First, I am curious about what you all got out of the notion of the 'cult of personality' as mentioned regarding Stalin in the first article by Avdienko and the second article by Yevtuschenko. The first article is by one who is brainwashed, and the second by one who criticizes the notion of a cult of personality--arguing that there were many opponents of Stalin that existed during his lifetime, but remained silent until after his death when it was safe. What camp do you fall under--was the obedience to Stalin that of blind devotion or of smart subservience?
Lastly--what do you make of the man commissioned to shoot innocent Russians in the gulags? How do we account for his utterly disassociated personality in a job that he calls, "easy work, like like felling timber"?
I think there was definitely a large group who didn't believe in stalin and then possibly an even larger one that did. and while Stalin's name was greatly romanticized and his image kept clean with secrets I still don't think these people were brain washed. No one was waving a pocket watch in their face telling them stalin was great. People looked at the actions of Stalin-that they were allowed to witness- and took from that experience a feeling of gratitude and appreciating for someone they thought they knew rather well. It doesnt really matter where you are there are always images of the leader of the country you're in everywhere so it's not exactly like that was a knew and disturbing way of gaining popularity. So i think the people that were aware of his real actions and said they like him did it for their own safety and those that truly like him weren't blind because that sort of makes them sound weak minded, they were simply given the wrong information about their leader that lead them to believe he was great.
ReplyDeleteSmart subservience by far. Those who were intellectual during the time knew that if they tried to speak up about Stalin, they would either be killed or prosecuted. They kept to themselves and stayed out of trouble. It was people like this that silently and quietly revolted that helped give hope to the ordinary people of the time. The man who got asked to kill is kind of disturbing. This man was probably treated a lot better then normal people, so he was fine with killing. Thats the horrible reality of this time.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on what the leader is saying when i am deciding on what camp i would be in. If i had no commonalities or didn't want to follow his policy/rule, i would act like i supported the leader in order to keep my life the same. but if i felt what the leader was saying and believed in what he was fighting for, i would be more open to being brainwashed. it doesn't take a lot to brainwash a person and i think the most successful dictators brainwash the younger generations the most in order to gain 100% of their loyalty.
ReplyDeleteAbout the guy who killed all the people in the gulags, i think that once a person has taken a human life or seen one taken, it is easier to dissociate yourself from killing people. either u have a reason (like fighting for your country or a lost friend) or you kill just for the money and sport. there are people that have existed that were hardwired to kill and once they experience it, there is no stoping it. This kind of action can be seen in mercenaries who kill for the profit. they have no allegiance but to money.
I was shocked when I read about the man's reaction to killing people in the Gulags. Then, however, I came to realise that people like that would quickly get used to it. I suppose that as soon as you disconnect yourself from humanity, you can stay disconnected and therefore you have such a job without going insane.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitch's point about staying out of trouble. It is better to be smart than blind. Although, when it comes down to killing people, I would have to somewhet be brainwashed to disconnect from my emotions. I think that is what the man comissioned to shoot the innocent Russians had to do. Once you are used to killing people, it becomes the norm and your emotions will no longer get the best of you. That man knew it was either their lives or his. Also, there is always the option of being smart and pretending to be brainwashed.
ReplyDeleteI believe there was a balance between blind devotion and smart subservience. There were definitely opponents to Stalin who did not appear so. In fact, it can be inferred that a lot of people pretended to be brainwashed so they would not be tortured or killed. Avdienko's blurb suggests that he was exceptionally brainwashed; the statements he makes are absolutely ridiculous, for example: "I shall be eternally happy and joyous, all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin...when the woman I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be: Stalin." Basically, I think besides these obvious sources of brainwashed devotion, more people were against Stalin than we think. For example, Vevtuchenko brings up the poet Mandel who wrote a poet against Stalin while Stalin was still alive.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Grigory Invanovich, the guy who shot the innocent Russians, I was disgusted. This seems to be another example of brainwashing but in a different form. After Ivanovich explained his immoral job, Razgon asked, "Didn't you feel bad or anything?" and Ivanovich replied, "Why should I?" I can't wrap my finger around how people could be manipulated to this extent.
If anything i was most shocked by man's rather disturbing underwhelming reaction to the gulag murders. Although people like him usually become completely desensitized to such acts of violence. It is a sad thing to see.
ReplyDeleteI definitely most of the common people were very brainwashed. They were already very poor and living a life full of unstablity. If a strong, powerful leader rises in their their country it is there natural tendency to cling to him because at this point in their chaotic lives they need some kind of savior. OS no matter what kind of ideals he brings tote able I would think that most would comply and ultimately be brainwashed, just like what we see with the man in the first article who is obviously brainwashed to a point where it seems like he is under some kind of spell. (especially when he says so confidently that the first word his child will utter will be "stalin"!)
ReplyDeleteHowever I do not doubt that there were many that would fall under the "smart subservience" category. There is no way that every single Russian was completely devoted to Stalin. Opposition and knowledge of the harsh consequences of his communist policies did in fact exist but the overwhelming amount of the brainwashed common man topples the minority of those who actually spent the time opposing a greater power.
I feel that it was an equal mix of brain washing and smart subservience. It makes sense that the brain washed were so drawn to Stalin, he was Lenin's successor, he made bold promises, and he was a very good propagandist. They loved the idea of him and followed blindly. For those that practiced smart subservience it was so they could survive. No one wanted to be sent to the gulags or be taken from their house in the middle of the night. I think that the utter dissociation of the guard was to protect his sanity, if he cared he would have gone insane.
ReplyDeleteWhen I red the first article, I was almost disturbed by how Stalin was praised. It was so absurbed that it would almost sound plausible to me if lots of people faked it. But I think that those people really meant it, they really saw him as a god. Those who were opposing him, like the poet who wrote the second article, I think they would rather keep their heads down, but not exagerate their faking in that way.
ReplyDeletePeople who were obedient to Stalin were smart sub-servants. Stalin ruled with such an iron fist, that they knew that they would not only put themselves in danger, but anyone they knew. Anyone who was smart at the time, knew the implications of trying to speak out against Stalin, and that revolutionary talk was done only by true radicals. The murder accounts were interesting to me, because they are similar to the idea of disassociation that we talked about yesterday. While the man was a killer, I think that he was just as frightened to wrong Stalin as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteNicki defiantly makes a good point when she says that these people, with no hope of being successful, have nothing to look forwards to. Then this all powerful leader comes along and people cling onto him like glue. Everyone wanted a savior to lead them out of darkness.
ReplyDeleteAs for the man commissioned to shoot innocent civilians in the gulags I just found insane. But as afraid as that man may have been, death was natural to them by now.
Somehow Stalin remind me of the leader of North Korea nowadays, the nationalized absurd worship and apotheosis was blowing the whole nation that you could merely hear any different voice. Intellectual and rebellious subservents were faking their passion about the party and obsession with with their god like leader so that they won't get persecuted or killed. The murder case in Gulags was not really surprising to me, because it was just like ruthless Nazi soldiers were disassociating themselves so that they were able to be normal, honorable and safe under the iron fist of the contemporary dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteThere was a logical basis for the support of Stalin. His message was appealing because it made people feel like there was a plan that would bring about prosperity. It was even made more plausible because it didn't seem too good to be true. They were told that they were going to have to struggle to find success. Stalin crafted a cult of personality that hid his faults from the people that may have blinded the people of the negatives, but their support wasn't blind.
ReplyDelete