Russian liberals see nothing holy in Great Patriotic War

The process of formation of modern Russia was fraught with much socio-economic and political turmoil that resulted in the division of the Russian people in several mutually hostile political camps. Some call for further liberalization, others for strengthening of the statehood, while some (traditional for any country majority) just want certainty and a clear understanding of where and how the country is moving. Naturally, each side has its vision of history, its traditions, and its own truth.

One could say that the longer is the division of society, the deeper is the gulf between the opposing camps. But we are talking about the conservative ​​majority with their traditional values and "non-traditional" (in terms of civil thought) minority.

As one of the main (one might even say "sacred") events in the Russian history, the Great Patriotic War is constantly "under fire" with the liberals. Initially liberal ideologues sought to increase the number of victims by the Soviet Army, then began accusing the military leadership of incompetence. Parallel to this, liberals have organized a massive attack on the communist ideology equating the Soviet Union and its successor Russia with fascist countries. As a result of the liberal interpretation of history, a generation emerged in Russia (remember the 1990s) seriously talking about "Stalin equals Hitler" and "maybe we should have surrendered, we would have been Europeans now." Some even say that fascism "is better than communism because it did not negate private property," which means that "the war was a mistake." Of course, this model of perception of history is exaggerated, but it happens sometimes.

It is not surprising that under the leadership of the 26-year-old chief editor of the website of "Dozhd" ("Rain") TV channel Ilya Klishin a poll popped up on the website and on air: "Would it have been better to surrender Leningrad and save thousands of lives?" All thinking people obviously see blasphemy in this question as the answer "Yes" would mean not only recognition of useless sacrifices and heroism of the defenders and residents of Leningrad, but also destruction of the city (this is what stated in the documents of Hitler's command). However, this was the response of as many as 54%.

The editors of "Dozhd" issued an apology for the controversial poll through the personal twitter account of Klishin, and then started complaining about political attacks. Furthermore, the liberal public is very clearly beginning to advocate for the TV channel and its survey, but this is not enough for "Dozhd." (On Facebook they complained about lack of journalistic solidarity and "traitors"), and said that the channel had to be understood and pardoned for an accidental error.

Accidental, you say? Why then the chief editor wrote earlier "because of Napoleon the constitution was likely to appear 50-100 earlier, and a couple of years later he would have left anyway. But here is a paradox: because our heroic ancestors repeatedly won over the European invaders, was the development impeded?" Well, Mr. Klishin believes that the invaders who killed hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers were good for Russia's democratic development.

This is the same Ilya Klishin who apologized for the poll in a tweet. This is the same man who in December of 2011 created the first invitation to Bolotnaya, and later headed the Community "We were on Bolotnaya," worked in hipster WOS and now "integrated" in "Dozhd." He integrated so deeply that there was no news about staffing decisions from Sindeeva.

On the contrary, her husband, a notorious millionaire and former head of "KIT Finance" Vinokourov said that Deputy Minister of Communications and Mass Communications Alexei Volin suggested firing for idiocy, but there is no such article in the Russian Labor Code. He added that the organization did not employ idiots. Sufficient measures were taken to ensure that junior staff avoids such situations. Understandably, he is talking about chief editor Klishin.

It is clear that the conflict with "Dozhd" will be resolved one way or another. The laws prohibiting denial of heroism of the Soviet army in the war with the Nazis have long been submitted to the Duma by analogy with the Israeli law banning Holocaust denial. Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Communications will check "Dozhd" for violations of the legislation. Cable companies will have to decide whether to leave it unplugged or broadcast (which does not present a problem for the main liberal media outlet as its audience does not watch TV, only internet, and will continue watching it on the internet and pay for the subscription).

There is a different issue, namely, people asked about the surrender of Leningrad answered "Yes."  What caused their view of the socio-political and historical picture of the world, their understanding of themselves as part of the society? Lack of education? Influence of neoliberal beliefs? This minority cannot be ignored as it studies, works, and raises their children alongside us. They cannot be punished either as long as they do not violate the law.

This means they have to be explained time and again. Intelligibly. With exceptional, piercing evidence. Maybe not them, but those who they impact.

Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov