156 Chapter 4
In theory, if not in practice, robust cultural programming distinguished
the purposeful Soviet vacation from the allegedly idle pastimes of bourgeois
travelers in the West. But Soviet citizens also deserved their moments of qui-
et and repose, argued offi cials, and they were entitled to enjoy these amid
optimal conditions for the mending of their human organisms. As the kurort
doctor Plastinina noted, every aspect of the resort stay contributed to the
successful restoration of the patient/vacationer’s health. Comfort, quiet, and
coziness could be just as important as mineral water and sunlight in assur-
ing proper outcomes. Starting in 1950, the provision of these amenities re-
ceived new scientifi c affi rmation in the name of the physiologist Ivan Pavlov,
whose teachings had reemerged as the authoritative approach to psychologi-
cal conditioning. As the director of the Tuapse rest home reminded offi cials
in 1952, citing Pavlov, “It is not the water itself [of the Caucasus Mineral
Waters] that provides the cure, but the opportunity to distract the patient
from the usual way of life, from their cares and worries.” Translated into the
workings of sanatoria and resorts, this “Pavlov perspective” required quiet,
pleasing meal service, sound sleep, and tasteful material surroundings. The
all-union review of 1950 had emphasized precisely the qualities of comfort
and beauty, and vacationers praised these features when they were present
and complained when they were not.^71
The celebration of postwar pleasure centered above all on the service
of food. Pavlov principles dictated that meals were more than an opportu-
nity for caloric intake; presentation and ambiance possessed therapeutic
properties in their own right. For many vacationers, mealtimes symbol-
ized the special care and attention that they lacked at home and thus
sought in their prized time away. In their travels along their routes, tour-
ists regularly exchanged information on food—“here it is better, there it
is worse.” A group on a Crimean itinerary wrote in 1950, “The best base
for food, culture, and excursions was Bakhchisarai. This is a real tourist
camp!”^72 Sedentary vacationers had little choice or basis for comparison,
but they also conveyed their dissatisfaction with the variety and quality
of the food served in the dining rooms of their sanatoria and rest homes.
When the food was “varied and tasty,” as in the comments at the Elec-
trical Industry’s rest home in 1953, vacationers singled out the chef for
special praise.^73- Loren Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York, 1974), 374–
375; GARF, f. 9493, op. 3, d. 1861 (report of a trade union kurort department,1952), l. 76;
d. 141, ll. 13–15, 18, 37, 167, 219–221, 240; TsGAMO, f. 7223, op. 1, d. 920, l. 22; GAGS, f.
214, op. 1, d. 72, l. 34; f. 178, op. 1, d. 26, l. 54; d. 9; GARF, f. 9493, op. 3, d. 1748; d. 141; f.
9520, op. 1, d.167. - GARF, f. 9493, op. 3, d. 99 (conference on sanatorium food services, November 1950),
l. 127; f. 9520, op. 1, d. 165, l. 14; d. 54 (tourist base comment books, 1947), l. 115; d. 35
(tourist base comment books, 1946), l. 67; d. 167, ll. 58–59. - TsGAMO, f. 7223, op. 1, d. 295 (auxiliary farm reports, April 1947), l. 3; d. 576, ll. 69,
119; d. 949, ll. 15–16, 89; GARF, f. 9493, op. 3, d. 1660, l. 89; d. 1903 (reports on aid to rest
homes and sanatoria, 1953), ll. 6, 38–39, 46, 71, 147; d. 1902, ll. 4–14.