In “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”, Qualls argues that the historical city of Sevastopol has been defined and shaped by its identification with Russian culture and history. Sevastopol’s residents and outsiders consider it to be a Russian city, and this tradition was evident as far back as 1845 when Leo Tolstoy wrote that it was “impossible to shake the spirit of the Russian people” (Qualls 3) during their defense of the city during the Seize of Sevastopol. During WWII, in creating its own wartime narrative, Sevastopol introduced their own heroes among Soviet heroes such as Zoya Kosmodemianskaia. In Soviet press, Sevastopol’s role in WWII was linked to the Crimean War and so the fight against the Nazis was coined as the “Second Great Defense.” Thus, in the creation a wartime narrative, Sevastopol’s heroes were linked and compared to pre-Soviet Russian heroes, such as Aleksandr Nevskii, Aleksandr Suvorov, and Mikhail Kutuzov. Thus, qualities such as self-sacrifice, resistance and heroism that were exhibited by these Russian heroes became “synonymous with Sevastopol” (Qualls 7). The city’s military history as the city of Catherine the Great’s fleet and its ancient Greek and Turkish origins contributed to the narrative of Sevastopol as a Russian, as opposed to Soviet city.
This replacement of Russian history over Soviet history is interesting, especially in the light of 2 decades before where Stalin called for a brotherhood of nations where the Soviet Union was national in structure but Soviet in form. Did this change in perspective happen in response to the war? If so, what about Russian history was more powerful than the Soviet narrative? Although Soviet values were not replaced completely replaced, why was history so important to Sevastopol narrative? It seems like the fact that a military history had already been such a staple of Sevastopol’s understanding of itself, from both its Soviet leaders and its population that harnessing this history would be more beneficial for the war effort than repeating Soviet propaganda.
It seems that this interesting narrative proves that the city of Sevastopol reflects the story of the Soviet Union (and pre- Soviet Russia as well). This is a microcosm representation of the larger country in terms of: development of industry and economy shift (from NEP to collectivization), repelling of invading forces (twice), regime changes and its effect on policy, and much more. The city faced devastation as the entire country did against the Germans and yet out of the ashes, was able to push the enemy back and triumph in battle. This is how I see the two cases similar; a city that paints a picture of the larger country.
Histories calling upon local and relatable examples of heroism are likely to illicit strong feelings in a community; As opposed to the emphasis of a narrative – in this case the Soviet narrative – that feels distant and comes not from “the people” but a higher, separate entity. If the Sevastopol narrative relates a continued cycle of bravery and valor displayed by ordinary people in defense of the Russian state, then this motivates locals to honor such bravery and continue to display similar values, values that resemble Soviet ideals but lie under the guise of Russian, ancestral heroism. The molding of Sevastopol history into one of distinct military victory and local heroism gave the people an impressive identity to grab onto, an identity which demanded service to your fellow countryman and drew the city into the Soviet realm through glorifying its ties to Russia. Does it matter that Sevastopol glorified a regime separate from the Soviet Union, if it still remained in line with Soviet goals? Was this perhaps a tactic employed by the Soviet Union to keep Sevastopol controlled, even though such mythology ended up outlasting the Soviet Union itself?
This post provides an excellent analysis of the importance of Sevastopol, showing how it is a Ukrainian city that both culturally and ethnically identifies as Russian. With these factors in mind, it’s much easier to understand why there is so much support in Russia for its recent annexation of Ukrainian territory. In addition, this post also makes it clear that Russia views this country, in essence, as an extension of its own body and cultural power.