Author: Blake Aber

In the address Vaclav Havel gives the people of Czechoslovakia he begins by talking about how leaders before him have been dishonest when discussing the state of the nation. And, he very quickly states that he is going to be very different than the leaders before him. Havel discusses the many problems in Czechoslovakia at that point including education failure and environmental destruction. However, Havel’s biggest gripe with the state of affairs is the insidious state of the morality in Czechoslovakia. He argues that Czechoslovakia has become increasingly morally corrupt and that it is the fault of leaders and those who let their leaders be corrupt. Havel states, “The previous regime – armed with its arrogant and intolerant ideology – reduced man to a force of production, and nature to a tool of production” (Havel). Here, Havel uses the word “ideology”, which attacks the base of the Soviet Union and communist Czechoslovakia. Why is it important that Havel uses an argument based on morals and ideology? Is his technique successful? Does this relate to the ideological war that has been fought between the US and the USSR?

In chapter 4 of The Breakthrough : Human Rights in The 1970s the author discusses the front put on by the SED that seemed to quell fears in East Germany after WWII. The idea was to create propaganda or a narrative that placed a dictatorship as a necessary way to achieve human rights. However, the author quickly points out that this idea is purely just propaganda and that the SED government had no intention of having human rights be a cornerstone of the regime. The author quotes the SED leader at the time, “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). From what Ulbricht says it is clear that the SED really only cares about having power and pushing forward their own agenda. Continually, the author goes onto talk about how the idea of human rights are not really seen in socialist literature but in liberal literature which is more so associated with capitalism. This part of the chapter led me to wonder why the SED was not pursuing actual human rights in order to keep their citizens happy? Also, it made me consider a bigger question. Can human rights and dictatorship exist at the same time? Doesn’t the nature of socialism seem to lead to human rights, or are they in fact not related?

In Youth and Rock in the Soviet Bloc : Youth Cultures, Music, and the State in Russia and Eastern Europe chapter 7 author, Kate Gerrard, discusses the subculture of punk within the GDR. The punk movement came out of Great Britain, a Western nation, in the 1970s and was adopted in many cities in the GDR. The fact that punk is a Western creation while also having ideals of non-conformity leads it to be outlawed in the GDR. Thus, the first representation of punk in the GDR was eventually squashed by the Stasi, only to have a revival in the 1980s. However, the two punk eras in the GDR have different aesthetics and ideals, and I think that is something that is important and interesting. Gerrard states about the new “wave” of punk, “[…] by the mid 1980s the imaginative do-it-yourself outfits from the initial wave of punk were replaced by rigorous dress codes to differentiate hardcore-, anachro-, wannabe-, alco-, dirt-, kid-, Nazi-punks, and skinheads from one another,” (Gerrard 154). Between group one and group two of the punk subculture there is a clear evolution of how fashion is to be done. Continually, there becomes more detailed subgroups within punk itself, that each have their own unique traits. There become more rules on what it means to be punk and how to do it correctly. Which brings me to some questions. Why is there such a clear change within the punk subculture between the first representation and the second? Could this be due to having time underground that lead to more organization? Do you think Soviet Socialism and officials affected how punk re-emerged? How does a more organized and rigid representation of punk seek to make it stronger or try to have it last?

In chapter 3 of Virtuosi Abroad : Soviet Music and Imperial Competition During the Early Cold War, 1945–1958 the author discusses the discussion and eventual birth of a competitive music festival in the Soviet Union. This project beings with the idea for “Moscow Musical Holiday” which was thought up by the Committee on Artistic Affairs. The leader of the committee, Nikolai Bespalov, finding that the Soviet Union was missing an event like this. He argues “‘Moscow- the capital of the USSR is the global center of musical culture. Holding an international festival should facilitate the strengthening of influence of Soviet arts on the development of progressive musical creativity abroad'” (Tomoff 84). The statement Bespalov makes is a very confident one. It is obvious he holds the Soviet Union in high esteem, and it seems he has a reason to back it up. Clearly the US and USSR are incredibly competitive at this time, and up until 1958 the USSR is the one with the power and “winnings” to back that power up. And personally, as someone who is supportive of the arts the importance put on this festival and other cultural outlets in the Soviet Union is something I agree with. But why? Why is there so much importance put onto cultural competition with the West and mainly the US? To me, it almost seems like small potatoes that distract from a bigger economic and political goal. So why does the Soviet Union care so much about becoming number one when it comes to culture? Is it a nearly a means to an end? Or is culture so important to a society’s survival that they feel they need to dominate in it to keep the USSR thriving?

The article “New Soviet Woman: The Post WWII Feminine Ideal at Home and Abroad” deals with the magazine Soviet Woman produced by the organization AKSZh. The author states, “First published in November–December 1945, Soviet Woman was an artifact of both wartime internationalism and Cold War competition” (Peri, 622). Although this organization begins in WWII seeking to create communication among the USSR and nations abroad, that narrative changes after the war. Soviet Woman becomes much more a vehicle for propaganda than for conversation about women’s issues in nations around the world. Through the use of letters from women in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany the writers of Soviet Woman compare and contrast the lives of women in capitalists countries to women in the USSR. Furthermore, the AKSZh fosters ideals of what the “Soviet woman” should be, and thus how every woman should be.

Questions;

1. How might Soviet Woman be harmful in the fight for gender equality?
2. Is there any significance in the fact that Soviet Woman was often too expensive for most Soviet women to buy it?
3. How does Oriana Atkinson’s depiction of the women of the USSR complicate Soviet Woman? What is significant about how some American readers react to Atkinson’s article? How does the AKSZh react?
4. There is clear sexism written about in American and British magazines as well as letters to the AKSZh. However, are there ways in which Soviet Woman is perpetuating female oppression?
5. Is the idea of “having it all” inherently oppressive/
6. What is the relationship between “individual empowerment” and allegiance to the USSR?
7. Based on Soviet Woman where does a woman’s worth come from? Does their definition of a woman’s worth negate woman’s choice?

In chapter 7 of Burned Bridge, Sheffer not only discussed the groups of people leaving East Germany, but also the ways in which East German officials sought to keep people in the territory. As opposed to actually bettering areas of the government so people won’t want to leave, the East German officials use strategies such as glorified stalking and propaganda. The East German government would research into people’s lives to “manipulate” them to stay if they thought they were going to leave. However, this phenomena became so rampant that citizens were able to manipulate the government in order to gain benefits. In many cases these files got so out of hand that local government would give up and let people leave. Moreover, the officials used the people who had already fled as pariahs who represented selfishness. They cast the people who left as outcasts who could not thrive in East Germany due to personal issues not government issues. Sheffer states, “Whether or not people believed or sympathized with such attacks, everyone recognized such shaming as a public consequence that implicated neighbors, associates, and loved ones,” (147). Similar to the show trials, the validity of the claims being made might be clearly questionable; yet, peoples’ names are being ruined and that already does decent damage. Continually, West Germany was using propaganda to show East German refugees as brave people who escaped the evil East. Thus, all of the paranoia and propaganda makes me wonder how this works to raise tension between East and West Germany? How does this raise tension within East Germany?

In chapter four of the reading Sheffer discusses the 1949 soccer match between Sonneberg and Neustadt. As an event that crosses the East and West boarder, it seems like a huge event that displays how badly these two sides want to be unified. Yet, Sheffer quickly shows the reader that this successful event is not all it seems to be. Although Easterners and Westerners were allowed to cross the boarder on the day of the match, and they did so in hoards, that hoard was heavy with Eastern Germans. She states, “And third, interest was lopsided between East and West. Westerners accounted for less than a fifth of spectators at the game. Only four hundred to five hundred Neustadters ventured into the Soviet zone after the boarder opened, compared to the tens of thousands of Easterners headed West, “(Sheffer, 73). Continually, the same Eastern excitement followed through with the officials who organized the event, as they took the lead and the Western officials treated the match as a headache. In fact it seems as though the Eastern officials purposely timed these boarder crossing events as a way to undermine the newly formed West Germany. However, while the Eastern officials sought to use these events as propaganda to promote German unification there is something about this that gives me pause. These events saw thousands of Eastern Germans crossing the boarder, but not the same number of Western Germans. So, doesn’t that fact make the East look bad? Or, am I missing a piece of the puzzle?

Interview 106 addresses conflicts about the type of socialism that the Soviet Union utilizes. As students, it seems that these young Hungarians are having realizations about cracks in a system that are draining their society. Specifically, very early on the interviewee mentions ideas about capitalism and communism. “The Communist regime was not really Socialist. We wanted something new, we didn’t know what, but we didn’t have time to finish it,” (Interview 106, 2). This idea is something that is important. As, last week we discussed that countries on their own might want socialist governments/policy. Yet, the Hungarians are not getting the socialist policy they might want, and are instead getting a more fascist version of communism. Moreover, the interviewee discussed how the goods being farmed and created by the Hungarians are going directly to the Russians- which is a prominent reason for the protest turned revolt. Furthermore, the idea of the Hungarians having simple demands that the Russians/policy makers won’t give are discussed. Continually, the conflict of who is communist, and can you only be communist if you are following the Soviet Union’s version of communism. Which leads me to wonder, has the Soviet Union under Stalin twisted what communism should be yet still used the name communism? Or, because the Soviet Union is the first major communist nation are they able to shape communism in the way they see fit? Are nations like Hungary, who want to create a socialist government for themselves, anti-communist or anti-Soviet Union communist?

At the beginning of Dr. Strangelove it seemed like a quite serious war movie, for the first five minutes. However, after General Ripper’s first initial call for “Plan R” things very quickly descend into madness. Both General Ripper and Major Kong speak to their subordinates after “Plan R” has been put in place; and, while it seems like a very stereotypical call-to-action speech, it becomes very ridiculous when you realize they are preparing to die without a reason to. The film begins very calmly, at a standstill until Ripper consumed by paranoia decides to go straight to a doomsday call. The paranoia of the US Military is so perverse in the film that the idea of letting people die is overlooked in favor of destroying communists. Specifically, the movie does play around with the ides of “Mutually Assured Destruction”, and how that is clearly not enough to protect people from nuclear weapons. It becomes quickly clear that neither the US or the USSR really meant to keep to the “Mutually Assured Destruction” strategy as the Russians build a doomsday device that will detonate automatically and cannot be prevented (49:36). Part of the “fun” of the film is that nuclear weapons are almost treated as toys. When General Turgidson is listing off options after telling the President what Ripper did, he speaks of nuclear weapons like the number of M&Ms they have over the USSR, and how they would still have enough left to clean up after destroying the USSR’s bases. Furthermore, the idea of human life is even more so poked fun at when Dr. Strangelove suggests starting a new life underground as opposed to possibly trying to save the American people. While I found this film to be pretty funny, it made me wonder how someone viewing this film after its release might feel. It was released during the Cold War. Which leads me to question, how would someone watching this in 1964 America feel? About their government? About their safety? About the use of nuclear weapons? Do you think it would be easy to take this film only as a satire, or would it leave you with even more fear walking out of the theater? I was also wondering what the significance of Major Kong’s cowboy hat at the beginning of the film and his eventual riding of an H-Bomb?

From the very first passages of “Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1962” it is clear that both the US and USSR have conjured massive theories about the course of history and where history will eventually end. The striking part about both governments’ thoughts are that they affect the world as a whole- which becomes dangerous. It is not simply that these governments are running their nations in a way that reflects their respective ideologies, but that they expect and make efforts towards bringing the rest of the world with them. These two giant world powers, who have completely opposite beliefs, thus see the other as the big bad in their roadmap of world history. Their beliefs were seemingly so deeply rooted in the idea of a clear path for history, that they saw the others destruction as a climax point. Woodrow Wilson believed, “Bolshevism, in this analysis, was a necessary phase before the inevitable normalization of the country. No evidence to the contrary could shake American liberals’ conviction that Russia would soon conform to the American model,” (Engerman 27). While Lenin remarked that American capitalism was the height and that American communists would revolt. Before WWII the US and USSR worked together economically and otherwise; however, that work was twisted in a way that showed each nation that the other was dying out. Engerman states, “By recognizing the need for markets, the Soviet Union was heading the American way. At the same time, Soviets celebrated the economic agreements as proof of the iron laws of capitalism; Lenin boasted to a comrade that they showed how capitalists contributed to “the preparation of their own [death],” (Engerman, 28). Moreover during WWII and afterwards the USSR and US display a very hot and cold relationship, common enemies and economic advances push them together while a chance at destruction of the other pull them apart. And while here in the US many of us are taught about American liberalism, how it is a good thing and how we were on the “right” side of history. Yet, both the US and USSR ideologies are so extreme, they are so far too one side that they are both dangerous. Both ideologies have imperialistic tones to them. Which leads me to question was the Cold War vital in some ways to keep these very powerful governments with very extreme ideas occupied? Would these powers have become more detrimental had they not had the adversary of the other?