No description available.

This dissertation aims to explain how Soviet national historiographies were constructed in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, in 1936-1953 and what the political and ideological reasons were behind the way they were written. The dissertation aims to contribute to current scholarship on Soviet nationality policies; on Stalinist nation-building projects; and to the debate on whether the Soviet period was a project of developmentalist modernization or not. This dissertation aims to examine the process of national history writing in three republics from the local point of view, by using the local archival sources. For this research, archival materials that have been overlooked by scholars up to this point from the archives of the communist parties, academy of sciences, and central state archives in Kiev, Ukraine, Baku, Azerbaijan, and Almaty, Kazakhstan have been collected. The timeline starts with Zhdanov’s commission in 1936, which summoned historians and ideologues of the Communist Party in Moscow to write an all-Union history because a parallel campaign of writing national histories had been initialized by the local communist parties. The first two chapters cover the pre-war (1936-1941) period, when national histories were written after the demise of Pokrovskiian historiography. Although there was one ideology, there were different preferences in solving the problem of ethnogenesis, defining national heroes, and also different preferences among the sections of the past that national histories emphasized. The third chapter explains the construction of national histories during the war period (1941-1945). The chapter also presents how national histories were used for wartime propaganda. Finally, the last chapter is about the post-war discussions and the shift of emphasis from ‘national’ to ‘class’ that occurred in the non-Russian national narratives in the Zhdanovshchina period. While there was an ‘imperial design’ for the necessities of managing a multi-national state, the Soviet Union also appears as a modernization project for all three cases by constructing national narratives. Though non-Russian Soviet historiographies produced contradictory narratives in different decades, they also homogenized, codified and nationalized the narrative of the past. Regional, dynastic, religious, tribal figures and events incorporated into grandiose national narratives. Nations were primordialized and their national identities armed with spatial and temporal indigenousness within the borders of their national republics. Modern national identities of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gained from this homogenization and codification by the Soviet regime. Although modernism is not only about construction of national narratives, the latter points out the developmental and modernizing character of the Soviet period.

La recherche présentée dans le cadre de ce mémoire porte sur le développement de la Théorie linguistique de la traduction telle qu’élaborée par des traducteurs soviétiques à partir des années 1950. Ce mémoire vise à démontrer les particularités de l’évolution des connaissances traductologiques sous la pression politique, idéologique et institutionnelle du régime soviétique (1922-1991). En particulier, le travail cherche à expliquer les raisons qui ont abouti à l’isolement théorique de la traductologie russe. À partir de la théorie du polysystème littéraire d’Even-Zohar et de son analyse de la structure des systèmes littéraires, ce mémoire examine la structure et l’évolution des différents facteurs (producteur, institutions, produit, répertoire, marché) qui ont façonné la configuration spécifique de la Théorie linguistique de la traduction en tant que produit du système soviétique de traduction, tel qu’il se développe dans les conditions particulières du polysystème littéraire soviétique. L’analyse des travaux des auteurs dits « canonisés » de l’approche linguistique russe (Fyodorov, Retsker, Švejtser, Barkhoudarov, Komissarov) permet de montrer comment la Théorie linguistique de la traduction s’est imposée comme la seule théorie capable de survivre au contexte soviétique de pression idéologique et de contrôle total du régime communiste. Ce sont ces facteurs qui expliquent aussi le décalage théorique et institutionnel observé entre les traductologies russe et occidentale. / The research presented in this work focuses on the development of the Linguistic Theory of Translation as initially formulated by Soviet translators in the 1950s. The goal of this study is to analyse the particular evolution of translation scholarship in the Soviet era (1922-1991) in a context of political, ideological and institutional pressure and control. Besides, this work seeks to clarify the reasons why the Russian approach to translation became isolated from other theoretical developments in the field. Based on Even-Zohar’s theory of literary polysystem and his analysis of the structure of literary systems, this thesis examines the various factors (producer, institutions, product, repertoire, market) whose changing configuration conditioned the development of the Linguistic Theory of Translation, as a product of a specific translation system within the Soviet literary polysystem. Our analysis of the works of “canonical” theoreticians of the Russian linguistic approach to translation (Fyodorov, Retsker, Švejtser, Barkhoudarov, Komissarov) shows that the Linguistic Theory of Translation was the only theory that could survive the Soviet context of ideological pressure and total control of the communist regime. These very factors, we also argue, explain the theoretical and institutional gap that separates the Russian Linguistic Theory from Western approaches to translation.

Diploma thesis is aspiring to cover and interpret processes, which in the period of culminating Stalinism determined course and results of intraparty terror in the local - mainly regional and departmental - organizations of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. It is thoroughly addressing the state of affairs on the lower levels of the party organism. It is monitoring not only techniques of functioning or on the contrary dysfunction of hierarchic machinery, but also various interests of given individuals or even whole groups emerging in the party. Under the label of intraparty terror it then comprises dictatorial practice of leading officials which established itself on the local level as well as fight against it headed be lower functionaries and active party members. Both actualities are not interpreted from the outside by some general causes, but as autonomous phenomenons with their own preconditions and dynamics, more or less different in every region. Resulting scenarios consequently demonstrated considerable variety. Finally great scope is dedicated to the Stalinist ideology, which is not percepted as a constricted doctrine creating loyal subjects, but as a complex discourse providing party members with language in which they can act and pursue their goals. It endowed necessary instruments...

The diploma thesis "The Poet Sings Poorly. The Media Response to The Song about Viktorka by Jaroslav Seifert in The Fifties of 20th Century" deals with the campaign set against the poet Jaroslav Seifert and his piece "The Song about Viktorka". The affair was raised by the communist weekly magazine "Tvorba". There is a critical historical analysis applied in the diploma thesis. The event is outlined from the wide perspective and also the medial, cultural-political, aesthetical and personality sights are viewed and combined there. It attends to the cultural, political and medial conditions in the turn of the 40s and 50s and it also analyses Seifert's position in this period. It investigates the acceptance of Seifert's poetic skills after the year 1948 and also it describes poet's political profile and his relationship to the communist party. It follows in details by broad circumstances which the critics of Seifert's poem "The Song about Viktorka" provoked and which were extended until the inter-war period. It analyses the reviews of the mentioned Seifert's piece of work, its impact on poet's future life and the cultural area of the beginning of the fifties. The aim of the diploma thesis is to set a comprehensive view of the affair Seifert had to face up with. It can also be used as an example of...

The thesis focuses on the construction and symbolic encoding of Prague from 1945 to the late 1950s, with emphasis on the Stalinist era. Based on an analysis of historical texts and architectural projects, the thesis studies the motivations and tactics, which the post-war political and professional elites sought to manifest their own values and ideological principles in the area of the capital city. Through the analysis of historical concepts of "old" and "new" Prague examines the thesis the changing relationship between tradition and modernity in the image of the city. The sociocultural phenomenon of Stalinism is thematized as a specific part of the long process of modernization, which passes through Prague during the first half of the 20th century. The thesis deals also with the attributes that should characterize the "new" socialist Prague and with the ways of using the Soviet patterns and local historical traditions. Keywords: Prague, city, image of the city, architecture, urbanism, memory, heritage, socialist realism, stalinism, 1950s

A presente investigação surgiu da constatação de entrecruzamentos entre os discursos visuais da Mostra da Revolução Fascista (Roma, 1932-34) e do pavilhão soviético na Exposição Internacional de Imprensa de Colônia (Alemanha, 1928). Tais entrecruzamentos - reforçados e consubstanciados por contatos concretos entre hierarcas do fascismo e do stalinismo - levaram, a partir dos materiais visuais selecionados, à investigação de problemáticas comuns aos dois regimes, como a industrialização acelerada tardia, a expansão produtiva e o culto do chefe. Nesse sentido, as reflexões de A. Gramsci e W. Benjamin acerca da \"revolução passiva\" e da \"estetização da política\", respectivamente, constituíram constructos crítico-teóricos cruciais no desenvolvimento reflexivo da investigação. O objetivo da pesquisa de doutorado, em síntese, foi examinar e refletir sobre o protagonismo da fotografia como instrumento de reprodução simbólica e dominação, tanto na Itália fascista e quanto na URSS stalinista. / The present research emerged from the perception of intersections in the language field between the Exhibition of Fascist Revolution (Rome, 1932-1934) and the Soviet Pavilion at the International Press Exhibition (Cologne, 1928). These intersections - strengthened and substantiated by concrete interactions between Fascist and Stalinist hierarchs - lead also to a research, based in selected visual material, about common problems for both regimes such as a catch-up industrialization, production expansion and the cult of the leader´s personality. In this sense, Antonio Gramsci\'s reflections on the notion of \"passive revolution\" and Walter Benjamin\'s on the \"aestheticization of politics\" emerged as fundamental critical-theoretical contributions. In short, the aim of this doctoral research was to analyse and reflect about the protagonism of photography as an instrument for symbolic reproduction and domination, both in the Fascist Italy and in the Stalinist URSS.

This thesis examines the interaction of Georgian painting and national politics in the first two decades of Soviet power in Georgia, 1921-1939, focussing in particular on the period following the consolidation of Stalin's power at the helm of the Communist Party in 1926-7. In the Stalin era, Georgians enjoyed special status among Soviet nations thanks to Georgia's prestige as the place of Stalin's birth. However, Georgians' advanced sense of their national sovereignty and initial hostility towards Bolshevik control following Georgia's Sovietisation in 1921 also resulted in Georgia's uniquely fraught relationship with Soviet power in Moscow in the decades that followed. In light of these circumstances, this thesis explores how and why the experience and activities of Georgian painters between 1926 and 1939 differed from those of other Soviet artists. One of its central arguments is that the experiences of Georgian artists and critics in this period not only differed significantly from those of artists and critics of other republics, but that the uniqueness of their experience was precipitated by a complex network of factors resulting from the interaction of various political imperatives and practical circumstances, including those relating to Soviet national politics. Chapter one of this thesis introduces the key institutions and individuals involved in producing, evaluating and setting the direction of Georgian painting in the 1920s and early 1930s. Chapters two and three show that artists and critics in Georgia as well as commentators in Moscow in the 1920s and 30s were actively engaged in efforts to interpret the Party's demand for 'national form' in Soviet culture and to suggest what that form might entail as regards Georgian painting. However, contradictions inherent in Soviet nationalities policy, which both demanded the active cultivation of cultural difference between Soviet nationalities and eagerly anticipated a time when national distinctions in all spheres would naturally disappear, made it impossible for an appropriate interpretation of 'national form' to be identified. Chapter three, moreover, demonstrates how frequent shifts in Soviet cultural and nationalities policies presented Moscow institutions with a range of practical challenges which ultimately prevented them from reflecting in their exhibitions and publications the contemporary artistic activity taking place in the republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia. A key finding of chapters four and five concerns the uniquely significant role that Lavrenty Beria, Stalin's ruthless deputy and the head of the Georgian and Transcaucasian Party organisations, played in differentiating Georgian painters' experiences from those of Soviet artists of other nationalities. Beginning in 1934, Beria employed Georgian painters to produce an exhibition of monumental paintings, opening at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow in 1937, depicting episodes from his own falsified history of Stalin's role in the revolutionary movement in Transcaucasia. As this thesis shows, the production of the exhibition introduced an unprecedented degree of direct Party supervision over Georgian painting as Beria personally critiqued works by Georgian painters produced on prescribed narrative subjects in a centralised collective studio. As well as representing a major contribution to Stalin's personality cult, the exhibition, which conferred on Georgian painters special responsibility for representing Stalin and his activities, was also a public statement of the special status that the Georgians were now to enjoy, second only to that of the Russians. However, this special status involved both special privileges and special responsibilities. Georgians would enjoy special access to opportunities in Moscow and a special degree of autonomy in local governance, but in return they were required to lead the way in declaring allegiance to the Stalin regime. Chapter six returns to the debate about 'national form' in Georgian painting by examining how the pre-Revolutionary self-taught Georgian painter, Niko Pirosmani, was discussed by cultural commentators in Georgia and Moscow in the 1920s and 30s as a source informing a Soviet or Soviet Georgian canon of painting. It shows that, in addition to presenting views on the suitability of Pirosmani's painting either in terms of its formal or class content, commentators perpetuated and developed a cult of Pirosmani steeped in stereotypes of a Georgian 'national character.' Further, the establishment of this cult during the late 1920s and early 1930s seems to have been a primary reason for the painter's subsequent canonisation in the second half of the 1930s as a 'Great Tradition' of Soviet Georgian culture. It helped to articulate a version of Georgian national identity that was at once familiar and gratifying for Georgians and useful for the Soviet regime. The combined impression of cultural sovereignty embodied in this and other 'Great Traditions' of Soviet Georgian culture and the special status articulated through the 1937 exhibition allowed Georgian nationalism to be aligned, for a time, with support for Stalin and the Soviet regime.

A presente investigação surgiu da constatação de entrecruzamentos entre os discursos visuais da Mostra da Revolução Fascista (Roma, 1932-34) e do pavilhão soviético na Exposição Internacional de Imprensa de Colônia (Alemanha, 1928). Tais entrecruzamentos - reforçados e consubstanciados por contatos concretos entre hierarcas do fascismo e do stalinismo - levaram, a partir dos materiais visuais selecionados, à investigação de problemáticas comuns aos dois regimes, como a industrialização acelerada tardia, a expansão produtiva e o culto do chefe. Nesse sentido, as reflexões de A. Gramsci e W. Benjamin acerca da \"revolução passiva\" e da \"estetização da política\", respectivamente, constituíram constructos crítico-teóricos cruciais no desenvolvimento reflexivo da investigação. O objetivo da pesquisa de doutorado, em síntese, foi examinar e refletir sobre o protagonismo da fotografia como instrumento de reprodução simbólica e dominação, tanto na Itália fascista e quanto na URSS stalinista. / The present research emerged from the perception of intersections in the language field between the Exhibition of Fascist Revolution (Rome, 1932-1934) and the Soviet Pavilion at the International Press Exhibition (Cologne, 1928). These intersections - strengthened and substantiated by concrete interactions between Fascist and Stalinist hierarchs - lead also to a research, based in selected visual material, about common problems for both regimes such as a catch-up industrialization, production expansion and the cult of the leader´s personality. In this sense, Antonio Gramsci\'s reflections on the notion of \"passive revolution\" and Walter Benjamin\'s on the \"aestheticization of politics\" emerged as fundamental critical-theoretical contributions. In short, the aim of this doctoral research was to analyse and reflect about the protagonism of photography as an instrument for symbolic reproduction and domination, both in the Fascist Italy and in the Stalinist URSS.

This thesis examines the writing of U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Joseph Davies, Norman Deuel of the United Press, and Joseph Barnes of the New York Herald Tribune over the course of their respective postings in Moscow between 1936-1938. The purpose of this thesis is to look past interpretations of perceived right and wrong reporting on the Soviet Union and instead identify precisely how and why Americans outside the diplomatic corps viewed and perhaps identified with aspects of Stalinist society. Residing in Moscow over an extended period of time, Davies, Barnes, and Deuel were not mere observers. Immersed in Soviet society, Davies and the press correspondents became themselves producers of socialist realist writing as their American affinity for ambitious modernization translated into an idealized view of Stalinist modernization projects, one which viewed present hardships through a socialist realist lens while echoing Soviet enthusiasm for medical and scientific advancements, material plenty, heroics, youth, and territorial exploration. Excluded from the close-knit circle of career diplomats, Davies and the newsmen also came to view the Moscow show trials through the same socialist realist lens, one which presented the desired utopian future through elaborate socialist realist theatre.