Stalin's the most lied about person in human history with most things about him being debunked by real western historians who have studied the archives and analysed the data especially the tens of millions killed myth.

Sergey Mironenko correctly responds to a question about “rewriting history” by saying, “There is only one history, but there are quite a few interpretations.” Yet in the next sentence he says, “The 20th century saw several serious attempts to rewrite history.” It seems like he is trying to have it both ways at once. But the only example of “rewriting history” that he offers is Russia’s dealing with its own history! But what is interesting is RT’s repeated leading questions like, “Estonia…has seen recently a lot of neo-Nazi organizations and movements sprouting up. I have been there and I have seen many of their gatherings.” To which Mironenko replies, “Well, you know, I cannot say whether it is on the rise or not,” but immediately continues, “The marches of the former Waffen-SS members and all neo-Nazis are deeply disconcerting to me.” Once again, he is trying to have it both ways at once. Meanwhile, neither RT nor Mironenko detail what is Nazi about the Baltics nor what history they have supposedly re-written, but merely repeat Russia’s traditional judgmental prejudice without evidence. Mironenko then goes on to refer to Nazi atrocities in the Baltics which nobody denies, while deftly sidestepping Soviet atrocities in the Baltics, which only Russia denies. But credit where credit is due – RT tried to bait Mironenko about the relocation of the Bronze Soldier statue, too, but Mironenko steadfastly refused to bite, saying instead, “I would like to express my personal point of view on that subject. I think that the Russian leadership made a mistake in reacting to that incident. A Russian delegation should have gone to Estonia. After all, there is nothing terrible in the fact of removing, with all military honors, the remains of Soviet soldiers from the central square and reburying them at a military memorial.” You’d never think so, based on the emotional eruptions that RT, together with Russian media in general, usually publish about this matter.

Good interview from his side, not RT's side. Bronze soldier is three-year-old news, guys. Give it a rest.

Thank you for the interesting article. I am glad the the head of the Russian State Archive has such open-minded attitude toward the past. Ludwik Kowalski, the author of two FREE ON-LINE books: 1) "Hell on Earth: Brutality and violence under the Stalinist regime." http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/father2/introduction.html 2) “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html This second book is my own autobiography, based on a diary I kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA). Some have said that these books are "imperialist propaganda" and "relics of cold war." This is not true; no one asked me to write them. Writing was a moral obligation to my parents, and to other victims of Stalinism. Perhaps someone would be interested in reviewing one of my books, and in publishig the review in Emorywheel. I would be happy to cooperate. Let me know if you are interested ( kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu ) . Thank you in advance.

I would say that it's Stalin's fault that the Germans even got as far as Sint Petersburg in the WWII ...

Ludwik Kowalski, I too thought this was an excellent interview, a pretty balanced view, covering many of the key issues and clearly explaining when he was really relying on a very personal viewpoint, which he is entitled to. Now coming to your books, and I admit to having not read them yet, so am just browsing the title and cover to see if I should invest the time. But here straight away I see some issues, and please do not take these comments as any slight on your parents. See you say - "Some have said that these books are "imperialist propaganda" and "relics of cold war." This is not true; no one asked me to write them. Writing was a moral obligation to my parents, and to other victims of Stalinism." - But I would have thought that your family being victims, would have a huge biasing affect on your outlook; so for me, you would not have to be instructed to write a book to show bias, for me it would naturally be within your personality due to a harrowing experience. This is not an attack on your character, but more a statement on mine, because I assure you, if my parents were victims of something, I don't honestly think I could trust myself to be some God like creature and be impartial and objective. I would see everything through the prism of this terrible experience with my parents. So I would be open to the charge of lack of balance; would I really cover the majority of the population who were not victims of Stalinism, as my relatives in reality were not, and lived a happy life both in Stalinist and non Stalinist times. Then I glance at the title "Hell on Earth: Brutality and violence under the Stalinist regime." and yes that pretty well tells me what I am going to get here, but it tends to re-enforce the point I made above, that your expereince may be naturally colouring your writing. Then “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” - This is much better, I am tempted to take this from the shelf.

@Marzipan6 It is the Baltics and the US that are rewriting history to suit a political agenda which we are never told that the US and Britain were training and recruiting German affiliated nationalist groups towards the end of WW2 and the period after it to perform military operations against the USSR that are part of the Baltic governments. What about the heavy presence of Latvia Red Guard that was Lenin’s shock troops that made the coup of 1917 possible and the heavy presence of Latvians in the post Civil war Bolshevik institutions? If we are so concerned with historical accuracy then why is it suppressed that Communism was imported and installed into Russia and the Communists were not even Russian it was an international Marxist terrorist movement supported and financed by the West most of which came from New York just like today how they support international jihadist terrorism? In fact the same people behind the coup of 1917 who ruled Russia prior to WW2 are the same people who rule the US today.

I have always considered that Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin called Socialism in the most harshest form possible. It is also believable that both were the cause of WWII because if Hitler did not have the assurance from the Soviets about Poland then he might never have invaded Poland. And today is the anniversary of that; Sept.1

Count Cash wrote that a victim of a political system is "open to the charge of lack of balance." That is true. But that does not mean the information provided by that person is worthless. Consider Solzhenitsin; he was a victim. Does it mean that his descriptions of Gulag camps were not valuable? The same question can be asked about Holocaust survivors. A large number Russian citizens of my age (I am 79) had a relative or friend who was a victim of Stalinism. This probably applies to historians, even to keepers of State archives. Does it mean that their scientific investigations are worthless? I do not think so.

Ludwik Kowalski, Now I did not say the information was worthless did I? what I said, is that there is a chance that the delivery lacks balance because of the very nature of the personal involvement. Indeed I would level that charge at anyone regardless of their stature. The point I was making was that it is not sufficient to take this imput as a definitive, as an off the shelf bible on the subject. What needs to be done is taking information from many sources and correlating it, to get a validated picture. Now consider something else, you use the phrase victim of Stalinism, but that is a very wide description, you could say a person who was just frightened to excercise free speech was a victim of Stalinism, so that would be nearly everyone, or you could say, those that were cycled through the prison system, or you could say those that were imprisoned on political charges only, or you could say those that actually lost their lives due to Stalinism. See in each case you get completely different numbers, but the label can still be the same. So my point here, is you need clarity in what you are calling a spade. Now I am not defending Stalin, but I am defending a correct historical view of Stalin, that does not seek to use language to create a view that is at odds with historical truth. Now your books are being touted as coming from an educational source (.edu in your URL) so I think if you come with that marketing, you should not just come with information that is not worthless, but come with information that shows an analytical and objective view, that has been adequately academically refereed, and you cannot lead that refereeing with an attack on others, who have already seen your work and deemed it as imperial propaganda. Yes there is nothing wrong with coming with a personal view, but please position and market it as such, so that the reader is not being hoodwinked that this is an academic treatise.

September 02, 2010, 09:13, Count Cash wrote: "Now consider something else, you use the phrase victim of Stalinism, but that is a very wide description, you could say a person who was just frightened to excercise free speech was a victim of Stalinism, so that would be nearly everyone, or you could say, those that were cycled through the prison system, or you could say those that were imprisoned on political charges only, or you could say those that actually lost their lives due to Stalinism. See in each case you get completely different numbers, but the label can still be the same." I agree. Several million of victims of Stalinism usually refers to those who were either executed by punitive organs of proletarian dictatorship, sent to gulag camps, forcibly displaced from their traditional areas (like Tartars), etc. Yes, the term is not well defined. Those who are not familiar with Soviet history might appreciate my second FREE ON-LINE book--the first one was specified in an earlier comment under this thread. "Hell on Earth: Brutality and violence under the Stalinist regime." http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/father2/introduction.html Unlike my personal testimony, entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality,” the second book is based on references. I am a retired physics teacher, not a historian or sociologist. Those familiar with facts described in Hell on Earth, should go directly to Chapter 7--a discussion of Stalinism by professors at Montclair State university. I also recommend Section 4.5, providing numerical information on how little their students know about Stalin. Section 3.7, describing the so-called "communist morality," is also worth reading and discussing.

Ludwik Kowalski, Thanks for explaining your books. It is clear one is a personal view and the other an academic treatment. The position is valid and fair. The only advice I would give is to avoid inflammatory or headline seeking titles on academic work. Over the years I have seen academia commercialised and too much pressure put to 'sell' output. Hell on Earth for me is a little over the top, it may be dramatic, but it seems to me an overkill to grab attention. Would people really be comfortable with 'Hell on earth: brutality to the Native American' or 'Hell on Earth: Bush's massacre and brutality in the Middle East'. Personally I would find these 'headlines' fine in the tabloid press, in blogs..... But I don't like them used in academic work. Besides the dramatics, there is the obvious difficulty in proving the title;was there really hell on earth, the whole world, how is hell defined so that I could test the premise.... Therefore for me if you can't get the title to hold water, then it is not a good academic start. Now two further issues that I find problematical with some treatments of Stalin. The first is one of definition of a victim; the second is a context for Stalinism itself. You gave a definition of being a victim of Stalinism. But I would have issues with it, firstly it has the magic etc at the end meaning it is open, and the second, that it leaves out type of guilt associated with being in a Gulag. Now I am not seeking here, to discredit you or to define a rigorous definition, but am just seeking to show that the definition is not agreed universally. Can you imagine an accurate agreed view of Stalinism, when we can't even agree definitions? Now the second issue context . Stalin needs to be placed in context, both in terms of the history of Russia and the world. Stalin saw, revolution, great wars, subversion from outside. The world saw great power games, slavery, colonialism, genocides... So how important is Stalin, why and to whom?

The findings of a most interesting survey were published a few days ago by Moscow’s Levada Centre, a non-government public opinion and market research agency. Amongst the findings: • 33% of Russians approve of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, 22% condemns it and 45% know nothing at all about it. • Of those who do know of the Pact, 41% knew nothing about its secret protocols which divided Europe between Stalin and Hitler and which assigned the Baltics and half of Poland to Stalin, 36% had merely heard about those protocols and apparently had no opinion about them, 11% had heard of them but thought they were an invention, which leaves only 12 % who have heard about them and understand their significance. • Over the last 5 years, the proportion of Russians who are ignorant of the Pact has actually increased. • Russians were asked whether they knew that in September 1939 a combined Soviet-Nazi military parade was held in Brest celebrating the defeat of Poland. 56% those questioned they had never heard of this. The above represents a scandalous failure with far-reaching consequences of both the Kremlin and of the Russian media to educate Russians about some key aspects of their own Soviet history. Yet when people were asked whether poor Russian-Baltic relations are associated with Russia’s refusal to acknowledge their Soviet occupation of 1940-41, 45% agreed, 15% disagreed, and presumably 40% had no opinion. Interestingly enough, the most knowledgeable respondents were of the 40-55 age group. This age group neither initiated the Soviet occupation of the Baltics and therefore were not directly subjected to Stalin’s severest propaganda, nor grew up in the moral and factual vacuum of post-Soviet Russia. It’s sobering to think that the post-Stalin, pre-glasnost Soviet man knows more factual history of Russia’s Baltic crimes than someone who has grown up in Yeltsin-Putin-Medvedev’s Russia.

It is indeed good to see that the manufactured western cold war version of history is subsiding, and that ordinary Russians increasingly understand that the west has had a whole industry of historians and associated propaganda which was a natural biproduct of the cold war. The problem is that many in the west simply do not understand, that their references and understanding of Soviet events are driven directly by this cold war western propaganda, and can not therfeore build a correct factual undertsanding. Indeed many in the west even try to rewrite it another way again. There is now a correct understanding in Russia that the west was carrying out subversion in the Soviet union led by the likes of the UK and Poland, prior to WW2 as a natural power game, and as a continuation of the process to weaken its development, a process that was earlier done with Russia through direct military means. There is now also the clear understanding that the Munich pact was the west's further active attempt to focus the Nazis onslought towards the Soviet union to try to destroy it. Indeed green lightig Hitler for the start of WW2. Additionally people start to undertsand the participation of the Baltic Nazis, who killed over 125,000 souls in captivity and another 600,000 as part of the joint Nazi criminal enterprise, that in its totality killed around 80 million people and nearly removed any notion of humanity and diversity from this earth. Indeed not only Russians but the allies as a whole, now realise the immense joint effort and sacrifices that were made to remove the Nazi curse from this earth. There is now a correct realisation that it is to play with fire to try to focus a dangerous criminal force for geopolitical games, this has been proved again through history in terms of Taliban and Al Qaeda. The world now starts to correctly talk of joint threats, as a recognition of this fact. Lets hope they address the Baltic Nazis as part of this joint effort.

CountCash mentions numerous things relating to World War 2-associated matters that he tells us “Russians increasingly understand.” Too bad that these supposed “understandings” are merely his own imaginings, supported not by evidence acknowledged by historians but by Soviet/Russian propagandists and their doctrinaire prejudices. Meanwhile the Levada study, whose findings CountCash ignored as if they never existed, highlight the yawning chasm of ignorance amongst Russians of actual events associated with the war whose reality even CountCash realizes is futile to deny.

There are gaps in the grasp of facts of WW2 amongst the young, this is unfortunately a sad fact in the countries of all the allies. It is a disrespect to the people who lost their lives in defeating the Nazis and a weak point that can allow extremism to rear its ugly head. Many students still think only Gremany and Japan was involved, they have no idea about Romanians, Hungarians, Baltics, Finns.... and ad hoc peoples units form many western countries that fought against the Soviet Union by joining the Nazi ideological master race crusade. Sometimes they only think of Germany, not realising that there was a free for all for anyone that had a grudge or ongoing dispute against the SU, who then joined the Nazi crusade with relish, while Jews, Roma, prisoners of war... were dispatched to oblivion. They were happy to join the criminal endeavour against humanity, as long as they got something out of it. For some like the Baltics it was racial purity, for others it was land. Like criminals sharing the loot after the robbery. regardless of the human suffering that the Nazis brought. So I do think there is room for educating Russian students further with the truth about the wider parties involved in attacking the SU. Because in the past in the intersest of Soviet unity and relationships within Europe, these facts of the aggression and culpability of these countries has not been dealt with in sufficient depth. Students do need to undertsatnd what forces were fighting for the Nazis/axis powers against the soviet union and their allies, so they can understand the blatant lies being attempted, to avoid those countries collective responsibility and joint and several liability for the criminal Nazi regimes actions that they supported with military and political sustinance.

CountCash, please don’t come at us with this “racial purity” garbage in relation to Estonia. First of all, there is no such thing as a “racially pure” Estonian. For centuries and centuries, Estonia has been absorbing foreign invaders – Danes, Swedes, Germans, Poles, Russians – who eventually became Estonians culturally, but not racially. Even before the large influx of Soviet Russians, there were ethnically quite separate sub-groups within the Estonian population. Estonians do not have, nor have ever had, any hang-ups about supposed “racial purity”. Secondly, Estonia had no “racial purity” aspirations in context of WW2. But it was simply unreasonable enough to object – strongly – to the Soviet destruction of its sovereignty, and fought Soviet invaders in any way it could. It also strongly objected to Nazi jackals moving in to gnaw on it while it was prostrate. But it knew that Germans would be defeated and leave soon enough anyway while Russians would return to stay. So it tried to use whatever military momentum it could gain from Germany in the short term to try to delay the return of Soviet Russian murders to their land, hoping that the war might end before Soviet occupation could be re-imposed. It failed, and the horror of subsequent nearly 50 years of Soviet terror and oppression utterly justified its efforts to resist it. Thirdly, Estonia unlike Russia has no history of anti-Jewish pogroms and unlike Russia allowed cultural autonomy to its Jewish population in the 1920’s and 30s, for which international Jewish organisations have expressed their formal thanks. The “racial purity” insanity was a Nazi German thing with which a few – very, very few – individual Estonians participated at a time when Estonia had no government and policies of its own.

Oh but it was very much a question of racial purity, the Estonian's not only were proud to be jew free, they even became the outsourcer of choice for exterminating them. Think India, China can be proud of information outsourcing and manufacturing outsourcing. Estonia was on the innovative forefront of extermination outsourcing, offering a full extermination outsourcing service as many helpless victims were sent from affar to be exterminated there by the Estonian henchmen. But this was all part of a Nazi Estonia, after all they had fully signed up to the Nazis uder their pledge to Hitler, and were happy going about their work for his cause. Organised in their SS units and supporting Auxillary police. Estonia, a conveniently forgetful regime, next they will forget about all the Afghans and Iraqis they have helped invade, torture and rape, all because they were made to, of course! The only thing that was MADE in Estonia, was Estonian Nazi attrocities and their subsequent glorification, followed by Afghan and Iraqi ones!