English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The article proposes a comparative study of the Soviet Thaw, initiated by Nikita Khrushchev after the 20th Congress of the Party, and the contemporary Russia with a special emphasis on the international relations between Russia and the United States. Attempts have been made to draw some parallels between the Khrushchev Thaw and the President Putin parade diplomacy. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the parade diplomacy and neo-Stalinist tendencies hovering over the country today as well as dwells upon the role of carnival within Russian propaganda shedding a new light on the Kremlin actual strategy. Over the past seventy years the United States and the Soviet Union (afterward Russia) were two powers with the unchanged vital interests and constant diplomatic course. Obviously they have gone through numerous ups and downs in their relationship also called the periods of détente and tensions. The Thaw, beginning from the 20th Party in 1956, where the doctrine of peaceful coexistence was put forward by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and lasted until the end of his rule in 1964, was a notorious phase of détente. From 1955 until 1960 the Soviet-American relations reached their peak. However, even this idyll was not free from hostility. Indeed, the paradox of the Thaw period lies in manifesting official friendly diplomacy both by the Soviet Union and the US in the “Spirit of Geneva” and simultaneously practicing the fiercest offensive on the cultural field since the wartime. By studying those five years of outstanding closeness between the “natural enemies,”1 one can better understand their most intimate motives and expectations. This paper falls into two parts: firstly, it expounds on the roots of the Thaw ideology shaped by Russia’s traditional ambivalent relationship to the West, in fact an eerie mix of fear and attraction as shown by the Soviet diplomatic and cultural choices during the second half of the 1950s. Moreover, Soviet official prose elaborated this eerie narrative transforming the Thaw political language into literature and making it more accessible to the masses. The paper deals precisely with two case studies of Socialist Realist authors—fussy followers of the Party line—and makes an attempt to extract the ideological content from their works. Secondly, I assume that if history does not repeat itself it often rhymes. Basing on 1 Robert C. Grogin, Natural Enemies. The United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, 1917-1991 (Lanham : Lexington Books, 2001). this assumption, a parallel is drawn between two five years periods: 1955-1960 and 2009-2014. A closer look at the 2009-2014 years will reveal the fact President Obama’s double mandate has indeed much in common with Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. Apart from similarities in the geopolitical game between the US and the former Soviet Union in the 1950s and half a century later, the both countries share a common ground of political sensibility. This is why it seems crucial to elaborate a more accurate conception of the Thaw consciousness not only to understand the Kremlin current strategy, but also to grasp some key features of the Russian-American modus vivendi in the long run. 1Waging the Cultural War: Ideological Patterns of the Thaw An ‘Armed Thaw’ It seems that the oxymoron “armed truce,” used by the scholar Hugh Thomas in his book on the beginnings of the Cold War,2 is also relevant for the Thaw period. In 1953 there were several factors involved in the pacification of international relations. Firstly, the change of leaders of the two superpowers gave hope that a compromise could be found easier than between “Uncle Joe” and the “petty shopkeeper” (as Joseph Stalin and Harry Truman scornfully called each other in private). Secondly, both the American and the Soviet people were exhausted after the first round of the Cold War3 and the Peace Movement had millions of supporters around the world. Thirdly, politicians were limited by the costs of war. In order to avoid “an unbearable security burden leading to economic disaster,”4 President Eisenhower put forward the New Look policy in 1953 based on deterrence through the concept of massive retaliation. In his New Course speech, given before the Supreme Soviet on 8 August 1953, Georgy Malenkov seemed to hold a similar idea.5 Undoubtedly, Stalin’s death allowed the diplomatic Thaw. On 15 March Malenkov—considered at the time as the Kremlin heir—delivered a speech before the Supreme Soviet, where he argued that conflicts between Moscow and Washington should “be decided by peaceful means, on the basis of mutual understanding.” Washington then seized the opportunity of a brief power vacuum to engage in the path of the détente. On 16 April 1953—only three months after his inauguration day—President Eisenhower delivered the “Chance for Peace Speech” where he clearly expressed his will to reduce defense spending and warned against the dangers of starting the arms race; in December of the same year it was followed by the “Atoms for Peace Speech.” In July 1955, Khrushchev and Eisenhower first met at the Geneva Summit, dedicated to disarmament and inter2 Hugh Thomas, Armed Truce. The Beginnings of the Cold War. 1945-1946 (London: Sceptre, 1988). The title is inspired by a quote by Dean Acheson to President Truman on September 25, 1945: if co-operation is impossible, “there will be no organized peace but an armed truce.” 3 On Soviet mentalities in the mid 1950s, see Yuri Aksîutin, “Khrushchevskaĭa Ottepel” i obshchestvennye nastroenĭa v SSSR v 1953-1964 gg. (Moscow: Rosspen, 2010), 179-188; Hugh Thomas talks about a “truce of exhaustion” in Armed Truce, 32. 4 Samuel P. Huntington, The Common Defense (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 66. 5 Aksîutin, “Khrushchevskaîa Ottepel,” 67 and Vladislav Zubok, A Failed Empire: the Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev (Chapell Hill: the University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 96. 116 Journal of Russian American Studies 2.2 (November 2018) national security. The summit enhanced communication and trust between the two states, arousing the so-called “Spirit of Geneva.” About half a year later, the 20th Congress of the Party made a decision that Soviet foreign policy should be based on the principle of peaceful coexistence, articulated for the first time by Georgy Chicherin in 1922 and reaffirmed in the Third Program of the Communist Party in 1961. In September 1959, Khrushchev flew to the US; subsequently his visit was favorably highlighted in the books Living in Peace and Friendship,6 and Face to face with America.7 Needless to say, the diplomatic progress during this trip was negligible on both sides (related to the temporary lifting of the Soviet ultimatum on Berlin), but the result was that it showed the perception of the American people by the Soviet delegation summarized in Khrushchev’s address to Americans on television, ending with the words: “Good bye! Good luck! Friends!”8 As a token of the diplomatic rapprochement in US-Soviet relations in the wake of the Spirit of Geneva, cultural exchanges were significantly fostered during the Thaw covering almost all aspects of cultural and social life such as the theater, music, books, newspapers, broadcasts like Music USA, museums and exhibitions.9 In January 1956 the Soviets proposed a twenty-year treaty of friendship putting much stress on broader artistic contacts; later they advanced the idea of new film cooperation. On 9 October 1956, an agreement was signed for a renewed circulation of magazines within the two countries, such as Amerika and USSR. In return, the United States Information Agency raised the budget on cultural and information programs to $325 million.10 This open-door policy culminated in the cultural agreement signed on 27 January 1958 (also known as the Lacy-Zarubin agreement), which implied the exchange of films, scholars, sportsmen, artists, and writers. But cultural exchanges were dominated not only by philanthropy. At the very outbreak of the Cold War, state policies from both sides had already laid the ground for an intense cultural struggle; and during the Thaw, in an unexpected although logical way, the more the threat of an armed war moved away, the harder 6 Zhit’ v mire i druzhbe, translated in english Khrushchev in America (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1959). It gathered speeches, accounts on press conferences, and meetings of the Soviet leader. 7 Alexey Adzhubey (ed.), Litsom k litsu s Amerikoĭ (Moscow: Politizdat, 1960). 8 William Taubman, Khrushchev: The Man and His Era (New York: Norton and Company, 200), 439. 9 Useful studies on the influence of American and British music on the Soviet Union include: Danielle Fosler-Lussier, Music in America’s Cold War Diplomacy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015); David Caute, The Dancer Defects: the Struggle for Cultural Supremacy during the Cold War (Oxford University Press, 2003), 377-467; Yale Richmond, Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2004), 205-209; Penny M. Von Eschen, Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 10, 13, 34, 225; Alexander Bratersky, “Back in the USSR: The Beatles Shaped a Generation in Soviet Russia,” The Telegraph, January 25, 2008. 10 Theodore Streitbert, « Memorandum for the President, » Sept. 4, 1955, General Correspondence ad Memoranda Series, Box 3, John Foster Dulles Papers, DDEL; FRUS 1955-1957, IX: 556-558, quoted in Walter Hixson, Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War (New York: St Martin’s Griffin, 1998), 104. Raphaelle Auclert, The ‘Armed Thaw’ 117 the propaganda offensive became. As for the CIA, it had created the Council for Cultural Freedom (CCF) in June 1950 in West Berlin in order to aggregate intellectuals against Communism and to promote an artistic production founded on liberal democratic princ

The ‘Armed Thaw’: Cultural War under Peaceful Coexistence A Comparative Study between the 1950s and Today