Podcast appearances and mentions of joy neumeyer

Most cases of intimate partner violence are never made and the stories never told.  Joy Neumeyer did both.  The victim of an abusive relationship while a graduate student at Berkeley, Joy succeeded in having her former boyfriend and fellow graduate student expelled through the Title IX process.  Equality important, she gained recognition for the truth of the physical and emotional harm she suffered.  Through the lens of her training as a historian of the Soviet Union, Joy finds parallels with her own experience with women in both the Soviet and American past.  She explains the history and challenges of the Title IX process which is at once under assault and a vital support for victims of intimate partner violence.  A conversation with Joy Neumeyer, author of A Survivor's Education: Women, Violence and the Stories We Don't Tell, on this episode of Realms of Memory.  

Weaving together her own survivor story with her doctoral research on the Russian past, Joy Neumeyer offers a personal and historical account of intimate partner violence.  How do we fall victim to abusive relationships?  What makes it so difficult to break free?  Why are these stories so often silenced?  Find out how Joy sought recourse through the Title IX process at the University of California, Berkeley and the rights and protections women have gained since the 1960s.  A conversation with Joy Neumeyer about her book, A Survivor's Education: Women, Violence, and the Stories We Don' t Tell, next on the October 21st special episode of the Realms of Memory podcast

Journalist and historian Joy Neumeyer joins Suzi from Warsaw to discuss her March 13 piece in the New York Review of Books, “Russia: Letters from the Opposition.” Last summer, Neumeyer wrote to 14 of Vladimir Putin's political prisoners — dissidents locked away in penal colonies for opposing Russia's war on Ukraine. While human rights organizations estimate that some 20,000 anti-war critics have been detained, a smaller number face trial and sentencing, disappearing into Russia's vast prison system. Neumeyer was struck by the deeply personal, often unexpected responses she received — offering a rare glimpse into the lives, fears, and resilience of those behind bars. While figures like Boris Kagarlitsky, Russia's most well-known left-wing critic, have drawn international attention — including on this podcast — many political prisoners remain unknown, their suffering largely overlooked both inside and outside Russia. Neumeyer shares the powerful insights from her correspondence, revealing not just the punishments these prisoners endure, but also their defiance, hope, and unwavering resistance. We explore Putin's escalating repression, the deeply human stories of imprisoned dissidents, and the culture of war and propaganda that fuels the political climate in Russia. And we ask a critical question: what happens to these prisoners if — and when — the war ends? Jacobin Radio with Suzi Weissman features conversations with leading thinkers and activists, with a focus on labor, the economy, and protest movements.

**Content Warning: This episode includes discussion of sexual and domestic violence.In this week's episode of then & now, guest host Professor Jared McBride is joined by Dr. Joy Neumeyer to discuss her recent book, A Survivor's Education. In the book, as well as this episode, Joy interweaves her own experiences of domestic abuse and the bureaucracy surrounding Title IX with Soviet and Russian history and examines gender and violence norms within the profession of history and academia writ large. Within the context of the #MeToo movement, Joy reflects on the enduring struggle that victims of abuse face due to the common propensity to amplify and repeat the narratives that are spread by perpetrators of violence. Informed by her extensive research on the history and application of Title IX—including the procedural tribulations of her own case—Joy intertwines the past and present and challenges the postmodernist approach to historical methodology with regard to truth narrativity and meaning. Joy concludes with the sentiment that historians can never be truly objective. Instead, they must expose their positionality and the personal, political, and social factors shaping their narrative about the past. If you are experiencing abuse or are concerned about someone you know, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) or visit http://www.thehotline.org. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and historian of Russia and Eastern Europe. She received a PhD in History from the University of California, Berkeley, and was a Fulbright Fellow in Russia and a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. She has also worked as a reporter in Moscow and Warsaw. Her first book, A Survivor's Education: Women, Violence, and the Stories We Don't Tell (PublicAffairs, 2024), is an investigative memoir about abuse and the tension between narrative and evidence in understanding the past. Her writing has appeared in numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, New Left Review, and The Los Angeles Review of Books.Jared McBride is an assistant professor in the UCLA Department of History and is an expert on the history of Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe in the 20th century.  His research examines mass violence, the Holocaust, interethnic conflict, nationalist movements, and war crimes prosecution. McBride's research has been supported by fellowships, including the Guggenheim, SSRC, and Fulbright-Hays. Further Reading Darkness at Noon: On History, Narrative, and Domestic ViolenceTitle IXBernice Sandler#MeToo Movement

[REBROADCAST FROM August 28, 2024] When Joy Neumeyer was a graduate student at Berkeley, she found herself in a physically abusive romantic relationship with a fellow student. That relationship leads her to leave campus, and attempt to pursue a Title IX case against her ex. But many felt that it was her boyfriend who was the real victim. Neumeyer recounts her experience, and the pitfalls of Title IX, in her new memoir A Survivor's Education: Women, Violence, and the Stories We Don't Tell.

Much of the world has been watching the rapidly developing situation in Afghanistan with a mix of shock and anguish. Bryce Klehm spoke with five experts to get a sense of how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is being perceived around the world. You'll hear from Madiha Afzal, the David M. Rubenstein Fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, on Pakistan; Suzanne Maloney, the vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, on Iran; Yun Sun, the director of the China Program at the Stimson Center, on China; Joy Neumeyer, a writer and historian of Russia and the Soviet Union who has also worked as a journalist in Moscow, on Russia; and Constanze Stelzenmüller, the Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations and a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, on Germany. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

For all the American media coverage of President Donald Trump’s possible ties to Russia, what’s rarely heard are the voices of Russians themselves. Russians on Trump: Coverage and Commentary (East View Press, 2018), edited by Laurence Bogoslaw, surveys the range of opinions about Trump that have appeared in the Russian press from the late 1990s to today. Before 2015, Trump’s sporadic appearances in Russian news outlets mostly centered on his efforts to hawk real estate. During the presidential campaign, some Russian commentators were intrigued by the idea that Trump might reduce American commitments abroad; focusing on policy rather than personality, they arguably took him seriously as a political player before domestic pundits did. Nevertheless, Trump’s election came as a shock to Russian analysts, many of whom had predicted a Clinton victory. While flamboyant ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky popped champagne, others (such as Moscow Times editor Mikhail Fishman) despaired. “The hope for change in Russia has just been buried in the voting booths of Florida, Michigan and North Carolina,” he wrote on November 10. In the following months, most Russian commentators did not deny the plausibility of Russian cyber-espionage and media influence, though they placed such efforts within the realm of normal statecraft and shrugged off the notion that they influenced the election’s outcome. Even as Trump reneged on his campaign rhetoric about NATO and other key issues, Russian media forecasts for bilateral relations remained largely sunny—until he signed off on a new round of sanctions in August 2017, leading to widespread disillusionment and more negative coverage. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For all the American media coverage of President Donald Trump’s possible ties to Russia, what’s rarely heard are the voices of Russians themselves. Russians on Trump: Coverage and Commentary (East View Press, 2018), edited by Laurence Bogoslaw, surveys the range of opinions about Trump that have appeared in the Russian press from the late 1990s to today. Before 2015, Trump’s sporadic appearances in Russian news outlets mostly centered on his efforts to hawk real estate. During the presidential campaign, some Russian commentators were intrigued by the idea that Trump might reduce American commitments abroad; focusing on policy rather than personality, they arguably took him seriously as a political player before domestic pundits did. Nevertheless, Trump’s election came as a shock to Russian analysts, many of whom had predicted a Clinton victory. While flamboyant ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky popped champagne, others (such as Moscow Times editor Mikhail Fishman) despaired. “The hope for change in Russia has just been buried in the voting booths of Florida, Michigan and North Carolina,” he wrote on November 10. In the following months, most Russian commentators did not deny the plausibility of Russian cyber-espionage and media influence, though they placed such efforts within the realm of normal statecraft and shrugged off the notion that they influenced the election’s outcome. Even as Trump reneged on his campaign rhetoric about NATO and other key issues, Russian media forecasts for bilateral relations remained largely sunny—until he signed off on a new round of sanctions in August 2017, leading to widespread disillusionment and more negative coverage. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For all the American media coverage of President Donald Trump’s possible ties to Russia, what’s rarely heard are the voices of Russians themselves. Russians on Trump: Coverage and Commentary (East View Press, 2018), edited by Laurence Bogoslaw, surveys the range of opinions about Trump that have appeared in the Russian press from the late 1990s to today. Before 2015, Trump’s sporadic appearances in Russian news outlets mostly centered on his efforts to hawk real estate. During the presidential campaign, some Russian commentators were intrigued by the idea that Trump might reduce American commitments abroad; focusing on policy rather than personality, they arguably took him seriously as a political player before domestic pundits did. Nevertheless, Trump’s election came as a shock to Russian analysts, many of whom had predicted a Clinton victory. While flamboyant ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky popped champagne, others (such as Moscow Times editor Mikhail Fishman) despaired. “The hope for change in Russia has just been buried in the voting booths of Florida, Michigan and North Carolina,” he wrote on November 10. In the following months, most Russian commentators did not deny the plausibility of Russian cyber-espionage and media influence, though they placed such efforts within the realm of normal statecraft and shrugged off the notion that they influenced the election’s outcome. Even as Trump reneged on his campaign rhetoric about NATO and other key issues, Russian media forecasts for bilateral relations remained largely sunny—until he signed off on a new round of sanctions in August 2017, leading to widespread disillusionment and more negative coverage. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From Stalin’s inner circle to Soviet dinner menus, the small nation of Georgia had a remarkable influence on the politics and culture of the USSR. Erik Scott, author of Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire (Oxford University Press, 2016), traces how Georgians came to occupy such a central role in Soviet history, as well as how the relationship with Moscow unraveled. Scott argues that the Soviet Union should be seen as an “empire of diasporas”: though assigned to titular republics, Soviet nationalities were mobile, mixed freely, and gained prominence in the center. In a system that elevated national repertoires, performing “otherness” could be a successful integration strategy. Scott argues that Georgians were perhaps the ideal “familiar strangers”—highly educated, densely networked, and fluent in Russian culture, while also boasting a language unintelligible to outsiders and a unique performance tradition. Scott follows the political networks that elevated Georgian revolutionaries from the Caucasus to the Kremlin, where Stalin presided as “toastmaster-in-chief,” followed by the spread of Georgian food and dining customs to Soviet tables. The book also explores Georgians’ role in Thaw-era song and dance and the informal economy of the Brezhnev era. Ultimately, the Georgian intelligentsia grew disillusioned with the Soviet power that both supported and constricted them, as manifested in the hugely popular perestroika-era film Repentance. With the collapse, Georgians and other “familiar strangers” transformed from internal diasporas to transnational populations living across state borders; while their numbers in Moscow grew, they faced entirely new sets of challenges. Familiar Strangers is the finalist for the Council for European Studies Book Award, the Central Eurasian Studies Society Book Award, and the Joseph Rothschild Prize in Nationalism and Ethnic Studies. It is now out in paperback. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From Stalin's inner circle to Soviet dinner menus, the small nation of Georgia had a remarkable influence on the politics and culture of the USSR. Erik Scott, author of Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire (Oxford University Press, 2016), traces how Georgians came to occupy such a central role in Soviet history, as well as how the relationship with Moscow unraveled. Scott argues that the Soviet Union should be seen as an “empire of diasporas”: though assigned to titular republics, Soviet nationalities were mobile, mixed freely, and gained prominence in the center. In a system that elevated national repertoires, performing “otherness” could be a successful integration strategy. Scott argues that Georgians were perhaps the ideal “familiar strangers”—highly educated, densely networked, and fluent in Russian culture, while also boasting a language unintelligible to outsiders and a unique performance tradition. Scott follows the political networks that elevated Georgian revolutionaries from the Caucasus to the Kremlin, where Stalin presided as “toastmaster-in-chief,” followed by the spread of Georgian food and dining customs to Soviet tables. The book also explores Georgians' role in Thaw-era song and dance and the informal economy of the Brezhnev era. Ultimately, the Georgian intelligentsia grew disillusioned with the Soviet power that both supported and constricted them, as manifested in the hugely popular perestroika-era film Repentance. With the collapse, Georgians and other “familiar strangers” transformed from internal diasporas to transnational populations living across state borders; while their numbers in Moscow grew, they faced entirely new sets of challenges. Familiar Strangers is the finalist for the Council for European Studies Book Award, the Central Eurasian Studies Society Book Award, and the Joseph Rothschild Prize in Nationalism and Ethnic Studies. It is now out in paperback. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture.

From Stalin’s inner circle to Soviet dinner menus, the small nation of Georgia had a remarkable influence on the politics and culture of the USSR. Erik Scott, author of Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire (Oxford University Press, 2016), traces how Georgians came to occupy such a central role in Soviet history, as well as how the relationship with Moscow unraveled. Scott argues that the Soviet Union should be seen as an “empire of diasporas”: though assigned to titular republics, Soviet nationalities were mobile, mixed freely, and gained prominence in the center. In a system that elevated national repertoires, performing “otherness” could be a successful integration strategy. Scott argues that Georgians were perhaps the ideal “familiar strangers”—highly educated, densely networked, and fluent in Russian culture, while also boasting a language unintelligible to outsiders and a unique performance tradition. Scott follows the political networks that elevated Georgian revolutionaries from the Caucasus to the Kremlin, where Stalin presided as “toastmaster-in-chief,” followed by the spread of Georgian food and dining customs to Soviet tables. The book also explores Georgians’ role in Thaw-era song and dance and the informal economy of the Brezhnev era. Ultimately, the Georgian intelligentsia grew disillusioned with the Soviet power that both supported and constricted them, as manifested in the hugely popular perestroika-era film Repentance. With the collapse, Georgians and other “familiar strangers” transformed from internal diasporas to transnational populations living across state borders; while their numbers in Moscow grew, they faced entirely new sets of challenges. Familiar Strangers is the finalist for the Council for European Studies Book Award, the Central Eurasian Studies Society Book Award, and the Joseph Rothschild Prize in Nationalism and Ethnic Studies. It is now out in paperback. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2013, when the Russian State Duma passed a law banning the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships to minors, some rushed to boycott Russian vodka. In Russian Homophobia from Stalin to Sochi (Bloomsbury, 2017), Dan Healey provides historical context for the law and cautions against the easy application of recent changes elsewhere. The Russian embrace of LGBT rights will be the result of cultural evolution from within society and not some off-the-peg downloading of a European formula, Healey writes. Decriminalized after the revolution, sodomy was re-banned under Stalin in 1933-4 and remained illegal until 1993. In a series of case studies, Healey examines same-sex relationships in the gulag, provincial criminal investigations from the 1950s, the diary of popular singer Vadim Kozin (who was sent to Magadan in the 1940s under the anti-sodomy law), gay cruising in Brezhnev-era Moscow, and pornography in the 1990s. What emerges is a complex portrait of gay and lesbian consciousness that belies Putin-era attempts to portray homosexuality as a foreign import. Healey also explores some of the difficulties facing queer history in today’s Russia, including a lack of information about prosecutions under Stalin and reluctance to include sexuality in the biographies of figures such as Kozin. The book concludes by examining current projects to mobilize queer memory, such as the Unstraight Museum in Belarus. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2013, when the Russian State Duma passed a law banning the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships to minors, some rushed to boycott Russian vodka. In Russian Homophobia from Stalin to Sochi (Bloomsbury, 2017), Dan Healey provides historical context for the law and cautions against the easy application of recent changes elsewhere. The Russian embrace of LGBT rights will be the result of cultural evolution from within society and not some off-the-peg downloading of a European formula, Healey writes. Decriminalized after the revolution, sodomy was re-banned under Stalin in 1933-4 and remained illegal until 1993. In a series of case studies, Healey examines same-sex relationships in the gulag, provincial criminal investigations from the 1950s, the diary of popular singer Vadim Kozin (who was sent to Magadan in the 1940s under the anti-sodomy law), gay cruising in Brezhnev-era Moscow, and pornography in the 1990s. What emerges is a complex portrait of gay and lesbian consciousness that belies Putin-era attempts to portray homosexuality as a foreign import. Healey also explores some of the difficulties facing queer history in today’s Russia, including a lack of information about prosecutions under Stalin and reluctance to include sexuality in the biographies of figures such as Kozin. The book concludes by examining current projects to mobilize queer memory, such as the Unstraight Museum in Belarus. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2013, when the Russian State Duma passed a law banning the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships to minors, some rushed to boycott Russian vodka. In Russian Homophobia from Stalin to Sochi (Bloomsbury, 2017), Dan Healey provides historical context for the law and cautions against the easy application of recent changes elsewhere. The Russian embrace of LGBT rights will be the result of cultural evolution from within society and not some off-the-peg downloading of a European formula, Healey writes. Decriminalized after the revolution, sodomy was re-banned under Stalin in 1933-4 and remained illegal until 1993. In a series of case studies, Healey examines same-sex relationships in the gulag, provincial criminal investigations from the 1950s, the diary of popular singer Vadim Kozin (who was sent to Magadan in the 1940s under the anti-sodomy law), gay cruising in Brezhnev-era Moscow, and pornography in the 1990s. What emerges is a complex portrait of gay and lesbian consciousness that belies Putin-era attempts to portray homosexuality as a foreign import. Healey also explores some of the difficulties facing queer history in today’s Russia, including a lack of information about prosecutions under Stalin and reluctance to include sexuality in the biographies of figures such as Kozin. The book concludes by examining current projects to mobilize queer memory, such as the Unstraight Museum in Belarus. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2013, when the Russian State Duma passed a law banning the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships to minors, some rushed to boycott Russian vodka. In Russian Homophobia from Stalin to Sochi (Bloomsbury, 2017), Dan Healey provides historical context for the law and cautions against the easy application of recent changes elsewhere. The Russian embrace of LGBT rights will be the result of cultural evolution from within society and not some off-the-peg downloading of a European formula, Healey writes. Decriminalized after the revolution, sodomy was re-banned under Stalin in 1933-4 and remained illegal until 1993. In a series of case studies, Healey examines same-sex relationships in the gulag, provincial criminal investigations from the 1950s, the diary of popular singer Vadim Kozin (who was sent to Magadan in the 1940s under the anti-sodomy law), gay cruising in Brezhnev-era Moscow, and pornography in the 1990s. What emerges is a complex portrait of gay and lesbian consciousness that belies Putin-era attempts to portray homosexuality as a foreign import. Healey also explores some of the difficulties facing queer history in today’s Russia, including a lack of information about prosecutions under Stalin and reluctance to include sexuality in the biographies of figures such as Kozin. The book concludes by examining current projects to mobilize queer memory, such as the Unstraight Museum in Belarus. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 4, 1953, Soviet citizens woke up to an unthinkable announcement: Joseph Stalin, the country’s all-powerful leader, had died of a stroke. In The Last Days of Stalin (Yale University Press, 2016), Joshua Rubenstein recounts the events surrounding the dictator’s death and the sociopolitical vacuum it opened up at home and abroad. After Stalin did not emerge from his room on the morning of March 1, a maid who was sent into his room found him lying in his own urine; doctors’ efforts to save him, including the application of leeches, proved hopeless. The following weeks brought mass grief and halting attempts at reform, including a mass amnesty of Gulag prisoners. Rubenstein argues that the months following Stalin’s death were a missed opportunity for a de-escalation of the Cold War. While Pravda published Eisenhower’s famous chance for peace speech and Soviet officials expressed willingness to negotiate, the State Department under John Foster Dulles viewed Soviet concessions as a moral challenge to resist rather than an opportunity to explore. While Khrushchev went on to denounce Stalin’s cult and relax political controls, a chance for the peaceful reunification of Germany and relaxation of tensions across Europe was lost. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 4, 1953, Soviet citizens woke up to an unthinkable announcement: Joseph Stalin, the country’s all-powerful leader, had died of a stroke. In The Last Days of Stalin (Yale University Press, 2016), Joshua Rubenstein recounts the events surrounding the dictator’s death and the sociopolitical vacuum it opened up at home and abroad. After Stalin did not emerge from his room on the morning of March 1, a maid who was sent into his room found him lying in his own urine; doctors’ efforts to save him, including the application of leeches, proved hopeless. The following weeks brought mass grief and halting attempts at reform, including a mass amnesty of Gulag prisoners. Rubenstein argues that the months following Stalin’s death were a missed opportunity for a de-escalation of the Cold War. While Pravda published Eisenhower’s famous chance for peace speech and Soviet officials expressed willingness to negotiate, the State Department under John Foster Dulles viewed Soviet concessions as a moral challenge to resist rather than an opportunity to explore. While Khrushchev went on to denounce Stalin’s cult and relax political controls, a chance for the peaceful reunification of Germany and relaxation of tensions across Europe was lost. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 4, 1953, Soviet citizens woke up to an unthinkable announcement: Joseph Stalin, the country’s all-powerful leader, had died of a stroke. In The Last Days of Stalin (Yale University Press, 2016), Joshua Rubenstein recounts the events surrounding the dictator’s death and the sociopolitical vacuum it opened up at home and abroad. After Stalin did not emerge from his room on the morning of March 1, a maid who was sent into his room found him lying in his own urine; doctors’ efforts to save him, including the application of leeches, proved hopeless. The following weeks brought mass grief and halting attempts at reform, including a mass amnesty of Gulag prisoners. Rubenstein argues that the months following Stalin’s death were a missed opportunity for a de-escalation of the Cold War. While Pravda published Eisenhower’s famous chance for peace speech and Soviet officials expressed willingness to negotiate, the State Department under John Foster Dulles viewed Soviet concessions as a moral challenge to resist rather than an opportunity to explore. While Khrushchev went on to denounce Stalin’s cult and relax political controls, a chance for the peaceful reunification of Germany and relaxation of tensions across Europe was lost. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 4, 1953, Soviet citizens woke up to an unthinkable announcement: Joseph Stalin, the country’s all-powerful leader, had died of a stroke. In The Last Days of Stalin (Yale University Press, 2016), Joshua Rubenstein recounts the events surrounding the dictator’s death and the sociopolitical vacuum it opened up at home and abroad. After Stalin did not emerge from his room on the morning of March 1, a maid who was sent into his room found him lying in his own urine; doctors’ efforts to save him, including the application of leeches, proved hopeless. The following weeks brought mass grief and halting attempts at reform, including a mass amnesty of Gulag prisoners. Rubenstein argues that the months following Stalin’s death were a missed opportunity for a de-escalation of the Cold War. While Pravda published Eisenhower’s famous chance for peace speech and Soviet officials expressed willingness to negotiate, the State Department under John Foster Dulles viewed Soviet concessions as a moral challenge to resist rather than an opportunity to explore. While Khrushchev went on to denounce Stalin’s cult and relax political controls, a chance for the peaceful reunification of Germany and relaxation of tensions across Europe was lost. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the close of the nineteenth century, Europe was teeming with apocalyptic dreams of destruction and renewal. In Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire (Yale University Press, 2015), Rebecca Mitchell traces how in late imperial Russia, music came to be seen as a transcendent force that offered salvation from the era’s atmosphere of decadence and decline. At the turn of the century, Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy became a major inspiration for cultural elites looking for a solution to the problems of modernity. Nietzsche’s Russian orphans adapted the adamantly amoral German writer to suit their context, combining his belief in the transformative power of music with the visions of Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Solovev. Russian music lovers launched a search for the national Orpheus, alternately advancing Aleksander Scriabin, Nikolai Medtner, and Sergei Rachmaninoff as the chosen one. These figures differed in their engagement with musical metaphysics. While Scriabin reveled in his role of prophet and endeavored to create a musical Mystery that would mark the end of history, Rachmaninoff largely avoided philosophical musings; in a conversation with the Medtner brothers, he preferred to discuss Italian pasta. Rachmaninoff’s mass popularity was met with disapproval by some of Nietzsche’s orphans, who thought that his melancholic works reveled in the problems of the age rather than solving them. Their dreams for national salvation through music disintegrated amidst the chaos of war and revolution, and major composers including Rachmaninoff emigrated. However, Mitchell argues that their ideas found new life in the Bolshevik state, the Russian diaspora, and the post-Soviet search for national identity. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the close of the nineteenth century, Europe was teeming with apocalyptic dreams of destruction and renewal. In Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire (Yale University Press, 2015), Rebecca Mitchell traces how in late imperial Russia, music came to be seen as a transcendent force that offered salvation from the era’s atmosphere of decadence and decline. At the turn of the century, Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy became a major inspiration for cultural elites looking for a solution to the problems of modernity. Nietzsche’s Russian orphans adapted the adamantly amoral German writer to suit their context, combining his belief in the transformative power of music with the visions of Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Solovev. Russian music lovers launched a search for the national Orpheus, alternately advancing Aleksander Scriabin, Nikolai Medtner, and Sergei Rachmaninoff as the chosen one. These figures differed in their engagement with musical metaphysics. While Scriabin reveled in his role of prophet and endeavored to create a musical Mystery that would mark the end of history, Rachmaninoff largely avoided philosophical musings; in a conversation with the Medtner brothers, he preferred to discuss Italian pasta. Rachmaninoff’s mass popularity was met with disapproval by some of Nietzsche’s orphans, who thought that his melancholic works reveled in the problems of the age rather than solving them. Their dreams for national salvation through music disintegrated amidst the chaos of war and revolution, and major composers including Rachmaninoff emigrated. However, Mitchell argues that their ideas found new life in the Bolshevik state, the Russian diaspora, and the post-Soviet search for national identity. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the close of the nineteenth century, Europe was teeming with apocalyptic dreams of destruction and renewal. In Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire (Yale University Press, 2015), Rebecca Mitchell traces how in late imperial Russia, music came to be seen as a transcendent force that offered salvation from the era’s atmosphere of decadence and decline. At the turn of the century, Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy became a major inspiration for cultural elites looking for a solution to the problems of modernity. Nietzsche’s Russian orphans adapted the adamantly amoral German writer to suit their context, combining his belief in the transformative power of music with the visions of Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Solovev. Russian music lovers launched a search for the national Orpheus, alternately advancing Aleksander Scriabin, Nikolai Medtner, and Sergei Rachmaninoff as the chosen one. These figures differed in their engagement with musical metaphysics. While Scriabin reveled in his role of prophet and endeavored to create a musical Mystery that would mark the end of history, Rachmaninoff largely avoided philosophical musings; in a conversation with the Medtner brothers, he preferred to discuss Italian pasta. Rachmaninoff’s mass popularity was met with disapproval by some of Nietzsche’s orphans, who thought that his melancholic works reveled in the problems of the age rather than solving them. Their dreams for national salvation through music disintegrated amidst the chaos of war and revolution, and major composers including Rachmaninoff emigrated. However, Mitchell argues that their ideas found new life in the Bolshevik state, the Russian diaspora, and the post-Soviet search for national identity. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the close of the nineteenth century, Europe was teeming with apocalyptic dreams of destruction and renewal. In Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire (Yale University Press, 2015), Rebecca Mitchell traces how in late imperial Russia, music came to be seen as a transcendent force that offered salvation from the era’s atmosphere of decadence and decline. At the turn of the century, Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy became a major inspiration for cultural elites looking for a solution to the problems of modernity. Nietzsche’s Russian orphans adapted the adamantly amoral German writer to suit their context, combining his belief in the transformative power of music with the visions of Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Solovev. Russian music lovers launched a search for the national Orpheus, alternately advancing Aleksander Scriabin, Nikolai Medtner, and Sergei Rachmaninoff as the chosen one. These figures differed in their engagement with musical metaphysics. While Scriabin reveled in his role of prophet and endeavored to create a musical Mystery that would mark the end of history, Rachmaninoff largely avoided philosophical musings; in a conversation with the Medtner brothers, he preferred to discuss Italian pasta. Rachmaninoff’s mass popularity was met with disapproval by some of Nietzsche’s orphans, who thought that his melancholic works reveled in the problems of the age rather than solving them. Their dreams for national salvation through music disintegrated amidst the chaos of war and revolution, and major composers including Rachmaninoff emigrated. However, Mitchell argues that their ideas found new life in the Bolshevik state, the Russian diaspora, and the post-Soviet search for national identity. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the close of the nineteenth century, Europe was teeming with apocalyptic dreams of destruction and renewal. In Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire (Yale University Press, 2015), Rebecca Mitchell traces how in late imperial Russia, music came to be seen as a transcendent force that offered salvation from the era’s atmosphere of decadence and decline. At the turn of the century, Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy became a major inspiration for cultural elites looking for a solution to the problems of modernity. Nietzsche’s Russian orphans adapted the adamantly amoral German writer to suit their context, combining his belief in the transformative power of music with the visions of Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Solovev. Russian music lovers launched a search for the national Orpheus, alternately advancing Aleksander Scriabin, Nikolai Medtner, and Sergei Rachmaninoff as the chosen one. These figures differed in their engagement with musical metaphysics. While Scriabin reveled in his role of prophet and endeavored to create a musical Mystery that would mark the end of history, Rachmaninoff largely avoided philosophical musings; in a conversation with the Medtner brothers, he preferred to discuss Italian pasta. Rachmaninoff’s mass popularity was met with disapproval by some of Nietzsche’s orphans, who thought that his melancholic works reveled in the problems of the age rather than solving them. Their dreams for national salvation through music disintegrated amidst the chaos of war and revolution, and major composers including Rachmaninoff emigrated. However, Mitchell argues that their ideas found new life in the Bolshevik state, the Russian diaspora, and the post-Soviet search for national identity. Joy Neumeyer is a journalist and PhD candidate in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Her dissertation project explores the role of death in Soviet culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices