Author: Mario Sanchez Isabas

While reading Havel’s New Year’s Address to the Nation, 1990. I found it interesting that the term totalitarian came up a few times. In the beginning, Havel describes that they are currently living under totalitarian rule he describes it as ” We had all become used to the totalitarian system and accepted it as an unchangeable fact and thus helped to perpetuate it. In other words, we are all – though naturally to differing extents – responsible for the operation of the totalitarian machinery” (Havel, 2). Later on, in the address, he describes that “Everywhere in the world people wonder where those meek, humiliated, skeptical and seemingly cynical citizens of Czechoslovakia found the marvelous strength to shake the totalitarian yoke from their shoulders in several weeks, and in a decent and peaceful way” (Havel, 3). Although, I believe he is talking about the current government he then says that the same totalitarian regime they were under in the 1950s is the same as what they are living now. ” Those who defended the honor of our nations during the Second World War, those who rebelled against the totalitarian rule” (Havel, 3). My question to the class would be, do you think the author wants the nation to know that they have not progressed since WW2? Do you think the author wants the nation to feel the same anguish that they were feeling in the 1950s to feel while giving the address to the nation? Do you think that this is a fair comparison? Or do you think that this is justified by past history actions? What do you think?

While reading “Power of the Powerless” and the chapter 4 Dictatorship and Dissent: Human Rights in East Germany in the 1970s by Ned Richardson- Little, there were a lot of similar comparisons between the two. In page 51 the author describes that those who held power in the GDR saw as human rights to be only controlled by those in power “As SED leader Walter Ulbricht said upon his return to Germany from exile, “it should look democratic, but everything must be in our hands” (Little, 51). And in Power of the powerless “Our system is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling” (Havel, [2]). In the beginning of Power of the powerless the author says that past history actions has caused dissent in this area. My questions to the class is, would you consider this comparison to relate what Havel was talking about? Also, do you think that by dictating what human rights is in your pov, will others see it that way? Or do you think that by restricting certain rights, no one will want it because the gov’t said so?

In the reading for this week, It was clear that journalists repeatedly had to compare socialist values in the Soviet Union and Capitalist values in the U.S. “Alexei Adzhubei, who was closely associated with journalistic reforms, underlined the importance of the journalist’s educating role… It was revealing that Adzhubei chose the difference between socialism and capitalism as an example of the universally important truths that journalists should convey (Fainberg, 88-89). Since journalists were given this task to constantly compare themselves to the U.S. Was it because the Soviet Union was scared, that once they opened themselves up to other foreign nations, the Soviet people would start to like the West and want to become it? Although the Soviet leaders did trust their people, “Soviet leaders expressed confidence that the people’s faith in the socialist project would not weaken, but strengthen, if they knew more about foreign countries” (Fainberg, 90), why did they specifically instruct journalist to do this constant comparison? Did the Soviet Union really trust its people by keeping the constant comparison in journal articles and newspapers? Would it be different if a journalist were given the liberty to express themselves freely instead of following the Journalistic reforms? Or was this a necessary part of the Cold War by comparing each other’s values?

In the reading for this week I found it interesting that according to the GDR, Music could influence individuality which during this time was a direct influence from the western world and since punk music was circulating during that time. In chapter 7 “In the GDR, the adoption of punk by young people signified not merely a challenge to existing social and cultural norms…” (Gerrard 156). Which led to young people defying exactly that “Young people bringing subcultures into the open and “living” them also affected their choice of clothing, behavior, and lifestyle, as it did in the West” (Gerrard, 158). But what I found more interesting is that the GDR went back on its values and conceded to the young people and to those who enjoyed listening to punk music. ” By the 1970s the state was forced to concede to the presence and popularity of Western music in East Germany…” (Gerrard 156). My question to the class would be would you consider this to be a loss to eastern Germany or a win for the western world? Do you think that western music would have eventually found itself in eastern Germany regardless of regulations or the Stasi? And do you think that Punk music was a type of escape for the young people living during that time?

In the reading for this week there were two clear goals for the International Tchaikovsky Competition and the Moscow holiday event. One of them was popularize Russian music, “Shostakovich reminded the committee that the point of the competition was to popularize Russian music” (Tomoff, 91). The other one was too propagandize that the Soviet Union excelled in a lot of cultural aspects and also to influence those outside of the Soviet Union “a continual source of propaganda for the achievements of Soviet culture” (Tomoff, 107). My question to the class would be was the International Tchaikovsky Competition successful with the defeat from Van Cliburn but with the achievement of having the best violin soloists in the Soviet Union? Or was it an equal match between the Soviet Union and the west?

In Chp. 3 of the book we see that a lot of the holidays were put on the Eastern states to either commemorate the Red Army liberating the Eastern states or making statues of soldiers and Stalin. A place we see this is “In 1955, the infamous Stalin monument in Prague – the largest statue of the soviet leader ever constructed anywhere in the world…” (Applebaum, 86). We also see the soviet union implementing remembrance holidays to make sure the Eastern states felt like they owed the Soviet Union everything because they liberated them. ” In 1951, the communist government instituted a new state holiday in honor of the war: May, 9 “Day of the Liberation of Czechoslovakia by the soviet army”… In Stalinist Czechoslovakia, the liberation holiday became an occasion for Czechoslovaks to publicly perform their gratitude and indebtedness toward their Soviet friends” (Applebaum, 86-87). While the Soviet Union made sure to know they liberated them from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union also made sure to get rid of history that would depict another view of them. “In Leningrad, where approximately 800,000 civilians perished during the Germans’ brutal three-year siege during the war, the post war government shutdown grassroots efforts to commemorate tragedies and excised discussion of it from official histories” (Applebaum, 89). While the exaggerated accounts of Liberation were remembered the dark side of the liberation was glossed over. “… glorified accounts of the liberation in Czechoslovakia glossed over the crimes Soviet soldiers had committed in Slovakia the Czech lands, including widespread looting and incidents of rape and murder” (Applebaum, 88). My question to the class would be why was there a double standard to make sure their achievements were publicized and their failures covered? Also, do you think that if the the amount of civilians dead were public, would have that changed the view from those in Czechoslovakia? Also, do you think that the possibility that there could be a new purley slavic state, made the Czechoslovakians brush off the crimes that the Soviet Army did to them?

In Ch. 3, pg 60, we see that many regular people are crossing to west Germany to sell products or to work. But what surprised me the most is that there was a double standard between a business owner smuggling items from the east and an easter German selling items to the west or working in west. On pg. 59, the book says” Margarete Carl from Lauscha received a deferred sentence for crossing on Nov, 1949 because she was eight months pregnants… the court issued a warrant for her arrest in East Germany in 1951, and she spent two months in Sonneberg prison” (Sheffer, 59). The West and the East were also cooperating to see that most of those from the east were convicted for theft. But when western business went to the east to buy items and smuggle it into the west there were different ramifications. On. Pg. 60 “Neustadt businessman profited from smuggling and, if caught, faced minimal repercussions” (Sheffer, 60). While it is not surprising the west turned a blind eye for the business owner, but why not convict the business owner? Also, on pg. 64 “Western firms had been smuggling Lauscha’s glass wares over the border, but smuggling Lauschaers ultimately proved more efficient” (Sheffer, 64). My question to the class is do you think there is a underlying meaning as to categorize everyone from the east as poor or delinquent? and do you think these double standards are justifiable? Or is this is a justifiable cause because the company is doing it for the sake of the company. Or are there different reasons to convict regular people and not the business owners?

In the reading for this week, East Central Europe, 1953–1956 by Bekes, throughout the reading is seems like after the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union had an array of strikes and uprisings about either the economy or the jobs the people had. Throughout eastern Europe there were many uprisings from the people “On May 3, 1953, workers in tobacco factories near Plovdiv and Khaskovo in the southern part of Bulgaria, the country seen as most loyal to the Soviet Union, went on strike and organized a demonstration against inflated productivity demands” (Bekes, 336). Although this is one out of many, it was really surprising that some of the countries wanted a communist government without stalinism in it and others wanted to eradicate communism. “What might have been especially worrying for them was how the demonstrations had started out as demands of an economic nature, but had evolved in a matter of hours into widespread protests calling for the elimination of the Communist system by the industrial working class, a segment of the population that should have been the ideological base of the regime.” (Bekes, 338). Later on in the reading It was very clear that the people of Hungary wanted to have a communist type system but someone who was not aligned in the ideas of stalinism. In the reading “In Hungary, Rákosi managed to muster Soviet support to stay in power until July 1956, although conditions for an anti-Stalinist turn had been ripening since the fall of 1955.” (Bekes, 344). But later on, the Soviet Union leaders still decides to put someone with strong ideas of stalin knowing that the majority of those who lived in Hungary did not want that “Hungarian Workers’ Party Central Committee to elect Ernő Gerő, another leading Stalinist, as first secretary of the party. This displeased the Hungarians who – since the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU – had been expecting a more flexible and reformed Communist system” (Bekes, 346). My question to the class would be do you think the revolution between Hungary and the Soviet Union was inevitable from the start or could there have been a change in communist power early on in Hungary to calm the conflict? Also, right after Stalin died do you think that other countries may have seen it as an opportunity to leave the Soviet Union?

In the “The Soviet Union and the world, 1944–1953” by Pechatnov, Pechatnov describes that Stalin knew what the inevitable was when Russia joined with Western powers and that Russia would usually always get the end of the stick. “He expected sinister Western imperialists to follow their usual pattern of behavior: use Russians as cannon fodder, lure them with promises of major strategic gains, and then leave them empty handed in the end” (Pechatnov, 95). Stalin confirmed this history and mythology when Hitler deceived him. Since this has happened once, Stalin was not going to let it happen again. ” Determined not to be outsmarted again, Stalin and Molotov braced for tough bargaining with their allies. They were determined to seek their primary security agenda with their allies’ consent, if possible, and without it, if necessary” (Pechatnov, 95). After Roosevelt died, Truman took office with a different kind of view toward the Soviet Union. “A few days later, the White House abruptly terminated lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union” (Pechatnov, 95). My question to the class would be that, do you think the U.S knew that stalin would take this as a sign of aggression to start something? or do you think that the U.S wanted to test the waters to see how the Soviet Union would react? Although the U.S did resolve this specific conflict, do you think that this was the start of many fallouts and restrictions with the Soviet Union? Also, do you think that Stalin was starting to have flashbacks with what Germany did to them and not trust the U.S ever again?