eiredale

https://www.etsy.com/listing/503187163/1960s-soviet-union-vodka-alcohol-abuse

When people think Russia, it does not take long before Vodka comes to mind. Not much of a surprise since the sales of alcohol in 1975 gave the Soviet government more money than did income tax (Source). At the same time, it would seem that near the end of the Soviet era not all Russians wanted to be known for their alcoholics. In 1985 Gorbachev started a campaign against alcohol abuse in which he reduced the production and made the sales of alcohol harder to complete. If Gorbachev’s goal was not only to reduce the alcoholism in his country but also to disassociate even a little between Russians and alcohol, he failed. The combating of alcoholism was serious enough that the New York Times in 1985 had to write about the struggles for the common soviet in affording vodka now (Source). At the same time the article throws in a humble brag when it talks about the 8 dollar pints of vodka by saying, “While the price increases may not seem exhorbitant by western standards, for a Soviet worker … can prove a substantial expenditure.”

The article continued by discussing the many changes Gorbachev was instituting to reduce the alcohol usage in the U.S.S.R. at the time but there was something which stood out even more to me. They quote a minister talking about how the heavy alcoholics are turning to drinking perfumes and industrial fluids for the spirits within. This was obviously causing some serious poisoning issues and in enough number that the minister had to speak on it. So perhaps alcoholism was so ingrained into Soviet culture that its own people would poison themselves in order to get that warm fuzzy feeling eventually into numbness.

After doing a little digging this idea did not seem so far-fetched. First there was the similarly American problem of moonshine during prohibition which arose for the Soviets during the anti-alcoholism campaign. Then there was the apparently extreme amount of intolerance directed towards those seeking help and making the decision to not drink. According to this article from the Soviet Press, people who were seeking treatment for their alcoholism were being made fun of and laughed at (Source). These treatment centers for rehabilitation were reaching out and at the end of the article their primary concern is for the privacy of those being treated. These people saw the excuse of missing work due to drinking as normal but missing work due to being treated as hilarious. The man in the poster above from long before Gorbachev’s time would probably have been a complete joke to the primary populace in the Soviet Union by this article.

Since the campaign only really lasted 2 years, it’s no surprise that Russia is still associated with Vodka today and will probably never lose that on their international, and domestic, identity.

https://softlot.ru/sn/fireplaces/what-tvs-were-in-the-ussr-kvn-and-others-soviet-tvs.html

For all of those people like me who grew up with Nintendo and television I am sure the above title had been said at one point or another by your parents. It would seem in this regard, the Soviet youth were hearing these decades in advance. According to this news article from the Digest of the Russian Press, people are complaining that their kids are spending too much time behind the television sets and indoors in general. Problems seemed to be arising such as children not developing enough friendships, not learning how to take care of crops/animals, and not doing enough ‘collective’ leisure. The Soviet mindset seems to resonate in the citizen base when people are complaining that people are not being led to do leisure activities together with their neighbors.

Perhaps it is for this reason that the wildly popular television show KVN was cancelled shortly after television sets became much more widespread (Source). People were getting cozy in their homes and the children were spending increasingly more time absorbing what was on the set. A show based on humor like KVN could create some problems for Soviet leaders because humor tends to be mixed with truths. Even if distant from sensitive policies, in the eyes of the Soviet party at least, with the rural community involved the humor was apparently a risk they refused to take. They had to keep the people in the collective mindset which they apparently had according to the above article.

While the party was weary of the new youth and the communication technology alongside it, the older generations seemed to look at the future of the youth fondly. Without displacements or full on physical war, the Soviet people had more time on their hands and turned their attention to apparently healthier alternatives than their western counterparts (Source). If this is the case then my parents definitely should have been thanking me for doing what I did rather than whatever alternatives they were said to have other than ‘playing outside.’ The way this is all presented especially since eventually Rock and Roll began to pick up in Soviet Russia was that the west corrupted the Soviet populace. This could explain some of the Russian unhappiness towards the west today along with another reason the Soviets collapsed, their people lost sight of the collective.

Communism and economics are two intertwined terms that have their own well known definitions but just as not every capitalist economy is the same the Soviets after Stalin had their own economic interests. Khrushchev’s public economic policies were heavily focused on the production of food. First his Virgin Lands Campaign then his Corn campaign, both of which started out promising (Source). Khrushchev knew that being able to feed a state’s citizens is a commonly accepted requirement to be a respectable state on an international square. Getting corn from the US and attempting to cultivate a lot of the land which was being unused led to ruining a lot of land and little yield for the crops (Source). While publicly Khrushchev emphasized food production and failed more often than not, the Soviets had large successes in other sectors such as ballistics. Obviously the Soviet economy was not focused enough on agriculture when they constantly failed especially when they achieved such progress and success with their ballistics by having the first cosmonaut (Source). Speak food but act in ballistics, sounds like a Cold War mentality to me.

Intertwined with the economic policies of military power and influential presence are the cultural and political aspects of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev. Both of these aspects of the Soviet Union are one in the same because under Khrushchev the political atmosphere was mixed into the domestic culture through acts such as the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism. Moving away from the typical Eastern Orthodoxy focused moral compass which the Russian lands are famous for, under Stalin and Khrushchev they change this to political moral laws (Source). The morals of the common man had to be focused on bettering the collective and while the secret police under Khrushchev were less invasive into family affairs than under Stalin the personal affairs were still governed by it the same (Source). By doing this the Soviets managed to make the political agenda of the state so linked with personal life that the common man could not distance himself from the cause unless he exposed himself to persecution and traitorous intent. The goal is to close the gap between the ideas that the government is in opposition or even too far from the common populace so that they become compliant. When looking deeper into whom gains from this other than the government were the middle aged women. Even today when looking at women’s rights in the west, the Soviets gave the power to the woman in terms of staying in or destroying the marriage and even with the power for abortions (Source).

It is fascinating to see the manipulation that the Soviets used to keep their people in check but at the same time they alleviated personal pains for much of the populace. It was less under Khrushchev of utter propaganda and forces to bring people into the communist mindset, but instead making the communist life at least seem good for the majority. Some will say it was deceit and others will say a proper way of life.

Photo Source

Stalin, both famous and infamous in his own ways, met his end in 1953 but not before creating a cult in the Soviet people in his light (Source). Stalin used force, propaganda, and even famine in order to keep created a god-like persona for himself in the helm of communism and the Soviets. A land littered with statues memorializing Stalin and a people who believe Stalin to be a godsend to bring about the country they needed was about to be hit by what scholars call de-stalinization. The leaders who took his place were initially Beria, Kruschev, and Malenkov, all of which who had some major disagreements with Stalin (Source). Beria would be the first to go when Kruschev and Malenkov disagreed with some of the policies Beria wanted to rid of. Conspiring together they had him imprisoned and executed in secret near the end of 1953, one could say in a similar form to someone who had died less than a year before this occurred (Source). One down, one to go. Now it was just Kruschev and Malenkov, but sadly Kruschev politically outmaneuvered Malenkov through alliances which lead to Malenkov’s resignation (Source). Kruschev was now the leader of the Soviet Union and able to begin implementing his own policies which varied in the amount they aligned with Stalin’s own ideas.

The primary areas Kruschev sought to repeal from Stalin’s old regime were the old ideals Stalin based himself upon, such as the idea of his cult and wrongful imprisonment. Despite the irony here when Kruschev took power by executing a man under the precepts of being an enemy of the state, Kruschev at least wanted to appear as de-stalinizing the state. Tearing down the monuments of Stalin, renaming Stalingrad, releasing some of the prisoners that Stalin imprisoned, all things that Kruschev did to remind people that Stalin was not the leader. Literally de-stalinizing the Soviet Union while carrying many of Stalin’s legacy forward in terms of policy.

Kruschev’s first large endeavor was the Virgin Lands Campaign which brought together many races and ethnicity together which were deported from their homes leading to great friction between the workers (Source). While this agricultural plan had some temporary success it did eventual lead to some agricultural problems when the soil began to break down (Source). Other than having similar economic goals to Stalin Kruschev also carried out similar political strategies just in a slightly less extreme manner. One of the purges that Kruschev brought about was in regards to Poland and Hungary when some dissidents spoke of democratizing before being sent to the Gulags (1). At least in another purge Kruschev used against army officers who were not in line with Kruschev he varied with Stalin when instead of executing them, fired them and destroyed their chances of living a simple life.(1) While many consider this time an era of de-stalinization due to ideals, this was more an era of de-stalinization by literally removing Stalin from his monumental podium.

Other Sources:

(1) Edwards, Lee, and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding. A Brief History of the Cold War. Regnery Publishing, 2016.

(Photo) https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/stalin-monument-budapest-1956/

Photo:  http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/eu/mod03_1917/evidence_detail_20.html
Soldiers with a sign saying Down with the Monarchy.

The Great War for the Russians may have started out as simply a decision that had to me be made in order to be a prominent power but by 1917 there had been enough signs to show it had to end. One of the first signs to show a political failure was Germany communicating in a way to paint the Russians as the aggressors. When Russia was using the propaganda of being surrounded by skulls its not hard to seem like the “bad guys.” This is already not a great start to have public support behind them. Then when the Tsar publicly replaces the generals because they are losing is just showing more incompetence at the highest levels in the military. To proceed losing the war now moves the blame from the generals directly onto the Tsar reducing public opinion further. Putting these together make it out to be the aggressor losing which is NEVER good for gaining the people’s trust.

Now the military is often associated as a government tool by which political leaders order’s are carried out but during the early 20th century the soldiers of Russia were a tool of revolution. In case there were not enough signs that continued fighting in Russia was simply illogical, the soldiers being sent to put down protests were instead joining the protesters. When you send soldiers into battle without a weapon so they can eat bullets, it should have been no surprise that they were not happy about the situation. Yet for some reason, despite their own military cheering for mutiny, the Russians are convinced to stay strong on the eastern front. No military, no war. This should have been the end.

With the support of the military, the Soviets participated in two revolutions and came out as the leading power. (Big surprise that having soldiers on your side makes things easier). Something is to be said about not having the public opinion fully backing you. Since the Soviets did not have the majority of support they turned to their close friends of the military which became a form of reliance by the Soviets. A simple connection can be made of the amount of care the Soviets had in mentioning soldiers constantly in their rhetoric in a way which praised or benefited the common soldier. Years later we see a Russia in which industry, science, education, and communications are controlled by the government which is controlled by generals.

As a leader who wants to stay in power always keep your army happy, especially when everyone else isn’t.

Sources:

*http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/revolution-in-the-army/

*http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/eu/mod03_1917/evidence.html

Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii. A Group of Workers Harvesting Tea, ca. 1907-1915. Digital color rendering. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ppmsc-04430 (32)

Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii was a photographer who surveyed many different regions in Russia during the early 1900’s and during one of those surveys came across the area of Chakva. As seen above, this image of farmers of Chakva was at least significant to Sergei. A picture of almost entirely Greek women working on a tea farm in Western Russia (today in Georgia). Aiming to use this image as a start of learning more about Russia before the World Wars I pursued information regarding the Greek-Russian relationships considering recent discussion of Russian aid towards the Greek crisis. We begin our journey of understanding the Greeks in Russia by looking back to the Byzantine Empire.

Apparently back in the 10th and 11th centuries when the Byzantine Empire and Kievan Rus were neighbors they got along quite well, to the point where Kievan Rus attempted to imitate the Byzantines artistically and religiously. During this time the people of the Byzantine Empire, specifically from the Greek Peninsula, often migrated to live in what was Western Russia. This it is interesting to notice that the farmers pictured above could have lived in this area for many generations dating back 800 years. The alternative times of Greece migration to Russia were during the Russo-Turkey and Crimean war, 1828 and 1882 respectively. The largest migrations since the Byzantine Empire were after World War II which is many years after this image was taken.

I doubt I am alone when I did not realize until now the ties that Russia and Greece have shared for so many years and how tightly woven their societies are/were. This may attribute to why Putin speaks about Greece as a partner and friend.

The second major question that came to mind for this image was the abundance of women in the agricultural community. In the image there appear to be about 2 men and a few boys while everyone else is either adult or child females. It makes sense for such an agricultural community to have the women working in the fields alongside the men but in this image there were so few men working the fields at the time it seemed. If this were post-World War II it may make sense being on the western edge considering the Russian casualties, but I could not find an answer as to why the men were not present here.

Sources:

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1780979/123163_08.pdf

https://www.wdl.org/en/item/365/#q=Prokudin-Gorskii+Chakva&qla=en

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/06/19/greek-debt-crisis/28973733/