Dear Comrades, here is my first video fro you! Please watch it and/or read the transcript below. You can also turn on closed captioning with the video, but it is auto-generated and not entirely accurate. Remember to respond with your own posts by Friday at 5pm!
Transcript of the Video
Welcome to the online version of this course! Today’s teaching assistant is Dante. Let’s start with a few announcements. First, remember that from now on, you must do two blog posts a week. Your posts are due Fridays by 5pm. Second, If you do not have your copy of Russia’s Long Twentieth Century, the library has gotten us access to the eBook. I will post the link on the blog. I am also working on getting us scans of the two other books you’ll need in the coming weeks.
During the first half of this semester, most of our class meetings involved about half an hour of lecture. Now that we’ve gone online, we are going to set those lectures aside. It’s harder to concentrate on a lecture you watch online. There’s a certain energy that comes with us all being in the same room and being able to interact in real time. You guys, in particular, ask a lot of great questions. In our current situation, though, we can’t achieve that kind of interaction. I’m aware that you have limited time and limited attention that you can devote to this class. I’d rather spend that time on discussion, especially because our textbook, Russia’s Long Twentieth Century, does a good job of covering the historical context.
I’m going to start today with a brief summary of the points that I think are most essential for historical context. Then I’ll ask you some discussion questions based on chapter 8, and finally, I’ll ask you some discussion questions that go with the primary sources at the end of this chapter.
When we talk about the Late Stalinist period, which runs from the end of WWII in May 1945 through Stalin’s death in 1953, it’s important to pay attention both to domestic affairs (the process of postwar reconstruction) and international affairs (the rise of the Cold War).
Domestically, the Soviet Union threw itself into reconstruction. And it had a long way to go, because much of the fighting on the Eastern Front took place in Soviet territory, and that territory was just about destroyed. Amazingly, the Soviet Union did manage to return to its prewar industrial capacity by 1948. But as you read, this success was achieved on the backs of workers and peasants. Peasants, in particular, suffered during the Famine of 1946-1947, which was caused by drought, but made worse by the state’s refusal to commit to effective relief efforts. As a silver lining, this is the last time we’re going to talk about massive deaths of Soviet citizens in this class. It took us eight weeks, but we got there!
At the same time, the Soviet Union faced a lot of societal tension. Citizens who had accepted harsh sacrifices during the war were impatient to see their standard of living rise afterward. People were shocked when friends and family who had survived prisoner of war camps and slave labor in the Nazi Reich were then arrested and sent to the Gulag as traitors. And in Western Ukraine, which had been part of Poland between the world wars but was now incorporated into the Soviet Union, nationalist militias kept up active fighting though the late 1940s.
Stalin’s postwar ideological campaigns only added to these tensions. The zhdanovshchina introduced a strict crackdown on artists, intellectuals, and even jazz music. (We’ll talk about that more in the next lesson.) The Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign brought anti-Semitism into the official sphere for the first time and suppressed expression of secular Jewish identity, which the Soviet state had previously supported. And the Doctor’s Plot, which accused Jewish doctors of plotting against the government, represented an even more serious threat to Soviet Jews and was only halted b Stalin’s death in 1953.
Amidst all of this, a new generation of Soviet citizens reached adulthood. They were much less interested in politics than their parents. What they really wanted to do was play sports, go dancing, and just generally have fun. They were also very interested in the West and had more information about it than ever before. Chapter 8 gives you a good sense of the new ways they were finding out about Western fashions, music, and slang, and for some young people, embracing the culture of the stiliagi.
So, that’s the domestic scene. On the international stage, the Cold War was on the rise. As we learned earlier, even during WWII, relations between the Allies were tense. And they only broke down further as these same countries negotiated how to put Europe back together after the war’s end. In 1947, the United States declared the Truman Doctrine, which stated that it would aid any country in the world facing an internal “threat.” Truman didn’t explicitly call it a threat from communism, but that’s what he meant, and everyone knew it. The same year, the US also launched the Marshall Plan, a massive aid program, which the Soviet Union took as a bid for hegemony in Europe. To counteract it, the Soviet Union established the Cominform in 1948, as a successor to the defunct Comintern. These moves essentially set up the two blocs that would dominate the second half of the 20th century: a Western Bloc cemented by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and an Eastern Bloc cemented by the Warsaw Pact. These blocs also divided Germany and the city of Berlin between them, though all parties had agreed in 1945 that this should not happen. Chapter 8 gives you more detail on this process. And of course, we can’t forget that the nuclear arms race soon came into the picture, with the Soviet Union developing its first atomic bomb in 1949.
The Eastern Bloc comprised seven countries besides the Soviet Union. It’s important to understand that these countries remained separate. They were not part of the Soviet Union, though they were heavily influenced by it. That’s why we call them “satellite states.” These countries are: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. (Yugoslavia was also a communist country in this era, but it did not join the Warsaw Pact.) These countries were all occupied by the Soviet Union as they drove the Nazis back to Berlin from 1943 to 1945. And as the Soviet forces retreated after the war, they established communist regimes to take over from them. In some countries, like Czechoslovakia, communism was genuinely popular at this time. Even so, the Soviets supported the Czech Communist Party in staging a coup to ensure thy would stay in power.
I think that’s what we need to know for this lesson! Let’s get to some discussion questions.
Leah’s Discussion Questions
1. The authors of our textbook point out that in the immediate postwar period, both the West and the Soviet Union made moves aimed at protecting their security interests and promoting their ideological interests. Each side viewed the other with suspicion, and each new move increased their mistrust of each other, resulting in the Cold War. Historians have long debated which side was more to blame for this situation. But I’d like you to consider, would it have been possible to avoid the Cold War? If so, what could each side have done differently to diffuse tensions? If not, what historical factors made this conflict a foregone conclusion?
2. Let’s consider the postwar ideological campaigns: the move against jazz, the promotion of Russian nationality, and particularly the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign. Can you analyze the relationship of these campaigns to the Cold War? What about their relationship to internal factors? Historians have debated whether external or internal factors were more significant; what do you think and why? How did these campaigns shape the way Soviet citizens thought about society and culture?
3. 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?
4. Our authors explain that during the Cold War, both the West and the Soviet Union based their arguments for their superiority on the claim that their system could do the best job of providing for their citizens’ needs. They shared the idea of “the good life,” but they defined it differently. The West upheld the idea of choice: citizens had a vast array of consumer goods and could get anything they want. The Soviet Union, by contrast, upheld the idea of social services: citizens could live worry-free, because they had guaranteed housing, free healthcare, free education, and the right to work. Which of these definitions of “the good life” do you find most convincing and why?
I would also like you to analyze the primary sources on pp.171-174, using the discussion questions provided by our authors.
For added fun, you can also watch Nixon and Khrushchev’s 1959 “Kitchen Debate” on YouTube. Here it is!
1. I do not think it was possible to avoid the Colf War. The United States and USSR were both desperate to be number one in the world after WWII successes and seeing other countries fall into depressions and not know how to continue. They were both desperate to win the hearts and minds of the countries looking for guidance, and even the ones that did not want interference. It basically seemed like a popularity contest that neither side wanted to give up on. The Cold War could not be avoided because there was no middle ground for the two sides to agree upon. The U.S. wanted countries to be democratic, and the USSR wanted more communist countries. These ideological differences were unavoidable no matter what state the world was in.
2. I believe that the postwar ideological campaigns were important to the Cold War because if Soviet citizens loved what culture America had to offer then they would possibly love and want more of America. It makes sense because the Soviets wanted their citizens to embrace and show off their own culture and ideologies over the American ones. These were obviously important and influenced the Cold War, but I feel like it could have had the opposite of their intent and cause citizens to wonder why these things would be banned or promoted and cause a curiosity about other cultures. I think these internal factors influenced the war more since they were influencing and affecting the citizens of the USSR.
3. I think stiliagi were fascinated with Western culture because it did give them a sense of identity and finding their individuality. It was not about the politics for them, they were young people who wanted to have fun and explore, but with that came wanting to be different and create a new version of themselves. Maybe this was not their intent, but it was what it turned into and therefore were promoting Western culture and were involved into political discussions, even if they did not participate themselves.
4. Although I think the appeal of living in the Soviet Union “worry-free” is very convincing there is for some reason more appeal for the American “choice.” People have dreams that they want to accomplish, and America gives them that opportunity to rise from the bottom and be who you want to be. It is the same reason why stiliagi were so interested in the Western culture. The Soviet Union offers so much, but the U.S. offers people the opportunity to be unique and their own person. It was an easy choice for people who had big dreams to choose which really was the “good life.”
Primary Sources 171-174:
A Soviet Criticism of Jazz:
1. I think he means that jazz is an art form that applies to anyone and everybody who enjoys it and/or wants to express themselves with jazz music.
2. I think this is because he feels like the jazz music has almost been “taken” from its true source and twisted.
3. The USA is using jazz music to win culturally with the countries involved in the Marshall Plan.
4. I feel like there is a bit of resentment with this article and almost a sense of betrayal.
A Soviet Negro applies for a passport:
1. It is so difficult to determine Golden’s nationality because he wanted to be associated as a “Soviet” but that is not an actual nationality. Instead it is considered a “citizenship.”
2. She wants to be considered a “Negro” instead then since the Black people in the United States were fighting for this title. The policeman accepted this since she had proof in a newspaper where her father was referred to as a “Negro.”
3. That there are still things in America that are being fought for and it is not the “perfect” world it appears to be on the outside.
The “Kitchen Debate”:
1. Nixon sees women as housewives and believes this is a universal fact. While Krushchev claims that this belief of women does not happen under communism.
2. Krushchev claims that an American house does not last for more than twenty years, but a Soviet house will last for their children and grandchildren. Nixon counters this by claiming “the American system is designed to take advantage of new inventions and new techniques,” (173).
3. Nixon is claiming the right to choose and American’s diversity and this relates to 8.1 because of the “cosmopolitan art” type and that there is even diversity in American’s art, specifically jazz.
In response to question 4, I think that context is important when choosing a particular model. While in the American perspective, the United States certainly won the Kitchen Debate, the concept of a guaranteed basic standard of living is certainly desirable. Though the Soviet Union was not well equipped to provide this model in the immediate post-war period, I think that it is important to note that the United States’ consumer driven model was a largely sexist system (ask Betty Friedan) and margianlized minorities effectively closing off the potential success of the model.
Cultural context is very important in deciding which system might better suit a group of people. Our contextual tendancies in America have led us to be reliant on our ability to choose regardless of the choices we might have. This is evident in our current moment with the dissent in COVID-19 mobility policy. Soviets, however, had experienced more deeply rooted crises in their near history at the onset of the Cold War and were likely more receptive to a strong social safety net at the cost of personal liberty and intellectual freedoms.
I find a combination of the two systems to be the most ideal as I do enjoy personal freedoms but not at the expense of racial prejudice and certainly not at the cost of a Social-Darwin-esque lack of gurananteed necessities. I, as most Americans, am comfortable with a certain amount of consumerism and would probably be lost without our many comforts but value a social safety net.
In response to question #1, no, but for one main reason which if not present might have altered events. From a simple foreign intelligence standpoint, it would have been very difficult to prevent a Cold War. The Soviet Union and the Western Allies already had a strong distrust of each other by late in the war (March-May of 1945) over the technology and scientists. Each side captured futuristic jet aircraft, rockets, missiles, weapon designs, ships, and other tech from Germany at the end of the war. Operation Paperclip (beginning in planning under FDR and in action under Truman) was more or less based in an inherent distrust of the Soviets. At the same time, Stalin’s unwillingness to part with formerly independent nations like Poland and restore their sovereignty, along with his expectations of the West to honor his former agreement with von Ribbentrop from the 1939 pact, did not make things any easier, especially since as we discussed in class, a Polish government in exile operated from the UK during the war and fought with the British.
The true divide in what occurred versus what could have happened, to me, lies in the reunification of Germany which never occurred. Stalin’s paranoia most definitely led to a fear of future war, and as such he wished to have a sort of buffer zone between the USSR and the rest of Europe. The potential for more workers, and dedicated followers looking for a new cause in lieu of Nazism’s failures presented a great opportunity for the Soviet military and economy by increasing their workforce/trade as well as creating more available land for bases.
As we discussed before, it all comes down to Stalin’s paranoia and hectic management style of the Soviet state. Compared to other world leaders, he seemed difficult to predict. For example, very few within his own government could have expected he would eliminate virtually every major military expert in the high levels of the Soviet government in the Great Purge, yet he did it anyway, consequences be damned. This in turn probably fueled the fear of the Western Allies more than anything. They needed to stay ahead or at very least be on par with the USSR, or risk being at the mercy of Stalin’s unpredictable nature. The fear of his mentality combined with the presence of the aforementioned German technology likely created all sorts of fears with said technology’s applications.
Had this underlying, power hungry mentality not been present, various nations would have regained their independence and there would have been little fear-fueled motivation to obtain German technology from the perspective of Britain and the USA. But then again, we must also consider that without that character trait, there is a good chance that Stalin would have never become leader of the USSR. The need for the USSR to recover swiftly also possibly fueled Stalin’s desire to keep the lands the Red Army conquered. With land comes resources, and the more they had at their disposal, the easier recovery would be (also financial recovery would be eased as well, as we must remember that Britain, a nation on its decline in 1945, did not fully repay it’s WWII debt to the US and Canada until 2006), and the less likely somebody could pose a challenge to Stalin domestically.
“UK settles WWII debts to allies” – BBC News – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6215847.stm
I would disagree with the statement that the Cold War was avoidable. Even though there are countless reasons as to why, I feel like there are two that are very prominent:
The first being a sense of exceptionalism that arose in both cultures following WWII success. Both countries would not only exit the war in dominant positions dynamically, but also diplomatically in the process of post-war reparation. That being said, both countries wanted to be on top of the national theatre. When the Truman Doctrine would come to light, it would only kindle the fire of American Exceptionalism and solidify the distrust of the Soviet Union amongst U.S. citizens.
Second would be the nuclear arms race. The treat of nuclear warfare had a lingering effect on each country and weigh on the minds of citizens until the Cold War came to a close. In the U.S. defense tactics and safety techniques were preached to citizens, and defense mechanisms such as Nike Missile Bases were scattered throughout the country, creating a sense of discomfort and, again, furthering the distrust of the Soviet Union.
In response to Question 4, based off of definition alone of “the good life” that one would experience in each system the Soviet Union seems to have the better deal. As mentioned above, they used their system of social services to their advantage by promising one will receive all that one NEEDS in life( work, housing, education, schooling, healthcare). On the other hand, the United States portrayed their system as being able to provide one with all they would WANT(large variety of consumer goods). The US wanted to show that their system allowed for choice, whereas the Soviet system was not as flexible. So basically it was the promise of the essentials of life versus the promise of freedom in choice. Like I said at first, the Soviet system looks like the better choice since everything you NEED will be provided for you. However, when looking deeper into the systems and welfare of the nations at the time the US actually comes out as a better choice in my opinion. After the war, the Soviet Union faced hardship as it went through reconstruction. A lot of people were hit hard by this and were not being given these essentials that were promised by their nation’s system. On the other hand, the United States was flourishing after their victory in WW2 and had phenomenal economic growth. This allowed for the market of consumer goods to grow and gave luxury to the American way of life. Therefore, in the end I feel like the United States system of capitalism was the better choice at this time in history.
The three campaigns, the move against jazz, the promotion of Russian nationality and the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign, are all related to the Cold War as de-Americanizing the Soviet Union. Jazz was created by the African American population of the United States and was symbol of hope and freedom for them. Thus, the Soviet state didn’t want their people to listen to or play that Western music that symbolized “the United States of America.” As for the promotion of Russian nationality, this would be especially important during the Cold War. This is because when a war happens, even as a cold one, the people need to band together and stand for their nation, and what better way than to have Russian pride. Along with this, as the textbook stated, Lily Golden had a difficult time finding/ identifying her nationality because she was born in one place, raised in another, and her parents had different ethnicities as well (very sorry if this is not the correct wording). (p.160) It was also a difficult time for Jewish Russians, as the government didn’t really consider them Russians. Leading into the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign, the Soviet’s did not consider ethnically Jewish people to be “true” Russians, even though they were. However, the Jewish population of the USSR was tormented and some were even sent to gulags just for having some kind of Jewish ethnicity in their family line. With this, the state of Israel was being recognized, and eventually the US was getting close to Israel. Obviously, the Soviet Union was not happy about this, and Stalin was annoyed with the US and the Jewish Russians. (p.162) These all relate back to the Cold War because they had something to do with Westernization, at least the jazz and Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaigns did, whereas the promotion of Russian nationality was the attack to defend against the Western and, more specifically, the US influence on the Soviet Union. I believe the internal factors were just as strong as the external factors. The two had to feed off of each other to grow. Without the Western influence from the outside, the internal Western influence would not grow. The Russian soldiers that we captured by the Nazi’s were hardly Westernized, but they still ended up in labor camps and the such. (p. 162) Overall, I believe the two factors are just as significant. The campaigns shaped the way Soviet citizens thought about society and culture by showing the citizens how the communist government wanted the USSR to run. It was the governments way, or labor camps, or prison. The citizens were limited in what they were able to do in every way of life. Unable to listen to or play jazz music, saxophones were illegal and bass players could only bow. (p. 160) Other forms of art where outlawed or changed, such as Jewish history in WWII. The Soviet citizens were only allowed to think as Russian Soviets and perceive the Russian and Soviet world.
In response to question 1, I believe it was not possible for the Cold War to be avoided. While the USSR and the U.S. were trying to build their country into being as successful as they wanted, they each had extremely similar goals which caused them to have an almost “jealous” rivalry. I say it is a jealous rivalry because, even though they had different views, they both shared the same essential goals of economic modernization and globalization. These goals caused hostility between the two countries, and it was seen as whichever country reached their goals first, would be the ultimate “winner” and would become the superior country between the two. This war was basically inevitable because both the USSR and the U.S. wanted to be the best and it basically became a competition between which country had the ability to reach their goals before the other.
Even though the Cold War was between the U.S. and the USSR, other countries became involved and led to a global struggle. For example, the European powers did not have the ability to fight off their own independence movements in their own countries, which led to a division of views. Some had the viewpoints of the U.S., and the others had the viewpoints of the U.S. This created the hostility between countries themselves, which added more tension between the two countries, because they knew they would have support from other countries.
In response to the primary source question on pg 171 (document 8.1), I think that the article purposefully portrays the United States in a bad light. The use of the words ‘lynching’ and ‘Ku Klux Klan’ enforce the idea that the US was battling serious issues regarding race and the USSR had the opportunity to expose this. The KKK is also a symbol of poor governance by police and racism that was a US problem as the USSR had not been struggling with race in this manner since Stalin encouraged equality. The usage of these terms also adds a dramatic flair to the text and switches the narrative for which they are typically used when the term ‘lynched’ was used in reference to a white musician.
The overall tone of the article is very condescending as the author is essentially stating that jazz was a wonderful, exciting music genre that was to be used by black people only. The article continues by stating that the racist white men ruined the true meaning of jazz, so the USSR cannot accept the art form. By positioning the USSR as allies of the black, musical community the USSR is strategically positioning itself as an ally that wishes to punish the racist white musicians.
Along with attempting to align itself with the black community, the article also condemns modern jazz for being an elitist art that has strayed from its roots. The condemnation of an elitist, unequal art form mirrors the classical, Soviet socialism that shuns inequality. The article is successful in using jazz as a scapegoat to deliver a message that the US has strayed so far into the arms of capitalism that it is no longer salvageable. Overall, the article is political and puts forth no effort to preserve, protect black musicians and their art.