The communists
have never been able to form a majority, in spite of the fact that bolsheviki
means `group of the majority'. They have always tried to make the world
believe that the Russian Revolution was an action of the people, but statistics
provide us with another picture: In 1920 the communist party had about
600,000 members, hardly 1 percent of the population. The proletariat, in
whose name the communists pretended to reign, consisted of less than 15
percent of the Russian population. It was the responsibility of the Cheka,
later GPOe and successively KGB, to persuade the remaining 85 percent of
the Russian population into accepting the communist gospel. In 1925 the
party had about a million members. In 1941 4 million people were member
of the communist party, while the country had a population of 170 million
people, which comes down to slightly more than 2 percent of the population.
The lack of support
of the majority of the population was also the reason why during and after
the October Revolution of 1917 not a single aristocrat was executed in
the open. Princess Zinaida Shakhovskoy, `The execution of the last Tsar
and his family was, like all executions in that period, an assassination,
in which the people had no share. There were hangmen in Russia, and murderers,
and fanatics of bloody oppression, like Dzherzhinsky, but there were, except
in the days of revolt, no ``tricoteuses'' and ``sans-culottes'', like in
the French Revolution. One could not publicly kill us in the Red Square
of Moscow, or in the square of the Hermitage in Petrograd. The people wouldn't
have allowed that.'
Yet since 1917
many Russians have perished by Russian state violence. Professor Ivan Alexeevich
Kurganov was professor of economy and statistics in the universities of
Leningrad and Moscow. He escaped to the United States. In his calculations
he comes to an estimation of 66 million dead, not included the millions
who died of famine. Solzhenitsyn, `More than all belligerent nations together,
in two world wars, have lost.'
They were shot
like dogs; that's how the communist regime dealt with the ones who were
discontented, or gave evidence of rebellious inclinations. As the years
went by the machine-gun was used less, because the means of communication
improved considerable, and after the Stalin period the Soviets tried to
crack up their reputation in the West, but violence was still not shunned
and opposition still not tolerated.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
`And if in that entire army of crowned, honorable, moderate and youthful
historians, one Amalrik is found, who does not ruminate, who does not make
a collage of quotations of the churchfathers of the progressive doctrine,
but who dares to give a substantive analysis of the present structure of
society, and who dares to predict the real future for our country, then
they, far from analyzing his work and selecting the matters of practical
use, throw him in jail. (...) In the spotlight of the world publicity our
prison has retreated and hidden itself. Amalrik, who should already have
been liquidated in 1970, was first sent to Kolyma, under a ``common'' article,
to avoid the political camps of Mordovia. The reactions of the whole world
once more resulted in a conviction of three years imprisonment; without
that it would have been much more.'
Every year, on May
9, the day on which the Russians celebrate their victory over German fascism,
hundreds of men and women gather in the neighborhood of the Bolshoy Theatre
and the Gorki Park in Moscow. After all these years they still are searching
for disappeared comrades and relatives. Everywhere are notice-boards with
messages like, `Who has known my father? Zayitsev Serge Alexeev, party
worker and journalist,' `Who knew Serge Ivanov, born in 1893, printer and
typographer?' and `Anxious to trace Peter Efimovich Pashitsev, arrested
February 3, 1938, in Novosibirsk.'
The walls of the
Kremlin aren't long and high enough for the sesquipedalian lists of missing
persons.
For many relatives
the search is in vain; the people they search for are most likely tortured
to death in the torture chambers of the state security, died of exhaustion,
burned alive or drawn in the blowholes of a river. A simple calculation
learns however that their hope is sometimes justified: during the Red Terror,
following the October Revolution, 16 million people were carried off. `Only'
a short 2 million would be exterminated. But they who hope that their fathers,
sons or comrades were among the 40 million survivors, perhaps forget that
in the 1930s 22 million Russians died of famine. The stalinist genocide,
which after all put an end to the lives of 98 million Russians, was mainly
directed against workers and farmers. The proletarians of all Soviet-countries
were unified in death. Stalin's laws made it possible that even children
were arrested and tortured.
Michael Antonov,
a journalist of the Russian paper Nash Sovremenik writes, `Communism was
imposed on us with the use of violence, and lead to enormous destruction
and loss of human lives. A country is prosperous when people make sure
that prosterity finds the land in a better condition than their parents
and grandparents found it. A nation is rich when there's produced enough
to let the people survive, while at the same time the population realizes
that there are more important moral and spiritual values in life.
People are rich
when they are not guided by selfishness, but by higher qualities, like
generosity, charity and sense of duty. Until 1917 such elevated opinions
dominated in Russia. The real Russian culture is shut out since 1917. Only
by returning to the original virtues and values the country can still be
saved.'
One thing's for
sure: when all those thousands, the crˆme de la crˆme of the Russian people,
wouldn't have had to flight, Russia would, in a cultural, artistical and
scientifical respect, have been one of the most prominent nations in the
world.
`The party is the
mind, the honour and the conscience of the present era' Lenin had printed
on the party membership books. On Friday, August 23, 1991, most party membership
books disappeared in the bonfires. After an unsuccessful coup d'état
of some co-operators of Michael Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin took over and
signed the death-sentence of Russian communism. In the Baltic republics
a witch-hunt was opened on everything that more than slightly smacked of
communism. `The time is right for bolshevik Nuremberg-trials,' stated the
Lithuanian president Landsbergis.
Yet the communists
aren't dislodged, and there are still lots of people walking about with
large portraits of Lenin and Stalin, their heroes. The genocidophily concentrates
mainly in Moscow, where since seventy years everyone who made himself somewhat
useful to the party, was awarded an apartment.
Several millions
of former party officials and their descendants live in the Moscow area.
The red dogmatists cumulated in the present capital of Russia, where they
still form a large part of the population.
Not so long ago
Yeltsin managed to resist a rebellion and his opponents Ruchkoy and Khasbulatov
were arrested. Despite the many reports which should have convinced them
of the opposite, there are still people who feel that Yeltsin used anti-democratic
methods. They call Yeltsin's actions `unconstitutional' and accuse him
of putting the `parliament' out of action. They base their accusations
on the anti-Yeltsin demonstrations of `the people'. When we assume that
the Russian concepts of `constitution', `parliament' and `the people' have
the same meaning as in every Western democracy, than Yeltsin has gone far
beyond his authority. But what does reality look like? The `constitution'
dated back from the 1970s and the `parliament' - the Supreme Soviet in
those days - also was a relic of communism.
`The people' that
rise against Yeltsin are not the people of Russia, but a mixed lot of communists,
fascists, anti-Semites and rioters out of Moscow. For good reason the rebels
weren't able to mobilize a following in St. Petersburg and other cities.
How can someone
who tries to rule out the anti-democratic forces and institutions be accused
of anti- democratic actions? History taught us that communists and fascists
abuse the democratic system to eliminate democracy by `democratic' means,
as soon as possible. Present day Russia not yet witnessed democracy, due
to the fact that the `constitution' and the `parliament' weren't effected
in a democratical way. When silencing the anti-democratic or pseudo-democratic
forces is necessary to be able to create a democratic system in Russia,
then this comes across quite unelegant with the people in Western democracies,
yet it is question of sink or swim, of kill or cure, as you wish. Would
the rebellions have had it their way, the burgeoning democracy would have
died untimely.
They who keep repeating
oversimplified dogma's like `Yeltsin's rule is unconstitutional' and `Yeltsin
puts the parliament out of action', they who keep comparing the American
or British parliament to the Russian parliament, are utterly naive and
play - conscious or not - the game of the communists and fascists. Thanks
to constitutions and parliaments who came into being in democratical ways,
they are able to do so without being punished, and that's why we have to
give the Russians the opportunity to continue the process of democratization,
even if this means that the remains of communism have to be pushed aside
with a certain (limited) amount of violence.
Truly capable political
leaders are scarce in Russia, and one of them I want to light out: Anatoli
Sobchak (1937-), the present (chosen) mayor of St. Petersburg. Former professor
of commercial law Sobchak is an enterpriser, a man who is capable of making
political contact on both national and international level.
He is a pragmatic,
who shows that he has profited much from his American colleagues. If he
would become the next president of Russia, which I far from exclude, then
he would be able to get rid of the Moscow `court clique' in one blow, by
moving the machinery of government to St. Petersburg - just like Peter
the Great did. We talked about this and the mayor was bemused by my ingenuousness.
However, he agreed with me on my overall political ideas.
Sobchak: `In my
opinion the communist ideology is a dead ideology, an 19th century ideology,
which until now was artificially respirated by the grace of the October
Revolution. In fact it is an ideology that Marx based on the political
and economical situation of the last century, and that's why it doesn't
relate to the changed economical, social and political circumstances at
the end of the 20th century. One could say that it's the ideology of the
dinosaurs, but unfortunately these dinosaurs are still alive. Their death-
struggle continues. The instability of the political forces, the continuing
economical crisis and the painful efforts to break with the totalitarian
past, will last for a while. Once we understand that it isn't necessary
to butcher one half of the population to make the other half happy, we
are on the firm ground of a social constitutional state.'
Alexander Kerensky
once said, `Without a Rasputin, there wouldn't have been a Lenin.' Most
likely he was right. The Russian people saw that a simple muzhik influenced
the Russian Tsar and Tsaritsa in a negative way, which of course was unacceptable.
In the end this situation resulted in Nicholas's abdication, of which Lenin
profited in a nimble way. But the Tsar didn't have to leave because the
people of Russia couldn't wait for Lenin to became head of state!
During the administration
of Nicholas II the Ukrain was the granary of the world. Lenin was not even
three years in power, when all this was finished and millions of Russians
died of famine.
In 1917 everywhere
in Europe and America were developing democratization processes. Socialists
and social-democrats got lots of votes, conservative governments had to
make place for liberal and socialist administrations. Russia was no exception.
The difference between Russia and other countries was that Russia had to
deal with the Red Terror of nobleman Ulyanov and his comrades. From the
moment the bolsheviki were in the opposition, they snapped their fingers
at all democratic principles, and that was to come worse after they seized
to power. In the rest of Europe the new opposition - the former rulers
- did not move to the cemetery, but to the opposition-benches, as a result
of which there was a healthy counter-balance. Would this have happened
in Russia, then history would probably have had a different course. In
several European countries it became obvious that a socialist government
and a monarchy do not necessarily exclude each other. After Rasputin was
murdered, Nicholas and Alexandra found themselves in a deep valley, but
undoubtedly they would have come out of that, after which the way to a
constitutional monarchy would have been free. Russia would have stayed
an empire, but would have been reformed according to the present British
model.
I don't think it's
possible and likely that there ever will be a Tsar in Russia. It is far
too late for that.
But in the Moscow
subway are posters for sale, with portraits and family trees of the Romanoffs,
which are in great demand with the Russian and international public. Since
1924 there is a monarchist party, which only since some years is working
overground. However, chairman of this party is Serge Yurkov- Engelhardt,
a nonentity that only would be taken seriously in a musical comedy.
Since 1990 Tsar
Nicholas' birthday is celebrated yearly in the Donskoy Monastery of Moscow.
Prince André Golitsyn, grandson of the last Tsarist mayor of Moscow
and a big shot in the Russian Union of the Nobility, is present every year.
`Seventy years of Soviet regime have, from a moral point of view, been
disastrous,' says the prince. `We, the emigré's, have the task to
contribute to the ``re-education'' of the people of Russia, by telling
them which values, virtues and traditions this country knew before the
bolsheviki seized to power. Most Russians know absolutely nothing about
this period, and consider this a handicap.'
Another important
member of the Russian Union of the Nobility is Count Bobrinsky, a descendant
of Catherina the Great and Grigori Orlov. He works in the information center
of the Union, which is housed in a wing of the former Dolgorouky Palace,
which after the Revolution was seized by the Marxist-Leninist Institute.
Today the Union has to share its wing with the Vostok Bank and the editors
of the newspaper Free Thought, which until recently was called Kommunist.
Count Bobrinsky told me that they have changed their name, but not their
manners. Princess Troubetzkaya (1922-) is chairwoman of the charity committee,
since 1990, when the Union could afford to come in the open. The members
of the Union are allowed to send their children to the Union's gymnasium,
where they can also learn etiquette and public administration. Another
member, Count Tolstoy, recently visited the former family estate of Novinki,
outside Moscow. The building was destructed and he wasn't allowed on the
premises, because construction workers were building a new mansion for
Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin, Russia's Prime Minister. The old elite
still has to make place for the new... The Russian Union is not the only
organization of Russian aristocrats in Russia. There are many of them,
all over Russia. Chairman of the Council of Russian Unions of the Nobility
- Crown - is my cousin Prince Vladimir Nikolaevich Obolensky.
Since 1991 there
are calendars available, with the portraits of Nicholas II and his family,
in most Russian newspaper stalls. Money is being collected to raise a cathedral
in Ekaterinburg, in honour of the last Tsar. In 1991 Russia officially
sent the film Regicide, based on the last days of the Romanoffs, to the
film festival in Cannes, France. On Friday, July 17, 1992, in Ekaterinburg,
a ceremonious gathering was organized for the first time, by the Russian-Orthodox
Church, in memory of the fact that Tsar Nicholas II and his family were
shot down in this city.
Vladimir Kirilovich
Romanoff, the claimant to the throne, who was born in 1917 in Finland,
and since then lived in France, Spain and America, was burried with official
honour in April 1992, in the Peter and Paul fortress of St. Petersburg,
beside some relatives.
Why some Romanoffs
and Russian monarchists did consider Vladimir Kirilovich and did not consider
his daughter Maria Vladimirovna (1953-) and her son Grigori Mikhaïlovich
(1981-) as rightful claimants to the throne?
`Feodor' Romanoff,
`I'm deeply ashamed, but that's mainly due to the fact that Maria is divorced,
and because some people suspect that Vladimir Kirilovich' wife, Princess
Leonida Grigorievna Bagration- Moukhransky - so also her daughter Maria
and her grandson Grigori -, have some drops of Jewish blood in them. Anti-Semitism
is also very Russian, unfortunately. ``Pogrom'' is a Russian word, which
means ``destruction''.'
In Russia, the
former Yugoslavia and in many other places in the world, still `pogroms'
find place, people's lives are being ruined, because the religions or the
political preferences of these people deviate from prevailing opinions.
The problem of refugees is still very topical. How long will it take before
we will be willing and able to put a stop to this misery?
Back
To Russians In Exile
|
