Russia, the Soviet Union, and the CIS (HIS240 S20)

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? 

In ‘This is Radio Leningrad!’, author Olga Berggolts explains the innumerable joy the people of the Soviet Union have experienced thanks to their radio show. The support of Radio Leningrad is not ubiquitous, however, and Nazis attempt to sabotage the show. Olga explains that, “the Nazis listened to our broadcast, too, of course. They listened to them and, as we found out later, wrote down the names of the speakers, longing for a “day of reckoning”. she continues by referring to the Nazi’s actions as, “paranoid ambitions” (Berggolts, “This is Radio Leningrad!”). In addition to their lists, the Nazis also attempted to intercept the Radio Leningrad broadcast. The Nazis are clearly consumed with attempting to censor Russian radio. What parallels can be drawn between the Nazis’ attempted censorship and the Russian censorship we have seen in the past (Into the Whirlwind, socialist realism, etc.)? Along the same lines, how have Russian ideals of censorship shifted due to the war?

The storyteller in “The Fate of a Man” goes through terrible hardships. His nationality causes him to undergo harm. When he was a prisoner of war, the Germans would, “beat you just because you are Russian” (Shokolov, 496). Luckily he breaks out of prison camp and then returns to the Soviet army. He brings them a German General and a briefcase full of valuable materials. The army appreciates and congratulates him for his efforts. Objectively, he has been a good soldier. He never sold out to the Germans and he aided his country by obtaining valuable information. In the end the man finally reconnects with his son. The two go from place to place because the mans sadness won’t let him stay in one place for long (Stokonov, 506). Unfortunately they have no place to call home, they are, “Two orphaned human beings…flung into unfamiliar places by the unprecedented hurricane of war” (Sholokov, 507). Yet Stalin’s policies dictate that prisoners of war should be executed as if they are traitors. This would have been generally understood by all soldiers at the time. Is the real reason the storyteller will never return to Russia due to the fear of execution or due to the traumatic memories of the family he lost there?

In the darkest points of the siege of Leningrad, music provided a light for the people. Specifically, the musical symphony composed by Dmitrii Shostakovich had a monumental effect on the people. Shostakovich produced an incredible symphony that played over the radio when the people breached part of the blockade. One old woman walked across the city and went past the militiamen in the middle of the night just to congratulate the Leningraders on their victory. This music served as a unifying force to the people. One housewife exclaimed, “I just stood by the loudspeaker all night long, listening, and I did not feel alone.” Even though the sound of music is intangible, the symphony produce by Shostakovich simply embodied everything the people of Leningrad were feeling. Now given all of this, would the symphony be considered a form of socialist realism?

“Violence breeds more injustice.” This quote encaptures the backbone of Leninism and all of the principles that sparked the revolution in Russia. The Soviet Union’s initial and lasting support stems from these wise principles of Lenin; aim for equality, raise people to higher standards, and empower those who were once oppressed. Stalin enforced the idea of waiting, properly organizing, and not making spontaneous, rash decisions post October-Revolution. There is no doubt that Lenin created a socialist wave that changed the entire political and social scene of Russia in the early 1900s. As monumental as this movement was, it was hindered and quickly re-routed through Stalin and his communist political agenda. Stalin’s policies were destructive and counterproductive to the overarching principles of socialism in order to expedite a communist state. In regard to industrialization, Stalin approached the situation un-uniformly and unjustly. Work sites such as Magnitogorsk were inhumane, there were no guidelines for dekulakization, and collectivization did not take into account the peasantry’s best interests. Trailblazing communism came with its minute hurdles of success, however, these successes do not triumph the tragedies associated with this social movement. The poor were targeted, mislead, and taken advantage of. The social narrative of the Soviet Union was written under the guidelines of Stalinism, not of the people. In an attempt to outline Soviet history, Stalinism and all of its downfalls must be included in the story and must not fall to the back burner to a few accomplishments. While the argument is present that this trailblazing was necessary to prepare for what is ahead, this claim completely discredits the current conditions. People are not stagnant; people are able to adapt. By abruptly and harshly changing a social climate in such a forceful way, citizens were not given the fair advantage of making their own choices and constructing the Soviet Union they wanted. With time and proper planning, the working class may have excelled with the new policies. Instead, Stalin uses this argument to discredit all of the tragedies associated with his political reign. Ultimately, we hope to highlight the lack of a government officials’ part in advancing a nation for the people instead of on the basis of Stalinism.

Do the triumphs of the Stalinist era justify the tragedies? While some will argue that his policies caused more problems for the citizens of the Soviet Union, Stalinist policy actually provided a successful industrial society while also preparing the Soviet Union for the hardships that would be ahead. Some of the most major successes came from the buildup of the Soviet military, the early completion of the first Five-Year Plan, and the basic economic development that took place during each of Stalin’s 5 Year Plans. The Soviet military undertook a major set of changes during this period in order to keep pace with other already industrialized nations. This meant the development of more advanced weapons, vehicles, and equipment. One such success of the Soviet design bureau was the MiG 1 and its improved successor, the MiG 3, two high altitude interceptors made possible under a fighter development program initiated by none other than Stalin himself. By the time of Germany’s invasion of Russia in 1941, the Red Air Force had over 1,200 Mig 3’s and a similar number of the older Mig 1, a substantial achievement for a nation that up until the late 1930s had produced mainly antiquated biplanes according to John H. Lienhard of the University of Houston. Could such advancements have been possible without Stalinist policies? Possibly, but given these examples, we know that Stalin’s swiftness in kicking Soviet industry into gear led to some notable technological advancements in a very short amount of time, including the partial adoption of a semiautomatic rifle for the Soviet Red Army, something which was still several years out of reach for all other countries besides the United States, and which was revolutionary for the USSR, as the main arm of the Soviet military through the 1930s was a refined bolt action rifle introduced back in 1891 under the Tsar’s Imperial Army. Naturally, both of these developments made the Soviet Union a force to be reckoned with, and a slight alteration in how the programs progressed could have had a very negative impact on where the USSR was by the time Russia was entered WWII in 1941. These successes, and by extension those of Stalinist policy as a whole, were further exemplified by the fact that the first Five-Year Plan was, despite all expectations, completed early, and led to a rise in the industrial workforce from 3.12 million in 1928 to 6.01 million at the end of the plan in 1932 according to Stephen Hansen’s book Time and Revolution: Marxism and the Design of Soviet Institutions. Economically, the capital goods sector saw a 158% increase in productivity, and the consumer goods sector saw an 87% increase, which made for a total increase of 118% according to James R. Millar in an article in the Slavic Review. Clearly, while some of the effects of Stalinsim were negative in how they affected particular individuals, the struggles endured by the Soviet people were worth it due to the miraculous economic success and industrialization, which, without a strong leader with strong policies, likely would not have been possible, culminating in an incredibly vulnerable nation behind the rest of the world on the eve of one of humanity’s largest conflicts.

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).

Eugenia succinctly summarizes her experiences when she states, “As I lay awake on my plank bed, the most unorthodox thoughts passed through my mind-about how thin the line is between high principles and blinkered intolerance, and also how relative are all human systems and ideologies and how absolute the tortures which human beings inflict on one another” (Ginzburg, 113).

In the last quote of chapter twenty, Eugenia offers cigarettes to Derkosovya. Instead of accepting the kind gift, Derkosovya refuses and starts to send tapping messages to the woman in the other cell. Derkosovya questions the next door neighbor, Mukhina, if she can trust Eugenia because Eugenia is a communist. Derkosovya wants to know if Eugenia is secretly a part of the opposition. All this over a pack of cigarettes. This emphasizes the thin line between high principles and blinkered intolerance. Eugenia is just trying to be kind. However, Derkosovya is so stubbornly devoted to her own ideals she doesn’t even want to accept this simple gift.

Did Derkosovya cross the line between high principles and blinkered intolerance? Was she justified in her distrust of Eugenia? Was Derkosovya being prejudice or was she just being cautious??

In these chapters,  a big part of Eugenia Ginzburg’s time in prison was with her cellmate and cell neighbor Gary Sagiddullin. I think the part of her story that stood out the most to me was about Gary’s political views. While communicating through the cells with Eugenia, Gary said “I was and I remain a Leninist. I swear it by my seventh prison (Ginzburg 72).” As Eugenia began to learn more and more about Gary, she also learned that he did not like Stalin. “Gary hated Stalin with a bitter passion (Ginzburg 74).” I found this to be a very interesting view point. A big part of our discussion on Tuesday was about Lenin and Stalin, and how Stalin was often portrayed as having the same mentality and ability as Lenion. If this is the case, why do you think Gary Sagiddullin hates Stalin with such a passion when Stalin is seen as being a similar leader to Lenin?

Into the Whirlwind is Eugenia Ginzburg’s account of her arrest and imprisonment based on false accusations during the Great Purge of the Stalinist Soviet Union. Ginzburg, as we see through her memoir, is committed to the ideals of the Communist Party throughout the memoir but begins to question very seriously the actions of those carrying out such policy and of Stalin himself. 

1. Eugenia’s political ideals shift throughout the story. In what ways do her political views change? What parallels can be drawn between her political views to her state of well-being or current predicament?
2. Eugenia is a very intelligent woman. She is multilingual, speaking French, Russian, and Tatar. In chapter 18, Eugenia converses with Nalya in French in front of her interrogator, Bikchentayev; he is barely able to speak Russian and appears foolish– despite holding a position of power. How does Bikchentayev represent the Soviet Union as a whole (and juxtaposed against Eugenia)? Why is someone like Eugenia particularly dangerous to the Soviet Union? 
3. Eugenia is a prominently ranking Communist who is committed very much to the party at the time of her arrest. Through Eugenia’s perspective as a victim of the Great Purge, how can we separate the principles of Communism as Into the Whirlwind shows party members understood them from the policies of Stalinism. 
4. Eugenia states “For the first time in my life I was faced by the problem of having to think things out for myself–of analyzing circumstances independently and deciding my own line of conduct (Ginzburg 74).” How does her role as a writer and educator play into her experiences? Does her education allow her to think and act more boldly?