Author: Dylan Bertovich

In the movie The Cranes are Flying, the parents of Veronika are killed in an air raid. Around the 35 minute mark, we see her parents refusing to leave the house when the raid comes. Then Veronika returns home and her parents have been killed, because of their refusal to leave. This shows both ego and sacrifice, a lot of people thought that they would survive the war and it would not change their lives. Many people had to give their lives to be able to win the war. The actions of her parents greatly complicate Veronika’s life – see is now a homeless orphan. This would have been common in the years of war that occurred through the Soviet Union. The film does a good job showing how complicated decisions were and how people suffered during the war. Do you think that many people died like Veronika’s parents? Do you think that her reaction was natural to the untimely death of her parents? Does this show the humanity of death and mistakes made during the war?

The quote that sticks out to me the most from this section of Journey into the Whirlwind is one from the prison conversations: “I tell you frankly that I’m glad the Communists are beginning to get a taste of their own medicine” (Ginzburg 112). This is in response to the mass arrests of the communist leaders and party heavyweights. The people that had formerly been in power and had been spoiled with the power that they had received over the past 15 years were now getting a taste of the other side. The point that Derkovskaya is making in this statement is based on her own experiences with the communist party and there were most likely other people in the prisons and camps that felt the same way. She had been imprisoned for their opposition by the leaders like Genia, and now it is her turn. Do you think that there were enemies within the prison system that were glad to see people like Genia join their ranks? Do you that Genia and other party leaders bear responsibility for the crimes of the party and this is part of their punishment?

The thing that shocks me about the first portion of the reading of Journey into the Whirlwind is that there seems to be this continuing escalation of accusations. It begins with an association with someone and ends with Genia being accused of being a traitor. The interrogator Vevers screams, “Why, death would be too good for you! You turncoat! You agent of international imperialism” (Ginzburg 49). This seems to be an extreme escalation that soon ends with her ending up in prison. The opening chapters of the novel paint the country in a similar way as the dekulakization, where anyone can be accused of being an enemy. Then it gets to the point where everyone you know and yourself is an enemy. Anyone can be associated with being an enemy. Then they are on a one way ticket to a prison cell. These are people that are painted as being model communists but are quickly forced into these horrible conditions. Do you see a system of persecution in the Soviet Union? Do you believe that the leaders are taking advantage of the power to ruin other people’s lives?

“Sure people will fall. But we’re building blast furnaces all the same, aren’t we?” (Scott 21) The author uses this statement and the visuals of the injured workers to make the clear case that this was a very dangerous build. Then when you read into the quotes and stories a little bit more, it seems that there was a general disregard of human life. The only thing that mattered was building the factories and making the steel that needed to be made. They are “mostly plowboys” so what does their deaths matter away way? (Scott 21) These values seem to be very characteristic of the Stalin period, where advancement came at any cost. There was almost an expectation of suffering and death built into these grand building projects. Was the suffering worth it to build these factories? Does the general disregard for human life line up with traditional socialist values? Would the deaths have been more notable if they were engineers and not plow boys.

The excerpt clearly makes the case that the lives of the minority population are treated better in the Soviet Union than elsewhere in the West. The author then answers the burning question, what was life like before and how did the Soviet Union get to such a place of equality? It is answered with, “Before [the transition to communism], Kurbanov said, racial persecution and segregation, the natives treated like dogs. Now, that is finished, and Russian and native, Jew and gentile, white and brown, live and work together. Before, no intermarriages of white and dark, now there are many. Before, Kurbanov himself was a herd-boy in the mountains. Now, he is a member of the Party and the Chairman of a city soviet” (Hughes 74). The excerpt credits the equality that the author is seeing to the transition to communism, where equality was required and celebrated. This work was published in the Soviet Union but the message seems to be directed at the minority population in the United States. The message seems to be that communism would create a state of equality in the United States. Do you think that with the history of the United States that communism would create equality? Is it possible that there was an audience in the Soviet Union still seeking equality? Was it a good idea to target a minority population to spread communism?

When you imagine soviet architecture the first thing that might come to mind is the block style residential buildings. These buildings exist as a simple and cheap way to house the many people that are needed to be housed. It isn’t considered pretty to many but it is necessary. Then when reading about the lavishness that existed in government buildings, that is almost expected, but not extravagant Metro stations. O’Mahony on 185 writes about the “rich marble and granite” and the “huge chandeliers” that adorn the stations.

Anderson describes the situation in the metros:

“The art of infrastructure articulated the utopian and dystopian
aspects of Stalin’s Revolution. … These complementary spaces were symptoms of a paradoxical attempt to build a modern metropolis on the basis of arduous, unskilled and often forced labour.” (Anderson 162)

These workers were often working under forced labor to build a beautiful metro system when there was so much more needed. Why waste money and time on marble when any tile would have done? If I was a Soviet citizen that lived in a poorly constructed drab high-rise seeing these stations, I would feel betrayed. How would you feel?

Merriam Webster defines Jazz as “American music developed especially from ragtime and blues and characterized by propulsive syncopated rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, varying degrees of improvisation, and often deliberate distortions of pitch and timbre.” Noticeably in this definition first word is American, having come from the west. Jazz is a very western musical experience having arisen in bars and the African American experience. This leads to many issues when Jazz finds its way to the Soviet states, how can you make something so typically American into something Soviet. The answer seems to be that they could not.

“There was no clear-cut understanding of how the Soviet Union and its culture were supposed to relate to the West. Jazz amplified this problem and forced cultural elites, musicians, and to a lesser extent, audiences to come up with their own answers to these questions.” (Beresford 98). Beresford makes it clear that the Soviet Union did whatever it come to but transform Jazz and to excuse it as something that came out of the workers struggle in the states. They describe Jazz preformed by Jews as a “joyous expression of [their] liberation.” (Beresford 121) This, in their theory, follows the great liberating force of Jazz for marginalized people in the West.

Do you think that these justifications should have been enough to get Jazz past the critics in the Soviet Union? Do you think that you have remove the American qualities of something that is by definition American? Were the leaders of the Soviet Union forced into accepting Jazz because it was defiantly popular to begin with?

In viewing this film there are a couple of instances of clear propaganda that stand out. The first being the set of scenes revolving around the stolen pig. The old woman claims that there is no difference between the reds and the whites if both are going to be stealing from the peasants (25min Chapaev). Then we learn that the stolen items have been returned and we hear the speech to the men. In that speech we hear “who are you robbing? You’re robbing your brother the peasant!” and “we’re sacrificing our lives for that peasant and for the worker.” ( 31min Chapaev) Then later when they are actually on the battlefield there is a clear difference between the whites and the red. There is one side with much more professional uniforms and a typical military walk. Then there is the side wearing peasant clothes. (1hour Chapaev)

To include the interaction with the peasants was a clear message to the people that since the first days of the war the fight has been for you. There has never been a point where it has not been the workers vs. the elites. Do you think that there were any other moments in the film that were clear propaganda? Do you think that having a historic film about any country’s founding serves as propaganda?

There is an interesting dynamic here when it comes to the discussion of family and marriages. Kyutsam comments on his daughter being divorced (page 456 Ostrovsky),

“Just look at her there-she went and took up with that fancy man of hers and got married without so much as a by your leave, then separated from him in just the same way! And now, if you please, it’s me who’s got to feed her and that little brat of hers! It’s scandalous!”

This follows the themes of the time where women were still the caretakers; however, they could now take more control of their lives and leave a husband. The more liberal divorce laws seem to be decades ahead of the American laws, allowing women more autonomy and the ability to support themselves with guaranteed work.

Even Pavel himself is presented as being raised by a single mother, who often leaves to provide care to the older siblings. Women seem to be generally more free. What do you think the intentions of the presentation of these families are? Do Soviet women have more power than Western women (of the time)?

How the Steel was Tempered is a classic Socialist Realist novel that chronicles the journey of Pavel. Socialist Realist novels are often thought of to be “how things are and how things ought to be.” This novel seems to so far include the past and what could be the present.

The novel in part 1 starts with a timeline much earlier than when the novel was published, and continues to what could be considered the present or near present. I see the early parts of the novel as a reminder of what had occurred and how bad things were in the previous way of life. This is shown through the interactions between Pavel and the waiters, who Pavel calls “swine” and complains that they are paid too much. The waiters then literally attack him when he floods the station, when the station was only flooded because Pavel was being exploited by the restaurant. He and the common man are victims of the system.

The novel begins part 2 (the part included in this reading) with the story of the fallen trees and the building of the railway. This is how things are now and it is clear in the writing how much better things are now. The work is hard, but the young and strong men are able to complete this work thought impossible. This is for the community and supported by the community – they are working together to save the community. The town gave “all the food [it] could provide” and Pavel was even given a shoe when he couldn’t use his other. The work is hard but everyone is in it together.

The old way of life is an interesting contrast to the new way of life. It seems as if instead of what is and what ought to be it is what was and what is. Was the set up of the two parts of the novel done to display the changes in Soviet life? Almost a reminder of how far society has come? Do you see the altercation with the waiters as a condemnation on capitalism and a figurative beating of the common man? Do you see the story of the train line as collective propaganda?