The Construction and Transformation of Socialist Space in the Planned Cities of Stalinstadt and Sztálinváros
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIALIST SPACE IN THE PLANNED CITIES OF STALINSTADT AND SZTÁLINVÁROS by Mark Laszlo-Herbert A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto © Copyright by Mark Laszlo-Herbert (2016) The Construction and Transformation of Socialist Space in the Planned Cities of Stalinstadt and Sztálinváros Mark Laszlo-Herbert Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto 2016 Abstract This dissertation explores and compares the social history of two towns named for Joseph Stalin during the 1950s in Eastern Europe. Stalinstadt in the German Democratic Republic and Sztálinváros in Hungary were new towns built along similar principles in the vicinity of large iron combines. As representational spaces of state socialism and “Stalinism” these towns presented, beside many similarities, a number of distinct features which are the result of different understandings and implementations of socialism throughout the region. Histories of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have acknowledged such distinctions and dismissed the idea of a uniform Soviet bloc as early as the 1970s. However, a comparative social history of these two “socialist cities” named for Joseph Stalin has not yet been written. The study consists of two parts. While the first chapter delves into the official, public and private memory of these two towns, the subsequent four chapters discuss the social history of Stalinstadt (1953 to 1961) and Sztálinváros (1951 to 1961) and explore four major spheres of everyday life under state socialism: the public sphere, the sphere of work, the sphere of leisure ii and the private sphere. These spheres have acquired new meanings under state socialism: hybrid spheres like public or secret privacy or private(ized) publicity render the public-private dichotomy used to describe Western societies problematic; a heavily politicized sphere of work and an equally ideology-laden sphere of leisure render a reconsideration of the meaning of work and free time under state socialism necessary. This comparative social history of Eisenhüttenstadt and Dunaújváros, as the two towns are named today, is thus also intended to contribute to the further developing of methodological tools used in the analysis of Eastern European socialist societies during the second half of the 20th century. iii Preface Growing up in the Socialist Republic of Romania I once heard a joke that was to shape my views on history. In it, two men discuss a radio broadcast on the bright present and on the even brighter future of their communist country when one of them, visibly troubled, remarks: “There’s one thing that bugs me. We now know everything about the present and about the future of this country; but why is our past constantly changing?” Throughout my research on the Stalin Towns of Eastern Europe I experienced, day by day, how my views on the past have changed. In 2003, I wrote in an article that every attempt was being made to “cover up” the history of Oraşul Stalin (Stalin Town) in Romania; seven years later a documentary exhibition on “Braşov-Oraşul Stalin” was organized by the Braşov County Museum of History, in the very heart of town. It was a relatively small exhibition, it was on for two weeks only, it had few visitors but it was a signal nonetheless: Oraşul Stalin was haunting Braşov again. If, in 2007, I wrote that the Hungarian Sztálinváros-project was a success because more than half a century after its founding the town was booming, by 2012 I had to revise this conclusion: within five years, the former Danubian Iron Works were on the brink of collapse and the population of the town was in sharp decline. In 2016 the trend seems to continue, which will no doubt impact the future of the town, along with the pasts that will be used to explain it. My appreciation of Stalinstadt has changed little during recent years, however. A time capsule at the periphery of German society, Stalinstadt remains to this day what its post- unification designers intended: a socialist-realist architectural theme park and a place of pilgrimage well detached from the now unified German urban landscape. But that may change iv soon as entire generations grown up in the GDR are disappearing. One day, the town might become again part of the German present; but then, it will no longer be the former Stalinstadt. This comparative history of Stalinstadt and Sztálinváros is but one of the many stories that can be written about these two towns. It is an exercise which, by the time the reader will have finished reading it, will be “corrected” by other, newer histories. History writing is a cumulative process; it is an accumulation of truths in continuous move, in a continuous search for authority. This dissertation is, to my knowledge, the first comparative history written about Stalinstadt and Sztálinváros. If it inspires others to rewrite this history, it will have made its contribution to the historiography of the Stalin Towns of Eastern Europe. There exists, among doctoral students, an understanding that authoring a doctoral dissertation is a lonely journey. I must refute this commonplace. Throughout my doctoral studies, including the writing process, I have had the luck to draw on the knowledge, friendship and support of more people than I can name here. They all have contributed to this dissertation, while the responsibility for the views expressed in it rests, of course, with me alone. The trust, guidance and friendship of my thesis advisor, Professor Thomas Lahusen, made this dissertation possible. From early on he was an enthusiastic supporter of my ideas on the Stalin Towns of Eastern Europe. It is thanks to his mentoring and engagement that I completed this journey. My thoughts about social space were greatly influenced by Professor Susan Ruddick of the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Toronto, whom I hereby thank for accepting me into her graduate seminar on “Space, Power and Geography.” Professor Robert Johnson’s graduate seminar on Soviet history laid the foundation on which my views on sotsgorods rest to this day. I thank both him and the participants to his seminar for sharing their ideas on socialist towns with me. v I owe my interest in the Stalin Towns of Eastern Europe to my former teacher and mentor at Central European University, Professor István Rév, who along with Professor Jacek Kochanowicz supervised my MA-thesis on Oraşul Stalin. Professors Robert Austin, Lynne Viola, Susan Ruddick and Piotr Wróbel of the University of Toronto, as well as my external reader, Professor Serhy Yekelchyk of the University of Victoria, made invaluable comments on the manuscript, which will be of great help when transforming my dissertation into a book. Andrea and Martin Hildebrandt in Erkner, Germany, as well as Paul Baiersdorf and Maria Thomaschke in Berlin, were wonderful hosts during my research on the East German Stalin city. Without the help of Sylvia Kracht of the Eisenhüttenstadt Arbeiterwohlfahrt-Jugendwohnheim “Geschwister Scholl,” and her partner Fred, I would not have met the many persons who told me their stories about Stalinstadt. The staff of the Eisenhüttenstadt Stadtarchiv made hundreds of photocopies to ship them to me to Toronto; it is thanks to them that I could rely to such a great extent on the local press of Stalinstadt. In Dunaújváros, Hungary, I encountered many people whose names I did not record: pensioners chatting on a bench in front of their homes, residents of a local retirement home, a gate keeper of the Dunaferr Works, youths playing football by the river bank, and many more. They all have added to my understanding of Sztálinváros and its meaning today. The librarians at József Attila Library provided me with a separate study room for the duration of my foraging for sources in their local history collection. The friendly archivists at the Open Society Archives at Central European University in Budapest turned my search among the records of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as well as among the materials of a 2004 exhibition on “Six Stalin Cities,” into an exciting time-travel to the early Cold War era. Several institutions have generously funded my doctoral studies through awards, fellowships and travel grants. At the time of my admission to the PhD program, the School of vi Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto offered me a five-year “University of Toronto Fellowship.” Two “Dissertation Completion Grants” followed. Winning the Chancellor Jackman Graduate Award in the Humanities (University of Toronto) with my proposal to study the “Stalingrads of Eastern Europe” was a great motivation throughout my research and writing. In two consecutive academic years the Provincial Government of Ontario awarded me an Ontario Graduate Scholarship, which was matched by private donors Thomas and Beverley Simpson and Arthur Child, respectively, through the History Department. At the beginning of my first research trip to Europe I won a generous research and travel grant from the Joint Initiative in German and European Studies at the Munk Centre for International Studies (University of Toronto). A travel grant from the History Department made my attendance at the Summer Institute on Conducting Archival Research (SICAR) at George Washington University possible. Finally, my advisor, Professor Thomas Lahusen secured additional financial support for me when I needed it most. Writing a doctoral dissertation requires more than money and research assistance, however. Numerous friends and family members made the process bearable, some through their mere presence in my life, others by lending me their shoulder when I thought that the writing would never end. I am most indebted to my partner Emma Vidovszky, without whose love, patience, emotional and mental support this dissertation would not have been born.