sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexander Ginzburg, Moscow Helsinki Group, Red Army

DISSIDENTS VERSUS COMMUNISTS

An Examination of the Soviet Dissidence Movement

Matthew Williams Professor Transchel History 419 May 12, 2016 Williams 1

On February 25, 1956, gave a speech to the Twentieth Congress and to the Communist Party stating that was responsible for all of the empire’s then-current issues. He also gave insight into the criminal actions performed by the man during his lifetime. This speech was called the “Secret Speech” as it was not publicized at first, but once word got out about the true nature of Stalin, people began to doubt everything they knew to be true. Khrushchev decreased the censorship and restrictions on people and also freed millions of political prisoners from , beginning what would come to be referred to as the “thaw”. Many people had practically worshipped

Stalin and knew him to represent the Communist party’s creed of infallibility. The tarnishing of his image led many people to seriously doubt the capabilities of the party.1 As truths came out and people began to discuss issues, there was increasing dissatisfaction with the Communist Party and a community of dissenters was born. This community of dissenters would ultimately keep the fight for freedom going long after the end of the thaw era, until the collapse of the in 1991. This paper will examine the dissent movement, from its roots in the end of the Stalin era to the collapse in 1991; it will address how the dissent movement came into being, and how it evolved as new challenges were presented to it. This will be done by looking at books written by Ludmilla Alexeyeva, a famous dissenter, and weaving it with other accounts of landmark events.

Background

Ludmilla Alexeyeva was born on July 20, 1927, only a few years after Stalin rose to power in 1924. She grew up looking at Stalin as a “father figure” and a savior. At the age of

1 Howard L. Biddulph, “Soviet Intellectual Dissent as a Political Counter-Culture,” The Western Political Quarterly 25, no. 3 (September 1972): 526.

Williams 2 ten she remembered people mysteriously disappearing from her apartment building, but knowing nothing else, she thought nothing of it. Her first real taste of the true nature of the

Communist party, however, came on June 22, 1941. Germany had broken through the

Russian border, had laid siege to Leningrad and were threatening . Alexeyeva had been told the Red was invincible for many years, and to see the troops retreating surely made her doubt the legitimacy of Soviet claims to superiority.2 With Stalin’s death in

1953, many Soviet citizens, including Alexeyeva were distraught due to the uncertainties in their future. They were not sure what life would be like with a different leader at the helm of the U.S.S.R.3 Fortunately for Alexeyeva, the man who would lead the Soviet Union in

Stalin’s wake was far less of a tyrant than Stalin. His name was Nikita Khrushchev.

Khrushchev initially found himself and the Communist party bearing the brunt of many of

Stalin’s questionable actions. In response to this, Khrushchev gave the famous “Secret

Speech” which essentially blamed Stalin for everything. Khrushchev’s lightening of restrictions gave rise to the thaw. During this time, Alexeyeva began to go to nightly poetry and storytelling sessions which would have been illegal under Stalin’s reign.

Many other people partook in such activities, and information about the “west” began to seep into the Soviet Union. Growing up, most Soviets—including Alexeyeva—were taught that their country was the most superior country in the world. Knowing nothing different, most believed what they were told without question. Slowly but surely, this viewpoint began to change, especially among the youth.

2 Ludmila Aleksyeva and Paul Goldberg, The Thaw Generation: Coming Of Age In The Post-Stalin Era (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990), 3. 3 Ibid., 4.

Williams 3

The Hungarian Revolution

In 1956, a group of Hungarian students gathered to protest the Soviet Union by marching from the center of to the Parliament headquarters. What began as a nonviolent, small-scale protest, quickly escalated into a large-scale revolt. The revolution escalated greatly after a student was killed after demanding the release of some of his peers who had been detained after an attempt to take over a radio station. Khrushchev, trying to maintain control, sent in the Red Army in to quell the revolution. In response, thousands of Hungarians formed to fight off the Red Army. After a few weeks, the

Red Army was able to contain the revolution and regained control of . The

Hungarian Revolution served to radicalize youth against the Communist party due to the way it was handled.4 This was a sign to many in the Soviet government that the thaw—if continued much longer— would ultimately lead to a loss of control over many of the Soviet states. For Alexeyeva, like many others, the response to the Hungarian Revolution by the

Soviet Union was an alarming and disturbing experience that prompted her to lead a life of dissent.

The Spring

The real turning point came in mid-1968, when the Soviet Union engaged in lengthy negotiations with the leader of Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, who initiated a program to liberalize the country. He advocated the ideas of free speech, free movement, free press, and other freedoms generally not permitted in Communist nations. This program was

4 Aleksandr Pyzhikov, “Sources of Dissidence: Soviet Youth After the Twentieth Party Congress,” Russian Social Science Review 45, no. 5 (October 2004): 68.

Williams 4 referred to as “ with a Human Face”.5 Dubček portrayed this as a revitalization of

Communism, not an outright denial of it. He felt that the future lay with more progressive

Communism which allowed people to think and act for themselves without significant repercussion. After it became clear to the Soviet officials that the negotiations were going nowhere, a joint by the U.S.S.R. and several Pact countries was initiated.

On August 20, 1968, The U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, , , and Hungary staged a joint invasion of Czechoslovakia. 200,000 troops as well as 2,000 were brought in, and Czechs reacted with generally nonviolent protest, often trying in vain to reason with soldiers or disrupt their operation.6 Nonetheless, after just one week, 186 people were killed and 362 were injured.7

As news spread of the hostile invasion, people began to further doubt the rationale behind the action. Many Soviets and others alike felt that it was unnecessary use of excessive force, and that the issue could have been resolved diplomatically. The invasion became a justification for many to turn to dissidence, as many, including Alexeyeva, were ashamed their government would do such a thing. As a result, it marked the ultimate end of the thaw era.

For Alexeyeva, the end of the thaw era meant she was at risk participating in the sharing of western information and questioning the government. Going forward, she— along with many other dissenters—would have to make one of three choices “…the first was to toe the party line and be allowed to advance professionally; the second was to put a

5 Anna J. Stoneman, “Socialism with a Human Face: The Leadership and Legacy of the ,” The History Teacher 49, no. 1 (November 2015): 104. 6 Ibid., 106. 7 Ibid., 107.

Williams 5 career on hold and wait for another thaw; the third was to stay the course of the thaw and accept the consequences: an aborted career and the life of a pariah.”8 Alexeyeva chose the third option, abandoning her career, and becoming an “enemy of the state” along with few other intellectuals. With this choice, her official life as a dissenter began.

The Chronicle of Current Events

A very important publication came into being during the “Prague Spring,” and that was the Chronicle of Current Events (Khronika tekushchikh sobytiy). This bimonthly

“” (translated as “self-publishing”) periodical gave the inside scoop on what was happening behind the scenes in the Soviet government.9 Its first editor was Natalya

Gorbanevskaya, a Russian poet and civil rights activist.10 Due to a lack of mass printing machines, the first issue was typed up by Gorbanevskaya on a typewriter with seven carbon copies. She gave these seven copies to seven of her friends and they, in turn, typed up more copies, and so on.11 It was a laborious task, but the movement depended on having a reliable way of communicating what was going on in the country. At the beginning of every installment were the words of Article 19 of the United Nations’

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.12

8 Alexeyeva, The Thaw Generation, 5. 9 Ludmila Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, And Human Rights (Mt. Vernon, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1985), 12. 10 Alexeyeva, The Thaw Generation, 206. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

Williams 6

The Chronicle covered many trials, legislation and other current issues of the time. The very first issue was published on April 30, 1968, and mainly covered the trials of Yuri

Galanskov and .13 Galanskov and Ginzburg were two publishers who had been arrested for their publications. Galanskov published a samizdat almanac called the Phoenix and Ginzburg published a samizdat poetry almanac called Sintaksis. They were both found guilty and sentenced to labor camps. Galanskov would ultimately meet his end in one of the camps. After this, the publication took a primary focus on trials of dissenters.

Within the next ten years, the periodical covered 424 political trials, which resulted in 733 convictions and no acquittals.14 The primary purpose of this publication was to spread information about the growing dissent movement without the censorship imposed on other major publications. These trials would generally not be covered by “mainstream” publications such as , the Communist Party newspaper.

Samizdat periodicals such as Phoenix, Sintaksis, and Chronicle of Current Events were an instrumental aspect of the growing dissent movement. They were deemed as credible sources by intelligentsia in a setting where credible sources were hard to come by and often published illegally. Martin Machovec, in his article about samizdat literature describes them as a “little islands of truth in a sea of lies”.15 There were a variety of reasons people would create a samizdat publication. In many cases people felt that they had a duty to communicate the truth to their peers. Some people felt a sense of adventure by publishing prohibited texts; some others actually desired to become an “enemy of the state” as a means

13 Ibid.S1, 207. 14 Ibid. 15 Martin Machovec, “The Types and Functions of Samizdat Publications in Czechoslovakia, 1948–1989,” Poetics Today 30, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 7.

Williams 7 of attaining semi-celebrity status among dissenters.16 Whatever their motivation, it was no easy task to create a samizdat. In order to avoid suspicion—as large-scale printing presses were not something that could be acquired discreetly—most publishers foregone large- scale printing presses and simply utilized people with typewriters making several carbon copies of the samizdat at a time.17 Using this technique, the production of a samizdat could be dispersed and less likely to be discovered and destroyed than a large printing press.

Alexeyeva spent fifteen years typing out samizdat publications in this manner.18 She was a key player in the creation and distribution of the Chronicle of Current Events. This was not the extent of her dissent activities. She was also highly involved in the Moscow

Group.

Moscow Helsinki Group

The was a group formed in Moscow on

May 12, 1976. The goal of the group was to look out for violations of the Helsinki Final Act.

The Helsinki Final Act, a document signed by many non-Soviet countries, provided for the protection of human rights. The Helsinki Final Act called for many rights and freedoms, including: the right to emigrate; the respect of sovereignty for those countries who had declared it; peaceful settlement of disputes; and the halt to border readjustments within

Soviet Bloc, just to name a few. The group took to the streets in the Soviet Union looking for people in need of help or people being treated in a manner that was prohibited by the Act.

16 Ibid., 7-9. 17 Ibid., 5. 18 Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, vii.

Williams 8

As Alexeyeva recalled, “…all sorts of people came to us with their problems from all over the Soviet Union”19

The Moscow Helsinki Group utilized the aforementioned samizdat publication

Chronicle of Current Events as a means to disseminate information to others. For a human rights watch group to function properly, it has to have widespread information regarding what injustices have been committed, what corrupt laws or rules have been enacted, and other information dissenters and human rights advocates needed to perform their duties.

This information needed to be reliable and accurate as well. Public publications would have been censored heavily, distorting or erasing the truth. What was not censored was undoubtedly biased. Finding the truth became a tricky game, one whose objective was simple: keep one step ahead of the KGB. Samizdat literature was prohibited, and people associated with the production of one would certainly be sent to a , or worse.

Ludmilla Alexeyeva had a significant hand in creating both the Chronicle of Current

Events and the Moscow Helsinki Group; perhaps two of the most influential dissent organizations. Working on these projects, Alexeyeva was under constant threat of being caught by the KGB and being labeled an “enemy of the state”. Such was the fate of Natalya

Gorbanevskaya, the first editor of the Chronicle. She was arrested in December of 1969 and sentenced indefinitely to a psychiatric hospital with “sluggish schizophrenia,” a fabricated mental illness with symptoms including depression, discontentment, and a desire to leave the Soviet Union. Gorbanevskaya was released in 1972 due to her nursing her child.20

Alexeyeva feared that with her growing participation in dissident organizations and

19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 328.

Williams 9 activities, she was becoming a greater target for the KGB. Wanting to continue her work in a less threatening environment, she and her family emigrated to the on

February 22, 1977.21

Emigration to the United States

After arriving in the United States, Alexeyeva continued her work as a human rights advocate. She represented the Moscow Helsinki Group abroad, working to publish their documents, to free fellow dissenters from Soviet prison camps and psychiatric hospitals, and to pressure the U.S. government into helping their cause.22 She also made a point to share the stories and experiences of her fellow dissenters with U.S. audiences in the hope that raising awareness would breed change.23 In 1985, she published a book called Soviet

Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, And Human Rights, one of the first comprehensive accounts of the Soviet Dissent movement published in the United States.

Five years later, in 1990, she published a second book, called The Thaw Generation: Coming

Of Age In The Post-Stalin Era, where she told more of her own story. She also would broadcast for the radio shows , and Radio Liberty.

Back in the U.S.S.R.

In 1989, Alexeyeva found herself back in the Soviet Union as a part of the reinvigoration of the Moscow Helsinki Group, which had dissolved in 1981. She was named a chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group in 1996. In 2009, she began her involvement in the Strategy-31 protests to protect the right to assemble: article 31 in the Russian constitution. She continues her activism to the present day.

21 Alexeyeva, The Thaw Generation, 294. 22 Ibid. 23 Alexeyeva, Soviet Dissent, ix.

Williams 10

Ludmilla Alexeyeva has been a crucial human rights activist for over fifty years. She successfully evaded capture by the KGB, despite her continual activism. She protested the response of the U.S.S.R. to the Hungarian revolution, as well as the response of the U.S.S.R. to the “Prague Spring”. In addition, she was a key figure in the creation of the Chronicle of

Current Events, one of the longest-running samizdat publications, as well as a founding member of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Her indelible mark upon the grand scheme of

Soviet dissidence has made her a legacy.

The Soviet dissidence movement is a wonderfully interesting—yet often unsettling— field of history. The men and women who risked, and often gave, their lives to the cause of improving their country by spreading information and protesting—in an attempt to reform their corrupt government—will always serve as a reminder that freedom is not something to take for-granted.

Williams 11

Bibliography

Alexeyeva, Ludmilla. Soviet Dissent: Contemporary Movements for National, Religious, And Human Rights. Mt. Vernon, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987.

—. The Thaw Generation: Coming of Age in The Post-Stalin Era. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1990.

Biddulph, Howard L. "Soviet Intellectual Dissent as a Political Counter-Culture." The Western Political Quarterly 25, no. 3 (September 1972): 522-533.

Jones, Polly. "Memories of Terror or Terrorizing Memories? Terror, Trauma and Survival in SovietCulture of the Thaw." The Slavonic and East European Review 86, no. 2 (April 2008): 346-371.

Machovec, Martin. "The Types and Functions of Samizdat Publications in Czechoslovakia, 1948–1989." Poetics Today 30, no. 1 (2009): 1-26.

Pyzhikov, Aleksandr. "Sources of Dissidence Soviet Youth After the Twentieth Party Congress." Russian Social Science Review 45, no. 5 (October 2004): 66-79.

Stoneman, Anna J. "Socialism With a Human Face: The Leadership and Legacy of the Prague Spring." The History Teacher 49, no. 1 (November 2015): 103-125.