Anti-liberal Modernisation of the Soviet Union

• The teacher starts the lesson by asking what the students know about the Soviet Union. After collecting some ideas, the pupils watch a short, animated video about communism, socialism and capitalism (material 2) to provide some background knowledge about those concepts.
• After the video the teacher introduces the topic of ‘How was the Soviet Union modernised’. The teacher explains that the lesson will focus on understanding the modernisation efforts in the Soviet Union, particularly through agricultural policies.
• The teacher should provide a short explanation that the topic will be explored by using materials from Soviet Armenia and the USSR, explaining where Armenia is, and also discussing the merits of reviewing a country’s history from the perspective of one of its peripheral territories.
• Comment:
  This teaching unit focuses on the interwar years in which Armenia, in addition to Azerbaijan and Georgia, was part of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, also known as Transcaucasia, that existed from 1922 to 1936, when the Stali Constitution declared all three members to be union republics.
  Originally, ‘the nature of the ties between the half-dozen Soviet republics and Moscow was determined piecemeal over time, by practice. There was no clear plan imposed by the center’ (Suny, Looking toward Ararat, 140), hence, ‘no overview of Soviet reality is possible without taking into account the diverse histories of the constituent peoples of the USSR’. (Ibid., 178). Armenia was the smallest Soviet republic which emerged ‘not through a popular uprising or the enthusiastic demand of the people but rather as a measure of last resort by the defeated, discouraged, and disintegrating Dashnak government of independent Armenia’ (ibid, 138) and which witnessed significant transformation over time. The centre-periphery theory is used here as an analytical framework to describe hierarchical relationships a between dominant ‘centre’ and the subordinated ‘periphery’. The ‘centre’ holds economic, political and cultural dominance, while the ‘periphery’ is often dependent, marginalised or exploited. In the Armenian case, Moscow (and the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic by extension) is the centre, while Armenia, that was on the border between the USSR, Turkey and Iran, is on the periphery. The Soviet Union operated with Five Year Plans, which were government-driven economic programmes that set ambitious production and development goals for industry, agriculture and infrastructure, and were aimed at rapidly transforming the country into an industrial and military superpower.

• The teacher asks pupils if they are familiar with the concepts of kolkhoz, sovkhoz and collectivisation and assists them with the explanation (material 3). The teacher may write those words on the board and create a mind map. This will help the pupils to see the similarities and differences between the concepts.
• Comment:
  The teacher may not expect pupils to know the words. The intention is to activate pupils' background knowledge and engage them with the topic.
• Expectation:
  The mind map and the follow-up discussion are intended to help pupils activate their background knowledge of the topic and get ready for a more in-depth examination of it. The mind map will be extended in the next lessons, so the teacher should ensure it will still be available.
• The teacher distributes the text on the Aslamazyan sisters (material 4) and the pupils read their life story.
• When the pupils are ready, the teacher asks them to identify keywords from the text that describe the life of the former kulak and their family before and after collectivisation.
• Discussion starters:

> How do you feel when reading the text?

> How did people’s lives change after collectivisation?

> What did you notice in the text that you would like to discuss further? (The teacher can bring up aspects of resistance and emancipation that will be brought up in the next lessons)

> What is your opinion of the idea of collectivisation? (This is an optional question that the teacher can ask depending on the students’ knowledge and understanding of the topic).

• The teacher may project some images of the original source materials (materials 5, 8, 11, 14 or 17) on the white board or a wall.
• The teacher explains that the pupils are going to read a historical journal article about collectivisation and kulaks in the Armenian language (material 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18) or the English translation (material 7, 10, 13, 16 or 19). The pupils are to take notes using Cornell’s modified note-taking technique with the help of the template (material 20) including questions to help deconstruct primary source articles.
• Advice:
  Cornell's strategy for note-taking is to divide notes into three parts. The main ideas or questions are written in the left column, the answers to those questions or the statements supporting them are written in the right column (during or after the lesson), and a general overview of the lesson is added at the bottom of the page.
• The teacher divides the class into small groups (3-4 students per group) and assigns each group a different excerpt; the teacher can also divide each excerpt into smaller sections to be distributed among the students in each group (for more efficient use of time). The teacher then distributes the printed note-taking templates which also include questions designed to help pupils deconstruct the article.
• The teacher announces that the group work will be finished in the next lesson.
• The groups read their journal article (excerpts) and take notes using the given template (material 20). Any pupils who have not completed the template during the lesson are asked to finish it at home.
• Comment: The articles are from the ‘Female worker of Armenia’ (published between 1924-1941 and 1958-1999), a monthly magazine published in Soviet Armenia. It was the Armenian version of ‘The Female Worker’ published in Moscow, Russia. Aimed at women in Armenia, specifically in rural communities, the journal attempted to present different aspects of the New Soviet woman’s life, from participation in the community to house work.

• The teacher asks the pupils to get into the same work groups as the previous lesson. The groups pool their results and prepare a short presentation.

• The groups briefly present their results.

• The teacher writes the word ‘propaganda’ on the board and asks the pupils to think of words or ideas associated with the term. The teacher may use the mind map from the previous lesson. This will help pupils to recall what they have learnt previously. It is also possible to start a new mind map but with the same design.
• The teacher asks the pupils to think about the results of the group work and to give some examples. They should also think about modern examples of propaganda.
• The teacher asks the pupils how they know that the examples given were propaganda.
• The teacher writes the answers on the board (to form a mind map) and uses, with the help of the pupils, the answers to define what propaganda is.

• The teacher selects one or more images (material 21) and presents them to the pupils by using the ‘instant viewing’ strategy:
  The image is presented for 5 seconds, then the pupils say what they remember and what they noticed.
  The teacher then shows the photo again and the pupils can take a closer look and discuss the content.
• Discussion starters:

> Who is in the image? When do you think it was created? Why was it created and what is its main message?

> Identify any specific characteristics of propaganda that you see or feel.

• The teacher asks if anybody can read the words and translate them into English. He or she writes down the translation and asks if they consider any particular words or sentences to be part of the propaganda.
• Advice: In addition to the people and words used in the image, the class can discuss the colours used and the imagery symbolizing a war against the rich by the proletariat.

• The pupils form pairs and receive a copy of an excerpt from several historical journal articles about the state of communism in the USSR and the state and effects of capitalism in countries outside the USSR (material 22-36) as well as a copy of the worksheet (material 37) which contains questions designed to help them deconstruct the reading materials and reflect on them.

• The pupils present their notes and reflect on the tone of the texts.
• The teacher observes how pupils react to the criticism of European countries. While they learn the attitude towards Soviet propaganda, they do not have to reject every object of criticism, for some things, for example a kind of backwardness in terms of equality of men and women, was prevalent in that time.
• The teacher asks the pupils to write a brief reflection on what they learned about propaganda, what propaganda tools could they identify and which tools can they still witness around them or in the media.

• The teacher displays the images (material 38) on the screen, using the ‘instant viewing’ technique (described above) and asks the pupils to brainstorm.
• Discussion starters:

> What did you see? What was happening?

> What can you infer about the setting or the historic period from the image?

• After the pupils have expressed their ideas, the teacher sums-up by outlining the historical facts and briefly recalling the concepts of kolkhozes (collective farms) and sovkhozes (state farms) in the Soviet Union. The teacher explains the importance of these agricultural structures in understanding Soviet history.
• The teacher distributes the glossary (material 39) so the pupil can look up the key terms.

• The teacher divides the class into pairs. Each pair will have one of the four primary source materials (excerpts from journals, as well as the transcripts and translations and respective worksheets with questions: materials 40-55).
• The pupils read the excerpts from the journal articles in their pairs and then discuss the question on the respective worksheet.

• To bring the results of the partner work together, the teacher asks the following questions to guide an open discussion:

> What, in your opinion, are the challenges facing the people living and working in these environments, according to the information in the articles?

> What was women’s role in kolkhoz and sovkhoz?

>What were the main features of kolkhoz/ sovkhoz?

• The teacher recaps the key points discussed during the leasson, highlighting the differences between kolkhozes and sovkhozes.

• Brainstorming: the teacher asks questions such as: What do you think happened to the people who disagreed with collectivisation?
• Afterwards, the teacher writes the words ‘labour camp’ on the board and asks the pupils what they know about it in the context of the Soviet Union? The term gulag was explained in the glossary that was distributed in the previous lesson, so pupils who read it carefully should be able to use that explanation to answer the question.
• The teacher sums up the pupils' responses providing necessary information about the discussion topics.

• The teacher prepares character cards in order to discuss what happened to individuals who actively or passively resisted collectivisation. Each pupil should have one character card and each character should be present in the discussion.
• The pupils study their characters individually and think about the questions specified in the worksheet (material 64). The teacher asks them to make notes for the subsequent discussion.

• The pupils present their findings and the whole class continues to discuss the topic, using the following questions:

> What do you think was the motivation of dissenters?

> What strategies did people use to resist, and what were the outcomes?

> What were the consequences for those who opposed collectivisation?

> How did the government justify its actions against ‘dissenters’?

> Do you think every instance of dissent was discovered?

> In what other private ways do you think people could habe dissented against Soviet rule?

• The pupils write a brief answer to the question ‘How important is dissent in general and within the studied context specifically’?
• This reflection is important because it aims to help pupils think about the importance of dissent, even when the results are not immediate.

• The lesson starts with a quick recap. The teacher writes three terms: Collectivisation, Propaganda and Kolkhoz on the board and asks the pupils to describe each term. This serves as a warm up activity to activate pupils’ background knowledge and prepare for the upcoming activity.

• The teacher asks the pupils to define ‘liberal values’ and discuss how they contrast with the Soviet Union’s policies.

• The teacher asks the pupils to identify specific aspects of Soviet modernisation (e.g., collectivisation, propaganda and kolkhoz) that were in conflict with liberal ideals, specifically autonomy and economic freedom.

• The teacher can also ask the following questions for additional structure:

> How did collectivisation contradict liberal values (e.g. elimination of private property, forced compliance)?

> How did propaganda suppress free speech and individual thought?

> How did the kolkhoz challenge liberal values?

• Each group should work through these guiding questions:

• How did collectivisation contradict liberal values?
• Were there any aspects of your topic that aligned with or supported liberal values?
• What are the key arguments to show how Soviet modernisation was anti-liberal based on your topic?

• After the work phase teacher asks the pupils to draw a caricature about the anti-liberal modernisation of the Soviet Union.

• The pupils show their drawings to each other and explain them.