Author: Ian Anderson

Beginning just prior to the two minute mark, we begin to get a sense of hurriedness within Shostakovitch’s piece. Soon, by the three minute mark, horns begin blaring dramatically following by an underlying, repetitive pattern of notes by some of the lower horns and strings. In my mind this represents the constant presence of the German forces around Leningrad putting a constant pressure on the city with artillery, bombings, and other attacks in an effort to wear its citizens down. As we get to around the 5 minute mark, we see a brief, rather strange melody present itself. It ends with a high concluding note…and seems hopeful and light in the midst of the surrounding musical parts. Whether this little melody represents heroism during the siege, a rallying despite the dire situation within the city, or a mere callback to the relatively normal life that came before, one thing is sure: It represents a stark difference to the dark, foreboding tone of the rest of the piece up until this point. By 9 minutes into the piece, a blissful clarinet solo is seemingly all by itself. It is followed by other lighter parts, and by 14-15 minutes a strong movement is underway. By the 17 minute mark there is a distinct channeling of positive energy within the piece. Reminiscent of the theme from Lawrence of Arabia, it appears to represent the triumph of the heroes, as by this time the Soviet Union, through the microcosm of Leningrad, is returning to its former glory and beating back the foreign invaders. You can sense the hope Shostakovitch is trying to instill with these last several minutes and it is inspiring…as despite all the banging and crashing in the first several minutes of the piece, it ultimately ends with a grand, victorious rumble. In short, a summary of the piece could more or less read as follows:

Soft (the prelude to the siege) – Rushed/Hurried (the urge to escape or seek cover) – further Hurried and unpredictable (the attacks on the city itself) – Soft (cleaning up the wreckage and almost a slow tune paying tribute to those lost in the siege) – Loud and ecstatic (the push back against Axis forces and the lifting of the city’s siege as Allied forces push back the invaders)

What elements of the war/siege do you see in the piece? Given that the piece was completed in December of 1941, do you think the ending movement was Shostakovitch trying to instill hope that seemed out of reach, or was it something you believe he, and the people of Leningrad by extension, truly believed in given the dire circumstances?

In Into the Whirlwind, we see Eugenia Ginzburg’s experience as a political prisoner change her viewpoint of the USSR and its approach toward those who disagree with the policies of Stalin’s government. Fear sweeps throughout Russia, and something as simple as telling a joke, or for that matter not reporting one, can get you sent to an isolated prison so far away from home it would make one question if they will survive the week, let alone long enough to ever return to their town and what used to be normal life. As a result, differences seem to fade away. Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, hard-line Marxist/Leninist Communists, regional leaders, cultural outsiders, and others were all affected (111). A particular example is when Ginzburg helps smuggle cigarettes to Abdullin, who had just been returned from extensive interrogation (83). She helped do this in spite of him acting against her when she was under investigation by the party and her dues were being refused (78). Naturally, this surprised him and made him appreciated the gesture even greater.

Instances like this prove political divides no longer became very prominent. Everyone knew that that what was occurring was inherently wrong and that most of them should not be suffering such consequences for actions they did not commit or actions that were so minuscule. Pursing such individual cases makes one wonder about the vast waste of resources within the Soviet government, especially regarding the NKVD. From Stalin’s perspective, would it have not been simpler to address the issues and try to rally the diverse Soviet people around the common goal of making the government run efficiently for the betterment of all citizens? From an outside perspective this seems incredibly counterproductive…especially with the waste of such talented and educated individuals. However, when absolute loyalty is demanded from all, I suppose most reasonable logic immediately goes out the window in favor of finding the perfect, ideal follower to fill a certain niche (or in this case, massive group of niches).

In the Cult of Personality slide show, we can clearly see how Stalin sought to prop himself up as the only viable leader for the Soviet Union…a strong individual, chosen by Lenin (although not really) to continue the great communist experiment in the USSR. In slide 5, Stalin shares the image with Lenin while he, Lenin, seems to look on approvingly at what Stalin is presenting him. The sense of frame works to solidify Stalin’s place as Lenin’s successor and paint a clear line from Lenin to himself, even though in reality, the line was somewhat obscured due to the various ousts that occurred in order for Stalin to attain his position. By the mid 1930s to the early 1950s, Lenin has an increasingly small appearance in these political paintings and propaganda images. In “The Politiburo,” (slide 6) Lenin is merely a bust in the back of the party meeting, as is the case with “Stalin at the 16 Party Congress” (slide 7). In “Beloved Stalin, Happiness of the People!,” all we see of Lenin is a small portrait somebody in the crowd is raising above their head. By 1950 in “Glory to the Great Stalin!,” (slide 8) Lenin is nowhere to be found. In other media he without a doubt makes some appearances, but the seemingly steady decrease in his prominence could easily be viewed as Stalin truly taking control of the party and reshaping it, and by extension the nation, in his own image.

In “On the Inadequacies of Party Work,” Stalin frames outsiders as the enemy. The Trotskyists, the Germans, the Japanese, and the capitalists who would love to see the Soviet Union fail. This is an important shift. It builds upon Lenin’s criticisms of an economic enemy who seeks the USSR’s destruction, but it also shifts the focus to the two main Fascist/Imperialist nations who at this point in time are seeking to expand their influence and regain territory. In 1931 Japan had invaded Manchuria, and in 1936 Germany re-militarized the Rhineland. Since these two increasingly powerful countries were essentially the growing bookends of the USSR, it is notable that Stalin sees them as a growing danger by 1937 (perhaps not militarily, but ideologically, geographically, and strategically). Both governments, as Fascist in nature, exhibited a sense of hyper-capitalism in the relations between government and industry, and with the fascist vs. communist Spanish Civil War was playing out, the fear of such countries weakening the USSR became not only a danger to Soviet communist ideology, but in extension, to Stalin’s power itself. The NKVD’s ideological crackdowns in 1937, explained in “Into the Whirlwind” (page 6 of the .pdf document) could, in light of these events, be seen as a response to an ever growing threat of foreign capitalism/fascism and an effort to further purify the party’s ranks. The extent to which the government went to could be viewed as paranoid, but it is reasonable to say that while the threat to the USSR was present, it was possibly exaggerated to increase the economic output of the country and encourage that foundation of a strong national identity.

Please think about these questions prior to class on Thursday. Feel free to provide input in the comments below. Make sure to read the following sources as well for discussion.

The Silent Steppe details the life of a Kazakhstan village and its residents amidst the chaos that is the Soviet push for collectivization, confiscation, and class restructuring.

Dizzy with Success was published by Stalin in 1930 and highlights what is needed for what he claims is the ultimate success of farm collectivization in light of what has been accomplished so far. He also warns of the issues and factors that could prevent the perceived continuation of this success.

Questions:

1. The beginning of the collective farm system proved to be very tumultuous, particularly with the crackdown on the so-called “kulaks.” We see in The Silent Steppe (Chapter 2) that such individuals were frequently made examples of. What does it say about the nature of Stalin’s leadership that rather than understand the plight of farmers who needed to rapidly change, many of such individuals were singled out and punished quite severely given their circumstances?
2. In Dizzy with Success, Stalin says that people “are often intoxicated by success,” and that this makes the USSR more vulnerable to its enemies. Was Stalin referring to enemies within the Soviet Union (class enemies), or threats from Western nations abroad?
3. Does the the beginning of the collective farm movement show similarities with the grain requisitioning that occurred during the Civil War? Think about how a party member would justify this policy and the perspective of the farmers across the USSR.