• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Nikolay Petrov"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

The Children of Stalin

Stalin’s growing popularity in Russia is less a function of an organized state propaganda effort to promote him than it is a result of the government’s lack of interest in setting the historical record straight on Stalin. Attention is increasingly focused on the greatness of the country and its achievements under Stalin’s rule.

Link Copied
By Nikolay Petrov
Published on Sep 1, 2009

Source: the Moscow Times

The Children of StalinTwo significant events occurred last week. The first was the holding of the first session of the presidential commission “for counteracting attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia’s interests.”

The second was the opening of Moscow’s newly renovated Kurskaya metro station, whose walls once again bear a verse from the 1944 version of the Soviet anthem: “Stalin raised us to be loyal to the nation; He inspired us to work and be heroic.”
 
This phrase had been plastered over during Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s campaign against Stalin’s personality cult. On the eve of commemorations marking the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, both events can be viewed as elements of Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.
 
Praising Stalin on the walls of the Kurskaya metro station can be seen as an excellent test. But it is not so much a test for the public as it is a test for the political elite. It is telling that so far not a single official has taken personal responsibility for allowing the public praise of Stalin. Politicians are biding their time. They are in no rush to touch this hot potato. This especially applies to members of the main political parties who are currently engaged in an election campaign for seats in the Moscow City Duma. Only the Yabloko party has come out with a clearly defined position. It issued a harsh evaluation of Stalin and condemned the decision to by the Moscow authorities to adorn the Kurskaya station with words of praise for Stalin.
 
It is no secret that Stalin enjoys enormous popularity in Russia, as was demonstrated a year ago by the television project titled “The Name of Russia.” The fact that he is so popular is less a function of an organized state propaganda effort to promote Stalin than it is a result of the government’s lack of interest in setting the historical record straight on Stalin.
 
It is also a manifestation of the primacy of state interests over the interests of individuals — even when those individuals number in the millions. In recent years, the authorities have persistently cultivated the Stalinist myth in the public mind. Attention is increasingly focused on the greatness of the country and its achievements under Stalin’s rule — primarily the rapid modernization of the economy and the Soviet victory in World War II.
 
Even the occasional harsh criticism of Stalin refer only to his crimes and repressions in domestic affairs, while foreign policy was always viewed as peaceful. The cornerstone of post-Soviet ideology is the myth of the Soviet people — liberators who through their colossal sacrifices brought the world salvation from the “brown plague” of Nazism.
 
During his visit to Poland on Tuesday, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — who in many ways propagates the spirit of the Stalin myth — is expected to articulate the latest version of the role the Soviet Union and Stalin played in World War II. Putin’s account of the Soviet role in World War II runs counter to that of all other leaders of countries that participated in the war.
 
History has given Putin a new chance to offer a more balanced and honest picture of Moscow’s role in World War II. On Tuesday, let’s hope he takes advantage of this opportunity.
 

About the Author

Nikolay Petrov

Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center

Nikolay Petrov was the chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Society and Regions Program. Until 2006, he also worked at the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences, where he started to work in 1982.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Moscow Elections: Winners and Losers

      Nikolay Petrov

  • Commentary
    September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' Coevolution

      Nikolay Petrov

Nikolay Petrov
Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center
Nikolay Petrov
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyCaucasusRussiaEastern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

    “Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

      Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Tiananmen Gate with US and Chinese flags
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Should Tackle a Previously Impossible AI Conversation

    Previous dialogues ended in failure. This time could be different.

      Scott Singer

  • Trump and others walking down a red carpet, with Air Force One in the background
    Commentary
    Emissary
    “China Doesn’t Do Anything for Free”

    Why the outcomes of the U.S.-China meetings may be limited.


      Aaron David Miller, David Rennie

  • A drone flies in front of an Iranian flag in southern Tehran, Iran
    Article
    The Unintended Consequences of Iran’s Asymmetric Strategy and America’s AI War

    The Iran war is unique in the scope and scale of asymmetric warfare and AI-enabled conflict. These will test the limits of protecting civilians.

      Steve Feldstein

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.