Month: March 2021

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?

This blog post pertains to perhaps my favorite reading of the class so far (merely from obscurity), “The Fat Socialist Body:..” by Michaela Appeltová. Before my more specific questions start, I was curious as to if anyone else has heard of (let alone thought of) obesity playing a role in The Cold War? It makes sense to me as to how a population’s health and control therefor of by a government could have potential advantages in establishing certain political ideologies. But how have we gone from previous course readings to this? Strictly based off of the topic, would you consider this text to have the same historical value or merit as other pieces we have read thus far?

A line that really struck me as thought provoking was, “, the shift away from heavy, manual work to sedentary employment, and the lack of physical activity resulted not simply in a lifestyle change but also in an alarming dynamic of obesity rates” (1). Was this actually a legitimate concern for the population’s health and weight? Or was it an indirect political ploy to encourage manual labor, no matter the actual health costs, for the gain of Soviet communism?

Further, what was your impression on how The Prague Spring influenced the idea of a “slavic shape” or aesthetic? This question simultaneously displays my personal interest in this text because of how it incorporates the artistic question of life imitating art or art imitating life into a political atmosphere. What was this reading able to teach us about political aesthetics so to speak? Is art by definition something that naturally falls into the realm of politics, or is it a completely separate entity that has the potential to be used as political tool?

Just at the text transitions from the importance of cultural influence in art to literary productions, which did you believe had a more desirable affect in conveying these messages of slimming? In closing then I had concerns relating to the following line, “That the public health concern about obesity emerged in the socialist part of the world challenges arguments linking the cult of the slim body to capitalist consumerism (3). How do you as a historian interpret this section? Lastly- do you agree with the author’s assertion that this focus on obesity actually reveals that “socialist and capitalist body cultures had common roots in modern ideas of a disciplined, able body, considered an expression of individual morality” (4)? If you do agree, is obesity as a topic somehow able to completely equate the ideals of the U.S. and Soviet era communism?

Reading the New Soviet Woman article I found a piece of text that puzzled me. The AKSZh, which was the parent organization to the various magazines and efforts to spread socialist and communist ideals, originally began in the 1930s as opposition to the Nazis by reaching out to anti-fascist women in various Western countries. Specifically, the text states on page 625 (5 in the pdf doc) that:

“Inspiration for Soviet Woman emerged from interactions between AKSZh and the USSR’s
Western allies during World War II. AKSZh reached out to women in Europe and North
America during the 1930s as part of the popular front against fascism. Its activities declined when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, but after Germany invaded the USSR, AKSZh became one of several anti-fascist committees in the Soviet Information Bureau created to strengthen solidarity among the Allies.”

Given this…let’s call it an “intermission”…in the ASKZh’s anti-Nazi activity when it became politically rocky after Stalin made a deal with Hitler for peace in exchange for carving up Poland between the two of them, does this take away from the organization’s credibility permanently, or at least its later efforts going into the 1950s? To what extent was the Soviet leadership directing the organization? Surely it had guidelines and goals set in place by them, but were there ever any direct actions/orders? I ask this because depending on just how close those government officials were to the organization from the point of its inception onwards affected how, #1, it would be received by foreign governments whose citizens would read its literature, and #2, citizens in said countries would view that literature based on their feelings about the Soviet leadership at the time (Stalin viewed relatively positively in the US as “Uncle Joe” under the FDR’s Administration but rapidly became a villain during Truman’s tenure after Potsdam and the Berlin Airlift). As I mentioned in Blake’s discussion post, this also ties in with Stalin’s peacetime policies as opposed to wartime. In the latter, things were more desperate and urgent necessitating great unity for a strong opposition to the Axis, meaning more equality in accordance with what was perceived by women to be a key communist ideal. However, once things died down, it seems that things somewhat reverted to the pre-war conservative policies by Stalin. In this case though, I suppose the propaganda efforts of the AKSZh did not revert or cease to maintain the illusion of consistency? It is an interesting parallel between the two instances.

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?

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?

To build off of Veena’s post the meeting definitely seemed tense and uncomfortable, especially for Nixon. He was trying to be kind and respectful and very thoughtful of what words he used and Kruschev was very blunt and said what he was thinking. One part that really stuck out to me was at 0:44 when Krushchev starts talking about the US has been around for 150 years and the Soviet Union only 42 years and will soon pass the United States.

I was wondering how the debate and that part, in particular, were interpreted by each countries people. Did the US view Krushchev as disrespectful and did it give them even more of a negative view towards the Soviet Union and did Nixon’s more relaxed passive speech make the Soviet people view the US as weak.

Something that really stood out to me during this whole debate was the uncomfortable tension between the two leaders. You can see Nixon forcing laughs and a smile while Khrushchev seemed confident and like he was enjoying himself. It is noticeable how Nixon is trying to give compliments to Khrushchev while the latter has no problem throwing insults. For example, he gave his honest opinions on the kitchen exhibit without a second thought (0:28).  This sort of “debate” was very passive aggressive.

I feel like in American politics, politicians always have this front up, where they try to seem very diplomatic and friendly despite the perhaps rocky relationship they have with another country. I’m not necessarily saying this is a bad thing, but I think that something like this kitchen debate could never happen today. I think perhaps this debate shaped the way that the leaders of these two states interacted with each other from then on. Of course, it is fun publicity, but it was also a little scary as threats were hinted at. Afterall, it is sort of hard to have a real debate when the opposing side can easily start a war.

 Is it possible that this debate shaped the diplomatic relationship between these two countries, and perhaps with other countries? Did it create more tension for future meetings? Is this one of the reasons that American politicians put on a friendly face when going abroad? Why wasn’t Khrushchev afraid of being brutally honest towards another world power when Nixon was afraid?

In Reid’s chapter in Parting the Curtain, she examines an exhibition held in Soviet territory where the U.S. was invited to present various homewares, appliances, and other sorts of articles that could be found in a “normal” American home. In preparation for this exhibition, “The Society for the Propagation of Political and Scientific Knowledge, a national lecture society, conducted conferences and seminars offering data, financial assistance, and sponsorship of lecturers. The society arranged some 10,000 lectures to anchor the propaganda counteroffensive against the exhibition” (Reid 188). Despite all these preparations for the arrival of the U.S. exhibition, “The Soviet campaign fizzled, the once highly visible agitators toned down their criticisms and increasingly gave way to teeming crowds of ordinary citizens. In fact, one U.S. diplomat reported, the remaining agitators themselves became ‘rapt with attention at U.S. displays and only hypocritically went about their tasks'” (Reid 202). What appeared to win over the crowds, by and large, with the images and wares of a new kitchen, automobiles, and clothing. The Soviet citizens were even enamored by all these things to the extent that they continuously wished to know how much things cost. With the amount of propaganda that the Soviets put into this campaign to disparage the exhibit (which they invited to their shores), they were unsuccessful in maintaining some of the illusion of the East being better off than the West. I am rather curious, however, of what others think of this seeming miscalculation. And it seems like it was a rather large miscalculation that the Soviets thought that they could win over their own citizens with just more propaganda. Why do you think that the Soviets thought that they could merely win over their citizens by using “agitators” and not a competing exhibition or by not bringing the West over at all? Should the remaining agitators continued vivaciously in their agitations would that have been successful or was there nothing the Soviets could have done to win back their citizens during this month(s)-long period? Or was the appeal of keeping up with the American “way of life” and consumerism too powerful of a motivator to keep the Soviets from trying to “keep up with the Jones.'”

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?

From the kitchen debate to the Exhibition in Sokolniki Park, the Cold War appears less like a war and more like a disagreement between two children (Soviet Union/Khruschev and the United States/Nixon) on whose toys are better. And, to prove himself correct, the United States invites the Soviet Union to his “house” in the form of this exhibit to show him how much better his things are. The childish personalities of Khruschev and Nixon only inflate the seemingly unimportant topic of this debate. Rather than two government officials debating policy or human rights of people in their respective countries, Khruschev and Nixon go head to head on the all-important Whirlpool kitchen appliances.

While I do not want to dismiss the importance of manufacturing and consumerism in industry, this competition between the Soviet Union and the United States appears to do little in bringing the two countries together to improve the lives of people everywhere. In fact, this competition only increases the divide as made apparent by the one, and only, American National Exhibition to occur in the Soviet Union. Soviet Union citizens quickly became aware of the difference in quality of life and access to goods between themselves and Americans. Meanwhile, the American guides had to grapple with the fact, whether they outwardly showed it or not when answering questions, that while quality of life was better for certain Americans, it was not that way for all: African Americans, women, the mentally ill, the disabled community, those in poor physical health, etc. Do you think the competition between the Soviet Union and the United States had any positive effects outside of industry and development? Did the “average” American or Soviet citizen benefit from the competition in any way?