February 23 marks the 70th anniversary of the start of operations of the deportation of Chechens and Ingush. About the history of mass expulsion, the status of immigrants in the new location and how to determine whether the deported peoples to achieve rehabilitation, “Gazeta.ru” said the doctor of historical sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian History, State Councilor of the Russian Federation Nikolai Buhay.
TM: What is your assessment of the degree of scrutiny of the problem deportation of peoples of the Soviet Union?
NB: More than 20 years ago, even in the RSFSR, RSFSR adopted a law “On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples”, making it easier to study and the more public presentation of many aspects of previously taboo issue. During this time, there is extensive literature related to the relationship to the vector “peoples and power” and relating to the thinnest thread of human relations – ethnic. So, in 2004, in Kabardino-Balkaria came two small volume booklet under the title “Balkaria. Deportation. ” My attention was drawn to them postulate: forget the past is impossible, but to transform the energy habitual memory effect judgments worth it, because the main force included a man, his source of truth and morality.
TM: Formal reasoning of the forced resettlement of Chechens and Ingush and the abolition of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR was known – “aiding the Nazi occupiers.” What really moved the center during the operation “Lentils»?
«There was a communist who did not steal, and he died»
January 21, 1924 died on the first head of the Soviet state, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). “Gazety.Ru” examining archival rooms … ?
NB: The process of adaptation of the Chechen and Ingush communities and their integration into a socialist society was very difficult. In the first years after the revolution occurred indigenization authorities dared agrarian question settled by ethnic relations with its neighbors. And then collectivization began. Able and willing community to whether it was a painless solution to these complex issues? I think that is very remote. Complicating the process of adaptation and that the Russian language among the Chechens was 0.84% ??among the Ingush – 3%. In turn, unfriendly towards the center to the ethnic communities contributed to the economic difficulties, the government has not completed indigenization dissatisfaction degree of implementation of the slogans of the revolution in the field, speech against the Soviets. On the surface pulls overall rating – “unreliable”. The war exacerbated this stressful, “bifurcation state” emerged institutions such as desertion, evading service in the Red Army. But I want to remind you that the front was about 18 thousand Chechens and Ingush. 500 people were sent to labor columns. 2880 Chechens and Ingush in 1085 were awarded orders and medals, 4455 Chechens became disabled as the Ingush in 1865.
TM: Is it on the basis of any documentary sources to understand whether there was some opposition to the decision in the top political leadership of the country?
NB: With regard to the country’s leadership, the opposition as such in the documents, including a “special folder” Stalin, in the case of ethnic communities is not visible, although, for example, the question of eviction of ethnic communities in the territory north -west of the country some opposition. Remained rather timid hearing statements by the leaders of the party and the Soviet authorities directly on the territory of the North Caucasus. However, the totalitarian system did not exist in open opposition to the society. But, of course, the decision of the authorities in the 1940s about the eviction of ethnic communities could only be regarded as contrary to common sense. Protests against this humiliating position more evident already after the fact forced relocation. There were the beginnings of the protest movement, but they were timid and emanating from the Chechen and Ingush elite who were serving in the Red Army, the Chechens and Ingush, primarily officers.
TM: Can I come to the conclusion that the leadership of the party and state at the time was based on the experience of forced migrations of Soviet Germans, Karachai, Kalmyks?
«Yellow race is no reason to attribute hurricane strength»
February 8 (January 27 old style), 1904 Japanese Navy attacked the Russian squadron in the Bay of Port Arthur. Thus began another prologue first … ?
NB: No, such an interpretation is not possible. In the North Caucasus this experience has been gained since the time of the Russian-Japanese war, when evicted from the territory of the Caucasus governorship Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and then such shares were held periodically. This was followed by the relocation of the Tersk Cossacks, Kuban and the Don Cossack troops, cannibalization, including Cossack environment. Attempts have been forced eviction and Russian Armenians from the territory of the modern Republic of Adygea. Directly in the late 1930s – early 1940s, such actions were carried out against the Soviet Germans (over 200 thousand people), the Kurds, Iranians. But it must be emphasized that the forced relocation, deportation – it is not a product of the socialist system. By these measures repeatedly resorted tsarist government, and other governments.
TM: What was the resistance from being evicted? Can we talk about organized resistance?
NB: There were group and individual protests, especially in the early resettlement. However, it is extremely sharply reacted leaders of the Party and the state. Any disagreement with the party immediately punished up to the use of armed force, as explained in the materials and documents, it was caused by the emergency nature of wartime. After the forced relocation of the main form of protest began to escape from the settlement. But judging from the available documents and materials, the community evicted were not a single organism. Were among the settlers and those who zealously had served on the side of the authorities and the NKVD, including representatives of Islam.
TM: How was held settling the territory of the former Chechen-Ingush ASSR?
NB: Already in 1944, new contingents of immigrants coming from areas RSFR created on the territory of the Grozny area. Pursuant to the Resolution number 54 of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, adopted January 8, 1945, from Bryansk, Vologda, Ivanovo, Kaluga and Kirov oblasts of the RSFSR were to arrive in Grozny region 2000 kolkhoz farms. Chairmen of executive committees had until March 15, 1945 “to ensure the selection and sending families resettled farmers.” In Grozny administrative region moved on planned tasks from different regions of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Moldavian SSR and Armenian SSR 78.5 thousand representatives of different nationalities, which made the region of ethnic minorities.
Some of the former Chechen-Ingush ASSR settled inhabitants of the mountain regions of North and South Ossetia. Partially new residents of the area began Ossetians lived in the territory of Kazbegi district of the Georgian SSR. And it is the Ossetian migration (here I agree with the assessment of researchers and SA Hubulova U.Sh. Tedeyeva) laid the “foundation of a new inter-ethnic conflict, which is slowly smoldering since 1957 – the year of rehabilitation deported peoples of the Caucasus, and in the fire erupted at the end of the twentieth century ».
«Russia is literally twice saved Ossetia»
Five years ago, on 26 August 2008, the Russian Federation recognized the Republic of South Ossetia as an independent and sovereign state. What … ?
TM: What was the legal status of forcibly resettled in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz SSR? What were the relations between the settlers and the locals?
NB: The question of the legal status of the special settlers, or rather, all of those forcibly displaced, who fell under the definition of “special settlers” – a special topic for discussion. Their status is regulated by the instructions of the NKVD – NKGB USSR, regulations of the State Defense Committee (SDC) and the position from January 8, 1945 “On the commandant’s office.” Often special settlers were celebrated in the commandant’s office, that is, leave the new places they had no right. But the settlers could, for example, to participate in elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and their rights determined by the order in wartime. Gradually, they were involved in public life regions and republics where they were. So valuable study by Professor L. Belkovets who believes that about any genocide on the part of public authorities in respect of the special settlers say there is no reason. Restrictions began to weaken after the death of Stalin in 1953. This also affected the mode of living, and most importantly – it became possible relocation to the former place of residence.
TM: What are the difficulties encountered in the first special immigrants?
NB: Of course, it was to adapt to the new location. In addition, economic problems: there were difficulties in giving their land for the resettlement funds allocated from the Centre, often stolen. But this does not mean that it is not established friendly relations with the local population, to reach mutual understanding in inter-ethnic relations. Often children deportees lived in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz families. It was a huge help to the families of special settlers. But, of course, their life was with great difficulty.
TM: Could the State in the future to fully rehabilitate forcibly resettled peoples?
«What do Stalin and Moses?»
How is the formation of modern political joke, when the first anecdote about Stalin, the similarities and what are the differences in the jokes about … ?
NB: I want to start by saying that the question of rehabilitation is never on the agenda. Number of appeals of the Chechen and Ingush intellectuals – writers, poets, public figures, former party functionaries, representatives of Soviet power – increased significantly from year to year. In my opinion, this was the determining factor, played a prominent role, and not the performance of NS Khrushchev at the Twentieth Party Congress. Catalyst for complaints was the death of Stalin. As a result of the CPSU Central Committee and the Federal Government had to respond, various measures have been taken up to the establishment of autonomy for the Chechens, Germans in the Kazakh SSR.
Could
whether to rehabilitate the state fully citizens? In my opinion, in relation to the peoples of the North Caucasus, the Kalmyks – yes. If there was a need for a well-known law of the RSFSR “On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples” (26 April 1991), he had to have spread to the Soviet Germans, Koreans, Poles, Crimean Tatars, Ingrian Finns, Greeks, Bulgarians and others, not rehabilitated at the end of the 1950s. Unfortunately, this was done only partially.
