By Polly Jones
Read or Download Myth, Memory, Trauma: Rethinking the Stalinist Past in the Soviet Union, 1953-70 PDF
Similar russian & former soviet union books
For hundreds of years, dictators governed Russia. Tsars and Communist celebration chiefs have been responsible for thus lengthy a few analysts claimed Russians had a cultural predisposition for authoritarian leaders. but, because of reforms initiated by means of Mikhail Gorbachev, new political associations have emerged that now require election of political leaders and rule via constitutional approaches.
In portray Imperialism and Nationalism purple, Stephen Velychenko strains the 1st expressions of nationwide, anti-colonial Marxism to 1918 and the Russian Bolshevik profession of Ukraine. Velychenko stories the paintings of early twentieth-century Ukrainians who looked Russian rule over their state as colonialism.
The publication examines the background of Czechoslovakia within the seventy years considering the fact that its founding by means of T. G. Masaryk. It analyses the profound adjustments which came about throughout the First Republic, the Nazi career, postwar liberation and communist rule, together with either the Stalinist years, the Prague Spring of 1968 and the next interval of normalization to 1988.
This ebook includes clean methods to the interplay among regime and society in twentieth-century Russia. It deals new solutions to everyday questions: * How valuable is 'totalitarianism' as a version to classify authoritarian regimes? * What possibilities existed for tsarism to set up itself as a constitutional monarchy?
- The Bolsheviks and the Red Army 1918-1922
- Governing Soviet Journalism: The Press and the Socialist Person after Stalin
- Politics and the ruling group in Putin's Russia
- The Caucasus: An Introduction
Additional resources for Myth, Memory, Trauma: Rethinking the Stalinist Past in the Soviet Union, 1953-70
141 At another factory party meeting, in the city of Gor’kii, one member of the party organization, a certain Godiaev, complained about the lack of communication “from below” with “those on high” during the Stalin era. 142 As with the socio-economic analysis of the Stalinist “new class,” these broad claims about the division between “us” and “them” sometimes developed into a more focused political analysis. 144 Others reached a similar conclusion, by drawing attention to the political institutions damaged and even destroyed over the last three decades.
Why don’t people ask how they were guilty of the fact that Soviet people were in prison . . ”62 These calls for lustration remind us that terror was central to the Secret Speech itself, not only as a source of historical enquiry and a 28 t h e s e c r e t s p e ech subject of testimony, but also as a focus for moral judgment. 65 D E N O U N C I N G S TA L I N While many listeners thus blamed local agents of terror, they did not now exonerate Stalin, as had often happened during Stalin’s lifetime.
139 Ironically, this warning about the ubiquity of the mentality of the cult of personality was not authorized for mass distribution, after the obkom secretary criticized it as too sweeping. Such reﬂections on Stalinist psychology and collective behavior also sometimes generated radical analysis of the nature of Stalinism as a political system. 140 The speaker at Leningrad State University, a certain Gaevskii, extended the metaphor by claiming that only radical reform could provide enough “cement” to ﬁll in this gap, and thus to repair the damage to the political process.