Author: Augustine Dugan

In the New Years Address, a statement that stuck out to me came during the promises to the nation. Havel states that his first promise is to “ensure that we soon step up to the ballot boxes in a free election, and that our path toward this historic milestone will be dignified and peaceful”. Why do you think there was such an emphasis on stating that it would be dignified and peaceful?

We see in Havel’s piece, “Power of the Powerless”, that he has some extreme opinions on the blatant propaganda of the Soviet Union. His example lies in that of a greengrocer, who puts a sign up in his shop window that says “Workers of the world unite!”. Havel argues that this sign is not there to rally his fellow citizens, or to show his support to the Soviet Union, but rather out of fear. The grocer, in this example, is afraid of what would happen if he didn’t put on such a public display of loyalty to the Union. Havel argues that this is the reason why many people at the time had such blatant pieces of propaganda all around them.

It is interesting to see this happening in the Soviet Union – though not surprising. However, I am curious to see if anyone thinks there was a similar fear in the United States? We do not have exact evidence in these papers, but from what we have learned in this class, we may be able to answer that question.

The song I would like to focus on to discuss is the song “Nazi’s” by Namenlos. This song shows a lot of how some of the punk scene viewed the Soviet influence in East Germany. They use lyrics like “big words, too much power have only brought shit”. This is referring to the fact that the Soviet Union, and the western world, have ruined East Germany because they are using it as a place to fight each other. However, they use the word Nazi to describe them. Why do you think they made this choice?

Between the Moscow Music Holiday and Red Woodstock, the Soviet Union focused on putting their performers in the spotlight regardless of what event it is. However, there is a major difference between Red Woodstock and Moscow Music Holiday. Red Woodstock focused on more modern music, to help attract younger people to the Soviet message. The Music Holiday was for more “sophisticated” music, as well as theater productions.

What was the reason why they had two different music festivals with different focuses? Which do you think would be more effective in drawing people into the Soviet Union?

Though the Soviet Union has bragged about the different opportunities that women had under Soviet Socialism, including the ability to work and get awards, to raise children while working, and to be breadwinners for the house. However, while these were possibilities, it is far from the truth of what happened to women in the Soviet Union. They were forced to meet quotas while also raising children, which was an incredibly difficult thing to do. Women were forced to consume media that depicted this perfect Soviet woman, without it being actually attainable. Was this simply due to the fact that gender roles are constantly forced on women anyways? Or is it because they were exposed to Soviet Socialism as well?

As I read chapter 8 of the book, I was focusing mostly on the different reactions to towns destroyed along the border. Those who refused to sell, refused to move, were punished severely – although punishments were nothing new in this situation, especially because East German residents had seen people be shot, arrested, and punished for moving across the border. However, that did not stop many of these people. Why do you think this is the case? After all, it is stated that “the residents, fed up with life on the border, were mostly content to be relocated inland” (Applebaum, 182). Was it simple defiance against a brutal government?

I thought it was interesting that, in chapter three of this book, we learn about the fact that there were (for lack of a better term) “civil trials” for those who were caught smuggling across the border. They make mention that these smugglers were not bringing things such as drugs, weaponry, etc., but rather toys. What was the reason as to why they held these people on trial? Do you think it was to make a show over the fact that they care even about this small of smuggling?

Kovaly offers to us the perspective of Hungarian life before the revolution – something I think we were all missing when we read through the interviews for Monday’s class. This is an important insight we now have.

In pages 93-104, Kovaly describes in detail the lead up to the revolution. This included a shortage of basic household resources, the devaluation of currency, a housing crisis, and general discomfort and horrible living conditions for everyone – especially the elderly. However, she speaks more to the struggle her husband faces as he starts to see the reality of the communist party.

“If you’re right, if it is really a fraud, then Ive been an accomplice in a terrible crime. And if I had to believe that, I could not go on living…” (Kovaly, 104)

I can’t help but wonder if this mentality is something a majority of party officials, who were devoted to the party because they thought it was doing good, felt the same way. Could this be the reason why so many people supported the revolution? To make good on the crimes they may have committed while being an official in the party?

As the story goes on, we find out that Rudolf is arrested, and later, we find out his devastating fate. Kovaly, after her last time speaking with him, finds a newfound strength to get away from the officers who escorted her to the prison. Unfortunately, though, the party offered her no explanation for his death, except that he was “involved” in treasonous activities. Even still, they refuse her a death certificate or a copy of a verdict. What would be the reason for this? Was it a matter of covering their tracks?

At the end of this story, we see that Kovaly had finally had some sort of resolution. She began the healing process with her son in Bulgaria, which seemed to at least provide some solace for losing her husband.

What can we learn from this memoir from Kovaly? Are all of the Soviet leaders in this story “bad”? And, what kind of impression does this leave on you after reading the interviews?

In Interview 106, a majority of the information highlighted is about the actual Hungarian Revolution, on the side of those who were against the communist regime. This can be seen in a majority of the answers, about the reason why people were willing to take part in the revolution. However, there is a question that has been sticking out to me as I read through these – were they published to further prove the United States’ point that communism = evil? Is there a deeper reason as to why these interviews were recorded, or is it just to preserve an important part of history?  

Dr. Strangelove (1964) is perhaps one of the strangest, saddest forms of satire I have ever seen. While it is presented as a comedy, as seen in moments like 55:20 when Turgidson says “gee, I wish I had one of those doomsday machines”, or the exchange between Turgidson and the President at 29:02, suggesting that President Muffley has forgotten all about their order of succession. Gags such as the “10 to 1 breeding ratio” were an easy way to get laughs. It is obvious that this piece of film is to be read as satire, especially critiquing the paranoia taken on by the United States in fear of nuclear annihilation. However, Dr. Strangelove seems to have a deeper, more profound reason behind its creation. It seems that the movie could be a sort of “comfort” somehow, to make light of a situation that was paralyzing US citizens with fear. Constantly monitoring Russian movements, being subjected to bomb drills, seeing plans for nuclear bunkers – all of these things are disruptive to daily life and literally changing the way one sees their reality. This film was an escape from this fear, through making light of a horrifying situation. Did anyone else notice this while watching the film? Or did you think that the film was purely made for satire and nothing more?