Monthly Archives: February 2006

Soviet dress is a rather understudied topic. But now we can breathe easier. According to the London Guardian, Professor Olga Gurova from the European University in St. Petersburg is working on a cultural history of underwear in the Soviet period. I have to say, I’ll read it. I find the topic absolutely fascinating. Here is how Gurova explains her work:

In the 1920s, Soviet magazines touted a “regime of cleanliness” for the proletariat. “Underwear,” explains Gurova, “was a compulsory part of that regime.” A goal was established: everyone should have at least two sets, and should change sets at least once every 7-10 days. Mass production was cranked up, underclothing the populace in officially healthy, comfortable, hygienic long johns, boxers, undershirts and bras. Gurova’s research shows that most of these items were “spacious”, and that “there was no big difference in design between male and female ..read more

W. Shedd at Accidental Russophile has “tagged” me. So let me indulge him and whoever else is interested. Four jobs I’ve had:

University Instructor Waiter Forklift Driver Record Store clerk

Four movies I can watch over and over:

Seven The Matrix Pulp Fiction Empire Strikes Back

Four places I’ve lived:

Foster City, California La Verne, California Los Angeles, California Moscow, Russia

Four TV shows I like (ugh, I hate most TV):

The Sopranos Six Feet Under Twin Peaks Seinfeld

Four places I’ve vacationed:

Nurnberg, Germany San Juan, Puerto Rico New Orleans, Louisiana Vegas Baby!

Four of my favorite dishes:

Gumbo Tamales Borsch In n’ Out Burger

Four sites I visit daily:

Hoopshype.com Democracy Now! Informed Comment Marc Cooper

Four Books I’ve Read This Year:

Igal Halfin, Terror in My Soul. Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution. David Hoffmann, Stalinist Values. Shelia Fitzpatrick, Tear Off the Masks.

What can I say? I’m writing a fucking dissertation. Four bloggers I’m tagging:

“Snow Square” Raffi Aftandelian Andy Young Alexei

The 50th Anniversary of Khrushchev’s speech has passed but not unnoticed. There was lots of commentary over the week in English and Russia media. Below you’ll find links to English and Russian language articles that have been published in the last few days. The list is far from complete. I won’t provide any detailed commentary on them.

Khrushchev’s Secret Speech & End Of Communism 1956: Khrushchev Lashes Out At Stalin Khrushchev: The Man Who Stood Up To Stalinism Russia Turns Its Back On The Man Who Denounced Stalin Stalin Nostalgia Growing in Russia 1959: Macmillan And Khrushchev Talk Peace ‘The First Nail In The Coffin Of Communism’ The Speech Russia Wants To Forget

?????? ? ?????????: ???????, ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ??????????? ????? XX ?????? ? ?????? XX ?????? ? ??? ???????????? ?????? X?????: “??? ??????? … ????? ????, ? ????? ?? ?? ????”

Instead I would like to concentrate on a recent poll by the All-Russian Center for the Study of ..read more

The reflection on Khrushchev’s speech continues. This time, Julian Evans gives a fascinating take on the “Cult of Putin.” It’s worth reading. He argues that the Cult of Putin is not just some ancient Russian tradition of worshiping leaders. If anything it might have more to do with the type of leader Putin is compared to more recent Russian leaders.

This is rather strange to Westerners but we shouldn’t be quick to see it as evidence of some Asiatic religious awe of Putin among Russians. For my colleagues in the office, the calendar is there half-ironically. They are slightly mocking the cult, while also enjoying the fact that their young president actually does all the activities he is pictured doing. This is the point about the cult of Putin – it is quite pragmatic, not some fever of patriotic intoxication. Newsweek interviews one government bureaucrat, who says that ..read more

Articles and commentary commemorating Khrushchev’s speech to the 20th Party Congress in 1956 continue. Today Anne Applebaum, the author of Gulag: A History, weighs in on the pages of the Washington Post. Unfortunately, her commentary is more about us than about the historical significance of Khrushchev. I’ll do my best to refrain from ranting on Applebaum’s statement that the American military is in Iraq “trying to pick up the pieces after the collapse of another totalitarian regime.” Excuse me, but last I checked Saddam Hussein’s Iraq didn’t collapse. That state was smashed by the very military that is now “trying to pick up the pieces.” So let us not equate Iraq with the Soviet Union and the US military as some sort of altruistic totalitarian mop up force. But I digress. . . One thing that you can count on with the commemorations of Khrushchev’s speech ..read more

Boris Kagarlitsky has weighed in on the significance of Khrushchev’s speech in a commentary in the Moscow Times. I think some of the passages are worth noting. Kagarlitsky has an interesting thesis: In order for not only Khrushchev, but the Communist Party to erase their complicity in Stalin’s crimes, a complicity which made the Terror possible, they had to essentially sacrifice Stalin.

Looking back on the congress, some accused Khrushchev of inconsistency and a lack of radicalism, while others objected to the fact that he made Stalin’s crimes public and turned political reform into a personal, posthumous reckoning with Stalin. The guilt or complicity of other Politburo members is not the issue, however. Khrushchev heaped all the blame on Stalin because he wanted to avoid a serious discussion of what had happened in the Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s.

Had Khrushchev’s view of the dead dictator been more ..read more