Why Vladimir Ilyich was not buried, and Whose personality cult was stronger than Lenin or Stalin

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

The cult of personality, as a sign of autocracy, flourished in a violent color in the country where socialism was built, and was guided by the general, not the particular. Ironically, the very phrase “cult of personality” began to be used in the 50s in order to debunk this very cult of personality. The personalities of Lenin and Stalin were extolled during their lifetime, however, if the name of the second over time began to be perceived rather ambiguously, then Lenin remains "more alive than all the living." What is the difference between the perception of the personalities of the two leaders, and which of them was more extolled?

Lenin Street, as well as a monument to him, perhaps, is in every city. Why, despite the fact that there is no previous country and state regime, society is still not ready to part with the body of the leader of socialism. Stalin's personality cult began already in the 1920s, the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) appeared, it is noteworthy that before that it was called Tsaritsin. Over time, the cult is gaining momentum, huge monuments are erected to him during his lifetime, his name is printed in newspapers in large letters, he is forbidden to criticize. However, now there are practically no such objects.

Having lost, they began to appreciate

The emergence of universal admiration for Lenin coincided with his illness and death. It is likely that it was the last circumstance that added importance to his person, making the loss irreparable. All previous prohibitions on raising the leader's personality were lifted, Lenin began to turn into something immortal, and even more so - into an institution of Soviet humanism. And this happened with the filing of the government, which made Lenin a symbol and object of communism, despite the objections of his relatives.

January 21 - the day of Lenin's death became a day of annual mourning, Petrograd became Leningrad, in all major cities it was ordered to erect monuments to Vladimir Ilyich. And the institute, named after him, was instructed to publish the works of the leader in different languages, and this should have been a massive circulation.

How did it happen that they decided not to bury the body? The number of those wishing to say goodbye to Vladimir Ilyich exceeded all expectations. People specially traveled across the country in order to stand in a huge queue and say goodbye to Lenin. It was decided to place his body in a special crypt, which was erected near the walls of the Kremlin, right on Red Square, and to give everyone the opportunity to say goodbye.

It is possible that this would, as expected, be a temporary measure, and over time the body would be buried. But the newspaper Pravda published an article by Zinoviev, in which he ranted that, they say, how good it was that they decided to bury Lenin in a crypt, they say, they guessed it! After all, it would be completely unbearable to say goodbye to him, to bury him in the ground. The author also expresses the hope that over time, the town of Lenin will appear nearby, and it will always be crowded here, and not only people from the USSR, but also from all over the world will come here to the crypt. And the idea, skillfully presented by “who should be,” became public, and the number of those wishing to say goodbye only increased.

So the body of the leader was embalmed and placed first in a small wooden crypt, and then a mausoleum was built. However, huge queues to the crypt in any weather and at any time of the year soon became a common sight. An endless stream of people did not allow Lenin to be buried. The wooden structure was changed to granite in 1929, this became a kind of point in this matter, firmly establishing the cult of Lenin.

Lenin's works were quoted, to the place and not to the place, they resorted to in order to prove their case, as if it were holy scripture. The biography of Lenin was literally taken apart to pieces, hundreds of thousands of articles, scientific papers and books were devoted to his life and ideas. The younger schoolchildren knew who Lenin was, portraits, busts and statues were everywhere, not a single office of the slightest boss could do without this symbolism. Perhaps the most important evidence of popular love was cheap reproductions of paintings with the leader, which the peasants hung in their huts, often in place of icons, and sometimes right next to them.

Who needed it or why did Stalin cultivate Lenin's personality?

One thing is clear that all this happened not just with the permission of the authorities, but with their competent submission. However, why did they need it? At the second All-Union Congress of Soviets, Stalin delivered a particularly fervent speech, after which, according to many historians and political scientists, it all began. This was a kind of signal for the ritual exaltation of the deceased leader.

In addition, it was Stalin who put an end to the issue of placing Lenin's body in the crypt, thereby giving communism a place of worship. This shocked many Bolsheviks, but it was not accepted to contradict Stalin. Only Nadezhda Krupskaya tried to do this, who was categorically against cultivating the image of her late husband. However, her voice sounded too weak and sounded more like a shy request from a widow flattered by her attention.

Why did Stalin adhere to such an ambiguous position on this issue? In addition, frankly, sentimentality and love for someone were clearly not inherent in him. He was not religious, and what is happening is extremely reminiscent of some kind of religious cult or ceremony. Perhaps the most adequate explanation for this is the fact that Stalin, raising Lenin, strengthened the position of communism, and also paved the way for a cult of himself. The difference between the old Leninists and their former opponents, for example, Trotsky, became even more expressive.

On the other hand, from his youth, Stalin identified himself with Vladimir Ilyich, considering him a model of the leader of revolutionary activity. Probably, for him it was his own cult of personality, which he could and embodied within the framework of a whole huge state. The images of Lenin and Stalin were inextricably linked with the history of Russian communism, therefore, raising Lenin, who had already left the political arena, Stalin skillfully and subtly prepared the ground for his unlimited power, based, among other things, on the cult of Comrade Stalin.

Lenin, with whom there was no point in competing anymore, was quite the way to worship and demonstrate love and devotion in public. After all, alongside Lenin's successes, Stalin always loomed somewhere.

Stalinist cult of himself

What is the difference between the cults of the two leaders? The answer is obvious, the first was not involved in his deliberate rise and this happened after his death, when he could no longer correct or spoil anything in his biography and political views. Stalin, on the other hand, began to cultivate himself on purpose, using the image of Lenin for this.

Already in the 1920s, a powerful information flow poured into Soviet citizens, which from all sides demonstrated to citizens that everything they had was all thanks to Comrade Stalin. The economic and social success of the entire country and each citizen separately is all thanks to the tireless efforts of the country's leader. This process was not hampered by the widespread repression for an unsuccessfully told anecdote, denunciations throughout the country and ruined destinies.

Stalin's personality cult reached its peak after the end of the Great Patriotic War. In those years, it was generally accepted that the Soviet citizens won the Victory thanks not to their tireless work, but rather to the competent and clear leadership of Joseph Vissarionovich. For the problems, which were enough in the post-war period, everyone blamed the local authorities, especially the chairmen of collective farms, directors of factories, and heads of local party bodies. Stalin was perceived as salvation and the last resort, an appeal to which could fix everything. Last hope. In fact, little has changed since those times.

The Soviet ideological machine, which had already learned to cultivate personality on Comrade Lenin, actively switched to Comrade Stalin. However, not forgetting about the first. It is likely that without the control of the law enforcement system in this area, this process would not have been so successful at all, and Stalin's personality would have been much less deified. But the GULAG was quite a convincing argument in this matter. The dictatorship, the Iron Curtain, a huge number of problems in the social sphere - all this had a place to be, and there was enough dissatisfaction with the head of state, only they preferred to keep him within themselves, for quite understandable reasons.

The king is dead, long live the king

Stalin's death untied the hands of many politicians who tried to seize power, but at the same time understood the need to solve the existing problems. At that time, the country was particularly acutely faced with the issue of massive repressions, the spread of the GULAG, the agricultural sector demanded attention, and the national issue was ripe.

The lack of a clear leader among those who would take the reins into their own hands led to some distortion. They began to unload the Gulag, and with massive amnesties, but it was too early to debunk the cult of Stalin's personality. It was already enough that by freeing those who had been hidden behind bars on Stalin's initiative, the party members already pointed out the obvious mistake of their predecessor.

In 1953, Beria was arrested and then shot, Malenkov resigned and Khrushchev remained in the main positions. It was with his submission that the mass debunking of the Stalin cult began in the country. 1956 was the culmination year in this matter. Posters with the name of the leader were removed everywhere, streets, cities and houses of culture were renamed, completely different information, not similar to the previous information, poured from the newspapers.

The 20th Congress of the CPSU, at which Khrushchev made a report, became the very official go-ahead for the whole country, after which the "cultivation" of Stalin began. Khrushchev planned in this way to win over the young party members to his side. The report was prepared with particular care, and a serious collection of materials was organized. A special commission was working, whose task was to study and collect information about the repressions during the rule of Stalin, which were of a massive nature. Khrushchev understood that without a sufficient evidence base, such a bold statement could play against himself, even though Stalin was dead.

Based on the data obtained in this way, Khrushchev came to the conclusion that most of the GULAG prisoners were sent there on trumped-up cases and were convicted without guilt. In addition, the prisoners were mistreated there, tortured with the personal approval of Comrade Stalin. This was done for massive sweeps. Since then, the central committee of the party has been working on the inadmissibility of elevating the leader to the cult of the personality, it was called alien to the spirit of socialism. Stalin, from a cultivated personality, became almost the most condemned. If death only elevated Lenin, then with Stalin everything happened exactly the opposite. Khrushchev's report included several theses and specific accusations against Stalin.

• Repression of the Bolsheviks, former participants in the Civil War. • Mass terror throughout the country, with falsified accusations. • Implementation of plans for those convicted and executed. • Widespread and incorrect use of the term “enemy of the people.” • Exaggeration of one's own role in the Second World War and its outcome. • Deportation of peoples. • An uncompromising manifestation of the cult of personality - the name of cities and streets with their own name. • The report ended with accusations of the absence of democracy, rights and freedoms of citizens.

By embarking on an exposing policy, Khrushchev pursued a very specific goal. He was not as far-sighted as Stalin, who systematically cultivated his cult, near the cult of Lenin, his goals were obvious. With the previous views on the current leader of the country, forced to take upon himself, including the accumulated problems, accusations would also have poured in those political blunders to which he was not even involved. They say that Stalin would have coped, he would not have allowed this.

Khrushchev's act allowed him to shift responsibility for all the shortcomings in domestic and foreign policy over the past two decades to Stalin. Although, to be frank, Stalin was far from the only politician who made certain decisions. The political elite preferred to whitewash themselves, shifting everything to Stalin, they would hardly have dared at least half of their statements if he were alive.

However, Khrushchev, despite the risk (after all, there were documents proving his involvement in the "lawlessness" that Stalin allegedly made alone) decided on such a bold statement, since it was it that firmly fixed him in the position of a leader, and unconditional. Needless to say, the report had a stunning effect, it was decided to familiarize everyone with the text of the report.

The Soviet society of that time, experiencing the so-called "thaw", looked like a child who was suddenly left without the supervision of a strict parent. The unknown fear that had held the society down until it began to subside.

The main differences between the cult of Lenin and Stalin

Summing up the above, it becomes clear what is the main difference between the cults of two political personalities. Both of them were created by one person - Joseph Stalin. And if in the case of Lenin he actually managed to preserve for centuries not just memory, but also most of the memorable objects, then he managed to preserve the cult of himself, and even then by intimidation, only during his lifetime.

"In the name of Lenin" is still the most popular name for the streets, and this, despite the fact that the Soviet Union has been gone for thirty years. However, among the streets with a touch of the Soviet past, Sovetskaya Ulitsa is in the lead - there are almost 7 thousand of them in Russia. There are more than 6 thousand Oktyabrsky streets, but there are about 5 thousand Lenin streets. But the total length of all Lenin streets exceeds both Soviet and Oktyabrsky. And this means that Lenin is also the largest streets in settlements.

As for the monuments to Vladimir Ilyich, in some cities they are quietly removed, for example, during the reconstruction of parks and squares. However, for the most part, Russians are neutral about both street names and monuments. Rightly considering them part of the history of their country.