Warning to the West is a criticism of both the west and his own nation. Solzhenitsyn expresses his deep pain and frustration toward the nations of the world for ignoring the atrocities and even aiding the Soviet Communist Government in which he hails from. Solzhenitsyn expresses his slanted view of a perfect Détente and what he feels should be a true Marxist state by showing some of the atrocities claimed by the Soviet regime. He expresses to the United States that nations can no longer stand by and let communism take over the world. Solzhenitsyn complains about the western allies supporting and aligning with the USSR. He offers explanations to why the allies decided to aid USSR against Nazi Germany. However, although his arguments are somewhat valid, Solzhenitsyn is missing two main keys and reasons to why the west aligned with Soviet Russia. First, The USSR signed a pact with Germany and even aided Germany take over Eastern Europe. This is problematic because if both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia work together with Imperial Japan, the Allies had no chance. The Allies needed to divide these nations. This same tactic was worked in the 1970’s with China. Convince China to become “enemies” with soviet Russia. Why would the US support a horrible dictator like Mao Zedong? To prevent a collaboration of communist superpowers that could overrun the world overnight. And second, The Allies simply had no real proof of the atrocities being committed by Stalin during his reign. Solzhenitsyn does express the evils of his own nation clearly, which becomes eerie when looking through the same lens upon which we see our own nation slipping into. He makes remarks about the soviet government controlling everything. Elections are folly; the... ... middle of paper ... ...en it was written. As I wrote above, even the “light of the world”(USA) has seemingly ignored the warning by Solzhenitsyn. As America, the prime example of democratic success, turns toward socialism, the world will follow. This warning by Solzhenitsyn has been brushed aside. More importantly, Solzhenitsyn’s Warning was for the West to learn from history, to which the West has failed to do. However, we still have time to learn. This book is a must read for anyone who believes in liberty, freedom, and democracy because it heeds warnings to what we have brushed off for decades. “Americas will never let that happen to America”, this statement has shown to be completely untrue. Solzhenitsyn’s writing is empowering and reminding of man’s truest sin, ignorance of truth. Works Cited Warning to the West by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1976.
Lydia Chekovskaya wrote about Sofia Petrovna and the transformation she had undergone to closely reflect the state of mind and changes experienced by citizens of the Soviet Union during that time. As people began to suffer from the purges and other hardships due to Stalin’s incompetence, their minds and logic, much like Sofia Petrovna’s, became impaired leading them to try their best to rationalize Stalin’s actions. They believed in the party wholeheartedly, but when they finally realized the wrongdoing of the party, it was far too late.
Wole Soyinka's essay "Every Dictator's Nightmare" in the April 18, 1999 edition of the New York Times magazine seems almost prescient in light of the events currently occurring geopolitically. The recent events occurred in Egypt are certainly representative of the themes present in Soyinka's essay; “the idea that certain fundamental rights are inherent to all humanity" (476). Soyinka, the 1986 noble peace prizewinner for literature, portrays not only his well-formed persona in his essay, but also his well formed thoughts, devoid of literary naiveté common in so many of today’s writers. The essay portrays societies as corrupted, but with some elements of innate nobility. The existence of societies is guaranteed by the realization that every individual has undeniable basic rights. Soyinka also presents an overview of the enslavement of individual cultures; to the forces of religion, dictatorship, economic pressures, forced labor, and ideology; presenting the reader strong examples of the world's failure to respect individual human rights throughout history. In his essay, Soyinka’s explores the employment of irony and contradiction, in explaining the paradoxes that have riddled the historical search for just societies.
In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed lay the foundation for Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin’s plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin’s socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war.
“The Sources of Soviet Conduct” Foreign Affairs, 1947, explains the difficulty of summarizing Soviet ideology. For more than 50 years, the Soviet concept held the Russian nations hypnotized, discontented, unhappy, and despondent confined to a very limited Czarist political order. Hence, the rebel support of a bloody Revolution, as a means to “social betterment” (Kennan, 567). Bolshevism was conceptualized as “ideological and moral, not geopolitical or strategic”. Hoover declares that… “five or six great social philosophies were struggling for ascendancy” (Leffler, The Specter of Communism, 20).
... are watching the freedom that they feel we have as expressed though American television and businesses. A fear of total anarchy has arisen in the hearts of their leaders, and many are holding on for dear life to their old customs and beliefs of control, while others such as China and Russia are hesitantly going with the flow. Sullivan is unsure of the effect this Pursuit of Happiness will have on the future; can any of us predict, we only know the past and the present.
Under a backdrop of systematic fear and terror, the Stalinist juggernaut flourished. Stalin’s purges, otherwise known as the “Great Terror”, grew from his obsession and desire for sole dictatorship, marking a period of extreme persecution and oppression in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s. “The purges did not merely remove potential enemies. They also raised up a new ruling elite which Stalin had reason to think he would find more dependable.” (Historian David Christian, 1994). While Stalin purged virtually all his potential enemies, he not only profited from removing his long-term opponents, but in doing so, also caused fear in future ones. This created a party that had virtually no opposition, a new ruling elite that would be unstoppable, and in turn negatively impacted a range of sections such as the Communist Party, the people of Russia and the progress in the Soviet community, as well as the military in late 1930 Soviet society.
Being one of the greatest Russian writers of 20th century, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn had a unique talent that he used to truthfully depict the realities of life of ordinary people living in Soviet era. Unlike many other writers, instead of writing about “bright future of communism”, he chose to write about everyday hardships that common people had to endure in Soviet realm. In “Matryona’s Home”, the story focuses on life of an old peasant woman living in an impoverished collectivized village after World War 2 . In the light of Soviet’s propaganda of creating a new Soviet Nation, the reader can observe that Matryona’s personality and way of life drastically contradicted the desired archetype of New Soviet Man. Like most of the people in her village,
During Russia’s transition to communism in the early 20th century, conflict and unease permeated every part of life. Nothing was stable and very little of what the Bolsheviks had fought for had come to fruition by the time the USSR disbanded in 1991. The “classless society”, which was to work together for the prosperity of everyone, never became a reality. In the end, the majority of Russia’s 20th century was an utter failure on a grand scale. However, there were many amazing products of the system do to the great importance of education in Russian culture. Priceless novels were written, timeless movies were made, and great scientific endeavors were realized despite the rigid control placed upon Russian persons by the government. In fact, some of the most memorable written works of the time were written protests to the creativity-stifling situation many writers found themselves in. Because of the danger to their lives should the wrong people be upset by their writings, Yevgeny Zamyatin and Mikhail Bulgakov wrote their most popular, Soviet-life condemning novels under the guise of satire. Even though they’re satirizing the same subject, in both We and The Master and Margarita respectively, they take very different paths to do so.
Excommunicated from his home country of Russia for his rejection of Communism, Alexander Solzhenitsyn presented his famous speech “A World Split Apart” at Harvard on June 8th, 1978. Addressing possible future world leaders inspired Solzhenitsyn to speak about issues relevant to their experiences with Western culture. In the midst of the Cold War, it was his goal to critique failures and exemplify the truth of his opinions in this opposite culture. While presenting valid points, Solzhenitsyn’s view of the Western world was disillusioned due to his foreign perspective and demeanor brought upon by his own austere society.
When most people hear the name Joseph Stalin, they usually associate the name with a man who was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. He was willingly to do anything to improve the power of the Soviet Union’s economy and military, even if it meant executing tens of millions of innocent people (Frankforter, A. Daniel., and W. M. Spellman 655). In chapter three of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book, Everyday Stalinism, she argues that since citizens believed the propaganda of “a radiant future” (67), they were able to be manipulated by the Party in the transformation of the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet government to expand its power, which ultimately was very disastrous for the people.
In his address, Solzhenitsyn has several intentions. He attacks the communist ways of Russia and the West and defends Christianity. He exhorts the action of keeping Christ in our hearts and dissuades the action of removing Christ. He praises those who stand for Christ and blames Communist for the downfall of the world.
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. In both cases, brutality and oppression led to an absence of relationships and love. This love was directed towards Stalin and Big Brother, and human beings became willing servants of their leader. The biggest threat to any totalitarian regime is love, or the lack of it. As Orwell said, they key danger to the system is “the growth of liberalism and skepticism in their own ranks” (Orwell 171). For example, in the novel it was the desire of the Party to eliminate love and sex, in order to channel this pent-up passion towards the love of Big Brother. Similarly, Stalin used propaganda and extreme nationalism to brainwash the peoples of Russia. He channeled their beliefs into a passion for Soviet ideals and a love of Stalin. In both cases, love for anything but the Party is the biggest threat to the regime. The stability of the Party and Stalin’s regime directly depended upon loyalty to the government above all else. By drawing upon the close relationships between the two Orwellian societies, we can examine just how dangerous love is to the Party.
“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” Part 1,Chapter 1,pg. 6. These three principles were repeatedly emphasized throughout the book and helped lay the foundation of the dystopian society George Orwell imagined in his novel 1984. Fear, manipulation, and control were all encompassed throughout this dystopian society set in the distant future. The freedom to express ones thoughts was no longer acceptable and would not be tolerated under any circumstances. Humankind was rapidly transforming into a corrupt and evil state of mind.
And he debates that the end of the Cold War is “an ideal context for a reassessment of Orwell 's political ideas” (Newsinger ix). Newsinger gives us a map of Orwell 's intellectual terrain, and deftly orientates the reader around the key Orwellian debates which run around the idea of war and revolution against inequality and dictatorship. He examines how Orwell 's politics developed in a changing world. Newsinger 's argument is that, although Orwell 's politics shifted throughout his lifetime, the one constant was his unwavering socialism. What detractors - and even some admirers - have missed is that he never ceased to write from within the left, attacking the betrayal of the revolution rather than the revolution
xvi Solzhenitsyn, A. I. The Gulag Archipelago, (I-II). Translated by Thomas P. Whitney. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1973, 436.