Kenez,
Peter. A History of
the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
"The first days after Stalin's death seemed to justify the fears that only he could guarantee order (Kenez, 185)."
"The character of the Soviet system as it developed under Stalin demanded a single ruler...In any case, they wanted to prevent the rise of another dictator because they feared for their personal security: they had every reason to fear and distrust one another. They had a great deal of practice in internal struggle, backstabbing and hypocrisy. (K, 186)
"From the very outset the leaders of the new regime faced insoluble dilemas: on the one hand, they neither could nor wanted to rule by Stalinist methods; on the other. the could not repudiate the past. These peole after all, had not been innocent bystanders but were heavily implicated in the crimes of the previous era. (K, 190)
"The writing of history was strictly supervised. The problems were delicate: ot was not easy to find a reasonably consistent and authoritative interpretation and stick to it. Books written by historians on some aspects of the Soviet past--such as the revolution, collectivization, the nature of terror, and foreign policy were so misleading and written in such a stilted languages as to be almost unreadable. Although several hundred such books were published each year, the vast majority of them remained unopened. (K, 190)"
"History writing was the voice of the Soviet regime and was therefore heavily controlled. By contrast, the work of artists could be left open to interpretation, coulf be regarded as something contingent. As aresult, writers and filmmakers could get much closer to telling the truth. From the point of view of creative artists, the difficulty was that the line between what was permissible and what was not constantly changed. In one year a writer could achieve success for discussing an issue openly, but next year, a different writer saying more or less the same thing could get into serious trouble. Indeed the singly best indicator the liberalism of the moment was current state of the so-called "Stalin problem." When writers wer allowed to publish works about their past sufferings in the camps, that implied openness, reform , and liveralism' by contrast when Stalin was at least partially rehabilitated and his "historic achievements" stressted, that suffested a turn to conservatism and increased repression (K, 190-191)."
"Immediately after Stalin's death Soviet intellectual life experienced a period that came to be called, after a novella published by Ilia Ehrenburg in earl 1954, the "thaw." By the mid-1950 many of the old restrictions were lifted and every component of Soviet culture benefited. Works produced by writers and film directors reasserted the significance of the individual, the reality of emotional life, and thereby extended the private sphere. (K,191)"
192-changes in Pravda
"The character of the Soviet system as it developed under Stalin demanded a single ruler...In any case, they wanted to prevent the rise of another dictator because they feared for their personal security: they had every reason to fear and distrust one another. They had a great deal of practice in internal struggle, backstabbing and hypocrisy. (K, 186)
"From the very outset the leaders of the new regime faced insoluble dilemas: on the one hand, they neither could nor wanted to rule by Stalinist methods; on the other. the could not repudiate the past. These peole after all, had not been innocent bystanders but were heavily implicated in the crimes of the previous era. (K, 190)
"The writing of history was strictly supervised. The problems were delicate: ot was not easy to find a reasonably consistent and authoritative interpretation and stick to it. Books written by historians on some aspects of the Soviet past--such as the revolution, collectivization, the nature of terror, and foreign policy were so misleading and written in such a stilted languages as to be almost unreadable. Although several hundred such books were published each year, the vast majority of them remained unopened. (K, 190)"
"History writing was the voice of the Soviet regime and was therefore heavily controlled. By contrast, the work of artists could be left open to interpretation, coulf be regarded as something contingent. As aresult, writers and filmmakers could get much closer to telling the truth. From the point of view of creative artists, the difficulty was that the line between what was permissible and what was not constantly changed. In one year a writer could achieve success for discussing an issue openly, but next year, a different writer saying more or less the same thing could get into serious trouble. Indeed the singly best indicator the liberalism of the moment was current state of the so-called "Stalin problem." When writers wer allowed to publish works about their past sufferings in the camps, that implied openness, reform , and liveralism' by contrast when Stalin was at least partially rehabilitated and his "historic achievements" stressted, that suffested a turn to conservatism and increased repression (K, 190-191)."
"Immediately after Stalin's death Soviet intellectual life experienced a period that came to be called, after a novella published by Ilia Ehrenburg in earl 1954, the "thaw." By the mid-1950 many of the old restrictions were lifted and every component of Soviet culture benefited. Works produced by writers and film directors reasserted the significance of the individual, the reality of emotional life, and thereby extended the private sphere. (K,191)"
192-changes in Pravda
No comments:
Post a Comment