Being Soviet: Identity, Rumour, and Everyday Life Under Stalin 1939-1953 (41 page)

Whether they were supplementing the available supply of food, com-
panionship, or love, these girls were creatively employing the ‘tactic’ of
bricolage
. In doing so they were not engaging in ‘resistance’ and stepping outside of the ‘habitat’ of Soviet life. They were carefully skirting the boundaries of legitimate ‘Soviet’ behaviour and taking advantage of the unprecedented freedom and relaxation in the wartime USSR. However, the foreign origins of the convoyers lent them a highly sensitive nature. Zina explained to her British boyfriend Bill that some individuals were rude to him because ‘people are scared to meet foreigners it used to be dangerous’.
^{177
She assumed that what used to be illicit had now become}

^{171
Golubtsova,}
Voennaia liubov’
, 32, 33, 40.

^{172
The Moldovan and Estonian jazz ensembles performed in the International Club:}
GAAO, f. 1649, op. 2, d. 5, ll. 5, 24.

^{173
Ibid. d. 2, l, 12.}

^{174
GAOPDiFAO f. 296, op. 1, d. 1544, l. 32.}

^{175
Int. Percy Price, Oxford, September 2005.}

^{176
Golubtsova,}
Voennaia liubov’
, 9; GAOPDiFAO f. 296, op. 1, d. 1544, l. 32.

^{177
Severnyi Rabochii}
(Severodvinsk), 13.07.2002.

116
Being Soviet

acceptable. Nonetheless, in her memory she associated her time with Bill
with the music of Vadim Kozin, whom she remembered was banned at that time.
^{178
Their friendship was not dangerous, but it was risky.}
Valentina Evleva was a feature of the International Club at the age of 15 in 1941. After a series of relationships with foreign sailors, she was called to see the local NKVD but was aware that they were unlikely to take serious sanctions, particularly against an underage girl.
¹⁷⁹

The exile of up to 100 ‘prostitutes’ and low-level agitation campaigns
against fraternization made it clear that such behaviour was frowned upon by the local party.
^{180
However, many of the girls who danced at the}
International Club, or received gifts of chocolate and stockings from the visiting sailors, were not consciously subverting the dictates of the Soviet government. They were creatively responding to their wartime needs, ensuring they had enough to eat, enjoying going to parties, and falling in love. As the Director of the International Club in Arkhangel’sk com- plained, their behaviour was such that they could not be banned from the club, yet it was clear that they were behaving inappropriately.
^181
They
were not stepping outside of the ‘habitat’ in order to resist Soviet power. They were aware of the attitude of the local government, but they creatively juggled the competing demands of their personal interests and official policy. Their behaviour stretched, without explicitly trans- gressing, the boundaries of acceptable conduct for Soviet citizens.

In the post-war period, as the Soviet government sought to reassert
the boundaries of the community, wartime liaisons with the convoyers took on a new, and more defined character. Many wartime romances ended in tragedy, as the girls concerned were sent to the Gulag after 1945. In later years, the offspring of inter-ally relationships, such as Edik Erikovich, struggled to get into schools and institutes because of their foreign patronymics.
^{182
The wartime line, that these women so}
carefully negotiated, had been moved by the exigencies of post-war life. The boundaries of legitimate
bricolage
had shifted and what had been

^{178
She is incorrect: Kozim was not banned until the end of the war. The mistake}
serves to highlight the risky associations the relationship had despite the fact she never suffered any formal punishment, either during the war or afterwards.

^{179
Golubtsova,}
Voennaia liubov’
, 46.

^{180
In November 1941 the head of the}
oblast’
NKVD suggested carrying out agitation at an apartment block level. GAOPDiFAO f. 296, op. 1, d. 934, l. 84.

^{181
Inf. Ibid. 2097, l. 48.}

^{182
Golubtsova,}
Voennaia liubov’
, 23.

Patrons or Predators? 1941–45
117

creatively risky became illicit. Some of them, however, continued to
regard this period as the best time of their lives.

Patrons or predators?

The other group of individuals who interacted extensively with the
foreign sailors were children. Wartime Arkhangel’sk and Murmansk had large populations of vagrant children, without a school to attend or parents to look after them. These minors provided a major point of contact between the visiting sailors and the local population. The rela- tionships were largely economic; the children begged for handouts, bought and sold goods, and stole from the convoyers. The convoyers dubbed them the ‘gum gum boys’, because of their opening gambit, ‘Any gum chum?’, and used them as an access point onto the black market.
^{183
On arrival in the USSR, Soviet law required the convoyers to exchange}
foreign currency at highly unfavourable rates fixed by the Soviet Foreign Ministry.
^{184
As a result, many sold cigarettes, chocolate, laundry soap,}
and clothes on the black market, to bolster their income. Foreign chocolate, preserves, and cigarettes became recognized currencies with fixed values in the Arctic ports.
^{185
The waitresses at the International}
Club and the Inturist restaurants could be cajoled into serving more than the requisite volume of spirits for a few cigarettes or a can of meat.
^{186
In 1942, the British ship HMS}
Trinidad
undertook repairs in Arkhan- gel’sk, and required internal strengthening to make her seaworthy. The Russian authorities refused to provide steel girders for the task. Late one evening two groups of ratings left the ship. One party, equipped with gifts of chocolate, distracted the sentries whilst the other used oxyacetylene gear to cut up some unused railway tracks, which were then brought aboard and used as supports.
^{187
Even the guards patrolling}
the Arkhangel’sk prison used to demand cigarettes from the staff of the nearby British communications building.
^{188
Foreign cigarettes were}
particularly popular because they were greatly superior to domestic Soviet brands.
^{189
Lucky Strike}
,
Phillip Morris
, and
Kent
were engraved

^183
Scott,
Eyewitness Accounts,
165.

^{184
48 roubles to the pound, 5.3 to the dollar: Woodman,}
Arctic Convoys
, 467.

^{185
Mem. Taffrail,}
Arctic Convoy
, 209, 251.

^{186
Inf. GAOPDiFAO f. 296, op. 1, d. 1210, l. 24.}

^187
Woodman,
Arctic Convoys
, 114.

^{188
Int. Percy Price, Oxford, September 2005.}

^{189
Mem. Lund and Ludlam,}
PQ 17
, 182.

118
Being Soviet

on the memory of Nikolai Vasil’evich, a local child, long after the war
was over.
¹⁹⁰

With such large sums of money being exchanged, street speculation
also developed an unsavoury aspect. The International Club was often surrounded by ‘shady individuals’ who aggravated the club’s patrons.
^{191
Igor Andreevich, who lived in Arkhangel’sk during the war, remem-}
bered how he and his friends collected old money, which had gone out of circulation in 1924. They then traded this worthless currency with the foreign seamen.
^{192
The convoyers also became a target for theft,}
with pickpockets taking hats, bags, and cash.
^{193
Tensions sometimes}
spilled over into violence, most famously in the cases of the British sailors Loades and Prior who were only released from a Soviet prison after Churchill intervened on their behalf.
¹⁹⁴

The vast majority of the thieves, speculators, and street traders were
minors. As a local NKVD report noted, ‘At every corner of the central streets of the city you can meet foreigners, surrounded by youths. The sailors astonishedly enquire where the Soviet children have this much money, 500–600 roubles.’
^{195
The local Komsomol worked hard to crack}
down on street speculation. In May 1943 a wave of arrests netted 104 minors. Forty-three were charged with attachment to foreigners and another fourteen with speculation. The arrest report frankly admitted that many of the children were driven to speculation by their desperate living conditions. L.B. sold foreign cigarettes, ‘explaining his actions on the grounds of a lack of money’. Even Komsomol members at the local higher technical school (FZO) were engaged in cigarette speculation. In one case, the individual concerned claimed that he was selling goods in order to pay for the summer Pioneer camp.
^{196
This child’s response demonstrates how}
blurred the boundaries between ‘support’ and ‘resistance’ might be. They were behaving illegally for entirely loyal and officially endorsed ends.
^197
At
the very least, he was an adept ‘performer’ of official rhetoric. In August 1943 a children’s club was established to keep them off the streets.
¹⁹⁸

^{190
Int. Nikolai Vasil’evich, Arkhangel’sk, August 2004.}

^{191
Inf. GAAO f. 1649, op. 2, d. 2, l. 16.}

^{192
Int. Igor Andreevich, Arkhangel’sk, August 2004.}

^{193
Inf. GAAO f. 1649, op. 2, d. 2, l. 16.}

^{194
Proc. GARF f. R8131, op. 37, d. 1433, ll. 49–50.}

^{195
Inf. RGASPI f. 17, op. 125, d. 124, l. 92.}

^{196
Inf. GAOPDiFAO f. 1740, op. 1, d. 690, l. 37.}

^{197
Alternatively it was just a very clever answer!}

^{198
Inf. GAOPDiFAO f. 1740, op. 1, d. 690, l. 42.}

Patrons or Predators? 1941–45
119