The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Oleg Budnitskii - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the great patriotic war and soviet society defeatism 1941 42
Kritika, 2014Co-Authors: Oleg BudnitskiiAbstract:In October 1941, David Kaufman, a Moscow student and aspiring poet, wrote in his diary: "The Civil War was our fathers. The Five Year Plan, our older brothers. The Patriotic War of '41, this is us.... The people of our generation, from diverse walks of life, now have but one path: everyone to the front. Here are heroes, cowards, and ordinary people. Nobody is excluded from the war. If I must write, I will write about how this sense of duty came to govern us. There is only one feeling that should be instilled in people from the cradle: duty." (1) Kaufman, later published under the pseudonym David Samoilov, would become one of the most beloved poets of the Soviet intelligentsia. His generation was raised under Soviet power and did not know or recognize any other. He belonged to a cohort of educated, urban young people, many of whom rushed to recruitment offices on 22 June 1941, fearful of missing out on the war. On that very day, when so many young enthusiasts were rushing to sign up as volunteers, Olimpiada Poliakova, a resident of the town of Pushkin, outside Leningrad, wrote in her diary: Could our liberation be at hand? Whatever the Germans may be, they can't be worse than our own. And what are the Germans to us? We'll live somehow without them. Everyone has the sense that, at last, the thing we have awaited for so long but did not even dare to hope for-although we did hope for it very much in the depths of our consciousness-has finally arrived. Without this hope it would not have been possible to live. And there is no doubt about the coming German victory. Lord forgive me! I am not an enemy of my people or my homeland. I'm not a degenerate. But you have to look the truth straight in the eyes: all of us, all of Russia, fervently desires the victory of the enemy, whoever he may be. This accursed regime stole everything from us, even our feelings of patriotism. (2) Clearly, Poliakovas claims about "all of Russia" wishing for the victory of the enemy are grossly exaggerated, as are Kaufman's touching words about the spirit of duty animating his entire generation. What is clear is that, more than 20 years after the revolution, Soviet society was still not homogenous: a significant part of it would have been happy to witness the disappearance of the Bolsheviks. Historiography The war was to be the most serious test of the Stalinist systems durability, becoming, in the words of Robert Thurston, "the acid test of Stalinism." (3) The nature of public opinion about the Soviet regime and the outbreak of the war continues to be one of the most important, and consistently controversial, questions for the history of Soviet society during the war period. Meanwhile, the year 1941 constitutes an important chronological boundary for scholars of Stalinism. According to Stephen Lovell, among historians "the war is usually recognized as traumatic and important, but ultimately is granted the status of a cataclysmic interlude between two phases of Stalinism: the turbulent and bloody era of the 1930s and the deep freeze of the late 1940s.... Nonmilitary historians do not quite know what to do with the war." (4) Historians whose work relates to the history of Soviet society during the war years have starkly different assessments of popular attitudes toward the state and the war. In the literature of the early 1950s, one already finds the idea that the defeat of the Red Army in 1941 and the vast number of prisoners taken at that time reflected the unwillingness of Soviet soldiers to fight for the regime. (5) According to Martin Malia, Soviet soldiers in 1941 "felt no ardor" for the defense of the Stalinist system, and "even clearer signs of collapse appeared among the civilian population." (6) In accordance with authors who argue that Red Army soldiers in 1941 were forced to fight under threat of reprisals, Mark Edele and Michael Geyer have claimed that desertion and evasion of service were not restricted to the catastrophic events of 1941-42 but were in fact characteristic, albeit to a lesser degree, of the entire war period. …
-
The Great Patriotic War and Soviet Society: Defeatism, 1941–42
Kritika, 2014Co-Authors: Oleg BudnitskiiAbstract:In October 1941, David Kaufman, a Moscow student and aspiring poet, wrote in his diary: "The Civil War was our fathers. The Five Year Plan, our older brothers. The Patriotic War of '41, this is us.... The people of our generation, from diverse walks of life, now have but one path: everyone to the front. Here are heroes, cowards, and ordinary people. Nobody is excluded from the war. If I must write, I will write about how this sense of duty came to govern us. There is only one feeling that should be instilled in people from the cradle: duty." (1) Kaufman, later published under the pseudonym David Samoilov, would become one of the most beloved poets of the Soviet intelligentsia. His generation was raised under Soviet power and did not know or recognize any other. He belonged to a cohort of educated, urban young people, many of whom rushed to recruitment offices on 22 June 1941, fearful of missing out on the war. On that very day, when so many young enthusiasts were rushing to sign up as volunteers, Olimpiada Poliakova, a resident of the town of Pushkin, outside Leningrad, wrote in her diary: Could our liberation be at hand? Whatever the Germans may be, they can't be worse than our own. And what are the Germans to us? We'll live somehow without them. Everyone has the sense that, at last, the thing we have awaited for so long but did not even dare to hope for-although we did hope for it very much in the depths of our consciousness-has finally arrived. Without this hope it would not have been possible to live. And there is no doubt about the coming German victory. Lord forgive me! I am not an enemy of my people or my homeland. I'm not a degenerate. But you have to look the truth straight in the eyes: all of us, all of Russia, fervently desires the victory of the enemy, whoever he may be. This accursed regime stole everything from us, even our feelings of patriotism. (2) Clearly, Poliakovas claims about "all of Russia" wishing for the victory of the enemy are grossly exaggerated, as are Kaufman's touching words about the spirit of duty animating his entire generation. What is clear is that, more than 20 years after the revolution, Soviet society was still not homogenous: a significant part of it would have been happy to witness the disappearance of the Bolsheviks. Historiography The war was to be the most serious test of the Stalinist systems durability, becoming, in the words of Robert Thurston, "the acid test of Stalinism." (3) The nature of public opinion about the Soviet regime and the outbreak of the war continues to be one of the most important, and consistently controversial, questions for the history of Soviet society during the war period. Meanwhile, the year 1941 constitutes an important chronological boundary for scholars of Stalinism. According to Stephen Lovell, among historians "the war is usually recognized as traumatic and important, but ultimately is granted the status of a cataclysmic interlude between two phases of Stalinism: the turbulent and bloody era of the 1930s and the deep freeze of the late 1940s.... Nonmilitary historians do not quite know what to do with the war." (4) Historians whose work relates to the history of Soviet society during the war years have starkly different assessments of popular attitudes toward the state and the war. In the literature of the early 1950s, one already finds the idea that the defeat of the Red Army in 1941 and the vast number of prisoners taken at that time reflected the unwillingness of Soviet soldiers to fight for the regime. (5) According to Martin Malia, Soviet soldiers in 1941 "felt no ardor" for the defense of the Stalinist system, and "even clearer signs of collapse appeared among the civilian population." (6) In accordance with authors who argue that Red Army soldiers in 1941 were forced to fight under threat of reprisals, Mark Edele and Michael Geyer have claimed that desertion and evasion of service were not restricted to the catastrophic events of 1941-42 but were in fact characteristic, albeit to a lesser degree, of the entire war period. …
Hillel Ticktin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stalinism its nature and role
Critique, 2011Co-Authors: Hillel TicktinAbstract:This article tries to answer the question of why Stalinism lasted as long as it did and why it was so brutal and vicious. It argues that Stalinism was not born of Leninism and that there is no reason to believe that attempts to go to a utopia or to a better society will automatically lead to the kind of barbarism seen in the Stalinism of the Soviet Union, China or Cambodia. Instead it takes the view that the Soviet Union was thrown into a void upon Stalin's seizure of power in that there was no way the new bureaucratic rulers could build a new noncapitalist, nonsocialist society. Capitalism itself was and is in decline and so in transition towards a new society-socialism. The Stalinist USSR was part of that transitional world without having the elements of that transition. Transition within capitalism implies the existence of the elements of the old society, the law of value in the case of capitalism, aspects of decline, like finance capital, and increasing socialization of production which interact and c...
-
Stalinism—its Nature and Role
Critique, 2011Co-Authors: Hillel TicktinAbstract:This article tries to answer the question of why Stalinism lasted as long as it did and why it was so brutal and vicious. It argues that Stalinism was not born of Leninism and that there is no reason to believe that attempts to go to a utopia or to a better society will automatically lead to the kind of barbarism seen in the Stalinism of the Soviet Union, China or Cambodia. Instead it takes the view that the Soviet Union was thrown into a void upon Stalin's seizure of power in that there was no way the new bureaucratic rulers could build a new noncapitalist, nonsocialist society. Capitalism itself was and is in decline and so in transition towards a new society-socialism. The Stalinist USSR was part of that transitional world without having the elements of that transition. Transition within capitalism implies the existence of the elements of the old society, the law of value in the case of capitalism, aspects of decline, like finance capital, and increasing socialization of production which interact and c...
-
political economy of a disintegrating Stalinism
Critique, 2008Co-Authors: Hillel TicktinAbstract:The transition from a Stalinist economy to capitalism has been partial and has effectively failed, therefore, with global historic consequences. The reason lay partly in the hubris of the Western ruling class who subjected the Russian elite to a humiliating regime rather than assisting it, and partly in the nature of the epoch itself. Finance capital was dominant and in its nature predatory. Disintegration was a necessary consequence. The Putin regime pulled the country together, subjected finance capital to control and gave the bureaucratic section of the elite a greater share of control. The rise in prices of raw materials coincidentally gave the Putin Russian regime the possibility of raising the standard of living of the majority, but the overall social relations remain a mixture of Stalinism and the market. Given the probability of a fall in prices of oil and other commodities and the limited push towards greater investment in industry, it is likely that the regime after Putin's presidency will find ...
Agata Zysiak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stalinizm i rewolucja na uczelniach odgorna demokratyzacja dostepu do edukacji wyzszej 1947 1956 Stalinism and revolution in universities democratization of higher education from above 1947 1956
Studia Litteraria et Historica, 2019Co-Authors: Agata ZysiakAbstract:Stalinism and Revolution in Universities: Democratization of Higher Education from Above, 1947–1956 The first postwar decade in Poland saw a rebuilding of the whole country, including the school system and higher education. Higher education institutions were to mold a new intelligentsia, coming from a wider social background. Initial grassroots efforts to change the elite character of universities were eclipsed from 1947 by a reform introduced from above. On the one hand, the reform curtailed the autonomy of universities and increased censorship and political control; on the other hand, however, its aim was to make university education available on an unprecedented scale to people from the working and peasant classes. This article offers a survey of tools through which this “democratization” of access to higher education was implemented, such as a new admissions process, the induction year and preparatory courses. It also shows how these tools changed the students’ social backgrounds, albeit without permanently altering the general picture of higher education in Poland. Stalinizm i rewolucja na uczelniach – odgorna demokratyzacja dostepu do edukacji wyzszej 1947 – 1956 Pierwsza powojenna dekada to czas odbudowy calego kraju, w tym systemu edukacji, i reformy szkolnictwa wyzszego. Uczelnie mialy stac sie miejscami budowy nowej inteligencji o egalitarnym pochodzeniu. Początkowo oddolne starania, by zmienic elitarny charakter uniwersytetow, od 1947 roku zostaly zdominowane przez odgorną reforme edukacji. Z jednej strony oznaczala ona ograniczenie autonomii uczelni, zwiekszenie cenzury i politycznej kontroli, z drugiej jednak miala na celu umozliwienie studiowania osobom z klasy robotniczej i chlopskiej na niespotykaną wcześniej skale. Artykul stanowi przegląd narzedzi „demokratyzacji” dostepu do szkolnictwa wyzszego, takich jak nowy proces rekrutacji, rok wstepny i kursy przygotowawcze. Pokazuje takze, jak zmienily one spoleczne pochodzenie studentow, a jednak nie zmienily trwale oblicza szkolnictwa wyzszego.
Anna Zawadzka - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stalinizm po polsku Stalinism the polish way
Studia Litteraria et Historica, 2019Co-Authors: Anna ZawadzkaAbstract:Stalinism the Polish Way This is the first part of the introduction to issue 8/19 of Studia Litteraria et Historica . The issue focuses on an anthropological and sociological analysis of the years 1945–1956 in Poland and, to some degree, on a deconstruction of contemporary Polish narratives on Stalinism. The author discusses the reasons for reexamining the subject, along with the methodological basis of such reexamination. The article also offers a polemical discussion of Andrzej Leder’s interpretation of Poland’s Stalinist period. Stalinizm po polsku Tekst stanowi pierwszą cześc wstepu do numeru 8 za 2019 rok czasopisma „Studia Litteraria et Historica”, poświeconego antropologicznej i socjologicznej analizie lat 1945–1956 w Polsce, a takze – cześciowo – dekonstrukcji wspolczesnych polskich narracji o stalinizmie. Autorka referuje przyczyny, dla ktorych temat ten nalezy podjąc na nowo, oraz zalozenia metodologiczne takiego przedsiewziecia. Podejmuje takze polemike z interpretacją okresu stalinizmu w Polsce zaproponowaną przez Andrzeja Ledera.
Zysiak Agata - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stalinizm i rewolucja na uczelniach – odgórna demokratyzacja dostępu do edukacji wyższej 1947-1956 [Stalinism and Revolution in Universities: Democratization of Higher Education from Above, 1947–1956]
'Institute of Slavic Studies Polish Academy of Sciences', 2019Co-Authors: Zysiak AgataAbstract:Stalinism and Revolution in Universities: Democratization of Higher Education from Above, 1947–1956The first postwar decade in Poland saw a rebuilding of the whole country, including the school system and higher education. Higher education institutions were to mold a new intelligentsia, coming from a wider social background. Initial grassroots efforts to change the elite character of universities were eclipsed from 1947 by a reform introduced from above. On the one hand, the reform curtailed the autonomy of universities and increased censorship and political control; on the other hand, however, its aim was to make university education available on an unprecedented scale to people from the working and peasant classes. This article offers a survey of tools through which this “democratization” of access to higher education was implemented, such as a new admissions process, the induction year and preparatory courses. It also shows how these tools changed the students’ social backgrounds, albeit without permanently altering the general picture of higher education in Poland. Stalinizm i rewolucja na uczelniach – odgórna demokratyzacja dostępu do edukacji wyższej 1947–1956Pierwsza powojenna dekada to czas odbudowy całego kraju, w tym systemu edukacji, i reformy szkolnictwa wyższego. Uczelnie miały stać się miejscami budowy nowej inteligencji o egalitarnym pochodzeniu. Początkowo oddolne starania, by zmienić elitarny charakter uniwersytetów, od 1947 roku zostały zdominowane przez odgórną reformę edukacji. Z jednej strony oznaczała ona ograniczenie autonomii uczelni, zwiększenie cenzury i politycznej kontroli, z drugiej jednak miała na celu umożliwienie studiowania osobom z klasy robotniczej i chłopskiej na niespotykaną wcześniej skalę. Artykuł stanowi przegląd narzędzi „demokratyzacji” dostępu do szkolnictwa wyższego, takich jak nowy proces rekrutacji, rok wstępny i kursy przygotowawcze. Pokazuje także, jak zmieniły one społeczne pochodzenie studentów, a jednak nie zmieniły trwale oblicza szkolnictwa wyższego
