https://russia-insider.com/en/solzhenitsyns-damning-history-Jєωs-russia-review/ri22354

---

Jєωs had enormous influence in the English and American media at the turn of the century - this is what most people in America and UK were told about Russian Jєωs (Click for Hi-Res image)
The translator, Columbus Falco, describes the censorship of this book when it appeared in 2002:

"Published in the original Russian in 2002, the book was received with a firestorm of rage and denunciation from the literary and media world, from the Jєωs, and from almost the entire intelligentsia of the established order in the West…
Immense efforts have been made by the Russian authorities and also by the Western liberal democratic power structure to ignore 200 YEARS TOGETHER, to suppress it as much as possible, and above all to prevent and interdict the book’s translation into foreign languages, most especially into English, which has become essentially the worldwide language of our epoch…
The Russian authorities have to this date refused to allow any official English translation of the book to be published". (p. 2).

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLZHENITSYN’S MAGNUM OPUS
So what is so naughty, naughty about this book?
Most of it consists of unremarkable information that can be found in standard, non-censored texts. [For details, see comments.]
Agree with author Solzhenitsyn or not, but recognize the fact that he is no lightweight. Solzhenitsyn goes into considerable detail about many different historical epochs, and clearly has a deep knowledge of the issues that he raises. His approach is balanced. He is sympathetic towards Jєωs as well as critical of Jєωs.
The latter evidently does not sit well with many, because it does not comply with the standard ʝʊdɛօcentric narrative, in which Jєωs are just victims and can do no wrong. Worse yet, a famous writer is bringing sometimes-unflattering information about Jєωs to light, and this is threatening. Hence the censorship.

JєωS IN 19TH CENTURY TSARIST RUSSIA
Far from living in oppression, Russia’s Jєωs not only had more freedom than the serfs, but also more than the Russian traders and merchants. (pp. 16-17), and this was also true of more recent times. (p. 45). Soon after the Partitions of Poland, Derzhavin visited the area and reported on the Jєωs in the then-current manorial society. The Polish nobility had turned over the management of their estates to the Jєωs (p. 21), and the Jєωs engaged in conduct that brought them short-term profits and long-term antagonisms.
Consider the PROPINACJA. The Jєωs accuмulated wealth by cooperating with each other. (p. 31). They made profits by taking the peasants’ grain to the point of impoverishing them (and causing famine), turning it into brandy, and then encouraging drunkenness. (p. 21, 24). Jєωs forced peasants into lifelong debt and crushing poverty by requiring payment, in cattle and tools, for liquor. (p. 31).
In addition, a system of bribery protected this arrangement. Thus, the Polish magnates were on the “take” of part of the wealth squeezed by Jєωs out of the peasantry, and, without the Jєωs and their inventiveness, this system of exploitation could not have functioned, and would have ended. (p. 22). Solzhenitsyn adds that, “…the Jєωιѕн business class derived enormous benefit from the helplessness, wastefulness, and impracticality of landowners…” (p. 54).
The Jєωs kept moving around in order to prevent an accurate count of their numbers—in order to evade taxes. (p. 25). A delegation of Jєωs travelled to St. Petersburg to try to bribe Russian officials to suppress Derzhavin’s report. (p. 28). In 1824, Tsar Alexander I noticed that Jєωs were corrupting local inhabitants to the detriment of the treasury and private investors. (p. 32).
 
Jєωs were not forced into “parasitic” occupations: They chose them. (p. 31). By the late 19th century (the time of the pogroms), Russian anger had boiled over, focusing on such things as Jєωs not making their own bread, massive overpricing and profiteering, enriching themselves while impoverishing the muzhik, and taking control of forests, lands, and taverns. (pp. 78-80).
Nor is it true that the Jєωs were kept out of “productive” occupations. To the contrary. A concerted 50-year tsarist effort to turn Jєωs into farmers attracted few participants (p. 33), and ended in failure. (p. 58). None of the rationalizations for its failure are valid: Other newcomers to Russian agriculture (Mennonites, Bulgarian and German colonists, etc.), facing the same challenges as the Jєωs, did quite well. (p. 36). Jєωιѕн farmers neglected farm work (pp. 34-35), and kept drifting back into selling goods and leasing of their property to others to farm. (pp. 56-57). The century-later efforts by the Communists, to get Jєωs into farming, fared no better. (p. 208, 251).
Jєωιѕн resistance to assimilation is usually framed in terms of the GOY excluding the Jєω. It was the other way around. For the first half of the 19th century, rabbis and kahals strenuously resisted enlightenment, including the proffered Russian education to Jєωs. (p. 38).
Jєωs have always tended to exaggerate the wrongs they have experienced from others. (p. 42). This applies to such things as double taxation, forced military service, expulsion from villages, etc. (p. 42, 46, 50).
The Jєωs of the Vilnius (Wilno), Kaunas, and Grodno regions sided with the Russians during the Poles’ ill-fated January 1863 ιnѕυrrєcтισn. (p. 69). This confirms Polish sources.

Mainstream Judaism did not conduct ritual murder. However, it is possible that some Jєωιѕн cults did so. (p. 40). [For more, see my review of BLOOD PASSOVER]. As for the PROTOCOLS, their authenticity was rejected early-on by the tsarist government. However, this did not erase legitimate grievances about Jєωιѕн influence. (p. 174).
JєωS IN COMMUNISM: THE USUAL EXCUSES
We often hear that Communist Jєωs were “not real Jєωs”. This nonsense is equivalent to saying that Lenin and other Russian Communists were “not real Russians”—a contrived distinction that Solzhenitsyn refuses to make. (p. 117). [For more, see comments].
One common exculpation for Jєωs supporting revolutionary movements, and then Communism, is that of the tsarist system preventing Jєωs from improving their lot. This is nonsense. Once the Jєωs accepted the Russian education system, their numbers increased, to such a spectacular extent (by about 1870: p. 63, 71), in Russian higher education, that quotas (numerus clausus) had to be imposed upon them. This nowadays-called affirmative action became necessary because Jєωs were wealthier and thus unfairly advantaged in schooling-related matters. (p. 88).
Hungary is instructive. There, Jєωιѕн grievances were the least valid. Hungarian Jєωs had enjoyed atypical freedoms and a high standard of living, and there had been no pogroms. Yet the 1919 Hungarian Communism was especially dominated by Jєωs, and was odiously cruel. (pp. 153-154).

Another exculpation for Jєωs in Communism was the alleged need for defense against pogroms conducted by the Whites. Not so. The massive influx of Jєωs into the Soviet apparatus occurred in late 1917 and 1918, but the White pogroms did not begin until 1919. (p. 121).
THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF JєωS IN COMMUNISM
One can easily make lists of Jєωs in high positions in the Soviet Union. Influential Jєωs commonly occurred at a rate 10 or more times the abundance of Jєωs in the USSR. (e. g, pp. 143-on, 225-on). [For more, see comments]. Whether or not motivated by "ethnic solidarity", Jєωs in authority tended to promote other Jєωs to high positions. (p. 138).
However, the Jєωιѕн role in Communism goes far beyond what is apparent in any such “grocery list”. For instance, consider what some call the Judaization of academia, and its impact on the bloody events of 1917. Solzhenitsyn comments, “The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jєωs had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).
Now consider the October Revolution. Lenin contended that the Bolshevik success in the revolution had been made possible by the role of the large Jєωιѕн intelligentsia in several Russian cities. (p. 119). Furthermore, according to Lenin, the October Revolution was preserved by the actions of Jєωs against the attempted sabotage by government officials. (p. 128).
The energy and high intelligence of the Jєωs made them indispensable. (p. 129, 189). In fact, Solzhenitsyn suggests that Soviet Communism lost its ideological fervor, and began slowly to die of “Russian laziness”, already in the late 1960s, all because the Jєωs were largely gone. (p. 317).
SOME INTERESTING FACTS
Dekulakization was not just an economic measure. It was a tool to uproot peoples and destroy their traditions and culture. For this reason, Stalin’s dictatorship can in no sense be accepted as a nationalist (Russian) phenomenon. (p. 221).
Religious Judaism was never persecuted as intensely by the Communists, in the 1920s and 1930s, as was Russian Orthodox Christianity. (p. 306). High-level Jєω Lazar Kaganovich directed the destruction of the Church of the Redeemer. He also wanted to destroy St. Basil's Cathedral. (p. 223).
The famous mobile gas chambers were not invented by the nαzιs. They were developed, in 1937, by Isai Davidovich Berg, a leading Jєω in the NKVD. (p. 237).
COMMUNISM IS OK—UNTIL IT NO LONGER SERVES Jєωιѕн INTERESTS
Solzhenitsyn notes the irony that, in the West, there was little effective concern about the victims of Communism until it turned on the Jєωs. He quips,

“15 million peasants were destroyed in the ‘dekulakisation’, 6 million peasants were starved to death in 1932, not even to mention the mass executions and millions who died in the camps, and at the same time it was fine to politely sign agreements with Soviet leaders, to lend them money, to shake their ‘honest hands’, to seek their support, and to boast of all this in front of your parliaments.
But once it was specifically JєωS that became the target, then a spark of sympathy ran through the West and it became clear what sort of regime this was.” (p. 346; Emphasis is Solzhenitsyn’s).

NOWADAYS JєωS DODGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BLAME THE RUSSIANS
Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes the standard double-standard (one which Poles are all too familiar with), as he describes current Jєωιѕн attitudes,

“There are so many such confident voices ready to judge Russia’s many crimes and failings, her inexhaustible guilt towards the Jєωs—and they so sincerely believe this guilt to be inexhaustible almost all of them believe it! Meanwhile, their own people are coyly cleared of any responsibility for their participation in Cheka shootings, for sinking the barges and their doomed human cargo in the White and Caspian seas, for their role in collectivization, the Ukrainian famine and in all the abominations of the Soviet administration, for their talented zeal in brainwashing the ‘natives’. This is not contrition.” (p. 335).

Of course, Solzhenitsyn is not insinuating that Jєωs are collectively guilty for Communism. However, Jєωs should accept collective liability for Communism and its crimes in much the same way that Germans accept collective liability for nαzιsm and its crimes. (p. 141, 321). Until they do so, this issue of the Zydokomuna (ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism) will not go away.
Jєωιѕн INFLUENCE IN COMMUNISM WAS FAR GREATER THAN ANY “GROCERY LIST” OF Jєωιѕн COMMUNISTS 

 We keep hearing that Jєωs at no time constituted a majority of the leadership in Communism. This is technically true, but it does not tell the whole story. 

 Refer to: , by Albert S. Lindemann:

 To begin with, Jєωιѕн Communists were noted for their high intelligence, verbal skills, assertiveness, ideological fervor, etc. (p. 429).

 Not surprisingly, few non-Jєωιѕн Communist leaders approached the caliber of the Jєωιѕн Communist leaders. For example, Lindemann reminds us that, “Jєωιѕн or gentilized, Trotsky was a man of unusual talents.” (p. 447). In addition, “Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied…” (p. 448). This can be generalized, “Other non-Jєωs might be mentioned but almost certainly do not quite measure up to Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yoffe, Sverdlov, Uritsky, or Radek in visibility inside Russia and abroad, especially not in the crucial years from 1917 to 1921.” (p. 432).

 Finally, influential Jєωs did not have to act alone. In fact, Jєωs had the skill of influencing non-Jєωs to think in Jєωιѕн ways. Lenin can validly be understood as a “Jєωified gentile” (pp. 432-433). The same can be said for the renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky (p. 442, 446), as well as the Russian Kalinin, who was called by Jєωιѕн Bolsheviks “more Jєωιѕн than the Jєωs”. (p. 433).

 I. Jєωιѕн COMMUNISTS INFLUENCED NON-JєωS TO GO ALONG WITH THEIR THINKING

 Let us elaborate on Feliks Dzerzhinsky. Refer to: [url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198225520/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0198225520&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Cheka: Lenin's Political Police:

 Author Leggett describes how Dzerzhinsky grew up in Vilna [Wilno, Vilnius], which he describes as a cosmopolitan city with a strong Jєωιѕн element and a focal point of socialist ferment in Tsarist Russia. (p. 34). He adds that, “Dzerzhinsky came under the influence of Martov, future leader of the Menshevik Party, by whom he was introduced into Jєωιѕн circles, both proletarian and of the intelligentsia; he made many Jєωιѕн friends and zealously learned Yiddish. The Bund—Jєωιѕн social democratic workers’ organization in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, founded in 1897—helped Dzerzhinsky in his political activity, for instance in late 1899. Dzerzhinsky’s close friend and schoolmate in Vilna was Mikhail Goldman…” (pp. 24-25).

 The strong Jєωιѕн influence very much extended to Dzerzhinsky’s personal life. Leggett continues, “Goldman’s sister, Julia, was for several years Dzerzhinsky’s romantic love…formed a deeply romantic attachment, lasting from 1905 to early 1910, for another Jєωιѕн woman, Sabina Feinstein, sister of a prominent SDKPiL member. Very soon afterwards, in November 1910, Dzerzhinsky married Sofia Sigizmundovna nee Mushkat, who was likewise Jєωιѕн…” (p. 25).

 As if to underscore the fact that Jєωιѕн influence in Communism is much greater than just the "grocery list" of Jєωιѕн Communists, Leggett writes of "Rosa Luxemburg [Luksemburg], celebrated for her intellectual brilliance and her political passion." (p. 24). So intoxicated had "Bloody Feliks" ("KRWAWE FELEK") Dzierzinski become of Luksemburg's ideas that he actually clashed with Lenin on the resurrection of the Polish state. Only that it was the non-Pole Lenin supporting the restoration of the Polish nation and renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky opposing it, in accordance with Luxemburg. (pp. 23-24).

 The foregoing can be generalized. Refer to: . 

 Alexander Solzhenitsyn comments,
“The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jєωs had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).

 II. JєωS AS THE “BRAINS” BEHIND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND THE EARLY SOVIET UNION

 See my review of: [url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1494817918/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1494817918&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Rulers of Russia

 III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JєωS IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AS NOTED BY SOME JєωS

 See my review of: 

 IV. DECADES BEFORE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, JєωS HAD PLAYED AN INDISPENSABLE ROLE IN KEEPING REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS GOING IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY, AND IN MAKING RADICAL MOVEMENTS EVEN MORE RADICAL:

 See my review of: [url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521528496/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521528496&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia

 V. COMMUNISM PERMEATED MUCH OF PRE-WWII Jєωιѕн THINKING, NOTABLY IN POLAND

 Refer to: 

 (My Review was Feb 12, 2012)

 Moshe Arens wrote: "The years preceding World War II were a time when Socialists throughout the world were preaching the `class struggle' and `solidarity of the proletariat.' Many of them, not only avowed Communists, saw the Soviet Union as the pioneer and leader of this `struggle.' This was also true in Palestine, where the Socialist Zionists had achieved a dominant position in the Jєωιѕн community." (p. 7). The so-called "proletarian" camp included the Socialist Zionists and the non-Socialist Bund. (p. 9). Arens notes: "The Socialist Zionist movements, attached to Marxist ideology..." (p. 44). ZOB leader Anielewicz was a member of Hashomer Hatzair with its "Marxist approach to Zionism". (p. 113). Hashomer Hatzair and Left Po'alei Zion showed their true colors (pardon the pun) in preferring that the red flag be hoisted over the fighting Ghetto instead of the blue-white Zionist flag. (p. 287).

 ZOB leader Hersh Berlinski exhibited undisguised disloyalty to Poland as he said that his support was to the USSR over Poland. (p. 142). As for the Warsaw Ghetto rank-and-file soldiers, Arens refers to them as: "...younger generation, their orthodox Marxist thinking giving rigidity to their arguments." (p. 106). Who can blame Poles for their reluctance to support the Uprising owing to its taint of Communism? (p. 71; 200-201; 226)

 VI. A RATHER CANDID DISCUSSION, ABOUT JєωS IN COMMUNISM, BY LEADING Jєωιѕн COMMUNISTS

 See my review of: [url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060156570/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060156570&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Stalin's Polish puppets

 VII Jєωιѕн COMMUNISM AS A FORM OF Jєωιѕн NIHILISM

 See my review of: 

 --------

 CONCLUSION: Since Jєωs Take Collective Credit for Their Albert Einsteins and Jonas Salks, Should They Not Also Assume Collective Liability for Jєωιѕн Mass-Murderers Such as Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich? 

---

HOW THE MASSIVE OVER-INVOLVEMENT OF JєωS IN COMMUNISM LONG INFLAMED POLISH-Jєωιѕн RELATIONS

 The ZYDOKOMUNA (ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism) cannot be wished away. In addition, the Jєωιѕн share of blame for Communism is not erased just because there were non-Communist Jєωs. Finally, since Jєωs regularly call on Poles to “come to terms with the past”, in a collective sense, for the actions of only SOME Poles, the Jєωs should be held to the same standard.

 To learn of the dominance of Jєωs in the leadership of the early decades of the Soviet Union, please click on, and read my detailed review of, .

 See also THE RULERS OF RUSSIA, by Denis Fahey. (1940). Condon Printing Company, Detroit.

 For details on the massive long-term Jєωιѕн overrepresentation in the leadership of the Soviet Communist Secret Police (the NKVD), responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people, please click on, and read my detailed review, of [url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1906764204/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1906764204&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Studies in Polish Jєωry, Volume 26: Jєωs and Ukrainians.

 Also see THE Jєωιѕн CENTURY. My Amazon review is dated October 29, 2010.

 For a scholarly Russian-language primary source on the Jєωιѕн leadership that had dominated the NKVD, please click on, and read my detailed English-language review, of .

Thank you for sharing this!

In Russia today, President Putin has made it required reading, of Solzhenitsyn's writings, by all high school students. I've encountered worth while articles in the past on this subject, but I'm not able to find them right now.  This article below will suffice for now...


Source...


Russian Revelations: Putting Putin In Perspective
By Joseph Pearce 
03/13/14 AT 12:31 PM

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn  Photo: Wikimedia 

In these days of acrimonious political mud-slinging, there seems to be almost nothing upon which the radicals on the left and the reactionaries on the right can agree. There is, however, one thing on which both ends of the political spectrum are in absolute agreement, and that’s their univocal and unadulterated disdain for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
For those on the left, Putin is beyond the pale because of his failure to endorse the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda. Over the past couple of years, Putin has supported the passing of laws in Russia banning “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ propaganda.” For those on the right, Putin represents the resurrection of the Soviet bogeyman, a sort of reincarnation of Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev.

Considering the universal condemnation and demonization of the Russian president, it might seem foolish and perhaps perilous to seek a more balanced perspective. On the other hand, the demonization of opponents seldom solves problems and the lack of balance usually exacerbates them. It is, therefore, in the spirit of the immortal Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s "holy foolishness" (iurodstvo) that this effort at perspective is offered.
Putin is an authoritarian. He believes that big problems require the intervention of big government. As such, he has much in common with U.S. President Barack Obama, whose administration is seeking to impose one-size-fits-all solutions to the problems of health care and education, which trample on the rights of religious conscience and parental choice in the name of ideologically driven agendas. Like Obama’s America, Putin’s Russia also has a state-“encouraged” common core curriculum. It is intriguing, however, that three of the major works of the anti-Communist dissident and Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn are required reading at all Russian high schools. These three works are the novella "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," a harrowing account of the cruelty and barbarism of the Soviet labor camps; "The Gulag Archipelago," a monumental history of the Soviet prison system and its inherent and endemic injustices; and "Matryona’s House," a short story about the heroine’s retention of traditional Christian virtue in the face of Communist tyranny.
It is worthy of note that Putin is a great admirer of Solzhenitsyn. He met him in September 2000 and was at pains to emphasize that he had Solzhenitsyn’s approval for his education policies. In August 2001, Putin stated that, prior to his education reforms, he had contacted eminent people “known and respected by the country, including Alexander Solzhenitsyn.” In October 2010, after it was announced that Solzhenitsyn’s works would become required reading for all Russian high school students, Putin described "The Gulag Archipelago" as “essential reading”: “Without the knowledge of that book, we would lack a full understanding of our country and it would be difficult for us to think about the future.”  

Although one might justifiably lament the usurpation of the rights of parents by central government in the setting of a common core for education, whether such usurpation takes place in Russia or the United States, it must be said that the inclusion of a moral and literary giant such as Solzhenitsyn in Russia’s common core serves to highlight the relative trash and trivia included in the common core in the USA. At least Russia’s common core offers real meat and gravitas, whereas American kids are being fed a thin gruel of nutrient-free nonsense. The former is health food for the mind and soul, full of nourishing traditions; the latter is fast food and junk food for the soulless and the mindless.
In June 2007, Putin signed a decree honoring Solzhenitsyn (who died in 2008) “for exemplary achievements in the area of humanitarian activities.” This apparent rapprochement between the apparatchik and the dissident, between Putin, the former KGB operative, and Solzhenitsyn, the former victim of a failed KGB assassination attempt, has understandably puzzled many observers. Endeavoring to explain the seemingly inexplicable, Daniel Mahoney, author of "Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology" and co-editor of "The Solzhenitsyn Reader," saw the solution to the conundrum in Solzhenitsyn’s frank appraisal of Putin’s political achievements:
Solzhenitsyn, Mahoney wrote, "surely credits Putin for taking on the most unsavory of the oligarchs, confronting the demographic crisis (it was Solzhenitsyn who first warned in his speech to the Duma in the fall of 1994 that Russians were in danger of dying out), and restoring Russian self-respect (although Solzhenitsyn adamantly opposes every identification of Russian patriotism with Soviet-style imperialism)."

In my own book, "Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile," I also endeavor to put the Putin-Solzhenitsyn alliance in perspective. I note that in his discussions with Putin, Solzhenitsyn was simply pursuing the desire for dialogue which he had shown in his "Letter to Soviet Leaders" in 1973. The only difference was that Putin was prepared to listen to Solzhenitsyn’s wisdom, and to discuss it with him in person, whereas the Communist old guard had sought to silence him. If Putin was really prepared to listen to Solzhenitsyn’s warning about the population implosion caused by the culture of death, or about the need to tackle corruption, or the necessity of strong local democracy, or the difference between true nationalism and chauvinistic imperialism, why should Putin be criticized for listening or Solzhenitsyn for speaking his mind?               
Asked by the German magazine Der Spiegel how he could have such a friendly relationship with Putin, a former KGB officer, Solzhenitsyn responded that Putin’s work was in foreign intelligence and that, therefore, he was not a KGB investigator spying on Russian dissidents, “nor was he the head of a camp in the Gulag.” He also pointed to the fact that “George Bush Sr. was not much criticized for being the ex-head of the CIA.” As for Putin himself, he publicly distanced himself from his own past at the end of 2007 when he visited Butovo, just outside Moscow, the scene of mass killings of dissidents by the NKVD, the forerunners of the KGB, in the 1930s. His visit coincided with the canonization by the Russian Orthodox Church of hundreds of victims of communism. Putin’s own statement, issued on the day of his visit to Butovo, condemned the evils of ideology and paid tribute to the millions who had perished at the hands of the communist regime.
In the final analysis, and in spite of the knee-jerk reactions of commentators on the left and the right, Putin cannot be dismissed as a mere reincarnation of the Soviet bogeyman. He inherited a Russia that was economically and morally bankrupt, crippled by the kleptocracy that followed in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He has taken on many of the worst oligarchs, has restored the Russian economy to a position of relative health, and has introduced family and child-friendly policies that have led to a significant increase in birth rates, thereby averting the imminent demographic death of Russia from population implosion. None of this justifies or excuses acts of imperialism on Russia’s borders, but it does demand a more measured approach to our understanding of the Russian president. He is not a saint, and none but a fool would seek to canonize him, but nor is he a tyrant, and none but fools should seek to demonize him.

Joseph Pearce, writer in residence and Visiting Fellow at Thomas More College in New Hampshire, is the author of "Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile" (Ignatius Press), the recipient of the John Pollock Award for Christian Biography in 2002.