2008 Woodie Awards
Soviet scholar discusses Cold War
Brandon Gay
Issue date: 10/30/07 Section: Campus
Kate Brown kicked off Miami University's Young Researchers Conference Thursday with her lecture on secret plutonium cities of the Cold War.
Hailing from the University of Maryland where she is currently an assistant professor of history, Brown's speech was the first of several in a three-day international conference hosted by the Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies.
A new topic is chosen every two years, according to Lynn Stevens, program coordinator for the Havighurst Center. This year's conference went from Oct. 25-27.
In her speech, Brown told the tale of two cities that sprung up during the Cold War to meet the American and Russian demands for more plutonium for nuclear weapons.
The first of the two plutonium towns Brown discussed was Richland, Wash. A small farm town in the middle of nowhere, the U.S. government bought the town out in the early 1940s before ultimately converting it into an "Atomic Energy Community"-a secret town made up of select nuclear scientists and plant workers whose only goal was to continuously produce plutonium.
The other town was a top secret Soviet facility located 40 miles outside the Russian town of Chelyabinsk (aptly codenamed Chlyabinsk-40), where the Russian government set up their own version of an Atomic Energy Community in order to keep up with the plutonium production of the United States.
"If not for Richland, Chelyabinsk-40 would not have been created, and vice versa," Brown said. "The future of the two towns depended on each other."
Brown explained that that both towns were incredibly secretive and selective.
"No one could live in Richland without political or job credentials," she said.
Chelyabinsk-40 was similar, with residents having to sign documents swearing themselves secrecy about the town's very existence.
What really made both cities interesting, Brown said, was the fact that every single element of each town was lavishly funded by their respective governments, who poured money into their Cold War programs involving nuclear weapons.
According to Brown, both governments essentially created fully paid for, isolated, middle class suburban utopias for their nuclear workers-essentially turning both towns into mini-socialist states until the end of the Cold War.
Brown's speech was only the first of the Miami Young Researchers Conference, which brought together 18 scholars from across the nation to discuss their respective research on a similar topic. Their theme this year was "Dream Factory of Communism: Culture, Practices and the Memory of the Cold War."
"I thought her speech was great," said Steve Norris, assistant professor of history and director of film studies. "It was interesting because the Cold War was about two very different cultures ... but both (the U.S. and Russia) produced these cities that were almost exactly the same."
Hailing from the University of Maryland where she is currently an assistant professor of history, Brown's speech was the first of several in a three-day international conference hosted by the Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies.
A new topic is chosen every two years, according to Lynn Stevens, program coordinator for the Havighurst Center. This year's conference went from Oct. 25-27.
In her speech, Brown told the tale of two cities that sprung up during the Cold War to meet the American and Russian demands for more plutonium for nuclear weapons.
The first of the two plutonium towns Brown discussed was Richland, Wash. A small farm town in the middle of nowhere, the U.S. government bought the town out in the early 1940s before ultimately converting it into an "Atomic Energy Community"-a secret town made up of select nuclear scientists and plant workers whose only goal was to continuously produce plutonium.
The other town was a top secret Soviet facility located 40 miles outside the Russian town of Chelyabinsk (aptly codenamed Chlyabinsk-40), where the Russian government set up their own version of an Atomic Energy Community in order to keep up with the plutonium production of the United States.
"If not for Richland, Chelyabinsk-40 would not have been created, and vice versa," Brown said. "The future of the two towns depended on each other."
Brown explained that that both towns were incredibly secretive and selective.
"No one could live in Richland without political or job credentials," she said.
Chelyabinsk-40 was similar, with residents having to sign documents swearing themselves secrecy about the town's very existence.
What really made both cities interesting, Brown said, was the fact that every single element of each town was lavishly funded by their respective governments, who poured money into their Cold War programs involving nuclear weapons.
According to Brown, both governments essentially created fully paid for, isolated, middle class suburban utopias for their nuclear workers-essentially turning both towns into mini-socialist states until the end of the Cold War.
Brown's speech was only the first of the Miami Young Researchers Conference, which brought together 18 scholars from across the nation to discuss their respective research on a similar topic. Their theme this year was "Dream Factory of Communism: Culture, Practices and the Memory of the Cold War."
"I thought her speech was great," said Steve Norris, assistant professor of history and director of film studies. "It was interesting because the Cold War was about two very different cultures ... but both (the U.S. and Russia) produced these cities that were almost exactly the same."
Be the first to comment on this story