Category: Uncategorized

Comrade chat chapter 8, 1 video

 Consider the case of the stiliagi, the young people who loved Western music and fashion. What are some ways historians have explained their fascination? Which explanation do you find most convincing? The stiliagi saw themselves as uninterested in politics. But were their activities subversive after all?

After reading about the stiliagi in chapter eight I was reminded of this book I read in my junior year of highschool. I could not for the life of me find the name of it. But it was about how teenagers in the sixties adopted this new culture and new attitudes that had never been seen before. It also talked about how the overall public view of sex changed during that time. They called it the sexual revolution. These teenagers and young adults were not intentionally trying to change culture. They were not trying to change societal norms. They were just having fun. Yet they had a profound impact on culture. In my opinion the stiliagi did something similar. The text asks, “Should it be seen as subversive or as a form of apolitical youthful rebellion” (Chatterjee, 163). As if the answer is binary. I think it was both. They engaged in their enjoyment of western culture because it was fun but also because it made the “old folks” mad. As a byproduct of their rebellion there were cultural changes. 

Historians cite a particular movie where the Indians fight against the yankees as a favorite of the stiliagi. They believe that the youth enjoyed this film because it portrayed American’s as the losers/bad guys. I do not agree with this explanation because stiliagi loved using American slang and listening to American music. The movie might have been “anti-American” but the rest of the things stiliagi enjoyed were not. I also do not agree that it provided, “an alternate form of masculinity” (chatterjee, 164) for those men who could not go to war. Stiliagi were focused on the American aesthetic. Aesthetic isn’t a macho concept, especially when stiliagi loved music and fashion. Ultimately, the most convincing reason for the way the stiliagi behaved is the good ole flame of teenage rebellion. 

The Stiliagi are an interesting group of people from this period in history – especially because it was after WW2, and one would expect them to be more interested in Soviet culture, music, fashion, etc. as a form of patriotism, rather than the Western culture which had always been depicted as the enemy to a safe and decent society. Historians stated that this fascination came from a few different events. One was that the Stiliagi were dissidents, especially in the face of the “macho” war veterans who were showing off their toxic masculinity (pg 164). Historians believed that the Stiliagi were using this fashion and western culture to bring themselves out of that tough and difficult lifestyle that the “macho” Russian veterans were presenting as. Another reason historians believe that the Stiliagi could have been interested in western culture is because it showed a life that was extremely different from their own — which included hunger, the spreading of disease, overcrowding, and in some places the lack of basic necessities such as running water (pg. 165). I find this explanation to be the most convincing of all explanations offered by historians. I think as young people, they wanted to change the world they lived in and experience better lives than that of the generation before them. Even though they saw themselves as uninterested in politics, I think this movement was extremely political. It showed their lack of happiness with the society presented to them and expressing that in itself is inherently political. 

Going off of Leah’s first discussion question and from the reading, I am very interested in opening up the conversation about what the initial intentions of the Cold War were for each side and exploring how the two sides rapidly picked a stance and used it as the foundation for the Cold War. To elaborate, the beginning of the book proposes three main origins of the Cold War: Soviet desire to spread communism, United States’ goal for international domination, and a vacant power vacuum left from the collapse of German and Japanese empires. With all of these theories circulating, it is easy to see how government officials could quickly portray their desired origin to the mass public and create a spiral of misinformation that if avoided, may have not allowed the Cold War to reach the impact that it did. Winston Churchill’s speech ignited the mass portrayal of the enemy having sinister intentions. To the Soviets, this “represented imperialist aspirations and idealogical obfuscation” and “coerced economic integration, not ‘freedom and democracy'” (pg. 157) and to the United States, the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan was a pledge to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures” (157). When I spent a semester in Greece, a large portion of my history lessons were surrounding this doctrine (because it was initially created in response to the Greek civil war) and we discussed how the Greek people were collectively against it (and even vandalized the Truman statue in Greece) because it was seen as means of economic control over susceptible nations. With this information, do we all feel as though each side too rapidly took an opinion against the other? Did the two groups collectively create one narrative they wanted to believe and ran with it? Without these drastically different collective origins, could the Cold War been avoided all together? How did these origin debates lead to the use of propaganda, Soviet punishment for western interaction, etc?

• Every week, you must respond to two lessons. Check the Plague Syllabus for details! Remember that your posts are due each week by Friday at 5pm.
• You do not need to respond to all of the questions I ask! You can focus on the one that interests you most.
• I will post my videos on this blog with the title, category, and tag “Comrade Chat.”
• As you start working on your final papers, remember to read carefully through the HIS 240 Writing Handout and other resources, which you can find here.
• If you don’t have your copy of Russia’s Long Twentieth Century, you can access an eBook version here.

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?

Every musical work tends to have a story behind its pleasant melody of sounds. In Shostakovich’s Symphony No.7 Leningrad, one hears a variety of instruments playing at various tones and tempos throughout the 19 minute long piece. As mentioned in the Radio Leningrad article Shostakovich aimed good depict the war through this symphony. Did he manage to do this? Also what did the increase and decrease of tempo throughout the piece do for the work as a whole? Most importantly how did Shostakovich tie the war into a piece of music?

In “This is Radio Leningrad!,” I found the development and adoption of culture to be particularly interesting. While some things were not inherently Soviet, such as the excerpt from Tolstoy, who died before the revolution of 1917, Dmitrii Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7 was the direct result of the siege of Leningrad and Soviet ideology. Berggolts in “This is Radio Leningrad!” describes Tolstoy’s “Sevastopol. Winter, 1854” as “matter-of fact Russian heroism, modest and pure (Berggolts).” This quote about a pre-soviet writer put alongside the dissonance and ominous beginning turned to glorious finish of Shostakovich’s movement IV of his Seventh Symphony seem to present a new era of Russian heroism. I use this term loosely as I do not mean to judge heroism, only its representation in culture. As we have seen, the Soviet Union has returned to traditional Russian heroes under Stalin as a rebuke of previous Soviet-only policy. The comparison of Tolstoy and Shostakovich supports this trend. What are some specific reasons to return to some aspects of traditional Russian culture (though Tolstoy himself does not fit that mold) and aside from morale during World War II, what are the effects of adopting an ableist and masculine culture under Stalin in the 1940’s?

At the beginning of Olga Berggolts “This is Radio Leningrad!” the reader is introduced to war-stricken Russia. This is a time of hardship for many as the war goes into the cold winter months. All that can be heard in the nation at this time is the explosions of weapons, for even the nation’s voice is silenced at this time. The radio had already been down for three days in Leningrad when Olga and her counterpart decided the silence could no longer go on. “The Art Director of the Radio Committee Babushkin, Makogonenko, editor of the Literary Department and myself drew up a detailed plan, toiling over it practically all through the night by the light of our only dim electric bulb with a newspaper for a shade.” Olga and Babushkin worked to create their master plan which would be known as Radio Leningrad. Radio Leningrad provided information about the war to the people of Leningrad and surrounding areas. This information was passed along through various forms of broadcasts such as personal narratives, poems, and short stories. One may hear from a soldier or even a common townsman about their experiences at this time of war. Thus the question I would like to propose is: Did Radio Leningrad have a larger meaning to the people of Leningrad than just a means of spreading information? Also, how did these different types of broadcasts have an affect on the information that was given? Was there more meaning to the broadcasts when they was given in the form of a first person perspective rather than a third person report?

Mikhail Sholokhov authors the dramatic tale of a grief-stricken man. The man, unnamed, tells of his tragic life story including the death of his family members and injuries sustained in battle. The man tells of his dramatic accident that left him in enemy hands– living as a prisoner of war for two years. He makes a dramatic escape with a German major and is welcomed by his fellow Russians. Despite his hardships, however, the man attempts to reenlist in the Russian army, “Comrade Colonel, please enlist me in an infantry unit” (Sholokhov 499). The man pleads with he Colonel to reenlist him in an infantry unit despite his failing health and obvious trauma. Why does the man yearn to be back in the army? Is he seeking revenge for his time in captivity or simply trying to be a ‘good’ Soviet citizen?

Ol’ga Berggolts, “This Is Radio Leningrad!”

1. What role does Radio Leningrad Play in keeping hope within the civilians of the U.S.S.R?
   1. Consider quotes from the text such as:
      1. “Nowhere had radio broadcasts played a such big role as in our besieged city”
      2. “Our broadcasts were relayed from Moscow to all parts of the country so that our whole people knew”
      3. “These broadcasts continued despite bombing raids and shellings. They always began with the same words: “This is Radio Leningrad, the city of Lenin calling the country!”
2. Radio Leningrad often featured civilian’s on the Radio, like Anna Akhmatova.  Do you think there was purpose behind this, if so what?
   1. Anna Akhmatova, in particular, started with “My dear fellow-citizens” then went onto speak directly to the women of the U.S.S.R. as her audience: “Mothers, wives, sisters of Leningrad” Was there a deeper meaning behind speaking to the women of the country? What type of connection does she establish in doing so, if any?
3. While broadcasting, the Soviets were aware of the presence of Nazis listening. The radio was even broadcasted at different times each day.  With this knowledge, do you think there was any strategy behind what was put on the radio? 
   1. Again, consider the use of civilian voices such as Anna Akhmatova.
4. How does Shostakovich present Dmitrii Shostakovich, Symphony no. 7 “Leningrad” within Ol’ga Berggolts, “This Is Radio Leningrad!”?

Dmitrii Shostakovich, Symphony no. 7 “Leningrad”

1. How does the beginning tone compare to the ending tone?
   1. Consider the speed of the music, intensity, use of certain instruments, quietness, or loudness. 
      1. Is the triumphant ending of the song too big or over-exaggerated? Is there sarcasm in the ending? 
         1. Examine from 17:00-End. 
2. What do you think the main purpose of the symphony was? Was it telling the story of the war? Consider the connection again from, “This is Radio Leningrad”.

Mikhail Sholokhov, The Fate of a Man 

1. During this time in Russia, the Soviet Government used censorship of literature before anything could be published to the public. Considering this, why is The Fate of a Man such a useful story to the Russian culture and to the Soviet Government that would cause the Soviet Government to make them want to publish it? 
2. The ex soldier the story teller talked to throughout the story described his life growing up during the famine of the Five Year Plan and becoming a soldier in the Red Army. “ In the famine of twenty two I made for the Kuban and worked my guts out for the kulaks, otherwise I wouldn’t be here now. But my mother, my father, and my little sister back home starved to death. So I was left alone, without a single relative in the whole world- no one (Sholokhov 488)”. Why do you think he talks about the famine the way he does? Is his experience growing up like the peasants experience during the grain laws in The Silent Steppe, the experience of tractor driver Pasha Angelina , or is his experience in between theirs that we haven’t seen yet?