Gunman attacks Lenin's corpse with a gun
Saturday, March 20, 2010 at 5:23PM In my view, this man's violent behaviour is no way of getting his point across. Nevertheless, I do not find the man's views as being in any way illegitimate. The Telegraph reports on this man's motivations...
The man, named as Sergey Karpentsov, is quoted as saying he wanted to let loose a volley of bullets at Lenin's carefully embalmed corpse, one of the Russian capital's most popular and ghoulish tourist attractions.
'My main demand is the quick bulldozing of the mausoleum which contains the body of the anti-Christ'...
Kudos to that, no kudos to the tactics. It should be mentioned that the man was a loner of questionable sanity. There are other people and organisations campaigning for the removal of the mausoleum and construction of a church on its grounds, dedicated to the New Martyrs, victims of Communist terror. I already posted about The Union of Orthodox Banner-Bearers' campaing. If you ask me, just a removal of Lenin's corpse would not do, I want all statues of Lenin to be removed and replaced with shrines to the Theotokos.
Update: Wow 8-) What a title :-)
Reader Comments (4)
I support Lenin's removal, at least once the 1950's-1960's generations largely die out. However, the Mausoleum is a historic landmark and should remain as is, nor do I support using it for any ideological statements (pro- or anti-Communist).
Consider:
Imperial Russia lost to Japan, and , despite significant Western financial and logistical support, comprehensively failed to organize an effective war effort, and collapsed in the face of Germany's secondary war effort.
The USSR trounced Japan twice, and, with significant Western financial and logistical support, overcame the main German war effort that drew upon the resources of a united continental Europe.
This suggests to me that Lenin had a positive part to play, at a critical time, in Russia's continuing tale of bygone years.
The US lost a war in in Southeast Asia in a way that didn't mean the former to be so weak.
The USSR learned a lesson from 1904-05.
Unlike 04-05, the Japanese in the mid to late 1930s and thereafter were militarily planning action in other areas. In comparison, their 1904-05 campaign against Russia was more concentrated. In addition, the Japanese received a good deal of aid from the Brits in the lead-up to the 04-05 war.
During WW I, Imperial Russia fared well against the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman forces. At the time, the Germans more intellignetly used Russian opponents of the Russian government, unlike the Nazis' stupidly bigoted stance during WW II.
I lean towards the idea of a simple marker noting where Lenin's tomb once stood.
From the point of view of historical accuracy and Russian identity, I'm glad to see post-Soviet Russia at large acknowledging a more positive side to Russia's pre-1917 era - one that acknowledges shortcomings - but not in the simplistic way that has been suggested in some circles.
Take him out, burn him and throw him in the garbage can.
Russia's history is completely screwed up due to a) post war Cold War propaganda and b) treacherous actions of the Trotskyite faction in Russia under Khrushchev who prior to WW2 although not conclusive conspired in industrial sabotage in the years prior hence the trails and so called purges.
Don’t agree with the author the review of Robert W. Thurston, Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941 Professor Grover Furrs socialist outlook but does a good review of Thurston’s book and overview of Russia under Stalin’s rule during the period.
http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/furr.html
In both cases lead by East and Western Trotskyites which off course now are the leading Neocon’s or people who support things like war against Serbia, etc.
Good article by John Laughland that sums up the post WW2 propaganda.
http://www.idc-europe.org/showerInformation.asp?Identificateur=29
@rkka
“Imperial Russia lost to Japan, and , despite significant Western financial and logistical support, comprehensively failed to organize an effective war effort, and collapsed in the face of Germany's secondary war effort.”
Actually Russia lost to Japan in 04-05 due to a combination of Britain industrializing the Japanese Navy to attack Russia and massive war loans floated to Japan by New York banker Jacob Schiff who since the 04-05 war working through Japanese intelligence help support Marxist groups in Russia through the “Friends of Russian Freedom” which the exiled Marxist community in New York lead by Trotsky who emigrated to the US from the Pale of Settlement to transfer funds to Trotsky establishing the Red Army to the tune of $1 billion in today’s money during the so called revolution.
Lenin and the other Bolshevik compatriots under him where more interested in using Russia as a base and finance for international revolution while the national Communists under Stalin wanted to create an industrial base in Russia.
To finance the civil war Lenin and the Bolsheviks transferred all of Russia’s assets abroad to foreign banks and investors through Swedish middle men. I think there was a book detailing this called History’s Greatest Heist.
“The USSR trounced Japan twice, and, with significant Western financial and logistical support, overcame the main German war effort that drew upon the resources of a united continental Europe.
This suggests to me that Lenin had a positive part to play, at a critical time, in Russia's continuing tale of bygone years.”
Actually western support was limited to the Caucasus and Siberia and from making sure the whites were not defeated to quickly so they could split Russia into 3 separate sections. This was the main objective during WW2 as it is today hence why we are really in Afghanistan for a push into Central Asia.
I would say it was Stalin’s industrial drive and FDR’s good neighbour foreign policy of opposing states of intervening in foreign countries with British and French positioning for German and Japanese attack on the USSR then measures against Germany after the war that they expected to win that saved it from defeat during WW2.