Author: Fontana Micucci

Both within Havel’s speech and Garton-Ash’s book, the idea of change and revolution comes with the movement of individuals toward a mutual goal. Only then can real change be enacted, and with the consent of the people to accept the change as real. Havel addresses this when he says that “Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all.” (Havel 2). Without the participation of the people and their will, nothing would have changed. His recognition of their acceptance also meant that they could also then accept that they did not have to live like they did anymore, and could progress into a new and distinct Czechoslovakian identity. Garton-Ash also outlines this as he details the crowds and their dedication to protesting, and the Forum members working to their limits everyday. Their participation, whether they felt it or not, was instrumental to the movement. As Garton-Ash repeatedly wrote, they did not always know what they were doing, but as long as they stuck with their hopes for Czechoslovakia, at least something would change.

Havel also mentioned that the other countries that had acted before them served as their predecessors and reminders for the cost of change; Garton-Ash questioned why they took longer, even though they were the most “democratic state in the region before the war,” (Garton-Ash 126). Garton-Ash believed that they acted last because others essentially set the stage for them; Havel saw their delay as time to plan more accordingly and see how they wanted the Czechoslovakian legacy to exist. I question which seems more plausible; obviously they work hand-in-hand, but which came first? Was it more passive and placed upon Czechoslovakian people, or were they lying in wait, waiting to be active?

Within the readings, the arguments surrounding human rights within the Soviet Union and, more specifically, the GDR, showed that the issues did not inherently lie with the system of socialism, but rather the ways in which the government handled such issues and its leadership. While the later periods of the Soviet Union were typically described as ones with citizens unhappy with socialism as a whole, these articles seem to prove otherwise to some extent. In the GDR, the ways that individuals used the arguments of human rights showed that they still wished to operate under the same system, but with reforms that furthered the image of the government as a whole. However, the fact that many individuals that did question or petition the government faced retribution demonstrated the fact that citizens had to operate very carefully within their countries in order to be left alone, as seen in Vaclav Havel’s narration about the grocer. Even in the advent of discussions on human rights, the people living under the Soviet Union still did not have access to basic tenets of what socialism proclaimed to guarantee them.

Havel’s account of the grocer and the propaganda sign also speaks to the fact that many people lived without thinking about the ways in which their government seeped into every element of life. Even if the grocer and customers did not pay attention to the sign, its very presence served as a reminder to behave and avoid trouble. This narrative speaks to the experience of those who were not happy, but felt that they did not have the ability to speak out, unless they should face major consequences that permeated throughout their families, businesses, and friends. The human rights movements finally gave those who did not feel that they had a voice one to advocate for them, sparking the movements that eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and major reforms within the Soviet Union.

After reading, I wonder about the true intentions of everyone involved – the government, the advocacy groups, and individuals living in the Soviet Union. Did the government truly believe that by trying to eliminate dissenters and human rights groups, the issue would be minimized or eliminated? Did the human rights groups know that their actions would heavily influence the advent of the fall of the Berlin Wall or other major events in the Soviet government? Did various individuals who petitioned to emigrate, wrote letters, and other things believe in what they wrote – that they truly enjoyed the government and its style, and their petitions were only meant to benefit the government’s efficiency?

Within chapter 5 of Fainberg’s book, she discusses how Soviet journalists were able to tell readers of the common issues within the United States through the stories of individuals that lived it. The miner’s story reflected the themes of poverty, non-empathetic business, and the individual’s attempts to hold on to a past that could never be revived. By doing so, one could not detach the disparity of such stories from the “American dream.” Additionally, the towns that these issues took place in were usually tucked away in the Appalachian mountains among impoverished areas that all shared similar fates, which brought these articles to light not only to Soviet readers, but also perhaps to American audiences as well. When the people are not able to share their stories themselves because of inaccessibility, these Soviet reporters were able to expose them, while also taking advantage of the opportunity in order to show the American disparities.

I wonder then, if these stories written by Soviet journalists then also exposed them to American readers, if they were accessible or translated later? As Fainberg wrote, many American officials that read Soviet pieces saw them as positioned to bolster the Soviet government’s ideology, but did they see the issues brought forth as well? Fainberg’s example of the Smoky the Bear correlation shows that they understood the issues, but was it only after Soviet writing did they become apparent?

In Chapter 4, “Only Rock ‘n’ Roll?,” William Risch focuses on the experiences of hippies within the Soviet Union, their connections to the West, and what they stood for. In terms of who participated and make marks within the movement, however, the hippie movements within Lviv and Wroclaw remained mostly dominated by men. Even in the personal testimonies made by hippies, they agreed that women played peripheral roles, and were mostly there because of their partners. Risch writes that the hippies did not directly protest against socialism, which advocated for gender equality, which makes this observation that much more confusing. The idea of hippie culture within these cities taking on a distinctly masculine form also created a distinct identity where men expressed themselves without women also participating to the ideology and lifestyle. Women were expected to either be fans of the movement or provide for the male members, but not meant to engage intellectually.

I wonder then what the perspectives were from female hippies or those interested in the movement: were they allowed space to participate or relegated to the sides by the men? Was there a difference in female v. male hippie culture? While there was correlation between the Western and Eastern movements, did that also translate from men to women?

Within Tomoff’s piece on the International Tchaikovsky Competition, the internal composition of the competition reveals the amount of detail and attention paid to ensure the success of the competition, but also the reputation of Soviet music culture as a whole. It emphasizes the importance of Soviet-composed music, its musicians, and their abilities to dominate the international performance stage in a time where Soviet progress continued to develop. However, the bureaucracy surrounding the planning of the competition also shows that the competition was an expression of the fine arts, but also served as a propaganda technique for the Soviet to further flaunt its achievements. The focus on delivering a competition that the Soviet competitors would thrive in, choosing only those worthy enough of competing, and re-vitalizing music programs throughout the Soviet Union afterwards showed the commitment to upholding their superiority in the music world.

Referring to the re-vitalization process created after the first Tchaikovsky competition, the revelations made by the Soviets in this time period indicated the main difference between their competitors and their Western counterparts: individual style that gave the musician their own identity, even when performing the same compositions in performances. The Soviet’s performers dominated in terms of technical performance, but lacked in the ability to create a unique style individual to each musician. The re-vitalization efforts focused on this issue, but still emphasized the importance of technical ability to ensure wins in international music competitions. With this in mind, how does this key difference also relate to other aspects of the differing experiences within the East and West? Does it make sense that the Soviets dominated in technical performance, but lacked individual style as they noted? How might this affect the Soviet music culture as a whole?

In Appeltova’s piece, the commentary on Soviet bodies, particularly women’s, emphasizes the never-ending ideals that accompanied the Soviet lifestyle. In this way, even the fact that quality of life had risen and allowed for weight gain could not also be accompanied by the need to then limit oneself in order to benefit the Communist regime. From Appeltova’s writing, the multiple factors that contributed to such fixation of weight and their range creates a microscopic example of the Cold War as a whole. The fixation on the individual in order to benefit the society in every way, the establishment of the fixation into the society as a whole, and the ways in which it effects daily life all reflects the greater issues within the Cold War ideological battle. In this case, the competition to create a physically-better worker and person would promote the ideals of labor, sexual attraction, and generational fitness; even if the ideals were similar to one another between the West and Soviet Union, the reasoning behind such an achievement remains rooted in ideology and competition between the two sides. Additionally, the individual once again had to bear the burden of fulfilling this ideal, or face criticism from every angle in their daily life.

After reading Appeltova, I question the testimonials of those interviewed within the text: while they did not change their habits exponentially, as Appeltova writes, was the psychological pressure also marginal? How stark were the generational differences, and did it greatly impact the level of consumption? As stated later in the piece, how did the emergence of eating disorders come into focus, and does that prevail today?

In “Six Weeks at Sokolniki,” Hixson’s narrative of the events surrounding the American Exhibition show the recurring theme of competition, clashing statements of the truth, and of course, opposite ideologies. However, what I believe is the most telling of these themes are the interactions between the agitators and tour guides at the Exhibition. On one hand, Hixson wrote that the agitators were able to point out and exploit weaknesses of the American way of life, but the guides also had the ability to come back at them and cross-examine them as well. Their interactions emphasize the battle between the Soviet Union and the United States in individual interactions, and ones that did not come often throughout the Cold War. It is interesting that even though the Expedition took place within Soviet Union, the tour guides and entire Expedition still managed to influence and keep up with what the Soviets threw at them. However, the arguments between these individuals did not seem to match what the tour guides found themselves most often talking about, calling into question the effectiveness of the agitators’ presence.

From the perspective of one American tour guide, “she concentrated on correcting some of the ‘fantastic misconceptions’ her audience reflected about American life.” (Hixson 195). in this way, even the visitors to the Exhibition were not interested in some of the deeper ideological rifts between Americans and Soviets, rather the differences in their daily lives. While some of the comments left by Soviet visitors hinted at the lack of deeper examination in American democracy, their interest in the commodities of American life like cars, refrigerators, and common domestic supplies highlights that even in its absence, the need to understand the differences in everyday life were most telling, with the tour guides and agitators left to duke out ideological differences.

With this in mind, I cannot help but wonder why the Soviets focused so much on ideological ills within the United States, even when American tour guides did admit those faults? Was the Soviet Union so far ahead in terms of racism and poverty that they could speak on such issues? Was it, as Hixson wrote, a means to distract visitors from the material goods and keep their attentions on the fundamental values of the society? Was there ever a way for the Soviets to deter and manage the Expedition without facing some challenges in keeping the people entirely faithful to the Soviet Union?

In Chapter 7 of Sheffer’s book, the actions of the Stasi showed numerous attempts to create a network of information and surveillance, resulting in multiple failures, financial loss, and much less intelligence gathering than they’d hoped. This reflects the entirety of the Eastern German operations of retaining its citizens, but also the will with which people wanted to flee. While we’ve previously read that Action Vermin and other operations had created an environment of fear and silence within Eastern Germany, this new narrative contrasts this and how “easily” people were still able to cross the border. Despite the East German government’s attempts to positively reinforce their regime and lifestyles, it becomes clear by the end that such a tactic simply would not work.

Sheffer’s records that many of the people that worked for the Stasi simply stopped replying without consequences emphasizes the lack of power that the agency had, and the ability with which people could manipulate its systems. The tactic of trying to utilize people that had already wanted to defect or done so successfully clearly does not go well, with the government agencies realizing that they had to stick with clear force. The continued failures to maintain communication for East German intelligence meant changing tactics and adapting to their conditions, resulting in more hostile and tense actions throughout the Cold War.

As I read the book, I kept coming back to the original question of community policing – citizens were expected to and willingly spied on their neighbors, recruited to be paid for working with the Stasi, and were rewarded for their actions; was it simply monetary gain for most citizens to give intelligence, or did they believe in the regime and its ideology? While Sheffer noted that much of the information was mundane, did it provide any insight into their tactics and how to create control within communities? Were citizens aware of the high presence of Stasi affiliates, or did they just feel the eyes on them?

While reading Burned Bridge and the re-telling of the border-centered festivals organized throughout the 1950s, the thing that struck me the most is the sheer chaos that would have come about during the mass border crossings, and the shopping rushes that residents recount. I understand the need to buy supplies, trade items, and visit friends or family, the idea that people returned (sometimes begrudgingly) and did so regularly was what surprised me. While the memory of the Cold War is predominated by the narrative that there was strict and unmoving control, this narrative shows that there was a period of semi-relaxed border patrol. While tensions remained and divisions grew, the people still had the opportunity on certain days to flood the other side in order to shop, eat, and drink.

These interactions aid in the narrative that the Cold War did not immediately settle into such a hardened and established tension that is described by many; there remained areas and borders that were open and while contested by residents and the local governments, their relations remained intact for some time. Only later in the 1950s did the borders officially close, and residents were forced to move or flee West. Until that point, both East and West Germans seemed to assimilate into this routine of border-crossing, despite the harassment and tensions that came along with it.

From this more-defined narrative given from Sheffer, I’m contemplating a few things: How does this frame the future of East-West German relations? How much did the “local participation” prevail with these interactions as Sheffer puts it, and what could they have changed, if anything?

After reading Békés, the previous thoughts that the United States government would willingly and swiftly put an end to communism if it saw an opportunity flew out the window for Eastern Europeans. Even with revolutions led by the people within these nations, the intervention of the Red Army and Soviet Government went without issue or protest from the Western bloc. While the hatred of Communism extended to all forms of life and the threat of war always loomed, this first hint of possible change did not produce anything. For the Eastern European people protesting their governments, it was determined that if they wanted change, they would have to do so on their own and without support.

Extending to Interview 106, the radio operator’s perspective also proves that the movement existed entirely because of the people involved, and was thoroughly surprised by the involvement of the “peasants” that sent them supplies. Their involvement as a radio operator showed the want for change, and while they did not have organization or a defined end-goal, their dedication defined the movement while it lasted. They did not expect help from others, only seeking the tenets that the defined and were prepared to help where they could.

Overall, the revolution, as seen from both the perspective of Interviewee 106 and that given by Békés, makes me question how this shaped the future of the Soviet Union and how it was seen from the people living within it. Did the remnants of revolution simply fade into history, or did they survive in different forms? How did it shape the youth experience for those involved that stayed within Hungary? Was there an attempt afterward to alter the memory of the movement? As we continue to study, I’d like to continue to question what the movement did in questioning Soviet and Communist ideology.