Ivan the terrible Moscow impostor, which is still the same Moscow as heretical the Church, in his own illegal way, put on the throne. Was so odious character of the history of Muscovite that he had no place among the main characters in the history of the “Third Rome” on the monument “Millennium of Russia”.
Can you imagine that? There was a place even to Bogdan Khmelnitsky, which Muscovy honored as one of the accomplices of gathering Russian lands. There is a place terrible first wife Anastasia Romanovna from the clan then seized power in the country of the Romanovs, but Ivan the terrible is not there!
Not found required the Romanovs to mention the character of the XVI century, which has never been positive in understanding her historians of mythology. And that’s even considering the fact that he laid the foundations of falsification of history of Russia, invented the oprichnina, and finally “reunited” land of the Horde!
Returned to its former glory terrible another, no less bloody Moscow tyrant Joseph Stalin.
By a strange coincidence, just in the years of mass repressions, Stalin launched a program of full rehabilitation of the bloody butcher of Grozny. He did it primarily because he was needed to justify their crimes, so to say, a necessity.
To prove that any “strong” ruler literally the same obligation, the maximum of cruelty to destroy his subjects!
It was under Stalin, have begun to produce not only films and books about Ivan the terrible, but was promoted the idea that the oprichnina is a healthy phenomenon that it had a beneficial effect on the situation in the country. Even Stalin criticized, created at his behest, the film of Eisenstein. The film which is not realized that the troops of the oprichnina was progressive forces relied on Ivan the terrible, and the forces which he had intended to build Russia into one centralized state. According to Stalin, Eisenstein’s the old against the oprichnina. That’s what he said:
“I do not understand the fact that the troops of the oprichnina was progressive forces relied on Ivan to raise Russia into one centralized state, against the feudal princes who wanted to split and weaken it. I went old against the oprichnina. The old historians to the oprichnina was rude no because of the terrible repression they regarded as the repression of Nicholas II, and was completely distracted from the historical context in which it occurs”.
But a very interesting transcript of a conversation between Stalin and Eisenstein and Cherkasov in the film “Ivan the terrible” February 26, 1947, or rather the most “delicious” parts of it:
Stalin: You studied history?
Eisenstein: More or less…
Stalin: More or less?.. I am also a little familiar with the history. You have incorrectly shown the oprichnina. The oprichnina is the Royal army. In contrast to the feudal army, which could at any moment turn off their banners and walk away from the war, formed a regular army, the progressive army. You have the guardsmen are shown as the ku Klux Klan.
Eisenstein said that they are dressed in white hats, and we have — in black.
Molotov: This fundamental difference is not.
Stalin: Tsar you got indecisive, like hamlet. All he tells you what to do, and not he makes the decisions… Tsar Ivan was a great and wise ruler, and if you compare him with Louis XI (you have read about Louis XI who prepared absolutism for Louis XIV?), then Ivan the terrible in relation to Louis at the tenth sky.
The wisdom of Ivan the terrible was that he was standing on the national point of view and foreigners in their country were not allowed to shield the country from the penetration of foreign influence. In the show of Ivan the terrible in this direction was a deviation and abnormality. Peter is also a great sovereign, but he is too liberal attitude towards foreigners, too opened the gates and allowed foreign influence in the country, with the Germanization of Russia. More made it to Catherine. Further. Unless the court of Alexander I was the Russian court? Unless the court of Nicholas I was the Russian court? No. It was a German yards.
A wonderful event of Ivan the terrible was that he first introduced a state monopoly of foreign trade. Ivan the terrible was the first who introduced her, Lenin was the second.
Stalin: Ivan the terrible was very cruel. To show that it was cruel you can, but you need to show why it is necessary to be cruel.
One of the mistakes of Ivan the terrible was that he did not dorezal five big feudal families. If these five boyar families would be destroyed, then there would be no time of Troubles. And Ivan the terrible someone was executed and then for a long time repenting and praying. God him in this matter interfered… Needed to be more determined.
Stalin: Ivan the terrible was more than a national king, more prudently, he did not let foreign influence in Russia, but Peter opened the gates to Europe and let in too many foreigners.
The conversation ends with the fact that Stalin wishes success and speaks: “Help God!”
As you can see Stalin, the father of the “Russian people” did not hesitate to admit that he is not just engaged in the promotion of values gepaticeski regime in Grozny, but justifies them as necessary and important for Russia. He stressed how important for Russia was the policy of xenophobia: the rejection of all things Western, all progressive. And even accuses Peter that he violated that sacred rule, and was attracted to the reformation of the “Third Rome” of foreigners.
And this despite the fact that the first, albeit also a self-proclaimed, but still the Russian monarch: Tsar Peter was no less manic than menacing. Although unlike the terrible, he justified his atrocities against its true or not entirely true citizens that they are animals:
“With other European Nations can achieve the goal of humane methods, and with my people — I can’t… Because I’m not dealing with people, with animals, whom I want to transform people.”….
Peter, like Ivan, like Stalin could not see, and especially not looking for other ways of understanding their subjects, as through pain, because they do not see them, even slaves.
However, today, when Putin in the context of the revival of “traditional values” impose on the Russians the need for a revival of the Stalin cult, it is in fact not much different from him, restoring in his time the cult of the terrible cult unnecessarily cruel and uncompromising, inhuman regime. The cult, which would help Russia “to rise from knees”!
Note that Putin, like Stalin, does not affect in speech is much more reform, not less cruel figure of Peter the great, for his Pro-Western sentiments. But back in the business of mythmaking by running to whitewash the historical figure of Ivan the terrible, promoting the myth that he didn’t kill his son, and was generally white and fluffy.
The terrible was in fact a Builder, one of the founders of the totalitarian state of Muscovy, the founder of its ideological basis — the “Third Rome”. It is understood Stalin, and so it is the traditional cult of the terrible — “reformer” cured Muscovy oprichnina, not a cult “molester” of Peter, revived it.
Putin understands this like nobody’s business. Therefore, the glorification of the inhuman cruelty of the despotic regime of Stalin and the terrible become so popular in Moscow now. Force, fear and violence have been glorified as the Supreme value and exhibited as a necessary condition for building a “strong state”, “getting up from knees”.
And that is what is most interesting: Putin’s rhetoric doesn’t cause the Russians any rejection. They are clear, they fully support it. They frankly like the idea of restoring Russia despotic, clearly a fascist regime that offers them the ruling party — the party of Putin.
I think that even the term “Stockholm syndrome” does not fit what is happening now in Russia. Actually the Russians do not just feel sympathy for his executioners and guard. They just justify their actions, but also ready them to be proud of. Ready to die for the right to admire those who for centuries have destroyed them physically, deprived of their property, the possibilities of the future. Do not call it a psychological disorder is impossible. Since this is their sympathy for his tormentor clearly matches the definition of masochism: the tendency to derive pleasure, feeling of humiliation, violence or torture.
Imagine: the whole country, its people gets pleasure from the suffering which it causes the power!
