No figure in world history, not even Lenin or Mao, exemplifies the oppressive and brutal nature of the Communist system. Stalin is vilified by most of the world, but as with all things, he is also hailed as a hero by many; and it part, rightly so.

The man's accomplishments cannot be denied. Without Stalin, it's doubtful that Hitler's Germany could have defeated in World War 2. Stalin's almost omnipotent control over the Soviet directly challenged the spectre of Nazi Facism. His ability to marshall the individually weak Soviet forces into a virtual meat grinder for the German war machine gave the Allied forces in Europe and those assembling in America much needed time to prepare for a liberating invasion of Europe.

It's ironic that in order to save Europe, Western Democracies put all their hopes in a Communist regime to split the fronts and draw the Nazis into a winter wasteland for which they were not prepared. Coupled with the awesome wartime production power of the United States and the Lend-Lease program, the Russian Bear was able to draw in the Nazi Stormtrooper, then crush him with the aid of the severe Russian winter and the seemingly never-ending supply of Soviet soldiers. Soviet losses were severe to say the least, but the Bear's contribution to the Allied victory cannot be denied.

Nor can Stalins role in building the USSR into a world power be denied. It's not politically correct to say this, but Stalin did bring the USSR up to the level of a super-power to rival the United States. In Russia, Stalin can rightly be considered a hero. However at the same time, he can rightfully also be considered to be one of the most evil human beings to ever walk the planet. His creation of what has been often referred to as a "cult of personality", his slaughter of millions of his real and imagined enemies, his brutal suppression of "undesirable elements", his "collectivization" efforts which almost starved a nation and the expansion of the Siberian Gulag system are all elements of this man's legacy that should rightly be decried as an affront to humanity.

So why exactly are the Russian leaders building monuments to a man who most of the world views as one of the great monsters of history?

The Russian Federation is facing a distinct and very real identity crisis. The heart of what was once the U.S.S.R., a world superpower, is now reduced to a nearly bankrupt nation, barely able to feed and clothe itself. A nation that once fielded a grand navy to sail the oceans of the world, to strike fear and project power is now seeing it's grand fleets rust at their moorings. The nation which once held a controlling presence in nations around the world is now having trouble defending it's own capital from terrorist attacks and sees it's territory fractured along, ethnic, political and religious lines. A nation who's every move prompted a swift and strong response from the United States and who's every sabre-rattle struck fear into Presidents and Prime Minister's world wide is now barely able to host a state dinner that impresses even minor diplomats. A nation that once controlled economies in far away lands with decrees from Moscow, now sees it's economic influence on it's closest neighbors gone in favor of the US Dollar or the upstart Euro.

Russia is dying. It's dying politically, economically and spiritually. The nation is gripped by a despair that it can't seem to shake. The defeat of a nation that considered itself to have toppled Hitler was defeated in the Cold War by Western nations. The Russian Bear now relies on the graciousness of those nations that were once considered to be arch-enemies.

The Russian people are a group who have repeatedly re-written their own history. They've denied who they are time and time again in the name of political expediency. They've been been beaten down from the inside, by their own people. People have been conditioned to not believe what they know, they've been led to believe that events that undoubtedly did happen, didn't. In a word, the people of Russia are but one thing, confused.

The Russian government claims that the statues of Stalin will be part of a greater tribute to the Russian heros that defeated Nazi Germany. Perhaps they are just that. However I expect that they are much more. I would suggest that the creation of the new monuments to Stalin are more a device to elicit Russian pride and a rediscovering of their history than they are a tribute to a great authoritarian. I would hope that by placing the tributes to Stalin in a greater context of WW2 memorials that people will realize that while Stalin was indeed evil, he did have a large part in saving the world from the Austrian Corporal turned megalomanic; and Stalin did bring the Soviet State into the modern world (albeit it slightly behind the Western powers).

It's difficult to support this move by the Russians because the motives and consequences are so unclear. Likewise it's difficult to patently oppose the tributes because of the context they will be placed in and the historical realities. For all his faults, Stalin is a central figure in the history of the Russian people.

Do his good deeds outweigh the bad? I can't answer that. For if we take just the bad and magically make the good go away, we all might be speaking German and marching along in goose-step to purge the world of all non-Aryans. If we take just the good and ignore the bad, we deny the oppressed and the fallen their voice in history.

If this move is a genuine examination of history and an attempt to honestly give recognition to the role of Russian leaders in WW2, then I support it. If it's an attempt to clarify the role of Stalin and others in defeating Nazism, then I support it.

However, if this is a more subtle and insidious attempt to garner support for the old Communist regime, if it's an attempt to pay homage to a man as a savior of the Russian people, I must deny it. I must condemn it and give a resounding objection on moral as well as historical grounds.

I have no problem with honestly discussing history in it's most brutal and painful reality. I feel it's necessary to remember the good and the bad of our historical experience. I believe that we cannot honor the good without also remembering the bad. To do so would be a disservice to those that come after us, a denial of our collective history and by denying history, we're doomed to repeat it.

In closing, I'll say I'm disturbed by this move on a personal level. I think it's dangerous to the people of the Russian Federation and Russian nation. Yet I'm not ready to outright condemn it because I believe that it's important that people be remembered for both the evils that they've committed, but also their positive contributions to mankind.

I don't like that Stalin is being honored, I think it may be misconstrued (especially by the West, and certainly by the young) as a return to the glorification of communism. I fear that coupled with the rise in popularity of the Soviet Flag and Anthem as current icons, those who do not remember the evils of Stalin will only see him as a savior of the motherland from German aggression. I fear that the Russian people will begin to forget the evils of Stalin and only remember the might and power and prestige that he brought to the Russian people (however misplaced).

I'm torn between two Stalins. I'm torn between two histories. I'm torn between two possibilities for a Russian future. I guess we'll just have to wait and view the statues in their greater context. Then we can pass judgement and examine honestly whether the legacy of Stalin is being treated fairly, or merely re-written yet again.

--Jason