"Last statue of Lenin pulled down in Ukraine" Topic

I seemed to have stirred up a bit of controversy on Facebook responding to a report that the last statue of Lenin in Ukraine has been pulled down.

Clearly Ukrainians have some reason to dislike the old Soviet era, and the father of communism himself, but it seemed somewhat of a pity at the same time to remove (and destroy) this impressive statue. There must be very few, if any, still alive who had to live first hand through his Red Terror times, and as such the statue represents no more than a piece of past history.

However my suggestion that it should perhaps be relocated to a museum seems to have stirred the ire of one or two (one in particular who seems to be ex-Lviv, now living in the US) that Lenin was a monster and we should wipe all traces of him from Ukraine.

So I'm curious. Is this a pragmatic historian/wargamers view or should we simply destroy hear things on the basis of what they [used to] represent?

I suggest they relocated to a foundry and send it back to the Russians one bullet at a time.

I seem to recall quite a bit of outrage on TMP when monuments to american civil war heroes are renamed, let alone dismantled.

I imagine the answer will be quite different here.

Ultimately its up to the people in question though, not a bunch of nerds :)

Yeah, why wouldn't anyone want some statue of an oppressor in their country?

So…..
No statue of Eichmann in Tel Aviv?

Yes, I agree with the CSA comparison.

In this case it would be the same as a Stonewall Jackson memorial in Harlem.

Revisionist :-& just brings on the next one.

Similar goings on in Spain, still renaming streets from the Franco era…….I wasn't permitted to have one of the street signs either, they were deliberately smashed………revisionist history………..

I'm waiting for Queen Victoria's statue to be torn down from its place in Wellington NZ. The locals keep bringing up British oppression in the Flag debate going on here.

I don't mind things being renamed or removed from the everyday world, but it seems somehow an attempt to deny it ever happened by destroying it altogether, which is almost disrespectful for those who really did suffer by it. I wasn't advocating that the statue should remain, just that from a historical perspective (or even as an impressive piece of art) whether it should somehow be preserved somewhere

"In this case it would be the same as a Stonewall Jackson memorial in Harlem."

I must have missed the part where Jackson commited mass murder, executed political prisoners, had a secret police, invaded other countries then murdered the inteligencia of those countries, etc.

It should be put in a museum so the evils of the communists aren't forgotten.

There are a lot around who'd love to have a statue of him.

Perhaps some already do…….

Wow! We got slavery is bad, out of a Lenin statue being destroyed in U-kraine, sorry to disappoint slavery is alive and kicking world wide and we need a statue of a General from the 1860 s to remind us of these evils? Switch your TV on it'll remind you and that big statue at the entrance to NY should do the same.
If you can't live with your past you can't live with your present, Me.

Wow! We got slavery is bad, out of a Lenin statue being destroyed in U-kraine, sorry to disappoint slavery is alive and kicking world wide and we need a statue of a General from the 1860 s to remind us of these evils? Switch your TV on it'll remind you and that big statue at the entrance to NY should do the same.
If you can't live with your past you can't live with your present, (Me being profound ;/)

Frist +1 Zargon

I am going to repeat some of what others have stated but I am going to start from a different perspective. Regardless of who the statue represents the fact is the object is art and has cultural significance. If you erase all art that offends, especially art that is political or social political in nature then were do you draw the line? How many here recall when the Taliban blew up the statue of Buddha in Afghanistan? There was international outrage over the act because we generally have a favorable view in international culture about Buddha and Buddhism. Obviously the Taliban felt differently and the basis for their actions was justified (at least from their perspective) from writings in the Koran regarding idolatry, which is also a tenet in Christianity and Judaism. Chew on that thought for a moment.

The international condemnation of the destruction of this massive statue that was hundreds of years old was correct. However it is not hard to imagine any group of religious or political extremism feeling justified to destroy art that does not promote their point of view and is a dangerous road to go down. Parliamentary troops during the English Civil War wantonly destroyed and defaced statuary and reliefs on Catholic Churches because they considered them "Papist" and idolic. They did this to some Protestant churches as well.

The removal of the Lien statue in Ukraine, while I can perhaps appreciate the Ukrainian people's reasoning does not make it right. An opportunity is being missed to educate and put history in perspective. Far too often we opt for the easy way of addressing uncomfortable aspects of the past by trying to erase or re-write the context. It would have been better to remove the statue to later place it within a museum that could allow a more neutral review of the art's significance.

Now that I am living in Texas I am amazed at the amount of in your face monuments,sculptures and other icons that celebrate the "heroes" of the Confederacy. I feel empathy for my friends and associates of color who must see these monuments as an attempt to continued oppression. However, I would never advocate for the removal of these monuments. That would be a crime. Instead I would and do advocate for opportunities for education and providing similar displays that represent the other side especially since many of these monuments to the Confederacy are on public lands. Those that are on private lands such as one especially enormous display I have seen in a cemetery in downtown Dallas are another matter but could still be useful for instruction on history.

In the end any attempt to erase history is a determent to all.

That should have been *First*

No worries; we've still got one in Seattle.

link

It is curious, as all Soviet citizens were affected by Lenins purges, yet there are still more than 50 statues of Lenin in St Petersburg.

Kallman, you got it. I was shot down on suggestions of moving them to a museum because "these are not works of art". I did respectfully disagree.

Of course, had the Bolsheviks lost, we'd be having the discussion about statues of Kolchak instead.

It is interesting to me that we seem to be unable to have this discussion without it being some sort of political referendum based on present-day beliefs.

If it was a statue of some Roman guy, everyone would be up in arms, even though they were the oppressors of their day. Time forgives all sins though?

As someone from a tiny country that's gotten their teeth kicked in for the past 500 years or so, almost all of the "big men" of history tend to be terrible people.
We just select a few to forgive, because the people they murdered were people we don't care about or because they appeal to some sort of nationalist pride.

' "In this case it would be the same as a Stonewall Jackson memorial in Harlem."'

"I must have missed the part where Jackson commited(sic) mass murder, executed political prisoners, had a secret police, invaded other countries then murdered the inteligencia(sic) of those countries, etc.

It should be put in a museum so the evils of the communists aren't forgotten."

Dn Jackson, while I would agree that Stonewall Jackson is not known to have committed any of the things you have listed I think it is more about the concept of having a memorial to a Confederate officer, who, by being a commander of Confederate forces that were in rebellion against the United States, was in fact fighting to uphold and continue the institution of slavery. Whether Jackson himself believed in the institution of slavery is a moot point. The example was to demonstrate why a given group might be offended and wish such an object removed.

And while we might engage in an argument of the sins of the Communist regimes in the former Soviet Union and the sins of the Confederacy and think them apples and oranges the point is still relevant.

I also think it is important to note that under slavery families were torn asunder, female slaves were subject to rape, a slave did not have any form of due process and I could go on. I think it disingenuous to attempt to minimize the actions of the Antebellum South by inferring that the Confederacy was not as evil as Soviet Communism. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Kallman,
I'm going to disagree with you on several points. The argument about whether the South was fighting to continue slavery or not isn't worth having here, its been rehashed numerous times. We'll have to agree to disagree. However, slavery in the 18th and 19th century was a given, everyone practiced it and it wasn't until the later 18th century that people started thinking, "Hey, this is wrong." I'd also note that slavery in the south was far more humane than in other parts of the world at the time, and more so than it is today. As an example slaves who became old or injured could not be thrown out and had to be cared for by their owner.

I'm not trying to minimize the evils of slavery, please don't get me wrong, I am trying to put it in historical perspective. The dislike of Confederate icons has more to do with an ongoing attempt in some circles to tear down the south. the South is more conservative than other parts of the country and such attacks are designed to try to deligitimise that aspect of the culture.

One of the things I have found disturbing is that while the Soviets were executing dissenters, marching them to Siberia to freeze to death, forcing rural farmers to give all their food to the state, forcing them to starve and, in some cases, resort to cannabilism, its very acceptable to have a Soviet flag in your dorm room while a Confederate flag will get you hounded out of school

To the original point. I don't think the statue should be destroyed, however I don't think it classifies as 'art'. it was created and designed to be part of the state's way of maintaining control over the people. it reminded the Ukrainians that the Russians were in charge, and helped when the state was attempting to brainwash the next generation into accepting that the Communist Party was all that was right and proper. it was a part of the cult of personality tht is common with Communist/Socialist dominated countries, Baathaist Iraq and Syria, Egypt, Nazi Germany, China, Russia, Cuba, Fascist Italy, Vietnam, etc.

I completely understand why the Ukrainians would want to remove it as it was a part of that machine designed to make the State supreme. However, like I said before, it should be kept as a reminder so that when the next generation of Ukrainians grows up, those who don't remember the oppression, they can at least have a glimpse of what it is like when you lose your freedom.

Yes Dn Jackson we are going to have to agree to disagree especially on your assertion that regarding the dislike of Confederate icons as a way to de-legitimize southern culture and political conservatism. That dog just is not going to hunt.

As I said above:
"It is interesting to me that we seem to be unable to have this discussion without it being some sort of political referendum based on present-day beliefs."

I just want to make sure everyone understands that the events in place took place 90 years ago (Death of Lenin) or 150 years ago (The American civil war).

They are not ongoing events that you need to fight for or against.
What's next? Someone getting mad over Atilla the Hun getting a bad rep?

I suspect half the young people in Ukraine and Russia neither know nor care who Lenin was.

The whole issue of taking down statues, or not, is based on current politics and NOT history.

"Some how I can not agree to disagree, Slavery is and was wrong."

And that is the problem with people using their modern sensibilities when looking into the past. Yes, slavery is wrong, no ifs, and, or buts about it. But to people living 150, 200, 500, or 2000 years ago it was not.

Ah, I can't recall how many times I've debated the topic in my life…

To start with, there's plenty of people here who still think that communism in general was right, it might be having some problems and poor execution, but fine as an idea. If we take Lenin aside, there's plenty of people who even think that Stalin was a great leader and a saviour of SU in WWII. One of my relatives, the only war veteran I still know, was even writing poems how important Stalin was for the victory. I know much younger people who are still considering Stalin being right in most cases. Typically these people are coming from the families who were not touched by famine or repression, and who might actually be benefitting from some tough methods that were employed, for instance, to get grain from peasants to cities.
It is different in case of my family – one of my grandfathers spent 14 years in Gulags, lot of the relatives from my mother's side were kicked out of their houses as being too rich by their neighbours' standards and some of them died later on.

The problem Lenin had, was that the country where he seized the power was not the one that Marx was describing. There was not enough workers, so he included poorest peasants in the description of proletariat. While some of them were really deprived of their land, many of them were drunkards and other never-do-wells. In order for revolution to succeed, he never really cared about peasants, very often the actions of communists were antagonizing majority of them…still promise of land played a role and much of the rural country supported Bolsheviks in the end.
Lenin was a good politician – in "Prince" kind of way. He was ruthless, flexible, clever, and cruel. Most of the others were very similar to him, but not so bright. Trotsky, who was better in rhetorics and polemics was dreaded by both his own troops and enemies and dreaming of drowning Europe in capitalists' blood.
Still…we have a communist part and many of its elderly supporters, so Putin is not going to order removal of all traces of communism from the streets. Idea is, that he wants older generation to die off, and then without much fuss, take Lenin from mausoleum, and relocate his statues to the parks like the one we have near Gorky park

link

While there were rumours that he will be restoring Dzerjinskiy to his place near Lubyanka, it never happened, and the monument (not a bad one from the art point of view) is still in the park I've linked above.

BTW, there is already monument to Kolchak:
link
and we have film and serial showing how great he was (ok, he was as bad as those who opposed him in my opinion)

Coming back to Ukraine, I guess they had more important things to do at the moment, but as they banned communist party already this monument demolition fits into their general policy that there's always somebody else who is guilty of their troubles. They're of course free to do whatever they want.

>And that is the problem with people using their modern sensibilities when looking into the past. Yes, slavery is wrong, no ifs, and, or buts about it. But to people living 150, 200, 500, or 2000 years ago it was not.

You wot mate?

There were plenty of people who were abolitionists 150 years ago and several countries had abolished it altogether by then.

Heck, the war started in part due to the fear of abolitionists gaining the political upper hand in the US government.

If there was no fear of abolition, why did the confederate constitution prevent its subject states from abolishing it?

@Barin1: Of course, Stalin went even further in his disdain for the peasants. When they refused to move out and make way for his latest 5-Year Plan factory, he had the army move in and shell the village out of existence. Even Lenin never did that, to my knowledge.

Javelin98, what you're talking about looks like Tambov peasant uprising of 1920-21, where army and poison gases were widely used – it was still during Lenin's time (and the operation was performed by Tukhachevsky…). Later on, the scale of uprisings was much smaller and didn't require massive usage of the army – it was enough to have GPU agents and local helpers – always available…If you consider numbers, I agree that Stalin's policy costed much more lives of his own citizens.

Typically these people are coming from the families who were not touched by famine or repression, and who might actually be benefitting from some tough methods that were employed, for instance, to get grain from peasants to cities.

It is different in case of my family – one of my grandfathers spent 14 years in Gulags, lot of the relatives from my mother's side were kicked out of their houses as being too rich by their neighbours' standards and some of them died later on.

Sounds similar to my wife's relatives.

Her maternal ancestors were land owners, and the village still bears the family name. When the revolution came they were considered too rich and lost everything, the house burnt to the ground. A later ancestor ran a collective farm and was shot when he gave away grain that was waiting for collection, because no-one had been to collect it, it was starting to rot and the people were starving.

Her paternal relatives were sent to Russia, and her father was actually born in Khabarovsk. Her father was allowed to return to Ukraine some time later.

Their view tends to be, its just a statue.

Getting back to your original posting, Geoff, I find it ironically amusing that this is happening, given that Lenin is one of the founders of modern Ukraine. Without him they would be a landlocked agrarian country; a larger more easterly Slovakia.

That's what I mean, and as such it seems a pity to just remove and destroy history because we found it unpleasant.

You don't destroy history. Preserving it doesn't equal glorifying it; you can ridicule it, or even hide it away until the hurt fades, but you keep it so you can learn from it. Destroying it is vandalism, regardless of motive: politics, what you think god tells you, or ego.

The Hungarians put all their statues into a park way out of Budapest, with a slight air of the ridiculous. They turned the fascist headquarters and communist secret police station and prison (nay, dungeon) into a very sombre museum called the terror museum, but they didn't destroy it.

One trivial consequence, bringing it back to wargaming: how do we know how to paint our historical dudes if all the unpleasant primary evidence is destroyed?