Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Jenna Pittman
Guest: Maria Fedorova, author of Seeds of Exchange: Soviets, Americans, and Cooperation in Agriculture, 1921–1935 (Northern Illinois University Press, 2025)
Date: October 9, 2025

Seeds of Exchange explores the technical, scientific, and interpersonal exchanges between American and Soviet agricultural experts during the interwar period. In this conversation, Maria Fedorova discusses her origins in food and transnational history, the unique archival work underlying her research, and her book’s central argument: that knowledge exchange—not one-way transfer—defined U.S.-Soviet agricultural cooperation from 1921–1935.

Maria Fedorova’s Path to the Book (02:28 – 04:46)

• Academic Journey: Maria began in Moscow with a history degree, then shifted from American intellectual history (anti-intellectualism) to food history in graduate school due to a personal interest in bread baking.
• Pivot Point: Her advisor encouraged her to write about what she was passionate about—bread—which led to research on Wonder Bread and the U.S. baking industry during WWI.
• Discovery of Her Topic: Leveraged her Russian language skills to investigate American aid to Soviet Russia post-WWI and began to question narratives that U.S. food aid was a one-sided event.

“At that moment I really was into bread baking … my first foray into agricultural and food history was about the history of Wonder Bread.”
—Maria Fedorova [03:22]

Existing Scholarship and Archival Adventures (06:26 – 12:12)

• Limited Historiography: There’s a considerable gap regarding U.S.-Soviet technical agricultural exchange in the interwar period, both in agriculture and in broader studies of knowledge transfer under socialism.
• Interdisciplinary Influence: Fedorova built on the methodology of knowledge circulation and transnational history, connecting food, hunger studies, and science/technology history.
  • Noted recent works: David Moon’s The American Steppe, Erin Hale Doral’s Corn Crusade.
• Archival Process:
  • Worked in American, Russian, and British archives, focusing on following the paper trails of individual experts across the Midwest.
  • Memorable Anecdote: While researching at the Hoover Institute, she found a literal piece of 1918 bread mailed to Herbert Hoover during rationing efforts.

“I actually found a piece of bread in one of the folders, in an envelope which was addressed to Herbert Hoover.”
—Maria Fedorova [11:13]

Bringing in Women and Underrepresented Voices (12:48 – 15:17)

• Challenge: The core archival voices were mainly white, male scientists and experts.
• Approach: Traced the involvement of women as supportive figures—wives showing Soviet peasants how to use tractors, female journalists like Anna Louis Strong, and accounts from children who lived on Soviet-American agricultural projects.
• Visualization: Photographs and memoirs supplement gaps where women’s own voices were missing in the official record.

Exchange versus Transfer: Conceptual Foundations (16:31 – 20:15)

• Critique of "Transfer": The term implies hierarchy and a one-way process (“sender/recipient”), which did not align with the bidirectional reality she found.
• Why "Exchange":
  • Multidirectional movement of ideas and technology.
  • No strict hierarchy—Soviets and Americans mutually learned, sometimes resisted, sometimes undermined each other.
  • Exchange is not always equal or tangible; it’s more about transformation of ideas and practices.

“For me, transfer implied a one directional movement of ideas … and I was not satisfied with it because I saw that this was a multi-directional transfer, if we want to use this word.”
—Maria Fedorova [17:08]

Contested Ideologies & Diplomacy (21:36 – 24:58)

• Shared Challenges: Despite ideological conflict, both countries saw feeding their populations as crucial after WWI. There was a temporary convergence in approaches to agriculture.
• Decline in Collaboration:
  • Soviet experts initially welcomed travel and knowledge exchange.
  • Political climate shifted: post-First Five Year Plan, growing anti-communism (US) and increasing suspicion of "bourgeois" (pre-revolutionary) experts (USSR).
  • By the 1930s, professional connections became riskier and less frequent.

Memorable Moments & Anecdotes

Montana Hostility:

• A Montana farmer refused to meet a Soviet delegation, leaving his farm to avoid contact, yet the Soviets toured it regardless. [26:25–26:43]

World War I as a Turning Point in Global Agriculture (27:33 – 31:18)

• Transformation: WWI spurred countries to rethink food production, with agencies like Hoover’s Food Administration organizing massive aid.
• Ideological Framing: Humanitarian food aid carried ideological purposes—to curtail the spread of communism by demonstrating capitalism’s benevolence.
• Birth of International Agricultural Cooperation: For the first time, major agricultural experts from across the world met at the Paris Peace Conference, launching journals and transnational dialogues.

“By providing food, you prevent the spread of communism. So ... who and how will feed the world after the war became paramount for everyone.”
—Maria Fedorova [28:48]

The Central Role of Montana in U.S.-Soviet Exchange (31:52 – 36:42)

• Why Montana?
  • Eastern Montana’s climate and soils resembled Russia’s Volga region, making it ideal for experimentation.
  • Expert Emmet Wilson from Montana State College was hired by Soviets to advise on a major farm project near Rostov.
  • Wilson’s travels across the USSR—including the Trans-Siberian Railroad—led to high demand for his “insider” views upon return.
• Notable Quote:
  • After returning, Wilson was so overwhelmed by requests to talk about the Soviets, a colleague joked about making a silent film just to answer people’s queries. [36:18]

The End of the Cooperation Era (36:42 – 39:39)

• Collapse, Not Catastrophe:
  • Political and intellectual rifts—U.S. anti-communism, Soviet turn to more national and collectivized agriculture—gradually eroded exchanges by the mid-1930s.
  • The Great Depression was seen by Soviets as proof the American system didn’t work, prompting them to distance themselves.
• Long Unwinding:
  • There was no sudden cutoff; exchanges faded rather than ceased abruptly.

Broader Transnational & Ideological Implications (40:42 – 44:44)

• Beyond Ideological Rivalry: Looking beyond diplomatic narratives to the working scientists and experts reveals productive, creative cooperation—even among “enemies.”
• The Interwar Legacy: This period prefigured the Green Revolution’s focus on scale, technology, and internationalization.
• Food Insecurity as Central Theme: The ongoing global struggle to feed populations effectively united experts, regardless of politics.

“The First World War showed that those countries that could manage their food production distribution effectively, they won the war, and those who couldn't, they just fell.”
—Maria Fedorova [44:44]

Closing: Fedorova’s Next Project (45:20 – 48:29)

• New Direction: Exploring the history of horticulture and “cold climate” agriculture in extreme northern regions (northern U.S., Canada, Scandinavia, northern Russia).
• Personal Inspiration & Climate Change: Directly inspired by correspondence with a Minnesota farmer; ties to global seed technologies, plant genetics, and the environmental challenges of today.

“Yeah, for now. The project is called Winter is Coming. Hello, Game of Thrones.”
—Maria Fedorova [48:15]

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “At that moment I really was into bread baking ... my first foray into agricultural and food history was about the history of Wonder Bread.”
  —Maria Fedorova [03:22]

• “I actually found a piece of bread in one of the folders, in an envelope which was addressed to Herbert Hoover.”
  —Maria Fedorova [11:13]

• “For me, transfer implied a one directional movement of ideas ... and I was not satisfied with it because I saw that this was a multi-directional transfer, if we want to use this word.”
  —Maria Fedorova [17:08]

• “By providing food, you prevent the spread of communism. So ... who and how will feed the world after the war became paramount for everyone.”
  —Maria Fedorova [28:48]

• “The First World War showed that those countries that could manage their food production distribution effectively, they won the war, and those who couldn't, they just fell.”
  —Maria Fedorova [44:44]

Takeaways

• The U.S.-Soviet agricultural relationship in the interwar years was neither one-sided nor strictly ideological, but an evolving, mutually influential exchange shaped by pressing shared challenges.
• This “hidden history” complicates traditional Cold War-era narratives, showing transnational cooperation and knowledge sharing at a time of growing international rift.
• Food insecurity, technological experimentation, and the pragmatics of feeding nations sat at the heart of both transnational politics and the lived experiences of agricultural experts.
• Archival research in this area is still developing, offering rich ground for further studies—especially around underrepresented voices, environmental history, and the global movement of seeds and ideas.