Moral lessons of Solzhenitsyn that may be true. Moral problems of the story A

What does the history of religions teach us? That they fanned the flames of intolerance everywhere, littered the plains with corpses, watered the earth with blood, burned cities, devastated states; but they never made people better.

Solzhenitsyn Alexander Isaevich was born on December 11, 1918 in Kislovodsk. The boy was still fond of literature at school, wrote articles, studied in the drama club. But the fact that he wants to be a writer, he clearly understood only by the end of the university. Almost immediately, the idea of ​​writing a series of novels about the revolution arose. Solzhenitsyn set to work, but in October 1941 he was drafted into the army, and by the end of the war (in February 1945), the writer, who had already become a captain and was awarded two orders, was arrested for correspondence with an old comrade in which he spoke unflatteringly about the leader. Alexander Isaevich knew perfectly well about censorship, but the internal opposition to totalitarianism did not allow him to remain silent, and he decides to criticize "Stalin himself." Solzhenitsyn's Moral Lessons Considering the leader's tough policy, the expected result was a harsh court sentence - 8 years in the camps for propaganda and agitation.

But it was during the conclusion that Solzhenitsyn had the idea of ​​the need to tell the world about all the horrors of the Stalinist camps. In March 1953, on the day of the death of the leader, the writer is released from the camp hell.

An important stage in subsequent events in the life of the writer was the report of the USSR Secretary General Khrushchev on the "cult of personality", exposing the crimes of the deceased Stalin. By that time, Alexander Isaevich was finishing work on his work "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", and the work "Matryona's Dvor" soon followed. But time did not stand still, events developed rapidly, and the Khrushchev thaw came to an end. The country was expecting a new round of repressions and persecution of representatives of the intelligentsia and culture. Under these conditions, Alexander Isaevich's conflict with the government was again inevitable. In 1969, he was expelled from the Union of Writers for nothing more than his desire to tell the truth. All life Solzhenitsyn, as he himself put it, "opened all the sores on the face of Soviet power."

In 1973, the KGB confiscated the manuscript of The Gulag Archipelago, which was based on the author's own memoirs, as well as the testimonies of more than 200 prisoners. Solzhenitsyn's Moral Lessons On February 12, 1974, the writer was again arrested, accused of high treason, and deported to the FRG after being deprived of his USSR citizenship.

In the 90s, Alexander Solzhenitsyn returned to his homeland, but already in 2008, at the age of 90, the writer died of heart failure. Solzhenitsyn, until the last day of his life, remained a detractor of a difficult era, which became one of the most dramatic pages in Russian history. The Moral Lessons of Solzhenitsyn

Even though there is no benefit for a person to lie, this does not mean that he is telling the truth: they lie simply in the name of lies.

However, fans of the genius will object to us: yes, let's say with the style of A.I. Solzhenitsyn has problems, but what content, what ideas, what is their significance for society!

You will be told that he received the Nobel Prize in Literature not for literature, but for “ moral strength in the traditions of great Russian literature ", i.e. not for the form, but for the content, in other words, for ideology.

What. Let's deal with ideology and with "moral force". And we will see with horror that there is nothing to talk about here either. The moral side of most of Solzhenitsyn's works as a whole does not rise above the ninth circle of Dante's hell. An ice well where traitors are punished.

Why? Because Solzhenitsyn not only justified, but glorified and glorified betrayal. First of all - treason to the Motherland.

Here is the pearl of Solzhenitsyn's thought: Sometimes we want to lie, but the Language won't let us. These people were declared traitors, but the language was remarkably wrong - and judges, and prosecutors, and investigators. And the convicts themselves, and the whole people, and the newspapers repeated and reinforced this mistake, involuntarily giving out the truth, they wanted to declare them traitors to the Motherland, but no one spoke or wrote even in court materials other than "traitors to the Motherland."

You said! These were not traitors to her, but her traitors. It was not they, the unfortunate ones, who betrayed the Motherland, but the prudent Motherland betrayed them and, moreover, THREE TIMES.

For the first time, she betrayed them ineptly on the battlefield - when the government, beloved by the Motherland, did everything it could to lose the war: it destroyed the lines of fortifications, set up aircraft to defeat, dismantled tanks and artillery, deprived sensible generals and forbade the armies to resist. Prisoners of war - these were precisely those whose bodies the blow was taken and the Wehrmacht stopped.

The second time the Motherland heartlessly betrayed them, leaving them to die in captivity.

And now, for the third time, she shamelessly betrayed them, luring them with maternal love (“The Motherland has forgiven! The Motherland is calling!”) And throwing a noose on the border » .

From a factual point of view, most of what has been said is an unscrupulous lie. Not only Solzhenitsyn, however, but also Khrushchev's propagandists. We will focus on this below. From a moral point of view, this is not just a justification of collaborationism and military treason, but also a complete perversion of concepts: it is no longer a soldier who betrayed the military oath and went against the Motherland with weapons, but the Motherland itself, which is in trouble, becomes a traitor, because, as if allowed this soldier to be captured and allegedly did not show proper care for him. Accordingly, from the point of view of Solzhenitsyn, this soldier has the right to do anything with his homeland, that is, with his people: to exterminate, kill, burn, rape. And the corresponding conclusion regarding Vlasov and the Vlasovites: "They did not straighten up as slaves from the other side of the front, in order to at least swing, to threaten the mustachioed Father." The fact that another one hundred and ninety million inhabitants of the Soviet Union, whom the Germans and Vlasovites were going to exterminate, stood behind the mustachioed father, does not interest the author. As for non-slaves, it is ridiculous and disgusting to portray simple henchmen of the SS and Himmler's subordinates as such freedom-loving people. But more on that below.

But in general, this is a complete perversion of the moral hierarchy. The offended individual puts himself above the Motherland. A normal Russian person has a different attitude towards Russia, towards the Motherland:

“But the Russians among labors and battles,

although sometimes they become numb with despair,

they have no resentment towards Russia:

she is above all insults for them.

The quintessence of Russophobia and anti-patriotism is contained in the third part of The Gulag Archipelago, where Solzhenitsyn included passages that horrified even many of his Soviet associates. For example, this one, with the justification of collaborators, in particular, those who taught under the Germans: “Of course, you will have to pay for this. Portraits with mustaches will have to be taken out of the school, and portraits with mustaches may be brought in. anniversary instead of the October one) to give a speech in praise of a new wonderful life - and it is really bad. But after all, speeches were made earlier in praise of a wonderful life, and it was also bad. That is, before, children had to prevaricate and lie much more... ". In other words, what is the difference between the fascist regime and the Soviet one. They are the same. The Soviet one, however, is a little worse - you had to lie more!

And from this an aphorism was forged (more precisely, an aphonarism): “ So what if the Germans won? There was a portrait with a mustache, they would have hung it with a mustache. Everything and business!". Isn't it from this vile phrase that the completely harmless "tales" about "Bavarian beer" and similar reasoning then went?

As you know, in nature there are no absolutely equal quantities. Therefore, one way or another, the “concept of two equally criminal totalitarian regimes” developed by German historians of the 60s-70s requires a choice. And Solzhenitsyn chooses the Nazis. For him, the Gestapo is better than the NKVD, the Nazi regime is softer, more humane and less durable than the Soviet one. Solzhenitsyn argues as follows: H oh principle! But the very principle! But does a Russian person have the right to rely on the elbow of German imperialism to achieve his political goals, even if they seem right to him?!.. And even at the moment of a merciless war against him?
Here, however, is the key question: for purposes that seem noble to you, is it possible to use the support of German imperialism, which is at war with Russia?
Everyone will unanimously exclaim today: no! No! No!
But then where did the German sealed carriage from Switzerland to Sweden and with a stop (as we have now learned) come from in Berlin? The entire press, from the Mensheviks to the Cadets, also shouted: No! No! - and the Bolsheviks explained that this is possible, that it is even ridiculous to reproach it. Yes, and not one there was a car. And in the summer of 1918, how many wagons the Bolsheviks drove from Russia - sometimes with food, sometimes with gold - and everything was in the mouth of Wilhelm! P_r_e_v_r_a_t_i_t_b _v_o_y_n_u _v _g_r_a_zh_d_a_n_s_k_u_yu - Lenin suggested this before the Vlasovites.
- But ts_e_l_i! but what were the goals?
A - what?
But that is Wilhelm! Kaiser! Kaiser! The same is not Hitler! And in Russia once there was a government? temporary...
However, due to military passion, we once did not write anything about the Kaiser other than "fierce" and "bloodthirsty", we shouted about the Kaiser's soldiers that they pricked babies' heads on stones. But let - the Kaiser. However, the Provisional also did not have a Cheka, did not shoot in the back of the head, did not put them in camps, did not drive them into collective farms, did not come up to the throat with dregs. Temporary - also not Stalinist. proportionally.

Before us is a clear rehabilitation of Nazism and cooperation with it, as well as the legitimization of treason by referring to the historical precedent of the Bolsheviks (largely false). It turns out that one can and should cooperate with Nazism in the name of social protest, in the name of crushing the bad Stalin. Why be surprised at Alexandrov's dissertation recently rejected by the Higher Attestation Commission, in which the idea that Vlasovites are heroes of anti-Soviet social protest is suggested, if schools are ordered to study Solzhenitsyn's Gulag? In general, these (and other) Solzhenitsyn’s arguments fall entirely under the charge of rehabilitating fascism and under the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, as well as under the law on criminal liability for equalizing the USSR and Germany, for distorting the role of the USSR during the Second World War. For the rehabilitation of Vlasov and the Vlasovites (as well as for many other things), the Gulag Archipelago deserves to be included in the list of extremist literature, and not in the school curriculum. It is known that the First Division of the so-called. The Russian Liberation Army of Vlasov consisted mostly of former punishers - the so-called. The “Kaminsky Brigade”, which destroyed civilians in the territory of Bryansk, Belarus, Poland, the same “Kaminsky Brigade”, which Solzhenitsyn is trying to present in the “Archipelago” as a symbol of the liberation movement of Russia, and its commander as an “honorary great martyr”, allegedly martyred by the Red Army ( in fact - by the Germans for cruelty, see about him below).

Many are offended by the nickname "literary Vlasovite" stuck to Solzhenitsyn. However, why be offended if the Nobel laureate himself signed his love for Vlasov and the Vlasov movement? " I’ll take it upon myself to say: yes, our people would not be worth anything, would be a people of hopeless serfs, if in this war I had missed at least shaking a rifle at the Stalinist government from afar, I would have missed even swearing and swearing at [Father]. The Germans had a general conspiracy - and what about us? Our top generals were (and remain to this day) insignificant, corrupted by party ideology and self-interest, and did not retain the national spirit, as happens in other countries. And only [lower classes] of the soldier-muzhik-Cossacks swung and hit. It was entirely - [lower classes], there was vanishingly little participation of the former nobility from emigration or the former rich strata, or the intelligentsia. And if this movement were given a free scope, as it flowed from the first weeks of the war, then it would become a kind of new Pugachev region: in terms of the breadth and level of the captured layers, in support of the population, in Cossack participation, in spirit - to pay off the noble villains, according to spontaneity of pressure with the weakness of leadership. In any case, this movement was much more popular, [common people], than the entire intelligentsia "liberation movement" from the beginning of the twentieth century until February 17, with its allegedly popular goals and with its October fruits. But he was not destined to turn around, but to die shamefully with the stigma: [treason] .

In other words, the Vlasovites are folk heroes, the new Pugachevs (albeit potentially), with the mighty Cossack swing of the people's liberation movement. We note that it is from here that such opuses grow, as, where this thesis of Solzhenitsyn is reproduced almost verbatim that "Vlasovites were not given to become heroes, but they could become them." And it's all lies, lies and lies.

Solzhenitsyn's thesis that the Vlasov movement was grassroots, popular is a lie. The Vlasov project was partially realized only because Vlasov visited Himmler in September 1944 and he gave the go-ahead to create ... 2 divisions. As if with them it was possible to defeat the eight millionth Red Army! Vlasov drove the prisoners of war who trusted him to a shameful slaughter in order to prolong the days of Hitler and Himmler. Every step of Vlasov was controlled by the Gestapo, while the Nazis were not shy. The German general, who appeared at the political lesson of the Vlasovites, without any ceremony, held a pointer across the Urals and said: “As for these mountains, everything is ours. Well, further east is yours.” Even the Vlasovites, who had seen everything, were stunned by such impudence. But nothing, they endured it too. This case was in February 1945, when the Germans, it seemed, had to hide their colonial claims in their pocket, far and deep. And nothing of the sort. This case also shows the measure of the "independence" of the Vlasov government, so to speak, the measure of respect of the Germans for their Russian accomplices, and the measure of truthfulness in Vlasov's promises to create Russia within the borders of 1938, about which Solzhenitsyn reverently writes.

In addition, the KONR and ROA were organized by the same Soviet generals, former members of the CPSU (b) under the supervision of the SS and SD, the same ones whom Solzhenitsyn accuses of corruption and self-interest. Some unnatural Nazi-Communist symbiosis formed. A hater of the Soviet system, but at times a sober observer, Ivan Solonevich rightly remarks: “ It is impossible to explain by mere chance the fact that only communists were admitted to the leadership of the Vlasov army, who in 1943 and 1948 called themselves "former communists." I do not believe in "former communists" because belonging to the communist party is not at all limited to the presence of a party card, it is determined by the presence of "party skills", which are not so easy to get rid of » . Solonevich was unaware of the now fashionable word “mentality”, but in his work he shows a stunning example of the synthesis of the Nazi and communist mentality of the Vlasov leaders: “ My book Bolshevism and the Peasantry, which I tried to publish in Prague under my own name, was banned by the Vlasov censorship for criticizing the “liquidation of the kulak as a class.” Zhilenkov told me about this liquidation of the Russian peasant in tones of sincere Party enthusiasm... » . Naturally, in most of the occupied territories, the Nazis left the collective farms intact: it was more convenient for them to exploit the Russian peasant.

And the final conclusion of Solonevich is irrefutable: “ No one would recommend carrying the banner of the monarchy to Russia under the cover of Hitler and Himmler, Vlasov and Zhilenkov. All these four were people of the same order: Vlasov was given only the demonstration-combat unit of the "army", and the policy of this army was pursued by Himmler with the hands of Zhilenkov. I would stand under the banner of a sort of double-headed eagle, one head of which would stick out from the OGPU, and the other from the Gestapo » . Let's just add: from the OGPU, which carried out unjust repressions in 1937 and was largely tamed by Stalin and Beria in 1939.

Note that communism was specific. Trotskyist spill. No wonder Hitler respected Trotsky, who believed that Hitler's victory over Russia provided the only chance for the triumph of genuine communism.

And just the communist-Trotskyist mentality grows irresistibly out of Solzhenitsyn. He admires the "failed Pugachevism", right in the spirit of communist historians, such as Pokrovsky, forgetting about the possible foreign springs of this rebellion and the cruelties, abominations and disgusting things that the Pugachevites did. One would like to say: with whom are you, masters of culture? Decide! Either you are against the class struggle in all cases, or you are for it. And it turns out that there are rebels and not their own, their own "oppositionists" and evil Taliban ... Hypocrisy, and only what the State Department will envy.

On the one hand, Solzhenitsyn hates Lenin and Lenin's idea of ​​turning the "imperialist war into a civil one", but willingly accepts it for the Vlasovites (see above). And why - because they fought against Stalin. Together with Wilhelm, it turns out, it is impossible, but with Hitler against Stalin - you can!

Such a concept is associated with hatred for the Soviet system, which inevitably transfers to historical Russia. But hatred numbs the mind. And the sleep of reason produces monsters.

Many opuses of the laureate are filled with praises of betrayal and anti-patriotism. For example, "In the first circle." Solzhenitsyn seeks to justify the betrayal of the diplomat Volodin, who sought to prevent the transfer of atomic secrets to Soviet intelligence officers, with horror stories about a tyrant who will receive a superweapon in his hands. It is significant, however, that three Japanese words - Hiroshima, Nagasaki and hibakusha - are missing from the First Circle. The meteorological pilot Iserli, who reported that the skies were clear over Hiroshima, after the war was tormented by pangs of conscience and demanded to be imprisoned until he was thrown into a lunatic asylum.
After the war, a very revealing pamphlet was published with documentary memoirs of the crew of the Enola Gay bomber, which delivered the first atomic bomb "Kid" to Hiroshima. How did these twelve people feel when they saw the city below them, reduced to ashes by them?
NELSON. As soon as the bomb separated, the plane turned 160 degrees and went down sharply to gain speed. Everyone put on dark glasses.
JEPSON. This waiting was the most unsettling moment of the flight. I knew the bomb would fall for 47 seconds and started counting in my head, but when I got to 47 nothing happened. Then I remembered that the shock wave would still take time to catch up with us, and just then it came.
CARON. I took pictures. It was a breathtaking sight. An ash gray smoke mushroom with a red core. It was evident that everything inside was on fire. I was ordered to count the fires. Damn it, I immediately realized that this was unthinkable! A swirling, boiling mist, like lava, covered the city and spread outward to the foothills.
SHUMARD. Everything in that cloud was death. Along with the smoke, some black fragments flew up. One of us said: "These are the souls of the Japanese ascending to heaven."
BESER. Yes, everything that could burn in the city was on fire. "Guys, you just dropped the first atomic bomb in history!" came the voice of Colonel Tibbets through the headsets. I recorded everything on tape, but then someone put all these tapes under lock and key.
CARON. On the way back, the commander asked me what I thought about the flight. "It's worse than driving your backside down a mountain in Coney Island Park for a quarter of a dollar," I joked. "Then I'll collect a quarter from you when we sit down!" laughed the colonel. "We'll have to wait until payday!" we answered in unison.
VAN KIRK. The main thought was, of course, about myself: to get out of all this as soon as possible and return whole.
FERIBI. Captain First Class Parsons and I were to draw up a report to send to the President via Guam.
TIBBETS. None of the conditional expressions that had been agreed upon were suitable, and we decided to transmit the telegram in clear text. I do not remember it verbatim, but it said that the results of the bombing exceeded all expectations. .

Everything seems to be clear here. No sign of remorse. Killing 200,000 people is an attraction. Ordinary fascism, even more terrible in its cynical vulgarity.

And here is what the first eyewitnesses saw from the ground. Here is a report by Birt Bratchet, who visited Hiroshima in September 1945: “On the morning of September 3, Burchett stepped off the train in Hiroshima, becoming the first foreign correspondent to see the city after the atomic explosion. Together with the Japanese journalist Nakamura from the Kyodo news agency Tsushin Burchett walked around the endless reddish ashes, visited the street first aid stations. And there, among the ruins and groans, he tapped out his report on a typewriter, entitled: "I am writing about this to warn the world ..."

"... Almost a month after the first atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima, people continue to die in the city - mysteriously and horribly. The townspeople, who were not injured on the day of the disaster, are dying from an unknown disease, which I can only call atomic plague "For no apparent reason, their health begins to decline. Their hair falls out, spots appear on their bodies, and their ears, nose, and mouth bleed. Hiroshima," Burchett wrote, "does not look like a city that had suffered from a conventional bombing. The impression is as if a giant skating rink passed down the street, crushing all living things. At this first living test site, where the power of the atomic bomb was tested, I saw an inexpressible, nightmarish devastation that I had not seen anywhere in the four years of the war. "
After the bombing, real hell reigned in Hiroshima. Miraculously surviving witness Akiko Takahura recalls:

« Three colors characterize for me the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima: black, red and brown. Black - because the explosion cut off the sunlight and plunged the world into darkness. Red was the color of blood flowing from wounded and broken people. It was also the color of the fires that burned everything in the city. Brown was the color of burnt, peeling skin exposed to light from the explosion. » .

From thermal radiation, some Japanese instantly evaporated, leaving shadows on the walls or on the pavement. The shock wave swept away buildings and killed thousands of people. A real fiery tornado raged in Hiroshima, in which thousands of civilians burned alive

The total number of deaths in the explosion alone ranged from 90,000 to 166,000 people in Hiroshima and from 60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki. And that's not all - about 200 thousand people died from radiation sickness.
This is what would have awaited us if not for the Soviet uranium project. Of course, in Stalin's time a lot of lawlessness was committed, but we never used the atomic bomb in war. The Soviet Union did nothing like the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let's also not forget that now we are living the fruits of Stalinist-Brezhnev industrialization, unthinkable without collectivization (the same oil and gas complex, for example) and if now the Russian state is independent and still invulnerable to external aggression, if the tragedy of Yugoslavia and Iraq is not repeated in our open spaces , then this is largely due to the military-industrial complex and the nuclear missile shield laid down under Stalin. And if after the war the Americans did not burn us in a nuclear fire, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then to a certain extent we owe this to Stalin as the initiator of the nuclear project.
But Solzhenitsyn considers the preservation of the USSR to be a crime. For him, this is a prison led by a cannibal. Here is the key quote: “Who is right, who is wrong? Who can say it? - Yes, I'll tell you! - the enlightened Spiridon readily responded, with such readiness, as if they were asking him which duty officer would take over on duty in the morning. - I'll tell you: the wolfhound is right, but the cannibal is not! - How-how-how? Nerzhin gasped at the simplicity and strength of the decision. “That’s it,” Spiridon repeated with cruel certainty, turning all the way to Nerzhin: “[The wolfhound is right, but the cannibal is wrong]. And, bending down, he breathed hotly from under his mustache into Nerzhin's face:
- If they told me, Gleba, now: such a plane is flying, an atomic bomb is on it. If you want, they will bury you here like a dog under the stairs, and they will block your family, and a million more people, but with you - Father Mustache and all their establishment with the root, so that there is no more, so that the people do not suffer in the camps, on collective farms, on forestry ?

Spiridon tensed, propping up with his steep shoulders the stairs that seemed to be falling on him, and with it the roof, and all of Moscow. - I, Gleba, believe me? I can't stand it anymore! endure - no more! I would say, - he turned his head to the plane: - Come on! Well! throw! Rush!! Spiridon's face was twisted with weariness and anguish. On the reddish lower eyelids from the unseeing eyes, a tear floated .

Well, yes, rush, so as not to suffer. No one will suffer. All sufferers will evaporate like the Japanese on asphalt. Solzhenitsyn proposes the guillotine as a remedy for headaches... In my opinion, such statements should fall under the criminal article "Declination to suicide." And who is the real cannibal? Maybe Truman and the crew of the Enola Gay?

When we read The First Circle, we couldn't help but feel that we've all heard it. in poetic form. From a beautiful emigrant far away.

“Russia has been living in prison for thirty years.
On Solovki or Kolyma.
And only in Kolyma and Solovki
Russia is the one that will live for centuries.

Everything else is planetary hell:
Damned Kremlin, crazy Stalingrad.
They deserve only one
Fire that consumes him."

These are poems by Georgy Ivanov, written in 1949, "a wonderful Russian patriot", according to Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov. Professor Aleksey Svetozarsky aptly spoke about these verses: “ What to expect from this glorious son of the Silver Age? Cardboard swords and blood for them, especially someone else's, is "cranberry juice", including the one that flowed near Stalingrad. Well, the fact that both the Kremlin and Stalingrad are worthy of a "withering" fire, then in this the "patriot" himself, having successfully sat out both the war and the occupation in a quiet French outback, was, alas, not alone in his desire. The "cleansing" fire of nuclear war was mentioned in the Paschal message of 1948 of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. There was such a word. But, fortunately, that's not the case. By the way, maybe these verses of "one of the most outstanding poets of the Russian diaspora" were inspired by this message? Who knows? » .
By the way, it is worth reading it carefully. Here is what Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky) wrote in 1948: “ Our time has invented its own special means of exterminating people and all life on earth: they have such destructive power that in an instant they can turn large spaces into a continuous desert. Everything is ready to be incinerated by this hellish fire, caused by man himself from the abyss, and we again hear the prophet’s complaint addressed to God: “Until the earth and the grass will weep, all the grass will dry up from the malice of those who live on it” (Jeremiah 12, 4). But this terrible devastating fire has not only a destructive, but also a cleansing effect: for it burns those who ignite it, and with it all the vices, crimes and passions with which they defile the earth. [...] Atomic bombs and all other destructive means invented by modern technology are truly less dangerous for our Fatherland than the moral decay that the highest representatives of civil and ecclesiastical power bring into the Russian soul by their example. The decomposition of the atom brings with it only physical devastation and destruction, and the corruption of the mind, heart and will entails the spiritual death of an entire nation, after which there is no resurrection. »

In other words, not only Stalin, Zhukov, Voroshilov, Rokossovsky were doomed to burning, but also His Holiness Patriarch Alexy I, Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov), Metropolitan Joseph (Chernov), St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) - the then "highest representatives of church authority." And millions of our compatriots, including millions of believing Orthodox Christians, who suffered both persecution and the Great Patriotic War. Only Metropolitan Anastassy, ​​very delicately and politically correct, is silent about the moral decay and example that the highest representatives of Western civil and ecclesiastical authorities, including the Orthodox, did not disdain to cooperate with the Nazis in Germany and Yugoslavia. And he forgets the great gospel words: “With what measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” Let us note, by the way, that in 1948-49 the words about sizzling fire rested on a solid military foundation - one hundred US atomic bombs ready to fall on the USSR. So this rhetoric served the well-known military intentions - to destroy Soviet Russia to the ground ...
The fact that Solzhenitsyn is dependent on foreign concepts is not news. But it is scary that he provided information service for a possible nuclear attack on the USSR, that is, he committed high treason. Simply put, a betrayal of their homeland.
In The First Circle, a successful epithet appears for the diplomat Volodin, who committed high treason. Prince Kurbsky. Ready to rise up against the "tyrant" Grozny. Only Kurbsky failed. And this is the essence of the conflict. A noble traitor, a traitor, going against the ruler of the Russian Land. And, objectively, against their homeland. Ready to participate in its burning by nuclear fire. On the basis of blind hatred for his benefactor and father, albeit at times harsh and harsh. However, Volodin merges with Solzhenitsyn himself, who became the same traitor and pervert who spoke out against the formidable Father of the peoples. Only Solzhenitsyn turned out to be more successful than both Volodin and Kurbsky: he successfully moved abroad, and even with pomp, unlike the runaway boyar, and there, in imitation of Kurbsky, speaking the language of A.K. Tolstoy,

Behind the safe sitting frontier,

He began to bark like a dog from behind a fence.

As they say, what you laugh at, you will serve. Solzhenitsyn did not favor Herzen, but he became like him in that from the "other side" he rang the bell of the new Russian revolution and, at the same time, for intervention, and called not even for an ax, but for an atomic club against his Fatherland.

When viewed objectively, there is still a certain amount of truth in the image of Volodin. Satisfied idleness prompted the Decembrists to revolt on December 14 against the benefactor-tsar. It also encouraged the children of the nomenklatura to go to pro-fascist demonstrations in the early eighties. But then what is the price of this feat? And if we look at the life of Solzhenitsyn in the USSR from 1962 to 1974, we will see almost the same idleness, generously paid, by the way, not only by foreign, but also by Soviet sources of funding.

And, finally, one more thing. Innocent participates in betrayal. Not only the Russian Power as a whole. In his call - the fate of intelligence officer Yuri Koval and his American assistants, whom he is ready to put in the electric chair. For your dreams and hate. And Solzhenitsyn sings of Judas sin and, in fact, writes a literary denunciation of his homeland. In the previous chapter, we spoke about the artistic and historical failure of the novel "In the First Circle", however, we must make an important reservation. It is unconvincing for a sane reader, but for someone who is wound up with anti-Soviet propaganda and does not understand Soviet realities and considers the USSR and Russia to be an evil empire in advance. "In the first circle" may well be acceptable, of course, not as a work of art, but as an agitation. All the same, as a call to the greyhounds on the hunt: “Atu him. Kus-kus." And the original addressee of the novel is the Western reader, who by all means should be convinced that the USSR is a kingdom of darkness, worthy of only one thing - “fire that incinerates it,” that is, atomic bombing. In other words, Solzhenitsyn not only sings, but also commits the Judas sin.

Solonevich I.L. So what happened in Germany // Solonevich I.S. Communism, National Socialism and European Democracy. - M., 2003. S. 94

Here is just one of the episodes. Pugachev entered the altar, sat down on the church altar and said: "How long have I been sitting on the altar"... St. George's Church was defiled even with feces - horse and human. See Pushkin A.S. History of Pugachev. Pushkin A.S. Collected works. T.8. P. 100. M., 1977. In total, at least 10,000 people were executed by the Pugachevites, not only nobles, but also priests, merchants and peasants. There is a version according to which Pugachev was trained by the Polish confederates.

Vsevolod Ovchinnikov. Hot ash. M, 1980. S. 60-61.

There. P. 82. Note that the Pentagon hastened to declare Burchett a victim of Japanese propaganda and declare that there are no consequences of radiation in Hiroshima.

There. S. 51.

In the first circle. Collected works. T.3. M., 1991. S.

Svetozarsky A. Something about the church sermon Fr. George Mitrofanov. https://pravoslavie.ru/37771.html

"Holy Rus'". Stuttgart, 1948 January.

Vasilyk V.V. About Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the white demon. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/81242.html

Tolstoy A.K. Death of Ivan the Terrible. Tolstoy A.K. Collected works. T. 3. M., 1980. S. 32.

How to remain human in difficult living conditions? Answering this question, AI Solzhenitsyn in his works reveals the problems of morality and the moral choice of a person. The heroes of his works are far from having an easy fate, but they show that even under the most difficult circumstances one should not lose heart and allow oneself to be broken.

For example, the protagonist of the story of the same name "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" was unfairly imprisoned in one of Stalin's camps.

The author tells about only one day of the prisoner, but this is enough to imagine the harsh camp life. Each of the prisoners chooses his own way of survival. Someone, having forgotten honor and dignity, becomes a "jackal", like Panteleev, knocking on other prisoners, or Fetyukov, begging for cigarette butts. Someone adapts to such a life, looking for loopholes. So Caesar, having become an assistant rater, receives parcels twice a month. And there are those whom the camp life failed to break, who retained their moral principles. These are Brigadier Tyurin, Baptist Alyoshka, and Ivan Denisovich himself. They steadfastly endure all the hardships: "... but he was not a jackal even after eight years of common work - and the further, the more firmly he was affirmed ...". These are the people who are respected. If you always adhere to moral values, then nothing and no one can break this core.

Another example of this problem is the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn "Matryona Dvor". The main character, Matryona Vasilievna, is a lonely old woman who has only a goat and a lame cat from living creatures. Her husband disappeared in the war, all six children died in infancy. Although she had an adopted daughter, Kira, she quickly got married and left. Matryona was forced to run the household alone. She got up early and went to bed late. In addition, Matryona Vasilievna never refused help, although she had many worries of her own. Despite all the difficulties, she adhered to the righteous path.

Thus, highly moral people have always played an important role in the life of society. And A. I. Solzhenitsyn shows on the heroes of his works that one must be able to maintain moral support in oneself, no matter how hard it is.

Updated: 2018-05-12

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

Moral problems in A. I. Solzhenitsyn's story "Matrenin Dvor" It's good that neither modern art nor Russian communism leaves behind anything but archives. S. Dali Dali once said: "If you are one of those who believe that contemporary art has surpassed the art of Vermeer or Raphael, do not take up this book and stay in blissful idiocy" ("Ten instructions to those who want to become an artist") . I think it's hard to argue. Of course, the great Salvador spoke about painting, but this saying is also relevant to literature. Art (be it literature, painting or music) is a way of self-expression, it helps us look into the most hidden corners of the soul.

I do not like many works of modern Russian literature due to the lack of any artistic and creative principles. Nowadays, a story, poem or novel is often the result of a violent fantasy, a sick imagination, or a distorted perception of the world (those who have an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "Platonic" Second Coming will understand and, I hope, support me.) Today's writers are trying to prove that their rejection of modern reality and the absence of moral ideals is an individual approach to creativity. But if lawlessness and cowardice rule the world today, this does not mean that faith is finished. It will be revived, because a person one way or another returns to the origins, albeit with a slow, but firm and confident step ( restoration of temples, adoption of religion).Reading the classics, I find a lot of interesting things for myself.After all, at the beginning of life, a person does not always manage to meet someone who would become a best friend and adviser, so one of the main teachers of each of us is a book. will modern literature teach us?

Admit that you learned about first love not from Solzhenitsyn, but from Turgenev or Pushkin ("First Love", "Eugene Onegin"), about the rebirth of the human soul - from Dostoevsky ("Crime and Punishment"), but about the diversity and oddities of the human thinking - after all, from Gogol ("Dead Souls"). It should be noted that the classical work always carries a share of optimism. Even in "Crime and Punishment", which deals with a terrible misconduct - murder - and the hero, it would seem, has no justification, Dostoevsky makes us understand that Raskolnikov is not at all lost to society. His conscience is not clear, but for him there are such concepts as honor, justice, dignity. It seems to me that the classics give us hope for a spiritual rebirth, but this is not the case in modern literature. Let's try, from the point of view of the foregoing, to consider what the work of a modern Russian writer, in particular Alexander Solzhenitsyn, is.

To do this, I propose to analyze one of his stories - "Matryona Dvor", which, in my opinion, raises the problem of loneliness, the relationship of a person with other people, the author's attitude to life. So, our hero comes to Russia, to a wonderful Russian outback with her eternal mysteries, outstanding personalities and original characters. What awaits him? He does not know. No one expects him, no one remembers. What could he meet on his way? He just wanted to "get lost" somewhere where he was not get radio, televisions and other achievements of modern civilization.

Well, luck smiled at him: the second time he manages to find a small village near the Peat product station and live there quietly, teaching the younger generation the exact science. There were no problems with housing either. They found a "suitable house" for him, in which, according to him, "his lot was to settle." God, how he yearned for ordinary people who had not lost that spiritual simplicity that each of us is endowed with from birth.

How much tenderness and delight evokes in his soul an ordinary village woman selling milk, her appearance, her voice, her characteristic accent. And with what sympathy he treats the mistress of the house - Matryona. He respected and understood her as she was: big, merciless, soft, slovenly, and yet somehow sweet and dear. The unfortunate woman lost all her children, her beloved, having "ruined" her youth, she was left alone. And of course, she could not help but arouse pity. She is not rich, not even prosperous. Poor as a "church mouse", sick, but she cannot refuse help.

And the author notes a very important quality in it - disinterestedness. It was not because of money that old Matryona dug potatoes for her neighbors and raised her niece Kirochka, also not for the sake of gratitude, but simply loved children. She is a woman after all. When the war began, poor Matryona did not suspect that she (the war) would divorce her from a "dear" person, and the heroine "marries" her fiancé's younger brother. But the husband soon leaves the village, goes to war and does not return. And now Matryona is left with nothing. Children died one after another, before they reached the age of one. And at the end of her life she was doomed to loneliness.

Only a "shaky-legged cat", a "dirty-white crooked-horned goat", mice and cockroaches inhabited her "skewed hut". Matryona took up her niece Kirochka, and this was the last consolation. But, apparently, Matryona was not destined to spend her days in peace. Urgently it was necessary to move the upper room to another village, otherwise Kirochka would miss a good place. It would seem that our heroine should not interfere in the transportation of her own house (the last thing she had left), but in every possible way to prevent this. But no - she decides to help in transportation And if Matryona had not gone to the railroad at night and started pushing the wagon over the rails, she would have been alive.

How did she end her life? Terrible. Silly. Tragic.

I don't see any justification for her death. In this work, as in others ("The Procession"), Solzhenitsyn expresses his attitude towards people. He does not like the people and tries to depersonalize them, turning them into a "gray mass". It seems to him that the people around him are "nothing".

They are not able to understand good, they do not care who is next to them. But the author is another matter. He immediately recognizes the “righteous man” in Matryona, but he himself actually comes to this conclusion too late. We must pay tribute to the author of the story: in revealing the image of the heroine, he tries to emphasize her kindness, boundless love for people. What can I say about this Not happy - once, not like - two, because I can not understand the author's position: why did Solzhenitsyn embody so much evil and dirt in his "creation"? (Remember the oppressive atmosphere at home and the attitude of people towards each other.) Naturally, the writer's work is inextricably linked with his biography.

Many years spent in captivity influenced Solzhenitsyn, but not everyone, even the more unfortunate ones, pour out all their grievances and anger in stories and novels. In my opinion, creative work should express only the best that is in a person in order to show: "Here is the good that is in me, feel it and understand!" Art (in particular, literature) should bring bright feelings into the human soul.The reader should empathize with the characters, feel the pain of resentment, disappointment, and even cry (which, by the way, happened to me), but it’s not good if you have an unpleasant aftertaste in your soul. after the rest of the secret.Probably, this is some other art, personally incomprehensible to me.

Why write at all then? It is better to draw in the style of the apocalypse. All the same, the emotions during these two activities (writing about the bad and drawing) are the same, and more people will be able to admire the result (if the author wanted to). After all, before the masters created their works precisely so that people would be horrified by the scenes of universal death they saw. And when placing such creations right on the streets (meaning churches), people associated with religion also foresaw that those who could not read would also know about the terrible punishment. But what cannot be taken away from Solzhenitsyn is that he writes about life, based on personal experience, writes about himself, about what he experienced and saw. The author shows us life as it is (in his understanding). Although when reading his works one gets the impression that, apart from the bad, ignorant and unfair, this person did not have to see anything.

But that's not the point. Solzhenitsyn's goal is to reveal to us all the "charm" of being, using a description of a wretched home, evil neighbors and ungrateful relatives. Solzhenitsyn speaks of injustice, as well as weakness of character, excessive kindness and what this can lead to. He puts into the mouth of the author his thoughts and his attitude to society.The author (the hero of the story) experienced everything that Solzhenitsyn himself had to endure.