The Soviet paradise.

[pdf27]

@Kato

Don’t you think that the bulk of Russian people were anti-Christian?

Anti-Christian, Anti-Cleric or Anti-Established Church? The three are not the same thing. In societies where the established church taxes the populace heavily and regulates their lives whether they like it or not, the church tends to suffer quite badly come a revolution. Not all churches though - just those associated in the public mind with the “abuses”.

[Kato]

@pdf27

Anti-Christian, Anti-Cleric or Anti-Established Church? The three are not the same thing. In societies where the established church taxes the populace heavily and regulates their lives whether they like it or not, the church tends to suffer quite badly come a revolution. Not all churches though - just those associated in the public mind with the “abuses”.

In Moscovian-Russian tradition Christianity, Clerics and Established Church formed one entity that could not be separated, had no alternatives and was fully integrated into the tsar’s regime.

[larryparamedic]

@Egorka

I do not know right away about the vodka factories… but out something like 500 or so churches in Moscow alone by 1970s remain about 30 or so in service. The rest were either blown up or the buildings were reused for different purposes.

In the beggining of the 1930s the slogan was that Religion will seiz to exist in the course of 10 years i.e. with some direction the people will abandon the supersticious way of thinking.

Yes, for me as a believer it is a dark page in the Russian history. But again I do not claim USSR was a paradise either.

You make a good case for the film being true concerning ‘converting’ or reusing the (churches in this case) buildings for other purposes. That is a pretty easy idea to accept in most any country. In the US we had the bizarre Salem witch hunts, which was to do with nothing more than ‘religious’ warring. Like the “Inquisition”. And on and on…
Personally I believe the film portrays at least a base truth, if you will, about the churches.
And I completely agree the film, as any film imo, is in the eye of the film maker. And thus it will always be biased to their point of view, and what they want you to see. It is only the ‘masters’ that can film unbiased, and they are few and notable.

[Egorka]

@Kato

In Moscovian-Russian tradition Christianity, Clerics and Established Church formed one entity that could not be separated, had no alternatives and was fully integrated into the tsar’s regime.

Exactly. That is why I would not say “Anti-Cristian” (this term normaly has a specific flavour in Cristian beleive). The anticlerical acts prior to the Bolshevics that you mentioned (I do not know how numerous they were though) were IMHO aimed at the specific clerics not so much against the Church.

[Egorka]

@larryparamedic

You make a good case for the film being true concerning ‘converting’ or reusing the (churches in this case) buildings for other purposes.

Yes. But it was known way prior to this film. It was not a secret anywyas. It was part of the official doctrine. The church buildings were either reused or destroyed.
Of course not all of them were destroyed. Some were not touched and some were preserved as the historical monuments.

The problem of this film is not only that is a propaganda per se. But that it tries to counteract the soviet propaganda.
And the result is somewhat grotesk - two distorted and biased view points try to negate eachother.

Looking at such a filv one should not compare it against an other official propaganda image.

[Egorka]

Have not read it my self, but maybe someone would be interested:
“Cold War Allies: The Origins of the CIA’s Relationship with Ukrainian Nalionalists.”

Here are the pages scans: http://novoross-73.livejournal.com/38008.html

.