Tag Archives: 1937

Terror and Surveillance

Posted on by

“Surveillance means that the population is watched; terror means that its members are subject on an unpredictable but large-scale basis to arrest, execution, and other forms of state violence.” ((Fitzpatrick, Sheila. “A Time of Troubles,” in Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. (Oxford University Press, 2000), 190.)) This is the theme of Chapter 8 of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s Everyday Stalinism, in which the modes of Soviet public repression and purging are explored in detail.

The development of the Communist “Great Purges” in the 1930s was a self-propelling loop of suspicion, witch-hunts, and above all else, terror. Initially, excessive disfranchisement of Communist party members led to large amounts of ex-Communists, who were all assumed to be enemies of the state. At first, there was no method of integration by which these ex-members might become respectable citizens once more- the “black marks on the record could not be expunged”. ((Fitzpatrick, “A Time of Troubles,” 193.)) Because of their inability to operate in a country under such intense surveillance and suspicion, many of these blacklisted individuals assumed new identities, oftentimes forging passports and moving and changing their names. This caused the Soviet regime to perceive an even greater threat of disguised corruption, resulting in more purges.

Soviet officials frequently attacked their “enemies” with hypocritical claims. Despite possessing these characteristics themselves, they accused party enemies of engaging in favoritism, the creation of cults, and luxurious lifestyles. The accusers were no different in this regard than the accused, but they painted the victims in such a light as to use them as scapegoats, providing an outlet for the regime. ((Fitzpatrick, “A Time of Troubles,” 197.)) Newspapers even “carried a wealth of startling information about the sins of leading Communists”, creating even more unrest and suspicion among the masses. ((Fitzpatrick, “A Time of Troubles,” 195.)) This particular notion seemed odd to me at first; wouldn’t this cause people to lose faith in the party? However, upon further reading, I came upon the surprising fact that there existed a great deal of resistance to Communist rule during the 1930s- a particular quote regarding taking revenge during World War II (apparently much anticipated) bridged that gap of continuity. ((Fitzpatrick, “A Time of Troubles,” 205.))

“Show trials” were also characteristic of the Great Purges. However, because of the amount of Communist officials that were placed on trial outside of Moscow, these had a distinctively “populist” aspect, which furthers the idea of resistance to the regime. ((Fitzpatrick, “A Time of Troubles,” 203)). These shows of public resistance intrigue me. How did the Soviet regime deal with the deposition of their leaders in rural areas? Perhaps it makes sense that entire villages were emptied and their inhabitants sent off to the Gulags.

A Soviet official crushing the snake of deceit.

One final thought: the fact that most, if not all, of these Purges were state-instituted and not publicly supported, as Fitzpatrick seems to suggest, implies that much of the violence rampant in Stalinist Russia was primarily implemented by the state. Where was the public support that Beyond Totalitarianism tells us was necessary for such violence to exist?

A Lesson in Charity

Posted on by

Hywel Davies’s book Fleeing Franco is a touching account of the lives of the Basque refugee children who were displaced from their homes during the Spanish Civil War and taken in by various humanitarian groups in Wales.  Although Davies does present pithy summaries of the political and social events surrounding the period, the text is primarily composed of several detailed vignettes that follow the lives of individual refugee children and the characteristics of the Welsh communities that came to their aid.  Consequently, Freeing Franco presents a moving portrait of Welsh charity across national and party lines, solidifying their endearing inclination “to be on the side of the oppressed against the oppressor.” (Davies, 19)

The most universally significant point that Davies makes in this book can be found early on in his response to the idea that Welsh charity during the Spanish Civil War has been exaggerated due to sentimentality and the use of a narrow historical lens: “Incredulity is not the same as insight. Scepticism is not converted into truth by nature of its novelty alone.” (Davies, 27)  This statement provides an important caveat to readers of any genre of criticism.  It is important to be able to discern the validity of any author’s thesis based on their synthesis and analysis of supporting evidence rather than their ability to create a facile and contradictory series of allegations against a popularly held belief.

Do you feel that Davies himself reveals any particular biases in Fleeing Franco?  If so, what are they?

Fleeing Franco

Posted on by

Fleeing Franco is a book written by Welsh historian Hywel Davies in 2011. It deals with the Welsh repatriation of Basque children during the Spanish Civil War. While the book is well researched, and presents an uplifting thesis about the largely uniform acceptance of the Spanish children in an already poverty-stricken nation, Davies does seem to present a slightly biased view on the matter. For example, he makes a point of vilifying the leading Welsh politicians, by stating their pro-Fascist attitudes, in favor of returning the children to Spain after the War, while stressing his opinion that those working with the children were following a humanitarian call rather than a political opportunity. However, Davies’ hero Maria Fernandez, an extraordinary warden at a childrens home, quotes that her political support of the Spanish Republic played a large role in her decision to join the cause (140). While this does not mean that she would have turned her back on the orphans had the Spanish government not been socialist, Davies’ lack of analysis and research into this statement raises questions about his own objectiveness.

Additionally, in my opinion Davies’ structure is not very good. He starts coherently with a description of the similarities of Wales and the Basque region, but seemingly continues neither thematically nor chronologically. He describes the good sentiment of the Welsh, a few examples of bad behavior by the Spanish children, then continues with the good sentiment of the Welsh. All the while his chronology floats between before and after the fall of Bilbao. While his thesis is fairly clear, I found his structure to be slightly confusing.

Circus

Posted on by

In this film by Grigory Alexandov, a young woman named Marion Dixon (perhaps a play on the Mason Dixon line) joins a Russian circus after being forced to flee her American hometown after the townspeople discover that her son is black. She performs a daring routine called “The Flight to the Moon” which the manager of the circus, Ludvig, wishes to imitate with his own daughter, Raya. One night when Mary is performing, Ludvig shows her act to Ivan Martinov, a performance director. He feels immediately attracted to her and they fall in love. When she has to return to America, she protests, wanting to stay with him. Due to a mixup with the letter she writes for him, he believes she is in love with another man and refuses to say goodbye to her. She tells him the truth and they do the “new” act, “The Flight to the Stratosphere”. She accepts a deal with the manager to be paid in rubles and as he tells her that “in our country, we love all kids”, the audience understands that she is going to stay in the Soviet Union with her family.

One cinematic scene in the film which is meant to show the divide between the young and old in Russia is when Ivan and Mary first meet and her corrupt agent, Kneishitz, spies on them through the window. The camera cuts between Kneishitz and Ivan so the audience notes the stark differences in their faces. Ivan is young, blonde, and strong-jawed while Kneishitz is unshaven, dark, and sinister. Through this portrayal of the young and old in the performance business, Alexandrov is making the point that we should look to the young people of Russia, as the next generation is our future and hope.

Why were people so much more accepting in the USSR, given our nationalist and ethnicity readings? What would have become of Marion and her child had she chosen to return to America?