Thanks! I too was thinking about the best place for this. In the end, it works best as an old man’s philosophical musings. 👴

It sounds a bit cryptic, but thanks for the opinion. And now I’ll know what I can call myself: a tankie 😀

Repressions refer to the exceptionally cruel treatment of the population by government authorities. During Soviet times, even minor violations of established rules could result in severe punishment. For example, I was drafted into the army in 1950. On the very first day, they read me a decree from the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: if I left the military unit’s territory without permission for more than 5 minutes, the first offense would land me in the guardhouse, and the second would lead to a court-martial and three years in a penal battalion. After completing that term, I would have to return to the army to serve out my original 3-year enlistment.

A similar situation existed in civilian life. People could be imprisoned for uttering a single word displeasing to the authorities. Peasants faced imprisonment for taking a few ears of grain, fruits, or vegetables from collective farm fields. Arrests often followed anonymous denunciations. Repressions embodied government-sanctioned cruelty and lawlessness. This is a very brief summary.

I’ll be glad to hear your comments! PART 2: https://lemmy.ml/post/26569540

I’ll be glad to hear your comments! PART 2: https://lemmy.ml/post/26569540

Thank you very much! At this age, I really want to share my thoughts about the years I have lived.

Thank you, I am very grateful for your comments. I’ll try to post the next part very soon!

Unfortunately, even within our country, there was no clear, well-organized national policy. Open nationalism was not allowed in the country. However, in the republics, the titular nations restricted the advancement of representatives of non-titular nations in all areas of work and service. I was born and raised in Georgia. The Georgian people are a wonderful people, but those who managed to climb into the elite somehow became infected with Nazism. For an Ossetian to achieve any success, they had to Georgianize their surname. That is why, like any other Ossetian, all my relatives on my mother’s side changed their surname from Dzigoyte to Dzebisashvili, and on my father’s side to Chigoshvili. I had to serve in Azerbaijan for about 6 years. There, they hated Armenians. No Armenian with an Armenian surname could be found. The situation was roughly the same in Central Asia. And the central authorities paid no attention to any of this. The national policy was aimed at creating a unified “Soviet people,” and the culture of our peoples was supposed to be national in form and socialist in content. In other words, we rejected the national culture created by the peoples over centuries. And we got what we got: the instant collapse of the Soviet Union and rivers of blood that still flow without stopping. In my opinion, one of the serious reasons for the rise of Russophobia and Nazism in the former Soviet republics is the underestimation of the national pride of the peoples of the Soviet Union by the central authorities. This is also one of the serious reasons for the bloodshed in Ukraine.

Certainly, I did not research the archives. I was an officer, engaged in defending the air and later the space borders of our homeland, the Soviet Union. I worked with historical archives during my thesis project titled “Relations Between Ossetia and Russia in the Second Half of the 18th Century.” From that research, I concluded that without Russia, my Ossetia could have perished.

If we are talking about human rights or democracy, based on what I saw and experienced, I can say that there was no democracy or human rights in the Soviet Union. It was all written down, but the Marxist-Leninist theory allowed no alternative theories in our country—this is unequivocal.

I can recount the documents I was introduced to under signature. There were no rights. If I couldn’t be found on the military base within five minutes, the first offense would result in 10–15 days of detention, and for the second, I could face a tribunal with a sentence of up to two years. Time served in the penal battalion didn’t count as military service, so the three years of mandatory service had to be completed in full. That was the kind of “democracy” and “rights” I had. And such “rights” were not exclusive to soldiers.

There is no universal understanding of human rights—each state interprets them in its own way. In socialist systems, the primary goal is to solve problems, but achieving this requires a high level of political literacy in society. Unfortunately, our society, like many others, is largely politically illiterate. This is why, even with mechanisms like the soviets, not all problems were resolved as effectively as they should have been.

The issue of democracy and human rights has likely existed since the formation of organized human society in one form or another. I believe there is no single, universally acceptable understanding of democracy and human rights that suits all social groups and forms of government. Each country has its own interpretation of democracy and human rights. Yes, elections exist, and the people vote. But do they truly know whom they are voting for? Hardly. People elect those who can present themselves better, and that costs a great deal. Hence the so-called democracy and human rights.

In my view, achieving democracy and human rights requires a certain level of political literacy within society. Unfortunately, our society is largely politically illiterate. Otherwise, the people wouldn’t allow the government to do what is happening in the country today. In Russia, there are 20 million people living in poverty and 50 million on the verge of it. These issues are too complex to fully explain in such a brief note.

In the history of Russia, there has never been a genuine sense of democracy. What prevails is reverence for individuals, and this stems from the level of political literacy within society. This is not a complete answer, but it’s difficult to provide a comprehensive one on such complex topics in such a short format.

Can you ask your grandfather if he had the opportunity to research the Soviet archives?

Regarding isolationism, Russia has always been isolated from the West. The West has consistently sought to colonize Russia—whether for its vast natural resources or as a potential competitor in the Near and Far East, as well as in Asia. And, of course, for socialism. The Anglo-Saxons have always been Russia’s enemies.

As for China, I believe it poses an even greater threat to us than the Anglo-Saxons. One day, hundreds of millions of women, children, and the elderly could move into Siberia. How could we stop them? They are watching the struggle between Russia and the West and will eventually choose a side. But I doubt they’ll choose ours. On their maps, Siberia is already colored as part of China.

It’s hard to go into much detail about that period because everything was so secretive at the time. Discussing political topics, even with close friends, was dangerous—you could never be sure someone wouldn’t report you.

What I can say is that many people with little education but strong loyalty to socialism were drawn to positions of power. However, most of them didn’t really understand what socialism was. This lack of understanding was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even the top leaders, the Politburo members, didn’t know what to do next and ended up steering the country into the “decaying capitalism” they had always criticized. Now we’re just following in the footsteps of that same capitalism.

I was born in 1930, in a remote village in the mountains of South Ossetia. Until a certain age, I had no idea which country I lived in, or whether the political system was good or bad. But I saw nature. I interacted with people, and I read literature that urged me to love my homeland. I read about patriots, those who gave their lives to save the country. Only much later did I begin to understand whether our rulers were leading us with good or bad politics. And my patriotism was not dependent on their politics.

As for Solzhenitsyn, he was a product of Khrushchev, who hated Stalin. Khrushchev had his reasons for that. At first, Solzhenitsyn wasn’t so aggressively opposed to the USSR, but when he realized the benefits of anti-Soviet sentiment, he became a fierce opponent. Yes, there were things to criticize about the USSR, including the camps. These things were new to all of us back then, and that’s why Solzhenitsyn became popular. But history cannot be viewed only from one side. Yes, there were the camps, but there was also the selfless, heroic labor of the Soviet people, who, in just 10 years, prepared the country to stand up against all of Europe’s military might.

Solzhenitsyn even called for America to drop nuclear bombs on the USSR. Meanwhile, I was a colonel in the Soviet Army. That’s how I evaluate Solzhenitsyn’s position. Thank you

But let me share something as someone who has lived through difficult times. The camps were not something to admire or glorify. They are painful chapters of our history that we must remember to avoid repeating. Those of us who lived through those years know the value of humanity and compassion. I hope that, with time, you’ll see in these stories not just images but also the lessons they leave us.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod