Author: Dominik Emerick

Like we talked about like in last class, we see the Soviet Union building other things or stuff that is not necessary to build. In last class we saw them building wider roads which meant destroying residential homes. This quote yet again shows, Stalin and the Soviet Union using old pre-war buildings to re-industrialize the country. I see many things wrong about this, for one this is not going to help or benefit the people of Tashkent. Secondly, wouldn’t it make more sense for the Soviet Union to invest in schools and training places? If you think about it the, Stalin is only hurting himself and the quality of the regime. The quality of work will not be the same as it was before the War. In the Long run, this would solve lots of headaches for when Uzbeks needed to be trained. I think it would have been beneficial for the Soviet Union to invest time snd money, so that workers are well educated so that they don’t have to worry about wasting more time to train them.

“Training new Uzbek workers was not an easy task in the late 1940s. Tashkent was transformed into an industrial center, but, as previously mentioned, its schools, universities, and training institutes lost their facili-ties, equipment, and best teachers during the war. In the postwar years, the pressing need to keep production going meant that buildings were not re-turned to their original use. Postwar schools were both crowded and un-evenly distributed throughout the city.”

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)
Paul Stronski. Tashkent : Forging a Soviet City, 1930–1966. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)
Paul Stronski. (2010). Tashkent : Forging a Soviet City, 1930–1966. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Something I never understood was, the Soviet Union and Stalin at times altered or changed a cultures way or nationality. This come from Kazahks changing their lifestyle, putting minorities in another nationalist spot of their own. The list could go on and on, but where I don’t get is they let the majority of art and theatre stay the same with minor tweaks and fixes. Why is art and music so important to the success of the Soviet Regime? Can we pick apart why this is a thing within the country? “This fitted in well with the socialist ideology of equality among nations, and the advancement of the culture of the people so that they were as sophisticated as the bourgeoisie.“ (Page 152 Chapter 8)

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)
Neil Edmunds. Soviet Music and Society Under Lenin and Stalin : The Baton and Sickle. Routledge, 2004.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)
Neil Edmunds. (2004). Soviet Music and Society Under Lenin and Stalin : The Baton and Sickle. Routledge.

This film from the very beginning is a very accurate representation of soviet culture the setting of the film is just incredible. I love how the man, in the beginning, used his what I’m assuming pretended to use a officials red card top bribe a shop owner to give him food and goods, in exchange to not report him to USSR for violations. This film is very rich and full of stuff we talk about, for example at 52:39 the auction for the mother-law of “Ippolit Matveyevich” who is known in the movie for being the Marshal of Nobility. The Soviet auctioneers addressed the mother-in-laws furniture as not earned and rather that was owned by the corrupt aristocracy. This is related to our discussion from the Russian Empire transitioning into the Soviet Union and how the regime looked at the old republic. Everything in this film exemplifies everything we have been discussing and find it very easy to connect with. Also, this film allows me to visually see what we have been talking about, which I think is very important to paint that picture within our minds. To Conclude, the only thing I would like to discuss is the adaptations between the old film and this rather newer film. What was altered and changed from both of them?

I think that it is extremely smart and well done by the Soviet Union to come in and support artistic movement when it is needed most. Artists needed to have their business’s survive and that even meant making a deal with the devil himself. I just am curious as to what everyone else thinks , whether this deal really excludes other cultures practices in the work of art. could this not be fair economically for the creators of the work of art in this new economy? “In the heady days of the New Economic Policy, artists competed for funding from various pots, whether from Party or state committees at the city, republic, or Union level, or from the Arts Workers’ Union. But, by the late 1920s, artists had achieved what they had long desired: full state support for the arts. As artists had imagined, state support facilitated artistic production.”  Page 97

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)
Fowler, Mayhill C. Beau Monde on Empire’s Edge : State and Stage in Soviet Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2017.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)
Fowler, M. C. (2017). Beau Monde on Empire’s Edge : State and Stage in Soviet Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.

The Silent Steppe is a heartbreaking story about the author who had to endure the most gruesome conditions ever. Not only did the author suffer under severe conditions, but he also lost family during the soviet’s policy. This book in my opinion is a very good read and also an eye-opening experience when reading this auto-biography. The quote I selected touches upon what we hit on in class based on the soviet policy which is known as Collectivization. ” The Immediate cause was a bad harvest following a period of drought- but collectivization made the consequences many times worse for the Kazakh people. Transferred Hastily and without any preparation to a settled way of life and method of farming, the nomadic livestock breeders simply did not have the means or expertise to run collective farms efficiently ” (Page 135 Chapter 15) Based on the statement made above do we think that Stalin and the Soviet Union could have changed or got rides of the policy that was in place? Also, what outcomes or effects could have this had within the region of Central Asia.

Jahon Obidova was an extremely impressive story within the Soviet Union that was looked highly upon by Soviet officials.” Soviet Accounts, foreigner’s observations, and Jahon Obidova’s own words express the wonder that someone born into her circumstances was able to rise to such prominence; and all credited this both to Obidova’s abilities and to the Communists Party’s policy of drawing women into activism.”( Page 314) Obidova was the success story and picture that came out of Uzbekistan who rose from the ground up. I feel that Jahon was a vital role in the fight for women in Central Asia at the time. Besides, Abidova in my eyes was the starting point for Women’s rights in the Soviet Union. I wonder as to what other roles could have Obidova played also for the Soviet Union? Foremost, was the Soviet Union successful with the mission of trying to get Jahon to get other women to modernize and be politically active?

When reading chapter 1, I find it very interesting on the issue on how to approach women’s roles in the Soviet Union in particularly in Central Asia. Woman from different groups and other backgrounds questioned on how woman should act and and how it contradicts with other cultures within the soviet Union Union. ” With these regional and historical variations … indigenous leftists and socialists.” Pages 45-46 How can the Soviet Union address this matter equally too other all groups of woman and men who may disagree with each other? In addition, what issue does this pose with other cultures and groups within the regime and how will they react when a disagreement works?

I found this section very interesting in many ways and caught my eye significantly. This was interesting on how the Russian Empire lost the favor of Jadid’s. Jadids sought and looked for new government reform in the region that they advocated for years. When the revolution struck this was the turning point for jadids, this was a beacon of hope for them. Furthermore, when the revolution happened, the Amir recognized Jadids as a threat and traitor to islam and the city of Bukhara. “Prerevolutionary jadidism, excluded from the political realm, had ex-isted as a discourse of reform and self-help in which the state played little part.This changed dramatically after 1917, and from summer 1918, many Jadids flocked to the new organs of government being built by the Soviet regime and openedto them under pressure from Moscow.” Page 149 Finally, I want to discuss what did the old empire do wrong to the Jadids and how they lost Central Asia to the Soviet Regime. Most importantly, how did soviet policy and government help out Jaddis more rather than the old policy and government of the Russian Empire?

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)
Ronald Grigor Suny, and Terry Martin. A State of Nations : Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Chapter 6 was an Interesting subject to read, but also very disturbing when reading it. I found this chapter extremely interesting cause, when studying WWII or Pre War Soviet Union very few academic books mention the Great Purge. What makes this topic so unique is, why did the Soviet Union perform Genocide to Oppress their people? This section gives a clear cut explanation of who the regime went after (Leon Trotsky, Trotskyist, Wealthy Peasants, and even counter revolution minorities and Nationalities). I love in this chapter how Kate Brown went into depth on how the Soviet Union went through records, geography of National Identified groups, and also of why these revolutionist in their eyes “to be dealt with”. (To conclude, I ponder as to why this subject of the Great Purge was never discussed in textbooks? The Nazi party conducted Genocide during the same era both were conducted for different reasons one over religion and one over political views). Lastly, did the Soviet Union see this Great Purge as the best option and was this the right move for them to make in order to succeed in the future?

I find it interesting on what inhabitants were to do in the Kresy region and as well as other borderland boundaries. With the establishment of the Marchlevsk Polish autonomous Region, Pulin German Autonomous Region, as well as the hundred of other Jewish, Polish and German regions. Whereas the other inhabitants in these are at a disadvantage because their nationality was not recognized in the eyes of the Soviet Union. For the other inhabitants in these regions to speak their native languages and even take control of their schools, courts, libraries and establish their own communities, the Soviet party made them take the ultimate sacrifice to change their own identity. (Page 9 Lines 4-8) This is so problamatic because, these people carried the distinct traditional and local nationality concept. In addition, I feel that this topic is very important to our discussion lately and believe we can expand on this topic in class.

So I pose the question as to whether or not the transformation of the nationality for these people actually hurt the Soviet Union by not making these people want to become stalinist or even make them into revolutionists against the regime? Furthermore ,did the inhabitants within these regions see no other choice but to change their identity to benefit themselves or capitulate to the Soviet Union?