The Thaw in the USSR is a conditional unofficial name for the period that lasted from the mid-50s to the mid-60s. It is characterized by significant changes, in particular, the debunking of Stalin’s personality cult, the liberalization of freedom of speech, and the reduction of censorship. Became more accessible Western literature. Regarding political and public life That era also saw certain relaxations, which Soviet reality has not seen since the 20s.
And some moments in the history of the USSR generally occurred for the first time: condemnation of one’s own mistakes, the past, repressions. Unfortunately, this did not become a deep process, did not change the essence of the events taking place: universal control, centralization of power and much more remained in the USSR, at least until perestroika, and some things disappeared only with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the influence Khrushchev's thaw it had an effect for a long time. The authorities demonstrated that dictatorship is not necessary.
Spiritual life has also changed quite interestingly. In the USSR they began to show more attention to everything Western and demonstrate greater openness. Creativity was subject to less censorship. Attempts to achieve certain changes in the management of the national economy also date back to this period. They are characterized by some naivety, because for successful implementation required more serious and deeper study. However, these changes still had positive results.
The Thaw period struck the majority in the USSR with criticism of Stalin's personality cult. However, it also showed that many did not agree with the policies being implemented. A striking example was the rapprochement with Yugoslavia, with which the dictator broke off relations. In addition, we should not forget about what event happened in the USSR during the Thaw: the liquidation of the Gulag. This was also directly related to the condemnation of repression and the outbreak of riots. Some historians note that over time this system It became increasingly unprofitable to maintain, so perhaps there was a commercial motive in destroying the structure from the inside.
Nevertheless, the proclamation of a course towards peaceful coexistence with Western countries also dates back to the Thaw period. The emphasis was placed on the fact that it is very important to be able to get along in one big world. It should be noted that the nomenklatura rejoiced at these changes and quite willingly supported them, because under Stalin almost everyone was in danger. Now I didn’t have to constantly fear for my life. So for many, the thaw period had only positive aspects.
Khrushchev’s policy turned out to be quite loyal for prisoners of war: many Japanese and Germans were simply sent home to their countries. It is worth noting that we are talking about tens of thousands of people. Mostly deported peoples were allowed to return to their former places of residence. Labor legislation has noticeably softened: criminal liability for absenteeism has been abolished, and there is also talk of decriminalizing other articles. The concept of “enemy of the people” was also removed from the Criminal Code.
There were also certain advances in the international arena. They agreed with the USSR on the withdrawal of occupation forces from Austria and that the state would maintain political neutrality. In this regard, the Thaw period gave the West more than they initially expected. He showed that it is difficult with the Soviet Union, but it is possible to negotiate. And this was what they wanted most after World War II.
Controversies
At the same time, during the Thaw period in the USSR, Joseph Brodsky was arrested, Pasternak was persecuted for publishing his work in Italy, and the uprising in Grozny and Novocherkassk was suppressed (the latter with the use of weapons). In addition to the above, currency traders were shot in violation of the fundamental principles of law (Rokotov’s case), for whom the case was reviewed three times. The death sentence was imposed after the law giving the corresponding right came into force. As is known, the criminal law does not and cannot have retroactive effect, with the exception of certain amnesty situations. However, here this principle was simply ignored. This decision caused protests even from the investigators who led the case. But it was not possible to influence the situation: the sentence was carried out.
The episode with Brodsky turned out to be quite scandalous and unpleasant for the USSR, characterized by attempts to attract the attention of the Soviet intelligentsia and the world community. As a result, it was possible to ensure that the poet’s sentence was reduced. And active liberation activities became the foundation for the emergence in the USSR human rights movement, which is still developing today. Attention was drawn to the issue of human rights in the Soviet Union, people began to talk about it, which was simply impossible to imagine during Steel’s life. This already showed certain progress in the public consciousness, but did not make society completely healthy.
Changes in art
The topic of de-Stalinization, the need and importance of change was raised in the film “Clear Sky”. Pasternak was able to publish Doctor Zhivago in Milan, although he subsequently encountered problems associated with it. They published Solzhenitsyn, which, again, was impossible to imagine before. Leonid Gaidai and Eldar Ryazanov began to realize themselves as directors. The film “Carnival Night” turned into a real cultural event; there were other interesting works.
Negative changes
It cannot be said that all changes, without exception, were unequivocally positive. Changes in architecture turned out to be quite negative for the USSR. In an effort to quickly provide everyone with housing, it was decided to abandon “unnecessary decoration”, as long as it does not interfere with the functionality of the houses. As a result, the buildings turned out to be standard, monotonous, they began to look like template boxes and lost their individuality. The area per person was significantly reduced. The issue of audibility worsened: houses appeared in which what was being said on one floor could be heard without problems across several floors. Unfortunately, such standards in construction remained until the collapse of the USSR, changing for the most part only for the worse.
Positive Feedback
The appearance of the thaw gave rise to another phenomenon - the sixties, that is, young people who went through the war (or their relatives) became disillusioned with Stalin. However, they decided that the communist government had nothing to do with it, having heard about the debunking of the personality cult. They actively opposed the image of the dictator - Lenin, romanticized the revolution and existing ideals.
As a result, as many researchers note, the emergence of such mitigation looks somewhat ambiguous. Of course, liberalization of the regime and greater creative freedom are positive. However, the people had the feeling that the Soviet government really knew how to admit its mistakes, to draw conclusions that there would be no return to the old ways, that something was moving towards improvement and correction.
Meanwhile, the execution, contrary to the legislation in force at that time, of currency traders very eloquently showed that all the changes relate to the form rather than the essence of what is happening. The Gulag was disbanded, but at the same time, those who were directly related to the crimes that took place there were not convicted. They did not publicly declare the inadmissibility of such methods in relation to people. The Soviet government did not admit responsibility for what it actually allowed.
Such exposure would have been too dangerous for the nomenklatura itself, which in one way or another was part of the Stalinist repressive machine. Some carried out criminal decrees, and some even took the initiative. In the end, Stalin's condemnation was cautious. He still confessed outstanding figure of his era. The genocide he carried out was called “mistakes” that took place, according to Soviet leaders, “closer to the end.”
To summarize, it can be noted that there have certainly been certain positive changes. But there were much fewer of them, and many were temporary. And some achievements on the path to liberalization were reversed due to the arrival of Brezhnev. Therefore, speaking about the positive aspects, we must not forget about the negative ones.
Where a new stage in life began Soviet state. It was at this congress in February 1954 that the report of the new head of state was read, the main theses of which were the debunking of Stalin, as well as the variety of ways to achieve socialism.
Khrushchev's Thaw: briefly
The harsh measures of the times after collectivization,
industrialization, mass repression, show trials (like the persecution of doctors) were condemned. Alternatively, peaceful coexistence of countries with different social structure and rejection of repressive measures in building socialism. In addition, a course was taken to weaken state control over the ideological life of society. One of the main characteristics totalitarian state is precisely strict and widespread participation in all spheres of public life - cultural, social, political and economic. Such a system initially instills in its own citizens the values and worldview it needs. In this regard, according to a number of researchers, Khrushchev’s thaw brought an end by changing the system of relations between government and society to an authoritarian one. Since the mid-50s, mass rehabilitation of those convicted in trials began Stalin era, many political prisoners who survived until this time were released. Special commissions were created for
consideration of cases of innocently convicted people. Moreover, entire nations were rehabilitated. Thus, Khrushchev’s thaw allowed the Crimean Tatars and Caucasian ethnic groups, deported during the Second World War by Stalin’s forces, to return to their homeland. strong-willed decisions. Many Japanese and German prisoners of war who later found themselves in Soviet captivity were released to their homeland. Their number was in the tens of thousands. provoked large-scale social processes. A direct consequence of the weakening of censorship was the release cultural sphere from shackles and the need to sing praises to the current regime. The 50-60s saw the rise of Soviet literature and cinema. At the same time, these processes provoked the first noticeable opposition to the Soviet government. Criticism, which began in a mild form in the literary work of writers and poets, became the subject of public discussion already in the 60s, giving rise to a whole layer of opposition-minded “sixties”.
International détente
During this period, there was also a softening in the foreign policy of the USSR, one of the main initiators of which was also N. S. Khrushchev. The Thaw reconciled the Soviet leadership with Tito's Yugoslavia. Last for a long time was presented in the Union of Stalin's times as an apostate, almost a fascist henchman, simply because he independently, without instructions from Moscow, led his state and went
own path to socialism. During the same period, Khrushchev met with some Western leaders.
The Dark Side of the Thaw
But relations with China are beginning to deteriorate. Mao Zedong's local government did not accept criticism of the Stalinist regime and considered Khrushchev's softening as apostasy and weakness in front of the West. And the warming of the Soviet foreign policy V westward didn't last long. In 1956, during the “Hungarian Spring,” the CPSU Central Committee demonstrated that it did not intend to let Eastern Europe out of its orbit of influence, drowning the local uprising in blood. Similar protests were suppressed in Poland and the GDR. In the early 60s, worsening relations with the United States literally put the world on the threshold of a third world war. And in domestic politics, the boundaries of the thaw quickly emerged. The harshness of the Stalin era will never return, but arrests for criticizing the regime, expulsions, demotions and other similar measures were quite common.
55. Khrushchev’s “thaw”.
The Khrushchev Thaw period is the conventional name for a period in history that lasted from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. A feature of the period was a partial retreat from the totalitarian policies of the Stalin era. The Khrushchev Thaw is the first attempt to understand the consequences of the Stalinist regime, which revealed the features of the socio-political policy of the Stalin era. The main event of this period is considered to be the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which criticized and condemned Stalin’s personality cult and criticized the implementation of repressive policies. February 1956 marked the beginning of a new era, which aimed to change social and political life, change the domestic and foreign policies of the state.
Events of the Khrushchev Thaw
The period of the Khrushchev Thaw is characterized by the following events:
The process of rehabilitation of victims of repression began, the innocently convicted population was granted amnesty, and relatives of “enemies of the people” became innocent.
The republics of the USSR received more political and legal rights.
The year 1957 was marked by the return of Chechens and Balkars to their lands, from which they were evicted during Stalin's time due to accusations of treason. But such a decision did not apply to the Volga Germans and Crimean Tatars.
Also, 1957 is famous for the International Festival of Youth and Students, which in turn speaks of the “opening of the Iron Curtain” and the easing of censorship.
The result of these processes is the emergence of new public organizations. Trade union bodies are undergoing reorganization: the staff of the top level of the trade union system has been reduced, and the rights of primary organizations have been expanded.
Passports were issued to people living in villages and collective farms.
Rapid development of light industry and agriculture.
Active construction of cities.
Improving the standard of living of the population.
One of the main achievements of the policy of 1953–1964. there was the implementation of social reforms, which included solving the issue of pensions, increasing incomes of the population, solving the housing problem, and introducing a five-day week. The period of the Khrushchev Thaw was a difficult time in the history of the Soviet state. For so much a short time(10 years) many transformations and innovations were carried out. The most important achievement was the exposure of the crimes of the Stalinist system, the population discovered the consequences of totalitarianism.
So, the policy of the Khrushchev Thaw was superficial and did not affect the foundations of the totalitarian system. The dominant one-party system was preserved using the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Mikhail Sergeevich Khrushchev did not intend to carry out complete de-Stalinization, because it meant admitting his own crimes. And since it was not possible to completely renounce Stalin’s time, Khrushchev’s transformations did not take root for long. In 1964, a conspiracy against Khrushchev matured, and from this period a new era in the history of the Soviet Union began.
56. Confrontation of two world systems in the 60-80s of the XX century. Collapse of the colonial system, arms race.
The arms race was voluntarily suspended by the mid-60s.
A number of treaties were concluded limiting the accumulation of weapons. Such
such as the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, in
outer space and submarines (08/05/1963), Treaty on
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, creation of nuclear-free zones (1968),
agreement on SALT 1 (limitation and reduction of strategic weapons)
(1972), Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production and Stockpiling
stockpiles of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
(1972) and many others. Another “front” of the Cold War was...
Since achieving strategic parity (early sixties
years) the military component of the arms race is gradually being pushed back to
background, while on stage the struggle for influence in the countries of the third is played out
peace. The term itself was introduced into use due to the increasing influence
non-aligned countries that have not openly joined one of the
warring parties. If at first, the very fact of confrontation
two powerful systems on the world map led to landslide decolonization
(the period of liberation of Africa), then in a later period a circle was formed
states openly and very effectively using their political choice
orientation towards one or another superpower. To a certain extent it is possible here
include the countries of so-called Arab socialism, which decided at the expense of the USSR
their specific narrow national tasks. (1, p.298)
The Cold War was fought not only in politics, but also in
culture, sports. For example, the USA and many Western European countries
boycotted the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow. In response, athletes from countries
Eastern Europeans boycotted the next Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984
year. The Cold War was widely reflected in cinema, and
Propaganda films were made by both sides. In the USA it is: “Red Dawn”,
"America", "Rimbaud, First Blood, Part II", "Iron Eagle", "Invasion of
USA". In the USSR they filmed: “Night Without Mercy”, “Neutral Waters”, “Incident in
square 36 – 80", " Solo sailing" and many others. Despite,
that the films are completely different, with different degrees of talent in them,
it showed how bad “they” are and what good guys serve in our army.
A unique and very accurate manifestation of the Cold War in art
reflected in a line from a popular song “and even in the field of ballet, we
ahead of the rest..."
It is quite obvious that the enormous costs incurred
superpowers could not continue indefinitely, and as a result the confrontation
the two systems were decided in the economic sphere. It is this component
turned out to be decisive in the end. More efficient Western economies
made it possible not only to maintain military and political parity, but also
satisfy the growing needs of modern man, which, due to
She knew how to competently manipulate purely market economic mechanisms. IN
at the same time heavyweight, focused only on the production of weapons
and means of production, the economy of the USSR, could not, and did not intend to
compete in this area with the West. IN Eventually, this affected
political level, the USSR began to lose the fight not only for influence in
third world countries, but also for influence within the socialist
Commonwealth.
2.2. The international position of the USSR from the mid-60s to the early 80s.
By the mid-60s. compared with the first post-war years, the world
found himself in a significantly changed situation. The then-identified
the contradictions between the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition have now spilled over
into a severe contradiction between two established socio-political systems.
Eastern Europe was under complete control of the USSR, while Western Europe was
in a strong military-political and economic alliance with the United States. "Cold War"
was in full swing. The main object of the struggle between “socialism” and “capitalism”
were the countries of the “third world”, formed on the ruins of the world
colonial system. The USSR and the USA, the main military forces behind them
political blocs NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization avoided direct
military confrontation. However, competition for influence in developing
countries remained very acute, and often led to local wars
conflicts.
The competition between the two systems also developed in the economic sphere,
Moreover, in the 60s - 80s it became more and more strict. The West had
it had a clear advantage: the starting positions were more profitable, and in the USA in
During the Second World War, economic potential increased significantly. More
The system of cooperation of developed countries was also perfect, while in
The “socialist bloc” included, in addition to the USSR, countries that played
insignificant role in the world economy, many of which suffered huge
damage during the war. The protracted formation of the mechanism of international
division of labor within the framework of CMEA interfered with the coordination of national economic
plans and implementation of joint projects. As a result, already in the mid-80s
s in Western Europe, the level of international division of labor turned out to be
an order of magnitude higher than in Eastern. A major step forward in the integration of countries
The CMEA was adopted in 1971 as a comprehensive program for further deepening
and improving cooperation, designed for 15-20 years. Most
large-scale joint economic projects were construction
the Druzhba oil pipeline and the Soyuz gas pipeline, the participation of allied countries in
development of raw materials resources of Siberia and Central Asia, construction
industrial enterprises in different countries. The Soviet Union put in
Eastern European countries in 1965 8.3 million tons of oil, in 1975 - about
50 million, and by the beginning of the 80s - 508 million tons. Soviet oil prices were
significantly lower than world prices, since the USSR assumed an obligation
supplies of raw materials at lower prices.
Cooperation was actively developing within the framework of the Warsaw
Agreement (OVD). Almost every year in the 1980s general maneuvers were carried out, in
mainly on the territory of the USSR, Poland and the GDR.
Partial reforms of the “Soviet model of socialism” in none of the countries
Eastern European bloc did not lead to a qualitative increase in efficiency
production. (4, p.334)
The reaction to the crisis of the “Soviet model of socialism” in the countries of Eastern
Europe and the events of the “Czechoslovak Spring” of 1968, the so-called
"Brezhnev Doctrine". Its main content was the “theory of limited
sovereignty" of socialist countries. She was proclaimed by the General
Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee at the V Congress of the Polish United workers' party V
November 1968. Her nomination testified to the great attention
which was given foreign policy in the late 60s - early 70s.
The Brezhnev Doctrine recognized the presence of weak links in
socialist front, the possibility of restoring capitalism due to
objective difficulties and errors of a subjective nature, the likelihood of war
with the imperialist encirclement, the extreme nature of such an action as a military one
assistance to a friendly country in the defense of socialist sovereignty. L.
Brezhnev emphasized that the sovereignty of a socialist state is
the common heritage of all Marxist-Leninists: “When a threat arises to the cause
socialism in one country, a threat to the security of socialist
community as a whole - this is no longer just a problem for the people of a given
country, but also a common problem, a concern of all socialist countries.”
The policy of "non-interference", in his opinion, was directly contrary to the interests of
defense of brotherly states. In order not to give in, not to give up
bourgeoisie not a grain of what has been won, not to allow a retreat from Marxism-
Leninism requires firmly adhering to the “general laws
socialist construction."
The term “doctrine” as a system of attitudes did not take root in Soviet
foreign policy lexicon, it is not in any official party or
state document. But the existence of the “Brezhnev Doctrine” will never
was refuted by the political leaders of the USSR, since it expanded
proletarian internationalism." At the same time, the “Brezhnev Doctrine”
expressed a policy aimed at consolidating the territorial
government structure in Europe in the post-war period.
Attempts at people's democratic reforms were suppressed both from outside
(introduction of troops of countries Warsaw Pact to Czechoslovakia in 1968), and
from within (the Solidarity movement in 1980-1981 and its ban with the introduction
military rule in Poland).
The Chinese version of the reforms of the 50-60s led to tough
confrontation between the USSR and China. In 1969, on the Soviet-Chinese border there were
armed clashes (in the area of Damansky Island, etc.). Only after death
Mao Zedong in 1976 and the death of Brezhnev in 1982, the relationship between the two
countries have returned to normal. To the Maoist trend in the period after the Prague
communist parties, priority of national values, denial of “dictatorship
proletariat" and the establishment of democratic mechanisms for coming to power and
mainly in those third world countries that received military
financial and technical assistance THE USSR. For the Soviet Union it was still
one item of huge expenses to the detriment of one’s own economic and
social programs.57. DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLD ECONOMY for 1945-1991. The dominant role of the USA. Scientific and technological progress and its influence on the course of world social development
After Stalin's death, there were three contenders for power: G. M. Malenkov, L. P. Beria and N. S. Khrushchev. Beria's claims to leadership, expressed in his desire to gain public support through a demonstrative rejection of Stalinist methods and an amnesty, frightened his competitors. He was arrested and sentenced to death for espionage, treason against socialism, etc. During the review of the “Leningrad Case”, Malenkov’s guilt in the deaths of A. Kuznetsov, N. Voznesensky and others was revealed (Malenkov was subsequently removed from the post of head of government). As the first secretary of the party's Central Committee, Khrushchev gradually strengthened his position in power.
XX Party Congress. At a closed meeting of the congress in February 1956, Khrushchev made a report “On the cult of personality and its consequences,” condemning Stalin’s one-man style of rule, the “cult of personality,” mass repressions, mistakes in the war, etc. After the congress, rehabilitation intensified political prisoners, the Gulag was liquidated.
In 1957, V. Molotov, G. Malenkov, L. Kaganovich and K. Voroshilov at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee demanded the resignation of Khrushchev and received the support of 7 out of 11 members of the Presidium. Khrushchev, with the help of Marshal G. Zhukov and KGB head I. Serov, managed to quickly convene a Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, at which the majority of members of the Central Committee supported Khrushchev and dismissed his opponents. As a result, Khrushchev headed both the party and the government.
After Stalin's death, a period in the life of the country began, called the “thaw”. The essence of the “thaw” was that people got the opportunity to talk more openly about things that were previously dangerous to talk about. Against the backdrop of relaxations, the works of the “sixties” began to be published (V. Dudintsev, E. Yevtushenko, A. Voznesensky, B. Okudzhava). In 1962, at the direction of Khrushchev, in the magazine “ New world“A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” about life in the camp was published. However, freedoms were limited. For example, the novel “Doctor Zhivago” by B. L. Pasternak was never allowed to be published in the USSR.
Agriculture by 1953, urgent measures were required, since for many years the village had been largely siphoned of resources. In 1953, collective farms' debts were written off, purchase prices were increased 3 times, taxes were lowered 2.5 times, and collective farmers were allowed to develop personal plots.
To quickly increase grain harvest, Khrushchev proposed developing virgin lands (mainly the steppes of Kazakhstan). In 1954–1956 36 million hectares were plowed instead of 13 million according to plan. In 1956, 125 million tons of bread were harvested, of which 50% was virgin bread. Virgin lands began to produce up to half of the country's bread, but spending on its development reduced spending on the agricultural sector in other regions.
Solving the problem of livestock feed supply, Khrushchev began the “corn campaign.” The first results bore fruit, and soon corn began to be planted everywhere, eliminating traditional crops. In general, the right idea gave good results, but only where the climate was suitable. In many regions, corn crops were damaged.
Industry. The growth rate of industry was high, on average up to 10% per year. At the same time, the authorities understood the need to strengthen the development of Group B industries (goods consumer consumption) and saw the harmfulness of excessive centralization of the economy. In 1957, Khrushchev initiated the transition from a sectoral to a territorial system of economic management. Councils were created in place of most central ministries National economy(sovnarkhozes) – local economic management bodies. This approach led to the establishment of connections within regions, but there was a lack of interaction between regions.
Under Khrushchev, the country achieved outstanding results in science and high technology. The world's first nuclear power plant was built (1954), the first jet passenger aircraft TU-104 was put into operation (1956), and the world's first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" was created (1957). Launched in 1957 artificial satellite Earth, and in 1961 Yu. Gagarin made the first flight into space.
Social sphere. During the reign of Khrushchev there was constant growth living standards of Soviet people. In cities, the assignment of workers to enterprises was canceled, and wages increased. In the village, payments for workdays increased 3 times. The pension system developed: pensions in cities almost doubled, the retirement age was lowered (men retired from 60 years old, women from 55 years old). In 1964, pensions for collective farmers were introduced. Intensive construction of housing was carried out, popularly called “Khrushchevka”. The houses were built according to simplified construction standards, but people were happy, because many received separate apartments for the first time in their lives. For 1956–1960 more housing was built than in all the pre-war years (474 million m² with a population of about 210 million people). In 1960, the country recorded the lowest mortality rate - 7.1 people. per 1 thousand population (for comparison: 1913 – 29 people; 1940 – 18 people; 1980 – 10 people). In demography, this indicator is the most important, since it reflects the degree of adaptation of a person to the conditions in which he lives and works.
At the XXII Party Congress in 1961, the task was set to build in 20 years communist society. Struggling with the private property sentiments of citizens, Khrushchev established restrictions on the conduct of personal subsidiary farms in small towns and then in the countryside. Livestock numbers have declined sharply, resulting in increased demand for food. There was a food shortage. Khrushchev tried to eliminate it by increasing prices for meat, milk and butter by 20–50%. This caused discontent among the population, especially in the provinces. The most serious unrest occurred in Novocherkassk (1962). Troops were brought into the city, and as a result, 24 people died. Later, seven of the rioters were shot.
In 1963 virgin soil did not produce a harvest. The grain harvest in the USSR decreased sharply. Khrushchev was forced to buy bread abroad. Since then, grain purchases have become constant practice, although our own production also grew.
Discontent was accumulating in the party and the country. As a result, Khrushchev was removed from all posts in 1964, rightly accused of subjectivism and voluntarism (making decisions without taking into account objective factors and implementing them using authority).
In general, under Khrushchev the country developed dynamically, despite a number of serious mistakes made by the leader. After his resignation, the party was headed by L. I. Brezhnev, and the government by A. N. Kosygin.
Questions for self-control
1. What significance does the 20th Congress of the CPSU have in the history of our country?
2. What are the successes in social sphere were achieved during the era of N. Khrushchev?
3. What international crises occurred during the era of N. Khrushchev?
On December 24, 1953, the famous Soviet satirist Alexander Borisovich Raskin wrote an epigram. For censorship reasons, it could not be published, but very quickly spread throughout Moscow literary circles:
Today is not a day, but an extravaganza!
The Moscow public rejoices.
GUM opened, Beria closed,
And Chukovskaya was published.
The events of one day described here need to be deciphered. The day before, on December 23, he was sentenced to to the highest degree punishment and execution of the former all-powerful head of the NKVD - MGB - Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria - information about this Soviet newspapers placed on December 24 not even on the first, but on the second or third page, and even then downstairs, in the basement.
Directly on this day, after reconstruction, the Main Department Store, or GUM, opened. Built back in 1893 and embodying best achievements Russian early modernist architecture, in the 1920s GUM became one of the symbols of NEP, and in 1930 it was closed for a long time as a retail outlet: for more than 20 years, the premises of various Soviet ministries and departments were located there. The day of December 24, 1953 marked a new milestone in the history of GUM: it again became a publicly accessible and widely visited store.
And on the same day on the front page " Literary newspaper”, organ of the Union of Writers of the USSR, an article by critic, editor and literary critic Lidia Korneevna Chukovskaya “On the feeling of life’s truth” appeared. This was Chukovskaya’s first publication in this newspaper since 1934. Since the end of the war, the Soviet press and publishing houses did not indulge her at all with attention: the daughter of the disgraced poet Korney Chukovsky, in 1949 she herself fell under the rink of the campaign to combat cosmopolitanism. She was accused of “undeserved and sweeping criticism” of works of Soviet children's literature. However, it was important not only that Chukovskaya was published, but also that her article again sharply polemicized her with the dominant trends and central authors of Soviet children's literature of the 1950s.
Alexander Raskin's epigram marks an important chronological milestone - the beginning of a new era in the political and cultural history of the Soviet Union. This era would later be called the “Thaw” (after the title of the story of the same name by Ilya Ehrenburg, published in 1954). But this same epigram also marks out the main directions of development of Soviet culture in the first decade after Stalin’s death. The coincidence, the chronological combination of the three events noticed by Raskin, was apparently not accidental. Both those leaders of the Communist Party, who at that moment were authorized to make decisions, and the most sensitive representatives of the cultural elite, who observed the development of the country, very keenly felt the deep political, social and economic crisis in which they found themselves. Soviet Union towards the end of Stalin's reign.
None of the thinking people, apparently, believed the charges that were brought against Lavrenty Beria during the investigation and in court: in the best traditions of the trials of the 1930s, he was accused of spying for British intelligence. However, the arrest and execution of the former head of the secret police was perceived quite unequivocally - as the elimination of one of the main sources of fear, which for decades soviet people tested before the NKVD bodies, and as the end of the omnipotence of these bodies.
The next step in establishing party control over the activities of the KGB was the order to review the cases of leaders and ordinary party members. First, this revision affected the processes of the late 1940s, and then the repressions of 1937-1938, which much later received the name “Great Terror” in Western historiography. This was how the evidentiary and ideological basis was prepared for the denunciation of Stalin’s personality cult, which Nikita Khrushchev would carry out at the end of the 20th Party Congress in February 1956. Already in the summer of 1954, the first rehabilitated people began to return from the camps. Mass rehabilitation of victims of repression will gain momentum after the end of the 20th Congress.
The release of hundreds of thousands of prisoners has given new hope to the most different people. Even Anna Akhmatova said then: “I am a Khrushchevite.” However, the political regime, despite a noticeable softening, still remained repressive. After Stalin's death and even before the start of mass liberation from the camps, a wave of uprisings swept through the Gulag: people were tired of waiting. These uprisings were drowned in blood: in the Kengir camp, for example, tanks were deployed against the prisoners.
Eight months after the 20th Party Congress, November 4, 1956, Soviet troops invaded Hungary, where an earlier uprising had begun against Soviet control of the country and a new, revolutionary government of Imre Nagy had been formed. During military operation 669 Soviet soldiers and more than two and a half thousand Hungarian citizens died, more than a half of these are workers, members of volunteer resistance units.
Since 1954, mass arrests stopped in the USSR, but individuals they were still imprisoned on political charges, especially many in 1957, after the Hungarian events. In 1962, by forces internal troops Massive - but peaceful - protests by workers in Novo-Cherkassk were suppressed.
The opening of GUM was significant in at least two respects: the Soviet economy and culture turned towards the common man, focusing much more on his needs and demands. In addition, public urban spaces acquired new functions and meanings: for example, in 1955, the Moscow Kremlin was opened for visits and excursions, and on the site of the demolished Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the never completed Palace of the Soviets, in 1958 they began to build not a monument or a state institution -nie, but publicly accessible outdoor swimming pool "Moscow". Already in 1954, new cafes and restaurants began to open in large cities; in Moscow, not far from the NKVD - MGB - KGB building on Lubyanka, the first automatic cafe appeared, where any visitor, having inserted a coin, could, bypassing the seller, get a drink or snack. The so-called industrial goods stores were transformed in a similar way, ensuring direct contact between the buyer and the product. In 1955, the Central Department Store in Moscow opened up access for customers to the trading floors, where goods were hung and placed within easy reach: they could be removed from a shelf or hanger, examined, touched.
One of the new “public spaces” was the Polytechnic Museum - hundreds of people, especially young people, gathered there for evenings and specially organized discussions. New cafes opened (they were called “youth cafes”), poetry readings and small art exhibitions were held there. It was at this time that jazz clubs appeared in the Soviet Union. In 1958, a monument to Vladimir Mayakovsky was unveiled in Moscow, and open poetry readings began near it in the evenings, and discussions immediately began around the readings on political and cultural issues that had never been discussed before in the media.
The last line of Raskin's epigram - “And Chukovskaya was published” - requires additional comment. Of course, Lydia Chukovskaya was not the only author who received the opportunity to be published in the USSR in 1953-1956 after a long break. In 1956 - early 1957, two volumes of the almanac “Literary Moscow”, prepared by Moscow writers, were published; The initiator and driving force of the publication was the prose writer and poet Emmanuil Kazakevich. In this almanac, the first poems by Anna Akhmatova appeared after more than a ten-year break. Here she found her voice and the right to exist in Soviet culture Marina Tsvetaeva. Her selection appeared in al-manah with a foreword by Ilya Ehrenburg. Also in 1956, the first book by Mikhail Zoshchenko after the massacres of 1946 and 1954 was published. In 1958, after lengthy discussions in the Central Committee, the second episode of Sergei Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible,” which had been banned for screening in 1946, was released.
The return to culture begins not only of those authors who were denied access to print, to the stage, to exhibition halls, but also of those who died in the Gulag or were shot. After legal rehabilitation in 1955, the figure of Vsevolod Meyerhold became allowed to be mentioned, and then became increasingly authoritative. In 1957, for the first time after a more than 20-year break, prose works Artem Vesely and Isaac Babel. But perhaps the most important change is associated not so much with the return of previously prohibited names, but with the opportunity to discuss topics that were previously undesirable or completely taboo.
The term “thaw” appeared almost simultaneously with the beginning of the era itself, which began to be designated by this word. It was widely used by contemporaries and is still in use today. This term was a metaphor for the onset of spring after long political frosts, and therefore promised the imminent arrival of a hot summer, that is, freedom. But the very idea of a change of seasons indicated that for those who used this term, the new period was only a short phase in the cyclical movement of Russian and Soviet history and the “thaw” would sooner or later be replaced by “freezes”.
The limitations and inconvenience of the term “thaw” are due to the fact that it deliberately provokes the search for other, similar “thaw” eras. Accordingly, it forces us to look for numerous analogies between different periods of liberalization - and, conversely, does not make it possible to see similarities between periods that traditionally seem to be polar opposites: for example, between the thaw and stagnation. It is equally important that the term “thaw” does not make it possible to talk about the diversity and ambiguity of this era itself, as well as the subsequent “frosts”.
Much later, in Western historiography and political science, the term “de-Stalinization” was proposed (apparently, by analogy with the term “denazification”, which was used to refer to the policy allied powers in the western sectors of post-war Germany, and then in Germany). With its help, it seems that it is possible to describe some processes in culture in 1953-1964 (from the death of Stalin to the resignation of Khrushchev). These processes are poorly or inaccurately captured using the concepts behind the “thaw” metaphor.
The very first and narrow understanding of the de-Stalinization process is described using the expression “the fight against the cult of personality,” which was used in the 1950s and 60s. The phrase “cult of personality” itself came from the 1930s: with its help, the party leaders and Stalin personally criticized the decadent and Nietzschean hobbies of the beginning of the century and apophatically (that is, with the help of negations) described the democratic , non-dictatorial character of the Soviet supreme power. However, the very next day after Stalin’s funeral, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Georgy Malenkov spoke about the need to “stop the policy of the cult of personality” - he did not mean capitalist countries, but the USSR itself. By February 1956, when at the 20th Congress of the CPSU Khrushchev pronounced his famous report“On the cult of personality and its consequences,” the term received a completely clear semantic content: “cult of personality” began to be understood as the policy of Stalin’s autocratic, cruel leadership of the party and the country from the mid-1930s to his very death.
After February 1956, in accordance with the slogan “fight against the cult of personality,” Stalin’s name began to be erased from poems and songs, and his images began to be blurred out in photographs and paintings. Thus, in the famous song based on the poems of Pavel Shubin “Volkhov drinking” the line “Let’s drink to our homeland, let’s drink to Stalin” was replaced with “Let’s drink to our free homeland”, and in the song based on the words of Viktor Gusev “March of the Artillerymen” back in 1954 instead of “ Artillerymen, Stalin gave the order! They began to sing “Artillerymen, an urgent order has been given!” In 1955, one of the main pillars of socialist realism in painting, Vladimir Serov, writes new option paintings "V. I. Lenin proclaims Soviet power.” IN new version In the textbook picture, behind Lenin one could see not Stalin, but “representatives of the working people.”
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, cities and towns named after Stalin were renamed, his name was removed from the names of factories and ships, and instead of the Stalin Prize, which was liquidated in 1954, the Lenin Prize was established in 1956. In the fall of 1961, Stalin's embalmed corpse was taken out of the Mausoleum on Red Square and buried near the Kremlin wall. All these measures were taken in the same logic as in the 1930s and 40s, images and references to executed “enemies of the people” were destroyed.
According to Khrushchev, Stalin's cult of personality was manifested in the fact that he could not and did not know how to influence his opponents through persuasion, and therefore he constantly needed to resort to repression and violence. The cult of personality, according to Khrushchev, was also expressed in the fact that Stalin was unable to listen and accept any, even the most constructive, criticism, therefore neither members of the Politburo, nor even more so ordinary party members, could have a significant influence on the political decisions made. Finally, as Khrushchev believed, the last and most visible manifestation of the cult of personality to the outside eye was that Stalin loved and encouraged exaggerated and inappropriate praise addressed to him. They found expression in public speeches, newspaper articles, songs, novels and films and, finally, in the everyday behavior of people for whom any feast had to be accompanied by an obligatory toast in honor of the leader. Khrushchev accused Stalin of destroying old party cadres and trampling on the ideals of the 1917 revolution, as well as serious strategic mistakes during the planning of operations during the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War. Behind all these accusations against Khrushchev was the idea of Stalin’s extreme anti-humanism and, accordingly, the identification of the revolutionary ideals trampled by him with humanistic ideals.
Although the closed report at the 20th Congress was not publicly released in the USSR until the end of the 1980s, all these lines of criticism implicitly marked out problem areas that could begin to be developed in culture under the auspices of the fight against Stalin’s personality cult.
One of the key themes of Soviet art in the second half of the 1950s was criticism of bureaucratic methods of leadership, the callousness of officials towards citizens, bureaucratic rudeness, mutual responsibility and formalism in solving problems ordinary people. It was customary to castigate these vices before, but they invariably had to be described as “individual shortcomings.” Now the eradication of bureaucracy was to be presented as part of the dismantling of the Stalinist system of management, which was becoming a thing of the past right before the eyes of the reader or viewer. The two most famous works of 1956, focused precisely on this type of criticism, are Vladimir Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone” (about an inventor who alone stands against the collusion of a plant director and ministerial officials). officials) and El-Dar Ryazanov’s film “Carnival Night” (where innovative-minded youth discredit and ridicule the self-confident director of the local House of Culture).
Khrushchev and his associates constantly talked about a “return to Leninist norms.” As far as one can judge, in all his denunciations of Stalin - both at the 20th and 22nd Congress of the CPSU - Khrushchev sought to preserve the idea of the Great Terror as a repression primarily against “honest communists” and the “Leninist old guard.” But even without these slogans, many Soviet artists were, apparently, quite sincerely convinced that without the revival of revolutionary ideals and without the romanticization of the first revolutionary years and the Civil War, it would be completely impossible to build the future communist society.
The revived cult of revolution brought to life a whole series of works about the first years of the existence of the Soviet state: the film by Yuli Raizman “Communist” (1957), the artistic trip of Geliy Korzhev “Communists” (1957-1960) and other opuses. However, many understood Khrushchev’s calls literally and spoke of the revolution and the Civil War as events taking place here and now, in which they themselves, the people of the second half of the 1950s - early 1960s, directly take part . The most typical example of this kind of literal interpretation is famous song Bulat Okudzhava’s “Sentimental March” (1957), where the lyrical hero, a modern young man, sees for himself the only option for completion life path- death “on that one and only Civil”, surrounded by “commissars in dusty helmets.” The point, of course, was not about a repetition of the Civil War in the contemporary USSR, but about the fact that the hero of the 1960s could live in parallel in two eras, and the older one was more authentic and valuable for him.
Marlen Khutsiev’s film “Ilyich’s Outpost” (1961-1964) is structured in a similar way. It is considered perhaps the main film of the Thaw. Its complete director's cut, restored after censorship interventions in the late 1980s, opens and closes with symbolic scenes: at the beginning, three military patrol soldiers, dressed in uniforms from the late 1910s and early 1920s, walk through the streets of the night before dawn in Moscow. to the music of the “Internationale”, and in the finale, in the same way, soldiers of the Great Patriotic War march through Moscow, and their passage is replaced by a demonstration of the guard (also consisting of three people) at the Lenin Mausoleum. These episodes have no plot intersections with the main action of the film. However, they immediately set a very important dimension of this film narrative: the events taking place in the USSR in the 1960s with three young people barely twenty years old are directly and directly related to the events of the revolution and the Civil War, since the revolution and the Civil War are for these heroes are important value guide. It is characteristic that there are as many guards in the frame as there are central characters - three.
The very title of the film speaks of the same orientation towards the era of revolution and Civil War, towards the figure of Lenin as the founder of the Soviet state. At this point, there was a discrepancy between the film’s director Marlen Khutsiev and Nikita Khrushchev, who forbade the release of Ilyich’s Outpost in its original form: for Khrushchev, a young doubting hero who is trying to find the meaning of life and answer the main questions for oneself, is not worthy of being considered the heir to revolutionary ideals and protecting “Ilyich’s Outpost.” Therefore, in the re-edited version, the film had to be called “I’m Twenty Years Old.” For Khu-tsi-ev, on the contrary, the fact that the revolution and the “International” remain high ideals for the hero serves as a justification for his mental tossing, as well as the change of girls, professions and friendly companies. It is no coincidence that in one of the key episodes of Khutsiev’s film, the entire audience of the poetry evening at the Polytechnic Museum sings along with Okudzhava, who performs the finale of that same “Sentimental March.”
How else did Soviet art respond to calls to combat the cult of personality? Since 1956, it has become possible to speak directly about the repressions and the tragedy of the people innocently thrown into the camps. In the second half of the 1950s, it was not yet allowed to mention people physically destroyed (and even more late times in the Soviet press they usually used euphemisms like “he was repressed and died” rather than “he was shot”). It was impossible to discuss the scale of state terror of the 1930s - early 1950s, and a censorship taboo was generally imposed on reports of extrajudicial arrests of the earlier - “Leninist” - time. Therefore, until the early 1960s, almost the only possible way to depict repression in a work of art was the appearance of a hero returning or returning from the camps. It seems that perhaps the first such character in censored literature is the hero of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “Childhood Friend”: the text was written in 1954-1955, published in the first issue of “Literary Moscow” and subsequently included in the poem “ Beyond the distance is the distance.”
The taboo on depicting the camps themselves was lifted when in the 11th issue of the magazine “New World” for 1962, under the direct sanction of Nikita Khrushchev, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was published - about a typical the day of one prisoner in the Gulag. During next year this text was reprinted twice more. However, already in 1971-1972, all editions of this story were confiscated from libraries and destroyed, it was even torn out from issues of the magazine “New World”, and the author’s name in the table of contents was covered with ink.
People returning from the camps at that time experienced big problems With social adaptation, searching for housing and work. Even after official rehabilitation, for most of their colleagues and neighbors they remained dubious and suspicious persons - only because, for example, they went through the camp system. This issue is very accurately reflected in Alexander Galich’s song “Clouds” (1962). The song was distributed only in unofficial tape recordings. Its main character, who miraculously survived after twenty years of imprisonment, pathetically ends his monologue with a statement about “half the country”, quenching, like himself, “in taverns” the longing for forever lost years life. However, he does not mention the dead - they will appear in Galich later, in the poem “Reflections on Long Distance Runners” (1966-1969). Even in Solzhenitsyn's One Day, the deaths in the camps and the Great Terror are barely mentioned. The works of authors who then, in the late 1950s, spoke about extrajudicial executions and the real scale of mortality in the Gulag (such as Varlam Shalamov or Georgy Demidov) could not be published in the USSR under any circumstances .
Another possible and actually existing interpretation of the “fight against the cult of personality” was no longer focused on Stalin personally, but suggested condemnation of any kind of leaderism, unity of command, assertion of the supremacy of one historical figure over others. The expression “cult of personality” was contrasted with the term “collective leadership” in the second half of the 1950s and early 1960s. He also asked ideal model political system that was supposedly created and bequeathed by Lenin, and then brutally destroyed by Stalin, and the type of government that was supposed to be recreated first in the triumvirate of Beria, Malenkov and Khrushchev, and then in the cooperation of Khrushchev and the Presidium of the Central Committee party (and the Central Committee as a whole). Collectivism and collegiality had to be demonstrated at all levels at that time. It is no coincidence that one of the central ideological manifestos of the mid- and late 1950s became Makarenko’s “Pedagogical Poem”, screened in 1955 by Alexey Maslyukov and Mieczyslawa Mayewska: and Makarenko’s novel, and the film presented a utopia of a self-governing and self-disciplining collective.
However, the term “de-Stalinization” may also have a broader interpretation, which allows us to connect together the most diverse aspects of the social, political and cultural reality of the first decade after Stalin’s death. Nikita Khrushchev, whose political will and decisions largely determined the life of the country in 1955-1964, saw de-Stalinization not only as a criticism of Stalin and the end of mass political repressions, he tried to reformulate the Soviet project and Soviet ideology as a whole. In his understanding, the place of the struggle with internal and external enemies, the place of coercion and fear should have been replaced by the sincere enthusiasm of Soviet citizens, their voluntary dedication and self-sacrifice in building a communist society. Feud with outside world and constant readiness for military conflicts should have been replaced by interest in everyday life and in the achievements of other countries and even sometimes in exciting competition with “capitalists”. The utopia of “peaceful coexistence” was continually violated in this decade by various kinds of foreign political conflicts, where the Soviet Union often resorted to extreme, sometimes violent, measures. Khrushchev’s guidelines were most openly violated on his own initiative, but at the level of cultural policy there was much more consistency in this regard.
Already in 1953-1955, international cultural contacts intensified. For example, at the end of 1953 (at the same time when “GUM opened, Beria closed”) exhibitions of contemporary artists from India and Finland were held in Moscow and the permanent exhibition of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts was reopened (since 1949 the museum was occupied by an exhibition of kov “to Comrade Stalin on his 70th birthday”). In 1955, the same museum held an exhibition of masterpieces of European painting from the Dresden Gallery - before the return of these works to the GDR. In 1956, an exhibition of works by Pablo Picasso was organized in the Pushkin Museum (and later in the Hermitage), which shocked visitors: mostly they did not even know about the existence of this kind of art. Finally, in 1957, Moscow hosted guests of the World Festival of Youth and Students - the festival was also accompanied by numerous exhibitions of foreign art.
The focus on mass enthusiasm also implied a turn of the state towards the masses. In 1955, at one of the party meetings, Khrushchev addressed the functionaries:
“People tell us: ‘Will there be meat or not? Will there be milk or not? Will the pants be good?“ This, of course, is not an ideology. But it’s impossible for everyone to have the correct ideology and walk around without pants!”
On July 31, 1956, construction of the first series of five-story buildings without elevators began in the new Moscow district of Cheryomushki. They were based on reinforced concrete structures made using new, cheaper technology. Houses built from these structures, later nicknamed “Khrushchev-kami,” appeared in many cities of the USSR to replace the wooden barracks in which workers had previously lived. The circulation of periodicals was increased, although there were still not enough magazines and newspapers - due to a shortage of paper and due to the fact that subscriptions to literary publications where sensitive topics were discussed were artificially limited according to instructions from the Central Committee.
Ideologists demanded that more attention be paid to the “common man” in art, as opposed to the pompous films of the late Stalin era. An illustrative example of the embodiment of the new aesthetic ideology is Mikhail Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man” (1956). Sholokhov is an author who is very sensitive to changing conditions. His hero, driver Andrei Sokolov, himself tells how he miraculously survived in Nazi captivity, but his entire family died. He accidentally picks up a little orphan boy and raises him, telling him that he is his father.
According to Sholokhov himself, he became acquainted with Sokolov’s prototype back in 1946. However, the choice of character - a seemingly ordinary driver with a desperately gloomy life story - was indicative specifically for the Thaw era. At this time, the image of war radically changes. Since Stalin was recognized as having made serious mistakes in the leadership of the Soviet army, especially at the initial stage of the war, after 1956 it became possible to portray the war as a tragedy and talk not only about victories, but also about defeats, about how people suffered from these mistakes of “ordinary people”, that the losses from the war can neither be completely healed nor compensated by victory. From this perspective, the war was depicted, for example, in Viktor Rozov’s play “Eternally Living,” written back in 1943 and staged (in new edition) at the Moscow Sovremennik Theater in the spring of 1956 - in fact, the premiere of this performance became the first performance of the new theater. Soon, another key film of the Thaw, “The Cranes Are Flying” by Mikhail Kalatozov, was made based on this play.
Functionaries of the Central Committee and leaders of creative unions encouraged artists to turn to the images of " common man", in order to develop in society a sense of collective solidarity and the desire for selfless sacrificial labor. This fairly clear task outlined the limits of detailization in the image. human psychology, relations between man and society. If certain subjects did not evoke a surge of enthusiasm, but rather reflection, skepticism or doubt, such works were banned or subjected to critical defeat. Insufficiently “simple” and “democratic” stylistics also easily fell under the ban as “formalistic” and “alien to the Soviet audience” - and stirring up unnecessary discussions. Even less acceptable for the authorities and for the artistic elite were doubts about fairness and correctness Soviet project, in the justification of the victims of collectivization and industrialization, in the adequacy of Marxist dogmas. Therefore, Boris Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago, published in Italy in 1957, where all these ideological postulates were called into question, aroused indignation not only among Khrushchev, but also among a number of Soviet nomenklatura writers - for example, Konstantin Fedin.
There was, apparently, a whole cohort of executives and representatives of the creative intelligentsia who adhered to the same view as Khrushchev on the mission of art and the mood that, in principle, could be expressed in it. Typical example such a worldview is an episode from the memoirs of composer Nikolai Karetnikov. In the fall of 1955, Karetnikov came to the home of the famous conductor Alexander Gauk to discuss his new Second Symphony. Central part The symphony consisted of a long funeral march. After listening to this part, Gauk asked Karetnikov a series of questions:
"- How old are you?
- Twenty-six, Alexander Vasilyevich.
Pause.
-Are you a Komsomol member?
— Yes, I am a Komsomol organizer of the Moscow Union of Composers.
—Are your parents alive?
- Thank God, Alexander Vasilyevich, they are alive.
No pause.
- They say your wife is beautiful?
- It's true, very true.
Pause.
- You are healthy?
“God has mercy, I seem to be healthy.”
Pause.
In a high and tense voice:
-Are you fed, shod, dressed?
- Yes, everything seems to be fine...
Almost shouts:
- So what the hell are you burying?!
<…>
- What about the right to tragedy?
“You have no such right!”
There is only one way to decipher Gauck’s last remark: Karetnikov was not a front-line soldier, none of his family died during the war, which means that in his music the young composer was obliged to demonstrate inspiration and cheerfulness. The “right to tragedy” in Soviet culture was as strictly dosed and rationed as scarce products and manufactured goods.