Kremlin's Russifying “internationalists”

Historical myths, stereotypes, cliches, and superstitions — all these are part of our shameful yet undeniable reality, something anyone attempting to design a better future has to reckon with — just as any mechanical engineer has to keep in mind the friction factor. All these are harsh, unrelenting realities. The system of myths is poisonous to society; it is slowing its progress and leads the public opinion astray. Quite often this is even worse than a pack of lies. By affecting the ego’s emotional segment, rather than activating the rational one, it presents a deliberately distorted view of the past, convincing people that complicated social problems can be solved using simple, unsophisticated means.

A vivid example is the practice of the condemnation of the scary notions of nationalism, national extremism, or fascism. To certain “internationalist” ideologues all these notions are synonymous. In the view of leftist fundamentalists, who are ever stuck in the past (and, most alarmingly, others), all of Ukraine’s problems stem from nationalism, which seems to have stolen its way to the political leadership and is now doing its evil deeds. These ideologues make no secret of their nostalgic memories of the good old Soviet times of “internationalism,” when the USSR was rock solid, when the new “historical entity, the Soviet people” (from Estonians to Yakuts to Kirghiz to Belarusians) was formed as a community of peoples thatjoined it “of their own free will” (those who attempted to protest and retain theirnational/ethnic identity were subject to special “educational measures,” from losing jobs to serving terms in thecorrective labor camps of Mordovia and Yakutia). And so nationalism is presented as the biggest threat, and the time it was combated with the utmost ideological vigor is tearfully referred to as paradise on earth in the form of “friendship among the peoples.”

Was it really so? How do the Kremlin rulers and ideologues interpret the notion of internationalism? Below are excerpts from the memoirs of Petro Shelest, member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party and First Secretary of the CC of Ukraine’s Communist Party. His reminiscences have to be analyzed and checked against the historically established facts, using reliable reference sources. Nevertheless, they are very interesting, considering that Shelest was directly involved in the ruling process. Setting: USSR, September 1965; personae: members of the ruling party’s leadership, i.e., party functionaries who were then members of the Presidium of the CC CPSU (Politburo of the CC CPSU after the spring of 1966).

Shelest had to attend ex officio every gathering at the top of the Soviet communist Olympus, and he kept a diary with meticulously dated, concise, and clearly formulated entries. He wrote down his most essential impressions from the major political, economic, and ideological events. And then came the meeting of the Presidium of the CC CPSU on Sept. 2, 1965 (Shelest would remember the date and what followed for the rest of his life; 25 years later he would willingly share his memories of the event).

At this point I would like to warn the reader that Shelest was a political figure that could be interpreted in a number of ways. His was a peculiar combination of straightforwardness, rudeness (he was always prepared to defend what he considered to be valuable cadre). He was able to understand a person being persecuted. At times he displayed something like magnanimity. At the same time, he was a cunning apparatchik (otherwise he would never have been appointed as a member of the Politburo). On the other hand, he, incredibly, had some trust in people.

Needless to say, Shelest was not a nationalist (although he was accused of nationalism in 1972 and relieved of Ukraine’s highest party post). The Ukrainian language, culture, and history always had a special meaning for him. Shelest was trying to consistently protect the economic interests of the Ukrainian SSR against Moscow’s encroachments (while certainly seeing Ukraine as part of that “single people’s economic complex”). In fact, problems relating the Ukrainian SSR’s economic independence triggered subsequent events.

Late in the summer of 1965, Shelest sent a memorandum to the Presidium of the CC CPSU, with harsh — by the then standards — criticism of the stand taken by the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the USSR (Vneshtorg), stressing that Vneshtorg was completely ignoring Ukraine’s interests, above all, economic ones, while the Ukrainian SSR was a sovereign member of the Soviet Union. The complaint said that Vneshtorg was following the orders from the Soviet Foreign Trade Minister, Nikolai Patolichev, and was taking away from the Ukrainian SSR all the products he designated.

How did the Kremlin respond to this memorandum? Now that’s an interesting point.

Shelest wrote later: “A number of issues were discussed by the Presidium (every presenter had his schedule).It’s hard to recollect all of them. There were issues relating to better government care of the industries, preparations for the next plenary meeting of the CC, convening the Supreme Soviet, etc. Suddenly, after resolving all these issues, Brezhnev reached into his pocket and produced a crumpled piece of paper, saying, ‘Well, here is one more matter, a letter from Comrade Shelest. We have this letter from him. We have created a commission, considered everything, and analyzed the situation. … Comrade Shelest is wrong.”

After that the Kremlin rulers with typical “Bolshevik principled approach” decided to hear about the state of affairs in Ukraine in terms of both economy and ideology. Mikhail Suslov, member of the Presidium, CC CPSU Secretary (the Soviet Union‘s number one communist ideologue), declared: “I think that Comrade Shelest is wrong in general, and in every aspect in particular, because he is crossing the boundaries of Leninist foreign trade. He is undermining it. This conduct is inadmissible, because it serves to disunite the peoples [of the USSR]. You understand, disunite!”

What followed was even more interesting. Suslov came up with more interesting statements: “Generally speaking, I must tell everyone present that the situation with Ukraine leaves much to be desired as all Ukrainians speak Ukrainian (sic).” Shelest wrote [in his diary]: “Are Ukrainians supposed to speak Turkish or what? I was dumbfounded.” Suslov was echoed by the CC CPSU Secretary Demichev (another top level ideologue): “They’re getting Ukrainized under Shelest.” Shelest’s diary entry: “Once again

I couldn’t help but ask, ‘Under Shelest? Ukrainization? There is no Ukrainization. We have Russian-language schools and Ukrainian-language schools, but the number of the latter is dropping, unfortunately.”

Demichev (looking at Suslov): “Shevchenko is their idol!”

Shelest diary: “It was then I vented my feelings. I told them, ‘Yes, Shevchenko is our idol. He is respected as an outstanding democrat as well as a brilliant poet in our country and abroad.”

Suslov (interrupting): “You have signboards in Ukrainian. How can this be?”

Shelest: “What language are they supposed to use? We have them in Ukrainian and in Russian.”

Suslov (playing his trump card): “Generally speaking, you have quite a few manifestations of nationalism in Ukraine.”

Shelest’s diary entry: “This left me speechless. I got a hold of my emotions, but I must have raised my voice quite a bit. I asked Suslov: ‘Mikhail Andreevich, what exactly are these manifestations of nationalism? Such accusations are typically Stalinist.’ Demichev replied calmly instead: ‘Because many people speak Ukrainian and because they’re worshipping Shevchenko. He is the idol of your youth. Every year they place flowers at the foot of the monument. That’s what’s happening over on your end.’

“Our discussion was joined by Rashidov, then First Secretary of the CC of Uzbekistan’s Communist Party and candidate member of the Presidium of the CC CPSU. He kept his republic under his thumb. Under his rule, rampant corruption, embezzlement, and nepotism flourished. He said, ‘We have Russia language in great respect, we respect, love, study Russia language. We place it first, we don’t know it like in Ukraine.’”

Alexei Kosygin, member of the Presidium of the CC CPSU, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, had this to say: “Matters relating to political and ideological work with regard to the national question must be regarded as a top priority. At this point it would be difficult to trace the roots of nationalism. It is even more difficult to uproot it. We must adopt a reforming as well as punitive policy. There are very many diversions from our ideology in our art, drama plays, and films. I don’t understand why school children in Ukraine should be taught Ukrainian (sic). Shevchenko’s works are now and then used for nationalistic purposes. Or take Sevastopol. This has been a Russian city for ages; why are there Ukrainian signboards?”

Leonid Brezhnev, the number one Soviet party and political leader, first secretary of the CC CPSU (Secretary General after April 1966), officially eulogized as a worthy inheritor of Lenin’s cause, summed up the discussion: “We had that Ukrainization campaign when Skrypnyk was in charge [in the 1920s — I.S.]. But that was the Skrypnyk campaign! As you know, I was a factory worker under Skrypnyk, just when that Ukrainization campaign was underway. The whole thing was ridiculously absurd. Come to think of it, the Ukrainian language is actually pidgin Russian.”

Shelest diary: “I clenched my teeth and kept silent. I was just telling myself, ‘Here is your Soviet head of state. A man who was born, grew up, and spent the better part of his life in Ukraine!”

Remarkably, the Ukrainian issue was on the agenda of several meetings of the Presidium and later the Politburo of the CC CPSU, every time regarded from the standpoint of “ruthless struggle against Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” and so on. In March 1972 (marking the end of Shelest’s political career) the Kremlin geriatrics once again lashed out at the CC of Ukraine’s Communist Party, targeting Shelest and accusing him of “lost political vigilance,” “ignoring the acuteness of ideological struggle,” allowing “manifestations of nationalism,” etc. As an example of the latter they cited the fact that Ivan Dziuba’s Internationalism or Russification? (a samizdat edition!) spread throughout the republic. Moscow’s Politburo regarded the book as a “hostile statement” and a “manifesto of the nationalist circles.”

Those present paid special attention to the speech made by Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, then member of the Politburo of the CC CPSU, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR (he would replace Shelest two months later). Among other things, he declared: “It is necessary to point out that there are manifestations of nationalism in Ukraine. There is an interrelationship between the so-called democrats, Zionists, and Ukrainian nationalists. We are not combating manifestations of nationalism hard enough. Sometimes we get carried away, praising past events and encouraging [the local authorities] to institute cities’ coats of arms.

“As regards Dziuba’s ‘book,’ we have not taken sufficient measures; this is our mistake. Ideological work with the students and [other] young people must be enhanced. We are careless with our cadre selection, typically nominating Ukrainians (this is what Soviet “internationalism” was all about — I.S.).”

Shelest wrote in his diary about the man who would take over his post: “Shcherbytsky’s speech revealed him as a traitor; he showed his true face as a sycophant, careerist, and a man without any principles.” Once again the Kremlin dinosaurs roared and spat fire on the Shevchenko cult among the Ukrainian younger generation, the predominance of the Ukrainian language (the latter was still tagged as pidgin Russian), and so on.

All those Kremlin Politburo “internationalists” were outright demagogues and chauvinists who utterly hated the ethnic sentiments of the peoples that made up the USSR, with Ukraine probably topping the list. So let us look around and make our own conclusions.