Factors of socialization of children in the occupied territory of the Leningrad region in 1941–1944

Khazov Vladimir Konstantinovich ORCID: 0000-0001-7194-738X PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor of the Higher School of Social Sciences, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University 195251, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg region, 29 Politechnicheskaya str., office 198283 vla1698@yandex.ru

Introduction

For obvious reasons, Soviet citizens who found themselves in the occupied territories could not contribute to the Victory. Their lives and everyday life, as a rule, were far from heroic, and the main problem they had to solve was the problem of survival. Nevertheless, the suffering and pain experienced by these people are not just some kind of external framing of the great events of the Great War, but their very essence. These sufferings, fear and pain are as important for understanding the overall picture of the Great Patriotic War as the glorious history of struggle and victories. This is important, if only because the history of the occupation of the Leningrad region clearly shows what terrible consequences the defeat of the USSR in that war would have led to. The latter circumstance requires studying the Battle for Leningrad not only in a narrow (related to the study of the actual blockade of Leningrad), but also in the widest possible, all-Union context, which is literally impossible without a detailed and systematic study of the life of the Soviet population of the occupied territories.  

Children's daily life under occupation is a very specific sub–direction of the history of everyday life. The child who remained on Soviet territory experienced the horror of bombing, hunger and fear. The child who found himself in the occupation experienced the same thing, but was in conditions of additional emotional and social deprivation, which increased his suffering many times. In the memoirs of those who had a difficult fate to be under occupation, experiences of their then state of experience are often noted as "misunderstanding", "confusion", a feeling of helplessness is often described, a feeling of depression is mentioned.

The actions of the Nazis caused a lot of pain and suffering to our Homeland.  At the same time, if the facts of destruction (including deliberate destruction of cultural objects) and violence against Soviet citizens are recorded in a number of documents and are quite well studied, then the question of what destructive charge the occupation left in the souls of Soviet children still needs to be systematically studied.

In Soviet times, for a number of reasons of a political, ideological and even historical and methodological nature, studies of the "non-heroic" aspects of the Battle for Leningrad were almost not carried out. Soviet historians were more interested in the facts of heroic resistance to Nazism. And although their works included topics that can now be attributed to the competence of the historian of everyday life (the life of Leningraders during the blockade, the everyday life of partisan detachments, etc.), nevertheless, all these aspects were studied mainly as the background of a military or labor feat ^{[25, 30]}. In the same vein, the life of children in the occupied territories was studied ^[5].

Actually, the study of the history of military everyday life of the Great Patriotic War begins in the first half of the 2000s. In 2002, the work of the famous St. Petersburg researcher, Professor N.A. Lomagin "The Unknown Blockade" was published, in which the 5th chapter is devoted to everyday life in the occupied territories ^[16]. An important contribution of N.A. Lomagin to the study of everyday life is the discovery of the relationship between the ideas of the inhabitants of the city, its defenders and residents of the occupied territories about each other (ideas are not infrequently unreliable and often based on rumors) Then, already in the 2010s, this direction will become one of the most rapidly developing and promising areas of Russian historical thought. An important contribution to its development was made by Professor V.L. Pyankevich, who studied communication practices in besieged Leningrad and the world of everyday experiences of Leningraders in 1941-1944 ^{[20, 21]}.

At about the same time, the history of military childhood was also formed. The extensive work of Professor B.N. Kovalev "The daily life of the Russian population during the occupation" is published, the voluminous 16th chapter of which ("You'll find out soon at school") is devoted specifically to children's daily life under occupation. There are also works devoted to understanding the methodology of the history of childhood as such ^[6]

Actually, the study of child socialization in the occupied territories has long been an established subdirection of the history of children's military everyday life. It, in turn, is represented by two groups of researchers. The first group concentrates its efforts around the study of everyday practices (primarily survival practices). This group includes the works of E.E. Krasnozhenova, who studied the practices of child survival in the occupied territories ^{[9, 10, 11]}, M.V. Ryblova, who studied military childhood as a complex historical and cultural phenomenon ^[23], E.V. Arkhipova, who studied the practices of child survival in the frontline zone ^[1], M.S. Nosova, whose works are devoted to children's practices in deep rear areas ^[19], etc. For the scientists who make up this group, the very content of children's daily life acts as a marker-indicator of the process of socialization. By studying the practices in which children were actively involved, this group of researchers actually realizes the understanding of socialization as, first of all, an unconscious process (not so much the assimilation of declared socio-cultural norms as copying a set of actions actually carried out and/or normalized by adults).

The second group of researchers analyzes the participation of children in the socio-economic activities of adults and/or socio-economic and political-legal activities of adults aimed at children. The approaches uniting the researchers of this group realize the idea of socialization as a conscious and institutionalized process, generally close or identical to the process of education. This position, for example, is typical for the works of E.F. Krinko ^{[13, 14]}. Among the researchers whose works were assigned to us in the second group, it is worth noting the works of E.M. Buryak and M.V. Svistov ^[3].

The same group may include studies aimed at studying the participation of children and adolescents in the partisan and underground movement and highlighting various aspects of the Soviet-German ideological confrontation for influencing the souls and minds of children in the occupied territories ^{[15, 17]}. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the work of N.A. Malysheva, devoted to the connection between the process of socialization and ideological confrontation on Soviet territory ^[18].

The two approaches mentioned above reflect two aspects of the socialization process. Firstly, socialization includes an "active component", which is a conscious process of transmitting norms and attitudes. Secondly, there is a "passive" component in it – that is, the result of the unconscious assimilation of actually relevant, sometimes not directly declared ideas. That is why the use of a combination of data from the analysis of official archival documents (fixing the first component of socialization) and the analysis of documents of personal origin (fixing the second component) allows, in our opinion, to create the most complete picture of this process. 

However, studying both the system of education and indoctrination (when we talk about the occupied territories) and survival practices as an indicator of socialization allows us to see only part of the process. The purpose of our work is to identify the basic factors, that is, the key system of conditions for the socialization of children and adolescents in the occupied territories of the Leningrad region in 1941-1944. As we will try to show below, this approach will allow us to understand many of the features (textual and meaningful) of the memories of the "children of occupation".

Socio-political conditions of socialization of children in the occupied territories

During the war, children are in the most vulnerable socio-economic and socio-psychological situation. Their knowledge of the world is only being formed, and their skills (social, industrial) are either completely absent or very imperfect. That is why a child needs the care and care of an adult. One of the most important components of such care for a child is to ensure his full-fledged socialization, i.e. preparation for adulthood, the formation of a child as a worthy member of society. However, it is precisely this process that turns out to be as difficult and distorted as possible in the conditions of occupation. In order to assess the degree of "abnormality" of socialization under occupation, it is enough to ask the question: what kind of effective and acceptable member of society should a child become? Should he acquire skills that will help him integrate into the society to which he belonged before the war (and could that society remain the same as before the war) or should he acquire skills that can ensure his place in the society formed by the occupiers? 

This question already clearly demonstrates the essence of the problem of the process of socialization under occupation – its duality. At the same time, this problem becomes even more important if we take into account that the tasks of the occupation administration include not only the exploitation of the occupied territories, but also the implementation of a set of measures of a moral, psychological, political and ideological nature that would increase the manageability of the local population. To do this, a system of norms and values is imposed on them that corresponds to the goals and objectives of the occupiers. Almost all aspects of the life and everyday life of the local population, including leisure, are undergoing transformation ^[7].

Within the framework of this work, there is no need to dwell in detail on the consideration of the process of socialization of children born in the Leningrad Region after the beginning of the occupation (due to their age, they did not face a full-scale destructive ideological impact). However, it is very important to take into account that all Soviet children who were over 4-5 years old at the time of the outbreak of the war found themselves in a "bifurcated world". One component of this world is the pre–war experience, the second is the experience formed directly by the occupiers.

First of all, it should be noted that the daily life of Soviet citizens (both adults and children) under occupation took place in the most difficult living conditions, which were a consequence of the ongoing war. Diaries and memoirs abound with descriptions of how people were forced to live in barns after being evicted from their homes by the occupiers. There are repeated references to the burning of both individual houses and entire villages. One of the numerous examples of such an attitude towards Soviet citizens is described in the memoirs of T. F. Stupakova (Khokhlova), born in 1931, a resident of the village of Pelkovo (now the Luga district of the Leningrad Region) ^{[4, p.297]}. The peak of these actions occurred in the second half of 1943 – early 1944.

Soviet citizens had to deal with constant acts of violence against them by the occupation authorities (including shelling during battles, bombing and targeted acts of intimidation and punitive actions). The constant fear generated by this, uncertainty about the future, the feeling of mutual suspicion and total distrust whipped up by the occupiers – all this created distorted patterns of behavior that, willingly or unwittingly, consciously or not, children adopted.

But both children of the occupied territories and children of the rear faced similar difficulties. Although fear and pain of loss are extremely strong emotions, they did not determine the socialization of children under occupation. Much more important (within the framework of the process we are studying) the factor of the bifurcation of children's consciousness has become. First of all, this "split" of consciousness was formed by a misunderstanding of a number of processes. So, for example, in our memories we read: "Moreover, false partisans were operating in the area, from which the residents could not be saved. They were engaged in robbery and violence. It was difficult to identify them, since they did not differ in appearance from real partisans" ^{[4, p.399]}. However, we can only guess how these people were perceived by the child's consciousness directly during those terrible events.

German propaganda also aggravated the split consciousness of Soviet children. The information presented by him had an enhanced effect in conditions of a shortage of information from the other side of the front. N.A. Lomagin identifies three main directions of German information influence in his work:

1. 1. Leningrad will fall soon;

2.      2. The German army treats prisoners of war well;

3. 3. Germany has already actually won the war ^[16].

Activities related to the organization of the educational process should also be considered a kind of propaganda activity in the occupied territories. The Germans reorganized the entire education system (not only the list of subjects taught was revised, but also their content and scope). The occupation authorities have opened (or rather restarted their work) The so-called "people's" primary schools. N.A. Lomagin notes that most of these educational institutions were designed to provide only the very basics of basic knowledge and, first of all, were designed to ensure the control of Soviet children, as well as their loyalty to the new German government ^[16].

The consequence of all of the above is a rethinking of many familiar social phenomena. First of all, it concerns work and everything that was associated with it. All the able-bodied population aged between 14 and 65 years in the territories occupied by the Nazis were involved in compulsory work (most often it was agricultural work, but the local population was also involved in working at captured Soviet and newly opened German enterprises, as well as in the construction of fortifications for the German army, etc.). In some cases, As E.V. Sidorova notes, those who were under the age of 14 could also be involved in labor service ^[24]. Everyone, including young workers, had to work 12-14 hours a day. 

The employment was carried out through labor exchanges. To determine the work, work passports were introduced ^[26], which were valid only if there was an identity card. Labor exchanges assigned "working relations" to the population (in fact, orders were orders for performing certain works). Upon completion of the received amount of work (working relations), the employee had to immediately report to the labor exchange to receive new ones. 

However, the effectiveness of propaganda was weakened by the actions of the occupiers themselves – the repeated observation by local residents of the situation of Soviet prisoners directly refutes the second point of German propaganda. Moreover, the suffering that our fellow citizens had to endure in the occupied territories told them that there is no truth in the promises of the enemy at all and there can be no truth.

The Germans stole cattle and small cattle, took chickens, butter, honey, vegetables and fruits from local residents. The robbery and destruction of the foundations of economic activity caused by the war led to famine in the territories of the Leningrad region temporarily occupied by the enemy. During the first "occupation spring", people have to "expand their diet" by using sorrel, quinoa, nettle, plantain and other wild plants for food. 

The psychological background of the socialization of children under occupation

The first factor that significantly influenced the process of socialization of all Soviet children, regardless of the region and their living conditions, was the beginning of the war (not to be confused with the beginning of the occupation). This event is associated with an acute experience of social disorientation. This is mentioned by many informants, in particular, Nikolai Ivanovich Petrov (born in 1923), the son of a peasant, a resident of the village of Borshchevo (now the territory of the Luga district of the Leningrad region). The memories were recorded in August 2002. The respondent recalls: "when we came home after lunch, we came – and the radio was then conducted in the village – suddenly the radio there says that the war has begun (so in the text – V.H.). Then suddenly some people drove over. People were caught up from all the villages on horseback. It is necessary, they say, to dig fortifications. What fortifications? The front is still unclear where" ^{[2, 250]}.

At the same time, the beginning of the war was strongly associated with children not with a sense of fear. Due to their low awareness and small life experience, it is more likely to talk about a feeling of anxiety, one of the respondents mentions a "feeling of excitement" – these experiences were rather "echoes" of adult emotions, Adults encouraged children and themselves, assuring that the war would not last long, would soon end with the complete victory of the USSR and "the German will receive". Nevertheless, the children noticed the depression and shock of adults: "Uncle Lenya, for no reason at all, began stroking my head with his pudgy palm. The father was talking in a low voice about something with the subdued peasants. Everyone's faces were gray and haggard" ^{[4, p. 617]}.

In an episode from the memoirs of Alexandra Ivanovna Savina (Nikolaeva), born in 1928, from the peasants of the village of Marevo, we see a description of an attempt to evacuate. During the war, her village was part of the Leningrad region, now this territory belongs to the Novgorod region. The memories were recorded in June 2004. The respondent notes that the Red Army soldiers retreating through their village recommended that her parents evacuate as soon as possible. However, this could not be done. Trying to cross the ford, the family came under crossfire. The respondent does not specify exactly why it was decided to return, but notes that after staying in the forest (the duration is not specified) next to the ferry, such a decision was nevertheless made. The family returned back and ended up in the occupation: "And when trenches were dug in the forest, they took root (a few days had passed), then shells began to fly to us: both ours and the German ones. And then we went out on the high road, to Trinity, there, and arrived home. That's all our evacuation" ^{[2, p. 244]}. Respondents also mention the burning of Soviet villages ("And then we drove to the burnt-out Zherebud (there were partisans there, and therefore the village was burned to the ground" ^{[2, p. 247]}.

Respondents have a clear association between the war and the transition of children to adult working life. So, Roman Petrovich Sinelnikov (born in 1929), who lived at the time of the outbreak of War in the village of Zherebud (now the Luga district of the Leningrad region), one of the peasants (memories were recorded in August 2004) recalls: "Then someone came (the postman, probably) and announced that the war had begun. All the men were taken away at once, but the boys stayed. So we worked" ^{[2, p. 250]}.

The real joy of liberation is also noted in the memoirs: "Then we hear: there is a cannonade in the village, and our people are talking..." ^{[2, 247]}. The latter can be directly compared with the content of post-war investigations ^{[28, 29]}.

A lot in this system of memories explains the description of forced labor of Soviet citizens. He is mentioned casually, rather, as a phenomenon external to the respondent's world: "then Belarusians were brought here (this was already in the 43rd). Just young people as a workforce. They built this road. And ours were built" ^{[2, p. 241]}. This episode turns out to be an important illustration of official data ^[27].

The struggle for survival was connected with the need to make a terrible choice – to carry out the inhuman orders of the occupation administration or to endanger the lives of their loved ones. The tragic story has been preserved by the memory of Nikolai Ivanovich Petrov, already mentioned by us. The memories were recorded in August 2002. The respondent recalls: "And so we were sitting there one day, and suddenly someone came. At first they didn't understand: some guy went in there, and then someone says, “A stranger has come.” They came up and looked at it: “What are you doing? Where are you from?” And he's not feeling well. Look: the blood is flowing. Where did such a guy come from? He says, “I was walking, walking, and by chance I came across your village. I was shot [by the Germans], but I woke up alive at night and went"" ^{[2, p. 273]}. Next, the respondent makes an important remark: "Not partisans, no, but just on the road where they will be captured without documents" ^{[2, p. 273]}.

At the same time, the respondent records a tragic and ambiguous situation, vividly highlighting the duality of the situation and the duality of self-determination in which the civilian population lived in the occupied territories. A relative of the respondent eventually gives the fugitive from execution to the German authorities (there were two Germans in his house at the post, and an attempt to somehow help the fugitive who escaped from the execution would inevitably cause reprisals against his own family). The wounded man was shot, and the man mentioned by the respondent (in the text he is called "Uncle Vanya") He was convicted after the war for cooperating with the occupiers. 

The experience of another respondent paints a picture similar to the one described above. Ivan Konstantinovich Sergeev, born in 1925, a native of Marino recalls: "And this commandant was familiar with a girl from the Raw (2 km to the VJV) – such a Shuraha – she was young, beautiful. And she was walking with him." "And somehow they drive up together on these sleds to the "Red Corner", she stayed sitting in the sled, the sentry opened it, the commandant comes in, stood on the threshold like that, looks… Well, I think it's for me. And he says strictly so: “Go home.” Well, what? I'm walking past him. There is a sentry on the street. Well, I think it's in the back of my head now... no. So he left..." ^{[2, p. 235]}. And further: "And then this Shurakha (after all, all the girls walked with the Germans), but for some reason [after the war] she was taken away and given ten years. So she served ten years in Vorkuta, returned here, ill, and died" ^{[2, p.235]}.

The distortion of perception was manifested in a number of assessments. For example, those Germans who did not directly harm the respondents and their loved ones are described as "good strangers." "The Germans were different. We had one [guard] — he helped us in any way he could, talked to us kindly, asked about our lives (he understood Russian). And then they began to send him to the front. He came to us and said: "Another one will come instead of me, don't talk to him about anything, otherwise he will inform, and you may be shot" ^{[2, p. 241]}.

I.K. Sergeev describes another situation. He was summoned to the commandant's office and ordered to go with the German carts. After his refusal, the commandant ordered the young man to be sent to the basement of the commandant's office, which served as a military field prison. The respondent further recalls: "And there I served 16 days. They brought me firewood — there was a round stove there, I'll light it, and if a good sentry gets caught, he'll also give me a smoke. I'll ask, he'll lift the window with a bayonet and hand me a lit cigarette. These were the Germans, all sorts of them" ^{[2, p. 235]}.

However, in general, occupation is strongly associated in the minds of respondents with hunger: "In August, the Germans came. We found ourselves in the frontline, without any means of livelihood. By October, we had no food left..." ^{[4, p. 156]}. The famine was aggravated by the inhumane treatment of civilians by the occupiers. For example, in the memoirs there is a mention of the ruthless execution by the punishers of the whole family for the inability of young children to cope with the assigned work of repairing the road ^{[4, p. 146.]}.

Against the background of such atrocities, since, as we noted above, violence against the civilian population by the occupiers did not weaken, but on the contrary intensified as the actions of the Red Army of the Leningrad region intensified, children from the occupied territories showed increasing hostility to the enemy, and following this, their willingness to fight it and help the partisans. As a rule, passive methods of struggle were chosen for this: gathering information, minor sabotage, assistance to partisans and their families, etc.

So, Anna Nikolaevna Petrova (Gerasimova) born in 1929 from the peasants of the village of Borshchevo, Leningrad region (memories were recorded in 2002) tells the following: "We knew that our neighbor, three—year—old Kolya, had a gypsy father. Yes, not just a gypsy, but a red commander. That's why we always hid him when the Germans showed up. Personally, I hid it: I helped to get into the Russian stove and forced everything with cast iron (we had special grips for this)" ^{[2, 320]}.

In a sense, the ease of crossing the boundaries between social statuses is striking: "... and so the boys went there (to the partisans – V.H.), but they didn't take us girls then, they took us only at the end of the 43rd year. A [guy] also came (he was friends with my girlfriend, a neighbor) and called me into the partisans. So my girlfriend and I went along with the younger guys..." ^{[2, p. 242]}.

But most importantly, the partisans were also perceived as a heterogeneous group. Those partisans who were fellow countrymen of the inhabitants of a particular village received a special location, they were more willing to accept, hide, and help them more willingly: "And the partisans will come, sit, chat — after all, they had their own guys: from the Choice (2 km to C), from the Raw — at the same time they will have a snack." 

Conclusions

In the texts of memoirs, aspects of private life that are important to the individual emerge (it is here that the fundamental dichotomy of private perception and public assessment manifests itself – what was valuable and significant for the individual in specific conditions could not receive official public (and even more so legal) authorization). The study of the texts of memories allows us to identify the fundamental factors of socialization of children in the occupied territories. At the same time, data of this kind were not and could not be recorded in official documents. 

Analyzing the memories, we clearly see the ambivalence of the socialization process in the extreme conditions we describe. On the one hand, the child is adapting to a harsh and ruthless reality.  On the other hand, a kind of alternative set of value orientations is being formed in the minds of children. The texts of the memoirs of the "children of occupation" depict a painful choice between the desire to live and the desire to preserve oneself as a person.

Unlike the besieged Leningrad, where hunger was the dominant factor of existence, it was not felt so acutely in the occupied territories of the Leningrad region. Children in these territories were forced not so much to fight for their physical survival (although this was an urgent need) as to adapt their lives to new, hostile social conditions. It is particularly worth noting that they had the time and energy to comprehend their own situation and life experience.

Because of this, the picture of the child's world under occupation seems to split or, more precisely, fragmented. On the one hand, a person remains a bearer of values and attitudes taken out of peaceful life, and on the other, he is forced to adapt and accept patterns of behavior imposed on him by the occupiers, alien to him. In addition, occupation for the civilian population is always associated with the loss (in full or in part) of the previous stable social status (marginalization). 

The uncertainty of the status of children and adolescents, regular monitoring of the attempts of elders to make a choice between maintaining "loyalty" to their relatives, friends and fellow countrymen (those who make up the immediate social environment) and maintaining loyalty to their native state, the need to build their lives in accordance with the requirements of someone else's government - all this led to the most severe internal conflicts. It was these conflicts, in turn, that became the foundation for the socialization of young residents of the Leningrad region, defining its specifics. 

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.