From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Neo-Stalinism (Russian: Неосталинизм) is a political term referring to the promotion of positive views of Joseph Stalin's role in history, the partial re-establishing of Stalin's policies on certain issues, and nostalgia for the Stalin period. The term is also used to designate the modern political regimes in some states. This is usually done by critics of those states, who argue that their political and social life bears similarities to Stalin's regime.


May Day procession with Joseph Stalin's portrait in London, 2010

There are two definitions of the term neo-Stalinism.

History of the term

The American Trotskyist Hal Draper used "neo-Stalinism" in 1948 to refer to a new political ideology – new development in Soviet policy, which he defined as a reactionary trend whose beginning was associated with the Popular front period of the mid-1930s, writing that "The ideologists of neo-Stalinism are merely the tendrils shot ahead by the phenomena – fascism and Stalinism – which outline the social and political form of a neo-barbarism”[4]

Philosopher Frederick Copleston portrays neo-Stalinism as a "Slavophile emphasis on Russia and her history": "what is called neo-Stalinism is not exclusively an expression of a desire to control, dominate, repress and dragoon; it is also the expression of a desire that Russia, while making use of western science and technology, should avoid contamination by western 'degenerate' attitudes and pursue her own path."[5]

Political geographer Denis J.B. Shaw considers the Soviet Union as neo-Stalinist until the post-1985 period of transition to capitalism. He identified neo-Stalinism as a political system with planned economy and highly developed military–industrial complex[6]

During the 1960s, the CIA distinguished between Stalinism and neo-Stalinism in that "The Soviet leaders have not reverted to two extremes of Stalin's rule – one-man dictatorship and mass terror. For this reason, their policy deserves the label 'neo-Stalinist' rather than -Stalinist."[7]

Katerina Clark, describing an anti-Khrushchev, pro-Stalin current in Soviet literary world during the 1960s, described the work of "neo-Stalinist" writers as harking back to "the Stalin era and its leaders... as a time of unity, strong rule and national honor."[8]

As regards Stalinism and anti-Stalinism

In his monograph Reconsidering Stalinism historian Henry Reichman discusses differing and evolving perspectives on the use of the term "Stalinism": "in scholarly usage 'Stalinism' describes here a movement, there an economic, political, or social system, elsewhere a type of political practice or belief-system...." He references historian Stephen Cohen's work reassessing Soviet history after Stalin as a "continuing tension between anti-Stalinist reformism and neo-Stalinist conservatism," observing that such a characterization requires a "coherent" definition of Stalinism—whose essential features Cohen leaves undefined.[9]

Alleged neo-Stalinist countries

Some socialist groups like the Trotskyist Alliance for Workers' Liberty describe modern China as "neo-Stalinist."[10]

North Korea has been described by Western sources as a neo-Stalinist state,[11] which adopted a modified Marxism–Leninism into Juche as the official ideology in the 1970s, with references to Marxism–Leninism altogether scrapped from the revised state constitution in 1992.[12]

By the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, Turkmenistan’s Saparmurat Niyazov non-communist regime was sometimes considered a neo-Stalinist one,[13][14] especially regarding his cult of personality.[15] Islam Karimov's non-communist authoritarian regime in Uzbekistan has also been widely described as "neo-Stalinist."[16][17]

Soviet Union

In February 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev denounced the cult of personality that surrounded his predecessor, Joseph Stalin, and condemned crimes committed during the Great Purge. Khrushchev gave his infamous four-hour speech, "On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences", condemning the Stalin regime. Historian Robert V. Daniels holds that "neo-Stalinism prevailed politically for more than a quarter of a century after Stalin himself left the scene,"[18] Following the Trotskyist comprehension of Stalin's policies as a deviation from the path of Marxism–Leninism, George Novack described Khrushchev's politics as guided by a "neo-Stalinist line," its principle being that "the socialist forces can conquer all opposition even in the imperialist centers, not by the example of internal class power, but by the external power of Soviet example,"[19] explaining that

Khrushchev’s innovations at the Twentieth Congress. . . made official doctrine of Stalin’s revisionist practices [as] the new program discards the Leninist conception of imperialism and its corresponding revolutionary class struggle policies.[19]

American broadcasts into Europe during the late 1950s described a political struggle between the "old Stalinists" and "the neo-Stalinist Khrushchev."[20][21][22]

In October 1964, Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who remained in office until his death in November 1982. During his reign, Stalin's controversies were de-emphasized. Andres Laiapea connects this with "the exile of many dissidents, most notably Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,"[23] though whereas Laiapea writes that "[t]he rehabilitation of Stalin went hand in hand with the establishment of a personality cult around Brezhnev,"[23] the political sociologist Viktor Zaslavsky characterizes Brezhnev's period as one of "neo-Stalinist compromise," as the essentials of the political atmosphere associated with Stalin were retained without a personality cult.[24] According to Alexander Dubček, "The advent of Brezhnev’s regime heralded the advent of neo-Stalinism, and the measures taken against Czechoslovakia in 1968 were the final consolidation of the neo-Stalinist forces in the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, and other countries."[25] Brezhnev described the Chinese political line as "neo-Stalinist."[26] American political scientist Seweryn Bialer has described Soviet policy as turning towards neo-Stalinism after Brezhnev's death.[27]

After Mikhail Gorbachev took over in March 1985, he introduced the policy of glasnost in public discussions  – in order to liberalize the Soviet system. Within six years, the Soviet Union fell apart. Still, Gorbachev admitted in 2000, that "Even now in Russia we have the same problem. It isn't so easy to give up the inheritance we received from Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism, when people were turned into cogs in the wheel, and those in power made all the decisions for them." [28] Gorbachev's domestic policies have been described as neo-Stalinist by some Western sources.[29][30][31]

Communist Romania

The regime of Nicolai Ceausescu was also classified by Historians and Political Scientists as Neo-Stalinist.[32]

Post-Soviet Russia

Public views

A Saint Petersburg bus with Stalin's portrait. The portrait was included in a montage that commemorated the USSR's victory in the Great Patriotic War.

As of 2008, more than half of Russians view Stalin positively, and many support restoration of his monuments either dismantled by leaders or destroyed by rioting Russians during the 1991 dissolution of the USSR.[33][34]

According to the Levada polling centre, Stalin's popularity marks have tripled among Russians in the last 20 years, and the trend had accelerated since Vladimir Putin has come to power.[35]

According to Andrew Osborn, statues of Stalin "have begun to reappear" and a museum in his honor has been opened in Volgograd (former Stalingrad).[35] Steve Gutterman from the AP quoted Vladimir Lavrov, deputy director of Moscow's Institute of Russian History, as saying that about 10 Stalin statues have been restored or erected in Russia in recent years.[36]

In September 2009, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin gave a speech in Poland in which he stated that Russia's "destiny was crippled by the totalitarian regime", referring to the Stalinist era.[37]

In November 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev expressed the following view of the Soviet Union in an annual address:[38]

Last century, at tremendous cost and effort, an essentially illiterate country was transformed into what was at that time one of the world’s most influential industrial powers, a leader in creating advanced technology in the space, rocket and nuclear fields. But the closed society and totalitarian political regime made it impossible to hold onto this lead. The Soviet Union, sadly, remained an industrial and raw materials giant and proved unable to compete against post-industrial societies.

Putin also criticized Stalin many times.[39] In December 2013, Putin described Stalin as no worse than the "cunning" English 17th-century military dictator Oliver Cromwell:[40]

What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None whatsoever.

School education

In June 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin organized a conference for history teachers to promote a high-school teachers manual called A Modern History of Russia: 1945-2006: A Manual for History Teachers, which according to Irina Flige, office director of human rights organization Memorial, portrays Stalin as a cruel but successful leader who "acted rationally". She claims it justifies Stalin's terror as an "instrument of development."[41][42] Putin said at the conference that the new manual will "help instill young people with a sense of pride in Russia", and he argued that Stalin's purges pale in comparison to the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At a memorial for Stalin's victims, Putin said that while Russians should "keep alive the memory of tragedies of the past, we should focus on all that is best in the country."[43]

The official policy of the Russian Federation is that teachers and schools are free to choose history textbooks from the list of the admitted ones, which includes a total of 48 history text-books for grade school and 24 history textbooks by various authors for high school.[44][45]

In September 2009, the Education Ministry of Russia announced that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, a book once banned in the Soviet Union for the detailed account on the system of prison camps, became required reading for Russian high-school students. Prior to that, Russian students studied Solzhenitsyn's short story "Matryonin dvor" and the famous novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a detailed account of a single day in the life of a gulag prisoner.[46][47]

History studies

In 2009, it was reported that the Russian government was drawing up plans to criminalize statements and acts that deny the Soviet Union's victory over fascism in World War II or its role in liberating Eastern Europe.[48] In May 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev described the Soviet Union during the war as "our country" and set up the Historical Truth Commission to act against what the Kremlin terms falsifications of Russian history.[48][49][50]

On 3 July 2009, Russia's delegation at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's (OSCE) annual parliamentary meeting stormed out after a resolution was passed equating the roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in starting World War II, drafted by delegates from Lithuania, and Slovenia.[51] The resolution called for a day of remembrance for victims of both Stalinism and Nazism to be marked every 23 August, the date in 1939 when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of neutrality with a secret protocol that divided parts of Central and Eastern Europe between their spheres of influence.

Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign relations committee of Russia's lower house of parliament called the resolution "nothing but an attempt to rewrite the history of World War II". Alexander Kozlovsky, the head of the Russian delegation, called the resolution an "insulting anti-Russian attack" and added that "Those who place Nazism and Stalinism on the same level forget that it is the Stalin-era Soviet Union that made the biggest sacrifices and the biggest contribution to liberating Europe from fascism."[52][53] Only eight out of 385 assembly members voted against the resolution.[54]

Memorial raid controversy

See also the main entry

On 4 December 2008, the Saint Petersburg offices of the Memorial society were raided by the police. Memorial's entire electronic archive in Saint Petersburg, including the materials collected with British historian Orlando Figes for his book, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia and 12 hard-drives with information about victims of political repressions, were confiscated by the police. Figes condemned the police raid, accusing the Russian authorities of trying to rehabilitate the Stalinist regime. A spokesman for the Russian prosecutor general's investigative unit said that the raid was part of an investigation into an article that incited ethnic hatred published in the Novy Peterburg newspaper in June 2007.[55] Figes organised an open protest letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other Russian leaders which was signed by several hundred leading academics from across the world.[56] On 2 March 2009, the contract to publish The Whisperers in Russia was cancelled due to, according to the publisher, financial reasons. Figes suspected that the decision was political.[57]

On 20 March 2009, the court of the Dzerzhinsky District ruled that the 2008 search and confiscation of the material at the Memorial office was carried out with procedural violations, and the actions of law enforcement bodies were illegal.[58][59][60]

On May 6, 2009, 12 hard drives (the same number that were previously confiscated), as well as optical discs and some documents, were returned to Memorial.[61][62]

Kurskaya station controversy

At the end of August a gilded slogan, a fragment of the Soviet national anthem, was re-inscribed at the Moscow Metro's Kurskaya station beneath eight socialist realist statues, reading: "Stalin reared us on loyalty to the people. He inspired us to labour and heroism." The slogan had been removed in the 1950s during Nikita Khrushchev's period of De-Stalinization. Another restored slogan reads, "For the Motherland! For Stalin!"

Restoring the slogans was ordered by the head of the metro Dmitry Gayev. He explained his decision with restoring the historic view of the station: "My attitude towards this story is simple: this inscription was at the station Kurskaya since its foundation, and it will stay there." [63]

The chairman of a human rights group Memorial Arseny Roginsky stated, "This is the fruit of creeping re-Stalinization and ... they (the authorities) want to use his name as a symbol of a powerful authoritarian state which the whole world is afraid of." Other human rights organizations, and survivors of Stalin's repressions, called for the decorations to be removed in a letter to Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov.[35][63]

Mikhail Shvydkoy, the special representative of the President of Russia for the international cultural exchange, responded to the controversy:

In my opinion, the question whether such inscriptions should exist in the Moscow underground is not the question in the competence of neither the Mayor of Moscow, nor even the head of the Moscow underground. One can't take decisions that may break the society that's heated up and politicized even without that. It seems to me, that the presence of the lines about Stalin in the hall of the metro station Kurskaya is the question that should become the matter of discussion for the city denizens.[63]

Shvydkoy commented, that what Stalin did in respect of the Soviet and in particular Russian people cannot be justified and he does not even deserve a neutral attitude, much less praise. But he said "it's necessary to remember your own butchers", and without that memory they can "grow among us again". Shvydkoy said that the question is that the society must remember that "Stalin is a tyrant". While the inscription in the Metro should merely be read correctly, "read with the certain attitude to Stalin's personality."[63]

Shvydkoy also commented that if the hall of the station "Kurskaya" is a monument of architecture and culture, the inscription must be left, because "to knock down inscriptions is vandalism."[63]


Scholar Dmitri Furman, director of the Commonwealth of Independent States Research Center at the Russian Academy's of Sciences Institute of Europe, sees the Russian regime's neo-Stalinism as a "non-ideological Stalinism" that "seeks control for the sake of control, not for the sake of world revolution."[64]

In 2005, Communist politician Gennady Zyuganov said that Russia "should once again render honor to Stalin for his role in building socialism and saving human civilization from the Nazi plague."[65] Zyuganov has said "Great Stalin does not need rehabilitation," and has proposed changing the name of Volgograd back to "Stalingrad."[66] In 2010, the Communist leader stated, "Today....the greatness of Stalin's era is self-evident even to his most furious haters... We liberated the whole world!" [67]

In 2008, Dmitry Puchkov accused the authorities of raising a wave of anti-Stalin propaganda to distract the attention of the population from topical troubles. In a December 2008 interview he was asked a question: "Dmitry Yurievich, what do you think, is the new wave of 'unveiling the horrors of Stalinism' on the TV related to the approaching consequences of the crisis or is it merely another [mental] exacerbation?" He replied: "The wave is being raised to distract opinion of the population from the up-to-date troubles. You don't have to think of your pension, you don't have to think of the education, what matters are the horrors of Stalinism." [68]

Russian writer Sergey Kara-Murza believes that there is a trend to demonize Russia that is common not only in Poland, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic, but in Russia as well. He contends that it is a good business, and that it was a good business previously to demonize the Soviet Union:

Why do we need to take offense against Poles, if we in our country have the same (and for us — sufficiently more dangerous and hazardous) cohort of pundits, philosophers, historians who enjoy the maximal favourable regime set by the state and do the same things as Poles do? [69]

See also


  1. Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge, "Samizdat and political dissent in the Soviet Union", Brill, 1975, pg. 30, [1]
  2. Osborn, Andrew (21 February 2006). "Outrage at revision of Stalin's legacy". The New Zealand Herald. The Independent. Retrieved 28 October 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. For example, Katerine Clark defines Neo-Stalinism as praising "the Stalin era and its leaders... as a time of unity, strong rule and national honor", see The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual, By Katerina Clark, Indiana University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-253-33703-8, ISBN 978-0-253-33703-0, page 236 [2].
  4. Draper, Hal. "Neo-Stalinism: Notes on a New Political Ideology".
  5. Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy: Russian Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN 0-8264-6904-3, ISBN 978-0-8264-6904-5. P. 403.
  6. Shaw identifies as features of the "political geography" of "neo-Stalinism" the following criteria:
    • 1. A well-developed core-periphery structure, reflecting marked differences in levels of economic development and living standards. This is in part the product of a tendency towards "incrementalism" – seeking to gain economies by allocating a considerable proportion of resources to those regions which have benefited most from previous investment...
    • 2. The inbuilt conservatism of the system and the bias towards heavy industry [ensuring] the continuing importance of traditional industrial regions with "smokestack" industries, such as the Donetsk-Dnepr region of eastern Ukraine and the Urals.
    • 3. "Extensive" (ie, resource-demanding) rather than "intensive" (resource-saving) development, leading to waste of resources and environmental deterioration in the core, growing dependence of the core on the resources of the periphery and pressure to develop the latter in the cheapest and often most short-sighted manner.
    • 4. Administration of the economy by sectors and tendencies towards 'narrow departmentalism' [leading] to the development of a series of ministerial "empires" lacking interlinkages, reducing the scope for scale economies, encouraging excessive transportation and leading to the economic overspecialization of many cities and regions, especially peripheral ones...
    • 5. The relative neglect of agriculture, transportation, consumer welfare and numerous services...
    • 6. A well-developed hierarchy of well-being in the settlement structure, whereby, in general terms, the best endowed settlements were the biggest ones with major administrative and political functions...conditions [deteriorating] as they became smaller.
    • 7. The development of regional economies...greatly influenced by the 'military-industrial complex' with the progress of individual cities, groups of cities and even entire regions (including peripheral ones) very much bound up with the needs of the military machine.
    • 8. Continental and inward-looking development induced by the longstanding tendency towards economic autarky. Isolation from the world economy...Only from the 1960s were autarkic tendencies modified, encouraging further economic development along land frontiers, on coasts and at ports., see Shaw, Denis J.B. Russia in the Modern World: A New Geography. Wiley-Blackwell, 1999. ISBN 0-631-18134-2, ISBN 978-0-631-18134-7. Pp. 81-84.
  7. "Neo-Stalinism: Writing History and Making Policy." Intelligence Report. Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence. CIA Released Documents.
  8. Clark, Katerina. The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual Indiana University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-253-33703-8, ISBN 978-0-253-33703-0, page 236 [3].
  9. Reichman, Henry. "Reconsidering 'Stalinism'. Theory and Society Volume 17, Number 1. Springer Netherlands. January 1988. Pp. 57-89.
  10. "Stalinist China at 50: Where is neo-Stalinist China Going?" Workers Liberty 58.
  11. Working, Russel. "An Open Door to North Korea". Business Week, June 4, 2001.
  12. By Sŭng-hŭm Kil, Soong Hoom Kil, Chung-in Moon. Understanding Korean Politics: An Introduction. SUNY Press, 2001. ISBN 0-7914-4889-4, ISBN 978-0-7914-4889-2, p. 275.
  13. Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic, 2005
  14. Freedom House, United States, 2006
  15. The Independent, United Kingdom, 2006
  16. Juergensmeyer, Mark. The Oxford Handbook of Global Religions. Oxford University Press US, 2006. ISBN 0-19-513798-1, ISBN 978-0-19-513798-9. P. 460.
  17. Thornton, William H. New world empire: civil Islam, Terrorism, and the Making of Neoglobalism. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ISBN 0-7425-2941-X, ISBN 978-0-7425-2941-0. P. 134.
  18. Daniels, Robert Vincent. The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia. Yale University Press, 2007 ISBN 0-300-10649-1, ISBN 978-0-300-10649-7 P. 339.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Novack, George. International Socialist Review, New York, Volume 22, No. 3, Fall 1961. Pp. 107-114. Marxists Internet Archive. 2005. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Novack" defined multiple times with different content
  20. "Khrushchev's Neo-Stalinism". Records of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Institute (RFE/RL RI): Box-Folder-Report 55-1-222. The Open Society. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
  21. "The Specter of Suslov". Records of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Institute (RFE/RL RI): Box-Folder-Report 55-1-296. The Open Society. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
  22. "Khrushchev and the Presidium (VIII)". Records of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Institute (RFE/RL RI): Box-Folder-Report 56-3-307. The Open Society. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
  23. 23.0 23.1 Laiapea, Andres. "Putin's Neo-Stalinism in Historical Perspective". American Chronicle. 26 February 2007. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
  24. Sakwa, Richard. Soviet Politics in Perspective. Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0-415-07153-4, ISBN 978-0-415-07153-6, P. 66.
  25. Alexander Dubcek Recollections of the Crisis: Events Surrounding the Cierna nad Tisou Negotiations
  26. Simonov, Vladimir. "Who are Russia's Enemies?" Russian News and Information Agency Novosti. 21 June 2005. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
  27. Eberstadt, Nick. The Poverty of Communism. Transaction Publishers, 1990. ISBN 0-88738-817-5, ISBN 978-0-88738-817-0. P. 85.
  28. Mikhail Gorbachev Interview - page 3 / 3 - Academy of Achievement
  29. Tsypkin, Mikhail. "Moscow's Gorbachev: A New Leader in the Old Mold": Backgrounder #451 – August 29, 1985. The Heritage Foundation.
  30. Åslund, Anders. How Russia Became a Market Economy. Brookings Institution Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8157-0425-9, ISBN 978-0-8157-0425-6. P. 29.
  31. Pilon, Juliana Geran. "The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe". National Review. 7 April 1989. ArticleArchies. Retrieved 9 August 2009.
  32. Stalinism und Neo-Stalinism in Romania. In: Southeastern Europe in the 19. und 20. century. Foreign ways– own ways (= Berliner Jahrbuch für osteuropäische Geschichte. Bd. 2). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1994, ISBN 3-05-002590-5, S. 87–102.
  33. “The Glamorous Tyrant: The Cult of Stalin Experiences a Rebirth,” by Mikhail Pozdnyaev, Novye Izvestia
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Andrew Osborn, "Josef Stalin 'returns' to Moscow metro", Telegraph, 05 September 2009, [4]
  36. Re-Stalinization of Moscow subway sparks debate, by WaPo, October 27, 2009
  37. Putin's speech in Poland Retrieved on September 12, 2009 (English translation)
  38. Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, November 2009 (English translation)
  39. [5][dead link]
  41. Stalin's new status in Russia, By Richard Galpin, BBC News, Moscow
  42. "Activists Denounce Stalin in Station" 28 August 2009 By Kristina Mikulova Moscow Times
  43. Stalin Back in Vogue as Putin Endorses History-Book Nostalgia by Henry Meyer,, 29 November 2007
  44. History textbooks, Russian Ministry of Education. (in Russian)
  45. List of admitted school text-books, 2007 (in Russian)
  46. 'Gulag' book, once banned, is now required reading Associated Press Retrieved on September 10, 2009
  47. The Gulag Archipelago was included to the school program, Izvestia, September 9th.
  48. 48.0 48.1 Wendle, John (8 May 2009). "Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Win". Time. Retrieved 6 June 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. "Russia panel to 'protect history'". BBC. 2009-05-19. Retrieved 2009-08-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  50. Andrew Osborne, "Medvedev Creates History Commission", Wall Street Journal, [6]
  53. Russia scolds OSCE for equating Hitler and Stalin Retrieved on July 25, 2009
  54. "Resolution on Stalin riles Russia". BBC News. July 3, 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  55. Harding, Luke (2008-12-07). "British scholar rails at police seizure of anti-Stalin archive". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-05-20.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  58. 'Memorial' reverted the searches, Kommersant, March 21, 2008 (in Russian)
  59. HDDs will be returned to "Memorial" in presence of the Ombudsman, Fontanka.Ru, March 27, 2009 (in Russian)
  60. Memorial Vindicated Again, by Sean Guillory, March 31, 2009
  61. Memorial got back its confiscated HDDs, Lenizdat.Ru, May 6, 2009 (in Russian)
  62. Memorial’s "Winchesters" Returned, by Sean Guillory, May 7, 2009
  63. 63.0 63.1 63.2 63.3 63.4 Human rights defenders called Luzhkov to remove from the Metro the notes about Stalin, Kommersant, September 8, 2009.
  64. Zakharovich, Yuri. "Can the U.S.-Russian Alliance Last?" TIME. 21 Dec. 2001.
  65. What Gulag? Russia's government shamefully refuses to face up to the horrors of communism. by David Satter
  66. Fiery Counterrevolutionaries, Kommersant, April 18, 2005.
  67. Liberals rap Kremlin as Stalin is worshipped, Reuters, March 5, 2010.
  68. Short questions and answers, by Dmitry Puchkov.
  69. The satanization of the modern Russia is ongoing, same way as it happened with the Soviet Union, Sergey Kara-Murza, September 24, 2009 (in Russian)

External links