3 ms·
The USSR was profoundly multinational, and many of the Republics - most notably Russia itself - were, in turn, fractally multiethnic, consisting of many semi-au
by abalashov 10y ago
The USSR was profoundly multinational, and many of the Republics - most notably Russia itself - were, in turn, fractally multiethnic, consisting of many semi-autonomous ethno-national regions (this is why it was called the Russian Soviet _Federative_ Socialist Republic, and the Russian Federation today).
On top of the already complex ideological balancing act involved in managing so many distinctive national and ethnic identities, particularly along the periphery, there was the strong official Marxist internationalism, the idea of friendship among the proletariat of all nations, and of the Soviet Union as a superlative embodiment of this, etc.
With such ideological/rhetorical objectives in mind, whatever you may think of them, it is easy to see why it would be a problem to give any particular people a sense of preeminent victimhood or confer unto them some special recognition. It can lead to enhanced claims for special status or compensation from those people, as well as animate the grievances of other ethnicities who were the victims of Stalinist policies such as forced mass resettlement, or who lost disproportionate numbers in the war, or succumbed to famines and collectivisation of agriculture, etc. Besides that, the USSR lost an estimated 27 million soldiers and civilians fighting the Germans--people of all sorts of ethnicities, but of course to no small extent Russian-Slavic. A self-interested government would not wish to antagonise veterans or grieving families by creating the perception that the mantle of victimhood was being somehow disproportionately alloted to a particular group.
So, there was generally a political reluctance to cast any particular spotlight on the distinctive plight of Jews in WWII. Doubtless, some amount of inertial anti-Semitism and a suspicious view of Jews played a role too.
- sratner 10y agoIt is possible to recognise without conferring a sense of preeminent victimhood, and doing so may even have benefits for internationalism; but I do not wish to argue this point. The response above is just an elaboration on the parent's simplistic claim. From the same Wikipedia page: "An official memorial to Soviet citizens shot at Babi Yar was erected in 1976." Yevtushenko starts with an incredulous observation that there is no memorial at all, as of 1961. Your comment hints at a possible reason: it may be difficult to commemorate this specific site if one is unwilling to mention the Jews. It is imaginable that had a memorial existed--in any form--the poem may not have been written, but its lack had caused the poet to search for reasons.
- abalashov 10y agoI didn't say it's impossible, just that the reluctance to walk this tightrope on the part of the Soviet leadership was considerable. It was a descriptive account. :-) As to your larger point, entirely fair.
- bzbarsky 10y agoNote that the memorial erected in 1976 still did not mention Jews, just "Soviet citizens", as the quote says. It took until 1991 for a memorial explicitly mentioning Jews to appear.
- javabean22 10y agoNot some amount, a very large amount of anti-Semitism and discrimination against other non ethnically Russian people too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Under_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Under_the_Soviet... You seem like a Soviet apologist
- abalashov 10y agoDo I really?
- jacquesm 10y agoNot to me.
- ivanb 10y agoYou cannot just throw a link to an unrelated Wikipedia article and an ad hominem and call it a day, can you?
- abalashov 10y agoSure you can. When it comes to discussions of the complexity of Soviet politology, the standard protocol is to just throw out a link about extermination and oppression, sputter some Cold War platitudes, drop the mic and walk away.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]