Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russian History post: Ivan IV 'The Terrible'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:01 PM
Original message
Russian History post: Ivan IV 'The Terrible'
I am thinking of writing a book with short biographies of some of Russia's most colorful leaders throughout history. Here is one I wrote a couple of months ago about Ivan grozny---Ivan The Dread.


Ivan was born in the Moscow Kremlin, at six in the evening on August 25, 1530. At that moment, Capricorn was in the ascendant, and the Sun and the moon were in conjunction in Virgo. Legend has it that a terrible thunderstorm raged as the mother labored to give birth to the new prince, and mystics were seeing terrible omens. Ivan was destined to be the first Tsar of Russia, and among history’s most notorious figures. His life would be one of almost supernatural evil. Before his birth, his father, Grand Prince Vasily III, had married a woman in a ceremony not sanctioned by the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch of Jerusalem had warned him that his child would be unholy, and would bring chaos, terror and death on a vast scale to Russia, but Vasily ignored him. He needed a male heir, and he was going to get it. And this cursed child would now be that heir to the throne of Moscow’s empire. It was not a promising start. It would be over 50 years later, but this same boy would hold his own dead son in his arms, in the Moscow Kremlin, not far from where he was born, and he would be begging god for forgiveness for his many crimes. It would be too late. The Karmic law of retribution went into effect. Ivan would soon die, his dynasty would collapse and Russia would be thrown into anarchy, war and famine.
Ivan’s grandfather, Grand Prince Ivan III ( ruled 1462-1505), had restored Moscow to greatness after years of being subordinate to the Tartars, who had conquered Russia in the 13th Century. But the zenith of Tatar domination of Moscow was long past. Ivan III’s armies had met the Tartars on the field of battle, but the Tartars fled. After this, Moscow was able to be free of foreign domination. Ivan III was also the first to use the title Tsar, meaning Caesar, but it was not official. But Ivan did lay the foundations for the total autocracy, where the whole of the land was subservient to one man, him. He also strengthened the institution of serfdom, which was similar to chattel slavery. Ivan III’s other major achievements included his defeat of Novgorod, in 1471, which added over 3 million acres of land to Muscovy.
His son, Vasily III (1505-1533) had also done much to strengthen Moscow. He defeated Lithuania in battle and annexed territory, including the area now around Smolensk. He also continued the long fight against the Tartars in the Crimea and Kazan. Vasily also cemented links between the Sovereign and the Church. In exchange for the Grand Prince to protect the Church’s interests, the Russian Orthodox Church would support him. This was very important for both, as the Ivan III had seized lands belonging to the Church and the Church had a unique way of legitimizing rulers in the eyes of the superstitious peasantry. He also needed them in his struggle against plotting nobility and bureaucrats, called Boyars.
Between Ivan III and Vasily III, the two rulers had more than tripled the size of Moscow’s empire. But Vasily could not produce an heir. He decided to divorce his first wife, against the wishes of the church and marry again. This time he married Yelena Glinskaya, a princess of Tartar blood. She finally produced him an heir, in 1530, Ivan Vasilyevitch. But the Grand Prince never lived to see his child grow up. He died of a blood infection in December 1533.
Ivan’s childhood would be very unhappy and full of trauma. His mother served as regent for a time. At this time the Kremlin was ripe with murder, plotting and treachery. Ivan’s uncles and various boyars were scheming to control the throne. Yelena had the two uncles imprisoned, and then got rid of her own perfidious uncle as well. But she was to die in 1538, possibly after being poisoned by boyars.
Now the power of the state was up in the air. Several factions of boyars struggled for the crown. The conflict was characterized by wanton cruelty as different groups seized and fell from power. Ivan witnessed much of this inhumanity, and it made an impression on him. He was taken to torture chambers, witness to executions and given animals to brutalize. Armed groups of mercenaries and palace guards were forever present. Rumor has it that his favorite game was throwing maimed or skinned animals off the walls of the Kremlin. His handlers, being savage men themselves, got perverse pleasure from watching little Ivan delight in barbarity.
Ivan would forever be filled with hatred for boyars as a result of this depravity he witnessed as a youth. At age 13, he began to use his authority as the Crown Prince for vengeful purposes. He had his personal manager, Andrei Shuisky, one of the feuding boyars, devoured by wild dogs. Now the management of the kingdom fell onto his mother’s family, the Glinskys. But the Glinskys would not last long—after a fire, peasants revolted and killed them.
At age 16, he married and was crowned as Tsar, the Caesar, the first in Russia’s history. His wife was from a family called Romanov, a family that would come to dominate Russian history for 300 years. But now, the Romanovs were a non-noble boyar family. His wife, Anastasia Romanova Zakharyina-Yureva was devoted to Ivan and Ivan to her. She produced him a viable male heir, Ivan Ivanovitch. In his life of terror and tragedy, she became one of the few moderating and benevolent influences that he would know.
In the first few years of his rule, Ivan was somewhat of a reformer. He began with rooting out the corrupt and despotic boyars and forming new legal codes. The Tsar also began to appoint officials based on personal qualities rather than on their hereditary standing. He limited the often tyrannical powers of provincial governors, and set out new regulations for taxation. He also limited the Orthodox Church’s ability to appropriate lands, even though the Church put up substantial opposition. But the policies of serfdom still existed and Ivan did not do anything to really protect this great mass of the peasantry from oppression.
With the influence and power of the Tartars now very weak, Ivan decided to strike. The Tartar fortress of Kazan seemed to him to be worth conquering. The Khanate of Kazan was full of fertile lands and was a route to the lands of the east. In 1552, the Tsar’s armies attacked and laid siege to the Tartar fortress at Kazan. The fall of the city was among the greatest triumphs of Ivan’s reign, and to celebrate it he had St. Basil’s Cathedral constructed in Red Square. (St. Basil’s is probably the single most recognizable structure in Russia.) He also became known as Ivan Grozny, meaning literally Ivan the Dread, which has often been translated as Ivan the Terrible. Over the next few years, the Tartar territories of Kazan and Astrakhan were subdued and annexed. During the 1550s, Ivan also started a war with the small kingdom of Livonia, which his armies sacked. Then the conflict spread with Sweden, Lithuania and Poland intervening. It lasted 25 years, with Russia gaining little permanently, and losing much treasure. But in the east, against the Tartars, he was gaining vast territory. In fact, Ivan enlarged Russia’s size so much, it is estimated he added an average of almost 50 square miles a day to the empire.
But Ivan’s triumphs and glory were all brought to a halt in 1560, when his beloved wife Anastasia died of an illness. Ivan Vasilyevitch would never be the same again. His paranoia and hatred grew by the day, as his mental health declined. He suspected that Anastasia was poisoned like his mother and he thirsted for vengeance. He began to have boyars arrested and executed by the dozens, often by hideous means and in public, to set examples. One of Ivan’s closest confidants, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, a military hero who helped take Kazan, defected to Poland, one of Ivan’s most bitter enemies. He wrote a savage letter to Ivan calling him a despot and a murderer. This only fueled the blackness brewing inside Ivan’s soul.
At Christmas, 1564, Ivan abdicated his throne. He wrote two letters to the people of Moscow. He claimed that the boyars, the priests and the ‘little princes’ had been undermining his rule, and Russia. They had been creatures of vice and corruption and cruelty. He listed their crimes and treachery. In another letter he wrote, he told the Russian people how much he loved them. The populace immediately went to the streets and demanded that Ivan return. Eventually, the boyars had to relinquish their power totally to Ivan to get him to return. Now Ivan was a total autocrat, with one of the largest kingdoms in history.
In 1565, Ivan created the Oprichnina, which were a black robed sect of Imperial enforcers, who were tasked to eliminate treason from the kingdom. The Oprichniki were given no restrictions on conduct and had legal immunity. They carried dog’s heads and brooms, symbolizing both wiping out treason and the traitor himself. They rode across the countryside, inflicting terror and mayhem at a whim. The Oprichniki did not just kill their victims. They also killed their families and friends, to prevent anyone from saying prayers for the soul of their victims. That was considered to be the ultimate punishment. They inflicted both random and targeted violence, and were given extra incentive to kill, as half the property of their victims would be turned over to them.
The most notorious incident of the Oprichnina reign of terror was the sacking of Novgorod. Ivan led a force of hundreds of his Oprichniki from Moscow to Novgorod in 1570, accompanied by the Crown Prince Ivan. On the route to Moscow was Klim, which Ivan and the Oprichniki stopped and destroyed. The Oprichniki went around the town cutting, burning and raping the inhabitants while Ivan stayed in a Monastery for several days in a religious delirium. Then they marched on to Novgorod.
Novgorod had been conquered by Ivan III after a long history of independence from Moscow. Ivan now suspected that the boyars of Novgorod were plotting with his foreign enemies. He let loose his Oprichniki to force the city to do penance for it’s perceived crimes. They destroyed the city in an orgy of violence that lasted over a month. On a daily basis they rounded up hundreds of victims for torture and rape, followed by mass burnings, castrations, and beheading. Whole families were tied together and thrown into frozen waters. One day it all ended. Ivan got up, met some survivors, shook their hands and sent them home. Then he marched his forces back to Moscow. Somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 people were killed in Novgorod.
Ivan’s mental state had deteriorated considerably. He had moved into a fortress in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda outside of Moscow due to his fears of plots against his life. 300 Oprichniki lived there as well. He created monasteries and torture chambers in the same building. Ivan was also having religious delusions. He and his Oprichniki formed a religious cult, with Ivan as the leader. They would have frenzied religious ceremonies where Ivan often would engage in self mutilation or beat his head against the altar until he was senseless. This was a habit of penance that Ivan had done on occasion since childhood, but became all the more common in this period. When he went into this state, he believed God would tell him who his enemies were. This strange religious fervor was alternated with periods of sin, vice and brutality. Ivan and his Oprichniki would follow a period of prayer with drunken binges and orgies. They also spent a considerable amount of time experimenting in new ways of torture in their dungeons, where the Oprichniki would bring prisoners. It is said that on more than one occasion, Ivan used hot pokers to rip the ribs out of living men.
In the dungeons of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, some of Ivan’s most notorious murders occurred. The Oprichniki arrested Prince Boris Telupa and had him impaled, with his mother being forced to watch. Then they gang raped Telupa’s mother until she died. Then they fed her to wild dogs. Even those closest to Ivan’s court were brought there. His Imperial Treasurer was reportedly boiled alive in Ivan’s basement of horrors.
Not all was going well in the kingdom, either. In 1571, the Tartars raided Moscow and set it on fire. Only the Kremlin was left untouched. The Tsar stayed in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. In 1572, the Tartars returned, but a small force of Russia’s army under Prince Vorotnysky deployed to meet them and routed them outside of the city. Ivan took credit for the victory and later saw to it that the popular war hero Vorotynsky was killed. After this, Ivan disbanded the Oprichnina. They had become a liability to his image abroad, and with his confidence in his army’s loyalty restored, he felt safe to stay within Moscow again.
Ivan married a total of seven times in his life. Several of his wives died, and several he had banished after he tired of them. His first three wives had died, and the Orthodox Church relented and allowed him to marry again. He sent his fourth to a convent after she proved to be infertile. Then he married three more women against the wishes of the Church. During his life he had a total of eight children. Several died as children. In the end, he had only one truly viable male heir, Ivan Ivanovitch, his eldest surviving son from his first marriage. His other surviving son from this marriage, Feodor, was mentally handicapped. His only hobby seemed to be ringing church bells.
Ivan’s male heir, also named Ivan, was now expecting a child of his own. In 1582, Ivan confronted his daughter in law because she was not dressed properly, not up to his standards. He then struck the pregnant woman. Ivan’s son became enraged and a struggle ensued. When it was over, Ivan had beaten his own son to death with his walking stick. He had now killed his heir, and his daughter in law miscarried. In one afternoon, Ivan destroyed his dynasty.
Ivan was never the same again. He became repentant, and prayed for the souls of those he had killed. His physical condition had also become unbearable. He could hardly walk, due to severe arthritis and his skin was covered with infections and sores. Apparently his genitalia swelled and became infected as a result of venereal disease. Ivan compounded his plight by taking drugs that were made from mercury.
In 1584, he was clearly dying. He was only in his 50s, but physically he had deteriorated far beyond his age. He summoned astrologers to his apartment and asked them when he would die. They made their calculations and told him he would die on the 18th of March, 1584. Ivan warned them if they were wrong, they would be punished. They were adamant.
On March 18, Ivan awoke and felt better than usual. He asked for the astrologers to be informed that if he did not die, then they would be killed. The astrologers informed the court that the day was not over yet. He took a bath and settled down for a game of chess, and then collapsed. Ivan the Terrible was dead. The first Tsar of all the Russias was no more. For thirty years after his death, Russia would have no real ruler, a series of civil wars compounded by famines and plagues. It would be known as the Time of the Troubles in Russian history.
Ivan was a pivotal figure in Russian history. Not only was he the first Emperor, but he laid
the foundations for the autocracy that has so dominated Russian life and politics. For centuries, as other nations made the transition towards more open and liberal governments, Russia, and the USSR remained harshly totalitarian. Only after an Ivan could a country produce the kind of horrors that Russia has. Many consider him to be a model for modern totalitarian rule. His Oprichnina were the middle ages equivalent of the Nazi SS or Stalin’s NKVD. Stalin even attempted to have Ivan made into a hero and commissioned several films about the tyrant. His purges and witch hunts are a common feature in 20th Century dictatorships. For better or worse, Russia still lives in the shadow of it’s first Emperor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey--he's my kind of guy!!!!!!!!!!
His life would be one of almost supernatural evil--this part reminds me of someone we all know and love today!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Dick Cheney
is a bit Ivanish, much more so than Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's the supernatural evil part that makes me think they're both
descended from him!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. the whole mixing religion with killing
does make me think of the RW funie war mongerers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mobuto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. No, Dick Cheney is the anti-Ivan
he works to divest power from the State to our modern-day equivalent of the landed aristocracy. He uses the machinery of the state not to make America stronger, but to channel its resources to his friends and allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. excellent point
I agree on that. He is taking away power from the democracy and trying to fashion an oligarchy. I pray he will not be succsessful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Ivan wasn’t that Terrible.
Edited on Sat Dec-13-03 12:31 PM by The Lone Liberal
He was well known as a great tipper and as a wonderful borsch connoisseur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Hitler loved animals
and refused to eat meat. He felt it was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So, evil can co-exist with good, right?
Reminds me of the uproar over the Hitler miniseries this past year, showing Hitler in his youth. If people can understand that Hitler was a human being, then it makes what he did even more horrific. He was a monster, but a monster who began as a person, and still reatined human qualities whiile commiting genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It always does
There is no such thing in this world as 'pure evil'. Hitler came close, but he still had a few human qualities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Stalin
According to contemporaries and his children, Stalin had little human compassion for anyone or anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Stalin had a black soul
He was a true sociopath, with no empathy for fellow creatures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thom1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. It might be interesting to compare Ivan the Terrible with
England's Edward Longshanks. While Longshanks was not nearly as horrible as Ivan, there seem to be several similarities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mobuto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-03 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. I disagree
Edited on Sat Dec-13-03 02:15 PM by mobuto
not just with the astrology hokum, but I feel you misunderstand the significance of Ivan's rule.

He has determined to turn Russia into a modern state. His predecessors had vastly expanded the territory nominally his, but like medieval Poland, Russia wasn't really a country. Rather, it was a collection of independent fiefdoms only nominally loyal to the Czar. Ivan IV, like Henry Tudor in England and Louis XI in France, recognized that if Russia were to escape its crippling civil wars and horrifically inefficient economic system, it had to

1) align with the West

and

2) create a powerful central government, destroy private armies, and destroy the power of the landed aristocracy.

He wasn't completely succesful at either, but he was largely succesful, and he did anticipate the much belated reforms of Peter and even Alexander II. I'd say his real weakness was his readiness to act without thinking. And the worst thing he ever did was to fail to choose a suitable sucessor.

You choose to see the murders that came late in his life as discontinuous with his earlier reforms. I don't. Yes, he killed a lot more Russians, but I believe he came to the awareness that something had to be done to destroy the landed aristocracy. Mere reforms weren't enough, and his paranoia was justified in a country where intrigues were common.

Yes, he killed a lot of people - although it seems that word of his atrocities were exagerated by his many enemies - but this was the middle ages, and I think his pale in comparison to the crimes of his Tartar enemies or of his successors.

And I don't see how you can see the establishment of a centralized state to be totalitarian or Stalinist, unless you wish to reduce everything to the absurd. That seems to be the logic Republicans use whenever they accuse some necessary Democratic government program of being a step down the slippery slope towards Communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I was pointing out that
the Oprichnina were the ancestors of the NKVD, the SS and other totalitarian organizations. The Oprichnina, in my opinion, was the begginning of modern totalitarianism.
Oprichnina were not a progressive force. It was rule by terror. There is no doubt that the savagery of the mongols could easily be compared to any despotic leadership.

When writing about any leader from other than modern times, you will get myths mixed in with truth. It seems that Ivan's cruelty was so real that even if all the stories are not fully true, they at least show how he was viewed at the time and remembered by Russians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mobuto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Ancestors?

the Oprichnina were the ancestors of the NKVD, the SS and other totalitarian organizations.


The Oprichnina have absolutely nothing in common with the SS. Do you know what the SS was? Are you perhaps thinking of the Geheime Staatspolizei?

As for the NKVD - do you have any evidence at all for a linkage, or are you merely linking them for rhetorical effect? You can't make a case by saying the Oprichnina were responsible for the purges of the 1930s, because they weren't. The NKVD and the Cheka, before it, were in large part inspired by the Tsarist Okhrana. But the Okhrana were not Oprichnin, and were created by Alexander III for an entirely different purpose - the suppression of urban bourgeois radicals, rather than the destruction of the aristocratic power base.

Oprichnina were not a progressive force. It was rule by terror.

I disagree entirely. The Oprichnina - the territory in Muscovy controlled by Ivan - was an absolutely necessary step on the road to creating a modern centralized state. If that step hadn't been taken, there could never have been a Peter I, as the Tsar would have had no independent power. I think therefore that while it is possible to criticize the Oprichnina as being ruled by terror, you cannot in good conscience say that it was anything other than a progressive force.

Ivan, by dividing the land into Oprichnina and Zemschina, was able simultaneously to improve vastly the economy, solidify the power of the state, destroy the very real and very present boyar plots against him, and prepare Russia for eventual integration with the modern world. He made it a viable political state, something which it had never been before.

The oprichniki were a step towards a modern civil service, as they came from all backgrounds and were admitted to office based solely on merit. This is a progressive step - there is no other name for it. And while the oprichniki were often cruel and barbaric, they were never sadistic. There was always a purpose to their violence, and you have to remember the context - one in which intrigues of all kinds were being hatched against the Tsar, in which war with a great many states, in the East, the West and the South was near-consant, in which one of the principle cities of Russia, Novgorod, was allying with Lithuania against Ivan, etc. Given the context, I don't think the violence was as greatly disproportional as you suggest. It certainly doesn't seem any worse than the French Revolution.

There is no doubt that the savagery of the mongols could easily be compared to any despotic leadership.

No, I'd say the Mongols are pretty much sui generis, unless you want to compare them to earlier horse peoples of Central Asia, like the Huns and the Avars, and even then the connection is probably pretty tenuous.

It seems that Ivan's cruelty was so real that even if all the stories are not fully true, they at least show how he was viewed at the time and remembered by Russians.

But you forget the historiography. Immediatly after Ivan's death, it was the Boyars - the very target of all of Ivan's lifelong efforts - who seized power and proceding to fight a long and destructive civil war. And it was they who wrote the histories. You'd be as well off asking Louis XVI to write a history of the French Revolution - even if he addressed the subject sincerely, he'd undoubtedly be more focussed on guillotines than on land redistribution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. one point
The Oprichnina were unlike the civil service. They were given free reign to kill anyone, anywhere in their zone. They were given the added bonus of getting half of the deceased's property, which made them all the more eager to kill more than was nessecary.

The NKVD did not operate like the Okhrana--perhaps the Cheka did (destroying enemies of Bolshevism rather than Tsarism), but by the time Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria were in control it was all about purging to create a super-centralized totalitarian state, much like the Oprichniki did in Ivan's time.

There is no question that many Boyars were of the worst quality. When Ivan was young, different factions of Boyars killed and tortured right in front of him. They probably killed his mother too. Many Boyars were despots and Ivan did take steps to curb regional despotism in the kingdom long before the Oprichnina.

I also pointed out that long before the Oprichniki were riding, Ivan had created a civil service based on merit rather than birthright (1550 or thereabouts). I listed this as a progressive reform. Te Oprichnina were used for rule by terror by a paranoid autocrat, not at all like Ivan's earlier reforms.

Ivan was extremely paranoid and delusional. During long self mutilation ceremonies in his monastery he would apparently hallucinate God whispering the names of his enemies. This is when he made his lists for the Oprichnina of people to target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. rebuttal
I see Ivan's reforms as a very different stage than his later terrors. The change came in 1560 when his beloved wife died. He became the men who plotted and killed in the Kremlin when he was a child. The only moderating influence on him was gone.
Ivan created his own private army, the Oprichnina. He did not like being rivaled for authority. His earlier attempts to curb regional despots were reforms but he turned into the despot himself.
I see a definite correlation between absolute autocracy and modern totalitarianism. By eliminating nobles, Ivan secured total power for himself. In the 1930s, Stalin eliminated prominent communists to secure total authority for himself. The oprichnina was autocracy institutionalized, like the SS or NKVD. It was the insturment of 'rule by terror' that charecterizes modern totalitarianism. I have not seen any other institution that so resembles the insturments of modern despots before the Oprichnina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrin_73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
15. My family fled Crimea some 200 years ago
when russians started killing the civillians (Tatars)after they conquered Crimea.CRIMEAN TATARS


http://www.deanforamerica.com/
http://www.clark04.com/
http://www.kucinich.us
http://www.sharpton2004.org/



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Russians were killing tatars
for hundreds of years before that. It was part of a long war that started with the Tatars sacking Russia in the 1200s. Ivan made his reputation battling the tatars over kazan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolgoruky Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. History revised
Zuni, I respect your interest in Russian history. But I would advise you to read a little more critically and not draw historical analogies where none exist.

I also find it a bit jarring on the ear to hear comments such as "Russians were killing tartars for hundreds of years before that." You make it sound as if one day the whole Russian nation woke up one day and decided to kill Tartars just for the fun of it.

Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Dolgoruky
It is a fact.starting with Ivan IV, the Russians led huge campaigns against the tartars, and the wars led to massacres and atrocities until the Tartars were subdued. Then they were turned into citizens of the Russian mpire, with all that entailed. Wasn't it Marx who called Russia 'the prison of nations?'

You also seem to think Lenin was a humanitarian and a wonderful progressive.(I got that impression in a dispute before) Perhaps
YOU need to be a little more critical in your studies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. It's the truth
The Russians and the Tartars fought extremely savage wars for hundreds of years. Perhaps you should read your Russian history texts again.

The Tartars massacred Russians and vice versa.

If you concluded that I meant that the Russians just woke up and started murdering Tartars from that post, then the problem is your reading, not my writing. You read things that I never even implied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. Charlston Heston in "Bowling for Columbine"
'but the US has a more violent history than Russia."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I disagree
Russia's history is extremely dark and brutal. Russia is the only nation in the world gto voluntarily enslave the majority of it's citizens! Even the most enlightened Russian rulers throughout history have been cruel despots by western standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. That Was Kinda the Point
During the interview, Moore was asking Heston to explain how other countries w/gun control had such fewer deaths and we have so many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolgoruky Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Reply
Edited on Sun Dec-14-03 02:51 PM by dolgoruky
Can I ask a couple of questions, Zuni.

1. Have you ever been to Russia, or met any Soviet citizens who actually lived there?

2. Where do you get most of your info about Russian History from?

And while you're here, would you care to show me where I said Lenin was a humanitarian? Are you quoting me, or just doing a bit of interpretation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. answers
1. I am Russian, have relatives who live in Russia and have met them, but they have come here. I am planning to go to Russia next autumn. My grandparents grew up in the Soviet Union. My grandfather was an Officer in the Red Army during WWII, a prisoner of war (captured at Kharkov in 1942 with the Soviet 9th Army). My grandmother was a Cossack from Rostov. Many of my family's friends were also defectors and immigrants from Russia. Your answer--I have talked to many people who lived in the USSR.

I get my info mostly from books. I have been reading 'The Great Terror' by Robert Conquest this week. I have read many books about Soviet History. Among my favorites are the Figes book you seem to hate and Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. I also lke Colonel-General Chuikov's memoirs from the battle of Stalingrad, although they are full of Soviet Chest beating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Sheesh, you got *that* right!
If there's any completely miserable political system anywhere on earth, we Russians have tried it at some time or other: despotism, theocracy, absolute monarchy, plutocracy, statism, and the present system which is capitalism-run-amok that I label "kleptocracy". We never formally embraced fascism, but Stalin's brand of ruthless Marxism came awfully damned close (remember that Stalin and Hitler were once asshole-buddies).
It's interesting to note that Ivan's soubriette "grozny" actually translates into English as "awe-inspiring" rather than "terrible". As Anthony Burgess punned in *A Clockwork Orange*: "Horrorshow!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I use 'Dread' rather than 'awesome'
because it conotates fear.

Yes, we Russians have a knack for this. My mother, a full blood Russian said once that 'noone is crueler to themselves than we Russians'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolgoruky Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I'm sorry, Zuni
But you are talking out of your hiney. I lived in Russia for 4 years. My wife is Russian, whatever "Russian" is. You're totally off the mark. What's all this stuff about "full blood Russian"? Russians are about as cosmopolitan as they come. As for cruelty being a national characteristic, that is about as racist as saying, all black people are good dancers.

Get Real!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Russians are a diverse people
and my grandmother, from Rostov had many 'asian' charecteristics (almond shaped eyes and thick black hair, for example, which I have also)while my grandfather who was born in the Moscow region had more 'scandanavian' charecteristics like blond hair and blue eyes.

I meant that they both can trace their roots to Russia for centuries. They both spoke Russian and were considered Russian rather than Ukrainian, Chechen, Jewish, Polish, Uzbek, Byelorussian or Kalmyk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolgoruky Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I'm confused
Is it the Russians or Asians who are cruel? First you say your grandmother is full Russian. Then you say she is a bit Asian.

What exactly is the point your trying to make? Do you have a theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Cossacks have asian ancestry as well as European
she is considered Russian and lived in Russia. But due to the circumstances of the time and geography, the gene pool of cossacks is different. And people from the regions that are on the European/Asian border, like my grandma, have other non-slavic blood mixed in. Descendants of Tatars, Persians, Turks and others inhabit the area also.

Cossacks themselves are not pure slavs. The cossacks came from the corners of the Russian empire where the different groups intermixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. do I have to explain genetics?
about how when people of different races intermix, it often causes genetic charecteristics to be passed on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolgoruky Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Zuni...
... You are beginning to sound like a f*****g nazi, with all your talk of "gene pools", and "pure slavs". What's wrong with you, man? There's only one race, the human race.

Please, leave this genetic mumbo-jumbo to the KKK.

Enjoy your history studies, but don't take it so serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. you were the one who asked
about why one Russian might have more asian charecteristics than another. I was just explaining facts.
The Nazi slur is an example of a cheap shot to make me look bad when there is no evidence that I believe in any form of racial cleansing or racialist theory. I was explaining how some Russians have different physical charecteristics but share the same language and culture.

Besids Nazis considered Russians to be untermensch---I would never join a cult that considered me subhuman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Race - as usual - is irrelevant.
I'm half Russian. Like most Russians, I'm a mongrel. I'm Mongol/Tatar/Nordic/Slavic/Inuit/Ashkenazi/Cossack/WhatHaveYou. Some of my relatives look like me - pale redheads with green eyes. Some look like my mother - dark-skinned, dark-haired people with almond eyes.

It's NOT a racial identity we share - how could it be? Our faces reflect the legacy of a repeatedly raped and conquered people!

It's our shared history that makes us Russians. We're an exemplar of both the worst, and the best, humanity has to offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-14-03 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Thank you Judy
You said it better than I could have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar 13th 2025, 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC