The Stalinist Experience (HIS240 S21)

“‘But has it even been proved that he’s Trotskyist?’ This naive question provoked an explosion of righteous anger: ‘Don’t you know he’s been arrested? Can you imagine anyone’s being arrested unless there’s something definite against him?'” (Ginzburg 9-10).

In this chapter, we are introduced to Ginzburg’s intellectual life in 1934 . We have talked about the Stalin’s cult of personality, but I feel like we haven’t talked about how there was only one cult allowed. Obviously, we all understand that Stalin was dictator, but I feel like we could talk about the damage done just by simply not supporting Stalin loud enough, not even challenging him. There are a couple great quotes in this chapter that talk about the importance of stroking Stalin’s ego. What I am wondering is what are your thought on the growing fear and paranoia? How does Ginzburg’s story fit into your understanding of the Stalinist Experience?

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?

As we have frequently encountered throughout the semester, the Soviet government under Stalin was really only concerned with achieving its own internal goals, no matter the cost. The best way Stalin and his government saw to do this is embodied in a quote from today’s reading: “Only the state could imbue him with the notion of being a free agent. It was through the Soviet state that Podlubnyi acquired a sense of purpose, indeed the norms to define and guide his personal life.s his case makes clear, Soviet man could realize himself only by working for the state” (89-90). This is not new and there are similar references throughout the reading. Think about how it would feel in the moment if you were there. What are the negatives associated with policies like this? Is damage done to the culture of the nation as a whole?  If the nation becomes successful and powerful, does that justify the actions of the government? 

Something that I see the more I analyze history and totalitarian regimes is that people are more often brainwashed than not. Furthermore, they always convince themselves that they are in the right, everything around them is great, etc.

Something that came to my mind when reading the commentary on this and how they point out on numerous occasions of what they authenticity of this diary is, is a film called “Goodbye Lenin”. This is a film about the Berlin Wall falling, a women wakes up in a coma, the wall is gone, communism is over, but she was essentially a die-hard for Lenin and because of her heart, her kids did everything to make it seem like East Germany was still under communist rule. If this woman were to write a diary, her story would be very for the Soviet Party, even though life was not all that great.

They point out that the writer of the diary had everything taken away, they forged papers to live in Moscow. Do you think that the writer was kind of justifying this make believe, pro-Russia scenario in his mind? When you recall things, you may not make it out to be as bad as it was. We are so often told that these first hand accounts are the best to know what life was really like, so do you question this diary? Does it make you take these first-person accounts with a bit of hesitancy?

Accurate personal accounts of the Stalin years are difficult to attain and even more difficult to interpret. Personal diaries that were found could only be accepted as being only moderately realistic due to the fact that the author may have been influenced by a fear of being arrested, when a person was arrested, the first thing to be confiscated was the diary which was likely to be used as incriminating evidence, ‘the longer he wrote, the more Podlubnyi came to regard the diary as his ”sole friend.”(Pg.81) Only to his diary could he confide the secret of his past as well as his doubts and torments, attempting to fit into the new society. How has this lack of personal accounts affected the world’s perception of the Soviet Union?

Podlubnyi believes very strongly in willpower. His most passionate fear is that he is weak-willed, and that is the worst possible trait to have as a Soviet Man.

“By the way about the news that Mama reported: an incredible famine is going on over there. Half of the people have died of hunger. Now they are eating cooked beet tops. There are plenty of cases of cannibalism. . . . All in all it’s a terrifying thing. I don’t know why, but I don’t have any pity for this. It has to be this way because then it will be easier to remake the peasants’ smallholder psychology into the proletarian psychology that we need. And those who die of hunger, let them die. If they can’t defend themselves against death from starvation, it means that they are weak-willed, and what can they give to society? (pg. 102)”
In this quote Pobdlubnyi rationalizes the famine and the deaths of thousands. He says this on the basis that if they had stronger willpower they would survive. He even goes so far as to say that if they are so called “weak-willed”, they have nothing of value to contribute to society. Do you think that if other citizens knew of the famines they would agree with Podlubnyi’s point of view? Now that we know some people knew of the famines, do you think they stayed quiet because they agreed with people like Podlubnyi, or because they were afraid to express their opinions? And lastly, do you agree in any way with Podlubnyi?

Something that I found interesting about the first reading is the whole summary of the awful characteristics the Soviet Union had. They were just declining in overall well-being. It also seemed that education was decreasing, although the reading did suggest that there could have been more on the job trainings going on.

The part that stood out to me was the quote ” the image of the heroic worker was undergoing a change. Working to exhaustion and storming in general came to be associated not with communist zealot with backwardness. Working in a rhythmic manner, studying but also engaging in other pursuits were the characteristics that higher authorities claimed to admire most”. There is a lot to unpack in this quote. From an economic perspective, this was better off for productivity and it allowed for some expansion, but at the same time this cultural agenda being pushed by optimism does not fix the awful conditions those people still resided in.

To me this kind of seems like a seesaw. They are so rooted in this classist, labor heavy lifestyle, but then the government does listen to them as they are anxious to catch up to pass Western norms.

How do you guys perceive this movement? Does it actually get them somewhere that is sustainable in the long-run?

In Pasha Angelina’s writing she is proud of everything she accomplished, but never takes the credit. All of the credit for Pasha’s work is given to Stalin. She has both a street and a large ship named after her, so why do you think she gives all of the credit to Stalin and the country? “Sometimes I hear the words celebrated and famous attached to my name. In­ deed, the government has honored me with prestigious awards and high titles. There is even a Pasha Angelina Street in the city of Stalino, and a Pasha Ange­lina ship on the Moscow Canal. I treasure and appreciate all this very much. To be famous in our country means that your work has received the highest recog­nition from our people. This kind of fame brings great happiness and uplifts the soul! I would like, however, to emphasize the following: whatever is being said about me is, first and foremost, praise for my country.(317)” Millions of people died during the time that she found the most success, and the people that were lost died because of the man she attributes all of her success too. Do you think Pasha is unaware of the tragedies around her? Do you think that she would have attributed so much success to Stalin had she known?

“Here I would like to say a few words about a man who raised my whole gener­ation, a man whose name is associated with everything that is good in your lives and mine, with all our hopes for the future-about Stalin.(316)”
What did Pasha mean by a man who raised her whole generation? Was Stalin’s name really associated with everything that is good in everyones life?

The Stakhanovite movement was developed as a way to increase productivity of laborers, and to encompass industry, transportation, agriculture and constructions throughout the Soviet Union. The movement also promoted the male as “the New Soviet Man” and encouraged the idea that a happy home life would create a happy worker, “Almost from the beginning, Stakhanovism contained instructions about how to live as well as how to work” (Pg. 223). How then did this Stakhanovite theory effect the women of the Soviet Union?

Last week read those harrowing accounts of collectivization in the countryside. We talked about how the account was 40 years removed from the sight of trauma; however, I think we ended up a little divided on if that family ended up having a decent life. Today, we got another account of the collectivization process; this time written in 1947. This is an overwhelmingly positive depiction of the success stories possible in the Soviet Union. However, we also read the stats report that argued in favor of the bleakness which grew in the 1930s Soviet Union. Below is a quote that I found completely bonkers in the Angelina text:

“My faith, and the faith of all our people, was not in vain. Stalin saved my little daughter and millions of other children in the USSR-and, believe me, not just in the USSR but in America, too-from the vicious enemy of humanity” (321).

What are we supposed think about all this information? Does this just play into Stalin’s cult of personality? Can these comments be sincere?