Soviet international Peace Prizes in the ideological dimension of the "cold war"

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Beijing Normal University

Soviet international Peace Prizes in the ideological dimension of the “cold war”

Zou Chengzhang, Ph.D.,

Postdoctoral Student

Beijing, People S Republic of China

Annotation

The article deals with the problem of introduction and functioning of Soviet Peace Awards in the system of ideological confrontation during the Cold War period. The degree of scientific research of the problem has been determined. The article highlights the prerequisites, reasons and main factors of the introduction of the award, its gradual modification during the years. It has been defined that one of the main tasks of the Prize was to represent the Soviet Union in the international arena as a peacemaking state. The regulatory documents that defined the mechanism for awarding Soviet peace prizes have been analyzed. Special attention has been paid to the newly created award as an important tool for ideological confrontation with Western countries and a method of encouraging for supporters of communist ideology in different states. The financial sources of the award's origin and the specifics of its presentation to the winners have been highlighted. A significant role in the study is assigned to the analysis of various projects for the establishment of the Peace Prize and the main arguments of their developers. It has been determined that the newly created prize is based on the opposite of the Nobel Peace Prize.The main features of the Competition Commission of the Stalin Peace Prize activity have been revealed. It is proved that the prominent role in awarding prizes played the Soviet leadership and personally J. Stalin. This took into account the loyal attitude of the candidates for the award to the Soviet Union and its policies, the facts of the nominees' stay on USSR territory, and the evidence of support for the socialist system in social or literary activities. At the same time, Soviet officials exerted pressure on the members of the award committee, carried out a constant rotation of its participants. Special attention has been paid to determining the amount of the award in monetary terms and the issue of non-material incentives for laureates. In conclusion, the issues of transformation of the Stalin Peace Prize into the Lenin Prize have been considered, and the main prerequisites for this process have been determined. Key words: Peace Prize, international policy, “Cold War”, stimulation, award.

Анотація

Радянські премії «За зміцнення миру між народами» в ідеологічному вимірі «холодної війни»

Цзоу Ченчжан, Ph.D. (доктор філософії), докторант Пекінського педагогічного університету (Пекін, Китайська Народна Республіка)

У статті розглядається проблема запровадження та функціонування радянських премій миру в системі ідеологічного протистояння періоду «холодної війни». Окреслено ступінь наукового осмислення проблеми. Висвітлено передумови, причини та основні чинники запровадження премії, її поступову видозміну. З'ясовано, що одним із головних завдань заснованої нагороди була репрезентація Радянського Союзу на міжнародній арені як держави-миротворця. Проаналізовано нормативні документи, що визначали механізм присудження радянських премій миру. Значну увагу приділено новоствореній премії як важливому інструменту ідеологічного протистояння з країнами Заходу та методу заохочення прихильників комуністичної ідеології в різних державах.

Висвітлено питання походження фінансових джерел премії та особливості її вручення лауреатам. Вагому роль у дослідженні відведено аналізу різних проєктів із заснування премій миру та основних аргументів їхніх розробників. Встановлено, що радянська премія була заснована на противагу Нобелівській премії миру. Розкрито основні особливості роботи конкурсної комісії Сталінської премії миру. Доведено, що вирішальну роль у присудженні премій мало радянське керівництво та особисто Й. Сталін. При цьому враховувалося лояльне ставлення кандидатів на нагороду до Радянського Союзу та його політики, факти перебування номінантів на території СРСР, засвідчення підтримки соціалістичної системи у громадській чи літературній діяльності. Водночас радянські можновладці чинили тиск на членів комітету із присудження премії, проводили постійну ротацію його складу. Увагу приділено і визначенню розміру нагороди в грошовому еквіваленті та нематеріальному заохоченню лауреатів. Насамкінець розглянуто питання трансформації Сталінської премії миру на Ленінську, визначено основні передумови цього процесу.

Ключові слова: премія миру, міжнародна політика, «холодна війна», стимулювання, нагорода.

Problem statement

The first representations of the USSR in the international arena as a World War II winner had to testify the loyalty of new Soviet foreign partners. It was especially important in the conditions of the Cold War when ideological features were pushed into the forefront. In this aspect, the establishment of the Stalin International Peace Prize is of particular interest, bacause it was perceived as an alternative to the Nobel Prize. For the Soviet leadership, it was a kind of symbol of Soviet peacemaking, encouraging famous personalities to cooperate with the Soviet regime, and showing loyalty in the countries of the socialist commonwealth. An objective study of the Soviet Peace Prize will allow us to understand the role of the state, which is endowed with the means of sanctions, propaganda and incentives, the use of which makes it possible to adjust the directions of political and cultural development. By awarding a certain prize, the state not only expressed its gratitude for an extraordinary act.

Analysis of recent research and publications. After the USSR collapse the researches of Stalin era have been increased, including the papers on the history of state awards. The problem of Soviet award system has been studied by M.O. Dei and А.L. Diomin, (Дей, 2005; Демин). Among the general works on the Stalin prizes, we should mention the publications of Russian scientists P.V. Akhmanayev and V.I. Ivkin (Ахманаев, 2016; Ивкин, 2013) and the authors of the documentary collection “Stalin prizes: two sides of one medal” V.F. Svinyin and K.A. Oseev (Сталинские премии, 2007). O.S. Nagornaya's research is devoted to the issue of Stalin Peace award as a method of cultural diplomacy (Нагорная, 2018). The lack of special research devoted to the analysis of Soviet Peace Prize strengthens the scientific relevance of this paper.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the forms and specific of Soviet international representation in the conditions of the “Cold War”, to show the methods and principles of awarding for peace activity during late-Stalin and post-Stalin era.

Main body

The analysis of Communist Party documents indicates the competition of several projects of international awards within the Soviet and global peacekeeping movement. They were united by their orientation as opposed to the Nobel Prizes, but the appearance of the prizes was presented in different ways. An ctive preparatory work on the establishment of the Soviet symbolic project as an alternative to the Nobel Prize began in December 1947, however, the proposed options were rejected in order to make changes, most likely due to the unsuitability of the name. At the same time, the main purpose of the awards was precisely to influence various target groups of hostile capitalist states and countries in the newly acquired sphere of influence.

The World Congress of Peace Supporters, funded from Moscow, simultaneously with the Soviet party organs hatched the idea of establishing its own awards. The order received from the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) instructed the Soviet delegates “in their speeches at the congress... to emphasize the leading role of the Soviet Union in protecting peace” (Фадеев - Сталину, 1949).

Developing their own project to encourage efforts to maintain peace in the USSR style, the party organs tried to block the development of alternative initiatives by international public organizations, through which the Soviet Union tried to push its vision of the world order and mobilize international public opinion against its opponents. The World Congress of Peace Supporters, funded from Moscow, simultaneously with the Soviet party organs hatched the idea of establishing its own awards. The order received from the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) instructed the Soviet delegates “in their speeches at the congress... to emphasize the leading role of the Soviet Union in protecting peace” (Фадеев - Сталину, 1949). Despite the fact that the jury of the award from the USSR included Vanda Vasilevska, no independent Soviet work was submitted to the competition (Международные Сталинские премии мира, 1950: 3).

The need to contrast this award with the authority of the USSR was emphasized in November 1949 by one of the most prominent ambassadors of Soviet cultural diplomacy, A. Fadeev, noting in a letter to Stalin that the prize of the World Congress of Peace Supporters “cannot, either by the nature of the award or by its scale, acquire such a world-political significance as the international prize of the Soviet Union could have” (Фадеев - Сталину, 1949).

The new decision was published on the 70th anniversary of the leader, the annual presentation was timed to his birthday. Most of the parameters, except for the reduced amount of remuneration, were borrowed from the Central Committee's agitprop project on the Lenin prizes of the Soviet Union. Publicly, the motivation of the authors of the new project was expressed on the pages of the central press of the USSR, however, on behalf of the Union of Czechoslovak Writers: “... no one in the world, except the Soviet Union, would have the moral right to establish and award peace prizes in our time and no one's name, except the name of Comrade Stalin, the prizes could not be named” (Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР, 1949). soviet international prize peace cold war

Thus, on December 29, 1949, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR established the International Stalin Prize “For Strengthening Peace Among Nations” for the annual award of “citizens of any country of the world, regardless of their political, religious and racial differences, for outstanding services in instigating instigators of war and for the strengthening of peace” in the amount of 5 to 10 with the awarding of a diploma, a gold breastplate with the image of J. V. Stalin and a reward of 100 thousand rubles (Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР, 1949).

The new decision was published on the 70th anniversary of the leader, the annual presentation was timed to his birthday. Most of the parameters, except for the reduced amount of remuneration, were borrowed from the Central Committee's agitprop (Agitation and propaganda department) project on the Lenin prizes of the Soviet Union.

Decisions on awarding the prize were made by the Committee on International Stalin Prizes formed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which consisted of “representatives of democratic forces from around the world” on Stalin's birthday (Международные Сталинские премии мира, 1950: 3). The first promotion took place on April 6, 1951, although it was planned for 1950 (Ахманаев, 2016: 132).

The first Committee first of all contained of representatives of scientific and literature elite, who had international recognition and established themselves as “friends of the Soviet Union” back in the interwar period. The party-state nature of the initiative had to be veiled by a specially formed committee, which had an emphatically international status due to the inclusion of representatives of “democratic forces” from all over the world. The Committee's decisions demonstrated the logic of selecting candidates: initially information was requested on the members of the World Peace Council, then suitable persons were selected from them, most of whom had extensive experience in the Soviet Union and made public expressions of loyalty to the socialist system. Among them it should be highlighted L. Aragon, B. Brecht, P. Neruda, D. Pritt (Нагорная, 2018: 345). Some of members of the committee were persecuted for their beliefs by ideological opponents of the USSR, and it had an ideological meaning.

In addition to the wide geographical coverage, it is worth emphasizing the specifics of the choice of Soviet representatives - they all had a wide network of personal international contacts in the professional area, were members of peace committees, headed the USSR friendship societies with other countries and were actively used as ambassadors of Soviet cultural diplomacy (Gould-Davies, 2003: 93).

The importance of the Committee's activities for representation of peacekeeping efforts The USSR, not only in the international arena, but also within the country, is emphasized by the media reflection of its decisions. The protocols were necessarily published in the central press (Pravda, Izvestia), often a newspaper editorial was assigned to this, where photographs and the full text of congratulatory and response speeches were posted.

It should be mentioned, that thematic brochures were printed annually, which included biographies of the laureates, a list of their publications, a list of literature recommended for additional reading. Very generous funding was provided for the activities of the Committee. Until 1961, the amount of 100 thousand rubles was attached to the gold medal with the image of Stalin (Нагорная, 2018: 346). In addition to the amount, it should be taken into account that most often the prize was awarded by a foreign laureate in dollar equivalent at the “image” high exchange rate for the Soviet ruble.

Besides, luxury financing was also assumed for the members of the Committee themselves. They enjoyed all the benefits of the Soviet health care system, including resorts, each of their visits was built according to the scenario of the pre-war cult show: visits to theaters, scientific institutes, meetings with creative figures, trips to Leningrad, individual guided tours in museums, ceremonial breakfasts in hotels. In addition to the award, the laureates also had the opportunity to travel around the USSR, purchase clothes, books and albums at the expense of the Committee's budget.

The question of the independence and freedom of the Committee's decisions weighed down both its external image and internal discussions throughout the period. Firstly, that the Soviet party organs used not so much means of open pressure on the members of the committee as manipulated the composition of the body, which included representatives of the international community who had been tested for a long period of scientific and cultural cooperation with the USSR.

Secondly, the Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU for Relations with Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist countries acted through the Soviet members of the committee and the chairman himself. Numerous protocols contain D. Skobeltsyn's reservations that he used breaks in meetings to contact representatives of supervising bodies to clarify questions about funding for a particular year.

His answer to Dembovsky at the 1952 meeting is noteworthy, and explains why he insists on awarding the prize to I. Ehrenburg, and not to T. Lysenko: “It seems to me that the Committee will share the point of view that when nominating a candidate, it is necessary to take into account the opinion of Soviet public organizations. I can inform you here that the Soviet organizations support this year the candidacy of... Ehrenburg” [Сталинские премии, 2007: 372].

The analysis of the professional affiliation of the laureates confirms the thesis about the revision of the foundations of foreign policy representations of the pre-war period in connection with the increasing dispersion of the global interests of the USSR. Contrary to the atheistic attitudes of the Soviet state, peace prizes were purposefully awarded to leaders of religious denominations. The Committee members regularly spoke about the “great importance” of including “active figures, representatives of Catholics” in the lists of laureates (Ахманаев, 2016: 213). The importance of using the religious factor increased in the case of solving specific tasks to stabilize relations with the countries of the socialist block.

It should be mentioned that selected representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church were allowed to attend the award ceremonies for foreign priests, in particular,

Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsky and Kolomna (who held the position of chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate), Protopresbyter Kolchitsky (Нагорная, 2018: 347). Their welcoming speeches contained a minimum of Christian rhetoric, but were extremely important for rejecting the accusations of Western journalists in the absence of freedom of conscience in the USSR. The documents show that journalists did ask similar questions to priestly laureates during their stay in Moscow, but all of them, referring to their personal impressions and communication with Soviet representatives of different faiths, denied the fact of lack of freedom.

A special group of laureates were victims of real or staged racist policies in Western countries, heroes of protest and liberation movements in third World countries. For example, in 1952, in the list of laureates we find Paul Robson, a famous African-American musician who in the post-war USSR became an expression of the love of the Soviet people for the racial groups oppressed in the United States (Gould-Davies, 2003: 194).

The politicized nature of the awards also affected the ways of handling the monetary components of the laureates, among whom there is a tradition of presenting encouragement as achievements of their people as a whole and transferring money to actual peacekeeping campaigns. Thus, Korean civil activist Park deng ai handed over her prize “for the upbringing of orphans of Korean patriots who heroically defended the freedom and independence of Korea against the American invaders and gave their lives for their homeland”; Mexican Heriberto Jara decided to give the monetary part of the prize to expand the great campaign of the struggle for peace (Нагорная, 2018: 347).

In 1956, in the wake of discussions about the cult of personality and the beginning of de-Stalinization, the award and its committee were renamed to International Lenin Prize V. I. Lenin: the medals and diplomas already awarded were supposed to be reissued in new symbols (Ивкин, 2013: 42). However, the three-pronged goal of promoting the Soviet-style vision of peacemaking, encouraging opposition and revolutionary-minded figures loyal to the Soviet Union, and forming a network of authoritative international actors associated with the socialist project remained unchanged until the collapse of Soviet state.

Conclusions

Thus, in the post-war situation of the undesirability of using the term revolution in foreign policy representations, it was replaced by peacemaking rhetoric. The successful use of the USSR's authority as a victorious and liberating power made it possible, under the guise of new images, to encourage essentially revolutionary (liberation, protest, anti-colonial) activities in accordance with the global interests of the socialist block. The effect of the implementation of the Stalin Prize project to promote “Soviet-style peacemaking” and symbolic encouragement of a certain category of outstanding actors of the Cold War was manifested both in the internal and external environment. The laureates became important links in the cultural and diplomatic network of the USSR. Through them, relevant propaganda information was distributed in the country and the region.

The awarding of Peace prizes became an occasion for inviting large delegations from certain countries to the USSR, involving them in the procedures of the traditional Soviet cult show. After visiting the USSR and a lavish reception, as well as treatment and rest in the best sanatoriums, the fighters for peace published articles and books about the USSR in their country, which was most often inaccessible to direct informational influence from Moscow. In addition, during conversations with foreign journalists, the laureates broadcast a positive image of the Soviet Union to the public of Western countries.

Bibliography

1. Алексеев А.Г. Лауреаты Международных сталинских премий «За укрепление мира между народами». Ленинград, 1954. 42 с.

2. Ахманаев П.В. Сталинские премии. Москва: Русские Витязи, 2016. 276 с.

3. Дей М.О. Державш нагороди як найвища форма правового заохочення. Правоiбезпека. 2005. № 4-5. С. 129-133.

4. Демин А.Л. Наградная система государства как компонент политической культуры.

5. Ивкин В.И. Как отменяли Сталинские премии. Документы ЦК КПСС и Совета министров СССР, 1953-1967 гг. Исторический архив. 2013. С. 3-49.

6. Международные Сталинские премии мира. Литературная газета. 26 декабря 1950 г.

7. Нагорная О.С. От мировой революции к империи мира? Сталинские премии в контексте послевоенных репрезентаций СССР. Уроки Октября и практики советской системы. 1920-1950-е гг.: материалы Х международной конференции, г. Москва, 5-7 декабря 2017 г. Москва: Политическая энциклопедия; Президентский центр Б.Н. Ельцина, 2018. С. 341-349.

8. Сталинские премии. Две стороны одной медали: сборник документов и художественно-публицистических материалов / сост. В.Ф. Свиньин, К.А. Осеев. Новосибирск: Издательство «Свиньин и сыновья», 2007. 879 с.

9. Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР «Об учреждении международных Сталинских премий “За укрепление мира между народами”».

10. Фадеев - Сталину об учреждении Международных премий Советского Союза. 11 ноября 1949 г.

11. Babiracki P. Soviet Soft Power in Poland: Culture and the Making of Stalin's New Empire 1943-1957. North Carolina, 2015.

12. Gould-Davies N. The Logic of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy. Diplomatic History. 2003. Vol. 27. №2. P. 193-194.

References