S05.E03: The Midges

[qtpye]

Would Martha go to a minimum or maximum security prison?  If she explained her situation and ratted out Clarke/Phillip, would that have helped?  She could also lead them to capturing a Russian spy.  She was naïve and too trusting, but she did not purposefully leak secrets...she was tricked.

She of course would lose her job and any future hopes of any such level of employment.

Then again, she was an only child, so her parents living and later her inheritance, would help her financial burden.

I really can not decide what is worse, living as a somewhat "privileged" person in Soviet Russia or maybe getting a muted sentence for only a couple of years (because she gave the FBI vital information) in a place like where Martha Stewart stayed and still be in the country that you are familiar with and love.  I guess the fact that it is hard decision, really says something about the quality of life in the Soviet Union.

[shura]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I just can somehow "buy" the apparent naivete, even though he's been in war.  I mean even handling all that money, I doubt he's ever seen so much, and probably isn't positive which money is for which country.

Was it stupid to put it all in one place?  Of course, but is he world-wise enough to think of that?  Maybe not, especially while he's scared to death.  He's probably had enough trouble finding food and places to bed down, and to avoid anyone who might be on to his escape plans.  Robbery was probably pretty far down on his list of fears.

In some ways I think Henry would have handled this better, simply because he's been exposed to so much more, isn't just out of prison, etc.  All the money in one place is something idiotic Paige would do.

I'll buy it for now, we just don't know enough about him yet, or his early life, or even anything about what he did or didn't do in war, only really have his reaction later.

It's an interesting thought about Henry. It actually makes Misha's demeanor even more striking, I think. Misha is the one who grew up without a parent in freaking Russia, where distrusting anyone you don't know is the default behavior. He is the one who served in the Soviet army with all its hazing issues, plus fought in an actual war where he would have to make at least some of his own quick decisions when someone was shooting at him. And Misha is the one has been incarcerated and had to experience Soviet prison culture. If all that doesn't make a person street-smart, I don't know what does. And yet he looks and acts a thousand times more innocently than Henry, whose school of life has been actual middle school and not much more. We have Henry knocking down the duck-feeding guy because he feels something vs Misha who seems shocked that someone might take advantage of him by rummaging through his knapsack and taking his money. Interesting.

Btw, was that jail or a mental institution Misha was in? I seem to remember it was a mental institution, and if so, maybe they "treated" Misha there and that explains his almost infantile meekness. Maybe it's a deliberate detail, just like the dirt and the pants in Misha Sr's old apartment, that is intended to suggest something dark like that about the character's background. It can't be just the actor, can it? I, too, would love to see if the actor can pull off a role of a decisive and tough person.

[AllyB]

I will admit that my feeling that going to the USSR is a better option than prison very much influenced by the knowledge that the USSR will be no more 8 years after her defection. Martha and her parents will be able to see each other in the not too distant future. They will be able to give her financial assistance if she needs it. After a few years of immersive Russian she will have a good grip on the language and local knowledge, which along with her fluent English could potentially get her quite a good job with an import/export company.

If she had chosen to turn herself in, I'm not sure what would have happened. The easiest comparison is to Sharon Scranage, a CIA secretary in Ghana who passed classified documents to her Ghanaian lover. She received a 5 year sentence and was paroled after 18 months. I don't know what kind of prison she was in. But Martha did more than just pass classified documents. She actually planted a bug in the office of the head of counter-intelligence and regularly switched the tapes. She kept quiet and continued to pass information after she knew her 'husband' had murdered Gene to cover up for her and there would be a question hanging over her about her involvement in covering up for Amador's murderer. I imagine Martha, even with the information she would give about Clark which would probably have led to the Jennings being identified but not arrested (because they would have immediately fled if they thought Martha had turned herself in), would have gotten a much stiffer sentence. I'm not even sure how helpful Gaad and Stan could be in negotiating a deal once the Jennings were identified because Stan would be fucked and that would have been the final nail in Gaad's career coffin. I imagine that once in prison the other prisoners would make life absolute hell for a traitor and the guards would have no sympathy.

Edited March 24, 2017 by AllyB

[Clanstarling]

58 minutes ago, AllyB said:

I imagine that once in prison the other prisoners would make life absolute hell for a traitor and the guards would have no sympathy.

That reminds me of a line from the old movie "The Rocketeer", when the crook who's been helping the bad guy finds out the man he's been works for the Nazis (or something like that, it's been awhile): "It matters to me. I may not make an honest buck, but I'm 100% American. I don't work for no two-bit Nazi. Let the girl go!"

And though I love Martha, I always found it hard to believe she was so trusting - she worked in the counterintelligence unit well before Gaad, and was a sharp cookie. She should have at least called the agency Clark was pretending to be from and confirm he existed. Particularly when he wanted her to bug the office. I like her, and sympathize, but she bears responsibility for her own actions or lack thereof.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Clanstarling

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, AllyB said:

Philip ruined Martha's life but she isn't the type of person to let that destroy her, she is the type of person to get on with it and make the most of what she does have instead of obsessing about what she's lost.

Yup, and this is also where Philip's decisions about her will help her--and I think he knew that. He didn't destroy her ideas about him completely. He tried, as best he could, to continue the fantasy that he loved her. But he was also honest that he would not be following her to Russia, wouldn't be visiting. The relationship was over and he encouraged her to find someone else out of genuinely wanting her to be happy. So Martha can hang on to the idea that she was loved (and she's not wrong--she might not have been part of a real romance but she absolutely did touch the heart of the guy sent to destroy her and he did stick his neck out for her because he valued her), but also look for a new love.

3 hours ago, Ina123 said:

Maybe her parents would survive her time in prison or die eventually and leave some inheritance in the future for a decent life in old age, if released. Me? I'd have taken prison. to me the decision to leave was just an interesting plot line.

That would also require her to give up Clark, though. (And let's face it, had she chosen prison the Soviets probably would have tried to take her out and possibly succeeded.) Martha the romantic had to hold on to the idea that she was protecting Clark as he was trying to protect her.  That's what gives her life shape and meaning. Clark didn't abandon her like the guy in high school.

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

She was naïve and too trusting, but she did not purposefully leak secrets...she was tricked.

She totally did purposefully leak secrets. 

1 hour ago, shura said:

And Misha is the one has been incarcerated and had to experience Soviet prison culture.

Not prison. Mental institution.

[DoubleUTeeEff]

I don't think Martha's primary concern was the creature comforts in the Soviet Union vs. those in an American prison.  I think it came down to, do I stay loyal to Philip or do I betray him?  And for Martha, it's all about love.  That's what she believes in.  For her, staying loyal to Philip was important enough to give up everything she knows and even her family.  Either way, she was never going to be with Philip again but this way she is staying true to her love for him.  She even told him not to be alone, that's how important her love for him is.  She wants him to be happy above all, even if it can't be with her.  I do think she thought about the creature comforts she would lose though, considering how she looked at that jar of peanut butter before she left!

It was weird to type Philip instead of Clark, but Martha knows all Philip's names now so...

I love all the speculation about Martha and Henry when we only see them for such a short time!  If something is going on with Henry, the pay off will be big.

[Eulipian 5k]

On 3/22/2017 at 9:51 PM, Auntie Anxiety said:

It was common knowledge during the 80's (I was an adult by that point and watched Nightline every night before bed) that living conditions (housing, food, transportation, clothing) in the Eastern Bloc were deplorable and there were long, long lines to get into a market.

Vladimir Posner, as the "rezident Russian", was the master of snark in his battles with Ted Koppell on Nightline in the 80's. I'm sure he would have been part of Oleg's crowd in NYC, (Posner went to Stuy High in NYC)

[Dowel Jones]

6 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

It was possible for the Soviet Union to buy grain elsewhere. They didn't have to buy American grain.

I remember one scandal, termed The Great Grain Robbery, in which Russia bought up a huge amount of wheat from the US which in the end caused large price increases all across the nation.  It was highly embarrassing for the Nixon administration.

[SWLinPHX]

On 3/21/2017 at 8:55 PM, willco said:

I've often wondered why Elizabeth fights so hard to defend Russia. I know that's her home country and all, but is it so terrible here in the U.S. ? Life is pretty nice compared to what she grew up with. Maybe they explained this sometime in the past, but I don't remember.

Philip asked her, in Season One I believe, if she doesn't enjoy all the perks living in the U.S. and her reply was, "It's nice; it's easier.  But it's not better".

[shura]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Not prison. Mental institution.

Oh, same difference. There is a book, Punitive Medicine, that describes what dissidents had to endure in Soviet psychiatric hospitals. Deprived of any rights and forced to kowtow to sadists (guards and nurses, in this case).

[magemaud]

I don't think Martha had a choice between going to the USSR or going to prison here as spy turned informant. She probably feared for her life if she didn't get on that plane and at that point it was too late to turn herself in. 

[scowl]

On 3/21/2017 at 8:55 PM, willco said:

I've often wondered why Elizabeth fights so hard to defend Russia. I know that's her home country and all, but is it so terrible here in the U.S. ? Life is pretty nice compared to what she grew up with. Maybe they explained this sometime in the past, but I don't remember.

The show has really failed to explain the Soviet mindset.

Elizabeth probably feels that the pretty nice life for middle class white Americans has come from the exploitation of the poor and minorities. She sees Americans with more money than they can spend while other Americans starve.

The Soviet Union felt that it was the victim of capitalist nations conspiring to starve and overthrow it. America became rich during World War Two while the Soviet Union was attacked and torched by the Nazis. The Soviet Union was still surrounded by enemies while America sat safely between two oceans. They thought that if they didn't have to spend a huge amount of its budget on defense, it would have more than enough resources to create a socialist utopia for all of its citizens. 

[Dev F]

One thing I found interesting about the cowboy hat seduction scene that I forgot to mention: Philip is feeling angsty after comparing the American breadbasket to Mother Russia's, and Elizabeth tries to cheer him up by playing cowboy. First she puts the hat on herself, but Phil remains glum. It's only when she transfers the hat to his head that he starts to perk up.

You could read a lot into the subtext of that. At first Elizabeth is just trying to playfully brush aside his concern: Oh, you, worrying about how Americans are better than us. Well, look, we can be Americans too! But then she not only realizes that it isn't working for Phil, but also recognizes why: No, we both know I'm not into this America stuff and I can't pretend to be. And her reaction is not to get defensive and stop the role-playing, but to transfer the role to him: But I know you are into that stuff, and I'm okay with that.

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, Dev F said:

You could read a lot into the subtext of that. At first Elizabeth is just trying to playfully brush aside his concern: Oh, you, worrying about how Americans are better than us. Well, look, we can be Americans too! But then she not only realizes that it isn't working for Phil, but also recognizes why: No, we both know I'm not into this America stuff and I can't pretend to be. And her reaction is not to get defensive and stop the role-playing, but to transfer the role to him: But I know you are into that stuff, and I'm okay with that.

I wonder if that hat also just reads differently on her head because she'd only wear it mockingly where as he wouldn't. It makes me think of how she used to try to make jokes about Martha because she was insecure and he'd always get defensive--not of himself and his feelings for her (as Elizabeth thought) but of Martha. So it's like her saying, "No, I'm not making fun of stupid American cowboys, I'm just being playful."

[qtpye]

17 minutes ago, Dev F said:

You could read a lot into the subtext of that. At first Elizabeth is just trying to playfully brush aside his concern: Oh, you, worrying about how Americans are better than us. Well, look, we can be Americans too! But then she not only realizes that it isn't working for Phil, but also recognizes why: No, we both know I'm not into this America stuff and I can't pretend to be. And her reaction is not to get defensive and stop the role-playing, but to transfer the role to him: But I know you are into that stuff, and I'm okay with that.

When he was looking into the mirror and thinking about the hovel he grew up in, he seemed so worried and haggard.  When Elizabeth put that hat on his head, his eyes started shining and all of sudden he seemed vibrant and full of life.

I do not know if I am impressed with the transformation or find it cheesy.  I will wait for the season to end to decide.

In getting back to why people are more sympathetic to Phillip then Elizabeth, I think it is a variety of factors.

First, we have good old fashioned sexism.  Then they write for Phillip much better then they write for Elizabeth (which can also be attributed to some sexism like the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and George admitted they have no idea how to write female character, because they have never really cared about what make women tick.  As a poster noted up thread, They "show" for Phillip, where they often just "tell" for Elizabeth.  When Elizabeth ruined the life of that nice Korean couple, that was the first time she seemed to truly show remorse.  It made me realize we often see Phil's guilt over the horrible things he does (like Kimmy), but they rarely show E as anything but stone cold.  At first, I attributed this to her personality, but now I think it could be the writing.

Then finally, we all have the 20/20 hindsight of future vision.  We know E is dogmatically loyal to a system that fails and leads to the rise of Putin.  This makes her devotion seem silly and pathetic...which is unfair. 

[scrb]

1 hour ago, magemaud said:

I don't think Martha had a choice between going to the USSR or going to prison here as spy turned informant. She probably feared for her life if she didn't get on that plane and at that point it was too late to turn herself in. 

I presumed the Center would have ordered them to kill Martha if she refused their "humane" offer to take her out of the country.

Rather than leave the country themselves, P & E would have carried out the order to maintain their cover.

1 hour ago, scowl said:

The show has really failed to explain the Soviet mindset.

Elizabeth probably feels that the pretty nice life for middle class white Americans has come from the exploitation of the poor and minorities. She sees Americans with more money than they can spend while other Americans starve.

The Soviet Union felt that it was the victim of capitalist nations conspiring to starve and overthrow it. America became rich during World War Two while the Soviet Union was attacked and torched by the Nazis. The Soviet Union was still surrounded by enemies while America sat safely between two oceans. They thought that if they didn't have to spend a huge amount of its budget on defense, it would have more than enough resources to create a socialist utopia for all of its citizens. 

The real-life illegals that they caught in 2010 blended in well in the US.  Some of them had pretty nice upper middle-class lifestyles.  Some had graduate degrees, leading to 6-figure incomes.

They never succeeded in getting classified info. to pass back to Russia.  

Maybe they were too busy enjoying a better life than they would have had back home to do serious spying?

[sistermagpie]

47 minutes ago, qtpye said:

First, we have good old fashioned sexism.  Then they write for Phillip much better then they write for Elizabeth (which can also be attributed to some sexism like the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and George admitted they have no idea how to write female character, because they have never really cared about what make women tick.  As a poster noted up thread, They "show" for Phillip, where they often just "tell" for Elizabeth.  When Elizabeth ruined the life of that nice Korean couple, that was the first time she seemed to truly show remorse.  It made me realize we often see Phil's guilt over the horrible things he does (like Kimmy), but they rarely show E as anything but stone cold.  At first, I attributed this to her personality, but now I think it could be the writing.

 

Moving to the Elizabeth thread...

[gwhh]

4 hours ago, Gabrielle Tracy said:

I thought that too!  But then I thought about the handful of Navy SEALS I'm acquainted with and none of them are big, muscle-bound, tough looking dudes.  Maybe part of the deal with Mischa is that he knows 100 ways to kill you with his bare hands but he looks more like a lost puppy which would be handy so no one would tend to suspect him of anything.

Or, maybe he was just miscast :)

Didn't Phillip tell E she looked great after she put the cowboy hat on her head?     

 

There are a lot of guys in "specials forces" who look like 98 pounds weaklings.   But are just as tough as the big guys.  Mental toughness is the most important thing in any special forces unit. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by gwhh

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Gabrielle Tracy said:

I thought that too!  But then I thought about the handful of Navy SEALS I'm acquainted with and none of them are big, muscle-bound, tough looking dudes.  Maybe part of the deal with Mischa is that he knows 100 ways to kill you with his bare hands but he looks more like a lost puppy which would be handy so no one would tend to suspect him of anything.

Or, maybe he was just miscast :)

I agree about the Seals, I'm friends with a few, dated a couple, as well.  Ditto former Rangers, the ones I've known, if anything, were quiet, unassuming guys, but yes, you feel quite safe in their pretense.   Misha was a paratrooper though, not a commando frogman (Russian version of a Seal.)  There are all kinds of people, and all kinds of reactions to war though.

It doesn't matter how trained you are, some people simply don't survive war as tough guys, it breaks a lot of men, or changes them.  Napoleonic Wars? "Soldier's Heart" or "Irritable Heart. Civil War?  Melancholia.  WWI?  Shell Shock.  WWII?  CSR, Combat Stress Reaction, later called Battle Fatigue.  Vietnam and after?  PTSD.  In some ways, perhaps those men had a deeper humanity, so I don't know that I would, in any way, denigrate them for their response to being in war.

Coming out of basic?  Most I've met change a lot, and are "tough guys" and now even "tough girls."  Basic Training isn't war though, in general people aren't dying, or having their heads chopped off in front of you, children aren't dying from explosives you fired, you aren't surrounded by devastation, you haven't watched your friends scream in pain, or die. 

Misha came home and was moved enough to protest the war and speak up for the Afghanistan people, speak of them in kind terms.  They never attacked Russia, they weren't any threat to his homeland.  His morality couldn't handle it.  Maybe he would have done better fighting Germans on Russian Soil?  Mental Institution or Prison, he was once again controlled, told what to do by authority figures.

It appears that the only time he wasn't following orders, being told what to do, where to eat, and where and when to sleep, after becoming an adult at 18 was the brief period of time after the war and before the Mental Institution.  I don't think that prepared him to travel on his own escaping the Soviet Union.  His mother left pretty skimpy instructions.  He had no option about "trusting" the people behind the door he knocked on this episode.  He probably didn't, his Russian ingrained fear of strangers, and logical fear of everything while escaping showed in his face, and on top of that, the one his mother told him to contact was already caught. 

I think all of those things explain his actions.  War, rather than harden him, devastated parts of him, but even if the skimpy stuff I'm basing that on isn't true?  In no way did it suddenly prepare him for what he's doing now.  Passports, money, different languages, borders, hiding from his own people, traveling.  Any sane person WOULD be scared, he gets caught?  He's a dead man.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Umbelina

[Blakeston]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

It made me realize we often see Phil's guilt over the horrible things he does (like Kimmy), but they rarely show E as anything but stone cold.  

I think that's a big part of it. We've seen Elizabeth kill innocent people without showing the slightest glimmer of guilt - like when she dropped the car on that guy, or when she shot that police officer in the beginning of season one who was questioning why she was parked on the street.

Have we seen Philip do that? I'm trying to remember. I realize that he killed Randy in this episode, and he shot that poor Afghan busboy - but he at least seemed pained by it. 

[Umbelina]

FYI

I started a Misha thread.  We've had some great criticism/praise for the actor/writing already.  We've also had some interesting speculation about his impact on story, and possibly even the end of this series.  So now we have a better place to talk about the love child Misha.

[Haleth]

I'm so bored with the Jennings, especially the Paige problem. I'd rather follow Oleg and Misha. 

[Macbeth]

On 3/21/2017 at 11:46 PM, Moose135 said:

It was a quick shot and you almost missed it, but in the bowling alley scene, Tuan was wearing an Opus "Penguin Lust" T-shirt from the Bloom County comic strip - I have that same shirt somewhere around here.  I got it new in 1984, so it certainly fit the timeline of the show.  As much as people enjoyed seeing Martha, Opus was the high point of the show for me!

What a great catch.  Thank you!!

[Erin9]

I loved the cowboy scene between them. We've never seen Philip and Elizabeth quite like this before. The dance was both tender and hot.  I loved Philip putting her hand on his chest to slow dance . Yes, Elizabeth was trying to distract him, and he clearly knew it. But, really, why not? There is no answer yet to Philip's (good and thoughtful) question. It's really a conversation they've had many times; it goes in circles. May as well have some romance, relax a bit. 

The scene reminded me of something the J's said when they were talking about the new season. They were talking about how Philip and Elizabeth were finding new ways to handle conflict, rather than getting and staying angry at each other. This might be an example of that. They considered it a plus. 

Loved seeing Martha. She looked okay to me. I wouldn't expect her to look happy- not in that grocery store, but she didn't look defeated either. My main takeaway was that she was paying close attention to her limited options in the store. 

I've said it in the Philip thread, but my gosh, the conditions of Philip's childhood are heartbreaking. How awful to live in that kind of extreme poverty. Elizabeth's childhood looks practically palatial in comparison. Philip really doesn't want to say how his dad died. He's managed to not say it on numerous occasions when he's had a clear opportunity. Instead, this time, he only admitted it wasn't in the war. I assume it's pretty tragic. If that's his brother, one Philip never even mentioned, I wonder about his fate. Not to mention his mother's. I tend to believe Philip's family was gone well before he joined the KGB. It would easily explain his long standing family comes first mantra and how fiercely protective he's always been of them. In the few scenes between Irina and Philip, it seems she knew that about him by the time she was pregnant with Misha. 

Also, Paige better not, in any way, spill the beans to Matthew. We already saw her purposefully tell Pastor Tim. No need for a repeat of that, even if it is not on purpose. Stan can get enlightened in some other way- preferably not anytime too soon. 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Erin9

[TimWil]

On 3/23/2017 at 8:10 PM, dubbel zout said:

I'm always more surprised when someone doesn't die. 

Tuan is definitely a loose cannon in a lot of ways. I can see Pasha complaining once too often and Tuan snaps his neck or something.

Or maybe bashing his head in with a bowling ball?

[sistermagpie]

23 minutes ago, Erin9 said:

How awful to live in that kind of extreme poverty. Elizabeth's childhood looks practically palatial in comparison. Philip really doesn't want to say how his dad died. He's managed to not say it on numerous occasions when he's had a clear opportunity. Instead, this time, he only admitted it wasn't in the war. 

I was always interested in that aspect because I knew it couldn't be during the war given that Philip said he was 6. And not only that, his father's death is like the first time he ever blurts out something real about himself like that--and to one of the kids. Elizabeth would often make references to growing up poor to make a point to the kids. Philip never did, except the time Paige defended her sneaking off to meet "Aunt Helen" by saying she didn't have any family. And Philip got angry. At the time I figured it was just that he was mostly being driven by fear since Paige had actually gone out and checked one of their alibis. That was probably part of it, but looking back, given his focus on that incident, it seems like she might have hit a real nerve there. Something about seeing this daughter who made up the family that to him was like an abundance of riches defend actions that might have risked it all by saying she doesn't have a family...that might have made him genuinely defensive.

Also must say that one of my favorite details in the Philip flashbacks was that toy plane he was playing with that was made of sticks tied together. Bet his dad made that for him.

[Umbelina]

I wish they were replaying episodes like they did last year.  This time while watching that scene, I'd just focus on the house they were in.

[gwhh]

It's an interesting thought about Henry. It actually makes Misha's demeanor even more striking, I think. Misha is the one who grew up without a parent in freaking Russia, where distrusting anyone you don't know is the default behavior. He is the one who served in the Soviet army with all its hazing issues, plus fought in an actual war where he would have to make at least some of his own quick decisions when someone was shooting at him. And Misha is the one has been incarcerated and had to experience Soviet prison culture. If all that doesn't make a person street-smart, I don't know what does. And yet he looks and acts a thousand times more innocently than Henry, whose school of life has been actual middle school and not much more. We have Henry knocking down the duck-feeding guy because he feels something vs Misha who seems shocked that someone might take advantage of him by rummaging through his knapsack and taking his money. Interesting.

Btw, was that jail or a mental institution Misha was in? I seem to remember it was a mental institution, and if so, maybe they "treated" Misha there and that explains his almost infantile meekness. Maybe it's a deliberate detail, just like the dirt and the pants in Misha Sr's old apartment, that is intended to suggest something dark like that about the character's background. It can't be just the actor, can it? I, too, would love to see if the actor can pull off a role of a decisive and tough person.

****

Misha life journey has tempetered him in way that will benfit him!  Phillip pretty calm until the team kettle blows!  I think Misha going to do just fine on his journey!

I want to see Henry and Misha hanging out 1980's style.  I feel those two will get along great! 

****

That reminds me of a line from the old movie "The Rocketeer", when the crook who's been helping the bad guy finds out the man he's been works for the Nazis (or something like that, it's been awhile): "It matters to me. I may not make an honest buck, but I'm 100% American. I don't work for no two-bit Nazi. Let the girl go!"

That was a great movie and a great line!  Played by great character actor: Paul Sorvino

Edited March 25, 2017 by gwhh

[ahpny]

Quote

Was there ANY proof the bugs were destined to ruin Russian wheat?  

Nyet. Absolutely nothing, there isn't even any evidence that merely suggests this. But for the "simultaneous" wheat sale to the USSR and discovery of this "plot," there's no reason to suspect anything. Of course, those sales aren’t really “simultaneous” in the sense that they began about a decade before and continued for years to no detriment to the USSR at all. They did cause supply problems for the US for a time, however.

Quote

I remember one scandal, termed The Great Grain Robbery, in which Russia bought up a huge amount of wheat from the US which in the end caused large price increases all across the nation.  It was highly embarrassing for the Nixon administration.

Historically, we know the US never sold tainted wheat to the USSR. Moreover, it would make no sense for any seller, who wishes to continue those sales, to poison the product. That's just bad for business. And while the Soviets might be somewhat credibly worried about such things, as supposedly sage critics of capitalism, they're supposed understand that US business interests control everything and prioritize making money over all other concerns. As Lenin said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." And damn good rope that would be. This whole story arc really makes no sense.

Today Russia produces more wheat than the US, and is one of the highest producing grain countries in the world. http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-map-countries-wheat-production.html Thus, Philip was right, the USSR had lots of good land and no good reason why it couldn't feed itself.

Quote

Oleg is great. Poor guy never realized one day he would be Nina. That's a guy who's really in trouble.

 

Quote

How bad is his situation? Is he in too deep for his father's connections to rescue him? Have we seen his father on screen yet? I think his father is still alive. I wonder if we will see a father son conversation at some point this season. 

He’s in pretty deep. While it’s unclear how far his father’s influence reaches (perhaps not far enough to keep his brother out of Afghanistan and avoiding being killed?), Oleg seems thoroughly screwed.

Perhaps Stan will go rogue and concoct some type of operation to save him. That’s in character for him. Stan certainly seems like he’d try if he thought such a plan were feasible and had a decent chance of success. Maybe Martha! is the key. She all but ran into Oleg anyway in the suspiciously “well stocked!” Soviet store.

Edited March 25, 2017 by ahpny

[Milburn Stone]

7 minutes ago, ahpny said:

He’s in pretty deep. While it’s unclear how far his father’s influence reaches (perhaps not far enough to keep his brother out of Afghanistan and avoiding being killed?), Oleg seems thoroughly screwed.

I'm less expecting the father's influence will help Oleg, and more expecting Oleg's treason will taint the father.

[scowl]

21 hours ago, scrb said:

The real-life illegals that they caught in 2010 blended in well in the US.  Some of them had pretty nice upper middle-class lifestyles.  Some had graduate degrees, leading to 6-figure incomes.

They never succeeded in getting classified info. to pass back to Russia.  

Maybe they were too busy enjoying a better life than they would have had back home to do serious spying?

Russia in 2010 is not the Soviet Union of 1984 so I don't understand what you're saying.

[kokapetl]

The USSR lacked adequate farm machinery, had a labor policy that was a huge disincentive to embrace the farm automation that has caused unemployment in western countries, had less fertilizer available, and had a terrible climate. The virgin farm lands were also often marginal farm lands. After the Soviet Union collapsed, demand for grain for human consumption and animal feed shrank considerably as food prices rose, the total area of land being cultivated shrank, and I don't think it's ever recovered.  

I should also point out that American wheat yields are currently about 3 tons per hectare per year. East Germany was managing over 5 tons per hectare on average, for the period 1985-1990. 

Not all land is equal. 

[scowl]

There were several cases where the farmers did have excellent machinery but simply never used it, either because farmers were never trained on how to use it or decided manual methods were better for some reason. This problem existed everywhere in Soviet manufacturing. After the collapse journalists found millions of dollars of excellent equipment sitting around unused while workers continued to use deteriorating machines from the 60's. 

I always thought that a major problem with Lenin-Marxism is that they thought farming is simple and easy and anyone could do it. You just plant stuff in the ground, the rain falls, then in no time waves of grain sprout up to feed everyone. It turns out that farming is difficult and tricky! Managing the land and doing proper irrigation is critical and complicated. The kulaks were the only ones who knew how to do it and once they were purged, the Soviet Union had agricultural amateurs ruining crops and destroying the land. It took them decades to use the land properly. The U.S. made a similar mistake when opening huge areas of land to new farmers in the 20's which led to the dust bowl.

ETA: Kokapetl is right about the marginal farmland in the Soviet Union. The Soviets believed that the kulaks were purposely reducing production to raise grain prices. In most cases the crummy land was the problem. When the collective farms tried to increase yields by planting more land, production actually dropped. Farming can be complicated. 

Edited March 25, 2017 by scowl

[crgirl412]

On 3/22/2017 at 10:05 PM, PinkRibbons said:

My folks thought they were slightly prepared; Kramer Vs. Kramer played in the USSR, and a lot of people came to see the grocery shopping scene, (and other general parts of what the Western world looked like) plus they had already been in Italy for two months waiting for acceptance into America, so they had seen better stocked shelves than the ones they'd left behind. Mama however describes walking into her first US supermarket dairy aisle one day very early on to get some milk. There was so much variety that she started feeling queasy and had to leave. (Whether the fact that she was 8 months pregnant at the time had something to do with that, it's up to you to decide.) She says eventually she figured out to just buy the store brand of everything until she could get her bearings.

Three years later Papa begrudgingly agreed to do the grocery shopping with a list Mama gave him. (Much as I love my father, he is such a Jewish stereotype about not being helpful around the house. He only did the shoppings because Mama had just given birth to me and he had to concede that she probably could use a few hours of lying down.) He came home absolutely furious because she hadn't given him the specific brands she was using at the time, and he had had to stare down walls and walls of different versions of everything. In hindsight Mama says she should have sent my then 3-year-old sister with him to tell him what she usually bought.

In a pretty hilarious turnaround, when I visited Lithuania a few years back (Gosh it's been ten, where has the time gone?) I was introduced to something European called a "hypermart". It had about 30 thousand stores in a giganomous building. Made a normal mall over here look like a Mom & Pop Shop. I felt overwhelmed every second I was there.

I literally laughed out loud at this one!!  It's still so true that if the dad doesn't grocery shop, the 3 year-old would be able to tell him what mommy buys!! 

I want to go to a hypermart!!  I would be too overwhelmed to be able to shop at one I'm sure but I want to see it!! 

[kokapetl]

1 hour ago, scowl said:

There were several cases where the farmers did have excellent machinery but simply never used it, either because farmers were never trained on how to use it or decided manual methods were better for some reason. This problem existed everywhere in Soviet manufacturing. After the collapse journalists found millions of dollars of excellent equipment sitting around unused while workers continued to use deteriorating machines from the 60's. 

I always thought that a major problem with Lenin-Marxism is that they thought farming is simple and easy and anyone could do it. You just plant stuff in the ground, the rain falls, then in no time waves of grain sprout up to feed everyone. It turns out that farming is difficult and tricky! Managing the land and doing proper irrigation is critical and complicated. The kulaks were the only ones who knew how to do it and once they were purged, the Soviet Union had agricultural amateurs ruining crops and destroying the land. It took them decades to use the land properly. The U.S. made a similar mistake when opening huge areas of land to new farmers in the 20's which led to the dust bowl.

ETA: Kokapetl is right about the marginal farmland in the Soviet Union. The Soviets believed that the kulaks were purposely reducing production to raise grain prices. In most cases the crummy land was the problem. When the collective farms tried to increase yields by planting more land, production actually dropped. Farming can be complicated. 

Growing wheat in Western Australia has done huge damage to the biodiversity of its unique and rare indigenous species. Dryland salinity is a huge problem, probably the most severe case on the planet, so much cleared land is now useless. Closer to home, nitrogen fertilizer runoff required a channel be created to flush out an algae filled estuary. Shitty land management isn't just a Soviet thing. 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Kokapetl

[scowl]

18 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Growing wheat in Western Australia has done huge damage to the biodiversity of its unique and rare indigenous species. Dryland salinity is a huge problem, probably the most severe case on the planet, so much cleared land is now useless. Closer to home, nitrogen fertilizer runoff required a channel be created to flush out an algae filled estuary. Shitty land management isn't just a Soviet thing. 

Certainly not. America's rush to turn every acre of land into producing something of value created the Dust Bowl. 

[Kathemy]

It's a bit weird hearing all this talk about how the Soviet Union was some kind of hell. There were many places worse on this planet than the Soviet Union. I visited the place twice and yes, the selection of goods was rather limited, but there certainly were some luxuries, nice restaurants, theaters, music, ballet... Of course that would all depend on your level of income but I visited with a family living in Leningrad, who was probably pretty well off but not "rich rich" by any means - this was a student exchange program - and the food was very nice. Then again I like Russian food. You could say "well, you Swedish students were probably protected and only shown the nice parts" but as a matter of fact we had free reign of the city, both in Leningrad and in Moscow. One thing that I noticed was how shabby the multicolored towers looked up close - they are covered in cloth, and it had many rips in it.

Political freedom? Eh, no. But, it's important to note that after the collapse of the USSR the average life expectancy dropped by ten years and only started to recuperate under Putin.

[scrb]

Well there was a financial crisis in Russia in 1998.  Many Russians were longing for the Soviet days.

I would imagine things improved in the 2000s as the price of oil increased, up to the 2008 financial crisis.

But then oil prices have dropped in the last 5 years (from US fracking and also slower economic growth hurting oil demand) and then the economic sanctions following the annexation of Crimea has to be causing some hardships now.

Not to mention the plundering from the kleptocrats and then Putin blows $50 billion on Sochi.

But the bread lines in the last days of the USSR were widely reported.  

Quote

Analyzing shortages in Soviet Union showed very uneven distribution among the population. For example, both Moscow and Leningrad, which were heavily visited by foreigners, were supplied much better than the rest of the country and did not have rationing until the late 1980s. Similarly, presence of goods on the shelves in a state store in a minor city often could simply mean that these goods were rationed and could not be bought at will. But in most cases shortages simply meant either empty shelves or long waiting lines. There were also some hidden channels of goods distribution; for example, in many cases goods were directly distributed/sold at places of work totally bypassing the store shelves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union

[scowl]

The Soviet Union was an OK place to visit, but living there? That's a different story. The luxuries were the ones the party wanted people to have. Marxism demanded a cultured society so of course there were theaters, opera, and ballet. If you weren't interested in these things, well, too bad.

Of course you didn't hear locals complain about the Soviet Union to tourists!  

Tourists and students usually went to Leningrad and Moscow because they were showcase cities -- very well maintained and incredible sights. Soviets felt lucky to live in cities like this and dreaded being transferred anyplace else.

Remember that the Soviet Union was a very rich country in terms of raw production. For example in 1977 they produced one trillion dollars worth of oil.  

[Umbelina]

My Russian friend who escaped predicted this whole Putin-type eventuality back in the early 90s.  He told me that the Russian people simply didn't have the training/desire for the responsibilities of Western Style freedoms.  They were historically (from the time of the czars, and certainly through the revolution that got rid of them, USED to being told what to do, and having a rather "supreme leader/ruler."

Communism accelerated that, the move from serfdom to state given (and ordered) housing and jobs really didn't flex those independence or individual "can do it myself" muscles.   He told me way back then that sooner or later there would be another Stalin or at the least, heavy state control, because people would feel to insecure and scared, and they would, once again, welcome a strong leader even at the expense of freedoms.

I'm not saying that well at all, he was much more eloquent and used better examples and more logical arguments.  I argued with him at the time, but in the end, he was correct.

[J-Man]

Quote

My "Martha Sighting" was kind of spoiled since I was looking up some info on IMDB on my tablet and saw her name listed in the credits for the episode. Alison Wright sure has been busy since the last time we saw at the safe house. She's been on "Sneaky Pete" and she also has a role on "Feud."

She's also making her Broadway debut tomorrow in a new play called "Sweat."

I may be a little "slow," but I'm confused about the whole Tuan situation. I assumed he was just a regular KGB/Centre recruit, but it appears that he only interacts with Phil and Liz when they're in disguise and using their fake names. Does he know their names, their situation, where they live, etc., or is there some reason that he's being kept in the dark?

[MisterBluxom]

On 2017-03-24 at 7:34 AM, qtpye said:

Would Martha go to a minimum or maximum security prison?  If she explained her situation and ratted out Clarke/Phillip, would that have helped?  She could also lead them to capturing a Russian spy.  She was naïve and too trusting, but she did not purposefully leak secrets...she was tricked.

She of course would lose her job and any future hopes of any such level of employment.

Then again, she was an only child, so her parents living and later her inheritance, would help her financial burden.

I really can not decide what is worse, living as a somewhat "privileged" person in Soviet Russia or maybe getting a muted sentence for only a couple of years (because she gave the FBI vital information) in a place like where Martha Stewart stayed and still be in the country that you are familiar with and love.  I guess the fact that it is hard decision, really says something about the quality of life in the Soviet Union.

I doubt that prison in the US was ever an option for Martha. My guess is the KGB would never allow her to live and talk to the FBI and they would kill her before they'd let that happen. After all, consider the relative merits of having a very valuable husband and wife spy team versus whatever Martha would be worth to the KGB after she was discovered to be working with the Russians.

[sistermagpie]

29 minutes ago, J-Man said:

I may be a little "slow," but I'm confused about the whole Tuan situation. I assumed he was just a regular KGB/Centre recruit, but it appears that he only interacts with Phil and Liz when they're in disguise and using their fake names. Does he know their names, their situation, where they live, etc., or is there some reason that he's being kept in the dark?

Apparently, according to things said outside the show, he's an agent with Vietnamese intelligence loaned out for this job. So he doesn't know Philip and Elizabeth's primary identities.

[Umbelina]

They don't know him, there is no reason to reveal themselves to anyone until they completely trust them.

[Kathemy]

3 hours ago, scowl said:

The Soviet Union was an OK place to visit, but living there? That's a different story. The luxuries were the ones the party wanted people to have. Marxism demanded a cultured society so of course there were theaters, opera, and ballet. If you weren't interested in these things, well, too bad.

Of course you didn't hear locals complain about the Soviet Union to tourists!  

Tourists and students usually went to Leningrad and Moscow because they were showcase cities -- very well maintained and incredible sights. Soviets felt lucky to live in cities like this and dreaded being transferred anyplace else.

Remember that the Soviet Union was a very rich country in terms of raw production. For example in 1977 they produced one trillion dollars worth of oil.  

My impression was different. Of course I knew that Leningrad and Moscow was model cities where you were lucky to be living, but Martha is in Moscow. But... we had, as I said, a tourist exchange program. The boys of the family I mentioned visited and lived with us for a week, then we did the same. I got to know one of the kids pretty well and he was softspoken but somewhat critical of the corruption of the society, still, he encouraged us to use the black market currency exchange. His impression of Sweden seemed to be he thought it was a very strange country. Not a bad country, but strange. By his standards, people behaved strangely, mixing sexual flamboyancy and/or adventurism with a very withdrawn mindset. 

What struck me about the mindset of the Soviet citizens I met was a certain, vague melancholia. Not at all too different to the way Finns act. Still, they didn't seem "sad". They were people with both feet on the ground. They had clubs, partied hard and drank hard. That's where I learned to drink vodka straight because it just felt silly to mix it with cola - a small bottle of pepsi cost five times the price of a bottle of booze! To them, I think we came across as very reserved.

Anyway, actually having visited there, and twice, I feel a little nuance is needed to all these Soviet horrorshow stories. Were there terrible things happening, oh, most certainly, but your average Joe... well, he got along.

[scowl]

My best friend and pub trivia partner spent eighteen months living in the Soviet Union in the late 70's. She insists that Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, and even Minsk were unlike the rest of the country. Once she got out of those lovely cities which were full of relatively wealthy people, that's when she says half the time she couldn't find basic items like toilet paper and soap (she learned to travel with these items). That's where she saw houses held together by rope because they couldn't get nails. That's where she saw women spending their days in lines and where rumors were more valuable than newspapers. That's where she saw poverty unlike what she has seen in the U.S. 

[Kathemy]

Yeah, but that was sort of my point with the original post. Martha lives in Moscow, a relatively modern metropolis and the capital of the Soviet Union. It's no underdeveloped hellhole. So, I think that comments like how she must have a really hard time getting along seem rather unfounded. Is she happy? Well, of course not, but as someone above me said, she's a fighter, and in a city like Moscow, I truly believe there was happiness to be found if you look in the right places.

[kokapetl]

I saw the episode about Robert's Puerto Rican wife the other day. Martha is lucky to be alive. 

[Kathemy]

As for the situation of the food problem, I found a rather comprehensive analysis from a Western source using Western figures where able. I quote:

Quote

The Food Problem


The weak performance of the Soviet agricultural system, according to Western critics, dooms the Soviet economy to dependence upon foreign imports, while relegating the population to suffer low overall domestic consumption. Despite the massive imports of grain, food shortages are still commonplace (Marrese (1990: 156). Opinion polls show that Soviet consumers believe that not enough meat, vegetables and fruit are available and that, overall, their dietary needs are not met either quantitatively or qualitatively (Laird 1990: 11). The food problem seems to epitomize the weaknesses of the Soviet agricultural system. 

The food problem, President Gorbachev has said, "is the most serious problem facing our nation today, and until we solve it, all of our other problems will remain intractable." As any visitor to the Soviet Union quickly ascertains, food shortages, evidenced by empty shelves and long waiting lines, are a reality of Soviet life. But to infer from these widely publicized phenomena that Soviet citizens are going hungry is simply erroneous. Despite food shortages, hunger has not been, and is not today, a part of the Soviet scene. As Dr. Kenneth Gray, the US government's top expert on Soviet agriculture, said in his testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress "...the food shortages in the USSR are occurring at fairly respectable levels of consumption."

As can be seen from the United Nations data given in Table II, whether it be in terms of daily per capita intake of calories or proteins, Soviet levels of consumption for more than a quarter of a century have been on a par with those of many of the world's affluent nations. During the period 1964-1966, for example, the Soviet per capita daily intake of calories and proteins exceeded those of Sweden, Norway, West Germany and Japan.

The Soviet diet has continued to improve since the mid-sixties. The data in Table III (from 1965 to 1989) shows increased consumption of meat (63%), milk, etc. (45%), eggs (116%), vegetables (32%) and fruits (46%) among others. People have substituted these foods for potatoes (down 31%) and grain products (down 17%) so, in that sense, people have improved the quality of their diets as well as the quantity.

Their failures and weaknesses notwithstanding, the Soviets have engineered an impressive transformation of their diet. Per capita meat consumption in 1988 was at a level slightly below that of Sweden, higher than that of Norway and more than double that of Japan. While seemingly low by US standards, Soviet per capita consumption of meat, fish, and fruit is highly respectable by European standards. This can be seen in Table IV which compares Soviet and British per capita consumption levels.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070314063045/http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html

Does that mean that no people ever "went hungry in the Soviet Union"? Probably not. Does it mean that they could eat whatever they pleased? Obviously not. Problems with government corruption might also mean some of the avaliable data is misleading. Still, this doesn't prove it was an Ethiopia.

This is not apologia, it's an attempt to look at the facts at hand more closely.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Kathemy
ETA

[gwhh]

On 3/25/2017 at 11:32 AM, ahpny said:

Nyet. Absolutely nothing, there isn't even any evidence that merely suggests this. But for the "simultaneous" wheat sale to the USSR and discovery of this "plot," there's no reason to suspect anything. Of course, those sales aren’t really “simultaneous” in the sense that they began about a decade before and continued for years to no detriment to the USSR at all. They did cause supply problems for the US for a time, however.

Historically, we know the US never sold tainted wheat to the USSR. Moreover, it would make no sense for any seller, who wishes to continue those sales, to poison the product. That's just bad for business. And while the Soviets might be somewhat credibly worried about such things, as supposedly sage critics of capitalism, they're supposed understand that US business interests control everything and prioritize making money over all other concerns. As Lenin said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." And damn good rope that would be. This whole story arc really makes no sense.

Today Russia produces more wheat than the US, and is one of the highest producing grain countries in the world. http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-map-countries-wheat-production.html Thus, Philip was right, the USSR had lots of good land and no good reason why it couldn't feed itself.

 

He’s in pretty deep. While it’s unclear how far his father’s influence reaches (perhaps not far enough to keep his brother out of Afghanistan and avoiding being killed?), Oleg seems thoroughly screwed.

Perhaps Stan will go rogue and concoct some type of operation to save him. That’s in character for him. Stan certainly seems like he’d try if he thought such a plan were feasible and had a decent chance of success. Maybe Martha! is the key. She all but ran into Oleg anyway in the suspiciously “well stocked!” Soviet store.

The Soviet elite willing sent there sons to afgananistan.  Because they could be trusted to do the right thing there. To show there communist allies how much they believed in there cause. There was no draft dodging by the upper crust during that war. Just like in the early days of Vietnam. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by gwhh