Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36
The Russian Soviet M irage III. INTOURIST In the November issue we w rote on travel in USSR- So vast the theme, so startling th e con duct of it th a t w riters in every paper and magazine try not only to describe it, but to interpret its devious methods. All who m ake the one m onth tour feel bound to draw conclusions, and offer solutions for future rela tions with USSR. W hat delusions! On examining another element of the Soviet m irage, presented to tourists in USSR — the Intourist and its staff — the illusion fades. In tourist, feigning to take care only of travelers, has instead a triple purpose. Besides the busi ness of seat and room reserva tion, of guiding through mu seums and churches (most of which have always been there, and therefore already fam iliar through various publications, and pictures) the Intourist staff is an intricate instrum ent of So viet propaganda, as well as a source of increasingly profitable i ncome to the state. The one m onth tour limit, at between $30 and $40 per day m aintains the original price of $1000 per tour. All staff members of Intourist undergo special training. They m ust speak foreign languages fluently. Most im portant, they m ust present Soviet ideology in its best aspects to all travelers. They m ust also keep all tourists away from the ordinary citizens; and accomplish it by avoiding any deviation from the estab lished tour. Movements of tour ists are regim ented from the day of debarkation until they again embark. Sight seeing is in reality a minor issue to Intourist. The real stakes are the tourist reve nue ; and th e opportunity to pro pagate the Communist Plan. This task is achieved in vari ous ways, and in skillful m anner. Never does the tourist get a dir ect refusal to his requests. There are pretexts for delay, or evasive reference to unknown circum stances. V isit to the village of your choice? “O, sorry, there is no transportation at this mo m ent.” A visit to a private home? “O, sorry, people are working now, no one is at home.” And so on. Finally the tourist visits only w hat has been espe cially planned for him to con vince him of Communism. There is no doubt th a t talks and rem arks of tourists are care fully reported and registered. Recent to u rist’s experiences in dicate this clearly. An U krainian sailor, hired on a foreign ship, visited the harbor of Leningrad. The guide, a pretty young girl, tried to show him the best of the city. The instant they became good friends, she asked him casually if he had prohibited books on his ship. A t his aston ished look, she added th a t m any sailors bring them to USSR, as well as records. This seemingly harm less question indicated at once th a t one of the special in terests the guide has is to find out different hidden channels for objects penetrating into USSR. Another instance of reporting tourist behavior was glaring in deed, and harked back to an an cient jealousy th a t had nothing to do w ith present feuds. Two Ukrainian tourists visiting Pol tava were listening to the ac counts of the Poltava battle in 1709. Ukrainians fought there against Russians, under the lead ership of Mazeppa, an U krainian hero. The Soviet guide labeled him ‘‘traito r,” and one tourist made a sign of disapproval to the other. This was reported at once. W hen these two tourists later re quested a special perm ission in Kiev, they were refused, and re ferred to their conduct in Pol tava. Then there is the m atter of cameras. Ordinarily only m ili tary objects m ay not be photo graphed. But guides stop tour ists from m aking snapshots of any object th a t m ight be detri m ental to the USSR. A group of tu rists visited Crimea. In the garden of the form er Czar’s cot tage two women were planting a tree. This work, unusual for women, attracted the attention of an U krainian to u rist; and he snapped it. The guide attacked the working women, asking them to protest. They are inventive in their reasons. “Do you know the gentleman photographed you? You don’t w ant it, do you?” She insisted until the women uttered a weak protest. The tourist pro mised to destroy the pictures, when the film was exposed. Obstinate tourists who persist in taking snapshots, the Intour ist sta ff report to their authori ties ; and the cam era or films are searched at their departure from the country. Sometimes signs of hum an feeling appear among these tools of Soviet propaganda. A woman tourist in Crimea, whose guide wore a grim face, went w ith her on an excursion to the moun tains. A fter several miles her be havior changed. She became talkative, and asked much about the American way of life. She НАШЕ ЖИТТЯ — СІЧЕНЬ, 1962 17
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36 
