Rus Articles Journal

Solzhenitsyn - mind, honor and conscience... or the informer at fools?

on the Belarusian television began Recently repeated display of the movie “In a Circle the First“ on A. I. Solzhenitsyn and as I neither did not see earlier the movie, nor did not read the book, and the subject and A. I. Solzhenitsyn`s identity very interested me and even admired (several years before me largely as I considered, it was lucky, - the destiny wisely enclosed to me in hands a svyatopisaniye of prisoners of Stalin camps - “The Archipelago GULAG“, having read which, I was shaken to the bottom of the heart), I decided, by all means, surely, for the development and education as person and citizen, the movie to watch.

Of course, the movie did not disappoint unless “on cine“ too courageous main character, the Solzhenitsyn`s prototype which is not afraid of henchmen of KGB and not desponding from the stalemate position of “the enemy of the people“ poring over an atomic bomb in “sharashka“ and some spineless or napuskno terrible uncles - Nkvdshniki - ouch - yay - yay, here we you on buttocks and in a corner for bad behavior, caused at the beginning some slender feeling of low-trust which, however, quickly said goodbye, the movie that art, not documentary - as to the director to avoid all this “soap“ exaggeration?

In a word, was with relief thought: “It is more of it here cinema, barefaced, scraping on naked nerves, ruthlessly baring our shadowy past, the cinema forcing not simply to become thoughtful on prompt vital gallop, and it is rather, in a pose of the rodenovsky thinker, to think strong and deeply of what actually was“.

Digging several days later on the Internet, for to learn more and about the author of “GULAG“, and about its works which opened eyes to the whole world on what was created in the country of Councils for many years I opened the first 3 - 4 articles on the different websites and … stiffened in a mute stupor. Having what is it? read for a moment article, I right there passed to other website. But also here the same. Then on the third. Eyes did not trust headings: “Fools have Solzhenitsyn the informer“, “the Shnobelevsky winner“, “Solzhenitsyn is the informer“ etc. What for an abuse? Who dared? For what? There was a wish to understand immediately.

Besides several other articles, article Yu. R. Fedorovsky, the candidate of historical sciences, I read from beginning to end two times. The author obviously did not stint pejorative epithets (so, appear, his dislike to “mind, honor and conscience of our era“ to A. I. Solzhenitsyn is big), providing, apparently, quite inexpressive proofs of an inaccuracy boundless belief and respect of millions of compatriots and foreigners for the author “the Archipelago GULAG“. In the beginning I was struck with

. Yes as someone dares to throw mud at the person so distressful, passed a hearth of Stalin repressions, the Nobel Prize laureate recognized in many countries as fighter against communist regime, the writer sent from the country for “desire to live not on lie“ and, eventually, the person in whom I BELIEVED and which I ADMIRED? Mean lie! Low envy! And anything more.

But at repeated reading I began to analyze the arguments given by Fedorovsky soberly. One are quite weak and are even inconsistent even for not historian, others seem indisputable.

Here some of them: 1) real middle name of Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn not Isayevich, but Isaakovich. Substitution happens at arrival of future Nobel laureate in the Rostov State University where on documents he subscribes precisely “Isayevich“. Well and that it proves? - will ask many and I including. During total anti-Semitism of that time it is no wonder that Solzhenitsyn has a desire “to secure“ itself, to replace couple of letters in the Jewish middle name to give itself the chance to study and work without risk for the life. What here surprising? Or, perhaps, he decides to change the fatherlike name for another, similar, for any other reason? Owing to youthful uncertainty, healthy ambition, in fashion other names? Which of us had no similar desire in young that years? Alexander is young if I am not mistaken, to him no more than twenty, and desire “to live not on lie“ which is peculiar to rather more mature person, is brought up at much later age and for many years. 2) Traveling around the Caucasus Alexander Isayevich (or Isaakovich), wanted to visit Stalin`s museum in the town of Gori which was closed. Then Solzhenitsyn got permission at Lavrenti Beria. Fedorovsky is perplexed how future fighter against the Stalin mode makes up the mind to such inadmissible step? What for dualism that for double standards? Unless it does not befit the person all fibers of the soul hating showing Stalin totalitarianism, at any opportunity, the irreconcilability and inflexibility with existing a system? I will repeat: in what year it was? Most likely, before Alexander Isayevich went to “places of confinement“ before all truth was learned about camps and mass repressions before this awful feeling of understanding of all tragedy, scales of Red terror was difficult and painfully born and cultivated. What could young Sasha Solzhenitsyn know then? And if knew in what a crime to visit the museum of the leader? With what purpose it was there? What thought? What questions asked itself? What forced it to be there? You can answer with an accuracy these questions, mister Fedorovsky? For example, my grandmother even after death mourned “the leader of all times and the people“, though it, and her relatives passed both through war, and through hunger, and on own skin felt “love and fatherlike caress“ of companion Stalin. Solzhenitsyn only the person, he is not Moisey (though the prophet was weak and we torment with doubts, as any person). However, all this trifles which in detail and there is no wish to sort that therefore to focus the and your attention to them, I believe, is not necessary.

is farther - more. 3) Fedorovsky makes the assumption that the lieutenant artillery Solzhenitsyn on himself carried wax. That it was so far-sighted and perspicacious, knowing that in prison to it will be cozier (I quote: “both the bed, and a bed change, and feed regularly“) that will decide to substitute itself, and at the same time and the companions. This, really, umishche! To give itself not up as a bad job, not the enemy of the people of to make, endangering not only itself, but also the family that the intellectual of a filfak Sasha Solzhenitsyn decided to go to prison! How thrilling!

Fedorovsky gives a weight more of “proofs“ as prostitutes also are indistinct details of arrest of Solzhenitsyn from his words. As it was careless at “the correspondence which is badly veiled“ with the companions Vitkevich and Samutin as it was not what to think and answer at arrest, the fact that at the time of arrest on the place there were too many officers (they had to be on the posts) etc. I assume that after detail time were distorted, blurred behind prescription of time a little. And that before writing of books - I know itself, you will not tell lies - you will not write. Fedorovsky plays the fool

concerning Solzhenitsyn`s conclusion. Half a year in a pre-trial detention center, 1 year on the Kaluga outpost, 4 years in “sharaga“ (prison scientific research institute), 2,5 in Ekibazstuz at the general works - total 8 years to it seem a real trifle, a trifle “in comparison with terms of other convicts“. Sorry, mister Fedorovsky that only 8 years gave, but not fifteen! And how many personally you stayed in camps, it would be desirable to know if to follow your scheme? Ah, you still on foot under a table went at that time!

But here the following item, really, raises the mass of questions, bewilderment, and surely demands a denial. The fact that Solzhenitsyn, most likely, was enlisted by KGB under a name of Winds, apparently, indisputable. To that there are incontestable proofs. By the way, Alexander Isayevich writes about this “interesting“ fact in the trilogy “Archipelago GULAG“. Probably, any has not enough - malsk the person, familiar with history of Red terror, for certain knows that to get out, having given the consent to cooperate with bodies, it was almost impossible. From performances of same

of K. Simonyan and H. Vitkevich can be recognized that on a consequence Alexander Isayevich put literally all: and Vitkevich, which “ since 1940 systematically carried on anti-Soviet propaganda “ and Simonyana which, appears, “ the enemy of the people, it is unclear why walking about on freedom “ and the wife H. Reshetovsky, both the school girlfriend L. Ezherets, and even the casual fellow traveler in the train, a certain seaman Vlasov.

Other, most likely, incontestable fact of “snitching“ of Solzhenitsyn, on the same Fedorovsky`s terminology - a so-called “ekibastuzsky denunciation“ which helped the authorities to nip cruelly in the bud revolt of the Ukrainian nationalists in camp in Ekibastuz (Kazakhstan). “As socialism - it is the account and control, all papers which ever got to archives of state security, carefully there remained (and remain until now). Kind uncles from Committee allowed to get acquainted with it and to copy to two journalists - to Czech Tomasz Rzhezachu (this, it seems, from East block) and to German Frank Arnau (to the representative of the probable opponent from the NATO alliance). Both that, and another did not fail to use a generous gift of KGB“ according to Fedorovsky“.

Here its contents:

“Owls. confidentially.

the Report with / about (the confidential informer - Edition) from 20 / 1 - 52 g

to me were succeeded to approach In due time, on your task, Ivan Megel. This morning Megel met me at a sewing workshop and poluzagadochno told: “Well, everything, will come true soon anthem prophecies who was nothing, that will become everything!“. From further conversation with Megel it became clear that on January 22 z / to Malkush, Koverchenko and Romanovich are going to lift revolt. For this purpose they already hammered together reliable group, generally from the - Banderovites, knives, metal tubes and boards hid. Megel told that Romanovich and Malkush`s associates from 2, 8 and 10 barracks have to break into 4 groups and begin at the same time. The first group will release ““. Further conversation literally:

“It will be engaged also in informers. We know all! Their godfather as blind too in the penalized person jostled. One group takes the penalized person and a punishment cell, and the second presses services and krasnopogonnik at this time. Here so - that! “. Then Megel told that 3 and 4 groups have to block a checkpoint and gate and to disconnect a spare electrocursor in a zone.

Earlier I already reported that the former colonel of the Polish army Kenzirsky also voyenlt Tishchenko managed to get a map of Kazakhstan, the schedule of the movement of passenger planes and raise money. Now I am finally convinced that they knew about the preparing revolt earlier and, apparently, want to use it for escape. This assumption is confirmed also by Megel`s words “and the polyachishka - that, it seems most cleverly wants to be, well, we will look!“. Once again I remind

concerning my request to secure me against punishment of criminals who exasperate with suspicious inquiries recently.

of Winds, 20. 1. 52“.

Is, perhaps, the main argument and Fedorovsky, and other historians who closely were engaged“ in Solzhenitsyn A. I. What it is possible to answer it? And, whether it is valid, there is this document proving indisputable participation of Alexander Isayevich in Ekibazstuzsky revolt? Who saw it? Whether Podlinen it? What all this is answered by Solzhenitsyn? And, at last, if the denunciation really took place whether it belittles or nullifies all merits of the Nobel laureate before the fatherland and before all progressive mankind? Or all the subsequent life of the writer “not on lie“, his works and public work fully wash away guilt of the person of no character, to the followed main instinct of self-preservation? Whether GULAG“, work which is studied in educational institutions in our country and abroad, work which became the bible for millions of concluded Stalin camps, their family, the epoch-making importance and reliability loses at the same time “the Archipelago? On these questions it is difficult to give the terse answer or in general any answer.

Further Fedorovsky gives also other “impartial“ facts of a trudozhizna of Alexander Isayevich, in places interfering in absolutely intimate spheres of the writer where any well-educated person will not stick the nose, digging in dirty linen as that “the Nobel divorce“ with Natalya Reshetovkaya and communication with Natalya Svetlova, gives, in my opinion, value judgment to the main work of Solzhenitsyn: “From my personal point of view, “ Archipelago “ represents a motley crew of unsystematic and noncritical retellings of camp baizes and rumors, up to self-repetitions (compare t. 1, hl. 6 and t. 3, hl. 1), with a heap of gross and ignorant blunders and tendentsioznost, a certain remake “ Red terror “ S. Melgunova. By the way, H held the similar opinion. Vitkevich, L. Samutin, H. Reshetovskaya. Characteristic detail: zhivopisuya terrible Nkvdeshnye tortures, Solzhenitsyn states everything from rumors at second hand because also he, both his one-businessman Vitkevich, and his coauthor Samutin, and his hero Burkovsky on a personal consequence did not receive uniform slap in the face“. As if not Solzhenitsyn, but Fedorovsky stayed eight years in camps which knows better both about tortures, and about camp life.

follow Further detailed zlopykhaniye concerning the Nobel award, reducing everything to the world Semitic komplot (the version old as the world, though having supporters), the reader`s assurances of bias of the Nobel committee, pedantic proofs of greed, arrogance and Solzhenitsyn`s misanthropy - the person, however, I will not retell. All this, dear reader, you can read at Fedorovsky. For me most important and painful, passing through all this detailed work it is red - the BLOODY thread, there is almost indisputable fact of “snitching“ of Alexander Isayevich. In total truth? Or all - mean falsification?

Now, coming back to details read, I remember the surprise concerning thorough knowledge of all nuances of camp life, yes sir described in “Archipelago“: thorough descriptions of prison hierarchy with its reefs and currents, methods of influence and conducting interrogation, understanding of movements of political figures on the Kremlin board, knowledge of destinies, figures and all other that cannot be known for certain.

I I do not cease to ask one more question to myself: and as if I arrived on Solzhenitsyn`s place? Would stand? As if you, the reader, behaved, suddenly pulled out from a habitual circle of the darlings and relatives, pushed by butts along the cold, gloomy lit corridors which conduct either on cross-questioning, or in the crowded, fetid chamber where alternately sit “political“ and criminals who fiercely hate each other where the excessive slavish, breaking ridge work for which a payment one - a liquid skilly and six hours of an uneasy dream where the hope for release and understanding of the events as the majority still with firmness believes in companion Stalin and bright future are taken away? As if mister Fedorovsky dashingly exposing the informer Solzhenitsyn acted this way? So far I have one questions, and there are no answers …