You Need to Know About Eleanor and Lyudmila

You Need to Know About Eleanor and Lyudmila

The First Lady and Soviet Sniper

It's 1942 and Lyudmila Pavlichenko, at the age of 25, was the most successful and feared sniper in history. She had been wounded in battle four times and had 309 confirmed kills. Say what you want about the Soviet Union (and believe me I know that there's a lot to say here and a lot of that bad) they did have an army made up of men and women and that allowed Pavlichenko to go as far as she did in the Soviet army.

She was the first Soviet citizen to be welcomed in the White House when she traveled to America to stir up some American support. Stalin wanted the Western Allies to invade and force the German troops to divide their forces and relieve some of the pressure on the Soviet troops.

After hearing Pavlichenko, Elanor Roosevelt, first lady to President Franklin Roosevelt, decided to help her out and offered to go on a tour with the female sniper. Going town to town and get the American people to hear Paclichenko's story for themselves. Maybe then the American people will support going to war against the Germans?

Pavlichenko a battle-tested soldier was no doubt further tested by the questions the American press had to offer her. Questions such as: Can women wear makeup on the front lines of battle? To which she answered, “There is no rule against it, but who has time to think of her shiny nose when a battle is going on?”

The New York Times called her the "Girl Sniper" (Because why call a decorated war hero a woman right?) It was reported that she didn't wear any blush or makeup of any kind and that “there isn’t much style to her olive-green uniform.” I'm not kidding you, that was their takeaway from hearing Pavlichenko and her translator talk.

When reporters told her that her uniform skirt was too long and that it made her look fat, she told them: "It has been covered with blood in battle. It is plain to see that with American women what is important is whether they wear silk underwear under their uniforms. What the uniform stands for, they have yet to learn.”

It was only when she started telling her own stories, ones from her childhood that people began to listen. She made her point clear, the German invasion of Russia had brought devastation to her homeland. She also made it clear that women were not only capable, they were essential to the fight.

However, she was still getting dumb questions about nail polish and if she curls her hair. That is, until she got to Chicago. Eleanor Roosevelt gave her plenty of pep talks telling her to not pay attention to the stupid questions and clearly, Pavlichenko listened.

While in Chicago she stood in front of a large crowd of reporters and said “Gentlemen, I am 25 years old and I have killed 309 fascist occupants by now. Don’t you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?”

The American did eventually join the war and together Roosevelt and Pavlichenko saved thousands of lives.

Fifteen years later, in 1957, Eleanor Roosevelt was touring Moscow and because of the Cold War, she had a restricted schedule and a Soviet minder. Roosevelt persisted until her wish was granted and she was permitted to see her old friend Pavlichenko.

The three, Pavlichenko, Roosevelt, and the Soviet minder chat formally in Paclichenko's small two bedroom apartment. That is until Pavlichenko makes up an excuse to leave. When Eleanor and Lyudmila find themselves alone in Lyudmila's bedroom the former sniper throws her arms around Eleanor half laughing and half crying proclaiming how happy she was to see her old friend.

The two historic women stood in Lyudmila's bedroom and recounted their travels and the people they had met while traveling accross America.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.


Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

We're All Thinking It, I'm Saying It: Too Many People Are Running For President

I'm all for options, but man, do we really need 24? I mean, I can barely pick a flavor of ice cream at Baskin Robbins let alone a potential President.


There are, currently, 23 Democrats running for President. On the Republican side, there's, of course, Trump, but only one other candidate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Democrats have a whole range of people running, from senators to congressmen, a former vice-president, and even a spiritual advisor. We can now say that there are DOZENS of people running for President in 2020.

Joe Biden has been leading the pack for quite some time now. He was even leading polls before he announced his campaign. Although he is the frontrunner, there really is no big favorite to win the nomination. Biden has been hovering around the mid-30s in most polls, with Bernie Sanders coming in second. Other minor candidates in the hunt are Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.

After the surprising defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democrats have become electrified and have a mission to take back the White House after winning back the House of Representatives in 2018. There are so many people running in 2020, it seems that it will be hard to focus on who is saying what and why someone believes in something, but in the end, there can only be one candidate. This is the most diverse group of candidates ever, several women are running, people of color, the first out gay candidate, and several more.

There could be a problem when it comes to debate time. I mean, the first debate is next month. Having around 20-plus people on stage at the same time, debating each other kinda sounds like a nightmare. How can someone get their point across in the right amount of time when someone else is going to cut them off? Debates are usually around an hour and a half. So, if you divide it up, each candidate would get just under five minutes to speak. That would be in a perfect world of course.

Democrats seriously believe that they can beat Trump in 2020. They say they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and have the guts and the momentum to storm back into the White House. By July of next year, there will be only one candidate left. Will they be able to reconcile the divide during the primaries? We will see. It will surely be a fun election cycle, so make sure to have your popcorn ready and your ballot at hand to pick your favorite candidate, no matter what party you lean towards.

Related Content

Facebook Comments