Monthly Archives: March 2015

Between Salvation and Liquidation

Posted on by

Children were the future of Communism. Childhoods were to be happy and foster the next generation of “good” comrades. How would the regime spin the existence of thousands of parentless, homeless, and post traumatically stressed thieves? During the war the humane slogan quickly rose to save these children, adopt them and do your part for the war against the evil fascist. For those living behind the line of the war torn frontlines the people naturally embrace this idea. The rates of adoptions rose significantly. Everyone wanted to help in the war effort. As on teacher said, “Let’s banish the word “orphan” from our usage. There cannot be orphans in our country, where all are mothers.[….] We are raised by the Great Stalin, educated by the Party of Lenin and Stalin, we live in the Soviet Union. Here we cannot speak of orphans. We will speak of wonderful mothers, loyal to the Party of Lenin and Stalin, and of our own children, not of orphans.” ((Julian Furst, Between Salvation and Liquidation: Homeless and Vagrant Children and the Reconstruction of Soviet Society. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 86, No. 2, The Relaunch of the Soviet Project, 1945-64 (2008) p.243)) Emotions ran high because much was at stake, namely, the achievement of the entire nation.

The war eventually ended and in its wake, the number of street children quickly began to plaque the Soviet regime. The dilemma was difficult to resolve, continued for many years, and surprisingly grew because the street appealed to some children who had parents and homes. Many of these children ran away when caught. Many adopted children exhibited significant indicators of posttraumatic stress. The psychologist could not help with this condition because they had all been victims of the purges. Unfortunately, this problem of street riff raff seemed to be growing like a plaque. Of course, this could not continue and immediate action needed to take place. The creation of children work camps became the solution to do away with these children from public view. As in most correctional institutions, reforms of inappropriate behavior did not take place. Sadly, these victimized children of the war continued to flaunt authority and many became hardened criminals. Silence on the problem of the nonexistent orphans became the new slogan of propaganda.

Stalin Against Capitalism and Churchill

Posted on by

Throughout Stalin’s speech, given at a meeting of voters of the Stalin electoral district, Stalin continually mentions the superiority of the Soviet system and its greatness. This is also evident in his response to Winston S. Churchill’s speech on the “Iron Curtain”, given in 1946. In both of these speeches Stalin makes frequent comments on the inefficiencies of capitalism. This further proves that Stalin was not a fan of capitalism and its capitalistic ideas. In his speech to the voters of the Stalin electoral district, Stalin blamed the Second World War on the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism, mentioned that the capitalistic system contains some aspects of a general crisis and military conflicts and almost never proceeds smoothly. He glorified the Soviet Union’s victories over their enemies and the war and determines the nation’s victory through the “victorious” Soviet social system, in which he says “passed the test of fire and war and prove to be fully viable”.
Stalin continues further to exaggerate the Soviet Union’s greatness by direct attacking Winston Churchill in his response to the “Iron Curtain” speech. Stalin directly states that Churchill only thought of English speaking nations as the only valuable nations that were actually worth something and should rule over the rest of the world. This is a very strong statement to be said especially to such large public, it proves that Stalin only had one intention in these two speeches, to increase his popularity within the people of his nation and to encourage his nomination as a supreme Supreme Soviet. I would say that these two speeches were mainly used as a way to increase his popularity within the public he appealed to.

Churchill: Stalin a second Hitler?

Posted on by

Winston Churchill’s speech in Westminster Missouri about the new metaphorical “Iron Curtain” which he says has descended of over Europe is spoken from a hard line capitalist view of the Soviet Union. This speech which is very anti-Communist, was the beginning of the Cold War, as Stalin would respond to it later in the year. After the war many people in Great Britain, and the United States felt threatened by the massive size of the Soviet military. The Soviet Union had beaten back the Germans and taken new territory alone with regaining all of the old land that had been taken during the war. Churchill advocated for trying to stop the problem of Communism, for he feared that Stalin, like Hitler, might use his great power, and the largest military force in the world at the time to continue his march across Europe.

Churchill’s speech is widely considered the beginning of the Cold War. Churchill believed that Stalin should be removed from power because he was not only a dictator, but the Communist system was anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian, which he sites in his speech, “Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization”. He says that Stalin is essentially the greatest current threat to the leading Western nations of Great Britain, and America. Churchill’s speech may have also come off as very anti Communist due to his dislike of Stalin. Churchill did not agree with many provisions of the Yalta Conference, and thus he distrusted Stalin.

This speech is not specifically about the demolition of Stalin, but the threat that he posed to the free world in Churchill’s mind. Churchill was paranoid by the end of the war that Stalin’s power had grown to great and he advocated for his removal, which in turn put Stalin on the defensive. This speech basically began the modern Cold War era with distrust, and division, instead of peace.

The best/worst of two evils

Posted on by

After reading Churchill’s speech and Stalin’s response on it, I wonder what a smart orator Soviet leader was. They both were trying to convince their audience in the idea that another one is a possible threat for the world, but do it in a very different way, and, from my point of view, Stalin is more effective in that.

Churchill introduced some facts, like growing influence of communists parties on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and then just added the claims that it was bad, dangerous for the world piece, destroying, etc. He did’t provide these claims with evidence, he didn’t present clearly why he thought that it was the possible threat for the world, etc.
At the same time, Stalin did his job great almost just by paralleling Churchill’s speech with nazi Germany’s ideology. He even didn’t have to explain it further to reach his audience, probably, not only in Soviet Union, but all other the world by that. This parallel, I think, should be very effective in a post-war world, as everybody remembers nazi’s rhetorics, ideas on which that ideology was built, etc. So, even if Churchill’s speech was about to inspire nations to think about the communists as a potential thread to the world, this passage made Britain look as the country which wants to expand its’ influence to the entire world, supported by english-speaking countries and persuading them to aggressive policy because they have a “traditions” or “values” which have to be spread and destroy other ideologies. Pointing on that, Stalin did a clever hook in maybe not making soviet ideology more popular, but at least in showing his opponent being the worst of two evils.

Stalin’s Speech

Posted on by

In his 1946 speech, Joseph Stalin reflected on the events that occurred in Europe the last few years by ripping into the Capitalist system, praising the strength of the Soviet People, and discussing the positives of the war on the Soviet Union.  Of the items that Stalin covered in his speech, his praising of the Soviet people stood out to me the most.

During his discussion of the second World War, he noted that the war “was the fiercest and most arduous ever fought in the history of our Motherland.” (Stalin Speech: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SS46.html))  Highlighting the fact that the Soviet state had endured so much death and destruction from the invasion of the Nazis, Stalin recognized the fact that the Soviet Union had survived because of the determination of its people.  If we place his praising of the Soviet people into context of the late 1930s and early 1940s, one could theorize that the people either had no choice to Serve in the Red Army as a result of the fear of being purged or secondly to protect their families from Nazi occupation.  It strikes me as interesting that Stalin would praise his own people considering the policies he had launched during the 1930s.

Another significant part of his praising was of the Red Army.  He stated that “our victory signifies that the Soviet Armed Forces, our Red Army, was victorious, that the Red Army heroically withstood all the hardships of the war, utterly routed the armies of our enemies, and emerged from the war the victor.” ((Stalin Speech: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SS46.html))  Stalin used this statement within his speech to not only compliment the bravery of the Red Army, but he also used his speech to hide the blunders that he had made with the purging of his military leaders and the lack of militarization during the 1930s.   When the Germans had invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the Red Army had lacked any leadership as a result of these purges and had lacked military preparation.   As a result, Stalin had to rely on help from western powers to defeat the Nazis.

Although some could argue that the Soviet Union and its system could not have won the war without help from western powers, it can also be argued that if Stalin had not purged his military leaders, had he prepared for the Nazis much sooner than he did, the Soviet Union would have held its own against the Nazis, perhaps winning the war on its own.

Indirect Correspondence between Stalin and Churchill

Posted on by

Winston Churchill speaks extremely highly of the Ally powers in his speech discussing the Iron Curtain and his desire to unite the English speaking commonwealth with the United States.  Although his main goal appears to be a peaceful settlement with the Soviet Union and elimination of their “expansionist” policies, he focuses much more on global security and the strength of the United States and England.  For instance, he opens his speech with the phrase “The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power.”  Churchill does so not as a warning or criticism, but rather offers praise and strategic help.  “You must feel not only a sense of duty done, but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement.”  Churchill is not berating the United States for laying the foundation of the title of “World Police”, he is instead offering support.

Churchill’s speech is seen in a very poor light by Josef Stalin.  Stalin asserts that the British are only mimicking the same racial theory that Hitler brought to Germany.  Stalin claims that Churchill’s assumption of their desire to ensure the security of their future as a means of forceful expansion is inaccurate. Stalin is sure to mention the faith that he has in the people has no limitations and that they are much smarter than Churchill proclaims them to be. The two leaders have extremely different views on how each side of the Iron Curtain operated, and both believed the other to be incorrect. Stalin proclaims power to the people while Churchill broadcasted a message of national cooperative power regardless of the people’s wants.

Circus

Posted on by

The Soviet film, Circus, made in 1936, was about an American Circus artist who was performing in the Soviet Union.  She had left the United States in favor of the Soviet Union because of the racial intolerance towards her and her black son.   The aim of the film, Circus, was to demonize the west, particularly the United States and Nazi Germany, for their inequality and racism.

One of the most vivid scenes came at the end of film when a man looking like Hitler stopped the Circus and attempted to demonize the American circus artist for giving birth to a black child.  He stated that it was “a racial crime! She should be banished from civilized society!” ((Film: Circus)) This part demonized Nazi Germany because it showed how Hitler and Nazi Germany did not tolerate variations from what they wanted in a pure ‘Arian’ race.  The line struck me in that it sounded a lot like Hitlers views toward the Jews.  During the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis goals were to banish the Jews from Germany.  By the end of World War II, they were exterminating them.  At the same time Nazi Germany was being demonized, the United States and its capitalist system was also demonized for its racism and inequality.  During the first half of the 20th century, racism in the United States had been wide spread.  Black people in particular, were demonized for being different.  As a result, they were segregated for being different.  In the Soviet Union, these differences and intolerances were not supposed to exist.  During the last scene of the film, the black child was taken away from the man looking like Hitler by the crowd.  The crowd then took in this child as someone who was no different than them.  They celebrated the fact that he was someone who could become a great Soviet worker.  They did not care whether he was white or black.  The child, according to the Soviet Union, could experience all the benefits of working in a classless society.

On a different note, what do you think the idea of a circus represents in the Soviet Union?  Does it try to emphasis the importance of a Soviet worker being fit for work?  Or does the circus represent something vastly different?

Stalin’s Speech

Posted on by

In Stalin’s speech after WWII, it’s interesting how instead of just taking credit for the victory, that he used the victory to justify the existence of the entire Soviet system.  He also tried to use Soviet success in the war to refute the foreign media, which dismissed the entire Soviet system as being a “dangerous experiment” and a “house of cards”.  Stalin used the victory to prove that the Soviet social system worked, with its (supposedly) classless system.  It’s also interesting that Stalin would attempt to claim that the Soviet system was stronger than it was before the war.  And yet, odds are slim that Russia could possibly have won WWII without allied help, as it had no choice but to ally itself with the capitalist West governments that openly criticized it.  If anything, the only thing that the war proved was that the Soviet system could win a war, but only with the help of capitalist countries that it strongly disliked.  Another thing is that when Stalin claims that Soviet forces “utterly routed” enemy forces, this can’t possibly have been accurate until the end of the war, as Stalin is clearly exaggerating the extent of Soviet victories; after all, the war dragged on for many years.  Based on this information, it’s possible that one can dismiss Stalin’s speech as pure propaganda.

Stalin, Fascists and Freedom

Posted on by

The texts assigned for Friday’s class portray the changing views, which the Soviet Union held towards Germany and other Western nations. While the Hitler-Stalin Pact suggests a mutual understanding between the two leaders (and, by extension, their nations), the later documents paint a far different view of a ‘fascist’ Germany.

In Stalin’s speech in February 1946, he seems to align the Soviet Union with the Western world in a coalition against fascism, and describes the USSR (and other countries involved in the coalition) as freedom-loving. To most Westerners, this would appear contradictory: freedom is only seen in a capitalistic, democratic context, indicating that socialism and communism are inherently freedom-less.

Stalin’s response to Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech shows a shift in Stalin’s thinking, as Stalin compares Churchill to Hitler and accuses Churchill of creating an English racial theory, somewhat similar to Hitler’s racial theory. This was a drastic shift, occurring in only a little over a month (Stalin’s response was published in Pravda in March 1946).

In general, these shifts in allies and the definition of ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ don’t seem uncommon for the Soviet Union. The massive arrests during the time period, in addition to the Great Purges within the Communist Party, seem indicative of this trend.

Pankhurst and Women’s Suffrage

Posted on by

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the socially “ideal” woman was reserved, obedient, and dependent on her husband. Her roles were to manage the household and engage in charitable work. It was frowned upon for her to speak for herself, disagree with her spouse, and have a career.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a British political activist, challenged these social values in 1913. She targeted middle class men with the document “Militant Suffrage”, in which she explained why they should treat women differently. She advocated women’s suffrage, and explained that women were “in pursuit of liberty and the power to do useful public service”. She referred to the social struggle for women as “our civil war”.