Tobias Rupprecht: Soviet Internationalism after Stalin. Interaction and Exchange between the USSR and Latin America during the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. X, 334 S. ISBN: 978-1-107-10288-0

Tobias Rupprecht: Soviet Internationalism after Stalin. Interaction and Exchange between the USSR and Latin America during the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. X, 334 S. ISBN: 978-1-107-10288-0.

With an international academic background himself, Rupprecht, lecturer in Latin American and Caribbean History at the University of Exeter, has gained a lot of expertise in the field of Soviet cultural relations with Latin America, starting from his Master thesis in Germany in 2007 to his PhD dissertation at the European University Institute in Florence, defended in 2012.

Soviet Internationalism is an in-depth study on Soviet instruments, hopes, expertise, understanding and results of cultural and academic policy with regard to Latin America predominantly during the mid-1950s to the end of the 1960s, with prospects right through the 1980s. It contributes to the growing field of fundamental research on Soviet policy in the global South, bridging the gap between individual case studies on the one hand and overviews with a strong focus on the United States and diplomatic history like Hal Brands’ Latin America’s Cold War (published in 2010) or on policy and economics like Christopher Darnton’s Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America (published in 2014) on the other hand.

Rupprecht seeks to analyse interactions below state level (p. 4) in order to reveal the nature of Soviet “increased interconnectedness with distant world regions” (rear flap text). From the point of view of the Latin American countries, Rupprecht insinuates an “appeal of the empire” (p. 2) vis-à-vis the USSR, especially with Moscow’s re-intensifying global activities after Stalin’s death. The five chapters are each devoted to one “zone of interaction between Soviet and Latin American societies, cultures and individual agents” (p. 2), namely Soviet cultural policy (ch. 1), reception of Latin American cultural elements in the USSR (ch. 2), Latin American intellectuals in and on the Soviet Union (ch. 3), Latin American students in the USSR (ch. 4), Soviet area experts (ch. 5).

Rupprecht makes use of the rich text and film documents by the Soviet party and state cultural organisations in various archives (GARF, RGANI, RGASPI, RGALI, RGAKFD) as well as of those of some Latin American archives and libraries (e. g. the Archives of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Archives of the Colombian-Soviet Cultural Institute), and of Soviet and Latin American travelogues. Interviews with Latin American alumni of Soviet universities from Kharkov to Astrakhan add to the lively picture of motives and perceptions of Soviet life and culture in the Latin American communities.

According to Rupprecht’s findings, Soviet cultural advances were successful until the late 1970s (p. 285). Along the lines of European highbrow culture as well as those of folklore and (moderated) socialist propaganda, Soviet exhibitions, film demonstrations, ballet shows and the Red Army choir concerts were by and large appreciated in Latin America, sometimes – e. g. in Brazil – with censorship interfering to eliminate sensitive terms such as “communist” from Soviet presentations. In Soviet pragmatic cultural policy, ideology had to stand back whenever it disturbed cultural relations. Some students’ preference to study in the USSR and not in the United States was in any case motivated by financial rather than ideological reasons as Moscow was prepared to fund travel expenses as well.

Besides enthusiastic reports, some Latin American visitors to the USSR complained (and published) about the sometimes grim and grey Soviet everyday life; there were contrary opinions on pervasive supervision, the treatment of religion, the stage of the eradication of prostitution as a symbol of exploitation and – the longer the USSR existed – missing signs of prosperity as a proof of the superiority of the socialist system. On the other hand, Latin American music and dances became popular in the USSR. In 1963, when Castro visited the Soviet Union, Evgenii Evtushenko devoted a long poem to Cuba (I am Cuba), and veterans from the Spanish civil war were happy to assist Latin Americans to get along in the USSR.

Soviet internationalism, strongest during the 1960s, “faded out” in the late 1980s according to Rupprecht (p. 291). Relations became already more complicated with the political turmoil, revolutions and civil wars in many Latin American states during the 1970s. Surprisingly, Rupprecht asserts here that the initial fascination of many a Latin American intellectual with Soviet achievements as typical socialist/communist accomplishments made way for a more depoliticised attitude (p. 181). Mikoyan’s statement that only armed struggle had proven successful to further Latin American revolutions, falls in line with Hal Brands’ recent conclusion about the core intentions from Moscow and Havana being to sow turmoil and violence in Latin America. This aim is scarcely reflected on the cultural line. Hence, here remains an open question for further research as soon as the more recent documents are declassified.

What about the outcome of Soviet cultural policy in this region, which Rupprecht rightly characterises as being of minor importance to Moscow? Even if “popular culture conveyed internationalism to a willing mass audience” and helped to support the official Soviet self-image in the world (p. 286), the argument of a fundamental stabilizing effect of Soviet cultural policy for the whole Soviet system and its longevity (p. 288) seems somewhat daring. Still, Soviet efforts from area experts to politicians certainly contributed to Soviet image building abroad. On the whole, Rupprecht’s findings about a generally reactive rather than initiative Soviet approach to cultural policy fall in line with findings of earlier studies on Soviet cultural policy in developing countries.

Rupprecht’s book is predestined to serve as a highly valuable work of reference on Soviet-Latin American cultural relations, the more so as Soviet-Latin American relations in general remain on the current research agenda (e.g.: Vanni Pettinà: Mexican-Soviet relations, 1958–1964. The Limits of Engagement. CWIHP e-Dossier No. 65, published September 2015).

Ragna Boden, Berlin