Gulag: A History is an examination of Soviet history, specifically the Soviet Gulag system. Author Anne Applebaum discusses the time periods from the Bolshevik revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union. She emphasizes the creation, implementation and expansion, and the disintegration of the Gulag system. This novel is separated into three distinct parts that examine the rise of the Gulag system, life in the Gulag, and the fall and legacy of the system.
Perhaps most strikingly, the latter part of the book questions why the Gulag system was met with a historical collective amnesia from not only the Soviet Union, but the West as well. The author discusses the social, economic, and political history of the Gulag system. Her poignant novel
…show more content…
is not only about Eastern Europeans, but the human race as a whole and the horrors humanity is capable of. The author’s claims and arguments are a result of extensive research, memoirs, personal experiences, and Soviet archives. Applebaum’s thesis is that the world’s ‘blindspot’ towards Soviet history is troubling because humans are morally obligated to value history in order to prevent large-scale injustices and inhumane events of the past from recurring/repeating. In addition to the thesis, the author has another prominent argument that is crucial to understanding the Gulag system: Even at its creation, the Gulag system was disorganized and ineffective and it was during Stalin’s reign that it became increasingly horrific and encompassing. THE BODY (50-60%) The author supports her thesis with powerful statements scattered throughout the book. She uses her experiences in Russia, nations’ policies, and interviews with people of multiple ethnicities to support her statement that the world has a ‘blindspot’ towards Soviet history. Applebaum makes a shocking claim that even Russian citizens themselves fall victim to the idea of collective amnesia. (Applebaum 575). She writes, “But then, very few people in contemporary Russia feel the past to be a burden, or as an obligation, at all. The past is a bad dream to be forgotten, or a whispered rumor to be ignored. Like a great, unopened Pandora’s box, it lies in wait for the next generation” (Applebaum 575). I agree with this thesis because I am convinced that it is imperative that nations, as well as individuals, recognize their flaws and remember their pasts and address them properly. Throughout the book, Applebaum gives the impression that the most disturbing aspect of the book is the thought that humans are capable of such horror and that even more humans are capable of ignoring the horrors. Of course, merely remembering the past will not aid the world in ensuring the future is better. Rather, there must be an understanding of how certain events and entities, like the Holocaust and the Gulag system, came to be and what conditions prove to be breeding grounds for inhumane events. Applebaum says, The more we are able to understand how different societies have transformed their neighbors and fellow citizens from people into objects, the more we know of the specific circumstances which led to each episode of mass torture and mass murder, the better we will understand the darker side of our own human nature”(577). I find this statement to be the most valuable and convincing sentence in the entire book. It is so valuable and relevant because understanding the past is crucial to creating a better future. If a nation is conscious of their past mistakes, they are more likely to prevent the same event from occurring again. The author’s second argument about the birth of the Gulag system and the expansion under Stalin are equally as convincing and interesting.
Applebaum writes, “Lenin—like the Bolshevik legal theorists who followed in his wake—also reckoned that the creation of the Soviet state would give rise to a new kind of criminal: the ‘class enemy’” (5). This is interesting because although the definition of ‘class enemy’ was eventually expanded to an all-encompassing category to essentially include anyone Stalin wished, the idea of a class enemy was not unique to Stalin. In fact, the author says, “From the very earliest days of the new Soviet state, in other words, people were to be sentenced not for what they had done, but for who they were” (Applebaum, 6). This sentence is important because it truly represents the Gulag system at its core. In addition, this factor is a unique identifier when comparing repressive regimes and for that reason, vitally important. I believe part of the reason Applebaum focuses so much on the disorganization and economic failures of the Gulag system is because it is ironic that a system that was inherently repressive and controlling lacked true control. In other words, none of the Soviet leaders were able to maintain communist ideology and build a successful economy simultaneously. Applebaum suggests that this may be because of a lack of purpose: “The purpose of the camps remained ambiguous. The prisoners were to carry out labor—but to what end? Was labor …show more content…
meant to re-educate the prisoners? Was it meant to humiliate them? Or was it supposed to help build the new Soviet state?” (9). In addition, there was widespread confusion, yet another factor that contributed to the Gulag system being economically unviable. The author says, “Confusion would beset the definitions of ‘camp,’ ‘prison,’ and ‘forced labor’… responsible institutions would be endlessly renamed and reorganized as different bureaucrats and commissars attempted to gain control over the system” (Applebaum, 12). The second half of the argument that focuses on the expansion of the Gulag system under Stalin is especially noteworthy because this man singlehandedly changed the dynamic of the system. Applebaum says, “… Stalin’s mania for repression and his dedication to the economics of slave labor dovetailed so neatly that it was hard for contemporary observers to say whether he raised the number of arrests in order to build more camps, or built more camps in order to accommodate the number of arrestees” (471). Perhaps the most interesting quote that serves as evidence to this argument is, “The new Soviet leadership [after Stalin’s death] knew perfectly well that the camps were a drag on the economy, just as they knew that millions of the prisoners in them were innocent. The clock was now ticking: the Gulag’s era was coming to an end” (Applebaum, 481). This statement is incredible because it serves as evidence to the fact that everyone, even those in the Communist party, kowtowed to Stalin. The fact that no one objected to Stalin’s projects such as the ‘Road of Death’ and the tunnel to Sakhalin while he was alive, they were aborted within days of his death” (Applebaum, 472). Most importantly, this argument completely supports Applebaum’s thesis that although it is unclear why there is this ‘blindspot’ towards Soviet history, it is not because the horrors of the repressive Gulag system was economically based, rather than racially based like Hitler’s Holocaust. Although I agree with both the author’s thesis and main arguments, it is the thesis itself that resonates with me the most. I call it a ‘blindspot’ because it is clear that much of the world, for an array of reasons, has an aversion to analyzing Soviet history. Despite both the Nazi regime and the Soviet regime being responsible for millions of deaths, less historical emphasis is put on the latter due to the fact that the Gulag system was not exclusively created to result in death rather, it was a consequence. The two regimes are held in completely different lights, as evident in the introduction, “Here occurred the terror famine of the 1930s, in which Stalin killed more Ukrainians than Hitler murdered Jews. Yet how many in the West remember it? After all, the killing was so—so boring, and ostensibly undramatic” (Applebaum xix) Applebaum sums up this argument by saying, “… the feeling that many people have: the Soviet Union simply went wrong somehow, but it was not fundamentally wrong in the way that Hitler’s Germany was wrong” (Applebaum xx). I wholeheartedly agree with the author’s thesis that says that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. While contemporary people are quick to cast judgment and express horror at the thought of the Holocaust, substantially less are knowledgeable about the history of the Soviet Union. HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CONCLUSION: (20-30%) Through this novel, author Anne Applebaum reveals herself as a journalist and historian with an innate need to answer the difficult questions that are often ignored. She seems to enjoy the challenge that comes with completing extensive research about a historical period that is largely forgotten. Above all, Applebaum strikes me as a woman who refuses to be silenced by the majority. It is for this reason that she embarked on over a ten-year journey to complete this book. The author was incredibly fair and objective throughout the novel. Even during her narrative sections the information comes across as historically based and objective. Her well-researched statistics, sources, and analytical nature lend her credibility throughout the 600 pages. I did not find any strong biases through this book, although I know from reading her other works that she is a right-leaning centrist on the political spectrum. When it comes to values, it is clear that Applebaum holds justice and truth close to her heart. These two values are intertwined when studying the Gulag system and its legacy. She wanted to expose the Gulag system in an honest light, regardless of how shocking the truth may be. She does not hold back on descriptions throughout the book. It is not uncommon to read statements such as one where a man who had grown tired due to lack of food asked a guard if he could have just a moment of rest in order to catch up to the others. (Applebaum 278). The guard said, “You walk, or die” and the man was shot on the spot. (Applebaum 278). Applebaum’s main values are the importance of historical significance and legacy of historical events. This truly livens up her narratives. While she did spend a large part of the book discussing the history and details of the Gulag system, both the introduction and the conclusion urge the reader to avoid being passive when it comes to history. Applebaum viewed the fact that the Gulag system is largely ignored to be a huge injustice to humanity. She raises the question of why the Nazi regime and the Holocaust receive more emphasis, attention, and study than the Soviet regime and its history (Applebaum xx-xxiii). Contemporary people were not alive to witness the atrocities of the Holocaust and the Gulag system so we must rely on accounts such as Applebaum’s book to educate ourselves. However, Applebaum acknowledges that that is difficult to do when certain cultures and the media ignore such an important aspect of history. For example, she says, “Steven Spielberg has chosen to make films about Japanese concentration camps (Empire of the Sun) and Nazi concentration camps, but not about Stalinist concentration camps. The latter haven’t caught Hollywood’s imagination in the same way” (Applebaum xviii). Applebaum makes many more compelling statements such as the aforementioned one that explain how the Soviet system, particularly the Gulag, is not viewed to be as evil and inhumane as the Nazi regime and their camps. The author writes, “Communist ideals—social justice, equality for all—are simply more attractive to most in the West than the Nazi advocacy of racism and the triumph of the strong over the weak. Even if communist ideology meant something very different in practice, it was harder for the intellectual descendants of the American and French Revolutions to condemn a system which sounded, at least, similar to their own” (Applebaum xxi). Applebaum’s value of asking questions to examine historical significance of one of the most horrific institutions to ever exist, truly livens up her narrative. Her quest for knowledge and passion for the truth are evident on each page. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Gulag: A History.
For clarity, I would rate this book 5/5 stars. The author carefully points out her arguments and provides rich evidence to support her claims. This book was a relatively easy read. Most importantly, this book is perfect for an individual who knows next to nothing about the history of the Soviet Union. For organization, I give Applebaum 3.5/5 stars. Part two of the book, “Life and Work in the Camps,” was my favorite part due to how emotionally raw it was. However, the author told many different personal accounts and the stories were not in chronological order. I often found myself having to revisit pages I had already read to remind myself which person Applebaum was writing about at the time. For the ability to keep my interest, I give the book 5/5 stars. This book captivated me from the very beginning. I experienced everything from sadness and disgust to inspiration throughout the course of this novel. The monstrosities that occurred at the hands of the Soviet leaders, particularly Stalin, are utterly fascinating, albeit heartbreaking. However, many stories of survival and optimism within the camps were incredibly encouraging. Despite the book being historical first and foremost, Applebaum delivers the history lesson with endless amounts of emotion and humanity, even when discussing the suffering of those in the Gulag system. I learned many more details about daily life inside the Gulag that I had not previously known. This was
a great novel to read after One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich because it provided even more detail and depth. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wishes to know more about the Gulag system, the history of the Soviet Union, the horrors of communism, or the great injustices and suffering that occurred during the twentieth century. Even though the book is six hundred pages long, it is a very valuable resource. This publication is very useful for historians because it is full of detailed sources that were previously unknown or kept in secret by Soviet officials. It is not surprising that Gulag: A History won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004.
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it works efficiently.
As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1].
This book is very educating about the history of the concentration camps and Holocaust. “…The spectators observed these emaciated creatures ready to kill for a crust of bread...the old man was crying, ‘Meir, my little Meir! Don’t you recognize me…you’re killing your father…I have bread…for you too…for you too’ He collapsed…there were two dead bodies next to (Elie), the father and the son.” (Page 101 of Night) Concentration camps were terrible. The prisoners/Jews were so underfed that they were willing to kill their own family members for a slice of bread. The Jews would go to extremes in order to get a bit more food to line their stomachs. Concentration camps, Gestapo, and SS transform the prisoners’ morals and their lives. “My father suddenly had a colic attack. He got up and asked politely, in German, ‘Excuse me…could you tell me where the toilets are located?’ (Night page 39) …Then, he slapped my father with such force that he fell down and then crawled back to his place on all fours.” This also shows the brutality of the German Kapos and the Nazi Staff. This is very educational for the world about the brutality and unpleasantness of the concentration camps. Educating people about the holocaus...
The Communist Party was one of the main sections in Soviet society that was impacted profoundly by Stalin’s terror. In 1935, the assassination of Sergei Kirov, a faithful Communist and Bolshevik party member that had certain popularity, threatening Stalin’s consolidation of power, initiated The Great Purge. His death, triggering three important, widely publicised ‘show trials’ in Moscow, ultimately encouraged the climate of terror during the Great Purge. Bolsheviks Zinoviev, Kamenev and their associates were accused of conspiring against Stalin and the government, with each confessing to their supposed crimes, which were then broadcast around the world. It was later discovered that these confessions were forced after long months of psychological abuse and cruel acts of torture. As Stalin...
Originally platformed by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin took control of the communist party in 1924 when Lenin died of a stroke. Communist ideals were heavily in opposition to classical liberal values; Whereas Liberalism stressed the importance of the individual, Communism sought to better the greater good of society by stripping many of the individual rights and freedoms of citizens. Communism revoked the class structure of society and created a universal equality for all. This equality came with a price however. Any who opposed the communist rule were assassinated in order to keep order within society. Joseph Stalin took this matter to the extreme during an event known as the Great Purge. The Great Purge, also known as The Great Terror, began in 1936 and concluded in 1938. During these two years, millions of people were murdered and sent to labour camps in Siberia for opposing the Communist party and the ultimate dictator, Stalin himself. In some cases, even those who did not oppose the regime were killed. Sergey Kirov was a very popular member of the communist party and Stalin saw this as a possible threat to his ultimate power. As a result, Stalin order Kirov to be executed. Stalin furthered his violation of individual rights by introducing the NKVD who worked closely with the russian secret police force. One of the primary goals of the secret police was to search out dissidents who were not entirely faithful to the communist regime. This violation of privacy caused histeria en mass in the Soviet Union and millions were killed as a result. The Soviet union resisted liberalism to such an extreme that it resulted in the deaths of millions of people, leading to some of the darkest days in russian
Bardach, Janusz, and Kathleen Gleeson. Man Is Wolf to Man: Surviving the Gulag. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1998. Print.
Solzhenitsyn believed that it was nearly impossible to have truly free thoughts under the prison camp conditions described in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, or in any situation where there is an authoritarian ruler. In a pris...
To further transform the Soviet Union, state officials encouraged citizens to help improve the literacy rate and recognize the many heroes of the socialist state. These heroes, including Joseph Stalin, “received huge amounts of fan mail and were lionized on appearances throughout the country” (72). They also encouraged the remaking of individuals, particularly through work. Before the transformation, many did not enjoy working, but “under socialism, it was the thing that filled life with meaning” (75). Numerous interviews an author had with “transformed” felons, illustrated that even criminals could be transformed into good citizens through work (76). However, Sheila Fitzpatrick argues that these interviews were “clearly a propaganda project.”
Darkness At Noon presents an intellectual confrontation between two generations of revolutionists, and offers a detailed examination of the differences existing between these two groups. Rubashov and Ivanov are representatives of the older generation of revolutionary philosophers and activists, who believed in the Marxist doctrine to the very end. They can be compared to such historical figures, as Lew Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Christian Rakovsky, or “some other relatively civilized figure among the Old Bolsheviks.” (Orwell n.pag.) Both characters contrast sharply in comparison with the second interrogator, Gletkin, who is the true child of the revolution, a mindless creature of the Party, and an embodiment of the G.P.U.’s of the Stalinist
Ironically, Communism has never existed anywhere. There has never been a system implemented in our entire history by which a society has been utterly classless. Communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production and no social class (Wikipedia). Today there is a selection of “Communist” states that exist in a variety of locations on our globe. Sadly, all of the claimed Communist states including the late Soviet Union were and are despicable and corrupted examples of the idea of Communism. By using Stalin as an example it is quite possible to portray to the reader a simple and effective example of the flip side of attempted Communism. Stalin took control of a weak government and crafted an illusionary Communist state. Ironically, Stalin had set himself up as the dictator of a completely totalitarian society. By using the people of Russia, he was able to harness the government and use it for his own needs. This is quite similar to 1984 with the concept of Big Brother. Although Big Brother is not a person, the inner society that controls “him” creates a Stalinist nation; this was quite purposefully included by Orwell.
Love is the foundation and the weakness of a totalitarian regime. For a stable totalitarian society, love between two individuals is eliminated because only a relationship between the person and the party and a love for its leader can exist. The totalitarian society depicted throughout the Orwell’s novel 1984 has created a concept of an Orwellian society. Stalin’s Soviet state can be considered Orwellian because it draws close parallels to the imaginary world of Oceania in 1984. During the twentieth century, Soviet Russia lived under Stalin’s brutal and oppressive governments, which was necessary for Stalin to retain power.
During Stalin’s regime, the individual Russian was the center of his grand plan for better or worse. Stalin wanted all of his people to be treated the same. In the factory the top producer and the worst producer made the same pay. He wanted everyone to be treated as equals. His goal to bring the Soviet Union into the industrial age put tremendous pressure on his people. Through violence and oppression Stalin tried to maintain an absurd vision that he saw for the Soviet Union. Even as individuals were looked at as being equals, they also were viewed as equals in other ways. There was no one who could be exempt when the system wanted someone imprisoned, killed, or vanished. From the poorest of the poor, to the riches of the rich, everyone was at the mercy of the regime. Millions of individuals had fake trumped up charges brought upon them, either by the government or by others who had called them o...
The Great Terror, an outbreak of organised bloodshed that infected the Communist Party and Soviet society in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), took place in the years 1934 to 1940. The Terror was created by the hegemonic figure, Joseph Stalin, one of the most powerful and lethal dictators in history. His paranoia and yearning to be a complete autocrat was enforced by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), the communist police. Stalin’s ambition saw his determination to eliminate rivals such as followers of Leon Trotsky, a political enemy. The overall concept and practices of the Terror impacted on the communist party, government officials and the peasants. The NKVD, Stalin’s instrument for carrying out the Terror, the show trials and the purges, particularly affected the intelligentsia.
Introduction “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent them.” While Marx did not delve deeply into crime and criminal activity, he argued that laws were put in place by the upper classes of society to serve their needs, most important being the suppression of other classes. His influence has been prodigious where governments, including the Chinese and the Soviet Union, and a movement that call themselves Marxists who at some point were more than the number of Christians in the world (Rader, 1979). This illustrates his conventional yet controversial way of thinking that has reverberated across societies and institutions. The opening statement that was made by Karl Marx will be resonated throughout this analysis into the Marxist theories, giving an in-depth scrutiny of the history and background of this theory, highlighting the critics of the theory and providing an example of the theory.