Tag Archives: Russia

The Gulag- Labor Camp, Cultural Divider, and Implement of Mass Murder

Posted on by

Wilson Bell presented multiple interpretations of the Gulag (a soviet work camp) in his article. These interpretations ranged from describing the Gulag as a simple work camp, to the extreme of comparing the death and destruction wrought by the institution to be on the same level as the Nazi Final Solution. The comparison between the Gulag work camp system during the Second World War, and the infrastructure driven Holocaust which occurred at the same time, made me reconsider the role of the Soviet Union in the conquest of Nazi Germany.

Without the fortitude shown by Soviet troops at Stalingrad, and various other points during Hitler’s failed assault on the eastern front, the allied effort certainly would’ve been slowed, if not halted all together. Learning that the Soviet mechanical machine was powered by labor akin to that used by the Nazis in work camps across occupied Europe puts a different spin on the contributions of the Russians to the allies. As Bell points out by citing Applebaum, the Holocaust and the Gulag system must be considered on equal playing fields, which makes looking at Russia and its Red Army as the saviors of Europe as they marched into Berlin difficult. The 27% mortality rate is certainly not as high as the numbers of dead from Nazi work camps, but the number of ‘incarcerated’ individuals in Gulags is higher, and the atrocities committed by those in charge (rape, ect) according to articles cited by Bell are astronomical in number. The enemy of my enemy is my friend- but when the enemy of your enemy and your enemy commit similar atrocities, the idea of marching into battle under the same flag becomes a lot more complicated.

The Lagging Gulag

Posted on by

Professor Wilson Bell’s article on the Gulag comes as a response to the expanded use of the term in present time. Originally, the Gulag was a Soviet administration body that oversaw labor camps and later special settlements. The term Gulag has been used by Amnesty International in reference to Guantanamo Bay, by Al Gore when describing Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and by other academics to to describe work or incarceration camps throughout the modern age. Bells tracks the complex and irregular history of the Gulag to whittle down and refine the term to a more precise end.

Bell chiefly examines the motivation behind establishing the Gulag as a means to arrive at its more accurate definition. He identifies three main genesis theories supported by various Gulag historians: economic, socio-political, and ideological. Many historians believe that the Gulag supplied the rapidly industrializing Soviet Union with crucial cheap labor. However logical, this argument falls apart in Bell’s eyes when you examine some of the more economically “dubious” labor projects, sites, and the composition of the labor force. This last point leads many scholars to attach a strictly political agenda to the Gulag, a system by which unwanted classes (criminals), thinkers, or ethnicities could be isolated. Again, this notion unwinds when one identifies the Gulag’s semi-colonial value (in establishing new towns and settlements) and its re-education goals (somewhere between 20-40% of prisoners were released back into society). Bell’s thesis mimics his dismantle of others’. He believes that the three main approaches to the Gulag’s establishment are not mutually exclusive but include parts of one another. Nevertheless, he ultimately ends by saying that far more research needs to be done on the Gulag. It’s hostile environment, diversity, and other nuances, remain enigmatic to the world.

I learned that producing a thorough historiography requires the historian to delve into each deep lead he finds. Bell does not just discuss the fact that political revolutionaries or counter cultural thinkers were targeted by the Soviet Union he moves deeper, researching their distinct experience, their numbers in relation to the entire labor camp population, and the changes of the aforementioned over time. History is not one dimensional, it permeates throughout, affects and is effected by society. One must meticulously track minute changes over time because progress is often an entities most defining feature.

Antiquated Modernity

Posted on by

Hoffman defines the traditional sense of modernity as liberal democracy and industrial capitalism. This idea or narrow concept of modernity, in my mind, proceeds from our desire to clearly identify the others: to separate the proverbial tares from the wheat. However, in our insatiable egotism and self justification we construct rigid lines of demarcation by which to separate ourselves from the others. Hoffman deconstructs this archaic version of modernity to define the more fundamental, rational sense of true modernity.

The key lies in the governments evolved relationship with the people. During the modern era, people became the focus of governments. All forms government, fascist, democratic, communist, or socialist, invested significant time and resources into the lives of the people. I really enjoyed following Hoffman’s clear logic and connections between democratic and communist governments, seemingly polar government structures. The author argues that perhaps the most distinguishing factor between government types are their goals. Communist or fascist governments heavily invest in citizens’ lives to further a particular agenda or cultivate a certain national mindset. Conversely, Hoffman says that although liberal democracies intrude on person liberties, just like communist or socialist states, they do so for the national good without pursuing “grand ideological claims.” I struggle with this argument. Although there are certainly differences between government types, the lines are not so clear.

All governments absolutely try to disperse perceived national values through their institutions, programs, and other actions. During the Second World War the United States conducted immense advertising campaigns to rally support for the war and also demonize any anti-war or American sentiments, whether actively antagonistic to the United States or simply ideological. Perhaps I am just naturally inclined to distrust governments, but I believe that all powerful organizations are concerned with their own history and the way it will be told.

I realize the article largely pertains to the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century; nevertheless, I still think about the direction western society is now traveling. European countries, and slowly the United States as well, are starting to adopt more social or collective policies and programs. This is not a criticism, only an observation on how the tares and wheat are becoming obsolete upon our embracing of a new form of modernity.

Studying Peasant Life in the Late 19th Century

Posted on by

Shanskaia’s Village Life in Late Tsarist Russia, an ethnographic study of peasant life in the late 19th century. Yesterday, we discussed some of the book’s major themes, namely, gender, marriage, and childhood.

Here, I want to focus on religion. Semyonova writes, “Among the mass of peasants, there is nothing mystical about their relationship to the tsar or to God, just as there is nothing mystical about their idea of an afterlife. They simply give no thought to an afterlife, just as they give no thought to the coming year. It is amazing how essentially irreligious they are! …Can they really be considered Russian Orthodox? Not at all” (136). This observation does, it certain respects, derive from Semyonova’s observations of peasants. She writes that they do not worry about the future, and nor do they think about God. Moreover, peasant religious rituals vary greatly from the nobility and clergy ones to which Semyonova is likely accustomed.

However, I think that Semyonova’s claim that peasants are “irreligious” and not Russian Orthodox is too simplistic. Earlier in the book, she explains how all baby girls and boys are baptized, a process which is grossly expensive for families which have virtually no income. Baptisms must have been important. Although one could argue that all children are baptized simply because of tradition, I think it’s impossible to claim that those baptisms had absolutely no faith backing them up. Rather, peasants simply regarded religion and God different from the nobles. Their lives were much harder; therefore, they could not devote as much time to daily rituals or even just “faithful thoughts.” Possibly, Semyonova did not recognize their religiousness because it differed so much from the precise rituals which she witnessed among the nobility. She writes that “heaven and hell are understood purely in material terms”; however, those “material terms” do not make the understanding of heaven and hell irreligious. The peasants understood these concepts based on the world which they saw every day. Semyonova over-simplifies peasant life when she claims that they cannot be considered Russian Orthodox.

Serfdom and American Slavery

Posted on by

There are interesting parallels between Russian serfdom and the form of slavery found in the Americas. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Russian serfdom changed dramatically. The beginning of the 16th century brought economic prosperity to Russia, but from the 1560’s into the early 1600’s Russia was struck by many brutal periods of chaos that combined to cause large reforms in serfdom. These reforms drastically restricted the movement of the serfs and turned serfs from peasants into property.

In the second half of the 16th century, Russia was affected by regime changes, instability, revolts, foreign interventions, crop failure and famine, and a government that didn’t have the strength or organization to provide for or protect the peasantry. The combination of these factors led to a steep decline in living conditions and prosperity for the peasants. Many of the peasants became slaves or criminals, but the majority packed up and left their homes to try and find better living conditions. The mass migrations of agricultural workers caused a great strain on the nation as a whole, as it could barely support the needs of the population.

Serfdom in Russia had become necessary due to the lack of labor and the Russian government instituted laws that rapidly took away the remaining freedom of the serfs. Slavery in the American colonies was used because of a lack of sufficient population for the necessary agricultural work. Both American slavery and Russian serfdom were used to compensate for an insufficient population of agricultural workers, but they also were similarly maintained by the respective governments for a time. The American government allowed slaves to be owned by specific people or households that typically required them to be stationary and work on farms and orchards, and the Russian government created laws that prevented serfs from leaving the land that they worked.

Russian serfdom and American slavery had some key similarities. Primarily, the usage of slaves/serfs to perform agricultural work, rather than work in secondary or tertiary industries. The main difference between them comes from the necessity of their existence. Slavery in the Americas was important because of economic reasons, but serfdom in Russia was necessary at the time in order to keep the nation functioning and stable.

Grade A

Posted on by

According to the rubric, an ‘A’ paper keeps the thesis clear and is original in thought. This paper does both exceptionally well. The author lays out all of the documents he/she will present in the paper (no surprise documents) prior to the thesis, and uses these documents as a nice segue into the thesis statement. Every point the paper is carried by an affirmative assertion followed by solid blocks of evidence used to back these assertions, each linked together in a good flow. For example:

“Catherine’s “Statue on Provincial Administration,” by dictating the rankings of persons of power within these provinces, furthermore attempted to eliminate the possibility of another rebellion. For instance, the Statute stipulates that, in the absence of a monarch, rule would pass to each province’s commander in chief. This delegation affirmed that strong authority would govern each province, regardless of the monarch’s physical presence.” (Page 2 of the essay)

 

 

Although this phrasing is full of elongated sentences, each phrase beautifully parlays into the next one, and, by building on the preceding phrase, concisely gets the authors point about said document across. The author also doesn’t lose track of his/her own opinion throughout the paper. This is evident when the author writes, “…More likely, Catherine used this stratification to keep track of free peasants. Because each townsperson had to apply for a guild membership, the legal rankings allowed the government to document and oversee its citizens” (Page 3). With very careful diction (use of the words ‘more likely’ to imply the author’s opinion) the author keeps his/her opinion present throughout the paper without losing sight of the focus. The author further gives his/her own insight onto the establishment of these codes, which is evident in the author’s saying:

 

“Because each townsperson had to apply for guild membership, the legal rankings allowed the government to document and oversee its citizens, consequently reducing the possibility of a rebellion”

With sentences like these and a concise, coherent structure flowing consistently throughout the entire paper, it is easily understandable how it attained an ‘A’.

 

Serfdom in Russia

Posted on by

Within this particular chapter, there was one aspect that stood out to me. I was surprised at the number of types of serfs that were discussed. Prior to taking this course, I had thought that a serf was a single type of individual, and there wasn’t any differentiation because they were collectively seen as the lowest within Russia society. In addition to the serfs that most people associate with the title, there were also industrial serfs, as well as household serfs.

In the reading, the author discusses the development of “possessional factories” that were established by the state to assuage the difficulties associated with a scarce labor supply. These operations were run by merchants usually and had “possessional workers” attached to these establishments.  The book notes that in reality, these workers were really industrial serfs, meaning that instead of belonging to an individual, they belonged to a factory.

In contrast to industrial serfs, household serfs were seen as the lowest within the serf hierarchy. With no land to till, these individuals acted as domestic servants, within the master’s household. These people essentially were slaves, and were kept under constant control . However, the authors noted that some household serfs had the opportunity to rise socially, and even receive an education.

I found this aspect of the chapter to be interesting because I would like to learn more about industrial and household serfs compared to typical serfs (I’m assuming “regular” serfs constituted as the majority of serfs in Russia). For instance were there any stark contrasts between the groups that would have prevented them from unifying in a revolt? It would be interesting to find out if there were such differences, amongst the groups, and if subsequently they each had different goals or grievances.

First Provisional Gov’t

Posted on by

Author: The First Provisional Government was created by the Temporary Committee of the members of the State of Duma. The Committee proclaimed itself the official governing body of the Russian Empire.
Context: The Provisional Committee was formed in 1917, just as the February Revolution was beginning.
Language: The language of the document is concise and simple, representing the clear purpose of the Provisional Committee.
Audience: The Committee’s intended audience was the entirety of the Russian Empire as they sought to be recognized as Russia’s official governing body.
Intent: The Provisional Committee intended to establish a new form of government in Russia during a period when no clear government was in place.
Message: The First Provisional Committee called for a new governing body which would acknowledge and accept the freedoms of the people. The Committee sought to legalize political rights like the freedom of speech and abolish any governmental regulations based on religion, class, or nationality. In short, the Provisional Committee desired a more progressive and tolerant state without unfair government restrictions.

The Abdication of Nicholas II

Posted on by

Author: Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov (1868-1918) was the last Emperor of Russia, with the end of his reign (1917)  bringing upon the end of the Romanov dynasty. His reign was most known for military encounters (losses), such as the Russo-Japanese war and WWI. The populace was not happy with the way his cabinet was going about their business, and they finally overthrew him in 1917.

Context: This is his formal abdication letter after he realized the best decision was to give up his power and attempt to lay low. He could not remain Tsar as the people disliked him so much they would attempt to overthrow him.

Language: The language is overwhelmingly positive, as if this abdication was of Nicholas’ own choice and not forced upon him by his people. He stresses that this move is being made because it will help Russia win the war (which he believes is the most important goal for the country at this time). He hopes that taking himself off of throne will relocate the populace’s interest in the enemy, and not their own parliament.

Audience: The audience is everyone in Russia. He is writing this piece to inform them that he is no longer in power and that his brother is now in control of the throne.

Intent: To notify the people of Russia that he was stepping down as their monarch and leader. He told them that his brother, Michael Alexandrovich was taking over his position and that all of this was being done for the good of the country. It can be asserted that Nicholas thought that giving up his power would spare him from the wrath of the populace, but this turned out to not work in the end.

Message: People took this as he was trying to cop out of his responsibilities without taking blame for all he had done wrong. The populace (Bolshevicks), eventually found him and his family and executed them all, in punishment for being such a bad leader/selling out his people.

The First Provisional Government

Posted on by

Author: The Temporary Committee of the members of the State Duma established the First Provisional Government of Russia. It was first led by Prince Georgy Lvov and later led by Alexander Kerensky.

Context: Formed in Petrograd in March 1917. This was after Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne to his brother, Grand Duke Michael, who deferred the power to what became the First Provisional Government of Russia.

Language: The language is straightforward and clear-cut. The document itself is logically organized and easy to read.

Audience: The audience includes every citizen in Russia as this document represents a change in governance and outlines new individuals and guiding principles.

Intent: The intent of the First Provisional Government was to establish elections to the Assembly in order to create a more stable executive power while sustaining the necessary components of government services after Nicholas II’s abdication.

Message: The First Provisional Government informed the people of Russia the current situation of their government. The Temporary Committee of the State of Duma lists the appointed ministers of the first cabinet. The following section outlined the principles that guided the actions of the cabinet. These principles included freedom of speech, press, and assembly, abolition of all restrictions based on class, religion, and nationality. Also stressed was the immediate action called upon the Constituent Assembly for an equal, direct, and secret ballot election that will determine the type of government and constitution of Russia.