορίας, ξεκινούν το 1937 και τερματίζονται το 1949.
* Ο κ. Βλάσης Αγτζίδης είναι ιστορικός.
Το πογκρόμ κατά των Ελλήνων της ΕΣΣΔ
Του Βλαση Αγτζιδη* / Καθημερινή
Τον Δεκέμβριο του 1937 ξεκίνησε η «Ελληνική Επιχείρηση» (Gretseskayia Operatsia) κατά των Ελλήνων της πρώην Σοβιετικής Ενωσης με την υπογραφή του Ιωσήφ Βησσαριόνοβιτς Τζουγκασβίλι, κοινώς Στάλιν. Ηδη είχε εξοντωθεί το σύνολο της εσωκομματικής αντιπολίτευσης.
Η απόλυτη κυριαρχία της σταλινικής ομάδας στην εξουσία, όπως συμβολικά θα αναδειχθεί με τις Δίκες της Μόσχας του '36, θα μετατρέψει τη χώρα σε μια ματωμένη φυλακή. Επικεφαλής των δυνάμεων εσωτερικής καταστολής όρισε τον Λαυρέντι Μπέρια, την ομάδα του οποίου η Απόφαση του 20ού Συνεδρίου του ΚΚΣΕ (Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Σοβιετικής Ενωσης) περιγράφει ως «εγκληματική σπείρα». Ο ίδιος ο Στάλιν θα πιστεύει ότι διαθέτει το Αλάθητο και θα επιβάλλει μια δικτατορική πολιτική, που πρωτίστως θα στραφεί κατά των κομματικών του συντρόφων. Στην ίδια απόφαση του 20ού Συνεδρίου αναφέρεται ότι: « εσυκοφαντήθηκαν και άνευ ενοχής εδεινοπάθησαν πολλοί τίμιοι κομμουνιστές και άλλοι εξωκομματικοί Σοβιετικοί πολίτες».
Για τον σταλινισμό, ο Γκι Ντεμπόρ στην «Κοινωνία του θεάματος» έγραψε: «Ο σταλινισμός υπήρξε η βασιλεία του τρόμου ακόμα και μέσα στην ίδια τη γραφειοκρατική τάξη. Η τρομοκρατία που θεμελιώνει την εξουσία της τάξης αυτής, πρέπει να πλήξει, επίσης, κι αυτή την ίδια την τάξη γιατί δεν έχει καμιά νομική υπόσταση, που θα μπορούσε να την επεκτείνει και σε καθένα από τα μέλη της Κάθε γραφειοκράτης είναι απόλυτα εξαρτημένος από μια κεντρική εγγύηση της ιδεολογίας, που αναγνωρίζει ένα δικαίωμα συλλογικής συμμετοχής στη «σοσιαλιστική εξουσία» της όλων των γραφειοκρατών που δεν εξολοθρεύει. Αν όλοι οι γραφειοκράτες αποφασίζουν από κοινού για όλα, η συνοχή της ίδιας τους της τάξης δεν μπορεί παρά να εξασφαλιστεί μόνο διαμέσου της συγκέντρωσης της τρομοκρατικής τους εξουσίας σ' ένα μόνο πρόσωπο».
Τα «τιμωρημένα έθνη»
Μία από τις συνέπειες του σταλινισμού ήταν ο διαχωρισμός των εθνών σε «προοδευτικά» και «αντιδραστικά». Η ομάδα των «αντιδραστικών εθνών» περιελάμβανε τους Ελληνες, τους Κορεάτες, τους Γερμανούς του Βόλγα, τους Τατάρους της Κριμαίας, τους Τσετσένους κ.ά. Ο σταλινισμός θεωρούσε ότι όλοι αυτοί είχαν «μητέρα-πατρίδα» στον καπιταλιστικό κόσμο. Ετσι, ανεξαρτήτως των πολιτικών φρονημάτων, οι πολίτες αντιμετωπίστηκαν μόνο ως έχοντες «αντιδραστική» εθνική καταγωγή. Το 1937-38 οι Ελληνες γίνονται θύματα ενός φοβερού πογκρόμ. Πρώτα, απαγορεύτηκε η λειτουργία των ελληνικών σχολείων, των θεάτρων, των πολιτιστικών κέντρων, των εκδοτικών οίκων. Εκλεισαν οι ελληνικές εφημερίδες, οι οποίες ακολουθούσαν σκληρή σταλινική γραμμή. Καταργήθηκαν οι Αυτόνομες Ελληνικές Περιοχές (μία στη Νότια Ρωσία και τρεις στην περιοχή της Μαριούπολης).
Οι μεγαλύτερης έκτασης συλλήψεις Ελλήνων έγιναν στην κοιλάδα του Κουμπάν, στη Νότια Ρωσία. Η μυστική αστυνομία συνέλαβε μαζικά τους Ελληνες άνδρες από 16 ετών και άνω. Στην περιοχή αυτή δεν υπήρχε ελληνική οικογένεια που να μην είχε θύματα. Οι επιζώντες θυμούνται έντονα τις σκηνές των συλλήψεων και των πορειών των συλληφθέντων με τη συνοδεία έφιππων αστυνομικών. Οι αρχές γύριζαν από σπίτι σε σπίτι στις ελληνικές κοινότητες και προέβαιναν σε κατάσχεση των πάντων, ελληνικά διαβατήρια, φωτογραφίες και γράμματα από την Ελλάδα. Οι Ελληνες κάτοικοι της περιφέρειας του Κρασνοντάρ, όπου έγιναν οι περισσότερες συλλήψεις, εγκατέλειπαν τα σπίτια τους τρομοκρατημένοι και κατέφευγαν σε σπίτια ντόπιων για να σωθούν. Η κύρια κατηγορία που απαγγέλθηκε στην Ελληνική Περιοχή ήταν ότι οι κάτοικοί της ανήκαν σε παράνομες ελληνικές εθνικιστικές οργανώσεις, που στόχευαν στη διάλυση της Σοβιετικής Ενωσης και στη δημιουργία ελληνικής δημοκρατίας στη νότια Ρωσία.
Τα κριτήρια των συλλήψεων
Οι καταστάσεις των υποψήφιων συλληφθέντων συντάσσονταν στα κομματικά γραφεία των οργανώσεων των περιοχών. Τα κριτήρια επιλογής σχετίζονταν σε μεγάλο βαθμό με τα προσωπικά αισθήματα των υπεύθυνων κομματικών. Στους καταλόγους περιλαμβάνονταν όσοι στα παλιότερα χρόνια εξασκούσαν κάποιο ελεύθερο επάγγελμα και οι πλέον ευκατάστατοι. Επίσης, ανάμεσα στους πρώτους συλληφθέντες ήταν όσοι εξακολουθούσαν να έχουν την ελληνική υπηκοότητα. Αλλο κριτήριο αποτελούσε και η πιθανή αλληλογραφία με συγγενείς στην Ελλάδα. Το «αδίκημα» της αλληλογραφίας με άτομα που ζούσαν σε καπιταλιστική χώρα, οδήγησε πολλούς Ελληνες να απαγορεύσουν στην οικογένειά τους να στέλνει ή να δέχεται γράμματα από την Ελλάδα. Ο αριθμός των προσώπων που θα έπρεπε να περιλαμβάνει η κατάσταση οριζόταν από τις περιφερειακές οργανώσεις. Η συνολική διαδικασία άγγιζε τα όρια του παραλόγου, εφόσον οι κεντρικές υπηρεσίες έδιναν μόνο τον αριθμό αυτών που θα έπρεπε να συλληφθούν.
Ο Κοσμάς Τσιμιάνοφ από το χωριό Μερτσάνσκογε του Κρασνοντάρ αναφέρει:
«...έπαιρναν ένα τηλεγράφημα που έγραφε: 500 άτομα, δίχως να έχει ονόματα. Ο αριθμός αυτός μοιραζόταν. Εχουμε 20 ραγιόνια, άρα αντιστοιχούν 25 άτομα σε κάθε ραγιόνι. Αλλες φορές ερχόταν τηλεγράφημα για 100 άτομα. Το έστελναν στο σοβιέτ. Εκείνοι με τον αστυνομικό, συνολικά πέντε άτομα, έλεγαν ποιον θα δώσουν, εκείνον, εκείνον, εκείνον! Τους συγγενείς τους δεν τους πείραζαν. Στον κατάλογο δεν έβαζαν γέρους, αλλά μόνο ανθρώπους που μπορούσαν να δουλεύουν».
Για όσους τελικά συμπεριλάμβαναν στην κατάσταση, εφεύρισκαν διάφορες κατηγορίες, όπως «έβρισε τον Στάλιν» ή «ανατίναξε ένα γεφύρι» ή «έκανε σαμποτάζ σε εργοστάσιο» ή «συμμετείχε σε εθνικιστική ομάδα» κ.λπ.
Τον Αύγουστο του 1938, δίχως να έχει προηγηθεί δημόσια ανακοίνωση, έκλεισαν όλα τα ελληνικά σχολεία. Η διδασκαλία άρχισε να γίνεται κυρίως στη ρωσική γλώσσα, αλλά αρκετές φορές στη γλώσσα της Δημοκρατίας στην οποία ζούσαν. Με τον ίδιο τρόπο, σταμάτησε η έκδοση των ελληνικών εφημερίδων και περιοδικών, ενώ έκλεισαν και οι ελληνικοί εκδοτικοί οίκοι. Τα τυπογραφεία καταστράφηκαν. Χαρακτηριστικός είναι ο τρόπος καταστροφής του εκδοτικού οίκου «Κολεκτιβιστής». Τα τυπογραφικά στοιχεία του πετάχτηκαν στην Αζοφική Θάλασσα συμβολικά, «ώστε να μην ξανατυπωθεί στη Ρωσία ελληνικό βιβλίο». Εκλεισαν επίσης και οι ελληνικές θεατρικές σκηνές. Καταστράφηκαν σκόπιμα τα περισσότερα στοιχεία της πολιτιστικής δράσης των Ελλήνων. Πολλοί Ελληνες, επίσης, από φόβο, κατέστρεψαν μόνοι τους πολλά στοιχεία, ένα μέρος των οποίων αφορούσε την ίδια τη θεατρική παραγωγή. Αντίστοιχη ήταν και η τύχη των ελληνικών εκκλησιών.
Στον δρόμο για το Γκουλάγκ
Συγκλονιστική είναι η περιγραφή του Παύλου Κερδεμελίδη, πρόσφυγα της Μικρασιατικής Καταστροφής του '22 από τον Πόντο. Εγκαταστάθηκε στην Κριμαία, απ' όπου συνελήφθη το 1937 για να περάσει 13 χρόνια της ζωής στα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης της Σιβηρίας. Ο κυρ Παύλος είναι ένας από τους ελάχιστους Ελληνες από τους περίπου 50.000 που στάλθηκαν στα στρατόπεδα κατά την περίοδο των διώξεων 1937-38 που επέζησε και αφηγείται τις δραματικές στιγμές που έζησε:
«Μας φόρτωσαν σε ενενήντα βαγόνια, εικοσιπέντε χιλιάδες άτομα, και μας πήγαν χίλια πεντακόσια χιλιόμετρα από το Γκόρκι, στη Σιβηρία. Εκεί ήταν δάση. Μας έβγαλαν, ανοίξαμε δρόμο και φτάσαμε σε μια πεδιάδα. «Εδώ θα μείνετε», μας είπαν. Μέσα στο δάσος, δίχως σπίτια, δίχως τίποτα. Μέσα στο χιόνι. Ετσι σε έξη μήνες από εικοσιπέντε χιλιάδες έμειναν μόνο εξακόσιοι... Εκεί δουλεύαμε. Κόβαμε ξύλα και τα στοιβάζαμε. Γύρω μας ήταν φαντάροι με αυτόματα. Ολα τα ξύλα σάπισαν εκεί βέβαια. Ηθελαν να μας εξοντώσουν. Οι περισσότεροι πέθαναν. Κανείς δε θα μάθει πόσοι ήταν αυτοί οι άνθρωποι Πηγαίναμε για δουλειά τέσσερεις-τέσσερεις. Γύρω τα σκυλιά και τα αυτόματα. Ενα βήμα δεξιά, ένα βήμα αριστερά, πυροβολούσαν χωρίς προειδοποίηση »
Στη δεκαετία του '40, οι διώξεις ολοκληρώνονται με τη βίαιη μεταφορά μεγάλου μέρους του ελληνικού πληθυσμού στην Κεντρική Ασία. Η τελευταία εκτόπιση έλαβε χώρα στις 13 Ιουνίου 1949. Τα σταλινικά στρατεύματα περικύκλωσαν τα ελληνικά χωριά του Καυκάσου και υποχρέωσαν τους κατοίκους τους να τα εκκενώσουν μέσα σε λίγες ώρες. Η υποχρεωτική αυτή εκτόπιση υπήρξε η τελευταία πράξη μιας σειράς βίαιων ενεργειών των σοβιετικών αρχών κατά της ελληνικής μειονότητας, η οποία ανερχόταν σε 450.000 άτομα περίπου. Οι διώξεις αυτές, που αποτελούν μία από τις πλέον άγνωστες σελίδες της νεότερης ελληνικής ιστορίας, ξεκινούν το 1937 και τερματίζονται το 1949.
* Ο κ. Βλάσης Αγτζίδης είναι ιστορικός.
Costas
¥
suffering from “reformist delusions” with “messianic elements” as well as “sluggish schizophrenia”
Leonid Plyushch, Ukrainian Mathematician and Soviet Dissident, Dies
(DAVID STOUT / ΝΥΤ)
Leonid Plyushch, a Ukrainian mathematician who became a leading political dissident in the Soviet era, prompting the Kremlin to commit him to a mental asylum for a nightmarish three years of drugs and deprivation in the early 1970s, died on Thursday near Paris.
Mr. Plyushch’s death was announced by Arina Ginzburg, a friend who had also been a Soviet dissident, according to Agence France-Presse. No cause of death was given. Various reports gave Mr. Plyushch’s age as either 76 or 77.
Mr. Plyushch (pronounced, roughly, Plootch) had lived in Paris in recent years, traveling now and then to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. It was there, decades ago when Ukraine was a Soviet republic, that he emerged as a double annoyance to the Kremlin, not only resisting thought control in general but balking at Moscow’s efforts to smother Ukrainians’ yearning for sovereignty and their sense of cultural separateness from Russia.
It was not unheard-of in those days for Ukrainian artists and intellectuals to meet with “mysterious accidents,” said Nadia Diuk, an expert on Russia and Ukraine and a vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington.
After Soviet tanks clanked into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Mr. Plyushch was one of nearly a score of dissidents who signed a declaration of solidarity with Czechs who had been protesting Moscow’s iron grip. That year, he was also a signatory to a letter to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights pleading for an investigation into Soviet violations of individual rights.
By early 1972, Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet president (himself a native of Ukraine), and his Kremlin allies had had enough of Mr. Plyushch’s outspokenness and his work to forge a bond between Ukrainian human rights activists and like-minded people based in Moscow. Mr. Plyushch was arrested and accused of “anti-Soviet propaganda and seeking to undermine Soviet power.”
Questioned several times by the secret police, who confiscated a number of his manuscripts, Mr. Plyushch languished in prison for a year before being brought to trial. Meeting privately, and not bothering to hear expert testimony, the court ruled that he needed psychiatric treatment.
Locked up in a Ukrainian hospital, in an overcrowded ward for severely psychotic patients, Mr. Plyushch experienced “the daily progression of my degradation,” as he put it in a news conference in Paris after his ordeal. He was given high doses of antipsychotic drugs and insulin, The Journal of Medical Ethics reported in 1976.
“I lost interest in politics, then in scientific problems, finally in my wife and children,” Mr. Plyushch recalled. “My speech became blurred; my memory worsened. In the beginning, I reacted strongly to the sufferings of other patients. Eventually I became indifferent. My only thoughts were of toilets, tobacco and the bribes to the male nurses to let me go to the toilet one more time.”
Three Soviet medical panels that examined Mr. Plyushch after he had been confined for a year concluded that he was suffering from “reformist delusions” with “messianic elements” as well as “sluggish schizophrenia.” One commission was headed by Dr. Andrei V. Snezhnevsky, who was the pre-eminent psychiatrist in the Soviet Union and whom the Russia scholar and former Moscow-based journalist David Satter described in an interview as “the father of psychiatric repression” there. Mr. Plyushch’s ordeal drew international condemnation. The Russian dissident and nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov protested. Hundreds of fellow mathematicians from the United States wrote a letter to the Soviet Embassy. Amnesty International held a day in Mr. Plyushch’s honor in 1975.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Finally released early in 1976, Mr. Plyushch was expelled from the Soviet Union along with his wife, Tatiana, and two children. The family settled in France. In 1979, with the help of his wife, Mr. Plyushch published “History’s Carnival: A Dissident’s Autobiography,” describing his and other dissidents’ confinement in mental institutions.
“He could have lived a relatively easy life as a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,” said Mark Kramer, an expert on the Cold War and a program director at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard. “But to his great credit he chose to stand up for what was right, and he therefore sacrificed all the perks he could have enjoyed.”
Leonid Plyushch was born into a working-class Ukrainian family. His father, a railroad foreman, was killed in World War II.
Leonid showed early promise as a mathematician and graduated from Kiev University. His specialties included the history and psychology of games.
In the end, Mr. Plyushch could be said to have triumphed over his tormentors. Dr. Snezhnevsky, the psychiatrist who had pronounced him schizophrenic, was linked to the deliberate misdiagnosis of other dissidents and was severely diminished in the eyes of other medical professionals well before his death in 1987.
Looking back at his three years in the psychiatric ward, Mr. Plyushch recalled a moment when he lifted his spirit from the depths:
“I began to experience a new thought: ‘I must remember everything I see here,’ I told myself, ‘so that I can tell about it afterwards.’ ”
Leonid Plyushch, Ukrainian Mathematician and Soviet Dissident, Dies
(DAVID STOUT / ΝΥΤ)
Leonid Plyushch, a Ukrainian mathematician who became a leading political dissident in the Soviet era, prompting the Kremlin to commit him to a mental asylum for a nightmarish three years of drugs and deprivation in the early 1970s, died on Thursday near Paris.
Mr. Plyushch’s death was announced by Arina Ginzburg, a friend who had also been a Soviet dissident, according to Agence France-Presse. No cause of death was given. Various reports gave Mr. Plyushch’s age as either 76 or 77.
Mr. Plyushch (pronounced, roughly, Plootch) had lived in Paris in recent years, traveling now and then to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. It was there, decades ago when Ukraine was a Soviet republic, that he emerged as a double annoyance to the Kremlin, not only resisting thought control in general but balking at Moscow’s efforts to smother Ukrainians’ yearning for sovereignty and their sense of cultural separateness from Russia.
It was not unheard-of in those days for Ukrainian artists and intellectuals to meet with “mysterious accidents,” said Nadia Diuk, an expert on Russia and Ukraine and a vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington.
After Soviet tanks clanked into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Mr. Plyushch was one of nearly a score of dissidents who signed a declaration of solidarity with Czechs who had been protesting Moscow’s iron grip. That year, he was also a signatory to a letter to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights pleading for an investigation into Soviet violations of individual rights.
By early 1972, Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet president (himself a native of Ukraine), and his Kremlin allies had had enough of Mr. Plyushch’s outspokenness and his work to forge a bond between Ukrainian human rights activists and like-minded people based in Moscow. Mr. Plyushch was arrested and accused of “anti-Soviet propaganda and seeking to undermine Soviet power.”
Questioned several times by the secret police, who confiscated a number of his manuscripts, Mr. Plyushch languished in prison for a year before being brought to trial. Meeting privately, and not bothering to hear expert testimony, the court ruled that he needed psychiatric treatment.
Locked up in a Ukrainian hospital, in an overcrowded ward for severely psychotic patients, Mr. Plyushch experienced “the daily progression of my degradation,” as he put it in a news conference in Paris after his ordeal. He was given high doses of antipsychotic drugs and insulin, The Journal of Medical Ethics reported in 1976.
“I lost interest in politics, then in scientific problems, finally in my wife and children,” Mr. Plyushch recalled. “My speech became blurred; my memory worsened. In the beginning, I reacted strongly to the sufferings of other patients. Eventually I became indifferent. My only thoughts were of toilets, tobacco and the bribes to the male nurses to let me go to the toilet one more time.”
Three Soviet medical panels that examined Mr. Plyushch after he had been confined for a year concluded that he was suffering from “reformist delusions” with “messianic elements” as well as “sluggish schizophrenia.” One commission was headed by Dr. Andrei V. Snezhnevsky, who was the pre-eminent psychiatrist in the Soviet Union and whom the Russia scholar and former Moscow-based journalist David Satter described in an interview as “the father of psychiatric repression” there. Mr. Plyushch’s ordeal drew international condemnation. The Russian dissident and nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov protested. Hundreds of fellow mathematicians from the United States wrote a letter to the Soviet Embassy. Amnesty International held a day in Mr. Plyushch’s honor in 1975.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Finally released early in 1976, Mr. Plyushch was expelled from the Soviet Union along with his wife, Tatiana, and two children. The family settled in France. In 1979, with the help of his wife, Mr. Plyushch published “History’s Carnival: A Dissident’s Autobiography,” describing his and other dissidents’ confinement in mental institutions.
“He could have lived a relatively easy life as a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,” said Mark Kramer, an expert on the Cold War and a program director at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard. “But to his great credit he chose to stand up for what was right, and he therefore sacrificed all the perks he could have enjoyed.”
Leonid Plyushch was born into a working-class Ukrainian family. His father, a railroad foreman, was killed in World War II.
Leonid showed early promise as a mathematician and graduated from Kiev University. His specialties included the history and psychology of games.
In the end, Mr. Plyushch could be said to have triumphed over his tormentors. Dr. Snezhnevsky, the psychiatrist who had pronounced him schizophrenic, was linked to the deliberate misdiagnosis of other dissidents and was severely diminished in the eyes of other medical professionals well before his death in 1987.
Looking back at his three years in the psychiatric ward, Mr. Plyushch recalled a moment when he lifted his spirit from the depths:
“I began to experience a new thought: ‘I must remember everything I see here,’ I told myself, ‘so that I can tell about it afterwards.’ ”
Παράκληση διαδικαστικού τύπου:
Όταν δίνουμε ένα λινκ για να παραπέμψουμε και άλλους σε κάτι ενδιαφέρον, να κάνουμε τον κόπο να κοπιπαστάρουμε τουλάχιστον μερικές παραγράφους από το άρθρο (ή ακόμα καλύτερα και ολόκληρο το άρθρο). Επειδή πολλοί από μας μπαίνουμε πολλές φορές στη Λεξιλογία με πολύ κόπο από κινητά και τάμπλετ, είναι αρκετά προβληματικό να συνεχίζουμε σε επόμενο λινκ, που πολλές φορές αργεί να ανοίξει λόγω ασύρματων δικτύων αμφίβολης ταχύτητας, και μετά να επανερχόμαστε στη Λεξιλογία. Σ' αυτές τις περιπτώσεις, εγώ δεν κάνω καν τον κόπο να πατήσω το λινκ, άρα ακυρώνεται η πρόθεση του συνφορουμίτη να μας ενημερώσει για κάτι.
Όταν δίνουμε ένα λινκ για να παραπέμψουμε και άλλους σε κάτι ενδιαφέρον, να κάνουμε τον κόπο να κοπιπαστάρουμε τουλάχιστον μερικές παραγράφους από το άρθρο (ή ακόμα καλύτερα και ολόκληρο το άρθρο). Επειδή πολλοί από μας μπαίνουμε πολλές φορές στη Λεξιλογία με πολύ κόπο από κινητά και τάμπλετ, είναι αρκετά προβληματικό να συνεχίζουμε σε επόμενο λινκ, που πολλές φορές αργεί να ανοίξει λόγω ασύρματων δικτύων αμφίβολης ταχύτητας, και μετά να επανερχόμαστε στη Λεξιλογία. Σ' αυτές τις περιπτώσεις, εγώ δεν κάνω καν τον κόπο να πατήσω το λινκ, άρα ακυρώνεται η πρόθεση του συνφορουμίτη να μας ενημερώσει για κάτι.
Καλύτερα ίσως να μην αντιγράφουμε τεράστια άρθρα αν δεν έχουν σχέση με τα γλωσσικά, που μας αφορούν άμεσα. Εδώ θα έφτανε η εισαγωγική παράγραφος.
«Οργάνωση 7» λεγόταν η μυστική βουλγαρική οργάνωση που την εποχή του κομμουνιστικού καθεστώτος αναλάμβανε και διεκπεραίωνε με επιτυχία, απαγωγές, εκτελέσεις και πολιτική εξόντωση «εχθρών του βουλγαρικού καθεστώτος» ανά τον κόσμο. Η δημοσιογράφος Alexenia Dimitrova, στο βιβλίο της «Murder Bureau»(γραφείο δολοφονιών) αποκαλύπτει πολλές άγνωστες πτυχές της ιστορίας. Παρακάτω εξηγεί επιπλέον τον τρόπο που ακολούθησε αλλά και τις δυσκολίες που αντιμετώπισε προκειμένου να ολοκληρώσει την εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρουσα έρευνά της.
«Οργάνωση 7» λεγόταν η μυστική βουλγαρική οργάνωση που την εποχή του κομμουνιστικού καθεστώτος αναλάμβανε και διεκπεραίωνε με επιτυχία, απαγωγές, εκτελέσεις και πολιτική εξόντωση «εχθρών του βουλγαρικού καθεστώτος» ανά τον κόσμο. Η δημοσιογράφος Alexenia Dimitrova, στο βιβλίο της «Murder Bureau»(γραφείο δολοφονιών) αποκαλύπτει πολλές άγνωστες πτυχές της ιστορίας. Παρακάτω εξηγεί επιπλέον τον τρόπο που ακολούθησε αλλά και τις δυσκολίες που αντιμετώπισε προκειμένου να ολοκληρώσει την εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρουσα έρευνά της.
Costas
¥
Paul R. Gregory, The Political Economy of Stalinism: Evidence from the Soviet Secret Archives (Oxford UP, 2004)
(από τη βιβλιοκριτική στο λινκ τού Independent Institute:)
Scholars on the left have argued that the Soviet system’s failures were a consequence of the misfortune of certain leaders: if only Trotsky had defeated Stalin, or if only Nikolai Bukharin had been in charge, then socialist democracy and rational planning would have been realized. On the right, writers have focused on the roles that Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan played in loosening the socialist stranglehold in the Soviet Union and throughout the East Bloc. Academics in the middle have often entertained the hypothesis that the social collapse sprang from a technology gap that finally reached crisis dimensions in the 1980s. Whatever merits these alternative hypotheses might have, they must yield to the more fundamental hypotheses that rational economic planning is impossible under a system of collective ownership of the means of production and that the organizational structure of the administrative command system has its own logic and consequences that are detrimental to justice and individual freedom. Rather than describing a workable system that might have operated efficiently if only the workers and managers had tried harder and stayed on task, the archives reveal individuals striving to cope and to better themselves within an inherently unworkable system. Rent-seeking political actors, shirking workers, opportunistic managers—such was the reality of Homo sovieticus.
(από τη βιβλιοκριτική στο λινκ τού Independent Institute:)
Scholars on the left have argued that the Soviet system’s failures were a consequence of the misfortune of certain leaders: if only Trotsky had defeated Stalin, or if only Nikolai Bukharin had been in charge, then socialist democracy and rational planning would have been realized. On the right, writers have focused on the roles that Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan played in loosening the socialist stranglehold in the Soviet Union and throughout the East Bloc. Academics in the middle have often entertained the hypothesis that the social collapse sprang from a technology gap that finally reached crisis dimensions in the 1980s. Whatever merits these alternative hypotheses might have, they must yield to the more fundamental hypotheses that rational economic planning is impossible under a system of collective ownership of the means of production and that the organizational structure of the administrative command system has its own logic and consequences that are detrimental to justice and individual freedom. Rather than describing a workable system that might have operated efficiently if only the workers and managers had tried harder and stayed on task, the archives reveal individuals striving to cope and to better themselves within an inherently unworkable system. Rent-seeking political actors, shirking workers, opportunistic managers—such was the reality of Homo sovieticus.
Costas
¥
Συνφορουμίτη, συν-φορουμίτη, ή συμφορουμίτη; :)
Και-μίτη ή -μύτη (ιδίως αν πρόκειται για ψηλομύτη); 
Συμφορουμίτες και συμφορουμίτισσες!