“What the ice gets, the ice keeps” - The amazing Endurance Expedition to Antarctica

The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, sometimes called the Endurance Expedition, under Sir Ernest Shackleton was finally under way. After many days of careful planning the first steps toward the great feat of crossing the continent of Antarctica were being made. Just days after World War I broke out, Endurance set sail from England on August 8, 1914. After Shackleton joined the ship in Buenos Aires, Endurance was put on a course for the Antarctic. But by November she was lingering at a South Georgia whaling station. The ice conditions that year were somewhat hazardous and the locals recommended that Shackleton wait for conditions to improve. And so Endurance remained for a month. On December 5 she departed for Weddell Sea. Despite the wait, the ice remained obstinate; much was encountered and at times there was no other alternative but to plow through the large floes. Throughout January Endurance struggled onwards - at times stuck in the ice and awaiting an opening in the floe… She was not always successful and soon she was icebound.

Photograph of the ship Endurance in Antarctica taken during the British Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, 1914-1917. Source: State Library of New South Wales.

Efforts to cut away the ice which held Endurance captive proved fruitless. And so the expedition members settled into routine, shipboard life. Morale generally ran high. The living quarters were renovated to form a number of tiny cubicles which served as rooms; they were dubbed “The Ritz”. Morale had to be kept up and Shackleton made every effort to ensure that it was. Frank Worsley, captain of Endurance, wrote, “Our free time we spent playing hockey and football on the ice.” In addition to that there were other activities, among them caring for the 60-odd sled dogs Endurance carried. A little village was built on the ice for them where they were housed in dogloos.

But for all the good spirits Endurance was in danger. All around her pressure plates were pressing together causing ice to be pushed up until they reached large heights. If Endurance was ever caught in a severe case she could easily be damaged to the point of being irreparable. In one case, the dogs narrowly missed a breakup in which their dogloos were destroyed. In the days leading up to October 24, the pressure damaged the rudder, the ship’s beam buckled and other damage was sustained. At one point, Endurance took on a list of 30° as the ice pushed her on her side. Thankfully it was corrected. But October 24, 1915 was to prove a fateful day. As ice pushed from three different directions converging at one point, which happened to be where Endurance sat, the ship shuddered as she was twisted. And then she began to take on water. If they wanted to save Endurance, the crew would have to move fast. The water was pumped out, but try as they might, saving Endurance was a lost cause. An evacuation that took place three days later was well managed though. The dogs and other supplies were taken off as well as three lifeboats which would later be used to sail for land. In temperatures that plunged below zero (-18°C) and where 29°F (-2°C) was a heat wave, the group disembarked. For those who had called the little ship home for so many months, it was a sorry thing to see her go.

Once off the ship, Shackleton decided they would try to make for land 300 miles away. It was a task easier said than done. “We all discarded everything save the barest necessities,” Worsley wrote. Three of the puppies who had been born on the voyage, the carpenter’s cat and one dog had to be destroyed before setting out on the journey. It was a sad task no one relished. Slogging across the ice and snow proved too much and to walk 300 miles to land was virtually impossible. A few days after leaving Endurance Shackleton decided to make camp. In all that time they had made little progress and the broken Endurance could still be seen in the short distance - she would eventually sink on November 21.

Frank Hurley and Ernest Shackleton at camp. This photograph was published in the United States in Ernest Shackleton's book, South, in 1919.

By late December the party was on the move again. Shackleton decided they would march as the floe they now camped on, was carrying them farther away from a potential landing spot. Just like before, the march made little progress.

1915 turned into 1916. It seemed it would be an eternity before the floes finally broke up. And with food supplies shrinking the last of the dogs were also destroyed. Morale plunged. While Shackleton tried to maintain an optimistic outlook those under him were beginning to grow more concerned about their situation. When land was finally sighted on March 23, the castaway could not set sail because the ice still had them pinned in. But the floes were growing thinner; so much, in fact, that one of the members grew seasick from the motion.

On April 9, the three boats were launched. At last they were making for land. Providing all went well. The first night they camped out on a small floe only to have two sleeping men dumped into the water where the ice had cracked under them. Shackleton was able to pull one man out while the other climbed back onto the ice. The days dragged on. Seasickness, dysentery, exhaustion and saltwater boils were all part of the package. Some of the men had gone slightly mad after living under the constant strain and horrible conditions. When they finally landed on Elephant Island on April 15 it was beyond a doubt a welcome pleasure. Since their month-long stay in South Georgia, not one of them had set foot on land. But life on Elephant Island wasn’t a picnic either. The weather was particularly harsh and there were other contributing factors that made life on the ice floe seem much more comfortable.

Just days after landing, Shackleton was on the move again. One of the lifeboats, James Caird, was made more seaworthy and loaded with supplies in anticipation of a voyage to South Georgia where help could be reached. With five other men Shackleton set sail on April 24. Frank Wild, his second in command, was left behind to oversee the rest of the party. If they failed to reach South Georgia, Wild was to take the two lifeboats and leave for the whaling grounds of Deception Island in the spring. For those left behind, Wild attempted to keep everyone on their toes while establishing a routine. It would be a difficult time on the island. Food sources in the form of seal and penguin could not always be relied on and much had to be set back should a spring voyage prove necessary. It was going to be a challenge.

On James Caird it was, as to be expected, tough and miserable going. The six men each “stood” their own watch as the little boat sallied forth on her nonstop journey. With water constantly washing over Caird the boat grew heavily laden with ice which had to be chipped away. On another occasion a tidal wave - which Worsley theorized had been created by a capsizing iceberg - nearly sunk Caird. It was an exhausted party that landed on an uninhabited part of South Georgia on May 10. That was a remarkable feat in itself. 

In Sight of Our Goal - Nearing South Georgia. This artwork was published in the United States in Ernest Shackleton's book, South, in 1919.

Just nine days later, Shackleton, Worsley and Thomas Crean were off on an overland trek for Stromness, where they arrived on May 20. Worsley wrote “I learnt afterwards that we had crossed the island during the only interval of fine weather that occurred that winter…Providence had been with us.” The trio was taken to Thoralf Sørlle, whom they had met with in 1914. Now as Shackleton stood before him, Sørlle had no idea who he was. When Shackleton introduced himself it came as quite a shock!

Plans were soon underway to rescue those left on Elephant Island. But in the meantime a ship was sent back to pick up the other three men who waited on the other side of South Georgia. Worsley was aboard when they fetched the men and when he landed the men grumbled about how none of their own had come back for them and had left it to the Norwegians. “Well, I’m here, am I not?” Worsley said. They hadn’t recognized him since he had cleaned up.

The rescue of the men on Elephant Island was to prove very problematic. Vessel after vessel was forced to turn back as the ice prevented them from landing near the island. The disappointments wore heavily on Shackleton. To Worsley, the ordeal seemed to have aged the revered leader a great deal. To Chile went the credit for success, however. They sent a tug and on August 25 Shackleton, with Worsely and Crean, were finally steaming for Elephant Island.

On August 30, the men on the island were going about their everyday routine when a vessel was sighted. They hoisted A jacket as a makeshift flag and the vessel responded with a Chilean ensign. Shackleton and Crean came ashore as their excited comrades greeted them. It was a happy reunion to say the least. Not one soul had been lost from the original Endurance party that had set sail in August 1914. They had failed the expedition true, but they had made an enormous journey that would not be soon forgotten.

By J.G. Burdette

J.G. Burdette is the owner of the fascinating blog http://jgburdette.wordpress.com/

For more great articles like this as well as a great bonus, join us. Just click here!

 

References

Alexander, Caroline. The Endurance: Shackleton’s Legendary Antarctic Expedition

Worsley, F. A. Endurance: An Epic Polar Adventure

Lansing, Alfred. Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage 

How a 1957 Photo from the Southern US Can Still Make You Scared

This is a photo taken in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, during the Little Rock Crisis.  The crisis was precipitated by the Brown vs. The Board of Education ruling in 1954 which stated that segregated schools were unconstitutional.  However, integration did not immediately follow in the American South.  As part of the Civil Rights Movement, nine black students registered at Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas.

Source: a LIFE photo essay to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the crisis.

When the nine students showed up for school on their first day, the governor of Arkansas sent in the National Guard to prevent them from entering the school.  The mayor of Little Rock then asked the President of the United States to send in the Army to make sure the students were allowed to attend.  However, the students faced a year’s worth of verbal abuse, threats, racism and intimidation and only 8 of the 9 students made it to the end of the school year.

This photo shows a pack of white students, anti-integrationists, following two black students on a Little Rock street.  They are taunting and jeering at the two students; in particular look at the man walking at the back of the pack.  I find it amazing how one photo can record the emotions of a historical event – we can see the anger of the man who is yelling, we can feel the pain of the two men who are looking at the ground while they are being verbally abused, and the reader/audience feels fear watching the men being following by their pack of abusers. 

This article originally appeared on the History Kicks Ass blog, an interesting blog about various topics in history!

Want to hear more on the 1950s? Catch our podcast on the President during the 1950s here. 

How did chaos emerge in England? Edward III’s Descendants and The Causes of the Wars of the Roses

This article follows our introduction to the Wars of the Roses available here.

What is the best way for a King to secure his throne?

Have a son.

What is the best way for a King to plunge his kingdom into years of brutal civil war?

Have too many sons.

One such King was Edward III, who had no less than eleven legitimate children. Five males grew to adulthood, leaving Edward with what he thought would be a strong reigning family. Instead, he got a long-line of feuding male descendants who all believed they belonged on the throne.

Edward III proudly receives his son, Edward the Black Prince, after success in the 1346 battle of Crécy. Edward the Black Prince did not survive his father though. Source: public domain image.

Edward’s eldest son and heir died before he did, leaving a child as the new heir. Edward himself died when this new heir, Richard, was only ten years old. This left England in the dangerous position of being under the rule of a King who hadn’t reached puberty yet. Richard’s uncles, especially John of Gaunt, ruled the country until Richard was old enough and wise enough to exile the men trying to rule through him. John of Gaunt’s son then led an army against Richard, kicked him off the throne, and ruled as Henry IV. Which just goes to show, when it comes to the throne of England, family loyalty does not exist. This incident was also the starting point of a strong belief that would continue for centuries – ‘if there is a weak King and you have some sort of claim to the throne, you are permitted to fight for that throne.’ It was a belief that would savage England, kill many innocent people and make anyone with royal blood a would-be murderer.

England at this time was involved in a very expensive war with France - The Hundred Years War. For five generations English soldiers were shipped over to France where they were trained to be as brutal and blood-thirsty as possible. When the war ended with France winning and re-claiming all of her territory, 116 years of violence and war-lust was returned and set loose upon England. Suddenly fifth generation soldiers with advanced degrees in torture were expected to be farmers, tailors, blacksmiths… peaceful people. Under the rules of Henry IV and Henry V, England had been full of happy warriors fighting for land, fighting to make England rich. It was, to them, almost like the golden days of Arthur and Camelot. Unfortunately, the loss of French territory, coupled with the crippling of the Royal treasury, meant Camelot was quickly replaced by a broken country. The feeble-minded Henry VI only added fuel to the fires of unrest that burned across the land.

When the black plague struck in 1348, the majority of the labor force was wiped out. This caused severe inflation of labor and products which did little to quell the unrest. The lack of man-power meant a shift in England’s ruling class. Small landowners could now buy up more land from the dead, creating more wealth for themselves. For the first time, the land owners were now richer than the King. This put the Royal Family in a precarious position as the land owner could call on their tenants to take up arms and fight at any time. A smart King would then need friends in the right places; alas, Henry VI was not a smart King. He kept company with very unpopular Dukes who were descendants of Edward III, as well as cousins of the King and his enemies. When madness struck the King – possibly caused by the loss of French territory - the unpopular Dukes were happy to step in and rule through him.

A shaky peace existed between 1450 and 1453 as the mad King had no heir and was expected to die soon. The next in line for the throne would be a cousin of Henry VI, the popular and respected Richard Plantagenet, the Duke of York. Richard had an unbroken male line all the way to Edward III. England was just playing a waiting game.

The birth of Henry VI’s heir in 1453 complicated matters. If the mad King were to die, he would leave a baby on the throne and the unpopular Dukes would surely rule through him. And so, the Duke of York and his followers took matters into their own hands. Remember those fifth generation soldiers schooled in brutality that came home to England with nothing to do? The House of York found a new job for those soldiers. And so began the Wars of the Roses, also known as ‘The Cousin’s War’. On May 22, 1455, the battle of St. Albans kicked off thirty years of war between the male descendants of Edward III.

By M.L King, a history enthusiast and part-time blogger.

The next article in The Wars of the Roses series is about the death of gentlemanly war and the battles from 1455-1464 - available here.

Join the debate and hear about the next in the series! JOIN US and we’ll keep you updated! Click here.

References

Britannica.com - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/509963/wars-of-the-roses

Luminarium.org:

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/albans1.htm

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/roseswarcauses.htm

Who’s Who in British History by Juliet Gardiner (published by Collins and Brown Limited)

Richard III: The Maligned King by Annette Carson (published by The History Press)

Book Review – Hitler, Stalin and the Destruction of Poland: 1939-1941

History has already happened; however it has not always been written. And debates continue to emanate around different historical situations. With that in mind, and as the authors of a few of our own books, we shall occasionally be reviewing books on this site.

Russian cavalry and infantry entering the Polish city of Wilno (Vilnius) after joint German-Russian aggression against Poland. Public domain image available here

And the first book that we shall be reviewing is on a harrowing subject, that of the Nazi German and Soviet invasion of Poland. The book we are looking at is by a man who has written many history books to date, Nick Shepley. His book details the political machinations that led to the deal between Stalin and Hitler to divide Poland, a relationship of convenience between two sides of the totalitarian coin. The book starts well with an overview of World War II, including some interesting facts. For example, I don’t think that it is widely known that the Soviets had plans to invade France and Italy in 1945 that were put to one side after Stalin saw the power of US nuclear weapons.

Anyway, the book starts by discussing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, especially the secret agreement that was included in that deal. There is an interesting overview of the thinking within Germany over the years before the invasion of Poland and how it led to the Nazis organizing activities to encourage the German people to support an invasion of Poland. The book then discusses the massive German invasion of Poland and how it was followed by a Soviet invasion some weeks later. Often, though, it is the small details that make this book interesting, such as the terror that the German bombing raids brought to Polish towns and cities. It is easy, after all, to forget that bombing raids were still a very new method for defeating opponents on the battlefield at the time. As well as terrifying civilians.

With the invasion looked at, the book moves on to the perhaps even grimmer area of what happened to Poland when two of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century divided it in two. This included ethnic cleansing, massive crimes against the Jews, and the building of Auschwitz. The Nazis also killed many of the Polish elite and the book describes these events in some detail. It also looks at what the Soviets did to Poland - they were just as brutal as the Nazis in their own way.

As an added extra, the book also considers the Soviet attack on Finland.

All told, the book is a good size to explain the nature of events in Poland over these years, it is written at a very good place, and contains appropriate detail for an introduction to history. I think that it would be a particularly useful book for anybody that wants to learn the basics about these harrowing years in European history. After all, the invasion of Poland is sometimes not given enough attention in general texts on World War 2.

By George Levrier-Jones

If you would like to find out more about this book and/or buy it, you can click here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

More books by this author are available through Amazon or at www.explaininghistory.com.

Fourth Shore - The Italian Colonization of Libya

In a follow-up to articles on the initial Italian colonization attempts and Mussolini’s bloody conquest, we continue the story here..

Going a few years back from Mussolini’s invasion of Libya, one of the main reasons for the original Italian invasion of Ottoman Libya was to expand Italy’s comparatively small colonial empire. Another concern was the rapid emigration of Italians to the United States and other countries (650,000 were estimated to have migrated to the US in 1910 alone). After the end of the Italian-Ottoman war, the Italians began to create plans to transport thousands and thousands of Italian colonists into the country’s newest territorial acquisition.

Arab Lictor Youth, a Fascist youth organization in Italian Libya

State-sponsored colonization

It formally began in 1913 with the establishment of the Ufficio Fondario (the Land Office), which had the job of assigning land to would-be Italian colonists. The Land Office initially assumed that all uncultivated land was private property and only assigned public lands to the colonists. However on July 18 1922, the Italian governor of Libya, Giuseppe Volpi (who would later order the Reconquista of Libya), issued a decree declaring all uncultivated land to be in the public domain, increasing the amount of land available to Italian colonists tenfold.  Further decrees issued caused the confiscation of land owned by rebels or those aiding the rebels, in an effort to crackdown on dissent.

In 1928, de Bono (Volpi’s successor) issued subsidies and additional credits to help attract more colonists. Despite these measures, Italian immigration rates were much lower than what the government had expected, with little capital being invested in Libyan lands.

The situation changed in the early 1930s as a result of the Great Depression. A negative balance of trade, rampant unemployment and a strong lira encouraged mainland Italians to emigrate. Libya provided the perfect solution. With Omar Mukhtar executed and the rebels defeated, many public-works and infrastructure project ideas could finally be undertaken, in addition to resettlement projects. Indeed, all of these projects required manpower. It was the perfect region for the typical poor Italian patriot.

In 1934, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were merged together to form a Tripoli-based province. Four years later, Mussolini would declare Libya an integral part of the Kingdom of Italy, forming the country’s nineteenth region, dubbing it La Quarta Sponda d’Italia (Italy’s Fourth Shore).

Mussolini, who was imprisoned in 1911 for his criticism of the original Italian invasion, had visited Libya three times; in 1926, 1937 and 1942. His 1937 visit was to open what was described as the largest public works project in Libya, the 1,132 mile long strada litoranea (coastal highway), which ran from the Tunisian border to the Egyptian frontier. Though the Italians insisted it was only to help improve tourism in the region, contemporaries saw the strategic military value of such a road. Indeed, this road proved to be crucial to victory in the North African front of World War II (and more recently, the Libyan Civil War). The press in Italy hailed it as a feat of Italian engineering, despite it being built on the back of Libyan laborers.

Two major waves of immigration occurred in the 1930s; one in October 1938 and the other in 1939. Both were organized by the Italian governor Balbo - he led a convoy of around 10,000 Italians to Libya in 1938 and another 10,000 in the following year. His plan was to settle 20,000 colonists annually for five years, with the ultimate goal of reaching 500,000 colonists by 1950. In what could be seen as a precursor to reactions against Jewish migration to British Palestine, Italian migration evoked resentment and protests in the Muslim World, with agitations against it appearing as far away as Baghdad.

More support for colonists emerged in the form of the agricultural corporation Ente which was meant to attract farmers. Using confiscated land, the colonists (numbering 50,000 in the late 1930s) worked on 2,000 farms. By 1939, the Italians had built 400 kilometers of new railroads and 4,000 kilometers of new roads. Until 1940, there was even a Tripoli Grand Prix organized annually, while Italian archaeologists excavated the ruined Phoenician settlement of Leptis Magna and sent artifacts to museums in the mainland.

1937 Tripoli Grand Prix. Source: Rossana Bianchi

The Libyan Side

Many of the colonists were poor, but were generally better off than the native Libyan population. Libyans, mostly paupers, resented Italian development, still remembering the virtual genocide committed by them. It was only in September 1933 that the concentration camps were finally shut – and they left a horrifying toll. 40,000 of the 100,000 total internees died in the camps. Though Libyans resented the foreigners, Italian propaganda portrayed a very different story. In Mussolini’s 1937 visit, he declared Libya to be “morally and profoundly Italian”, to which the Muslims of Tripoli greeted him by addressing him as “the greatest man of the century and a sincere friend of Islam.” He was even awarded the ‘Sword of Islam’ (a Florentine sword with a fabricated history) and was declared the “Protector of Islam.”

For the native Libyans, life was not easy. All Libyans, of whatever faith, were expected to give the Fascist salute. Most wore black shirts during Mussolini’s 1937 visit to Tripoli. And in an effort to spread the wonders of Fascism, the Italian government ordered the formation of a Fascist group for Libyan youths, the Gioventu Araba (Arab Youth), modeled after Italy’s Opera Nazionale Balilla.

In 1939, the Italians allowed Libyans to apply for Cittadinanza Italiana Speciale (special Italian citizenship) effectively relegating Libyans to second-class citizens. At the time, Libyans were not allowed to work professionally in jobs involving Italian subordinates. That said, it seemed unlikely to be a great problem anyway as soon enough there were only 16 Libyan university graduates in the country. All told, even if the Italian occupation led to significant improvements in infrastructure and agricultural output, it left behind a native Libyan population that was not skilled and largely uneducated, while the country lacked effective political institutions. The effects of this would be apparent in the following decades.

With the outbreak of World War II, Balbo’s plan was in tatters. Most of the fighting occurred on farms allocated to the colonists. By 1941, only 8,426 colonists remained. Within a year, this number had halved. Following the end of subsidies and government support, the colonists abandoned Libya. The Allied forces occupied Libya in 1943. Libya was to declare its independence in December 1951.

By Droodkin

Droodkin owns the international history blog – click here to see the site.

And why not join our mailing list to hear about more great articles like this? Click here!

References

Libya: From Colony to Revolution by Ronald Bruce St. John, pages 1936-1939

Libya and the West: From Independence to Lockerbie by Geoff Simons, pages 12-13

Further reading

If you would like to read in depth about exactly how Italian Libya life was, I recommend Brian McLaren’s Architecture and Tourism in Italian Colonial Libya: An Ambivalent Modernism.

How can a car define a nation? The Little Car that Couldn’t (But Sometimes Did Anyway)

The history of a car and a country.

My Cousin’s Chicken Coup Trabant Top

My cousin lives about an hour north of Berlin, in a cozy, 400 year farmhouse that leans a bit to one side. He has a couple of horses and keeps chickens for eggs. They roam around the enclosed yard, the cut-off top of his old Trabant their chicken coup.

All the cars are good for anymore, he tells me. Who says Germans have no sense of humor? Yet these noisy, unreliable, pollution spilling relics of the Cold War played both a practical and symbolic role in German reunification.

The first Trabant rolled off the Sachsenring assembly line in 1957, and over the next 34 years, over 3 million were produced. Intended to be the East German equivalent of the West German VW Beetle, a variety of models were produced in the decades that followed, including a station wagon, a hatchback and even a convertible.

In some ways, the first Trabants were ahead of their time. While the Big Three automakers in Detroit were coming out with behemoths of steel and chrome, the Trabant was small and light weight, with front wheel drive and a unified body. It got 34 miles to the gallon on the highway. Yet there, the innovation ended. Its two-stroke engine was loud. It belched more pollutants in three seconds as a Mercedes S class does in 30 miles. Its top speed was 70 miles per hour and it could barely manage 62 miles per hour in 21 seconds. Due to a lack of steel in Soviet Bloc countries, the body was made of a Fiberglas-like substance called Duroplast, which included cotton and other organic materials. Rat poison had to be incorporated into its construction, since the rodents had been known to gnaw at them. Due to shortages and the notorious inefficiency of Communist-run factories, East Germans had to wait more than a decade for their new Trabant to be delivered, and when it finally did arrive, they found that it often broke down.

Yet, because the Trabant was the only choice of car for most East Germans, and because it took so long to get one, the Trabant was often prized by its owners. They affectionately (or mockingly, depending on who you ask) called it the Trabi and took great care in maintaining them. This maintenance was made easy by the simplicity of its engine. Most owners could do their own repairs, and the motor was so light that a single person could lift out the engine single-handedly. As the saying went, Mitt Hammer, Zange und Draht, kommst du bis nach Leningrad. - With hammer, pliers and wire, you can get to Leningrad.

Leafing through my cousin’s photo albums from the DDR era, many of the pictures prominently display his Trabi – going on family picnics or a weekend of camping. Often, everyone is posed around the car, as if it was a member of the family.

      Still, jokes abounded:

      Question:   When does a Trabi reach its top speed?

Answer:     When it is towed away.

Question:   Why do some Trabis have heated rear windows?

Answer:     To keep your hands warm while pushing.

Question:   How do you double the value of your Trabant?

Answer:     Fill up its gas tank.

The Trabant was, in essence, the epitome of East German society – unreliable and inefficient, yet somehow managing to function, even if it was just sputtering along. The butt of jokes, but still cherished, because, after all, it was all they had.

In the fall of 1989, I sat in the living room of my Grandmother in Ravensburg, Federal Republic of Germany, and watched on TV as tens of thousands of East Germans flooded into West Germany from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Some actually walked across open fields. But many drove across the border in their cherished Trabis, packed with people and luggage, the air thick with blue exhaust as they made their way to freedom. It was the beginning of the end for the DDR. The East German government could not quash this exodus, nor could it stop the protests in the streets calling for Democracy. Weeks later, the Berlin Wall fell.

In the years that followed, many East Germans had trouble adjusting to a reunified Germany based on a free market and democracy. Unprofitable and inefficient Communist run factories were closed down and millions who had once had guaranteed work now found themselves without jobs and without the skills needed to find new ones. Like the factories that built it, the Trabant was also considered obsolete. Many East Germans abandoned them once they crossed into West Germany. They could be seen left to decompose in open fields along the roadsides, grass growing tall around them. Some were even left in what had been the No Man’s land between the two Berlins. Still more were ground up and spread across icy roads to provide traction in place of sand and salt. In 1989, a new engine was developed to try to update the car, but it was not enough. It couldn’t meet the West’s strict environmental and safety standards. Production ceased in 1991.

But just as East Germany has slowly adjusted to being part of a greater Germany, so too has the Trabant. Today, it is valued by collectors. They buy them for less than 50 dollars on internet, and then put thousands of dollars into new engines, custom paint jobs and booming stereo systems. Hundreds of web sites are maintained by its devoted fans. In 2009, a prototype electric version of the Trabi, updated to look similar to a Mini, was unveiled at the Frankfurt Auto Show, but is yet to see mass production.

I don’t think my cousin would be interested. Nowadays, he drives a Renault. More dependable and more luxurious. I doubt it would ever make a decent chicken coup.

What cars have impacted - or defined - countries? Share your thoughts below..

By Manfred Gabriel

Want to know more about East Germany? Click here for our podcast on ex-East German leader Walter Ulbricht.

What was it like in a Soviet prison camp? Saturday Night in the Gulag

In this article, we look at a very odd museum in the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Kazakhstan.

Earlier this week, I came across this article (1) on the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty site. The article describes how the Museum of Political Oppression in Dolinka, Kazakhstan, formerly head of the KarLAG prison camp system through which hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens passed during the Stalinist-era terror, had recently begun conducting ‘night time tours’. To provide visitors with an ‘authentic’ Gulag experience, the article went on to describe how:

“… actors performed a mock interrogation scene in which a young woman is pressured to denounce her father. The group also witnessed performances that included an inmate who was hanging by his hands while being mistreated by a guard. To have a better taste of being a prisoner at KarLAG, the visitors were also offered gulag-type meals. The museum initially planned to offer visitors the chance to become “Stalin-era prisoners” for one night, but museum director Svetlana Bainova told RFE/RL the plan was scrapped following a request by local officials. She said the officials argued that such an experience could scare or even psychologically traumatize the participants”. 

Museum employees at the Museum of Political Oppression in Kazakhstan demonstrate how prisoners were tortured to extract confessions. Photo by Elena Weber, RFE/RL. See the original article for the full photo gallery here: http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakhstan-gulag-tour/24991694.html

The photo gallery that accompanies the article shows that the museum’s exhibition hall contains a number of informative displays including prison files and information about the impact of the great Soviet famine of 1930-33, while the Hall of Remembrance pays tribute to those individuals who died in KarLAG. However the photos also depict real life ‘actors’ – museum employees – playing the roles of prisoners undergoing interrogation, torture and demonstrating hard labor, while others play the role of the uniformed prison guards.

I must confess to feeling somewhat uncomfortable at the thought of this. I realize that dark tourism (or ‘thanotourism’, defined by the iDTR as ‘the act of travel and visitation to sites, attractions and exhibitions which have real or recreated death, suffering or the seemingly macabre as a main theme’) will always be a subject that evokes controversy. Sites that commemorate and educate about the ‘darker’ aspects of human history play an important role – speaking as a ‘tourist’ who has actively visited numerous such sites, including Auschwitz Birkenau, The Museum of Genocide Victims in Vilnius, the former Stasi headquarters in Berlin and the controversial TerrorHaza (Museum of Terror) in Budapest, I do agree with the often cited argument that while visiting the sites of former atrocities can be a rather harrowing experience, the experience can help bring these historical events alive in a very different way from studying academic texts, or even reading the memoirs of those who experienced these terrible events first hand.

As a historian, I recognize the importance of acknowledging, remembering and commemorating the darker aspects of human history, as well as celebrating our more glorious achievements. And – stepping down from the moral high ground and speaking as a realist – I also understand that ‘money talks’. Economic benefits must be taken into consideration, as popular demand for thanotourism is potentially lucrative, with high visitor turnover injecting much-needed cash into the local economy. But does the Museum of Political Oppression risk crossing the line between education and schadenfreude? Having actors playing the part of tortured and exploited Gulag inmates and offering tourists the chance to experience ‘authentic Gulag conditions’ feels like unnecessary theatrics, designed to create an environment akin to a macabre theme park, which is particularly dangerous given that the horrors of the Stalinist-era remain within living memory for many today, including those who experienced the hardship and suffering of KarLAG first hand and survived to tell the tale and out of respect for the memories of the many who lost their lives.

An employee of the Museum of Political Oppression in Kazakhstan depicts a tortured KarLAG prisoner. Photo by Elena Weber, RFE/RL. See the original article for the full photo gallery here:http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakhstan-gulag-tour/24991694.html

However, the Museum of Political Oppression is not the only Gulag-related ‘attraction’ to blur the boundaries. Grutas Park sculpture park (also known as ‘Stalin’s World’) in Lithuania, combines extensive exhibitions featuring Soviet sculptures, artwork and museum artifacts with a mini-zoo (‘fun for all the family!’). The park also features a recreated Gulag camp, complete with wooden paths, guard towers and barbed wire fences, among its exhibits, but original plans to transport visitors to the park packed into a ‘Gulag-style train’ were blocked. In 2006, Igor Shpektor, Mayor of Vorkuta, – one of the most infamous outposts of Stalin’s Gulag where over two million deportees passing through the camp 1932-1954 – was criticized for plans to charge foreign tourists over £80 per day to ‘holiday’ in an ‘authentic’ Soviet-era prison camp. Shpektor’s plans to renovate an abandoned prison complex, complete with watchtowers, guards armed with paintball guns, snarling dogs, rolls of barbed wire, spartan living conditions and forced labor were condemned by camp survivors as ‘sacrilege’. But Shpektor defended his plans, arguing this would provide a much-needed cash injection for the depressed Vorkuta region as: ‘The chance of living in the Gulag as a prisoner is attractive to many wealthy foreigners … A whole trainload of people turned up in autumn last year wanting to go to such a concentration camp, for money”.

In 2006, a re-created Stalinist-prison camp near Vilnius, Lithuania hosted 400 students from 19 EU countries in a role playing exercise designed as a ‘live history lesson to foster deep reflection of the common past of European nations and people’. During their stay in the camp:

“The students are “forced” to travel for one hour in an “authentic Soviet truck ZIL157K” to a forest bunker … Then, for the next two hours, they live through the experience of being “political prisoners”, which includes being interrogated by NKVD (security service) officers, shouted at and insulted by the guards. The roles are performed by professional actors. The “excursion” ends with the announcement of Stalin’s death and subsequent amnesty.”

Of course, it would be foolish to suggest that a couple of hours of role-playing equates to the ‘authentic’ reality experienced by Gulag inmates, many of whom endured lengthy sentences spanning several years or even decades, having been interred for imaginary or fabricated crimes, not knowing if they’d ever live to see release, or what the fate of their families had been. Some of the student participants seemed to agree, with one participant (rather worryingly!) commenting that:

“I think that everybody can do this. We really enjoyed the deportation day, but I would prefer something more difficult, with more blood and maybe lasting for one week and not just one day.”

So, why does the idea of ‘experiencing’ the Gulag – an instrument of repression, fuelled by brutality, where millions of Soviet citizens lost their lives – hold such appeal for many people? Would you want to spend ‘Saturday night in the Gulag’? What limits – if any – should be applied to the ‘performative aspects’ of tourist attractions such as these?

By Dr Kelly Hignett

Kelly is the owner of The View East blog – here.

For more great updates and information on blog posts from the likes of Kelly, join us by clicking here.

References

1.     http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakhstan-gulag-tour/24991694.html 

The Central Intelligence Agency – In the Beginning

This is the first in a series of articles that explores the iconic CIA and its use as a tactical weapon by the presidents of the Cold War (1947-1991).

A unique Cold War tactical weapon, the CIA was created by President Truman who did not like or trust the quality and timeliness of the intelligence he was receiving. The agency was born to serve one master, the president, not the people.  The birth of the CIA was spawned by nasty surprises beginning with Truman’s sudden rise to the oval office upon Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in Warm Springs, GA on April 12, 1945.[1] Truman and Roosevelt were estranged bedfellows thrown together to win an election. For his part, Roosevelt reportedly did not hold Truman’s intellect in high regard and Truman did not like Roosevelt’s politics. Certainly a portion of their mutual disdain was caused by then Senator Truman who chaired the Truman Committee. The committee had exposed considerable waste, fraud, and abuse by government defense contractors during WWII. It is not surprising that the two did not meet often and, in general, Truman was excluded from cabinet and most other high level meetings during his vice presidency.

While Truman knew he was ‘out of the loop’, he discovered just how much he did not know when he assumed the presidency. In his previous life as the Senator from Missouri, Truman had heard rumors of a super-secret defense project. As vice president, he’d caught a scent of it again, but twelve days into his tenure he was fully briefed for the first time on the Manhattan (atomic bomb) Project by Henry Stimson, Secretary of War. The briefing by Stimson and others coupled with the complex bureaucratic Washington, D.C. maze that horded information like gold convinced Truman that he wanted his very own intelligence gathering service. Irrespective of all the excuses he heard from various agencies and departments, Truman was determined to have the intelligence he required to do his job on a daily basis. In January of 1946, the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) was formed and, by September 1947, the National Security Act of 1947, transmuted it into the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, headed by Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter.  

It was not smooth sailing for the CIG. Its very existence threatened the military, State, and War (Defense) Departments’ intelligence rice bowls and the governmental infighting was intense. According to John L. Helgerson’s CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates, 1952-1992, “The President was virtually alone in expecting to receive a daily, comprehensive current intelligence product, whatever the formal charters of the CIG and CIA might say. Needless to say, his expectations carried the day.”[2]  

The go-ahead for broad-based covert activities was on Hillenkoetter’s desk a short nine months later in the form of National Security Council directive NSC 10/2.  The directive created the Office of Special Projects within which it placed covert activities. The Chief of Special Projects, who reported to the CIA director, was appointed by the Secretary of State and approved by the National Security Council. The CIA covert operations authorization was simple: 1. coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2. National Security Council approval of any plans, and 3. provided for action "against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.” The directive provides a very broad loose definition of covert activities:

…Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.[3]

Adversity, properly channeled, yields increased resilience and strength. Professional embarrassment, properly channeled, yields a fortified resolve. A government rice bowl filled with taxpayer dollars for continued survival yields strong motivation. The CIA was still young and wet behind the ears when the Soviet Union detonated their first atomic bomb, which the U.S called Joe-1 after Joseph Stalin. While the CIA knew the Soviets were working on the Bomb, it was the Air Force that produced the proof enabling Truman to crow ‘I-told-you-so’ at the top of his voice to the whole world.  The ‘government game’ is replete with players that run, not walk, to the boss to be the first one through the door with new information. It’s called the ‘kibble’ effect. Like Pavlov’s dogs, we in the government and the government contractor community are conditioned to receive treats when we fetch new data ‘the boss’ can use. The boss rewards those who bring the best information with kibbles, or other treats. The boss collects the data, places it in a context his boss can use and runs the information up the ladder to the next boss as soon as possible so he can get his or her kibble.

One can only imagine the pure joy the Air Force felt at being the first through the president’s door with proof of the Soviet atomic bomb test and how professionally embarrassed the CIA was. Sixty four years ago this month the Joe-1 test was conducted at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, STS, in Kazakhstan on August 29, 1949.  Joe-1 yielded a 22 kiloton detonation over twice the estimated yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The STS is about the size of New Jersey, which is five times larger than the U.S.’s former Nevada Test Site,[4] and very remote so how was the test discovered? According to George Washington University’s Nuclear Vault, the answer to that question lies in the direction given the Army Air Force by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Army Chief of Staff, in 1947 to develop an Atomic Energy Detection System (AEDS) to remotely sense nuclear testing through the emissions it released. Between 1947 and 1949, the Defense Department developed and deployed an "Interim Surveillance Research Net" that was fully operational by the spring of 1949.

Harry S Truman

Shortly after the Soviet test, on 1 September 1949, a WB-29 ["W" for weather reconnaissance] operated by the Air Force's Weather Service undertook a routine flight from Misawa Air Force Base (Japan) to Eilson Air Force Base (Alaska) on behalf of the secretive Air Force Office of Atomic Energy-1 [AFOAT-1] [later renamed the Air Force Technical Applications Center, or AFTAC]. The plane carried special filters designed to pick up the radiological debris that an atmospheric atomic test would inevitably create.  So far none of the flights in the Northern Pacific had picked up a scent, but after this flight returned to Eilson and a huge Geiger counter checked the filters, the technicians detected radioactive traces. This was the 112th alert of the Atomic Energy Detection System (the previous 111 had been caused by natural occurrences, such as earthquakes). After a complex chain of events, involving more flights to collect more air samples, consultations among U.S. government scientists, consultants, and contractors, including radiological analysis by Tracerlab and Los Alamos Laboratory, and secret consultations with the British government, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Moscow had indeed conducted a nuclear test. On 23 September 1949, President Truman announced that "We have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R."[5]

Joe-1 was a nasty surprise for the U.S., which had no idea the extent of the Soviet penetration into the Manhattan project and really did not expect the Soviets to develop nuclear capability until 1953 at the earliest. And Truman’s revelation of the test was a nasty surprise to the Soviet Union, which had no idea the U.S. had the capability to detect the test. And the test was a nasty surprise to the newly hatched CIA. Director Hillenkoetter contended that "I don't think we were taken by surprise" because of an error of only a "few months".  As you might imagine, Hillenkoetter’s lame excuse signaled the end of his CIA leadership.

By 1950, the Truman Doctrine that would become labeled as the ‘Domino Theory’ was entrenched, the pieces of the CIA puzzle were in place and recognizable as the CIA we know and love today, and President Truman received daily CIA briefings with a sharp focus on Korea and its ramifications. ‘Beetle’, General Walter Bedell Smith, who had served as Eisenhower’s chief of staff during the invasion of Italy during WWII, was selected to replace Hillenkoetter, who returned to active duty commanding a cruiser division in the Korean War.

Can the CIA or any agency be effective at both covert action and intelligence analysis? David Fromkin’s brilliant review of Daring Amateurism: The CIA's Social History authored by Jeffrey T. Richelson in the Council on Foreign Relations book section begins:

In his 1928 Ashenden stories, W. Somerset Maugham, who had undertaken missions for British intelligence in the First World War, portrayed espionage even for our side as morally corrupting, usually incompetent, and more likely to harm our friends than our enemies. Graham Greene and John le Carré later made these their themes. We now know that this body of literature should not be classified as fiction.[6]

Truman breathed life into the CIA and made it his intelligence water bearer. His action has had profound effects on the geopolitics of the world. Truman insisted that no president should enter office as clueless as he had been and used the CIA to brief the primary presidential candidates; a practice still in place. An agency that tends to go rogue, the CIA appears to operate with little or no oversight. Remember, though, it is the President who commands it and one of the CIA operating mission directives is to maintain plausible deniability for the U.S. government for its actions. Over the next several posts, we will explore how various presidents chose to use the CIA and what the consequences have been. When it comes to the CIA, never forget Harry S Truman’s most famous words, “The buck stops here.”

How much has the CIA benefitted the US? Let us know below..

By Barbara Johnson

Barbara is the owner of www.coldwarwarrior.com, a site about the men and women from all the cold wars who worked so hard for something they believed in and played so hard they forgot the pain.

And to find out about more great articles, why not join us?! Click here.

References 

[1] The Truman Library; Eleanor and Harry: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman edited by Steve Neal; http://www.trumanlibrary.org/eleanor/index.html

[2]  George Washington University NSA Archives; John L. Helgerson; CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates, 1952-1992; http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/cia/CIA%20Briefings%20of%20Presidential%20Candidates.htm

[3] The Department of State Office of the Historian; National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects; NSC 10/2; http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d292

[4] Department of Defense; Semipalatinsk Test Site (STS); Posted: March 2012; http://www.dtra.mil/docs/system-documents/DoD_Fact_Sheet-SemipalatinskTestSite.pdf?sfvrsn=0

[5] George Washington University, NSA Archives, Nuclear Vault; September 23, 2009; Edited by William Burr; U.S. Intelligence and the Detection of the First Soviet Nuclear Test, September 1949;  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb286/index.htm#top

[6] Council on Foreign Relations; January/February 1996; David Fromkin; Daring Amateurism: The CIA's Social History; http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/51639/david-fromkin/daring-amateurism-the-cia-s-social-history

England’s long Civil War - The Wars of the Roses

Civil War is one of the focus areas of the site. In the first in a series, and following our article on the Bloody Tower Plot, here we introduce the Wars of the Roses.

King Richard III at the Battle of Boswoth Field by James Doyle

The term ‘War of the Roses’ usually brings up Alice in Wonderland-like images of cards fighting for the Red Queen’s approval. The beautiful name does not do justice to the brutality that existed in England from 1455-1485. The Wars of the Roses were a series of gruesome battles fought for the ultimate prize – the throne of England.

The name was only coined in Victorian England when most were taking a heated interest in days gone by. Its original name was, ‘The Cousin’s War’. Blood relatives fought and killed each other, sold their daughters into slave-marriages to form unholy alliances, and moved in moonlight to suffocate a mad king locked away in a tower.

The wars were fought between two rival houses, the Lancasters and the Yorks. Both houses had roses for their emblems – red for the Lancasters and white for the Yorks.  Both houses were direct descendants of a King who had ruled nearly 200 years before. The Lancasters, who had held the throne since 1399, would probably have continued to reign in relative peace had they not had the misfortune of their strong Arthur-like King prematurely dying and leaving a baby on the throne. This baby then grew to be a feeble-minded king who lost French territory, allowed his Queen to rule and suffered bouts of insanity to the point of paralysis and amnesia.

The house of York seized their chance to fight for the throne. The battle of St. Albans was short but brutal and left the Yorks with the mad king hostage and the right to rule. This didn’t last long, as four years later, in the battle of Ludford Bridge, the Lancasters fought for and won their crown back.

And so it went on and on; battle after battle, just like games of checkers – Lancasters win, Yorks win, Lancasters win, Yorks win.

Wars are made by clever soldiers and none was more deserving of that title than Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick. The Earl was nicknamed, “The Kingmaker”. His alliance with the house of York put a young Edward IV on the throne and his amazing battle strategies and ruling mind crippled the Lancastrian force and strengthened the York claim to the throne.

With the Kingmaker backing the ruling house, England settled down to Edward’s rule and assumed the mighty York dynasty would lead the war-torn kingdom to peace and prosperity.  Well, it would have, if young Edward had not gone against the Kingmaker’s orders and married a gold-digging commoner, disrupted the government, and angered the very men who fought to put him on the throne.

The Yorks would have continued to rule without trouble had the Kingmaker not changed sides, married his daughter to the Lancastrian heir and fought the King he had put on the throne. If only the king had listened to the kingmaker, then the Wars of the Roses – the Cousin’s war – would not have continued. Nor would the king have been forced to order his brother’s execution; nor would he have broken all trust in him; or torn his Kingdom apart after fighting to unite it. The Princes would never have been in the tower and met certain death. The Lancasters would never have grown stronger. More unholy alliances formed, murder, poison, deceit – none of that would have happened. If only Edward had listened to the Kingmaker.

One would assume that the Lancasters, with their new alliance with the Earl of Warwick, were on their way to glory. One would assume wrong. For you see, the Kingmaker forgot one crucial point in this plot. He had trained the York brothers… They were his protégés. The Kingmaker’s skills weren’t so special when pitted against themselves. Not to mention, the armies were tired, the numbers were dwindling. The best soldiers had already been lost in former battles. The towns were by then almost empty of able-bodied men thanks to those battles. The leaders had to recruit what was left of the men at a run as flustered armies marched long and hard to meet other distraught armies. And England herself seemed sick of this war as she flooded the river Severn, stopping the Lancasters from crossing and forcing the exhausted armies to meet unprepared.

Both sides, the cousins – Lancasters and Yorks, both possessing the skills of the Kingmaker, both willing to fight to the death… Both unprepared, tired, starving, at the mercy of themselves and each other, both Yorks and Lancasters marched to certain doom.

By M.L. King, a history enthusiast and part-time blogger.

The next article in the series is on Edward III's descendants and the chaos that emerged in England - available here.

Where are we going next in this series? Intrigued by this article? Then JOIN US by clicking here and we’ll keep you updated on future articles!

References

• Britannica.com - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/509963/wars-of-the-roses
• Luminarium.org - http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/albans1.htm
• http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm
• http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/roseswarcauses.htm
• Who’s Who in British History by Juliet Gardiner (published by Collins and Brown Limited)
• Richard III: The Maligned King by Annette Carson (published by The History Press) 

Russia and the Impact of the Komsomol – Past and Present

This article looks at the Komsomol, the fearless youth group of the Soviet Communist Party.

To my delight and surprise, Russia Profile (1)  continues to feature articles on Russian youth. “The Roads Not Taken” (2) by Dmitry Babich examines post-Soviet youth organizations as avenues for youth politics, instilling patriotism, and participation in social life. Babich is correct to note the important role youth played in putting pressure for reforms in the Soviet system; and he is right to place youth on the forefront for changes in Russia. As he notes, youth played a vital role in the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. The protests during the Belarusian elections were mostly comprised of youth. There is a possibility, if not an anticipation, that Russian youth will play a similar role in the future.

If youth are slated to play such an important role in Russia’s present and future politics, it is important to get an idea about their history. The history of Russian youth organizations parallels the history of youth organizations globally. Fraternities, nascent youth groups and organizations began in Russia around the middle of the 19th century in universities. The first mass youth organizations like the Boy Scouts were founded in Europe, the United States, and Russia in the late 19th century. Adults like Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scout movement, began organizing youth out of fear of their corruption and the degeneration of the social body. Similarly, the German Youth Movement was a direct reaction to modernity and the perceived corruption of society. It looked to German tradition and nature as a way to purify the young body politic. Like many groups today, they also focused on cultivating mostly male youths into leaders and had a strong concentration of physical fitness, military preparedness, religious worship, nationalism, and morality. For this reason, 19th century youth organizations were primarily open to middle class youth. Working class and peasant youths tended to be excluded.

Komsomol members in Budapest, 1949.

The February Revolution and Russian Youth

In Russia, this began to change with the February Revolution in 1917. There were small worker youth groups in the pre-revolutionary period, but these tended to be localized in factories. By May 1917, working class youths began to organize themselves into citywide groups that had aspirations for a national organization. In Petrograd there were two main groups: Labor and Light and the Socialist Worker Youth League (SSRM). In Moscow, youth politics was mostly dominated by the III International. SSRM and the III International were organized by young Bolshevik Party members along with other socialist parties. Labor and Light was more liberal based and despite having socialists as their organizers, the most famous was G. Driazgov who was a Menshevik, they shied away from class based politics. This led to it being overtaken by the end of the year by SSRM as the revolution radicalized. In mid-1918, SSRM and III International came together and formed the Russian Communist Youth League, or Komsomol. Despite the fact that it claimed to be an autonomous organization in its program, by the middle of the decade it was touted as the “helper and reserve of the Bolshevik Party.”

Determined to become a mass organization for worker and peasant youth, the Komsomol grew rapidly in the 1920s, becoming in some places in the country the only representation of Soviet power. By 1928, its membership was 2 million; in 1939 it reached 9 million. It wasn’t until the mid-1950s that the Komsomol made significant inroads into the Soviet Union’s youth population. In 1954, it boasted a membership of over 18 million.

Youth Violence

While I don’t disagree with Babich that the Komsomol became completely moribund by the 1970s, I am rather astounded by the following:

Semyon Charny, a Moscow historian who studied the social movements of the late Soviet period for the Russian State Humanities University (RGGU), thinks that the passivity displayed by the youth at the time can be explained by a lack of experience.

“I looked at the secret reports which were sent to the party bosses in the 1970s and 1980s on the hooliganism of soccer fans,” Charny said. “The party bosses, and even the KGB people, were shocked and talked about the ‘negative political implications’ of the fights between Russian Spartak Moscow fans and Ukrainian Dynamo Kiev fans. Why? Because soccer games were the only outlet for rowdy behavior in public that was even semi-legal. If even this small valve produced a semblance of mass riots, the party and the KGB saw it as an indicator of a sort of fever within society as a whole.”

I have no idea why they were “shocked”. Such reports were standard fair in the 1920s and I can present several examples of such and even worse behavior among Komsomol youth. In the countryside, for example, Komsomol mass meetings sometimes turned into mass brawls as “non-party” youth showed up from neighboring villages. Usually the cause of this had to do with, you guessed it, girls. Often youths from neighboring villages showed up to village parties (posidelki). Tensions between males would arise with the outsiders would begin hooking up with local girls. Drunken fights often ensued.

In fact, in 1926 the Komsomol leadership came up with a name to encapsulate misbehavior among its members: “sick phenomena” (bol’eznennie iavleniia). “Sick phenomena” meant hooliganism, drunkenness, and sexual perversity. The late 1920s saw an increasing number of expulsions for these offenses as the Komsomol tried to get a handle on the activities of its membership. Unfortunately for them, their efforts were to no avail. While many would like to perceive the Komsomol as some unified and totalitarian organization that had Russia youth in its grip, a quick glance at the newspapers from the period shows otherwise.

To the present

Yet, despite the problems, youth were and continue to be a main source for political cultivation and mobilization. However, as Babich points out, the state and political parties continue to treat youth as passive political players that are to be molded to adult’s whims:

The tradition of not listening to the “base” is still very much alive in Russia, and the strategy of some youth movements is built on fighting what they label an unresponsive and irresponsible state. One charge against the present regime is that it increasingly looks to the young to demonstrate their patriotism while offering little in return a criticism also heard in Soviet times. One example was the negative reaction on the part of opposition party youth groups to the publication of the Program for the Patriotic Education of Russian Citizens, signed into law in June 2005.

The program attempts to instill patriotic values through portraying national symbols in the media and arts as well as developing patriotic sports clubs and summer camps. The idea behind the program is that Russian patriotism can no longer be taken for granted, but must be reinforced by all segments of society that touch upon the lives of young people including the arts, education and business.

For some groups, however, the contents of the report were another opportunity to criticize the current government, and the presidential administration in particular.

It is telling though that the criticism of such patriotic initiatives is coming from liberal youth organizations, which are the ones that are stagnant in growth and political influence. However, the youth groups that are making any, albeit small, inroads in Russian society whether it be in raw numbers or generating controversy are Nashi and more radical Leftist and Rightist groups like the National Bolsheviks, the Eurasian Youth League, and skinhead groups. The political center that Yabloko represents has all but dropped out or is now taken over by Nashi. Babich quotes Ilya Yashin, the leader of Yabloko’s youth wing saying, 

“There is no place for the state in matters like believing in God or loving one’s motherland. As [19th-century Russian satirist Mikhail] Saltykov-Shchedrin said, if state officials start talking about patriotism, it means they want to steal something.”

However, such a view is in the minority among youth organizations. If the state supported Nashi is any indication, many politically organized youths believe that the state does and should have a role in these areas.

Finally, there is one story about youth organizations in Russia that is now starting to be told: the role of the Komsomol in perestroika and in planting the seeds for Russia’s capitalist economy. As Babich reminds us, many of the Oligarchs began their road to riches in Komsomol enterprises in the late 1970s and 1980s. Komsomol cooperatives in computer technology and construction became not only vehicles of economic reform (the Communist Party essentially flooded them with hard currency to buy computer equipment from the West to refurbish), when the system collapsed they were some of the few sectors of society that had reserves of Western currency. Many of the Oligarchs that we’ve come to know and love formally took control of those assets when the system imploded. This is a fascinating story that has yet to be fully uncovered, though I know a few people in Russia now working on it.

By Sean Guillory

Sean is the owner of Sean’s Russia Blog, available here. This article originally appeared on that site.

For more on the Soviet Union, check out our Cold War podcasts here.

References

1.       http://www.russiaprofile.org/index.wbp

2.       http://www.russiaprofile.org/politics/2006/4/10/3554.wbp

Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R78376 / CC-BY-SA