Russia Milking It Big Time

Regarding: Grace's post questioning: "Was it fair for the Soviet Union to receive control over Eastern Europe?"

Today in class, the phrase that came to mind when thinking about Stalin and Russia post-WWII was "milking it." I can't deny that I don't milk things. If I'm sick at home I like to be fussed over a little, brought cold compresses, gingerale, etc. But that milking it is more than slightly forgivable. My mother doesn't especially mind buying me soda or making up ice bags. When looking at the matter of an entire swathe of Eastern Europe, I assumed it'd be hard to say the same of the U.S. giving up the territories to the Soviets. Oddly, it doesn't seem like it was.

As far as our studies have taken us, I can't remember reading anything about how distraught the U.S. or Britain was to give up Latvia, Estonia, and other countries which would become a buffer between East and West, this time imposed by the Communist East. In the Percentages Agreement made by Churchill and Stalin, the two simply carved up Southern Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.

Russia's main claim was that they "deserved" Eastern Europe as a form of both protection in the future (from Western conflicts) and a sort of reparation for their sustained losses in WWII, and while I definitely agreed that Russia essentially won on the Eastern front by virtue of pure numbers and willingness to suffer through the war effort, it seems extremely odd that the Allies wouldn't have argued more for control in Eastern Europe. But perhaps I am missing something.

Oh, the terror of it all!

Responding to: Andra's post, which responded to Nate's.

Industrialization did not necessarily need a communist regime to increase. As far as I can tell, there can be no connection made between Stalin's ideologies and the increase in industrialization. Thus, the two do not need to go hand in hand. Industrialization and the improvement of Russia as a whole could have occurred without the terror, which makes it completely and utterly not understandable and unjustifiable to me.

When I think about communism, I never associate it with industrial progress; rather, I view it as a political system beyond manufacturing/materialistic/competitive capitalism. Rather than thinking that "Industrialization did not necessarily need a communist regime to increase," I marvel at the fact that Stalin was able to apply communism in such a way that it did boost industrialization. While this in no way justifies the mass killings and virtual enslavement of 10% of Russia's population, there is a connection between "Stalin's ideologies and the increase in industrialization." As I see it, a main focus of Stalin's was to ensure the survival of the "first communist state." Unlike Trotsky, Stalin did not think a world-wide revolution was necessary, but he still knew that Russia could, at any point, be threatened by other European powers. Thus, the increase in industrialization grew Russia's self-sustainability and prepared it for future conflicts. While I cannot agree with the tactics used by Stalin to bring about industrialization, I cannot deny that Russia needed to be brought up to speed in terms of industrialism if they wished to compete on the world stage.

In related news, I found this article particularly interesting. It's from January 1937 and discusses Trotsky, Stalin, and about Stalin's forced rise to power.

Trotsky urged the industrialization oi Russia, and that was "Trotskyism" until he had been kicked out and it became Stalinism. Trotsky urged regimentation oi [sic] the Russian peasantry by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the peasants to be uprooted from their little holdings and forced onto vast collective farms with tractor; replacing horses and Moscow able at any moment to shut off the gasoline if the peasants got obstreperous. That too was "Trotskyism," bitterly denounced by Stalin until, Trotsky having been ousted, it became and is today Stalinism. (page 6)

The Kulak and the Intellectual

Regarding Leigh and Elizabeth's back and forth here, here and here.

I thought Liz raised an especially interesting point in saying that kulaks were treated as a mass of people while intellectuals were targeted individually. I agree with this statement and furthermore would like to suggest that the manner in which they were dealt spoke of Stalin's view of them. Specifically, I shall quote from the reading "Problems of Agrarian Policy in the USSR: Soviet Collectivization."

There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulak should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective-farm movement. Clear, one would think.

The last four words are positively dripping with condescension. In class I laughed, but this feeling is now reduced to something between amusement and horror. In my understanding, you could absolutely, under no conditions, be a kulak under Stalin–there was simply no place for them in his vision for Russia. Hence, the decimation of them as a class, without regard for them as individuals. Intellectuals, I believe, were not doomed from the start. As long as the intellectual were weak enough that he posed no threat (at all, no seriously) to Stalin (paranoid much?) and supported (or at least appeared to, convincingly) Stalin without reservation, execution need not be in the cards.

(But, upon re-reading my last point, I have to admit that no one was really safe under Stalin, including his "allies." Perhaps this is why he was, and still is, so terrifying.)