Thread: About Cold War and more

What do you think about the Berlin Crisis? People were fleeing from the Eastern side to the Western side. Was it because of the effective propaganda?
You see, I agree with your point that the struggle of the two superpower had taken place. However, what I disagree is that the struggle had no previous history.

Это было связано с тем, что ФРГ была богаче, целенаправленно проводила политику по переманиванию гдровцев, пропаганда тоже играла здесь роль. Немцы считали ФРГ Германией, а ГДР оккупированной территорией, хотя ФРГ была такая же оккупированная, как и ГДР.

Not quite so. Do you remember that the WWII officially started with Germany invaded Poland? Ok, so the USSR had joined the WWII two weeks after that, remember? Then there was the war of 1940 with Finland. So, the soviet people weren't oblivious about the WWII. So, why the "westerners" weren't so eager to help the USSR, like they allegedly should? Because they are just too evil? What do you say? Even the extension of the lend-lease to the USSR was disputed by many.

Не надо путать политику государств и настроения людей. Я говорил о последнем. США и Великобритания официально не помогали СССР, а боролись с Германией. Людям и казалось, что они борются недостаточно. Англия же не из-за СССР в войну с Германией вступила. Сейчас людей раздражает, что они всю победу приписывают себе.

Ok, so let's assume you're right. So, what motivation did he have? And what did he win as a result of disintegration of the USSR? He was a Secretary General of the USSR. One of the wealthiest and mightiest people in the world. He had everything. Then, with a disintegration of the USSR he became just a person. What was his interest?

Не знаю, но факт предательства очевиден. Наверное, он надеялся войти в мировое правительство.

I would respectfully disagree. The propaganda was very effective. I'm not sure how old are you, but if I ask you a couple of the Soviet propaganda keywords you will remember right away. "Израильская военщина провела очередную карательную операцию?" "Самосовские головорезы?" "Фидель Кастро посетил Советский Союз с очередным дружественным визитом?" Does it ring the bells? Do you remember anything from the BBC in those days? And those who could really listen to the "Radio of Freedom" were really a minority. I couldn't. Were your parents able to catch the BBC programs if they wanted? Whose parents on this forum could listen to the BBC? Or were listening to the BBC? So, the Soviet propaganda was working hard and the western propaganda wasn't really getting to its audience. However, by the 80s people were experienced enough not to believe anything that comes from the government. Any idea why? Do you think people just were stupid?

Я сказал, что пропаганда была неэффективной, а не то, что ее было мало. Она настраивала людей противоположным образом. Была слишком отдельной, а не встроенной незаметно во все, как на Западе. Воздействовала не на те части сознания, не учитывала настроений и потребностей людей.
Это особенно видно в контрасте с нынешней пропагандой.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Это было связано с тем, что ФРГ была богаче, целенаправленно проводила политику по переманиванию гдровцев, пропаганда тоже играла здесь роль. Немцы считали ФРГ Германией, а ГДР оккупированной территорией, хотя ФРГ была такая же оккупированная, как и ГДР.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the propaganda. Propaganda is a lot, but not everything. Mostly, people would trust their own experience, not the way it was explained by somebody else.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Не знаю, но факт предательства очевиден.

Well, you said you had been thinking a lot about it and reached the inevitable conclusion Gorbachev was a traitor. Would you be kind enough to spare just a tidbit of that titanic work to a simple-minded crocodile like myself? You see, I can't think that much, my mind was totally washed out by the Hollywood movies. You need to be patient with me.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Наверное, он надеялся войти в мировое правительство.

Alright, so as of 1992 his job was complete. Is he a part of the World Government now? To say it in a simpler way, what kind of assurance had he have to abandon what he had in his hands for something as elusive (to say the least) as a chair in the World Government? He didn't need a chair, he was the chairman. He was the boss of almost the half of this world. What could just a chair in the World Government offer to such person?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Я сказал, что пропаганда была неэффективной, а не то, что ее было мало.

And I pointed out that the soviet propaganda was abundant and the western propaganda was next to unknown to the soviet people.
The Soviet propaganda worked another way because there was NOTHING connecting it with the reality. People lived in a certain way and the propaganda said completely different things. And people saw that and made their own conclusions. They saw in their own eyes what Party had constituted of, what kind of people joined the party and why. And how disconnected that was from what the Party had said. That's why the Soviet propaganda worked the other way.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

They saw in their own eyes what Party had constituted of, what kind of people joined the party [...]

Oh please, enlighten me.

And I pointed out that the soviet propaganda was abundant and the western propaganda was next to unknown to the soviet people.

And to the extent that Soviet people knew about western propaganda, they (reportedly) sometimes had to resort to such extraordinary measures as making homemade audio recordings on old X-ray films and secretly trading them, in order to avoid being arrested for dissident activities.



Thus, while Hanna makes some good points about commercial messages and FoxNews (for example) being a type of "propaganda" that shapes/distorts our thinking, the fact that самиздат had practically no analogue in 20th-century Western life (because there was no need for it) should caution us against treating Soviet and Western propaganda as "two sides of the same coin".

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Oh please, enlighten me.

Исключительно карьеристы и проходимцы. Процесс начинался с комсомольских вожаков. Все говорили правильные слова, и при этом беспринципно стремились к власти и благам, невзирая ни на что. Высшая цель - пробраться в номенклатуру. Сделать карьеру помимо партии и/или профсоюзов было практически невозможно. По настоящему идейных и принципиальных вытесняли из партии и руководства. То, что наблюдали во властных структурах после развала СССР - похожая картина, просто усугублённая криминалом и возможностью вывозить капиталы за границу. Все 90е и нулевые во всех странах СНГ правили те же самые беспринципные кадры, закалённые когда-то в КПСС и ВЛКСМ. Сменили вывеску, а сущность поведения не поменяли. Кадры решают всё. Помнится, когда КПСС потеряла власть, были разговоры такого плана, что, мол, вот теперь наконец-то будет очищение партии, останутся только идейные, а карьеристы свалят туда, где побольше власти и денег. Ну, в итоге карьеристы, как и было сказано, повалили валом в "демократы" и иже с ними. Результат был немного предсказуем.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Исключительно карьеристы и проходимцы.

Вот яркий представитель карьериста и проходимца: Александр Николаевич Яковлев член КПСС 1944-1991



"На первых порах перестройки нам пришлось частично лгать, лицемерить, лукавить — другого пути не было. Мы должны были — и в этом специфика перестройки тоталитарного строя — сломать тоталитарную коммунистическую партию"

"Избрали простой, как кувалда, метод пропаганды «идей» позднего Ленина. Группа истинных, а не мнимых реформаторов разработали (разумеется, устно) следующий план: авторитетом Ленина ударить по Сталину, по сталинизму. А затем, в случае успеха, Плехановым и социал-демократией бить по Ленину, либерализмом и «нравственным социализмом» — по революционаризму вообще."

Мне запомнилось, что во время перестройки едва ли не самой популярной книгой была "Дети Арбата", там как раз использован метод Яковлева: идеи Ленина верны, кровавый Сталин всё извратил, положительный герой Саша Панкратов - верный ленинец. В этой же книге Рыбаков придумал для Сталина фразу нет человека - нет проблемы, к-рую теперь на полном серьезе приписывают Виссарионычу. Через некоторое время нужно было уже кошмарить Ленина. Никогда не забуду передачи по ленинградскому ТВ, где два удолбанных укурка Курехин и Бананан доказывали, что Ленин - гриб. =) Жить не по лжи, ага.

А с другой стороны был Борис Евсеевич Черток, член партии с 1932 и до смерти, не изменивший своим убеждениям.

I g

uess some people thought of themselves as "Soviets", but perhaps not all?

I think most people in private life thought of themselves in terms of ethnicity (as Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc.), but when it was about delegations, Olympic teams or international events the term that seamed appropriate was Soviet (because they were ethnically diverse).

Продолжение:

В сложившихся условиях оказалась невозможной и эффективная работа Организации Объединенных На-ций, созданной в октябре 1945 г. в соответствии с постановлением Ялтинской конференции для поддержания мира и разрешения международных споров «без угрозы силой или ее применения». США, располагавшие в ООН гарантированным большинством голосов, стремились превратить ее в некий всемирный трибунал с пра-вом безапелляционного вмешательства в любые противоречия между странами, с тем чтобы «гармонизировать» их по собственному усмотрению. Ответом советского правительства была педантичная защита своего права вето в ключевом органе ООН — Совете Безопасности. Новая международная организация быстро превратилась в трибуну острой публичной полемики. Существовавшие глубинные разногласия между СССР и другими вели-кими державами не могли быть сняты простым поднятием рук голосующих.
В последние дни войны в Европе Вашингтон внезапно приостановил действие закона о ленд-лизе в отно-шении Советского Союза, что вызвало горечь и раздражение в Москве. После первых весьма скупых сумм по займу, обещанному И. В. Сталину еще президентом Ф. Рузвельтом, СССР в дальнейшем не получил ни доллара. И это при том, что советский лидер не раз публично проявлял заинтересованность в таком займе и даже готов был пойти на определенные уступки в международных делах. Отвергались лишь наиболее обременительные условия, подобные требованию полного ухода из Восточной Европы. Не успев начаться, были прекращены вы-платы репараций СССР из западных зон оккупации Германии, несмотря на обязательства, принятые союзника-ми в Потсдаме.
В январе 1947 г. госсекретарь США Дж. Маршалл предложил выделить значительные финансовые ресурсы на цели восстановления европейских стран. Министры иностранных дел Англии и Франции, горячо поддержав «план Маршалла», пригласили в Париж В. М. Молотова для обсуждения этого плана. На переговорах Молотов поставил свои условия, главным из которых было сохранение за советским правительством свободы в расходо-вании предназначенной ему части средств и в выборе экономической политики. После того как эти условия бы-ли отвергнуты, Москва отказалась участвовать в «плане Маршалла» и настояла на принятии аналогичных реше-ний правительствами стран, входивших в ее сферу влияния.
Помощь по линии «плана Маршалла» ограничилась, таким образом, только Западной Европой. Ее масшта-бы были колоссальны: 12,4 млрд. долларов за 1948—1951 гг. Эти средства позволили за короткий срок возро-дить разрушенную экономику западных стран и сформировать там современные рыночные структуры. Кроме того, они умело использовались Вашингтоном как инструмент политического давления. В результате позиции местных компартий, авторитет которых в годы войны значительно вырос благодаря их самоотверженной борьбе с фашистскими оккупантами (во Франции и Италии коммунисты даже входили в первые послевоенные прави-тельства), оказались ослабленными, а влияние США в этом ключевом регионе мира существенно укрепилось.
В апреле 1949 г. в Вашингтоне был подписан Североатлантический договор (НАТО), оформивший военно-политический союз США и 11 западных стран: Великобритании, Франции, Италии, Бельгии, Дании, Норвегии, Нидерландов, Люксембурга, Португалии, Исландии и Канады. В 1951 г. появился блок АНЗЮС (США, Австра-лия и Новая Зеландия), в 1954 г.— СЕАТО (США, Великобритания, Франция, Австралия, Новая Зеландия, Таи-ланд, Филиппины и Пакистан), в 1955 г.— блок СЕНТО (США, Великобритания, Турция, Иран, Пакистан). Об-разование этих блоков на десятилетия утвердило американское военное присутствие в ряде регионов мира.
Вдоль советских границ развертывалась сеть военных баз США. В Пентагоне велась разработка планов войны против СССР с применением атомного оружия. Наиболее известный из них — «Дропшот» — предусмат-ривал нанесение ядерных ударов по основным городам Советского Союза.
Одновременно Вашингтон предложил проект учреждения наднационального контроля над атомной энерги-ей («план Баруха» — по имени американского деятеля, представившего его в ООН летом 1946 г.). План преду-сматривал создание специального органа, по форме международного, а по существу управляемого США. На него не должно было распространяться право вето со стороны членов Совета Безопасности. Этому органу над-лежало контролировать и выдавать разрешения государствам на все виды деятельности, в какой либо мире свя-занные с ядерной энергией. Им запрещалось заниматься не только производством, но и научными исследова-ниями в этой области. «План Баруха» фактически закреплял монополию США на атомное оружие, открывал возможность постоянно вмешиваться во внутренние дела других стран и в конечном счете способствовал бы подчинению наукоемких отраслей их экономики американским монополиям.
В ответ Советский Союз выступил с инициативой заключить конвенцию по полному и безоговорочному запрещению ядерного оружия, включая обязательство уничтожить уже существующие его запасы. Нарушение конвенции объявлялось «тягчайшим между народным преступлением против человечества», а контроль над строгим режимом ее соблюдения должен был регламентироваться Советом Безопасности, где СССР мог ис-пользовать право вето.

I don't know, Hanna, if you can read this, but that's what is written in, I think, commonly accepted Russian history textbook. I studied with it.

One thing that I like about the approach of communist countries to propaganda, is that they call it what it was. I.e. as far as I am aware, communism actually calls propaganda by its right name

As far as I am aware, the word пропаганда in Russian historically had a totally neutral connotation -- unlike the English word, which is nearly always a very negative term. (Which is to say, the terms are faux amis, and do not necessarily translate each other.)

So, it's a bit misleading to say that the Soviets "called propaganda what it was", as though they were being bluntly honest and transparent about their intents. Rather, they used the same neutral Russian word, пропапанда, whethern speaking about Soviet slogans or US government slogans, but in the latter case, the "propaganda" would be attributed to империалистические угнетатели (or some other clearly pejorative language would be attached to the neutral word пропаганда).

I'm not saying that the US government was inherently more honest -- in many cases, we would describe our own government's statements by some nice-sounding terms like "public service announcements" or "awareness programs" or "educational efforts", while similar statements from the Soviet government would be, well, "mere propaganda " (which doesn't really need to be modified by some phrase like "aggressively expansionist Communism", or whatever, because the word is already bad-sounding).

If you see a red banner with a slogan, you know what it is, right - and you can choose to think "Bullshit".

If telepathy really existed outside of science-fiction, do you imagine that Soviet citizens would have generally had the freedom to think "Bullshit"?

And if the propaganda was effective, then why did the USSR disintigrate? If people had believed it, then they would have thought "whatever the problems here, it is still better than imperialism & capitalism...." Instead they thought "where can I buy a pair of Levis'...."

You see, Hanna:
1) People's thoughts meant and mean nothing. Only a few persons decide what to do, according to the current situation. Gorbachyov was not traitor, just bad leader for such big country like a child driving the truck, but the results were terrible. USSR met giant economical problems in 1980's, and КПСС could not manage with it.
2) Some people are so limited, that the possibility to buy some clothes is everything they need. They don't care about all those ism's, and are deaf to propaganda. And you know, when suddenly you cannot buy some ordinary meal, or just you cannot get soap (late USSR times), I understand them to some degree!

To finish with USSR - such extreme sentiment was not possible, of course. People were just watching with open mouths, how their country dies and hoped that, in the end, they will get the soap and may be even the bananas!
Игорь Иртеньев | Депутатский запрос

P.S. Now that we have plenty of bananas, suddenly they do not give much joy

Надо было Косыгина слушать, а его выгнали.... Может сейчас и Китай бы обгоняли...

If telepathy really existed outside of science-fiction, do you imagine that Soviet citizens would have generally had the freedom to think "Bullshit"?

They had freedom to think what they wanted, because it is impossible to forbid people to think.

I received a message from my daughter (she texted me during lunch) and she got her paper back during class today and she got an A!!!! Her teacher wrote on her paper "This is excellent!!" and didn't make any other notations. He told the class if he didn't mark up the paper then it was "a damn good paper." AND... he talked about her in front of the class (don't know if he used her name or not or what he said and she didn't say in the text.)

Thank you all for your help with this and while she may not have used what you gave her directly in the paper, I must say you have helped to educate me and my entire family on this topic. I cannot begin to tell you how much I have learned from this thread. Propaganda or not, lack of my education or lack of caring when I was supposed to learn this stuff, you all have really helped to shed light on this entire subject. Things I'm too embarrassed to admit I had no clue about... I now have a much better understanding of thanks to all of you.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I received a message from my daughter (she texted me during lunch) and she got her paper back during class today and she got an A!!!! Her teacher wrote on her paper "This is excellent!!" and didn't make any other notations. He told the class if he didn't mark up the paper then it was "a damn good paper." AND... he talked about her in front of the class (don't know if he used her name or not or what he said and she didn't say in the text.)

Great news!

Rockzmom, now you have to tell us what she wrote about the Cold War that impressed the teacher!

Yes, and it's good that they are not getting forced. That is a good thing about the USA. People CAN choose to go against the stream, and nothing very serious will happen as long as they don't take it too far.
I saw a film about some people who were Jehova's Witnesses and had some trouble because they did not want to salute the US flag. But it was nothing major, just inconvenience.

I don't know about the USSR either, but I think they could opt out of most patriotic stuff, but probably at a higher cost to their career etc than in the USA. I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

As for the royals, I don't care for the monarchy at all and I am not defending it! I would not care if they disappeared tomorrow. (But I would not get rid of them in the way that the Russians did!!!! )

They are not allowed to do or say ANYTHING political, they just perform official duties inside the country, and add a bit of glamour outside the country.

The curent King of Sweden is dyslexic and has a mild speech problem. He could never run the country.
These people are basically just ambassadors.

The media obsession with them is really terrible, I think. Obsessing about the royals is a kind of modern "opium for the people..." Why worry about the state of schools and hospitals when you can talk about Kate Middleton looking too skinny, or what Princess Madeleine really is doing in New York..

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't know about the USSR either, but I think they could opt out of most patriotic stuff, but probably at a higher cost to their career etc than in the USA. I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

I know for a fact that nothing would have happened, at least, not in the 70-80's. My cousin refused to join Komsomol (not because of any political believes, though). His teachers were mildly shocked, but there were no repercussions (just a lecture from a distraught teacher, which was ignored).

My mom, who was a constructor of military sea crafts, refused to join the Communist party, when her boss offered her to do that as an encouragement for her excellent work. Such an offer was considered an honor, and could potentially aid her career. While the Party was much more serious business than Komsomol, again nothing happened. Her career did not suffer because of that (though it could, that's true), even despite the ridiculous and slightly disrespectful way she refused (she said essentially: "No way! Party meetings are boring and a waste of time").

At least that was my family's experience, So I take horror stories about "courageous people" who opposed Soviet system (by doing pretty safe things like refusing to be a pioneer) with a grain of salt. Circumstances differ, but in many cases it was not as dangerous as it probably sounds to people who never lived in the USSR.

So looked at it from our perspective, the nationalism of the USA is pretty extreme, with 4th of July, daily pledges in school, famous anecdotes about leaders. There is endless talk about supposedly "American values" that are all about "freedom" and things like that. Sounds good, but for whom, how and at what price?

Well, it's good for new immigrants -- they can go on wearing the clothing styles from "The Old Country", and eat their "Old Country" foods, and speak English with an extremely heavy accent... but if they wave the American flag on the 4th of July, if they can sing the words to "America the Beautiful", and if they idolize Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc., people will generally accept them as "Real Americans". True, there is still some anti-immigrant prejudice, but merely by waving the flag, immigrants can give themselves a degree of "immunity" against prejudice.

I think it's pretty much comparable in intensity with the USSR which had parades, loyalty pledges, idolizing Lenin and talk about idealistic utopian ideas which they did not quite live up to... Just a different flavour of propaganda.

Despite their ideological differences, the US and USSR had something significant in common: they were both multi-ethnic states that tried (however imperfectly, in both cases) to do away with racism, blood-prejudice, and citizenship privileges based on ethnicity. This meant that it was necessary to create a common identity that was not based on shared ancestry. And thus the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance so that schoolchildren whose parents had recently immigrated from Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Hungary, etc., would all be encouraged to think of themselves as simply "Americans" who had left behind their loyalties and hatreds based on blood-lineage.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

To tell the truth, I joined the Comsomol simply not to stand out of the crowd. I was not a hero (and I'm not a hero now) to fight the system I dislike. The whole society those days was not really tolerant to those who singled themselves out in any way, and I was a good boy to play by the rules. I have no idea what would have happened if I refused, and I didn't really want to know that back then. Maybe nothing serious. I had other more important stuff on my mind.