Abstract How did World War II affect the nature and resilience of Soviet institutions and authority, especially in the extreme case of the Blockade of Leningrad? During the Blockade, Leningraders acted with great agency by engaging in the shadow trade of food and shadow talk for information and community in order to survive. One case of shadow talk included sending letters to Smolny with requests, claims, protests, and advice. In these letters, Leningraders employed language that was relatively more straightforward and pragmatic than language used before the war. They used several rhetorical strategies to describe the dire straits that they faced, the sources of that suffering with potential solutions, and the perceived injustices and oversights—all of which were potentially uncomfortable truths for the authorities. In acting with more agency when confronting Smolny, Leningraders also staked claims to being junior partners in governance and stressed that Soviet power should be used to support a rudimentary moral economy. By engaging Smolny in this more proactive manner, Leningraders alerted the authorities to individual needs and broader systemic issues, and they positioned themselves as individuals with dignity invested in Soviet power rather than as subjects of it. This strengthening of relations between Leningraders and Soviet institutions and authorities contributed to the latter’s resilience and legitimacy, reduced the risks of institutional decay, and encouraged a more pragmatic governance.
Hass et al. (2026) studied this question.