Monthly Archives: April 2015

The Truman Doctrine

Posted on by

Author: Harry S. Truman- He was the 33rd president of the US. He was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vice president before Roosevelt died.  He helped to end World War II when he dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. He helped to start the Cold War using communist containment. [1]

Context: He was giving this speech during the Cold War, which was not a physical war fought with weapons, but rather a period of military tension after World War II between the capitalist US and its allies and the communist Soviet Union and its allies. [2] In addition, this was also taking place during the time of the Greek Civil War, which left Greece essentially economically devastated.

Language: Truman uses persuasive and simple, clear language to get his point across to those that he is addressing. He lays out his viewpoints very well.

Audience: He is addressing Congress during a joint session.

Intent: This was Truman’s attempt to stop Soviet expansion during the Cold War. His intent was to contain communism throughout Europe and to provide help to any country threatened by communism.

Message: Truman’s message was that communism needed to be contained. He uses Greece as an example for this. He describes how the Greek Civil War has left Greece with “cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.” He argues that Greece’s very existence is highly threatened by Communist activities and that the US must provide support for Greece, Turkey, and any other country in need under the threat of communism.

[1] http://www.biography.com/people/harry-s-truman-9511121#military-career

[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/what%20was%20the%20cold%20war.htm

 

Why do you think Truman was so adamant about containing communism?

Question for Commenters

Posted on by

I am not scheduled to blog for today, but I had a question that came to me in my reading that maybe some commentators could debate. The speeches by Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin are in direct correspondence with one another. In Churchill’s speech, he hinted at the possibility of continuing friendships and maintaining good terms with the USSR, especially highlighting sympathy. Stalin on the other hand, completely rebuffed Churchill and attacked him, comparing him to the new Hitler.

 

Do you think that Churchill was sincere in his remarks? Or was he just playing the political system? Because he tried to give a little bit of respect to Stalin, do you think it made him look weak?

Flower Children

Posted on by

The article by William Risch “Soviet ‘Flower Children’. Hippies and the Youth Counter-culture in 1970s L’viv” discusses the Soviet Youth and their reactions towards the many changes the communist party were trying to put on L’viv and their feelings of isolation during 1970s. Hippies were made up of the rebellious, free spirited youth, and became a large part of post-world culture. The communist party in L’viv wanted to control over all aspects of the public sphere, as a result the hippies of L’viv rebelled. The hippies acted against sociality norms and soviet ideals. Hippies were stereotyped and publicly marginalized, hippies were said to be “bowing to the west” because they adopted western cloths and music. Interestingly enough Risch points out how hippies did adopt ideas from The Communist Youth Organization, one of the major groups against hippie ideals. Although the hippies in the Soviet Union were different from their western counter parts both were made up of youth feeling isolated and had new ideals for the world.

Flower Power, Not

Posted on by

While the article is interesting in describing a segment of the youth in the USSR during the 1970s to classify these youths as hippies seems to be a stretch. If being rebellious and listening to psychedelic rock classifies a person as a hippie then the hippie movement is alive and well. The article described a subset of youths that seem to show a rebellious spirit. They thumb their noses to the Communist Youth organization; they have issues with their parents and desire individuality. They want to listen to artist such as the Doors, Hendrix and the Beatles. The author portrays them as wanting to be part of the international hippie movement and at the same moment reflecting their Soviet indoctrination. Interestingly the government did not view this group of the same magnitude as western hippies or they would have quickly suppressed the movement.

In comparing this article to the World Festival of Youth and Students article it in some senses backs up the undertow of some Soviet youths even in 1957. The 1957 article highlighted how the Soviet youths wanted to go to parties and listen to western music. Some were punished for their behavior for displaying un-Soviet like conduct. Youths just started to spread their wings and taste freedom. This article to is less about the hippie movement and more about the continuation of the overall feelings that were starting to manifest themselves that eventually helped move the USSR to push for more empowerment and eventually freedom.

L’viv Hippies and the Soviet Child

Posted on by

The hippies in L’viv were acting upon feelings of isolation in a modern industrial world, their perceptions of hypocrisy of Soviet Communist organizations, and a general yearning for individualism. Unlike Natalia and Gennadii, who were introduced to us in Raleigh’s “Sputnik Generation”, these hippies of the late 1960s and ’70s did not feel the same natural obligation to obey their parents and the soviet societal structure. In fact, many youths were drawn to the hippie culture by family conflicts. Also, unlike Western hippies of the time, the L’viv hippies were acting within a state in which the communist party attempted control over all aspects of the public sphere. Because of such communist control, the hippies rebelled against societal norms by following typical behavior of the Soviet identity. For example, although hippies saw the Communist Youth Organization as “veiled in hypocrisy”, hippie groups imitated the elements of structure and hierarchy as seen in the practices of communist youth organizations. Therefore, hippies were rebelling against Soviet society by structuring themselves in a way that was, in fact, Soviet.

Just as gender discrepancies were brought to light in Natalia’s discussion of her work and family, hippie gatherings and the hippie culture in general also raised the question of a woman’s role in society. Even in a movement embodying Soviet counter-culture, men still dominated in numbers and power. Women’s participation in the hippie movement was viewed as inappropriate and outside of the natural sphere, just as Natalia’s position as the head of the language department remained outside the normal role for women. Like the Sputnik Generation, the hippies were living within an era of conservatism. What pushed the hippies to rebel against Soviet society in the 1970s while others, such as Natalia and Gennadii, were content to grow up within the Soviet structure? Because the Soviet period spanned over vacillating periods of tradition and change, as well as political stagnancy and progression, there can be no typical “Soviet child”. There may be a continued ideal for a child’s behavior throughout the Soviet period, but this ideal is never met (or challenged) in the same way throughout Soviet generations.

 

Before the Cold War

Posted on by

After World War 2, the world is still on its head from a much longer war than expected. Along with the change, there is a change in boarders. The ”Iron Curtain” as Winston Churchill called it fell over part of Europe as the Soviet Union claimed more land and created a new boarder. This new force of the Sovient Union and communism put the world on edge, and not only the United States and Britian were worried.

Churchill and Truman were trying to rally democracy ruled countries together with their speeches. Churchill told the United States how much power they had now that the war was over and how they needed to watch the Soviet Union, unlike they had with Germany. Truman’s doctorine was explaining why the United Nations needed to help Greece and Turkey. They were trying to build up resistance to the Soviet Union so it couldn’t expand beyond what it already had.

As for Stalin and Brezhnev, they explained the importance of communism. Stalin compared Churchill’s view on English speaking countries to that of Hitler’s view on German speaking nations. He wanted to inspire the people of his nation, make them believe the Soviet Union would be able to take out Britian and the United States just as they did with Germany in World War 2. Brezhnev’s Doctrine explained how important it was for communist countries to support each other. With internal problems, communism wouldn’t be able to spread.

These documents show the two sides of the Cold War starting. Both feel like they need to help the smaller countries under their control and preach to them that they are the strongest nation in the world. Both know they the power of the other after World War 2, making them hesitant to take action during the Cold War

Peace, Love, and Rock and Roll in the USSR

Posted on by

In the discussion of Raleigh’s chapters exploring the Sputnik Generation in the USSR, the notion that during the 1950s and 1960s Soviet society shared many similarities to that of the United States in their gender relations and in their restrictive childhoods. William Risch’s article, “Soviet ‘Flower Children.’ Hippies and the Youth Counter-culture in 1970s L’viv,” continues to examine the cultural similarities between the two warring nations. More particularly, Risch seeks to address how the hippies in the Soviet Union affected the counter-culture that emerged among the generation born after the end of World War II (page 565).

The three previous readings in addition to Risch’s article all focus on the idea of the developing Soviet childhood in a post-war and post-Stalin Soviet Union. Margaret Peacock discussed the differences between the Communist Party’s expectations for children and the actual behaviors of children in the post-war society by focusing on the 1957 Moscow World Youth Festival. The Party still excepted the children to act in a discipline manner and obey their elders, something the interviewees in Raleigh’s article illustrated. However, during the festival many Soviet children disregarded these perceived notions of their behavior and acted in non-Party sanctioned ways (i.e. clubbing, drinking excessively). This juxtaposition between expectation and reality illustrates the restricted freedom all Soviet youths experienced in the 1950s and 1960s.

As Risch’s article indicates, the hippies within the Soviet Union (and perhaps America, as well) constituted a powerful minority amongst the children of their generation. Hippies in the Soviet Union, especially L’viv, experienced alienation due to their counter-cultural views (page 572). This along with the diverging notions of child behavior between the Party expectations and reality make it difficult to identify one cohesive idea of a Soviet Childhood in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. However, I believe it could be argued that the majority of children growing up in a post-war Soviet society, particularly those of families associated with the Party such as Natalia P., experienced the “typical” Soviet childhood of restricted freedom.

Families in the USSR

Posted on by

When one thinks of kids in the USSR, one thinks of Communism and institutionalism. Therefore, before I read, I had to actually remind myself that there are actually families in the USSR.  It’s also easy to forget that the Soviet education system was one of the best in the world, easily comparable to that of the US.  When the narrator discusses when she and the other girls studied “Home Economics” and the boys studied “Shop”, it really brings some parallels back to the US, where there are similar divisions in the education system.

Surviving Auschwitz

Posted on by

There is this woman in my life, my Uncle’s mother, who I have known since I was quite young. As a child, there were three things I knew about Huggy (as we kids called her) she is tiny (about 4’6″), she is French, and she always wears long sleeves.

Growing up Jewish, the holocaust was a key part of my religious education. French Jews were imprisoned? Huggy is a French Jew. It took place in the 1940s? Huggy was growing up then. Piecing realizations together until figuring out Huguette was a Holocaust survivor.

Huggy entered Auschwitz with her family when she was about 12, and due to treatment/malnutrition in the camp did not grow. She is tattooed with her ID number on her for arm. She and her brother were the only surviving members of the family. She is an Auschwitz survivor.

Reading Levi’s book, you can understand the  gravity, and hopelessness of the situation he is in. However, he preaches that hope, compassion, and looking out for each other were the key to survival. I don’t think that Huguette would agree with any of these tactics and plans, to her there were those who were lucky enough to survive, and those who weren’t.

 

The UN Genocide Charter and Auschwitz

Posted on by

The two readings we had assigned this evening, The UN Charter on Genocide and Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz both discuss genocide, but approach the topic in very different ways. One can safely assume that those who wrote up the charter did not experience the atrocities of a concentration camp, and are outsiders looking in. Levi, on the other hand, speaks with the voice of a survivor. He knows what it means to survive Auschwitz, and thus, mass genocide.

The charter uses very sweeping terms when describing what genocide is. They do not go into the minute details, but stay general such as in Article II: “(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”. This may be because they wish to capture all possible forms of genocide, but at the same time, this method gives a lot of leeway for certain activities to pass.

Levi, however, gives very specific examples as to how they were discriminated against. To be at Auschwitz was to be at the very bottom, everything was taken away from you, “…nothing belongs to us any more; they have taken away our clothes, our shoes, even our hair; if we speak, they will not listen to us, and if they listen, they will not understand.” (27) Even if a person survived the concentration camp, they still were made to become something less than human, like cattle, and this process will undoubtedly affect the rest of their life. Levi even mentions how certain portions of the experience still linger in his dreams.

When genocide is committed, it not only destroys a group of individuals, but an entire culture, and both sources indicate this. Even if an individual survives, their culture may have died, making the existence of the survivor very lonely, and their account of events, less believable.