The Gulag Archipelago, Volume Three

The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956 #5-7

by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago is Solzhenitsyn's attempt to compile a literary-historical record of the vast system of prisons and labor camps that came into being shortly after the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 and that underwent an enormous expansion during the rule of Stalin from 1924 to 1953. Various sections of the three volumes describe the arrest, interrogation, conviction, transportation, and imprisonment of the Gulag's victims by Soviet authorities over four decades. The work mingles historical exposition and Solzhenitsyn's own autobiographical accounts with the voluminous personal testimony of other inmates that he collected and committed to memory during his imprisonment.Upon publication of the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn was immediately attacked in the Soviet press. Despite the intense interest in his fate that was shown in the West, he was arrested and charged with treason on February 12, 1974, and was exiled from the Soviet Union the following day.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Russia, Politics, Classics, Biography, Russian Literature

558 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1973

About the author

also known as
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)

Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.

This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.

Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...

Reviews

[Preston Fleming · Rating 5 out of 5]

GULAG ARCHIPELAGO: READ VOLUME III FIRST

Reading Solzhenitsyn's GULAG ARCHIPELAGO can be a tough slog. For all its rewards, GULAG can be disjointed, repetitive and confusing. I found the early history of the Gulag in Volumes I and II to be particularly grim.

Volume III, by contrast, contains some of GULAG's richest storytelling, particularly in the chapters that tell of escape, resistance and the resilience of the human spirit in the face of unbearable suffering.

My suggestion would be for the new reader to begin with a sampling of chapters from Volume III, including " The Forty Days at Kengir" (about a revolt at a labor camp in Kazakhstan about a year after Stalin's death), "The Committed Escaper" and "The White Kitten" (a marvelous escape story). Fortified with the knowledge that not all prisoners surrendered their humanity to the Gulag system, the reader will be better prepared for the literary challenges and vicarious suffering to be withstood in Volumes I and II.

[Elena Papadopol · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Oare nu aceasta este problema principala a secolului al XX-lea: e admisibil sa indeplinesti ordinele, incredintand altora propria constiinta? Este oare posibil sa nu ai propriile-tu reprezentari despre bine si rau si sa le culegi din instructiunile tiparite si indicatiile orale ale sefilor?"

"Oricarui eveniment social important din URSS ii era harazit un destin din noua: ori sa fie trecut sub tacere, ori sa fie invaluit in minciuna."

"Acest capitol noi l-am intitulat Legea in zilele noastre. Mult mai exact insa ar fi fost daca il intitulam Legea nu exista.
Aceeasi fatarnicie perfida, aceeasi negura a nedreptatii pluteste in aerul nostru, peste orasele noastre, mai groasa decat fumul ce se inalta din cosurile furnalelor."

[Stela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pe 31 ianuarie 2016, cînd începeam cu timiditate și oarecare strîngere de inimă lectura masivei opere a lui Alexandr Soljenițîn, Arhipelagul GULAG, știam despre Gulag „doar” că era simbolul cel mai înfricoșător al represiunii staliniste și că desemna un vast teritoriu amenințător, delimitat vag (pentru mine) geografic prin nordul Rusiei, unde se afla cea mai mare închisoare (nu știam atunci că erau de fapt mai multe) pentru deținuții politici din fosta URSS. Citisem destule despre acest gen de închisori, de la opere de ficțiune a căror asemănare cu realitatea nu era deloc întîmplătoare, ca mărturia lui Victor Petrini din Cel mai iubit dintre pămînteni a lui Marin Preda, la cărți de memorii scoase parcă din somnul rațiunii ca Jurnalul fericirii al lui Nicolae Steinhardt sau Reeducarea de la Aiud a lui Demostene Andronescu, ca să mă consider oarecum pregatită pentru o lectură din care știam că nu vor lipsi pagini atroce.

Mi-am dat seama repede totuși că nu poți niciodată fi suficient de pregătit pentru un coșmar. Mai ales cînd ești conștient că acel coșmar descris pe mii de pagini, pe care tu cu privilegiul cititorului îl poți întrerupe cînd te copleșește punînd pur și simplu cartea deoparte (și de cîte ori n-am făcut asta, uneori pentru săptămîni întregi de-a lungul acestei lecturi dificile, care s-a întins pe mai bine de șapte luni), a fost trăit fără întrerupere nu timp de șapte luni, ci de ani și zeci de ani de eroii lui fără de voie. Oricum, în final degeaba pui cartea deoparte că imaginile ei te bîntuie fără cruțare, cu atît mai înfricoșătoare cu cît știi bine că nu fac parte nici din istoria vreunui ev mediu întunecat, nici nu sînt consecința vreunui război necruțător, ci că au avut loc într-o epocă aproape contemporană, într-o societate aproape civilizată, într-o lume aproape a noastră...

Toate acestea se petreceau în anul 1949 (o mie nouă sute patruzeci și nouă), în cel de al treizeci și doilea an al revoluției din octombrie, la patru ani după ce s-a sfîrșit războiul și necesitățile lui crunte, la trei ani după ce a luat sfîrșit procesul de la Nurnberg, și întreaga omenire a aflat de grozăviile lagărelor fasciste și a răsuflat ușurată: „Asta nu se va repeta!"...

Sînt multe sentimente care m-au încercat de-a lungul acestei lecturi, de la indignare neputincioasă la autoculpabilizare umilă (căci toți am făcut aceste orori posibile) în fața acestei (a cîta oare – dar învățăm vreodată?) mărturii despre culmile la care poate ajunge (și trona acolo mult timp nestingherită) abjecția umană. Ca întotdeauna, inutilă of course dar persistentă nevertheless, rămîne aceeași întrebare: cum a fost cu putință? Și cum a fost (și este în continuare) cu putință nu numai ca aceste crime să nu fie pedepsite, dar chiar să fie, pînă și în ziua de azi, justificate sau măcar atenuate, iar vremurile acela cumplite idealizate? Căci pînă și în ziua de azi comunismul (și-au trecut aproape treizeci de ani de cînd s-a prăbușit), continuă să fie regretat de o parte deloc nesemnificativă a unei populații care nu are în totalitate scuza de a fi contemporana sau urmașa acelora care acum șaizeci de ani plîngeau cu lacrimi amare și halucinant de sincere la moartea tătucii Stalin:

„Pînă în ziua cînd a murit i s-au înălțat elogii și imnuri, și nici chiar astăzi nu ni se îngăduie să-l demascăm: căci nu doar cenzorii îți vor opri cu toții pana, dar chiar și cineva care stă la coadă într-un magazin, ori cineva care merge în același compartiment se va grăbi să oprească hula pe buzele tale.”

În Strania istorie a comunismului românesc , Lucian Boia e de părere că lipsa unui proces al comunismului, care a făcut la urma urmelor mult mai multe victime decît nazismul, s-ar putea explica prin faptul că programul său, deși utopic, era în esență conceput pentru progresul umanității și nu pentru exterminarea ei. Tocmai de aceea, din păcate, acest bine cu sila pe care l-a început Lenin și l-a dus la apogeu Stalin, nimeni nu garantează că nu se va repeta:

Fiindcă noi îi respectăm pe Marii Nelegiuiți. Noi îi venerăm pe Marii Asasini.

S-ar putea spune că Arhipelagul GULAG își are originea în O zi din viața lui Ivan Denisovici, care a avut un asemenea impact asupra foștilor deținuți politici încît aceștia l-au copleșit pe autor cu scrisori în care îi cereau să-i întîlnească și să le asculte mărturiile. După ce a adunat materiale timp de doi ani, Soljenițin a început lucrul efectiv la carte în 1964, scriind pe ascuns și cu spaima în suflet mai mult de zece ani. Această operă sumbră ca un mausoleu, la limita între istorie și ficțiune, bazată mai ales pe experiența personală dar și pe scrisori și povestiri ale altor „zeki” (227 de mărturii au fost folosite, după cifra pe care o dă însuși autorul) nu se mulțumește să fie doar o culegere de destine frînte, ci, ca acele misterioase divinități păgîne care cereau o jertfă pentru orice secret dezvăluit, a cerut ea însăși un tribut de sînge, contribuind astfel și ea la frîngerea unui destin: cel al dactilografei Elizaveta Voronianskaia, care păstrase pentru ea, fără știrea autorului, o copie din Arhipelagul GULAG și care, interogată zile în șir de KGB, a fost nevoită să dezvăluie unde o ascunsese iar apoi (de frică, de rușine, de disperare?) s-a sinucis. Două zile mai tîrziu, Soljenițîn trimite în semn de protest cartea spre editare în Occident.

Richard Tempest, într-un articol celebru, Problema concepției eroice, îl pune pe Soljenițîn alături de Nietzsche, cu care ar avea în comun atît comportamentul profetic cît și originalitatea limbajului și a stilului. Fiecare dintre ei a creat un erou exemplar, filosoful german pe eroul care și-a părăsit condiția umană, transformîndu-se din om în supraom, scriitorul rus pe eroul care și-a redobîndit condiția umană, transformîndu-se din sclav în om: „Eroul lui Nietzsche vorbește în locul tuturor. Eroul lui Soljenițîn vorbește în numele tuturor.”

Acesta este, clar și profetic, mesajul Arhipelagului: nedreptățile si abuzurile care au fost cauza acelei incredibile suferințe umane pe care paginile cărții abia încep să o descrie nu mai pot fi întoarse nici îndreptate, e drept, dar măcar se poate opri reiterarea lor. Suferința umană a fost absurdă și inutilă, e drept, dar măcar ar putea să-și piardă zădărnicia dacă dezvăluirea ei va împiedica istoria să se repete. Căci istoria, spune scriitorul, riscă să se repete numai atunci cînd omul uită cît de importantă este libertatea cuvîntului în lupta împotriva sclaviei terorii:

...cîtă vreme în țară nu va exista o opinie publică independentă, nu există nici o garanție că nimicirea nemotivată a milioane de oameni nu se va repeta din nou, că ea nu va începe în orice noapte, în fiecare noapte—poftim, chiar în noaptea asta, prima după ziua de azi.

La urma urmelor, n-avea dreptate Tolstoi cînd spunea că nu libertatea politică este esentială, ci perfecționarea morală?

[Jonathan Pool · Rating 5 out of 5]

I also read the official abridged version for Parts 1 and 2
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Themes
• Scale of repression in Imperial times barely registers when set against the post-Revolutionary periods.
• Lenin is culpable
• Khrushchev and the post Stalin era after 1956 is still unforgivably penal. Has enough changed?

Synopsis

The Gulag forced labour camps have become a stain on the history of post Revolution Russia. Solzenitsyn’s body of work, and The Gulag Archipelago in particular, are hugely important in shaping world opinion. The camps themselves are discussed in great depth by Solzhenitsyn; many of the accounts are anecdotal and dissenting voices claimed that they were apocryphal. What gives Solzhenitsyn’s extensive, wide ranging sweep, such authenticity, is the variety of prisoner that populated the camps. Thieves (the Bitches’ War), politicals , returning soldiers, captured Germans, Kulaks (prosperous peasants) were all human material used in the Russian drive to industrialise, and to eradicate opposition.

Sections V- VII focus much greater attention on the Russian history either side of Stalin’s presidency. The decade following Stalin’s death in 1956 was the time during which time the book came together and early distribution of Solzhenityn’s work commenced during Khrushchev’s programme of de-stalinisation. Numerous references are also made to the period (Imperial) prior to the Revolution of 1917.
The latter stages of WW2, and beyond, from the time of Germany’s retreat from the heart of Russia, is chronicled by Solzhenitsyn as a betrayal by the Western Powers as, in the necessary determination to eradicate Nazism, an opportunity arose for Stalin to pursue his agenda, and to get support (Solzhenitsyn says he called up Churchill) in remodelling and extending a Soviet Union that might otherwise have struggled to enforce the Moscow centric national building of the 1920s and 1930s.
The treatment of enlisted Russian soldiers is well known to have been disgraceful.
As Solzhenitsyn puts it:
“The biographies of all three escapers were identical- and like those of millions at that time: first the front, then German prisoner-of-war camps, escape, recapture, liberation when the war ended, and by way of thanks for it all- imprisonment by their own side”. (202)

Highlights

Solzhenitsyn writes with a sarcasm and wit which is most welcome, given the pages of brutality. Prisoners were assigned a number (Solzhenitsyn was (Shch 232) and had their fingerprints taken. The prisoner “played the piano” (58)
Stalin is mocked throughout and variously called:
The Great Helmsman
The Great Father
Father of the Peoples
Generalissimo
Visionary Architect
Great Coryphaeus (leader of the chorus, from Ancient Greek)
The Cannibal
The Thinker
Almighty One
“His sovereign brother Hitler’s experiment in the extirpation of Jews and Gypsies.. Father Stalin had given thought to the problem earlier “ (386)
“ Neatness and uniformity! That is the advantage of exiling whole nations at once! No special cases! No exceptions, no individual protests!”
Stalin was the fourth pillar of the Vanguard Doctrine!” (of Lenin)

> Imperial references
• Katorga. - literally a galley in a boat with rowers shackled.(summary taken from a footnote). Sahkalin Island, written by Anton Chekhov in 1893, is referenced by Solzhenitsyn. Conditions in the Siberian gulags forty years later, are of a totally different (ghastly) magnitude. Solzhenitsyn almost goes full Mothy Python “Four Yorkshiremen” as he gives examples to imply that under Tsar Nicholas II the prisoners “were lucky”
• Peasant Emancipation. “of all her wars, the Crimea was Russia’s luckiest, it brought the emancipation of the peasants and Alexander’s reforms”(80)
• Stolypin “Terror”(1906/7) “the Russian state even then was considered the most oppressive in Europe”. No! Things weren’t the same. Not at all the same” (91)
> The Khrushchev de-stalinisation is regarded skeptically
“a decree of 1961 made murder in the camps punishable by shooting. This Khrushchevian decree was all the Stalinist special camps had lacked” (244 footnote)

“Stalin’s death had changed nothing” (280)

Solzhenitsyn says he fell for the Khrushchev line that it would never happen again. Then he received letters from Zeks (political prisoners) saying nothing has changed since Ivan denisovich’s time. “Any Zek who reads your book will feel bitterness and disgust because everything is as it was”
With some anger Solzhenitsyn says Rulers change “they should have let their space program go to hell! Let Sukarno’s navy and Kwame Nkrumah’s guard regiments look after themselves . Rulers change the Archipelago remains” (494)

Novocherkassk in June 2 1962- hushed up as a whole camp was attacked by the prison authorities


Historical & Literary context

• My copy (ISBN 9780002622554) is the original UK edition of 1978. (Volume 3 V-Vii) It includes
o A Preface to the English translation by Solzhenitsyn. November 1977, Vermont
o Translation by Harry Willets
o Translator’s note (intriguingly left blank!)
o Index, footnotes throughout, glossary and end notes)
The original Volume 3 runs to 526 pages. This is condensed to 138 pages in the abridged version.
One immediate impression of where the original version is not only superior, but in my opinion essential, is in the footnotes. My abridged version has none; my original, while not challenging David Foster Wallace, has extensive footnotes and these are often the very best and most interesting bits.
One example: In (3), chapter 3 Chains, Chains Is a twenty three page chapter.
In the abridged version Chains, Chains has only three pages.
A whole chunk of narrative about the infamous Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish army officers is removed. This is absolutely key to discussion about Beria, Stalin, the Nazi pact and it is history which, in the Gorbachev years, resulted in an apology to Poland in 1990.
Solzhenitsyn is withering about the Soviet “experts” who had shortly before signed the mendacious findings of the Katyn commission (to the effect that it was not we who had murdered the Polish officers). Solzhenitsyn goes on to quote Shakespeare of Dr Kolesnikov, a medical expert in the Katyn investigation team who finds himself subsequently working in the camps “Othello’s occupation’s gone”

The Gulag Archipelago is understandably summarised as a Concentration/ Work Camp story with hideous and exhausting graphic detail. While this is true, Solzhenitsyn is also a clever, subtle historian, and he has extensive knowledge of great figures from European literature; quoting them extensively.

Postscript

I started reading The Gulag Archipelago on January 1st 2021. Days before, on December 26, 2020, George Blake, the former British spy and Soviet Union double agent died at the age of 98. In an interview with Reuters in Moscow in 1991, Blake said he had believed communism was “an ideal which, if it could have been achieved, would have been well worth it. I thought it could be, and I did what I could to help it, to build such a society. It has not proved possible. But I think it is a noble idea and I think humanity will return to it.”
If Blake read The Gulag Archipelago it has to be assumed that he thought the deprivations of the labour camps in the period covered by Solzhenitsyn were justifiable as part of the accelerated industrialisation needed to enable the Soviet Union to catch up, economically, with the West.
Blake was awarded a medal by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in 2007
As I ended my read, on January 22, 2021 opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested on his return to Russia and held at Matrosskaya Tishina prison.
In 2013 the Pussy Riot activist Nadezhda Tolokonnikova wrote a public letter which drew international attention to conditions in her prison which were declared close to those of "slave labour".
The most common type of prison in Russia is the “corrective colony” combining penal detention with compulsory work. The system of labour colonies originated in 1929 alongside the Gulag labour camps, and after 1953 the corrective penal colonies in the Soviet Union developed as a post-Stalin replacement of the Gulag labour-camp system
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
On July 24, 2019 President Vladimir Putin visited the House of Russia Abroad , led by Solzhenitsyn’s widow, Natalia, President of the Solzhenitsyn Charity Foundation.
Solzhenitsyn (died August 2008) said about Putin
"Reverse efforts to save the country’s lost statehood began to be taken under Putin. The foreign policy, bearing in mind our situation and possibilities, is quite reasonable and more foresighted (interview with the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper dated April 28, 2006).
Putin said about Solzhenitsyn:
"I remember well all my contacts with Alexander Isayevich, his wisdom, foresight and a wide gasp of history. His heart, soul and thought were filled with pain for the Fatherland and unfailing love for it. These feelings were a driving force of his creative endeavour. He clearly distinguished authentic, real, people’s Russia and the totalitarian system that plunged millions of people into sufferings and hard trials. But even in exile, Alexander Isayevich never let anyone speak disparagingly and spitefully about his Motherland, rebuffing any manifestations of Russophobia." (speech at the opening ceremony of Alexander Solzhenitsyn monument in Moscow on December 11, 2018).

Recommend

A great book about a period in history that is endlessly fascinating and still relevant to contemporary world affairs. Highly recommended.

[AJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

How he is able to maintain any semblance of a sense of humor is beyond me, but his sarcastic searing remarks throughout make this remarkable work pack so much more of a punch. It is miraculous that this even exists, never mind its being masterfully written. Is it repetitive and monotonous? Yeah, that’s kind of the entire point. The disgust in reading this began to suck a little of the soul out of me, an infinitesimal amount compared to how much the actual camps sucked out of tens of millions of others.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Не знам и не проумявам как на човек може да му се чете Солженицин повторно, но - факт. Но пък това е ново и хубаво издание. Поне в този трети том има “хепи енд”, доколкото такъв “термин” изобщо е приложим в случая…

Цитат:
“Как само с една фраза да опишеш цялата руска история? Страна на потъпканите възможности.”

——
[ревюто е за събраното издание в един том]

“Това, което написах, е само контролно прозорче към Архипелага, а не обзор от наблюдателна кула.”




Интервю с… Не, не с вампир. А с жертвите му. И става безпощадно ясно, че романизирането на злото често е просто престъпна заблуда, ако и да се среща често и да засища някаква прастара нужда да видим човечност и в най-невъзможни ситуации. Солженицин я показва, но не при вампирите, а при изтощените им жертви.

Когато през 1945 г. СМЕРШ (съкратено от “Смърт на шпионите”) пристигат за 27 годишния фронтовак, арогантен млад офицер и убеден марксист, капитан от съветската армия Александър Солженицин, вече крачещ по немска земя в края на войната, той все още не се догажда, че отива на една много дълга и много вледеняваща среща с историята, и че накрая ще стане неин говорител. А също и говорител на безименни милиони, оставили костите и(ли) душите си в замръзналата пустош.

Солженицин получава екслузивно гражданство в една съвсем отделна държава - тази на изтребителните, концентрационни лагери на Архипелаг “ГУЛАГ”. Тази държава има своя география, свои закони и свой народ - този на зековете (съкратено от “затворник”). През нея са минали няколко десетки милиона жители.

Тази държава е основана за класовите врагове и битовите престъпници. Първите са считани за много по-опасни от вторите, тъй като са социални чужди (не са пролетариат, а често някакви там професори, инженери, писатели…). Вторите - на тях и вина не може да им се вменява, тъй като са тласнати към престъпленията от класовото неравенство и класовия враг. Горките душички! Но Държавата бди - затваря зад телени огради и едните, и другите - но на рецидивистите често се връчват “възпитателни” и ръководни функции в затворите и лагерите - и те на воля се саморазправят с класовия враг и продават на черния пазар награбените вещи, като често са прерязали нечие и друго гърло в процеса, но няма лошо - жертвите са социално неприемливи индивиди.

Социално неприемливите в СССР се оказват безброй, всички обхванати от митичния член 58 на Наказателния Кодекс, който е толкова дълбоко законспириран, че да се намери за свободен прочит е немислимо, на арестанти не се дава, а дори и част от служителите в системата не са го чели. По член 58 могат да те осъдят, общо взето, само затова, че съществуваш. Долната граница е 12 години, подсъдни са намерението (искал, но неизвършил) и подозрението (вероятно (!) е знаел, но не докладвал на органите). Потвърждението на обвинението е формалност: на органите често се спуска бройка и те я запълват старателно (иначе и за тях лошо), а веднъж влязъл там, излизаш поне с десетка (10 години). С тази присъда те изпращат и ако гладен си скъсал два стръка жито от колхозната нива.

Изследователите на робовладелския строй имат богато поле за изява със съветските концентрационни лагери. Там кацат всички социални неприемливи по 58-ми. Идеята е семпла: и три месеца да изкара, все икономическа файда ще има. После да мре - идва следващият. И така - безплатно (т.е. без консумативи за храна, дрехи, инструменти и механизация) са построени куп големи инфраструктурни обекти като Беломорканал (напълно безсмислен и зле изпълнен), или се вадят ценни суровини с нула разход (материален) - златото в Колима. Работи се и при минус 40 градуса по 10 часа.

Солженицин методично, с научен подход, дисектира всеки етап от предварителния арест чак до гроба зад полярния кръг. Не бърза за никъде, излага пълната история и всеки факт от всяка една брънка от чудовищната верига, доколкото му е известна от онези 227 души, чиито разкази е събрал, и донякъде от собствения си опит. Разкоства показно, прецизно, хирургически, с черен хумор дори на моменти. Дисекцията включва и обстоен анализ на съветското наказателно законодателство след 1917 г. - теории и практики, както и сравнения с царска Русия. Изключително етнологическо свидетелство са детайлните му портрети на всяка една група обитатели на тази омагьосана земя - от бачкаторите (които са си просто смъртници), войниците в конвоя, чак до … да, индиректно чак до самия Вожд. Е, нещата не са започнати от Сталин, започнали са още от Ленин. Но Сталин подобрява процеса. До такава степен го усъвършенства, че макар нищо друго в СССР да не работи и икономика практически да липсва, затворническото дело е в бурен подем, и е методологически изпипано. Хитлер е можел да завижда.

Уви, Солженицин не е имал достъп до архивите, по обясними причини. А какво ли щеше да напише, ако беше имал! Макар да си мисля - щеше да добави само по някоя уточняваща цифра, която никак нямаше да повлияе на описаното. Ако пък беше познавал Примо Леви, бързо щеше да намери общите пасажи с опита от нацистките концлагери (копи-пейст на места).

Написаното от Солженицин няма давност. То е все ще валидно. Принципите, гарантирали успеха на ГУЛАГ, са сред нас и днес. Те са общовалидни и вечни. Трябва само да се взираме по-внимателно. И да се съпротивляваме. И са не се отказваме.

———
И най-доброто обобщение - съчинено от затворници, още се спори кой е съчинил и текста, и музиката:

https://youtu.be/Vn6MwNUfTks

———
▶️ Цитати:

⛓ “Да, съпротивата би трябвало да започне оттук, от самия арест.
Не започна.”

⛓ “Братко мой! Не съди онези, които, изпаднали в такива положения, са се оказали слаби и са подписали нещо излишно…”

⛓ “Като не наказваме и дори не порицаваме злодеите, не просто съхраняваме техните нищожни старини, но и подкопаваме за новите поколения всякакви основи на справедливостта. Затова, а не заради „слаба възпитателна работа“ растат „равнодушни“. Младите свикват, че подлостта на земята никога не се наказва и винаги носи благополучие.
И мъчително, и страшно ще е да се живее в такава страна!”

⛓ “От затворника трябва да вземем всичко през първите три месеца — а след това повече не ни е нужен!”
Н. Френкел

⛓ “Идеологията! — тъкмо тя дава търсеното оправдание за злодеянието и необходимата продължителна твърдост на злодея. Тъкмо тя е онази обществена теория, която му помага да оневинява пред себе си и другите своите постъпки и “да чува не укори, не проклятия, а хвалби и почит. Така инквизиторите укрепват властта си чрез християнството, завоевателите — чрез възвеличаване на родината, колонизаторите — чрез цивилизацията, нацистите — чрез расата, якобинците и болшевиките — чрез равенството, братството и щастието на бъдещите поколения.”

⛓ “Не, несправедливо ще е този дивашки строеж на XX век, този канал (Беломорканал), построен „с ръчни колички и кирки“ — несправедливо ще е да го сравняваме с египетските пирамиди: та пирамидите са строени със съвременна за времето им техника. А у нас при налична техника — с четиридесет века назад!”

⛓ “Не отделни черти, а целият главен смисъл в наличието на крепостното право и Архипелага е един и същ: това са обществени устройства за принудително и безжалостно използуване на безплатния труд на милиони роби.”

⛓ “в този лагер трябва да умреш, а който не е умрял — да си направи извода.”

⛓ “Абсурдно? Диво? Безсмислено? Ни най-малко не е безсмислено, тъкмо това се нарича „терор като средство за убеждаване“.”

⛓ “Но в това открай време е нещастието на човека — той не може да разбере кое е вещта и кое — цената за нея.”

⛓ “Интелигентът е този, чиито интереси и воля към духовната страна на живота са настойчиви и постоянни, непораждани от външните обстоятелства и дори въпреки тях. Интелигент е този, чиято мисъл не е подражателна.”

⛓ “В нашето славно отечество най-важните и смели книги остават непрочетени”

⛓ “Нима цялото зло, което се върши на Архипелага или по цялата земя, не се извършва чрез самите нас?”

⛓ “О, колко трудно, колко трудно е да станеш човек!”

⛓ “А психологията на престъпника е много проста и достъпна за усвояване:
1. Искам да живея и да се наслаждавам, плюя на останалите!
2. Който е по-силен, той е прав.
3. Не се завирай където не те засяга! (Тоест, докато не бият теб, не се застъпвай за този, когото бият. Чакай си реда.)”

⛓ “За климата на Архипелага се знае, че дванадесет месеца е зима, останалото е лято.”

⛓ “в МВД е достатъчно да бъдеш тъп и да се прицелваш точно в черепа.”

⛓ “паметта е най-слабото място у руснаците, особено паметта за злото”

⛓ “У нас тъкмо падналия го бият. А в изправения - стрелят.”

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Throughout The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has taken readers on a tour of the Soviet concentration camps, where human beings were tortured, manipulated, and exploited to the hilt. Now, in volume three, the journey has come to an end. The bulk of volume three, “Katorga”, focuses on the Siberian work camps that the Soviets resurrected to punish “Nazi collaborators”, a term loose enough to include anyone who remained in western Russia during the Nazi occupation. Some two-thirds in, the monstrous Stalin finally succumbs to the fate he’d inflicted on millions of others, but little changes in the gulag system. Solzhenitsyn then reviews his own release into “exile”, and finally his return to Soviet society.

The second volume of Gulag Archipelago is a prolonged review of the architecture of brutality , both physical and political, used by the Soviet camps. Reading it was to see a human thrown on the rack and tortured, slowly, and only Solzhenitsyn’s constant mocking of the authorities, and his stubborn efforts to look for the flickers of hope and grace in his fellow prisoners, made the spectacle bearable. In “Katorga”, Solzhenitsyen also explores another avenue of relief: the constant attempts by prisoners to escape. Although Siberian camps didn’t have as much physical infrastructure inhibiting escapes (sometimes as little as a wire fence), their location – in sparsely populated wildernesses without reliable sources of food or fresh water -- made a flight back to civilization nearly impossible. Although Solzhenitsyn details many escape attempts, almost all of them end in a bitter return to the camp. Typically, the escapees’ desperate attempts to obtain water or food create an increasingly chaotic trail of mistakes as they encounter more and more people. (Those who help escaped prisoners were threatened with 25 year gulag terms themselves, so only those with a bitter resentment of the government were willing to take the risk of trusting hungry strangers.)

In the final part of this third volume, Solzhenitsyn details the Soviet use of exile, which was a weapon used against ordinary civilians as well as those accused of crimes: at the Soviet bureaucracy’s whim, whole populations might be ordered to desert their homes and move across the continent to settle an area that the bureaucracy deemed in need of warm bodies. Many “exiles” were people who had been targeted for their skills or stature in smaller communities, like blacksmiths and millers – condemned as a classes for the abuses of a few. Although the shakeup after Stalin’s demise resulted in a few pardons, the Gulag system remained in place –- and books like Fear no Evil by Natan Sharansky fulfill Solzhenitsyn’s hope that future generations would continue to expose the continuing system of injustice that the Soviet state embodied, but which was expressed most transparently in its work camps. Solzhenitsyn ends with an apology that the book is not edited or expanded more properly: he was forced to rush it out of his apartment after the government caught wind that he was writing something subversive. Considering the outstanding quality of the text as-is, particularly given that it is a work in translation, one wonders what the finished product might have looked like had Solzhenitsyn had the time he desired. (If he was like some authors, we’d never see it, the desire for perfection forever pushing off the publication date.)

The Gulag Archipelago is a warning for the ages about the horrors a government with the best of intentions can inflict on its own people, and a reminder that human beings are not fit to hold power over one another.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, finishing this one was a big accomplishment. I have to admit, I was wearing down as I got to the end of this book. This volume has some of the more exciting stories and moving sections, as Solzhenitsyn talks about escapes from the camp. As Solzhenitsyn talks about his own release from the camp, his time in exile and some of the reactions to his first published work, his own honesty was both sad and convicting. He talks about how easy it was to forget life in the Gulag and how even he had to be reminded that what he had experienced was still going on! The death of Stalin was celebrated, the Gulag seemed to be dying, but it didn't. The book does not end with triumph, but the sad recognition that evil persists. Even Solzhenitsyn says there is so much more to say, more stories to tell, but he is exhausted. The story of how this book came to be, partially told in the end, is a beautiful story itself.

Overall, these three volumes are not an easy read. The word "tedious" keeps coming to mind. Its not a fast-paced history, there are certainly better, or at least more concise, histories of the Gulag. Yet, such histories probably couldn't exist without the exhausting work of someone like Solzhenitsyn. This book is brilliant in its depth and brutality. It is a book, and a story, that cannot be forgotten.

[Max Nemtsov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Продолжаем.

...трепетные заграничные читатели советуют начинать книгу с этого тома: первые де слишком унылы, а в это есть хоть какой-то задор и вера в хорошее: литература там, побеги, восстания. Ну-ну.

...хотя, конечно, Солж из тех авторов, кому не заржавеет вправить в текст "кивок пальцем" (что бы там ни говорили нынешние людоедки-эллочки о легитимности этого оборота), но его "кивки головой", прямо скажем, заебали. Как и риторическое сюсюканье, впрочем. Языковые его фанаберии иногда подводят под монастырь: "починенный" (потолок) он пишет как "подчинённый".

...еще одна любопытная аберрация авторского сознания: Солж, похоже, искренне считал, что у немецких нацистов имелась цель освободить Россию от большевизма, но помешало их чванство и тупость. А так все получилось бы очень хорошо.

...ну и персонификация усатого, конечно, вносит свою лепту в "культ личности": он-де микроменеджментом занимался, все решения принимал, все это сам придумывал. Вряд ли, конечно. Рабского рвения у народа на такое хватало всегда. Так и до сих пор, когда культ плюгавой хуйни уже цветет пышным цветом.

...дожили, Солж опять враг народа: https://daily.afisha.ru/news/72159-v-... - я, правда, не знаю, что ему было делать в школьной программе с самого начала, если не воспитывать к себе ненависть, но, по крайней мере, был период, когда его "проходили в школе" (пусть и в списке для самостоятельного чтения, но по предложению того же плюгавого, кстати; нужно ли говорить, что само оно читало книжку вряд ли - оно вряд ли вообще умеет читать). Что им там нарезали из текста, и что уж там школяры понимали - другие вопросы, но книгу и нынешные "книжные блогеры" с большим трудом усваивают, как мы знаем. А тон нынешнего доноса вполне соответствует "критическому анализу" вертухаев в письмах, которые автор получал после публикации "1дИД", даже поразительно, насколько за полвека язык не поменялся.

О блогерах-то я не случайно упомянул. Например, вот некая популярная (больше 10 тыс подписчиков: https://t.me/greenlampbooks/2100) дура-телеграфистка о книге буквально только что:

"Справочник лагерной жизни от момента, как вы можете неудачно чихнуть и отъехать на пятнашку, до печальной минуты, когда вас вынесут из ГУЛАГа вперёд ногами. Смесь публицистики, статистики, энциклопедии и горящего пукана."

Охуеть интеллект. Мало того: к ней в комменты приходит какая-то сволочь и рассказывает, что к реальности книга Солжа не имеет никакого отношения. Так идиоты в этой стране выступают плечом к плечу с подонками. На этом союзе и держится режим.

...ну и гулаг расширяется, куда ж без этого: https://www.fontanka.ru/2023/01/25/72.... А до искрометного тезиса "История никогда не нуждалась в прошлом" нынешняя сволочь уже почти договорилась.

...а вот и актуалочка (и опять это шизофреническое "мы" - так и представляешь, сколько поляков передушил лично Солж за полвека до своего рождения):

"«Стыдно быть русским!» — воскликнул Герцен, когда мы душили Польшу. Вдвое стыдней быть советским перед этими незабиячливыми беззащитными народами... А украинцы? Мы давно не говорим — «украинские националисты», мы говорим только «бандеровцы», и это слово стало у нас настолько ругательным, что никто и не думает разбираться в сути."

Ну и дальше полный, хоть и краткий разбор украино-русского вопроса, который в 2023 году читается все так же злободневно, рекомендую. И занимательно было б наблюдать сейчас извивы солженицынской анатомии: как примирить то, что он тогда писал об украинцах (да и о сотрудничестве с властью вообще), с тем, что припадал к ручке плюгавой хуйни. Неужто ослеп и не увидел, что чекистская харя перед ним - точно та же? Удивительно, в общем, все это, а особенно непонятно на фоне того, что он пишет о закалке своего характера в лагерях.

...автор в какой-то миг проговаривается, что ставит главу (о "раскулачивании", не суть) "как знак, как мету, как эти камешки первые, — чтоб только место обозначить, где будет когда-нибудь же восставлен новый Храм Христа Спасителя." ...ну вот и "восстановили" эту кулебяку официозного дурновкусия - и что? Лучше стало? Если она для него символ возвращения праведных времен, то грош цена и временам этим, и праведности, и устремленьям самого автора. То же кровавое говнище, только теперь с золочеными куполами.

...но времена повторяются даже в самомалейших мелочах, хотя подлей нынешних была разве что совсем уж советская реакция. А мелочи вот такие:

"Меньшевик Зурабов, учинивший скандал во 2-й Государственной Думе (поносил русскую армию), не был даже изгнан с заседания. Зато его сын не вылезал из советских лагерей с 1927 года. Вот и масштаб двух времён."

Это наш автор третьего времени не застал. А оно такое же рабское, как и советское (и так же бессмысленны вопросы о том, почему не бунтовали. А потому что. Вам Солженицын ответит.) Охуение от риторики нынешней кремлевской сволочи - точно такое же, поначалу не веришь своим глазам, но народ же это хавает и повторяет, как хавал и повторял всю риторическую лакировку советских фашистских лагерей после смерти усатого.

"Мы просто перестаём быть единым народом, ибо говорим действительно на разных языках."

Уже перестали, дядя, ты все проспал. Вечным, сука, сном.

...полезное для памяти: помимо "не верь, не бойся, не проси", которое, понятно, не Шаламовым придумало, фигурирует и тут, - "в побеге бойся соотечественников". До сих пор так. Ну и, конечно, неизбывное:

"Не главный ли это вопрос XX века: допустимо ли исполнять приказы, передоверив совесть свою — другим? Можно ли не иметь своих представлений о дурном и хорошем и черпать их из печатных инструкций и устных указаний начальников?"

...и вот еще пронзительное, тоже нельзя забывать: о невозможности диалога с властью:

"...сказать им было всё равно что орангутангам. Они числились ещё русскими и ещё как-то умели понимать русские фразы попроще, вроде «разрешите войти!», «разрешите обратиться!». Но когда сидели они вот так, за длинным столом, рядом, выявляя нам свои однообразно-безмыслые белые упитанные благополучные физиономии, — так ясно было, что все они давно уже переродились в отдельный биологический тип, и последняя словесная связь между нами порывается безнадёжно, и остаётся — пулевая."

...ну и, конечно, все это - еще один урок того, что, с 1917 года начиная, власть всех уровней на подмандатных ей территориях только и истребляет ненавистное ей население. Паузы слишком коротки, чтобы считаться нормой жизни. Родина ненавидит лично тебя всегда. От глав о свободе у него веет той же затхлостью, что и сейчас от новостей с "родины", хотя прошло больше полувека. Ну а блядские суды такими и остались с 20х годов, уже сто лет как ("с телефонным аппаратом в совещательной комнате").

...лозунгом последнего года, конечно, должен был бы стать ответ одного персонажа этой книги гнусной (других там не держат) чекистской харе: «Ваше отечество — вы и защищайте, говноеды! А у пролетариата нет отечества!!» Но не стал и вряд ли станет, ибо рабство и "любовь" к превратно понимаемой "родине" у русских связаны неразрывно и прошиты уже генетически. Если не считать убийц и уголовников, конечно.

...мгновенье прекрасного. Одна глава у него называется "ПОЭЗИЯ ПОД ПЛИТОЙ, ПРАВДА ПОД КАМНЕМ". Практически "Под брусчаткой, пляж". Ну а "Сорок дней Кенгира" - это же в чистом виде "Народная республика рок-н-ролла" из "Винляндии", только там, конечно, были сильно другие ставки.

...стилистические курбеты и тут имеются: "улыбка торжествовала на его губах", "владея приёмами дзюдо и борьбы, ничего не стоило..." сделать что-то там с конвоиром.

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this series after a verbal altercation with an individual over my American upbringing and challenged notions about the Soviet Union and its actuality. As someone who does not like being challenged on their assumptions unfairly, I took up the challenge of reading the canon of the Gulgag in an attempt to gain an awareness of something that apparently I was fundamentally missing.

Oh had sadly true that statement is. How fatefully unaware my assumptions regarding humanity tyranny and personal subjugation truly were. This book truly changed my life, my political leanings, my assumptions about humans, justice and capacity. Were it not so.

May all the lives lost in this machine of death be remembered.

[Steve]

My commentary for the two previous volumes of Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s classic work also apply to his third; I’ll spare everyone unnecessary repetition. The Gulag Archipelago is great literature because the author chronicled an important underreported history, leaving a poignant reminder of the Soviet era, doing so with a level of detail and criticism that forms a lasting testament to a social experiment gone horribly awry. We know so little of Soviet atrocities partly because the executioners were so successful at covering their tracks and partly because the country was closed to the eyes and ears of the world. There’s an important message to all, though; here are detailed examples of state repression that continue to this day. You might even be able to identify some parallels to America, though they are quite subtle compared with these bareknuckle tactics. I liked the quote from I.S. Karpunich-Braven, “It is not enough to love mankind—you must be able to stand people.” Another quote from Mr. Solzhenitsyn is worth remembering, “It’s never harder to speak than when you have too much to say.” Mr. Solzhenitsyn likely did more to improve the conditions of his comrades with his writings than any other single author following the death of Stalin—what courage. Unfortunately, those improvements came after decades of difficult to imagine human tragedies.

[Gator · Rating 5 out of 5]

After 7 months of Gulag reading, WOW, just WOW, I am blown away.

“ All you freedom-loving “left-wing“ thinkers in the west! You left laborites! You progressive American, German, and French students! As far as you are concerned, none of this amounts to much. As far as you are concerned, this whole book of mine is a waste of effort. You may suddenly understand it all someday — but only when you yourselves hear “hands behind your back there! “And step ashore on our Archipelago.”

In its entirety, I can say without a doubt this is the greatest piece of literature I’ve ever read in my life to date. I highly recommend taking the time to devour the entire work, it is a masterpiece, a great human achievement. I agree with the sentiment that it is tedious, grueling, & a challenging read, but I promise you will never be the same after you complete it. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was truly a gift to our species and his writings, this one in particular deserves to be read by all humanity, it will teach you two main things. 1. What true oppression is 2. What evil looks like. This is the red pill of our time and it’s difficult to swallow but my God, just open up and take it 🤯

[Sarah Norman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a famous book that one keeps meaning to read, so one has decided to read it. I bought it on Amazon, where the customer reviews are the sort of mouth-frothingly eager ones that make one feel all the more required to read it. Check it out. Charmingly, it comes to me in Zimbabwe as a discarded book from a library in small town Arkansas, complete with index card sleeve.

It's not really the sort of book that one can call 'good,' because that seems sort of disrespectful. Quality terms don't really apply to this sort of book.

Basically, Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in a hard labour camp under Stalin. He actually got off lightly, as typical setences were ten to twenty five years. He was jailed for being a literary person, but you needn't think you actually needed to be guilty to go to the Gulag. Essentially, areas had quotas, both for jailings and executions, so anyone and everyone could be arrested quite randomly, and thousands and thousands of people were. They really wanted 'confessions' and lists of 'co-conspirators' (ie, your acquaintances, to make arrests less effort). So there was a lot of torture, stomach-churningly described. Incredibly, to me, lots of individuals refused to sign anything, or give up any names, and so as Sozhenitsyn puts it about one case, 'died a victor in his cell.'

It actually boggles the mind. You can't believe it really happened. They also sent whole groups - like millions of people - to exile in Siberia, where many died. Just twelve years after the Russian Revolution had divided up the land fairly, some people were already doing slightly better than their neighbours, presumably through hard work as they had no material advantages. These 'kulaks' were viewed as class enemies and sent into exile - millions of them - which immediately caused a three year famine, in which millions more died.

Being in Zim at the moment, I'm especially struck by two things: one, how angry the author is, and two, how madly brave he is. He is naming names and ripping shit up. Like, he tells us who informed on who simply to get his girlfriend, and then tells us where he currently lives in comfort in Moscow. Madly brave.

More of my reviews at my blog www.booksof2010.blogspot.com

[Carol Bakker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overwhelmed. Gutted. Humbled.

Of the three grave and grief-stricken volumes, this was the page-turner. In the earlier books, Solzhenitsyn cataloged the crimes of the Gulag; the style was encyclopedic. But Volume III becomes oh so personal; most of the masterful manuscript is written in the first-person.

Chapter 5 explains how he composed, polished, and memorized poetry in his head while he worked as a prisoner. Chapter 7 —the story of an escape— had my heart racing. I could not hold back the tears as he describes the morning of March 6, 1953, when as an exiled man in a remote village he first learns that Stalin Is No More.

The villain has curled up and died! I could have howled with joy there by the loudspeaker; I could even have danced a wild jig! But alas, the rivers of history flow slowly. My face, trained to meet all occasions, assumed a frown of mournful attention. For the present I must pretend, go on pretending as before.

Frederick Davidson's narration was superlative. When I had spare moments, reading along while I listened (on archive.org) was wonderful.

What a masterpiece. This will not be the last Solzhenitsyn I read.

[Cody Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

These are undeniably 3 of the most important books ever written. We seem to be in a time where (for some absurd reason) the horrors of communism are either not sufficiently taught, or are overlooked by a world which has become increasingly tolerant of the idea of socialism. I cannot recommend highly enough that these people read an account from an author who personally experienced communism and the atrocities that this mass murderer of humans has perpetrated.

[MJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Gulag Archipelago trilogy is some of the most challenging reading I've ever done. The content is violent, sharp prose, and the political commentary is bone chilling. I appreciate the structure of each installment. This final book covers the many escape attempts, life in exile and the massive scar the camps left on the culture.

Things that stood out: 1. Solzhenitsyn clarifies the Russia - Ukraine conflict very well. Many prisoners were Ukrainian. He shows how they have an entirely separate identity and heritage but some of the Ukrainian regions identify as Russian.

2. This installment more than the others describes the systematic erasure of Christianity carried out by the communists. He describes how escape attempts were largely unsuccessful because the propaganda was so successful at painting all Christians as fascist extremists and no one questioned it. "The key to the system was ignorance."

3. To close the book he tries to make sense of how this went on until the 60's and the heavy price Russians are still paying for the destruction of their people. He says, "Russia in one sentence: land of suppressed opportunity." The quality of education was on a primitive level by the time he left the camps and the people had seriously regressed while the western world was progressing rapidly. He also describes how the schools were the first to fall into communist ideology: "When spiritual death creeps through the land, the schools are the first to suffer."

4. He concludes with how the Gulag never really goes away because it's so effective at controlling a population. This feels disturbingly real in the current climate. I'll never forget how he says the women all wept when Stalin died because they didn't know who to follow. On every level this series is a warning to the West, and one of the most important pieces ever written.

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is absolutely one of the most important works of the past 150 years. It is crucial to understanding our world. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

In light of recent events, I’d also like to provide a quote from page 46:

“We cannot, in the latter end of the twentieth century, live in the imaginary world in which our last, not very bright Emperor came to grief. Surprising thought it may be, the prophecy of our Vanguard Doctrine that nationalism would fade has not come true. In the age of the atom and of cybernetics, it has for some reason blossomed afresh. Like it or not, the time is at hand when we must pay our on all our promissory notes guaranteeing self-determination and independence—pay up of our own accord, and not wait to be burned at the stake, drowned in rivers, or beheaded. We must prove our greatness as a nation not by the vastness of our territory, not by the number of peoples under our tutelage, but by the grandeur of our actions. And but the depth of our filth in the lands that remain when those who do not wish to live with us are gone.

The Ukraine will be an extremely painful problem. But we must realize that the feelings of the whole people are now at white heat. Since the two peoples have not succeeded over the centuries in living harmoniously, it is up to us to show sense. We must leave the decision to the Ukrainians themselves.”

[Mack · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's really an odd feeling to reach the end of this saga and somehow still crave more. The sheer length of it and the manifold atrocities and injustices detailed make it a pretty difficult read at times. But I can honestly say I've never encountered anything even comparable to these three volumes—in the world of nonfiction at least—in terms of their attention to detail, insight into the best and worst parts of human nature, unrelenting and brutal honesty, pitch dark comic sensibility, and perfectly crafted prose. This volume in particular details the escape and / or release of the prisoners and the whole thing feels like a tiny flickering flame finally beginning to burn bright yet again. Solszhenitsyn leaves us in a world of warning—things may be better now, but hardly, and there's always the possibility we could slip into this kind of darkness again, and with far greater ease than any of us wants to think. Still, thanks to him, we now have thousands of pages of truth told unrepentantly, beautifully, and brilliantly to serve as a constant reminder of one of humanity's darkest hours and a bold warning to not trod that path again.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

"If words are not about real things and do not cause things to happen. What is the good of them? Are they anything more then the barking of village dogs at night?"

- Solzhenitsyn

This tomb is the epitome of words about real things, that cause things to happen. It has inspired two generations to action. It's taken me well over a year to read all 3 volumes. Not because of its length but because of horrendous nature of its subject matter, because of the time I needed to absorb, to grasp the world that was being described to me. Few books have had such a profound affect on me. If you want to know what's in store for us (western civilization) if the forces availed against us have their way, read this book.

[Serafima Karkkila · Rating 5 out of 5]

How could I possibly write a 'review' for this book (i.e. all three volumes)? I want to both write out every single word of the English language and write nothing at all. I’ll settle for the latter. This book changed my life. I feel as though my eyes have been opened; there is no going back. With this book, I am reborn. I hope that, just as the author, I will always carry this tale with me, and let it shape my life for the better. Absolutely one of 'the best' books I’ve ever read.

I will, however, note a more practical point. I do not recommend this book for a universal audience. ‘One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich’ is another masterpiece (and a very short book, at that) from the same author and THAT is a work I warmly recommend to everyone.

[Xander · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gulag Archipelago is a historical work. So much is clear. Camp-survivor Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a gifted writer, explains every nook and cranny of the colossal system of prison and forced labour that Lenin started, Stalin intensified in scope and cruelty, and Khrushchev continued under the guise of cleansing the USSR of this horror.

The work is divided into three volumes. Volume 1 deals with the origins and development of the Gulag system under Lenin and Stalin; the procedures of inquiry and investigation; the arrest (a life-changing event for those involved!); imprisonment; the torture and interrogation techniques used by the Soviet officials; the transport system (by train or ship). Volume 2 then focuses on forced labour – the ultimate destination of tens and tens of millions of innocent people, Russian and non-Russian alike. In this volume, Solzhenitsyn exhaustively describes the camp life from the perspectives of all those involved – men, women, thieves, political prisoners, camp guards, security officers, trusties and informers, etc.

Still, after reading Volume 1 and 2- some 1300 pages! – Solzhenitsyn hasn’t explained everything there is. Volume 3 – another 500+ pages! – describes some essential elements of the Gulag system.
In short: after World War II, Stalin decided to ramp up his persecution mania. Now, in 1946, he suddenly found himself dominating large swathes of new territory in East Europe, making him master of millions of to-be exploited lowlifes. Also, the war had left him with millions of foreign prisoners of war (Japanese, German, Ukrainian, etc.), as well as many more millions of former Russian prisoners of war, deserters and those suspected of harbouring anti-Soviet sentiments after staying in regions and countries that were deemed ‘imperialist’.

So what did the big boss do? Right, draw up new laws, allowing him to persecute ever more people and put them to forced labour. Whole peoples disappeared into the system and were relocated to harsh far-off regions at best, killed (through bullets or forced labour) at worst. A not unimportant detail: before 1946, people were sentenced to ten years of hard labour (in which millions perished within months), the new laws introduced sentences twenty-five years – to be given to all political prisoners. (Criminals usually got far lower sentences.) So, come 1946, Stalin sent more people to the hard labour camps, for a much longer times. This practice went on until his death in 1953, after which his lapdog Beria – according to Stalin “our own Himmler” - steadfastly continued the practices.

When in 1953 Beria was removed by a coup and convicted of treason and sentenced to be executed, Khrushchev was instated as Commissar of the People. Of course, the new leaders has to distinguish himself from his predecessors, so Khrushchev openly distanced himself from Stalin and his practices. Things started to look a little better for those in the Gulag system: life became less gruesome and brutal, and prisoners were allowed small improvements in their freedoms. The years 1955-1956 offered a glimmering hope for millions of desperate people. But, of course, the system has to persevere, at any cost. So Khrushchev, the new premier soon felt himself forced to crank up the engines of the Gulag system once again. There was now only one problem: he officially had proclaimed that there were no political prisoners anymore. All formerly sentenced political prisoners were being gradually released and were used as propaganda. So what to do? Change course: stop persecuting people as political enemies and start persecuting them as criminals, people in need of re-education (mostly religious people who didn’t bow down to Communist Doctrine), and if that doesn’t work, just offer some trumped up charges (such as rape or parasitism – no matter the parasitical nature of those involved in these judicial procedures…).

So, when Khrushchev is generally hailed as a breath of fresh air after Stalin, nothing really changed. Religious persecution was greatly intensified in the 1950’s, riots and revolts were more brutally put down (often with the help of the army), and, in general, the system of forced labour continued to be pumped full of labourers. This, of course, was covered up with layer after layer of propaganda: newspapers reported on trials of criminals and Khrushchev’s new and humane policies; prisoners were closed off from society; prisons and forced labour camps were located in sparsely populated areas,

So, when Solzhenitsyn was released, decided to write down the experiences of himself and the many prisoners he knew and read or heard about, and to publish an overtly critical work on the Gulag system, he was under the impression – like many millions of Russians – that the Gulag system was part of history. When he published his first work on the subject (a novel), he initially received gratitude and recognition from fellow former victims. After this came the denials and slander of those he accused. But then came the objections from prisoners currently held in the forced labour camps. That this came as a surprise to Solzhenitsyn is a fine illustration of the mass terrorization and control through propaganda by the Soviet Union, as well as all too human emotions like hope and the wish to finally leave horrible experiences behind. Soon, Solzhenitsyn realized how foolish he had been and how corrupt and inhuman Communism really was – and he decided to write a large work on the atrocities committed by many bad people on tens of millions of innocent people.

This is the general outline of Volume 3. Within this framework, Solzhenitsyn zooms in on some particularly interesting aspects: (1) the changing psychological mood within the hard labour camps, (2) the direct consequences of this change, and (3) the human struggle between hope and survival.
1. When Stalin stepped on the gas pedal after World War II – stretching ‘standard sentences’ up to 25 (!) years of hard labour and intensify his persecutions – those in the camps lost all hope for the future. When before, most of them somewhere deep inside had found a glimpse of hope for a future release, now all hopes and dreams were shattered. Solzhenitsyn describes beautifully how prisoners experienced these policy changes and how they struggled to cope with it. Stalin’s decrees degraded and dehumanized prisoners to numbers (comparable to the Nazi practices in concentration camps), increased the brutality and violence of the camp guards and security personnel, and the lengthening of sentences to unimaginable stretches of time.

2. Due to this psychological change, almost all Special Camps (were political prisoners, all 25-ers, were kept) and many Hard Labour Camps (were also many political prisoners were kept) saw a rise of readiness to fight on the part of those imprisoned. What was there to lose? Work and hunger strikes, protests, defiance of orders, and even upright rioting and violent revolts. Solzhenitsyn describes in chapter 12 of part 5 the events in the camp at Kengir: prisoners and thieves worked together to unify the camp, scare away the camp guards and security officers, and liberating the camp for forty days. By this time, the Minister of Internal Affairs flew in from Moscow, tanks were ordered in and hundreds of people were crushed under their tracks or killed by a bullet. Many thousands more were brutally punished afterwards, if not executed on the spot.

Another trend do the changing psychological mood under those imprisoned was an increase of escape attempts. Because most of these Special Camps were located in no mans land, one had to be really courageous and inventive to escape. The human need for water and food forced many escapees to make mistakes – and if that wasn’t enough, then all the local villages had local militias which were either infiltrated by the MVD or were under orders from this same MVD. In short: most prison escapes were unsuccessful.

3. A final interesting point of Volume 3 is the continuous struggle within the human being itself. How do you survive such a hard labour camp? How do you survive such certain death? How do you adapt yourself to the situation? The same as the soldiers on the front lines of World War 2: counting yourself as already deceased – shutting off your humanity, becoming numb to everything. But, of course, humanity cannot be extinguished, so every hint of early release or contact with family or partners brought hope and created a huge amount of psychological distress by the person involved. Solzhenitsyn is able to show this mechanism at work in the many anecdotes and personal stories of fellow prisoners that he relates in the book. Determination out of desperation can instantly into cowardice and submission at the hint of hope, and vice versa.

Part 6 of the Gulag Archipelago deals with the aftermath of camp. People who managed to survive camp or were released earlier than expected, weren’t free – at all. There were relocated to far-off regions, often without provisions and means to survive, and forced to sever all ties to all people who they knew in their former life. And if you wouldn’t listen, they would just slap another 10 or 25 years on you. In a sense, this forced exile was the most torturous part of the Gulag sentence – at least from a psychological perspective. Exile was a huge part of the Gulag system, from the start, and though it bleaks in comparison to the arbitrary convictions, the brutal tortures and interrogations and the insane forced labour camps, it is one of the most inhuman acts the Soviets ever instated. Millions of people, whole peoples, were displaced with force.

Volume 3 of The Gulag Archipelago is a tale of crushed hopes and regained courage and inventiveness; of surviving against all odds and trying to live. Above all, it’s a tale of how corrupt and evil human beings can be – and how inventive to construct their own innocence.

The last part, part 7, of the book is Solzhenitsyn’s description of how the Gulag system continued under Khrushchev, how propaganda was used to control the masses, and how the law was manipulated to terrorize hundreds of millions. The Soviet regime officially – through the newspapers and media – continuously emphasized the perpetual raise of crime rates – all to legitimize convicting thousands of innocents on trumped up charges to a life of hard labour for decades. This is George Orwell’s 1984 in real life: perpetual crime and war need perpetual persecution and security forces. Fear is the pillar on which totalitarianism rests and deception is the mechanism by which the pillar is kept in place.

“This is – only a wall. And its bricks are laid in a mortar of lies. (…) For half a century and more the enormous state has towered over us, girded with hoops of steel. The hoops are still there. There is no law.” (p. 525)

“We are so used to being treated like fools: “Enemies”, they say, and all is explained. In the Middle Ages it was “devils”.” (p. 513)

These two quotes sum up the USSR. Ever since Lenin got into power, the state terrorized its 180 million of civilians through constant persecution and violence. Through mass propaganda and persecution it created a fiction in the heads of millions; all those who wouldn’t or couldn’t believe were deemed enemies. And enemies were continuously offering themselves: first religious believes, then intellectuals, socialists and revolutionaries, a little bit later engineers and peasants, also the communists who helped Lenin and Stalin to power, later on the military leaders, brave soldiers who fought against Germany and Japan, foreign peoples. And these were just the particular groups that were persecuted in waves; throughout the period concerned millions of people were arrested and sent, for decades, to death through hard labour, for no other reason than fulfilling the quota.

This system, which killed between 30 to 60 million (!) people and which dehumanized many tens and tens of millions more, was run by career officials who “didn’t know anything about the people concerned”, “who only did their jobs”, “followed orders” , and “only did the right thing, namely persecuting and re-educating criminals”. Sounds familiar? The people working at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen said the same thing. “Ich habe es nicht gewusst.” Yeah, right.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a hero – a man who gave a face to the hundreds of millions who fell victim to the terrors of the Soviet Union. He points the finger at the right people: not Lenin, Stalin, Beria or Khrushchev, but the hundreds of thousands of Russians who made their careers out of torture, misery and depravity. Wherever he can, he names those responsible for arrests, convictions and violence. And throughout the book, he tells the Russian people that only when they have their own Nuremberg Trials, can Russia be cleansed of these misdeeds. Only when the tens of millions of people who looked away, and the millions of people who perpetrated crimes against humanity, only then can their victims find peace. Only then is justice served.

I think we can count communism – Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and more – among the biggest criminal regimes in history. Together, these regimes are responsible for the killing, torturing and oppressing of billions of people. Hitler’s 6 million Jews bleak in comparison. Not to make a comparison – such horrors and suffering should be viewed on their own terms, within their own context to respect the victims.. But still, saying you’re a ‘nazi’ anno 2018 is sure to make you a pariah, yet claiming you’re a ‘communist’ will make youget laughed at – at most. Influential intellectuals like Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre have defended and made communism acceptable, while critical thinkers like Karl Popper, Friedrich von Hayek and George Orwell saw communism – already in the 1930’s – for what it truly is: a totalitarian ideology that has genocide and mass murder as its logical consequence. Just like Nazism. And in this sense, Solzhenitsyn’s work has become an immortal testimony to the horrors of communism – I am truly impressed by The Gulag Archipelago; it is among the books that offered me the most valuable insights and new perspectives. Although a big investment (three volumes, around 2000 pages), it is worth every minute!

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solzhenitsyn remains inventive, but he offers more stories, less analysis. He remains sarcastic, but he’s grumpier, less fun. Perhaps the whole project is a bit too long.

[Enrique · Rating 4 out of 5]

Si bien creo que este libro debe ser leìdo por todos, y que es un deber moral conocer la historia de todas las vìctias que murieron y sufrieron en los Gulag, debo confesar que por momentos la tarea se hace simplemente desconsoladora, es muy difìcil encontrar un haz de luz en el infierno narrado por Solzhenitsyn. Una oarte que narra la evasión de un par de reos, y su penosa huída sin comida ni agua durante 30 días, cuando tras muchos pesares inimaginables (no se trata de una versiòn de prision break, ni mucho menos)al final, cdo por fin parece una historia con final feliz, se desvanece, los fugitivos son atrapados y condenoados a otros 15 años.

El libro es realmente una joya, pero es simplemente desolador, en esta última parte tuve que dejar un momento el libro, para leer algo más ligero, sin embrago vale la pena leer esta historia, es lo menos que puedes hacer tras lo que paso el autor para ver publicada su obra, de hecho me avergüenza no haber sabido de esto antes.

[David Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

To finish the 3rd and last volume of the Gulag Archipelago is to complete a great human experience. You will leave these 3 volumes with a much more profound, much deeper, more sorrowful, and richer knowledge of human nature. You will see the great depths of monstrosity people reach every day, and also the great heights of love people attain under the most dire circumstances. The books are not comforting; one and the same soul plumbs the depths and climbs the heights. The one thing Solzhenitsyn said that struck me most profoundly came from this book and also found its way into many of his speeches: the line between good and evil runs through every human heart, and it moves this way and that in the same heart. I would give these three volumes more than 5 stars if I could. Certainly in the top 5 best books I ever read.

[Dora Andraşoni · Rating 5 out of 5]

If there's only one book you can choose to read about communism, "The Gulag Archipelago" is the one.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The final volume of three, containing books 5-7 of this monumental work, it is, as its predecessors, a deeply dark and sad read. This volume has more detailed specific examples of archipelago life in the Soviet Union, the barbaric, senseless wasting of a populace by a leadership unmoored, sadistic and evil. Solzhenitsyn chronicles his own eventual release from confinement, which was followed by banishment to remote Kazakhstan, for which he was euphorically elated simply to be left alone, in his hovel and his own gruel, no longer badgered and abused by prison guards yet possessing no freedom of movement. He wrote prodigiously yet hid his writing, forever paranoid of further arrest and imprisonment. Written mostly in the 1960's, a large point he makes is that in spite of the death of Stalin and some easing by Khrushchev, the Gulag remained, buried from public view as it always had been, as the lie of the Soviet Union continued unabated. Again, the remarkable suppression and persecution of its own people by the government of the Soviet Union, the Communist ideal, the worker's paradise, is a tale so vast, so harrowing, so unbelievable, it still can take your breath away. As the weight of this 70 year legacy of corruption, authoritarian rule and suppression continues to weigh on the Russian people today, it's worth considering as the latte-infused dabblers of Socialism in their green condos want to lead us today down the same utopian primrose path.

[Kalli Talonpoika · Rating 5 out of 5]

kolmas osa uurib eri- ja sundtöölaagreid (mulle üllatavalt ei peetudki kõiki neid laagreid juba eos sundtöölaagriteks) ning räägib mitmeid lugusid vangide -- pea alati ebaõnnestunud -- põgenemistest. kindlasti kõige põnevam osa, kuna lood on palju isiklikumad ja märulimad, kui kõik eelnev. juttu tuleb ka sundasumisest, millest üks hea tsitaat:


"Ma kujutasin oma puhtas kõrbes ette kihisevat, askeldavat, alpi pealinna, ja mind ei tõmmanud põrmugi sinna.

Moskva sõbrad aga käisid peale: „Mis mõttega sa seal istud?... Nõua oma asja uuesti läbivaatamist! Nüüd tehakse seda!"

Milleks?... Siin ma võisin tund aega jälgida, kuidas sipelgad, kes olid mu maja samaanivundamenti augukese puurinud, tassi-sid ilma brigadirideta, ilma valvuriteta ja laagripunkti ülemusteta vooris oma kandamit päevalilleseemnekesti talvevaruks. Siis äkki ühel hommikul nad ei ilmu välja, kuigi kestad on maja ette puistatud. Selgub, et nad on juba ette aimanud, et nad teavad, et täna tuleb vihma, kuigi lõbus päikesepaisteline taevas ei räägi sellest. Pärast vihma aga on pilved veel mustad ja tihedad, kuid nemad on juba välja pugenud ja töötavad: nad teavad kindlalt, et vihma enam ei tule."



raamat jõuab ka Stalini surmani ja Gulagi süsteemi lammutamiseni, mida tegelikult ei viidud täielikult lõpuni. mastaap võis küll kahaneda, aga tingimused jäid suures osas samaks (kuigi kohe pärast Stalini surma need korraks paranesid) ja on teateid, et sellised laagrid eksisteerivad ka tänapäevani, need on lihtsalt paranduslikeks kolooniateks ümber nimetatud. väga muserdav lõpp sellele kõigele.

[Hưng Đặng · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lúc này không tuy���t vời để hoàn thành cuốn sách - một tuyệt tác. Chỉ 2 tháng trước t gần như đã khóc khi đọc về nhà thơ tôn giáo Anatoly Vasilyevich Silin như thể có gì đó rung động cả tâm hồn thì bây h tôi thấy khô cằn, mệt mỏi và trống rỗng. Chắc là vì t lại chệch hướng khỏi mục tiêu của mình, từng ngày, từng ngày. Hay vì tôi thiếu đi 1 Tôn Giáo, một vị Chúa để tôn thờ bởi vì những con chiên ngay cả trong đau khổ và đói khát vẫn "...honest, free from anger, hard-working, quick to help others, devoted to Christ". T nhớ mình đã ước ao được như vậy.

Có một chuyện trong sách, câu chuyện về dao găm. Tù nhân thì hầu như đều có dao găm tự chế, khá hữu dụng với họ để sinh tồn trong trại. Nhưng cho tới tận khi có 1 đám cựu chiến binh được chuyển vào trại, năm 1948 những con dao mới trở nên đặc biệt. Những "lính cũ" - tù nhân mới này bắt đầu giết "chỉ điểm" (stoolie pigeon). Thời gian tốt nhất để lấy mạng người là lúc sáng sớm. Cai ngục dậy và mở các khoá các lán trại và trong một thời gian ngắn, tù nhân có thể đi từ lán này qua lán khác mà ko bị kiểm soát. Hầu hết tù nhân vẫn chìm trong giấc ngủ mệt mỏi cho đến khi bị đánh thức để lao động. "Lính cũ" sẽ tìm đến lán của kẻ phản bội, mặt che kín, bịt miệng và đâm nhiều nhát dao. Những tù nhân giường bên, dù biết cũng ko muốn hoặc ko dám lên tiếng vì sợ kết cục tương tự. Đến khi ban quản lý trại bắt được hội "Lính cũ" này thì phong trào đã được toàn trại hưởng ứng. Ko có bằng chứng để xử họ. Ban quản lý gần như bất lực. Tù nhân giết nhau, có lẽ ko phải là chuyện lớn. Nhưng hãy đọc đoạn trích:
- "Trivialities, you say? No, all enormously important! Once there was no pilfering, people began to look at their neighbors kindly and without suspicion".
Vậy mà ban đầu ko ai nhận ra tầm ảnh hưởng lớn này. Niềm tin được dựng lên giữa những số phận đầy đoạ đen đủi. Để rồi những dòng đầy khải huyền được viết ra:
- "... a man with an unclean conscience could not go quietly to bed! Retribution was at hand - not in the next world, not before the court of history, but retribution live and palpable, raising a knife over you in the light of dawn. It was like a fairy tale: the ground is soft and warm under the feet of honest men, but under the feet of traitors it prickles and burns."

T nghĩ t phải mất gần 6 tháng để hoàn thành toàn bộ tuyển tập. T ko thấy phí phạm, bởi linh hồn t lay động. Câu chuyện viết năm 1965 về những năm 20s, 30s hay 40s hay 50s lại giải thích được những thứ t nhìn thấy vào năm 2010s hay 2020s. T nên bắt đầu sống khác vì t nhìn mọi thứ khác rồi.

[Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most impressive books I've read. Brutally honest about his own journey, and just so profound on so many questions around good and evil, and while documenting one of the most horrific episodes in human history (of which he himself was a victim) never opting for a simple answer. Expressing by this book as through his life that good can be brought out of even the most vicious evil.

[Jared Hanishewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

I often ask myself why do I read history of this kind? It’s so god dang depressing. If you’ve come looking for justice you come to the wrong place. There is no justice at Gulag just needless suffering and unavoidable pain. Your answer may be, “Because if we do not know history we are doomed to repeat it!” That use to be my answer. But that answer I have found to be insignificant. It’s cheep and quick. No, the answer that cuts to the heart of it all I would say is this, “Because if we do not know what we can become we will become it.”
We oftentimes separate history in our minds, “That was then, this is now. We are in no danger. After all the guards at the concentration camps of gulag they were evil and we would never do what they did.” Ah, but you are mistaken. They were human and that is most terrifying true found in this book. Yes, they were made of flesh and bone and had families, just like you. They had fears and hopes, just like you. They had faith and political justifications, just like you. And yet they tortured and raped and murdered, just like…can I even dare say it.
But it wasn’t just the oppressors who harboured the capacity to commit evil. The oppressed, the down trodden, the victim they committed evil as well. They murdered, they back stabbed, and they cast the dark shadow of cruelty.
Evil was found on both sides of the wire. It is in this we find the truth of the Gulag Archipelago. This is the central message that Solzhenitsyn tried to hammer down with his literary investigation. And this is what history of the 20th century teaches us. We all are capable of great evil.
But this lesson is not without hope. Because perhaps the greatest defence against evil is the realization of our capacity to participate in it.