Category Archives: HIST254-Archive

Intervention of the United States and the Soviet Union

Posted on by

The documentary on the Afghanistan and Soviet Union war stated that the cause of the war was completely due to the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the documentary the enemy was revealed to be the Soviet Union, it was said that the cause of the war was due to their unnecessary intervention, but this opinion cannot fully be relied on because of its bias and because it is in the point of view of the United States.

The documentary also blames Afghanistan’s current problems with its own people solely on the United States and the Soviet Union; it blames the two countries for providing weapons that were used to fight against people of their own country. This brings up the question of, what if the United States hadn’t had intervened in this civil war? Would’ve conditions still have been the same or would it have decreased the amount of casualties during and after Soviet Union intervention? What would’ve happened if the U.S. hadn’t encouraged the rebels to continue their cause?

It also mentions that the Soviet Union tried very hard to conceal the events in Afghanistan from its people. The Soviet Union covered up the war by depicting soldiers building schools and not contributing to any type of combat. They also tried very hard to cover up the number of casualties and “invalids” that returned back from Afghanistan. Why would’ve the Soviet Union tried so hard to do this and why was it so important to cover up the truth?

Women and abortion in Soviet Society

Posted on by

In the article “Revolution and the Family”, Wendy Goldman discussed the ideas of abortion and women in the Soviet Union.  She discussed how women in the Soviet Union, believed and even acted on using abortion in their lives.  She argued that abortion was used more often with women who were in comfortable positions, such as being married, than women who were unmarried, jobless, or young.  To prove her argument, she looked at influences in Soviet society that helped women in stable conditions make such decisions.

So why did Soviet women, the married and stable ones, decide to use abortion?  Wendy Goldman noted that the use of abortion was evident from the mid 1920s until the prohibition of abortion in 1936.  During this time, Goldman noted that abortion was a result of two important aspects.  First, she noted that during the 1920s, there had been the problem of overcrowding of children in Soviet homes.((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 163))  This can be contributed to two factors.  First, the devastating effects of World War I and the Russian Civil War left many children parentless, thus creating influxes of adopted children throughout homes.  Second, Goldman pointed to the idea of Stalins policies that everyone works, both men and women.  Thus, opportunities in the workforce and the military opened up for women, allowing them to leave the home.  Wendy Goldman noted that the number of women entering the workforce between 1930 and 1931 “in heavy industry leaped suddenly from 22 percent to 42 percent.” (((Wendy Goldman, “Revolution and the Family” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. 4th edition. Edited by Robert V Daniels.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. 164)) As a result of the rapid jump in the number of women entering the workforce, women who were in stable conditions tended to abort their children because because of the strain pregnancy and taking care of children were on the women.

Considering Wendy Goldmans piece on abortion, do you think that this was true among all ethnic groups?  Or do you think it was only true among ethnic Russians?

Unfulfilled Promises to Women

Posted on by

Wendy Z. Goldman’s article explained how the regime hid behind an elaborate mask which portrayed them as women’s rights activists, however in reality strived for a single-minded approach to production and progress.  The focus of Goldman’s article began with an analysis of Soviet legislature concerning beznadzornost, and how to solve the problem of homeless soviet children through the strengthening of the Socialist family.  It then shifted towards the effects of abortion and divorce on women and how the steps toward a more equal woman and man were taken under false pretense.  She concluded that the regime had successfully “brainwashed”, or convinced, the women of the Soviet Union that they had actually experienced a revolution or change in policy.

Women seemed to be affected by each law passed concerning the Soviet family, and whether it was in a good way or not did not concern the Soviet Union who were able to feed off of the good outcomes and ignore the unsatisfactory ones.  Even the legalization of adoption, meant to cope with the growing numbers of homeless children, indirectly changed a woman’s role in society.  As the implementation of adoption and its effects slowly abated, the regime placed a large piece of responsibility on the paternal figures and family, transferring it from state hands.  Women then had to take on a much larger part in responsibility for the children, as the men were needed for industrialization and collectivization.

The increase in family responsibility rested heavily on the women’s shoulders, as their social status transformed and they were coerced into labor.  Pregnancy leave and other legislation was passed which lessened the effects on women, however in a seemingly male dominant society, the regime was still able to convince its women that their lives had been made easier and they had experienced a surge in women’s rights.

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

Posted on by

The CNN documentary on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan unflinchingly exposes both Soviet and Western influences in the destabilization of the region. What was supposed to be a quick occupation that would end in a few weeks, the Soviet invasion lasted for a decade. After Muslim extremists in the region rebelled against sweeping socialist policies in Afghanistan, a rebellion ensued. This rebellion was in part influenced by the fact that Soviet policies were ignorant to Afghanistanian culture and Muslim practices and by the fact that these policies were threatening the control of the Muslim religious leaders. As the political and social unrest reached its height, the Soviet-friendly prime minister assassinated and replaced with a power-hungry dictator, Soviet authorities decided to get militarily intervene. The United States saw this as a threat – Jimmy Carter even went far enough to say that this move threatened American national security and that he was considering unleashing nuclear weapons as a response to this. Thus, the United States began its funding and support of the  the Islamic anti-Soviet jihadist group (which was referred to as ‘mujahideen’).

What was interesting was about the documentary was the fact that many American officials explicitly stated that the war in Afghanistan was fueled by American covert operations which supplied arms and training to the mujahideen. One representative said that this was “our war paid with [Afghanistanian] blood”. What was CNN’s bias in presenting the information like this? Was this admittance of direct US manipulation and destabilizing aid one of owning up for America’s action?

The documentary also exposes the ultimate chaos of the US-USSR proxy war. An American official smugly admits that American troops acquired Soviet weapons from Czechoslovakia, China and Egypt because of the alleged materialistic interests that outweighed their socialist priorities. This goes to show how the vision of socialism was failing in the Soviet Union and how intent the United States was to bleed the Soviet Union dry. The unfortunate and truly tragic aspect of this point in history is that this vindictive and disorganized action was fought on foreign land and radically disrupted a religious and cultural country.

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.

 

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.

View On Their “Lost Generation”

Posted on by

Both interviews that Donald J. Raleigh performed struck me to have very different perceptions. The two interviewees definitely represented different attitudes towards the subject of their lives, but this was mainly due to their backgrounds, Gennadii Viktorovich Ivanov definitely gave the feeling that he had “formulated his answers specifically” for the interview and was careful of what information he disclosed, but one would expect a policeman or an operative to act in such a way. Natalia P. on the other hand seemed to be less careful and cautious in what she said in the duration of her interview. Both Gennadii and Natalia seemed to agree in that they did not consider themselves as to be apart of a “lost generation”.

Natalia Pronina discusses the way in which she participated in activities that made her youth-self different from the generations after her. She explains that her generation expressed much more freedom and expressiveness, which adults at the time did not like and were not used to, she says ”the next generation no longer subordinated themselves to her” (regarding her director who rejected her short skirt). She referred to her life as a normal life, where she was in a comfortable and happy situation, although she mentions she both lost and gained certain things throughout her time growing up. She explains the way her parents instilled both the sense of duty and responsibility into her in which today’s younger generation has no grasp on.

In regards to the way he grew up, Gennadii Ivanov explains it to have been much like the way his parents grew up, especially considering their views. He makes no complaints in the way he grew up and like Natalia seems to have expressed a comfortable upbringing. Gennadii does share the same opinion as Natalia, he does not consider his generation to be termed a lost generation, but considers later generations to be lost. He also explains the way in which people really did not care about things that are considered important now, including money.

Both interviewees seem to share the same views on their generation; they describe it be a place where they were comfortable where old views were still held and where new views were being developed. Overall they did seem to express a belief in a change in where society was headed.