What do you think?
Rate this book
The Russians
Hedrick Smith has done what we all wish we could do: he has gone to Russia and spoken to the people. Over steaming samovars, in cramped flats, and on dirt-floors, he has spoken to peasants and bureaucrats, artists and officials. He has studied their customs and their governments and shares his fascinating insights and fresh perspectives with us.
746 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
44 people are currently reading
1131 people want to read
About the author
Hedrick Smith
31 books32 followersHedrick Smith is a journalist who has been a reporter and editor for The New York Times, a producer/correspondent for the PBS show Frontline, and author of several books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
December 19, 2020
Written at the height of the Cold War,this is a fascinating study of Soviet Russia,by a journalist who spent several years living there.
It takes a look at culture,religion,corruption,dissent,repression and politics in Russia.
It is detailed and exhaustive and leaves hardly any aspect of Russian life unexplored during the communist era.
It takes a look at culture,religion,corruption,dissent,repression and politics in Russia.
It is detailed and exhaustive and leaves hardly any aspect of Russian life unexplored during the communist era.
March 21, 2014
When Hedrick Smith’s book “The Russians” was published in 1976, it gave American readers a taste of what life was like inside the Soviet Union. In “The Russians” Smith paints a vivid portrait of the culture of the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev’s rule. Smith was the Moscow bureau chief for The New York Times from 1971-74, and in 1974 he won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for his articles about life in the Soviet Union. I was lucky enough to intern for Hedrick Smith during college in the fall of 2001, as he was finishing up the excellent documentary “Rediscovering Dave Brubeck.” Smith’s most recent book is 2012’s “Who Stole the American Dream?" which is an amazing book.
“The Russians” is a large book, 680 pages in the original paperback edition, and Smith covers just about every imaginable aspect of Soviet society. I learned something new on every page of this book. I can’t accurately summarize all of the different parts of the book in this review, so I’ll focus on the sections that I enjoyed reading the most.
While reading “The Russians” I was very struck by how completely the Soviet government controlled society and everyday life. Smith chronicled how the government censored the information that citizens had access to, which ranged from not informing citizens about wildfires raging only 15-20 miles outside of Moscow, to the heartbreaking story of a man whose daughter died in a plane crash, which he only learned of by going to the airport police-who only told him about the crash on the condition that he keep the news confidential. Because people had so little access through the state-run media to any kind of meaningful information, either about their own country or any others, the government was able to better control the population. This total control over information even extended to seemingly mundane things. For example, while Smith was in Moscow in 1973, the government published the first telephone directory in 15 years. Smith writes, “The problem with this phone book, as with so many desirable items in the Soviet Union, is that supply made not even the barest pretense of satisfying demand. For a city of eight million people, the printers published 50,000 phone books.” (p.472)
I knew that Soviet citizens had very little political freedom, but I didn’t realize how many perks the elite members of the Communist Party enjoyed. Smith deftly exposes one of the many contradictions in Soviet society: that the supposedly classless society was actually just as stratified between the haves and have-nots as the West was, if not more so. Members of the elite were granted access to special stores where they could buy goods not available to other citizens. Elites also had opportunities to travel abroad, which meant that they had access to foreign goods, and work abroad was often paid in special “certificate rubles” which could be used in special stores and had more purchasing power than ordinary rubles. There was also little chance of upward mobility in the Soviet system-if you weren’t a Party member you didn’t have much of a chance of making a decent living.
Although parts of “The Russians” are inevitably dated, Smith’s deep insights into Russia and the Russian character make the book still very relevant today. It’s a shame that it’s out of print, it really deserves to be re-issued and enjoy wider circulation. Hedrick Smith is a great writer, and he crafts many memorable sentences throughout “The Russians.” One of my favorite passages is his spot-on comments about Soviet architecture:
“The newer subdivisions are a forest of massive prefab apartment blocks, numbing in their monotony (and duplicated in cities all across the country), pockmarked and graying with the instant aging that afflicts all Soviet architecture. They are left naked without grass or shrubbery or shutters or flower boxes, like fleets of dowdy ocean liners gone aground on some barren shore and dwarfing their passengers with their inhuman scale.” (p.140)
Smith also uses as an epigraph for one of his chapters a very apt quote, which still does a good job of summing up Russia in the 21st century:
“Russians have gloried in the very thing foreigners criticized them for-blind and boundless devotion to the will of the monarch, even when in his most insane flights he trampled underfoot all the laws of justice and humanity.” Nikolai Karamzin, Russian historian, 1766-1826. (p.320)
If you’re interested in Soviet history, or in Russian culture, Hedrick Smith’s “The Russians” is an excellent book that I would highly recommend.
“The Russians” is a large book, 680 pages in the original paperback edition, and Smith covers just about every imaginable aspect of Soviet society. I learned something new on every page of this book. I can’t accurately summarize all of the different parts of the book in this review, so I’ll focus on the sections that I enjoyed reading the most.
While reading “The Russians” I was very struck by how completely the Soviet government controlled society and everyday life. Smith chronicled how the government censored the information that citizens had access to, which ranged from not informing citizens about wildfires raging only 15-20 miles outside of Moscow, to the heartbreaking story of a man whose daughter died in a plane crash, which he only learned of by going to the airport police-who only told him about the crash on the condition that he keep the news confidential. Because people had so little access through the state-run media to any kind of meaningful information, either about their own country or any others, the government was able to better control the population. This total control over information even extended to seemingly mundane things. For example, while Smith was in Moscow in 1973, the government published the first telephone directory in 15 years. Smith writes, “The problem with this phone book, as with so many desirable items in the Soviet Union, is that supply made not even the barest pretense of satisfying demand. For a city of eight million people, the printers published 50,000 phone books.” (p.472)
I knew that Soviet citizens had very little political freedom, but I didn’t realize how many perks the elite members of the Communist Party enjoyed. Smith deftly exposes one of the many contradictions in Soviet society: that the supposedly classless society was actually just as stratified between the haves and have-nots as the West was, if not more so. Members of the elite were granted access to special stores where they could buy goods not available to other citizens. Elites also had opportunities to travel abroad, which meant that they had access to foreign goods, and work abroad was often paid in special “certificate rubles” which could be used in special stores and had more purchasing power than ordinary rubles. There was also little chance of upward mobility in the Soviet system-if you weren’t a Party member you didn’t have much of a chance of making a decent living.
Although parts of “The Russians” are inevitably dated, Smith’s deep insights into Russia and the Russian character make the book still very relevant today. It’s a shame that it’s out of print, it really deserves to be re-issued and enjoy wider circulation. Hedrick Smith is a great writer, and he crafts many memorable sentences throughout “The Russians.” One of my favorite passages is his spot-on comments about Soviet architecture:
“The newer subdivisions are a forest of massive prefab apartment blocks, numbing in their monotony (and duplicated in cities all across the country), pockmarked and graying with the instant aging that afflicts all Soviet architecture. They are left naked without grass or shrubbery or shutters or flower boxes, like fleets of dowdy ocean liners gone aground on some barren shore and dwarfing their passengers with their inhuman scale.” (p.140)
Smith also uses as an epigraph for one of his chapters a very apt quote, which still does a good job of summing up Russia in the 21st century:
“Russians have gloried in the very thing foreigners criticized them for-blind and boundless devotion to the will of the monarch, even when in his most insane flights he trampled underfoot all the laws of justice and humanity.” Nikolai Karamzin, Russian historian, 1766-1826. (p.320)
If you’re interested in Soviet history, or in Russian culture, Hedrick Smith’s “The Russians” is an excellent book that I would highly recommend.
January 22, 2025
I read this book when I was at school in Ireland in the mid-1980s and found it fascinating. It was an excellent book for its time. Journalistic and flawed but with interesting insights. Should it be read now? Well it shouldn't be read if you are looking to understand post Soviet Russian history. Like innumerable history books written before the break of the Soviet Union this one swallows the tale of Muscovy under Rurikovich and Romanov Tsars advancing and 'reoccupying' territories lost at the time of the Mongol invasions. This is a history which, outside Putin's Russia, would result in a failure grade on school or university course today and make you deeply unpopular with Ukrainians, Belarusians, etc.
So for me this, like almost all 20th century English language works on Russian history, are deeply flawed because events have moved on so dramatically. It is not simply the vast new archival resources available but that we can no longer look at vast amounts of what was imperial and later Soviet territory as 'Russia' or their history during those years as 'Russian'.
Of course this is less a history than a portrait of the Russian people in the 1970s - but even here we have learned so much since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Books like this tried to put a human face on the mass of Russians which is good, for the time, but how little the author understood of the reality of life in the Soviet Union is awe inspiring. I remember a teacher pointing out that 70 years after the revolution Russian women were still using rags for tampons. But then this author, nor most of the academics, journalists or spooks in the CIA or MI6 would have noticed that. They were all men.
A book that was, maybe, very good for its time but now reads those 'balanced' accounts of John Gunther in the 1930s when he went around profiling Mussolini, Hitler and others - utterly pointless now except for showing the ignorance of contemporary reportage.
I give this book one star to reflect its use now.
So for me this, like almost all 20th century English language works on Russian history, are deeply flawed because events have moved on so dramatically. It is not simply the vast new archival resources available but that we can no longer look at vast amounts of what was imperial and later Soviet territory as 'Russia' or their history during those years as 'Russian'.
Of course this is less a history than a portrait of the Russian people in the 1970s - but even here we have learned so much since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Books like this tried to put a human face on the mass of Russians which is good, for the time, but how little the author understood of the reality of life in the Soviet Union is awe inspiring. I remember a teacher pointing out that 70 years after the revolution Russian women were still using rags for tampons. But then this author, nor most of the academics, journalists or spooks in the CIA or MI6 would have noticed that. They were all men.
A book that was, maybe, very good for its time but now reads those 'balanced' accounts of John Gunther in the 1930s when he went around profiling Mussolini, Hitler and others - utterly pointless now except for showing the ignorance of contemporary reportage.
I give this book one star to reflect its use now.
July 26, 2016
I read this book when I was a freshman in high school. My history teacher felt that I was "too advanced" to sit through the basic required freshman geography class. So he had me go out and buy this book, go to the library during class and read this, and then discuss it with him periodically. I realize now that he made it something like a seminar class in college, which I wish I could have appreciated more. I thought it was an interesting book, and one of these days, I might go back and read it again. Thanks, Mr. Feeney!
May 2, 2013
One of the most comprehensive accounts of life in the 1960s and 1970s in the Soviet Union. As a reporter, Mr. Smith is able to provide unforgettable scenes of the absurdity of late communism. He also provides great insights into the Russian character and wonderful vignettes about his time spent in Moscow. Really essential reading for anyone who wants to understand modern Russia.
December 30, 2017
Read when it was first published and I was in high school, Smith's The Russians, was my introduction to outstanding non-fiction about the world beyond my own confines. Sparked a life=long interest in reading about the world at large and Russia in particular.
February 26, 2016
Although older, it is still relevant. It is about Russian culture, and his thesis is that what we see under the Soviets we saw under the Czars. And probably we will see under the Presidents...
January 20, 2012
I've traveled to Russia numerous times and have found it to be exactly as Smith has described it. Very well written, fascinating and accurate.
June 15, 2011
I read this right before I worked for Hedrick! I love his writing. Great investigative journalism and bottom-up history. It was SUCH a comprehensive look at Soviet Russia in the 1970s, it's staggering to think he experienced and reported on all those facets of society. I learned so much and it made me think a lot about America, capitalism, and parallels between the Cold War and today’s war against terrorism/Islamist fundamentalists. But at 740 pages, it dragged on for a bit too long.
May 28, 2012
A must read book for those interested in the everyday life of the people in the Soviet Union.
February 15, 2023
This book is intriguing to read now, with the hindsight of what happened in the Sovjet Union since then, and especially in Russia today. 'Russians' is like a lookingglass on the '70 Russia, almost like a timecapsulse buried in the ground. Hendrick Smith wrote this book in 1975 after having lived as a journalist in Sovjet Union Russia for three years from '71 till '73. From there it's remarkable that he is able to give a pretty good prediction about in which direction the lives of Russians would developed after he finished his writings. What helps is that through many interviews with natives and research, he has a very good historical perspective of where Russians came from. At the same time, it's this historical perspective that makes his predictions somewhat more logical. In his opion Russians will probably stay much the same in the foreseeable future because not much has changed in their ways since the beginning of their culture. Russian Culture and values Have pretty much stayed the same since Ivan the Terrible and the Czars. It was the same under Stalin and still in his days under Breznjev. And we can conclude up to this day that it hasn't changed much under Putin either.
In that way it is an remarkable experience to read this book. It's a pity that Smith is not a very immersive writer. He has a very journalistic, matter of fact style of writing. Very suitable for the Supplement of a Newspaper, but very dull when it goes on for 700 pages. There are some anecdotal moments, and the the part about Solzhenitsyn is one of the few really personal stories he tells. But overall it's to much of a factual exposé, larded with only scarce personal reflections and not the story of his personal experiences and the people he met during his three year stay in Russia. Otherwise it could have been a read for the ages maybe. Now it's just more of a curiosity and only interesting for Russia diehards.
In that way it is an remarkable experience to read this book. It's a pity that Smith is not a very immersive writer. He has a very journalistic, matter of fact style of writing. Very suitable for the Supplement of a Newspaper, but very dull when it goes on for 700 pages. There are some anecdotal moments, and the the part about Solzhenitsyn is one of the few really personal stories he tells. But overall it's to much of a factual exposé, larded with only scarce personal reflections and not the story of his personal experiences and the people he met during his three year stay in Russia. Otherwise it could have been a read for the ages maybe. Now it's just more of a curiosity and only interesting for Russia diehards.
January 9, 2021
I found it a bit ethnocentric, and it definitely isn't the easiest read. However, there are definitely some interesting stories and observations in it.
September 19, 2009
Hendrick Smith gives an intimately detailed description of his three year stint as the New York Times bureau chief in Moscow (1971-1974). He discusses Soviet (i.e. Russian--in the best sense of great Russian chauvanism) culture, politics, economics, etc. He does so by relating a steady stream of interviews and observations from a myriad of sources and settings, weaving in the hot button issues of that time period--Detente, the pseudo-Stalinesque oppression of culture during the Brezhnev years after the cultural thaw under Khrushchev, the quashing of the dissidents (including Solzhenitsyn), the economic doldrums of the 70s, the continuing effects of the crushing of the "Prague Spring" and the "Brezhnev Doctrine", the ideological cynicism in the party/the raft of privliges that attended rank in the party, the emigration of tens of thousands of Soviet Jews, and the rising materialism among the youth. All the while, he links these developments with contemporary goings-on in the US--Watergate, Nixon's impeachment, the Vietnam War, and the Church Commision. Yet he puts a human face on these geo-strategic issues, letting individuals tell their stories, and then weaving the whole into a more complete tapestry.
If Smith had merely been content to report current events, this book would simply a very good historical acccount of the USSR in the early 1970s. However, he goes beyond the headlines, instead using them to springboard into deeper discussions of the whole sweep of Russian history, culture, politics and economy. For example, he traces the lack of democratic values in Russian society, and the Russian "comfort" with authoritarian rulers; drawing a line between the medieval tsars, Peter the Great, Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, and so on. In doing so, he isolates and dissects currents that been through Russian society for a millenium. It's interesting to note how, even though the book was published 31 years ago, it still rings true with events in contemporary Russian.
If Smith had merely been content to report current events, this book would simply a very good historical acccount of the USSR in the early 1970s. However, he goes beyond the headlines, instead using them to springboard into deeper discussions of the whole sweep of Russian history, culture, politics and economy. For example, he traces the lack of democratic values in Russian society, and the Russian "comfort" with authoritarian rulers; drawing a line between the medieval tsars, Peter the Great, Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, and so on. In doing so, he isolates and dissects currents that been through Russian society for a millenium. It's interesting to note how, even though the book was published 31 years ago, it still rings true with events in contemporary Russian.
July 24, 2007
Had to read this the summer before freshman year in college...would never have picked it on my own, but thoroughly enjoyed it.
June 30, 2009
Russia operates on an underground system. It's a very complex society and this book is certainly worth reading.
Read
May 26, 2015Really great book. A excellent overview of Russia in the 1970s.
October 25, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Омский мясокомбинат — сделано в России
Ни за что, просто так — сделано в России
Материнский капитал — сделано в России
Сделано в России, сделано в России
Сладкий полураспад — сделано в России
Знак «Здорово, земляк!» — сделано в России
Ни себе, ни пацанам — сделано в России
Сделано в России, сделано в России
Эту книгу c полным основанием можно назвать продолжением книги маркиза де Кюстина «Николаевская Россия» ибо обе книги схожи и по стилю и по духу. Как маркиз очень точно подмечал психологию русских при царизме, так и Хендрик Смит очень точно раскрыл суть советского человека. Можно утверждать, что Хендрик Смит, один из немногих иностранцев, который понял как Россию, так и русских, с её культурным и социальным укладом. Короче говоря, Хендрик Смит понял Россию. Это крайне важно, ибо я прочитал многих иностранных авторов пишущих о России и/или СССР, но очень мало кто из этих авторов в своих книгах описывает реальную Россию и реальных русских.
Несмотря на то, что книга была написана в середине 70-х, она с поразительной точностью воспроизводит поведение и мировоззрение сегодняшних русских. Пока я читал книгу, я постоянно поражался актуальности написанного. К примеру, до сих пор актуально описание того как живут обычные граждане России и как живёт привилегированный класс. Если сегодня люди, которые входят в политическую элиту современной России, имеют недвижимость в Европе и США, яхты и другие предметы роскоши 21 века, то в книге речь идёт о специальных магазинах, которые были недоступны для обычного гражданина СССР, но в которых члены привилегированного класса могли себе купить практически все те же продукты, что любой житель Европы (роскошь, недостижимая для простого гражданина). Или когда жены партработников дефилировали на приватных вечеринках в платьях зарубежных брендов. Или когда такие люди без всяких проволочек получали автомобили иностранных марок, в то время как простому советскому человеку было невероятно трудно купить даже советский автомобиль и приходится это делать через третьих лиц. В общем, у высшего класса было всё, а все остальные довольствовались только базовыми продуктами и в редких случаях – техникой. Я хочу сказать, что за каждым товаром нужно было либо стоять очередь, либо тратить силы на его получение через друзей, знакомых, начальство. Жизнь советского человека, это жизнь сплошных унижений чтобы получить и продукты питания, и телевизор, квартиру или автомобиль. Просто имея деньги, советский человек мог приобрести очень узкий набор товаров, в отличие от элиты. Кстати, автор упоминает такой повседневный предмет советской реальности как авоська, существование которой я застал. Как пишет автор, авоська, от фразы «авось что-нибудь попадётся» (намёк на постоянный дефицит товаров в СССР). Дело в том, что любые качественные товары было сложно найти в продаже. Необходимый товар мог появиться в каком-нибудь магазине внезапно, но лишь на непродолжительное время, ибо советские граждане были приучены покупать «хорошие вещи» даже в тех случаях, если лично им они были не нужны. Просто такие товары могли пригодиться в будущем либо стать подарком для друзей, знакомых, сослуживцев и пр. Автор точно описывает таких ситуации, когда простые граждане были вынуждены рыскать по разным магазинам чтобы купить что-то ценное, в то время как обласканные власть граждане, т.е. даже не сами представители этой самой власти, получали всё и даже больше (т.е. иностранные товары) без каких либо усилий с их стороны. Такова была социалистическая справедливость в Советском Союзе. В общем, как сказал один литературный критик, которого цитирует автор, «сколько мы себя помним, ходить за покупками было всё равно что отправляться в бой». Я думаю именно этим, т.е. 70-ти летней борьбой за товары, было обусловлено то, что в 1991 году люди хотели не демократии, а возможности, как американцы ещё в 50-х, покупать все нужные товары в супермаркете, а не из подполы по знакомству, как это часто было в СССР. Я тут хотел бы отметить, что речь не идёт о ситуации в Прибалтийских государствах и ГДР, где жизнь была несравненно более проще.
Что касается коррупции в СССР, то тут привычная картина, которая до сегодняшнего дня практически никак не поменялась, а если и поменялась, то в ещё более худшую сторону. В среде простых советских граждан она была так же известна под словом «блат» (американский аналог greasing the palm, что значит дать на лапу). Хотя, как правильно замечает автор, «блат – это только верхушка айсберга». Проблема лишь в том, что сегодня на фоне огромного количества расследований о российской коррупции, включая небезызвестный дворец в Геленджике, советская коррупция не так сильно впечатляет, хотя для того времени и при сравнении с бытом обычного советского гражданина, это было значительно.
Отдельно следует отметить главу, посвящённую женскому вопросу в СССР, в которой автор ярко описывает «двойной груз – работы и того, что Ленин называл «домашним рабством»». Как правильно отмечает автор, женщин занимавших высокие политические посты в СССР было до смешного мало. Другими словами, страна оставалась глубоко патриархальной. Только теперь женщины не только занимались домом и воспитанием детей, но и каждый день ходили на работу. Такая вот советская справедливость. Как пишет автор, домашнее насилие было обычным явлением. К тому же у русских имелись такие поговорки как «Женщина не кувшин, бей – не разобьётся»; «Собака умнее женщины – она хозяина не укусит»; «Выслушай совет жены и сделай наоборот». Возможно, эти пословицы и поговорки пришли из царской эпохи, тем не менее, в СССР не было равенства между полами и насилие в отношении женщин было общим местом, особенно среди рабочего класса. Как отмечает автор, такое отношение к женщине шло от «деревенского уклада и передаваемо из поколения в поколение». В книге нет описаний особо вопиющих случаев насилия, но присутствуют примеры банального унижения и насилия, которые хоть и не вопиющи, но являются как бы «естественными/приемлемыми» (для того общества).
Музыка, школа, работа – что объединяет эти темы, которые рассматриваются в этой книге? Подавление инакомыслия и внедрение в детское сознание «права сильного», прививание стремления быть самым сильным, ибо как в СССР, так и в нынешней российской действительности прав тот, кто сильнее.
Культурная жизнь в Советском Союзе также насыщена военной темой, однако тема эта почти всегда окрашена в героические тона, а не в тона крови и страданий. ’’Они не хотят вырастить нацию пацифистов”, — объяснил мне один русский студент.
Автор правильно понял психологию русских: в этой стране силу или даже жестокость по отношению к обычным людям, уважают и почитают как ни в какой другой (стране). Можно убить 20-40 миллионов и охлос тебя будет носить на руках, и воздвигать тебе за это памятники. Я хочу сказать, что дело не в тупой и бессмысленной жестокости, а в жестокости, которая идёт от государства, т.е. как бы от ставленника Бога на земле. У русских Бог всегда жесток, но справедлив. Просто эту «справедливость�� нужно «найти» (даже если её на самом деле и нет). Сталин был кровавым жестоким деспотом, но он смог (якобы) в одиночку победить Гитлера, а европейские лидеры с их уважением к человеческой личности, оказались слабыми и поэтому Гитлер завоевал их в начале Второй Мировой войны. Подобными клише мыслили люди как в СССР так продолжают мыслить в РФ. Жестокость к женщинам, детям, животным, студентам, школьникам, солдатам и всем остальным, с их точки зрения, оправдана, если это осуществляется во имя «великой» цели. Вот только на уровне простых людей, жестокость становится нормой и без всякой цели.
Вопросу отношения власти и общества, автор посвящает особо много времени.
Но мне понравилась одна цитата, которое объясняет почти всё.
”У нас просто нет никакого отождествления человека с его руководителями, с правительством”, — сказала мне за чаем с гренками одна интересная, но озлобленная женщина-лингвист из известной семьи. — У нас отдельный гражданин не отождествляет себя со своим правительством, как вы это делаете в Америке, считая, что правительство как-то ответственно перед вами. У нас оно само по себе, подобно ветру, стене, небу. Это что-то постоянное, неизменное, поэтому отдельный человек молчаливо соглашается с таким положением и даже не мечтает изменить его; исключение составляют очень, очень немногие. В Америке люди стыдятся некоторых действий своего правительства, например, участия во Вьетнамской войне. Здесь люди не испытывают чувства стыда за правительство. Я не стыжусь того, что мое правительство делает в Чехословакии или еще где-нибудь. Я огорчена за наше общество, да и за другие, но за действия правительства стыда я не чувствую никакого, потому что оно полностью отделено от меня. У меня нет никакой связи с ним”.
Что-то подобное происходило и в ФРГ с 1945 по 1970 года, когда внуки тех, кто расстреливал (совершая военные преступления) обвинили своих дедов в преступлениях. Будет ли такое происходить когда-нибудь в России? Думаю, будет, но только когда этот дракон, под названием авторитарная российская власть, будет окончательно убит и когда жизнь человека будет важнее бредовых фантазий умалишённого старика сидящего всю жизнь на троне в Кремле. Только тогда права женщин, стариков, детей и пр., будут соблюдаться не только де-юре, но и де-факто. Но пока дракон жив, эта книга будет сохранять свою актуальность.
This book can justifiably be called a sequel to Marquis de Custine's "Letters from Russia," because both books are similar in style and mind. Just as the Marquis very accurately marked the psychology of Russians under Tsarism, Hendrick Smith very accurately revealed the essence of the Soviet man. It can be argued that Hendrik Smith, was one of the few foreigners who understood both Russia and Russians, with its cultural and social way of life. In short, Hendrik Smith understood Russia. It's important because I have read many foreign authors writing about Russia and the USSR, but very few of these authors describe real Russia and real Russians in their books.
Even though the book was written in the mid-70s, it reproduces with remarkable accuracy the behavior and outlook of today's Russians. As I read the book, I was constantly amazed at the relevance of what was written. For example, the description of how ordinary Russian citizens live and how the privileged class lives is still relevant. If today people who are part of the political elite of modern Russia have real estate in Europe and the USA, yachts, and other luxury items of the 21st century, the book is about special shops that were inaccessible to the ordinary citizen in the USSR, but in which members of the privileged class could buy almost all the same products as any resident of Europe (a luxury unattainable for the ordinary citizen). Or when the wives of party workers paraded around at private parties in foreign-branded dresses. Or, when such people got foreign brand cars without any delays, while it was incredibly difficult for an ordinary Soviet person to buy even a Soviet car, and had to do it through third parties. In general, the upper class had everything, while everyone else was content with only basic products and, in rare cases, electronics. I mean, one had to either queue up for every item or expend the effort to get it through friends, acquaintances, and superiors. The life of a Soviet person was a life of humiliation to get food, a TV set, a flat, or a car. Just having money, a Soviet person could buy a very narrow set of goods, unlike the elite. By the way, the author mentions such an everyday item of Soviet reality as an avoska, the existence of which I remember. As the author writes, avoska, from the phrase "maybe I'll catch something in the shop" (an allusion to the constant shortage of goods in the USSR). The fact is that any quality goods were difficult to find on sale. The necessary goods could suddenly appear in a shop, but only for a short time, because Soviet citizens were accustomed to buying "good things" even if they did not need them personally. It was just that such goods could come in handy in the future or be a gift for friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and so on. The author faithfully describes such situations, when ordinary citizens had to scour various shops to buy something valuable, while the citizens favored by the authorities, i.e., not even the representatives of the authorities themselves, received everything and even more (foreign goods) without any effort. Such was socialist justice in the Soviet Union. In general, as one literary critic quoted by the author put it, "For as long as we can remember, going shopping was like going into battle." I think this, i.e., 70 years of struggle for goods, was the reason why in 1991 people wanted not democracy, but the possibility, as Americans did back in the 50s, to buy all the necessary goods in a supermarket, not from the underground (black market) by acquaintance, as it was often the case in the USSR. I would like to point out here that we are not talking about the situation in the Baltic States and the GDR, where life was incomparably simpler.
As for corruption in the USSR, it is a familiar picture that has not changed in any way until today, and if it has changed, it has changed in an even worse way. Among ordinary Soviet citizens it was also known under the word "blat" (the American analog of greasing the palm, which means to give on the paw). Although, as the author correctly notes, "blat is only the tip of the iceberg." The only problem is that today, amidst the huge number of investigations into Russian corruption, including the notorious palace in Gelendzhik, Soviet corruption is not so impressive, although for that time and when compared to the everyday life of an ordinary Soviet citizen, it was significant.
A chapter devoted to the women's question in the USSR should be separately noted, in which the author vividly describes "the double burden of work and what Lenin called 'domestic slavery.'" As the author correctly points out, there were ridiculously few women in high political positions in the USSR. In other words, the country remained deeply patriarchal. Only now, women not only took care of the home and brought up children, but also went to work every day. Such was Soviet justice. As the author writes, domestic violence was commonplace. In addition, Russians had such sayings as "A woman is not a jug, hit her - it won't break"; "A dog is smarter than a woman - it won't bite its master"; "Listen to your wife's advice and do the opposite." These proverbs and sayings may have come from the tsarist era, but there was no equality between the sexes in the USSR, and violence against women was commonplace, especially among the working class. As the author notes, such attitudes towards women stemmed from "the village way of life and were passed down from generation to generation." There are no descriptions of particularly egregious cases of violence, but there are examples of trivial humiliation and violence that, although not egregious, were "natural/acceptable" (for that society).
Music, school, work - what do these themes, which are discussed in this book, have in common? Suppression of dissent and introduction of the "Might makes right" into children's consciousness, inculcation the desire to be the strongest, because both in the USSR and in the current Russian reality, the stronger one is right.
Soviet cultural life is saturated with the war theme but almost always painted in heroic rather than gory colors. "They don't want to raise a nation of pacifists," a Russian student commented to me.
The author correctly understood the psychology of Russians: in this country, force or even brutality towards ordinary people is respected and honored like in no other (country). You can kill 20-40 million people, and the ochlos will carry you in their arms and erect monuments to you for it. My point is that it's not about stupid and senseless brutality, but brutality that comes from the state, i.e., as if it were God's protégé on earth. In Russians, God is always cruel but just. It is just that this "justice" must be "found" (even if it does not exist). Stalin was a bloody brutal despot, but he was able to (allegedly) defeat Hitler single-handedly, while European leaders, with their respect for the human individual, were weak, and that is why Hitler conquered them at the beginning of World War II. Such clichés were the thinking of people in the USSR and continue to be the thinking of people in the Russian Federation. Cruelty to women, children, animals, students, schoolchildren, soldiers, and everyone else, from their point of view, is justified if it is done in the name of a "great" goal. But at the level of ordinary people, cruelty becomes the norm without any purpose.
The author devotes a lot of time to the question of the relationship between the authorities and society. But I liked one quote that explains almost everything.
"Here, there is simply no identification of the individual with the rulers, with the government," a linguist from a prominent family, a brilliant but embittered woman, told me over tea and cold toast. "The individual citizen does not identify with his government here, the way you do in America, in the sense that you feel it is somehow responsible to you. With us, it is there, like the wind, like a wall, like the sky. It is something permanent, unchangeable. So the individual acquiesces, does not dream of changing it—except a few, few people. In America, people feel ashamed about their government, for example, being in the Vietnam war. But here people do not feel shame. I don't feel shame about what my government does in Czechoslovakia or somewhere else. I am sorry for our society and for others. But I don't feel shame about the government's actions because it is totally separate from me. I feel not connected with it."
Something similar happened in Germany from 1945 to 1970 when grandchildren of those who shot (committing war crimes) accused their grandfathers of crimes. Will this ever happen in Russia? I think it will be, but only when this dragon called authoritarian Russian power will be finally killed and when human life will be more important than delusional fantasies of a crazy old man sitting all his life on the throne in the Kremlin. Only then will the rights of women, old people, children, etc., be respected not only de jure but also de facto. But as long as the dragon lives, this book will remain relevant.
Омский мясокомбинат — сделано в России
Ни за что, просто так — сделано в России
Материнский капитал — сделано в России
Сделано в России, сделано в России
Сладкий полураспад — сделано в России
Знак «Здорово, земляк!» — сделано в России
Ни себе, ни пацанам — сделано в России
Сделано в России, сделано в России
Эту книгу c полным основанием можно назвать продолжением книги маркиза де Кюстина «Николаевская Россия» ибо обе книги схожи и по стилю и по духу. Как маркиз очень точно подмечал психологию русских при царизме, так и Хендрик Смит очень точно раскрыл суть советского человека. Можно утверждать, что Хендрик Смит, один из немногих иностранцев, который понял как Россию, так и русских, с её культурным и социальным укладом. Короче говоря, Хендрик Смит понял Россию. Это крайне важно, ибо я прочитал многих иностранных авторов пишущих о России и/или СССР, но очень мало кто из этих авторов в своих книгах описывает реальную Россию и реальных русских.
Несмотря на то, что книга была написана в середине 70-х, она с поразительной точностью воспроизводит поведение и мировоззрение сегодняшних русских. Пока я читал книгу, я постоянно поражался актуальности написанного. К примеру, до сих пор актуально описание того как живут обычные граждане России и как живёт привилегированный класс. Если сегодня люди, которые входят в политическую элиту современной России, имеют недвижимость в Европе и США, яхты и другие предметы роскоши 21 века, то в книге речь идёт о специальных магазинах, которые были недоступны для обычного гражданина СССР, но в которых члены привилегированного класса могли себе купить практически все те же продукты, что любой житель Европы (роскошь, недостижимая для простого гражданина). Или когда жены партработников дефилировали на приватных вечеринках в платьях зарубежных брендов. Или когда такие люди без всяких проволочек получали автомобили иностранных марок, в то время как простому советскому человеку было невероятно трудно купить даже советский автомобиль и приходится это делать через третьих лиц. В общем, у высшего класса было всё, а все остальные довольствовались только базовыми продуктами и в редких случаях – техникой. Я хочу сказать, что за каждым товаром нужно было либо стоять очередь, либо тратить силы на его получение через друзей, знакомых, начальство. Жизнь советского человека, это жизнь сплошных унижений чтобы получить и продукты питания, и телевизор, квартиру или автомобиль. Просто имея деньги, советский человек мог приобрести очень узкий набор товаров, в отличие от элиты. Кстати, автор упоминает такой повседневный предмет советской реальности как авоська, существование которой я застал. Как пишет автор, авоська, от фразы «авось что-нибудь попадётся» (намёк на постоянный дефицит товаров в СССР). Дело в том, что любые качественные товары было сложно найти в продаже. Необходимый товар мог появиться в каком-нибудь магазине внезапно, но лишь на непродолжительное время, ибо советские граждане были приучены покупать «хорошие вещи» даже в тех случаях, если лично им они были не нужны. Просто такие товары могли пригодиться в будущем либо стать подарком для друзей, знакомых, сослуживцев и пр. Автор точно описывает таких ситуации, когда простые граждане были вынуждены рыскать по разным магазинам чтобы купить что-то ценное, в то время как обласканные власть граждане, т.е. даже не сами представители этой самой власти, получали всё и даже больше (т.е. иностранные товары) без каких либо усилий с их стороны. Такова была социалистическая справедливость в Советском Союзе. В общем, как сказал один литературный критик, которого цитирует автор, «сколько мы себя помним, ходить за покупками было всё равно что отправляться в бой». Я думаю именно этим, т.е. 70-ти летней борьбой за товары, было обусловлено то, что в 1991 году люди хотели не демократии, а возможности, как американцы ещё в 50-х, покупать все нужные товары в супермаркете, а не из подполы по знакомству, как это часто было в СССР. Я тут хотел бы отметить, что речь не идёт о ситуации в Прибалтийских государствах и ГДР, где жизнь была несравненно более проще.
Что касается коррупции в СССР, то тут привычная картина, которая до сегодняшнего дня практически никак не поменялась, а если и поменялась, то в ещё более худшую сторону. В среде простых советских граждан она была так же известна под словом «блат» (американский аналог greasing the palm, что значит дать на лапу). Хотя, как правильно замечает автор, «блат – это только верхушка айсберга». Проблема лишь в том, что сегодня на фоне огромного количества расследований о российской коррупции, включая небезызвестный дворец в Геленджике, советская коррупция не так сильно впечатляет, хотя для того времени и при сравнении с бытом обычного советского гражданина, это было значительно.
Отдельно следует отметить главу, посвящённую женскому вопросу в СССР, в которой автор ярко описывает «двойной груз – работы и того, что Ленин называл «домашним рабством»». Как правильно отмечает автор, женщин занимавших высокие политические посты в СССР было до смешного мало. Другими словами, страна оставалась глубоко патриархальной. Только теперь женщины не только занимались домом и воспитанием детей, но и каждый день ходили на работу. Такая вот советская справедливость. Как пишет автор, домашнее насилие было обычным явлением. К тому же у русских имелись такие поговорки как «Женщина не кувшин, бей – не разобьётся»; «Собака умнее женщины – она хозяина не укусит»; «Выслушай совет жены и сделай наоборот». Возможно, эти пословицы и поговорки пришли из царской эпохи, тем не менее, в СССР не было равенства между полами и насилие в отношении женщин было общим местом, особенно среди рабочего класса. Как отмечает автор, такое отношение к женщине шло от «деревенского уклада и передаваемо из поколения в поколение». В книге нет описаний особо вопиющих случаев насилия, но присутствуют примеры банального унижения и насилия, которые хоть и не вопиющи, но являются как бы «естественными/приемлемыми» (для того общества).
Музыка, школа, работа – что объединяет эти темы, которые рассматриваются в этой книге? Подавление инакомыслия и внедрение в детское сознание «права сильного», прививание стремления быть самым сильным, ибо как в СССР, так и в нынешней российской действительности прав тот, кто сильнее.
Культурная жизнь в Советском Союзе также насыщена военной темой, однако тема эта почти всегда окрашена в героические тона, а не в тона крови и страданий. ’’Они не хотят вырастить нацию пацифистов”, — объяснил мне один русский студент.
Автор правильно понял психологию русских: в этой стране силу или даже жестокость по отношению к обычным людям, уважают и почитают как ни в какой другой (стране). Можно убить 20-40 миллионов и охлос тебя будет носить на руках, и воздвигать тебе за это памятники. Я хочу сказать, что дело не в тупой и бессмысленной жестокости, а в жестокости, которая идёт от государства, т.е. как бы от ставленника Бога на земле. У русских Бог всегда жесток, но справедлив. Просто эту «справедливость�� нужно «найти» (даже если её на самом деле и нет). Сталин был кровавым жестоким деспотом, но он смог (якобы) в одиночку победить Гитлера, а европейские лидеры с их уважением к человеческой личности, оказались слабыми и поэтому Гитлер завоевал их в начале Второй Мировой войны. Подобными клише мыслили люди как в СССР так продолжают мыслить в РФ. Жестокость к женщинам, детям, животным, студентам, школьникам, солдатам и всем остальным, с их точки зрения, оправдана, если это осуществляется во имя «великой» цели. Вот только на уровне простых людей, жестокость становится нормой и без всякой цели.
Вопросу отношения власти и общества, автор посвящает особо много времени.
Но мне понравилась одна цитата, которое объясняет почти всё.
”У нас просто нет никакого отождествления человека с его руководителями, с правительством”, — сказала мне за чаем с гренками одна интересная, но озлобленная женщина-лингвист из известной семьи. — У нас отдельный гражданин не отождествляет себя со своим правительством, как вы это делаете в Америке, считая, что правительство как-то ответственно перед вами. У нас оно само по себе, подобно ветру, стене, небу. Это что-то постоянное, неизменное, поэтому отдельный человек молчаливо соглашается с таким положением и даже не мечтает изменить его; исключение составляют очень, очень немногие. В Америке люди стыдятся некоторых действий своего правительства, например, участия во Вьетнамской войне. Здесь люди не испытывают чувства стыда за правительство. Я не стыжусь того, что мое правительство делает в Чехословакии или еще где-нибудь. Я огорчена за наше общество, да и за другие, но за действия правительства стыда я не чувствую никакого, потому что оно полностью отделено от меня. У меня нет никакой связи с ним”.
Что-то подобное происходило и в ФРГ с 1945 по 1970 года, когда внуки тех, кто расстреливал (совершая военные преступления) обвинили своих дедов в преступлениях. Будет ли такое происходить когда-нибудь в России? Думаю, будет, но только когда этот дракон, под названием авторитарная российская власть, будет окончательно убит и когда жизнь человека будет важнее бредовых фантазий умалишённого старика сидящего всю жизнь на троне в Кремле. Только тогда права женщин, стариков, детей и пр., будут соблюдаться не только де-юре, но и де-факто. Но пока дракон жив, эта книга будет сохранять свою актуальность.
This book can justifiably be called a sequel to Marquis de Custine's "Letters from Russia," because both books are similar in style and mind. Just as the Marquis very accurately marked the psychology of Russians under Tsarism, Hendrick Smith very accurately revealed the essence of the Soviet man. It can be argued that Hendrik Smith, was one of the few foreigners who understood both Russia and Russians, with its cultural and social way of life. In short, Hendrik Smith understood Russia. It's important because I have read many foreign authors writing about Russia and the USSR, but very few of these authors describe real Russia and real Russians in their books.
Even though the book was written in the mid-70s, it reproduces with remarkable accuracy the behavior and outlook of today's Russians. As I read the book, I was constantly amazed at the relevance of what was written. For example, the description of how ordinary Russian citizens live and how the privileged class lives is still relevant. If today people who are part of the political elite of modern Russia have real estate in Europe and the USA, yachts, and other luxury items of the 21st century, the book is about special shops that were inaccessible to the ordinary citizen in the USSR, but in which members of the privileged class could buy almost all the same products as any resident of Europe (a luxury unattainable for the ordinary citizen). Or when the wives of party workers paraded around at private parties in foreign-branded dresses. Or, when such people got foreign brand cars without any delays, while it was incredibly difficult for an ordinary Soviet person to buy even a Soviet car, and had to do it through third parties. In general, the upper class had everything, while everyone else was content with only basic products and, in rare cases, electronics. I mean, one had to either queue up for every item or expend the effort to get it through friends, acquaintances, and superiors. The life of a Soviet person was a life of humiliation to get food, a TV set, a flat, or a car. Just having money, a Soviet person could buy a very narrow set of goods, unlike the elite. By the way, the author mentions such an everyday item of Soviet reality as an avoska, the existence of which I remember. As the author writes, avoska, from the phrase "maybe I'll catch something in the shop" (an allusion to the constant shortage of goods in the USSR). The fact is that any quality goods were difficult to find on sale. The necessary goods could suddenly appear in a shop, but only for a short time, because Soviet citizens were accustomed to buying "good things" even if they did not need them personally. It was just that such goods could come in handy in the future or be a gift for friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and so on. The author faithfully describes such situations, when ordinary citizens had to scour various shops to buy something valuable, while the citizens favored by the authorities, i.e., not even the representatives of the authorities themselves, received everything and even more (foreign goods) without any effort. Such was socialist justice in the Soviet Union. In general, as one literary critic quoted by the author put it, "For as long as we can remember, going shopping was like going into battle." I think this, i.e., 70 years of struggle for goods, was the reason why in 1991 people wanted not democracy, but the possibility, as Americans did back in the 50s, to buy all the necessary goods in a supermarket, not from the underground (black market) by acquaintance, as it was often the case in the USSR. I would like to point out here that we are not talking about the situation in the Baltic States and the GDR, where life was incomparably simpler.
As for corruption in the USSR, it is a familiar picture that has not changed in any way until today, and if it has changed, it has changed in an even worse way. Among ordinary Soviet citizens it was also known under the word "blat" (the American analog of greasing the palm, which means to give on the paw). Although, as the author correctly notes, "blat is only the tip of the iceberg." The only problem is that today, amidst the huge number of investigations into Russian corruption, including the notorious palace in Gelendzhik, Soviet corruption is not so impressive, although for that time and when compared to the everyday life of an ordinary Soviet citizen, it was significant.
A chapter devoted to the women's question in the USSR should be separately noted, in which the author vividly describes "the double burden of work and what Lenin called 'domestic slavery.'" As the author correctly points out, there were ridiculously few women in high political positions in the USSR. In other words, the country remained deeply patriarchal. Only now, women not only took care of the home and brought up children, but also went to work every day. Such was Soviet justice. As the author writes, domestic violence was commonplace. In addition, Russians had such sayings as "A woman is not a jug, hit her - it won't break"; "A dog is smarter than a woman - it won't bite its master"; "Listen to your wife's advice and do the opposite." These proverbs and sayings may have come from the tsarist era, but there was no equality between the sexes in the USSR, and violence against women was commonplace, especially among the working class. As the author notes, such attitudes towards women stemmed from "the village way of life and were passed down from generation to generation." There are no descriptions of particularly egregious cases of violence, but there are examples of trivial humiliation and violence that, although not egregious, were "natural/acceptable" (for that society).
Music, school, work - what do these themes, which are discussed in this book, have in common? Suppression of dissent and introduction of the "Might makes right" into children's consciousness, inculcation the desire to be the strongest, because both in the USSR and in the current Russian reality, the stronger one is right.
Soviet cultural life is saturated with the war theme but almost always painted in heroic rather than gory colors. "They don't want to raise a nation of pacifists," a Russian student commented to me.
The author correctly understood the psychology of Russians: in this country, force or even brutality towards ordinary people is respected and honored like in no other (country). You can kill 20-40 million people, and the ochlos will carry you in their arms and erect monuments to you for it. My point is that it's not about stupid and senseless brutality, but brutality that comes from the state, i.e., as if it were God's protégé on earth. In Russians, God is always cruel but just. It is just that this "justice" must be "found" (even if it does not exist). Stalin was a bloody brutal despot, but he was able to (allegedly) defeat Hitler single-handedly, while European leaders, with their respect for the human individual, were weak, and that is why Hitler conquered them at the beginning of World War II. Such clichés were the thinking of people in the USSR and continue to be the thinking of people in the Russian Federation. Cruelty to women, children, animals, students, schoolchildren, soldiers, and everyone else, from their point of view, is justified if it is done in the name of a "great" goal. But at the level of ordinary people, cruelty becomes the norm without any purpose.
The author devotes a lot of time to the question of the relationship between the authorities and society. But I liked one quote that explains almost everything.
"Here, there is simply no identification of the individual with the rulers, with the government," a linguist from a prominent family, a brilliant but embittered woman, told me over tea and cold toast. "The individual citizen does not identify with his government here, the way you do in America, in the sense that you feel it is somehow responsible to you. With us, it is there, like the wind, like a wall, like the sky. It is something permanent, unchangeable. So the individual acquiesces, does not dream of changing it—except a few, few people. In America, people feel ashamed about their government, for example, being in the Vietnam war. But here people do not feel shame. I don't feel shame about what my government does in Czechoslovakia or somewhere else. I am sorry for our society and for others. But I don't feel shame about the government's actions because it is totally separate from me. I feel not connected with it."
Something similar happened in Germany from 1945 to 1970 when grandchildren of those who shot (committing war crimes) accused their grandfathers of crimes. Will this ever happen in Russia? I think it will be, but only when this dragon called authoritarian Russian power will be finally killed and when human life will be more important than delusional fantasies of a crazy old man sitting all his life on the throne in the Kremlin. Only then will the rights of women, old people, children, etc., be respected not only de jure but also de facto. But as long as the dragon lives, this book will remain relevant.
December 20, 2014
Read after seeing Peter Hitchens recommend it. Very good and provides insight into today's "Russia problem."
"By Western estimates, the Kremlin spends about 5–6 percent of its gross national product on health care, compared to 7 percent in America." Hedrick Smith, The Russians, p. 78. (I think we're currently over 17 percent!)
""Cynicism," observed a disillusioned mathematician, "is the ultimate method of control."" P. 498.
"Nina Voronel told me about Andrei Sinyaysky, the brilliant Jewish satirical writer who settled in Paris after coming out of the Soviet labor camps where he had been sentenced for publishing works abroad. Someone had asked Sinyaysky, a man who had become the symbol of dissidence, which he found harder—his first six months in the camps or his first six months in Paris. "The first six months in Paris," Sinyaysky replied. "When I was in the camps, I was still in Russia." To which another Jewish intellectual who had also just emigrated to New York appended the shrewd observation that "people like Si-nyaysky, and there are many of us. left Russia not really looking for Israel or the West, but for Russia without a police state"" p. 488.
"Perhaps one reason that Westerners do not grasp such feelings and so readily assume that Russians are "like us" is that Russian life offers no obvious tourist exotica—women in saris or kimonos, figures of Buddha in temples, camels on the desert—to remind the outsider that here is alien culture, one which did not pass through the Renaissance, Reformation, and the era of constitutional liberalism which shaped the West. But here is a culture that absorbed Eastern Orthodox Christian-ity from Byzantium, endured Mongol conquest and rule, and then developed through centuries of czarist absolutism with intermittent periods of opening towards the West followed by withdrawal into conti-nental isolation. That pattern was repeated again and again. The forays into the West brought some changes but did not fundamentally dilute the strong authoritarian strain in the Russian body politic in any lasting way. If anything, Western innovations were simply used to reinforce Russian methods." P. 507.
"By Western estimates, the Kremlin spends about 5–6 percent of its gross national product on health care, compared to 7 percent in America." Hedrick Smith, The Russians, p. 78. (I think we're currently over 17 percent!)
""Cynicism," observed a disillusioned mathematician, "is the ultimate method of control."" P. 498.
"Nina Voronel told me about Andrei Sinyaysky, the brilliant Jewish satirical writer who settled in Paris after coming out of the Soviet labor camps where he had been sentenced for publishing works abroad. Someone had asked Sinyaysky, a man who had become the symbol of dissidence, which he found harder—his first six months in the camps or his first six months in Paris. "The first six months in Paris," Sinyaysky replied. "When I was in the camps, I was still in Russia." To which another Jewish intellectual who had also just emigrated to New York appended the shrewd observation that "people like Si-nyaysky, and there are many of us. left Russia not really looking for Israel or the West, but for Russia without a police state"" p. 488.
"Perhaps one reason that Westerners do not grasp such feelings and so readily assume that Russians are "like us" is that Russian life offers no obvious tourist exotica—women in saris or kimonos, figures of Buddha in temples, camels on the desert—to remind the outsider that here is alien culture, one which did not pass through the Renaissance, Reformation, and the era of constitutional liberalism which shaped the West. But here is a culture that absorbed Eastern Orthodox Christian-ity from Byzantium, endured Mongol conquest and rule, and then developed through centuries of czarist absolutism with intermittent periods of opening towards the West followed by withdrawal into conti-nental isolation. That pattern was repeated again and again. The forays into the West brought some changes but did not fundamentally dilute the strong authoritarian strain in the Russian body politic in any lasting way. If anything, Western innovations were simply used to reinforce Russian methods." P. 507.
March 3, 2016
This book, or at least selected excerpts, should be required reading for all students of Russian. I have spent more than two years of my life in Russia, and I found this book to be highly relevant. How is it possible that this one man, the author, Hendrick Smith met so many Russians (Soviets)? He has endless stories to tell, endless conversations to recount, and endless places he personally visited to describe. It is incredible. Some of my favorite moments (from the revised edition, published 1984):
On mushroom picking (pg. 154):
One of the phrases I learned in my first semester of Russian language was about picking mushrooms in the forest.
The chapter on World War II, chapter "XII Patriotism," is spot on. This is how Russia is today. Russians still feel World War II as if it were yesterday. Many Russians believe the West betrayed or delayed help during the war and do not acknowledge the assistance given after the war.
On the fear of backwardness (pg. 311):
I also learned why they call Moscow a "big village" (Москва - большая деревня). But I can't remember where it is in the book. It has something to do with everyone knowing everyone.
It took me almost a year to read this book, but it was worth it! Glad the library allowed me to renew nine times, hehe.
On mushroom picking (pg. 154):
But the Russian outdoor hobby par excellence--one that always bemuses Westerners--is mushroom-picking. In the fall, it approaches a national craze. Connoisseurs treat the location of their favorite hunting grounds for premier species as top secret. Less dedicated souls creep through any old forest or glen for hours on end, clutching pails, satchels, or kerchiefs and caps converted into makeshift containers and scanning the earth for hidden treasures or pausing to gossip and picnic.
One of the phrases I learned in my first semester of Russian language was about picking mushrooms in the forest.
The chapter on World War II, chapter "XII Patriotism," is spot on. This is how Russia is today. Russians still feel World War II as if it were yesterday. Many Russians believe the West betrayed or delayed help during the war and do not acknowledge the assistance given after the war.
On the fear of backwardness (pg. 311):
Stalin gave voice to this compulsion in 1934: To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten!
I also learned why they call Moscow a "big village" (Москва - большая деревня). But I can't remember where it is in the book. It has something to do with everyone knowing everyone.
It took me almost a year to read this book, but it was worth it! Glad the library allowed me to renew nine times, hehe.
July 15, 2014
Russian people from 1945-1983. My goodness... so far, I don't understand how any human could have been satisfied, fulfilled, or found happiness in that society. Perhaps the Russian millions from the 1950s+ were happy enough to have food, and security, i.e., be completely taken care of by the state. But I am getting a sense of the cultural/mindful diff in Russians and Americans. Russians just don't have our sense of law, freedom, suspicion of govt, perhaps from the fact that 85% were serf/slaves for 500 years, then they lived through Stalin and WWII, then enormous deprivation. Vast majority of Russian peoples have never known freedom, free-thinking, ambition, making their own way!
Hedrick Smith tells the story by going to Russia and speaking to the people. "Over steaming samovars, in cramped flats, and on dirt-floors, he spoke to peasants, farm workers, factory workers, and bureaucrats, artists and officials. He studied their customs and their government and shares his fascinating insights of Russian in the early 1970s." But, his stories about the people make an especially timeless study. In 1986, Serfdom and then collectivization/repression/purge/
socialized industrialization seemed to have created a whole society of minimal, dependent workers. No incentive, no 'reason' to try. But, still an unfathomable love of mother Russia and their families.
What has happened since Gorbachev. What will be my next book to understand Russia since 1986?
Hedrick Smith tells the story by going to Russia and speaking to the people. "Over steaming samovars, in cramped flats, and on dirt-floors, he spoke to peasants, farm workers, factory workers, and bureaucrats, artists and officials. He studied their customs and their government and shares his fascinating insights of Russian in the early 1970s." But, his stories about the people make an especially timeless study. In 1986, Serfdom and then collectivization/repression/purge/
socialized industrialization seemed to have created a whole society of minimal, dependent workers. No incentive, no 'reason' to try. But, still an unfathomable love of mother Russia and their families.
What has happened since Gorbachev. What will be my next book to understand Russia since 1986?
January 16, 2008
Saw this one at a yard sale across the street from my old lady house: picked it up immediately; my girlfriend spoke highly of it, having read it shortly before odessying off herself for Russia (she'll be back the summer of '08, godspeed). As it was written in '76, its naturally rather out of date, but this is what makes it so interesting -- I like reading old novels and poetry for the same reason, because they color in the gaps that the history books -- with all their facts and figures about wars, embargos, riots, blood lines, heroes, kings & titans -- leave out: what it was like to simply be alive: the little differences (e.g., Travolta's quarter pounder monologue in Pulp Fiction). Anyway, if you want to know what it was like to be alive in post-stalin pre-gorby Russia, this is the book -- theres even a chapter on the etiquite for waiting in queus.
October 2, 2021
As an American born the year this book was published, who started studying Russian in 1989, started visiting Russia (and living there periodically) in 2002, and who has been living with a Russian person since 2006, I read this book in 2021 and was amazed by how much is still the same despite the availability of consumer goods and mostly unfettered access to international news and discourse. Will the Russian people ever be able to rely on rule of law and live lives free of political coercion?
September 30, 2007
What a good review regarding how the Russians lived and do live. when I supervised the Russian Program In cinci I made all my workers read this book. Everyone who has interest in the Russians at all please read. You won"t be sorry. Rochelle
public-library
May 19, 2012Book title and content are pulp fiction. Author do not understand and even do not trying to describe Soviet's system functionality. Russians are not in this book. You can read it as sample of bad journalism.
June 12, 2013
"In this country, all real poetry is outregeous." - Nadezhda Mandelshtam, Hope Against Hope. A not long time ago somewhere in a land of fallen czar; Stalin was god, Communism was a religion but Russians still Russians and etcetera etcetera. Journalistic at its best by Mr Smith.
February 12, 2017
I can't recall how I learned of this book, but it is one that is not easy to put down. Even though Russia has changed so much in my lifetime, this look back and the behind the iron curtain story is so incredibly fascinating. I wish more would read this and understand how oppressive Communism is.
August 20, 2008
Read this a long time ago. Don't remember much of it, but I remember it made an impression on me as a young person trying to learn more about our cold war enemy. This book humanized them.
April 18, 2011
Been a long time since I've read this one, about to read it again. Time gets away from me so still on the re-read list. When that will be I don't know.
May 1, 2012
Read many years ago and remember it was excellent
January 31, 2024
Read this book for a junior level course in comparative communism. Required in order to teach senior social studies during the Cold War.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews