From Ruins to Reconstruction

Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Iurii Trautman portrayed himself as a local by urging the accommodation of local needs and stressing the importance of preserving local traditions. From an aesthetic perspective, this led him to adopt an architectural style to complement the ruins of Khersones. Like Barkhin, Trautman understood the dominance of the city’s naval heritage, but Trautman reached deeper into the city’s past to provide a foundation for the World War II 49. Amir Weiner, “The Making of a Dominant Myth: The Second World War and the Construction of Political Identities Within the Soviet Polity,” Russian Review 55:4 (October 1996): 638–60. 50. Platt and Brandenberger, Epic Revisionism, 11. This content downloaded from 128.197. 26.12 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:36:49 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 156 From Ruins to Recons t ruct ion feats that stood at the center of Barkhin’s proposal. Most of all, Trautman chose to eliminate Barkhin’s grandiose monuments and memorials in favor of restoring Sevastopol’s monuments to past heroes. Crimean War leaders became the foundation for the city’s historical narrative, and in the ancient Greek styles the city could identify itself with something much older, more awe-inspiring, and more democratic. Neoclassical styling was the norm throughout the Soviet Union, but in Sevastopol it was devoid of most of its Stalinist flourishes and pomposity. The neoclassical forms looked natural in Sevastopol, whereas in most Soviet cities the columns and pediments of new grand structures looked out of sync with local architectural traditions. Thus, Sevastopol looked both Soviet and local at the same time. Although there was no way for the architects to have foreseen it, when the Soviet Union collapsed and cities throughout the former USSR began to change street names, demolish Soviet-style buildings, and re-create an imagined past in the city, Sevastopol was able to avoid the abrupt transition because it had become local decades earlier. Agitation became a complementary method to create and maintain allegiance and stability after massive dislocation and disillusionment as a result of the war. In Sevastopol, first-time residents needed to be anchored to their new location as the Cold War escalated, and ongoing problems with accommodation called for another strategy. Resource-scarce Sevastopol had to depend on Moscow to allocate nearly all material goods. Moreover, images of the city’s naval past (part of its categorical identification) implicitly linked Sevastopol to the Russian Motherland (its relational identification). Strategies of accommodation and agitation both helped to create a relational bond with the center. In return for goods and a preservation of the city’s selectively remembered heritage, Sevastopol would continue to defend the Motherland and not rebel as it had in the prerevolutionary period. In essence, a sort of bilateral social contract emerged in which Moscow and Sevastopol defined their roles as material provider and loyal sailor, respectively. This content downloaded from 128.197. 26.12 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:36:49 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions