This dissertation combines institutional history and social analysis to provide a more nuanced depiction of the Soviet experience in the Great Patriotic War, a portrait which considers the experience of children, the state’s expectations of children, and an exploration of the institution responsible for connecting child and state, the V.I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization. It argues that the state’s expectations for children during the Great Patriotic War were issued primarily in order to save the floundering Young Pioneer organization. Though the Pioneers were supposed to lead children in all sorts of tasks and behaviors – a role they had fulfilled since their inception in 1922 – the organization nearly collapsed under the strain of wartime conditions in the early years of the war. In order to resurrect its image and secure its rightful place in the vanguard of children, the Pioneers launched a concerted effort to reassert its leadership. Language, values, and models of heroism were revamped to more accurately reflect the war. The internalization of these standards by children supported the Pioneers’ claim to leadership. Campaigns of action were launched to allow the Pioneers to claim ownership of children’s accomplishments. To guarantee success, the organization drew its ideas from preexisting activities – activities children were already doing in 1941-42, largely on local initiative. What had been conceived of and run as a prescriptive organization for two decades became a descriptive organization, subsuming all appropriate acts into the task of reestablishing the Pioneers at the forefront of Soviet childhood. This suggests that children had far more agency than previously assumed, and their many roles complicate the typical “child-victim” normally associated with the Great Patriotic War and its propaganda. The post-Stalingrad turnaround allowed the Pioneers the opportunity to reassert themselves. Becoming the vanguard, the organization established the foundations for a Pioneer-led heroism storied in Soviet history. Though internal problems continued to dog the Pioneers for years, the foundational story was established in the latter years of the war. Beginning in 1943, the organization began writing itself into the post-war victory narrative, alleging successful leadership among children and ignoring the near-catastrophe they had averted.

The Author in his work deals with the transformation of the image of members of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in a film during the 20th century. Initial chapters are devoted to general aspects of use of movies in Memory studies and the development of the film industry in the USSR. The main part of the work focuses primarily on image of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in film of Soviet origin, the use of symbols and images and propaganda frameworks of Soviet filmmaking during the "short" 20th century, extending to the period after 1989 and examining the surviving Soviet discourse in it. To process the author uses Ego documents, contemporary press, studies, monographs and publicated archival sources.

Goal of this master thesis is to show that the myth of the Great Patriotic War is a source of Russian soft power in Belarus. After the methodology chapter, the thesis continues with connecting the concept of soft power authored by Joseph Nye with the concept of myth which is here defined on the basis of theories of Eliade and Malinowski. The next part discusses Russian soft power in the Post-Soviet area in general and in Belarus in particular. It demonstrates that Russian soft power rests largely on common history shared by Russians and other Post-Soviet nations. As a consequence, the main sources of Russian soft power rest on identities and narratives, including myths. The myth of the Great Patriotic War was at the center of Soviet mythology and it has preserved its dominant position also in the Post-Soviet period, what holds true particularly for Belarus. The following part retraces the evolution of the myth of the Great Patriotic War from its emergence during the Second World War until today. It shows that the essence of this myth is a feeling of togetherness and of community that unites the former Soviet nations. The last part presents an interpretative analysis of five qualitative interviews with Belarusians. The analysis of individual cases to a large extent confirmed that the myth of the...

World War II remains to this day the great determining historical event for the collective memory of the Russian people. This fact is illustrated in the omnipresent memorialization of the war, as well as in the transmission and performance of the “Victory in War” myth. Symbols of memory are experiencing a revival, as can be seen in the creation of new memorials, documentaries, concerts, literary texts and video clips, as well as in consumer goods and advertising. A recent example of this can be seen in how the Battle of Stalingrad is memorialized, and the memory production surrounding the Great Patriotic War of 1812. This article presents the different memory types used by the Russian state to remember the war. The focus of this analysis is on the linguistic tools used to evaluate and normalize the war.