Why Russia will never abandon the Soviet past and who will be responsible for the Stalinist terror
Judge of the constitutional court (KS) Konstantin aranovsky has recently stated that the Russian Federation should not be considered the legal successor of the “repressive and terrorist acts” of the Soviet regime. According to the Aranowski, Russian Federation replaces in its territory “illegally created” state, so she has to reckon with the past, but to answer for him not to be. Where are these thoughts? How much can you rewrite history? And why it may lead to country’s collapse and the beginning of world wars and widespread redistribution of boundaries? The answers to these and other questions of “the Ribbon.ru” was given by the doctor of legal Sciences, Professor, head of Department of history of state and law of juridical faculty of Moscow state University Vladimir Tomsinov.
“Crime can only be a man”
“Ribbon.ru”: Statement by Aranowski made a lot of noise. What do you think of him?
Vladimir Tomsinov: He proposes to take from the Soviet Union that is beneficial to the Russian Federation, and the fact that it is not profitable to discard. It all seems a pure utopia. He doesn’t understand a simple thing: a succession in itself has no legal value, it must be recognized as the country’s population and the world community.
Succession, of course, may be partial and often is exactly, but all that ensures existence of a state shall, of course, inherited from the former state to the new. Now the Russian Federation did not cover the entire territory of the Soviet Union, so its succession regarding the Soviet Union was incomplete.
And how do likely to reconsider the question of the succession of modern Russia towards the Soviet Union?
This review seems incredible. It is impossible without major upheavals in the international legal order to review, for example, the results of the Second world war, although many aspire to, therefore, declare from time to time the Soviet criminal state. The fact that there are events in world history, which have not only historical, but also legal value. These events include the victory of the USSR in the great Patriotic war and in the war against imperialist Japan.
The result of these victories was the change of the state borders of the USSR. The Soviet power became part of the territory of defeated States of Germany and Japan. Moreover, these territorial acquisitions, except for the Memel (Klaipeda), were included in the RSFSR and by right of succession passed to the modern Russian Federation. Review of the question of succession of modern Russia compared to the Soviet Union immediately raises the question of the status of these territories. Currently, their status is immutable.
Both Germany and Japan signed instruments of unconditional surrender. This means that before the creation on their territories of the new States they have lost an independent subject of international relations. Consequently, the redistribution of boundaries, the transfer of some parts of their territories of the USSR occurred on the basis of agreements of the Soviet state with the other victorious powers. Peace Treaty to consolidate the outcomes of this territorial redistribution, neither Germany nor Japan to conclude the USSR was no need.
Therefore, there was no legal need for modern Russia to conclude for these purposes a peace Treaty with Germany or Japan.
Concession on the part of the Russian Federation, Germany or Japan, even the smallest particles are transferred from them to the Soviet Union territories creates a dangerous precedent that can cause a review of the outcome of the Second world war and, therefore, a new redivision of the world
Therefore, any negotiations for public officials in modern Russia, involving the assignment of even one of the Kuril Islands to Japan, should be regarded as act of treason and punished serious criminal punishment.
State territory belongs to the state as a whole, not some public bodies, even if the Parliament representing the entire population of the country. The succession of the Russian Federation in relation to the USSR is one of the conditions of its existence that determines the two most essential elements of any state: territory and population. You can give up some of the laws adopted in the Soviet Union, or to change them. But to abandon the succession of citizens of Russia is impossible without causing catastrophic damage to their own state.
Do not you think that aranovsky trying to find a compromise position that allows, on the one hand, to condemn the crimes of the Soviet regime, and on the other not be in position forever repentant of the country like modern Germany?
Yes, he really entered the territory where is not a specialist. This is the territory of Soviet history and public international law. He doesn’t understand that many events of the Soviet history, have legal value. In addition to the victory in the great Patriotic war and in the war against imperialist Japan, such events are, of course, culminated in the revolution the February-March coup of 1917, the coming to power in October 1917, the Bolshevik party, the destruction of the Soviet Union in the second half of the 80’s-early 90-ies. All these events defined the legal status of the state of the modern Russian Federation within the country and in the international arena.
As for repentance, I think that this kind of act is appropriate for a person or group of persons, but inappropriate for the state.
The state cannot be itself guilty of any crimes. Crimes are committed by people
Of course, that the crimes of the bearers of state power, especially senior officials, are perceived in the everyday thinking as state crime, but the special opinion of judge of the constitutional court should be thinking not of home and special law. From a legal point of view, but I think from the platform of common sense, to encourage a state to repent for acts committed by its officials, is complete nonsense.
Officials in almost all States and especially major powers, always seeking to dominate the Earth, commit any criminal offenses. The ruling of the U.S. mired in genocide against the Indians, the indigenous population of North America (according to historians-demographers, was killed about 15 million Indians). The genocide did the German ruling circles and the Japanese rulers in the 30th and 40th years of the twentieth century. The Ottoman Empire had defiled themselves with the Armenian genocide in 1915.
To this must be added the crimes that large powers were committed towards African and Asian Nations, the middle East and in other regions of the globe during colonial conquest and the assertion of colonial domination, in the process of ruthless colonial exploitation. Capitalism has created the most advanced system of robbery by the major world powers of the Nations of the Earth, which continues to operate to this day and becomes more refined. Modern Russia is one of the objects of such exploitation. Position forever repentant of the country is the position of a beggar who all his physical and spiritual forces submissive gives to those who Rob, and not even trying to rise from his knees.
Aranovsky says Russia “not to take one instructive examples, for the peoples victim keep their journey at different speeds and in different costs and circumstances.” Is he right in this?
I can’t understand how it was so stylistically illiterate to Express their thoughts in a special opinion to the decision of the constitutional court. But the phrase that Russia “not to take one instructive examples” is absolutely correct because “the world lies in evil”, state activity in the past and in the modern world is, unfortunately, largely a crime. A higher power state, if you look more or less closely to its carriers at all times and in all countries, it seems rather on the rubbish heap of humanity than the political elite — a cohort of the best, chosen people.
Contemporaries of Stalin and his comrades in the struggle with the German Reich, Churchill and Roosevelt had committed crimes no less, and probably much more than Stalin, including in relation to their own peoples. But somehow, Stalin considered Aranowski and his associates criminal.
And the phrase “…for the peoples victim keep their journey at different speeds and in different costs and circumstances” I understand and did refuse. I wonder who aranovsky implies a victim-nation? And that means “keep your path at different speeds”? In the race, whether that involved “the peoples victim”?
I wonder why the dissenting opinion of a judge of the constitutional court suddenly became widely discussed. Why was it even put on public display. Peter the great is credited with the decree “And the Lord commanded the senators to hold it not written, and his words — so all the crap of each was visible”. Poor king, to know which of his senators is stupid, had to get them to say their stupidity out loud. Hid people in ancient times their foolishness. And now, not hiding, and how would even compete to see who her more in itself has.
While aranovsky speaks not of full legal delimitation of the USSR and modern Russia, and that Russia should have a constitutional status of the state, “privy to the totalitarian crimes or “personally” or in succession”. How it all real and legally correct?
This is absolutely incorrect from any point of view. I personally do not understand what “totalitarian crimes”. What this refers to? From the point of view of common sense is some sort of gibberish. This refers, probably, the crimes of the “totalitarian regime”. This phrase is also used Aranowski, but it is incorrect because of its incomprehensibility. What do you mean “totalitarian regime”? This is the mode in which the power of the state exercised full control over the population, or what? But this simply can not be. Is not unlimited power, there is no authority which is able to exercise full control over the population.
In the history of the Soviet Union never had a totalitarian regime: the brutal regime was totalitarian but was not. But the strongest resistance to the authorities. And just disobedience. And failure of different kinds of laws, regulations, and instructions. It is enough to read letters, notes Stalin, the orders of our government, where was shouting that discipline is not enough. For example, when testing new aircraft, the pilots “what I want, I do.”
And yet you ought to control the entire apparatus of power. How can, say, some group of people to control all of society, all of the state, its bureaucracy, if each possessed their personal interest and not only performs some instructions, coiled on top. Generally, when we talk about the state, we face a contradiction: the state in its purpose is intended to serve the General interest, to serve all the people. But the levers of state power, hold in their hands specific people, overwhelmed by personal interests, often vested interests. Hence the inconsistency of the actions of these people the orders they receive.
I do think that the assertion that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state is plain stupid, the imagination of some, any facts and don’t confirm the speculation, contrary to all order and nature of life in Soviet society.
Never in any state there is no full legitimacy in all cases, the proper observance and execution of laws
I think that’s what you should pay attention to: aranovsky cannot but admit that the modern Russian Federation must have some sort of legal continuity with the USSR. Otherwise, on what basis it occupies the same territory, which occupied one part of it republics — the RSFSR. In addition, the Russian Federation passed the representation of the USSR in the UN and its status in the Security Council. Other rights and obligations of the USSR, including property. Judge of the constitutional court believes that it is all possible to keep, but to free the modern Russian Federation from responsibility for the repressions committed in the Soviet Union. Here it causes me puzzled.
Why does he think that modern Russia is responsible for the crimes committed by the officials of the Soviet Union? Because it seems that these crimes were committed by the government of the USSR that the state was the perpetrator. He represents the Soviet criminal state and believes that modern Russian Federation to exempt from liability for “totalitarian crimes” (according to his terminology), must renounce their succession in relation to the USSR.
Konstantin aranovsky allow here is inexcusable for a professional lawyer error. The state can be represented in the form of a living organism and some regularities of its organization and activities it really is like a living organism, but it is not necessary to break away from reality to judge the state is always just a tool, an instrument in the hands of people vested with public authority. The government acts, does nothing, turns and turns not by itself, but by the will, volition, according to the wishes of the bearers of state power. They, and only they, not the state, can be considered as subjects of specific crimes.
The Nuremberg Tribunal declared criminal not the German state, and the corps of officials Nazi Germany, held in their hands the levers of state power. Not coincidentally, speaking at the end of July 1946 with the closing speech, the chief Prosecutor of the USSR at the Nuremberg trials, Roman Rudenko stated that the court has fully proved the heinous crime committed by a gang of rabid criminals, seized in Germany, the power of the state.
The state was recognized in this case only an instrument of crime, not the criminal. The criminal may be the only person who anything can turn into an instrument of crime. The knife not only cut bread but also to kill, but such uses of the knife after all, not becoming a criminal. He is only an instrument of crime. State power can be used as a murder weapon, but that does not mean that the state is criminal. Criminal is the group of people that makes using the public authorities of the crime. By the way, turning state power into an instrument of their crimes, this group of people while committing a crime against the state. After all, its purpose is to serve the common interest, common good, society as a whole, not a bunch of people — especially those who are able to commit crimes.
Even if the crimes committed by the bearers of state power, the responsibility lies with the state, whereby, for example, restitution is the payment of funds from the state Treasury, it provides no reason to believe the government is criminal. It is simply responsible for the criminal actions of its officers to their citizens.
Criminalized the state, considered in fact leads in the shadows of the real criminals — the people who being clothed in state power, used it as a weapon to serve his people, and as a tool of crime.
“In the years 1936-1938 there was a surge of this civil war”
But aranovsky says that Soviet repression was a not excess and not a series of violations, and the policy itself: “…the governing structures of the CPSU were the initiators, and the structure on the ground — often guides the policy of repression against millions of Soviet people.” How can you comment?
So I can say the only people who didn’t study real phenomenon of repression, not familiar with the documents that in one way or another affect them. Or just do not want to see reality. Notice first that the “CPSU” Bolshevik party became known only since October 1952, with its XIX Congress, before that it was called RSDLP (b), RKP (b) and 1925 — the CPSU (b). So the “leadership structures of the Communist party” clearly were not the initiators and bearers of the policy of mass repression. But “governing bodies” of the CPSU (b) it is impossible to evaluate so one-sided. Of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) has repeatedly issued rulings that focus on a tougher fight with the party opposition. For example, in the decree of September 29, 1936 it was declared the need of dealing with “Trotsky-zinovievsky scoundrels”. However, the same Central Committee of the CPSU (b) acted as the initiator of the termination of mass repressions.
So, in SNK and the CPSU (Bolsheviks) of 17 November 1938 condemned the practice of mass arrests and unwarranted, measures were taken to combat it was also noted that these arrests were made by the enemies of the people and spies of foreign intelligence services, made his way into the NKVD. And really, what act launched the flywheel of mass repressions? Order of the NKVD “About the operation of repression of former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet elements”, published by people’s Commissar Nikolai Yezhov on July 30, 1937. His Deputy Mikhail Frinovsky in the statement addressed to Yezhov’s successor, Lavrenti Beria dated April 11, 1939, was held bound by the NKVD mass repression with the instructions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), and with the desire of the conspirators in the NKVD, including Yezhov, to discredit the mass repressions of the Stalinist leadership. And Frinovsky was not unfounded in this statement, he cited a lot of facts confirming the submitted version of events.
It is obvious that before making definitive conclusions about the initiators of repression, it is necessary to thoroughly and comprehensively investigate this issue with the involvement of the whole mass of extant documents. But it is obvious that the crimes in this case committed by specific people, not some political organization. If to the position of the Considered and to declare these offences policy of the governing bodies of the Communist party, then strange becomes a fact of condemnation to death (especially in the years 1938-1940) of thousands of NKVD for mass and arbitrary arrests, torture, the mistreatment of detainees.
The real picture of mass repressions, which occurred mainly in the years 1936-1938, is a very complicated situation of the rehabilitation acts of the 50’s and early 60-ies and 80-ies and early 90-ies. Aranovsky uncritically perceives them, and yet he would need to look at them primarily from a legal point of view, because it puts the issue of reimbursement on the basis of their material losses for those who were rehabilitated. I’m now finishing work on the book “USSR Prosecutor “Vyshinsky and the phenomenon of “Stalinist repression”” and, of course, read carefully the rehabilitation acts. A lot of people that have been rehabilitated, have committed real crimes. They rehabilitated illegal, there was no basis for their rehabilitation.
Will lead as an example, Gregory K. Roginsky, the second Deputy Prosecutor of the USSR Andrey Vyshinsky. This person exercised control over the NKVD at that time, when there was a Commissar Nikolai Ezhov, when really in the bowels of this Department was created a mass crime. But Roginskii everything and manifestly unfounded indictment claimed, and in droves. Then, when the people’s Commissar of the NKVD is Yezhov was Beria, Vyshinsky wanted to draw Roginsky responsible — has failed. Managed to do it only to his successor, Mikhail Ivanovich Pankratieva. May 31, 1939, he took up this post, and on 5 September Roginsky was arrested. Shortly after the beginning of Patriotic war, a trial was held and he was sentenced to 15 years. In the last speech at the trial acknowledged that the investigation cases were defined as “simplistic.” In 1992 Roginsky was rehabilitated and now appears in the list of victims of political repression (they are online), but because he these political repression have made. And such criminals rehabilitated among many.
The fact that a thieving party and government officials, law enforcement officers, practice of arbitrariness, tortured prisoners, fabricatie criminal cases prosecuted on charges of conspiracy, involvement in anti-Soviet organizations, and so forth, that is, they were charged with crimes against the state. And convicted by him subsequently rehabilitated without due process — on the basis of a single case of prosecution under article 58 of the RSFSR criminal code. It is not surprising that each wave of the rehabilitation of the tide raised the question about rehabilitation, even such persons as Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov. But was smart enough not to rehabilitate.
I would also like to draw attention to an important fact that was revealed during its consideration of the criminal cases during the first wave after Stalin’s rehabilitation, as the denunciations.
Denunciations were found almost in each folder. Millions of prisoners and millions of denunciations. They did not write the state declared by the judge of the constitutional court Aranowski crime, and ordinary citizens
Wrote denunciations for different reasons: someone really wanted to expose the “enemy of the people”, but most often the denunciations just to settle scores or sought for himself any benefit, promotion, for example, freeing denunciation coveted position, or the improvement of living conditions, freeing again the denunciation of an apartment or a room in a communal apartment.
So what happened in the years 1936-1938? Endless moaning about the mass repression of hiding much more terrible phenomenon that survived our society — burst of the present civil war — the war without dividing the population into the armed army, but no less bloody than the one which took place in 1917-1920. Killed one of his countrymen through the public office which he held, the other — with the help of informants who are massively wrote to party and state authorities. Why do you blame in this bloody bacchanalia are only Stalin and his associates or, according to aranovsky, — the government of the USSR, not specific people: the media, public authorities or ordinary citizens?
The phenomenon which is called “personality cult”, in fact hides him something more terrible, namely: the cult of villainy masses of people. Victims of repression actually had a lot, but many of them were both executioners
In the fire of civil war 1926-1938 years burned nearly a million of our fellow citizens, but many burned and kindled this fire. And the executioners, the victims rehabilitated, as if they were only victims. Such people are especially numerous among party grandees.
I know a lot of interrogation, with multiple documents of various kinds, reflecting the repressions of 1936-1938 and see them that the conspiracies against Stalin and his associates in the leadership of the CPSU (b), and the government really existed. It would be very surprising if they were absent. It is ridiculous to portray the party leaders who opposed Stalin, in the form of white fluffy affectionate cats that are just waiting to throw out of the house or grab to take to the knacker’s yard. In fact, it was a cohort of people for whom the civil war was a normal way of life. Blood-soaked to the bone, free from the restrictions of conscience and understanding of the value of the human person, skilled in the organization of a network of secret associations and unions, experienced in the intrigues and machinations, they all its past activities, all their thoughts were focused on capturing power at any cost. And were ready to commit any crime. What to do in confrontation with such people as Stalin and his associates? Wait patiently until they are killed? But it simultaneously meant the end of the policy, which they were and which conviction considered fully the respective interests of the country.
A typical extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Troika of the NKVD with the verdict for investments in the personal file of the prisoner
Image: archive of the FSB of Russia for the Primorye territory
After those events took place more than eight decades, it would seem that you can relax, provide historians the opportunity to create an objective picture of what actually happened in our country in the fateful 30 years of the twentieth century. But surprisingly, until now, when addressing the phenomenon of so-called “Stalinist repression”, many people who consider themselves scientists and even professional historians and jurists, just lose my head and soul, completely forget about their history or legal education. Don’t want to know, do not want to understand, want to live myths about this period of Russian history, introduced the so-called “Khrushchev thaw”.
But many of the most important documents reflecting the real picture of that period are still classified. So, inaccessible for researchers 276 volumes of the criminal case of Bukharin and his group, which was discussed at the meeting of the rehabilitation Committee headed by M. S. Solomentsev 5 Jan 1988. Consists of 100 volumes of the criminal case instituted in the late 50-ies in G. M. Malenkov, — in RGASPI is available to researchers only eight volumes. But if a huge array of documents about the repression secret, the more you have to be careful (at least, nekategorichny) to judge the events of 30-ies.
The Soviet victory in the great Patriotic war was achieved largely on the basis of the organization of state power that emerged in the second half of the 30-ies, that is, during the so-called “mass political repressions”. This fact could not justify repression. But he who declares the state of the USSR criminal, must also be aware that the criminal he calls the state, to crush the European fascism — the bloody and heinous in human history, a phenomenon condemned by the International Nuremberg Tribunal as a crime against humanity.
Konstantin aranovsky also believes that the modern Russian state was not created as a successor of the Soviet Union, and “for and against” him. What his motives were, in your opinion, making such a statement? Does the modern Russian Federation and the Russian Federation are not one and the same state?
Of course, the same, you are absolutely right. Modern Russian Federation is the successor of the RSFSR has in its territory according to its population. How does he not understand? Of course, Russia and is officially considered the successor of the RSFSR, and partly of the Soviet Union. I doubt the name of the Russian Federation “the successor of the USSR”, because it is impossible to be a follower of himself. In this case, it is clear that “the successor” — the term is rather artificial, for whatever reasons, it added. But the succession of the Russian Federation to the RSFSR and the USSR no doubt. The Russian Federation has passed quite a lot and the rights and obligations of the Soviet Union. Recall, the debts of the USSR — who paid? Of The Russian Federation.
Here is an interesting dispute about the ownership of St. Nicholas Cathedral in nice plot of land on which it was located, between the government of the Russian Federation and RPRA of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, versed in the three courts of France from 2006 to 2013. In 1909, the Cathedral was handed over on behalf of the state of the Russian Empire in emphyteotique lease for 99 years of the Diocesan Church of St. Petersburg administration, which were at that time all Orthodox churches, built by the Russian state abroad. In the 1920-ies of the St. Nicholas Cathedral was in the possession of the RPRA, which in 1931 was transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Since the start of the lease time changed several of the subjects of lease relations. Gone Russian Empire, the Russian Republic of 1917, RSFSR, USSR. One of the arguments RPRA in an attempt to justify their right of ownership of the Cathedral was a statement about the lack of succession of the modern Russian Federation against the Russian Empire, added a statement about the crime of the Soviet state and the Bolshevik party. These arguments, like many others, was rejected as an expert. French courts have also recognized the succession of the Russian Federation in relation to the USSR and the Russian Empire and, taking into account a number of other arguments, made the decision about membership of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Federation.
Even aranovsky notes that Russia should compensate the damage caused to the Soviet Union — but not as a successor state responsible, and “with faith in the truth of the positive responsibility and mercy.” And what is the difference from a legal point of view?
You correctly grasped that there is some misunderstanding. What does it mean to compensate the damage “with faith in the truth of the positive responsibility and mercy”? Voluntarily mean? But on what basis then? Damages involves proof of guilt that it caused. Must be precisely known the perpetrator of the harm and the person harmed. But the Considered it turns out that the harm has to be compensated by someone unknown and who knows. Russia should recognize herself guilty (for what, I wonder, the basis) and to pay anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union inflicted the damage. But everything to do with the damage, you need to prove.
Rehabilitation documents themselves give no reason to demand redress. And what does the term “heir States the culprit”? I’ve talked about this — how can there be the state is guilty, as guilty can be the only people, not the state. Judge of the constitutional court does not distinguish between the state as public-legal Corporation, as an institution of public power, and the bearers of state power. So, whether that turns out? But this is a different phenomenon. Even kings did not say that they — the state. The saying of Louis XIV “I am the state” simply out of phrases out of context, and it makes absolutely no sense.
The Soviet government completely rejected the succession in relation to historical Russia? How are things going now? Modern Russia formally legally recognizes itself the successor of the Russian Empire, the tsarist debts were paid in 1990-e years?
I had to deal with these issues during the consideration of the dispute about the affiliation of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral. Especially when the case was transferred to the court of cassation of France. RPRA lawyers of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in his appeal cited the text of the agreement between the government of the French Republic and the government of the Russian Federation on the final settlement of mutual financial and property claims arising before may 9, 1945, signed in Paris on 27 may 1997. In his fifth article in fact was assigned to the refusal of the Russian state from any “financial or property claims arising prior to may 9, 1945”. And of course RPRA has distributed this article on the claims of our state in relation to the St Nicholas Cathedral and the surrounding land.
I had to apply to the legal analysis of the text, to prove that the agreement does not apply to a dispute between the RPRA and the Russian government that it is in the sense of its content as a whole is intended solely for resolving the debt problem, existed between France and Russia ever since 1918. Of course, the debt problem has been described. According to the 1997 agreement, the Russian government agreed to pay $ 400 million in respect of debts of the Russian Empire.
That seemed to me the most important in this complex of problems? First, resulting from the coming to power of Bolsheviks the Russian Federation did not refuse the succession to the Russian Empire. In the literature, unfortunately, it is often argued that the Russian Federation had renounced all treaties signed by the Russian Empire, and therefore, they say, she did not recognize this succession. While commonly referring to the decree on the refusal of the government of the Russian Federation from agreements of the Russian Empire. I will read to you the full name of this document, and all will become clear: “the Decree of the Council of people’s Commissars of the termination of the government of the former Russian Empire…” — this part usually quoted, and the continuation, that is, full name is not given, but it follows that we are talking about failure not all treaties, but only “…with the governments of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, kingdoms, Prussia and Bavaria, the Duchies of Hesse, Oldenburg, Saxe-Meiningen and the city of lübeck” of 29 August 1918.
That is what treaties had refused the Russian Federation? Only with the governments of those States which were at war with the Russian Empire. So in fact the Russian Empire itself these treaties we haven’t played. The RSFSR was abolished, for example, “all treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the governments of the Kingdom of Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire relating to the partition of Poland, in view of their contradiction to the principle of self-determination of Nations and the revolutionary consciousness of the Russian people, recognized for the Polish people an inalienable right to independence and unity”.
Secondly, as already mentioned, in 1924, the succession of the Soviet Union with the Russian Empire recognized France. In the same year but several months earlier it is recognized and the UK. Why did they do it, but because the Soviet government was recognized by the population of the Soviet state. It is on the basis of the will of the population is solved in the international arena the question of the legitimacy of any state.
Thirdly, as proof of the absence of succession of the Russian Federation against the Russian Empire in the literature it is often argued that the Russian Federation refused to pay the king’s debts. In fact is also a myth, is something quite different. Taking the property rights of the Russian Empire, the USSR did not renounce its obligations. But only tried to lead them to a reasonable volume, corresponding to the possibilities of a young nation ravaged by world and civil wars, the military intervention of foreign powers in Russian Affairs. Debt obligations relative to France, defected to the USSR from the Russian Empire and the Russian Republic of 1917, was $ 14-15 billion gold francs, or 18.5 billion gold rubles.
The French and the Soviet government was willing to compromise, and the problem of payment of debts of the Russian Empire was always close to favorable for both parties permission. But the final decisions are interfered with, on the one hand, the instability of government in France, and with another — necessity for the French government and the government of the USSR to reckon with the sentiments of the population. A particularly large effect these attitudes had in France, because the debts of the Russian Empire was largely a debt in favor of private individuals of the French people, who at the same time as voters.
The negotiations dragged on until the outbreak of the Second world war, and then, of course, has been discontinued, but as it turned out, not forever.
“The Russian Empire was destroyed in the coup”
“The Russian Federation does not continue themselves in the law, and replaces in its territory, the state, illegally created once, and oblige her to consider the consequences of its activities, including political repression”, — says Konstantin aranovsky. Is it not right that the Soviet state was created illegally?
Absolutely wrong. Following this fabrication of Considered, almost all States on Earth to recognize “illegal”. For example, modern France was created illegally — as a result of illegal actions of the revolutionaries during the French revolution, 1789-1795 years. England created illegally in 1688-1689 years has been the so-called “Glorious revolution”, during which the rightful king would be expelled from England under the pretext that he had abdicated. But he never renounced. Foreign ruler — statthalter of the Netherlands William of orange invaded England at the head of 20-thousand troops, became the new king of England William III. I described all this vile, infamous act in the book “the Glorious revolution in England and bill of rights.” Or take the formation of the United States. 13 North American colonies illegally, contrary to English law, disconnected from the UK on the basis of natural law doctrines, which are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, adopted illegally and illegal from the point of view of English law by the Assembly on 4 July 1776.
Maybe aranovsky has in mind the fact that the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power? But in this case he just doesn’t know the events of 1917. The Russian Empire was destroyed by the coup d’état in February — early March. Even before the abdication of Nicholas II, the new ruling group was recognized as legitimate by the Russian authorities “soyuznichki” of the Russian Empire — great Britain and France. Formed the Interim government was illegal, it usurped the powers of the autocrat, however, the country was out of control. But what was worse — he was not recognized the country’s population.
By the autumn of 1917, the Russian Empire essentially collapsed, and the new legitimate state power in its territory arose. Therefore, the Bolsheviks actually did not seize power for one simple reason: it was not. The Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian state, it was already destroyed. The Bolsheviks actually recreated most of the territory of the former Russian Empire, the state has restored state authority, even cruel, even criminal measures. The majority of the population of the former Russian Empire, though not immediately, but recognized the Bolshevik government. And you can guess why — it is understood that the most violent state, with its monopoly on murder, much better a stateless condition, where everyone can virtually kill other people.
New States are often created “illegally”, but those that survive, acquire a certain legal basis for its existence. What gives them legitimacy? The ability of the bearers of state power to control the processes in the country. The ability to create a population for a comfortable living environment. All this gives them recognition as legitimate by the population
It is no coincidence that at the government of the USSR on October 28, 1924 note to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of foreign Affairs of France announced recognition of the government of the French Republic government of the Soviet Union as the government of the territories of the former Russian Empire, where his authority is recognized by the population and as successor in these territories prior Russian governments.
In the Soviet Union regularly held elections of the Council (and within the Communist party governing bodies were also formed through elections) were periodically taken of the Constitution, codes. In the 1930-ies instead of the principle of revolutionary consciousness finally established the principle of socialist legality. During the Second world war the Soviet state in fact saved the Russian civilization from destruction. I hope Mr. aranowski know the content of the plan “OST” — program the destruction of the Russian people and the Soviet Union as a state. The legitimacy of the Union as a state is confirmed by numerous international legal instruments. What can be doubts on this score? Yes, the judge of the constitutional court?
You need to understand that if we question the legitimacy of the Soviet Union, thereby questioning the boundaries of modern Russia, ownership of natural resources to our people. It is generally anti-people stance. Judge of the constitutional court thinks in this case it acts only against the Soviet state.
In fact, the state is one of the main conditions of existence of the Russian civilization. Western civilization is based on society, civil society — the core of Western civilization. But the core of the Russian civilization is the state. The collapse of the state always puts Russian civilization to the brink of destruction, leading to civil war.
Therefore, in Russia, all the discrediting of the state power should be considered a felony. The legitimacy of the public authorities give a legitimate election. Falsification permitted the election, undermining the legitimacy of the state, for this reason, these actions should relate to serious crimes.
© 2020, paradox. All rights reserved.