Pan-Slavism and World War II Author(s): Hans Kohn Reviewed work(s): Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1952), pp. 699-722 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1952279 . Accessed: 07/01/2013 14:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II HANS KOHN College of the City of New York In spite oflaterclaimsthat it had been theleader ofthe anti-fascistcamp and ofthe Slav worldfromthe beginningofthesecondWorldWar,the Soviet Union followed a strictlyRussian policy, neither anti-fascistnor Pan-Slav, from August, 1939, to June, 1941. This policy clearly foreshadoweda nationalist revival of the language and aspirationsthat had been most characteristicof Old Russia but wereassumed to have been definitely buriedin the ten Novem1917 which ber days of shookthe world.Duringthesetwoyearsnotthe slightest under German occupation was sympathyfor the Czechs and Poles suffering expressed. Indeed, although Leninist communismduringWorld War I had conducteda violentdefeatistpropaganda compaignin bothwarringcamps,the subversivecommunistpropaganda that was resumedin 1939 was directedonly against the democratic nations. "Moreover, officially,even ostentatiously, help was grantedto the camp of fascismso that, from1939 to 1941, the Soviet Union could be considereda non-belligerent partneroftheAxis. Fromthepolicy of benevolent neutralitytowards the Axis the Soviet Union was removed against its will. Circumstancesmade it an ally of the democracies.This change was performed reluctantly,onlybecause no otherchoicewas left."' The communistleadershipwas convincedeven as late as May, 1941, that its policy of neutralitywould safeguardRussia's peace,2but in January,1945, the same leadershipboasted of having "always" correctlyforeseenthe course of events,as well as of being alone able to recognizehow and whitherevents must develop in the future.3In any event,in his reportto the Moscow Soviet on November 6, 1941, Stalin rightlyaccused the German invaders of having "perfidiously attacked our peace-lovingcountry."4Clearlyagainst its foresight and will, the Soviet leadershipwas forcedto enter,not a war forproletarian revolution,social justice, or democracy,but a "war of national liberation" a 1 N. S. Timasheff, "Four Phases of Russian Internationalism,"Thought, Vol. 20, p. 47 (March, 1945). In 1927, at the FifteenthCongressof the Russian CommunistParty, Stalin declared:"The revolutionin USSR is onlypart of the worldrevolution,its beginningand the base forits successfuladvance." 2 Bolshevik, No. 10, pp. 1-2 (May, 1941). -3 "Our Party is theoretically equipped and unitedas no otherpartyon earthbecause in its activityit leans on the Marxist-Leninist theoryand mastersthe knowledgeof the laws ofsocial development.The dutyofthe Partyand Sovietpersonnel. . . is unceasingly to studythe theoryof Marx and Lenin,remembering that it gives the Party the ability to orientitselfin any circumstances, to foreseethe courseof events,to understandthe innerconnectionsof currentdevelopments,and to recognizenot only how and whether eventsare now developing,but also how and whethertheymust developin the future" (Bolshevik,No. 1, p. 10, Jan., 1945). 4 Stalin, 0 velikoiotechestvennoi voineSovetskogo Soyuza [On theGreatPatrioticWar of theSovietUnion],5th ed. (Moscow, 1946), p. 17. See also, fromhis radioaddressofJuly3, 1941: "Germanysuddenlyand treacherouslyviolated the non-aggression pact of 1939" (p. 10). 699 This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 700 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW "great patrioticwar," the title previouslygiven by the Russians to the war of 1812. In his reportto the Moscow Soviet, Stalin accordinglyused words not heard officiallysince the "Great October Socialist Revolution," the twentyfourthanniversaryof which he was celebrating.Hitler, he said, was out to "exterminatethe Slav peoples, the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians,and Byelo-Russians."The Nazis had the audacity "to call for the annihilationofthegreatRussian nation,the nationofPlekhanovand Lenin, Pushkinand Tolstoi, Glinka and Tschaikovsky, Belinskyand Chernyshevsky, Gorkyand Chekhov,Sechenov and Pavlov, Repin and Surikov,Suvorov and Kutuzov." And in his address to the Red ArmyParade the next day, Stalin called upon Soviet soldiersto let themselvesbe inspiredin this war by "the manly images of our great ancestors-Alexander Nevsky, Dmitri Donskoi, Kuzma Minin, Dmitri Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov." The feudal saints of the Orthodox Church and the generals servingtsarist reaction,all ofthemexclusivelyRussian, werethus proclaimedthe ancestorsof the supernationalrevolutionaryRed Army.5 In the war yearsthemselvesthe Russian fatherlandcompletelyovershadowed the Soviet fatherland. Traditional national values were restoredwithoutany referenceeitherto class war or to the revolutionarystruggleand withoutany regardforthe national feelingof the non-RussianSoviet nationalities.To the nationalistheroes and warriorsof the past, everythingwas forgiven.At the (1943), Prince Peter Bagration, end of S. Golubov's novel GeneralJBagration the general mortallywounded in the battle at Borodino, was presentedas kissingthe Emperor'ssignatureon a letterofthanksjust broughtto him and as dying with the words, "Soul and body alike and my blood to the last drop, I give all to myfatherlandand to his Majesty's service."' Field Marshal Count Ibid., pp. 26-28, 36. In his Order of the Day as National Commissar for Defense on February 23, 1942, Stalin rightly emphasized that the policy of racial equality of the USSR was a factor of strength in comparison to Hitler's racial policy (ibid., p. 42). 6 In November, 1941, the popular young poet Konstantin Simonov (see the article on him by Elena Mikhailova in Soviet Literature, No. 8, pp. 46-49, Aug., 1946) wrote in a famous poem to his friend Alexei Surkov: "I am proud of this dearest of countries, this dear sad country that gave me my birth. I am proud that in Russia my life is to finish, that the mother that bore me was Russian of race, that when seeing me off,in the old Russian manner, she locked me three times in her loving embrace." And Surkov replied: "In the midst of night and darkness we have carefullyborne before us the inextinguishable flame of faith in our Russian, our native folk." A fervent Russian patriotism became the theme of all the poems, short stories, novels, and plays, glorifyingthe "Holy Homeland" (svyashchennayarodina). The general slogan was "za rodinu, za Stalina"-"for fatherland and Stalin." 7 See Michael Karpovich, "Soviet Historical Novel," Russian Review, Vol. 5, pp. 5363 (Spring, 1946). This novel was translated into English by J. Fineberg under the title of No Easy Victories (London, 1945). A number of other Russian war novels and biographies about historical heroes are available in English translations, among them S. SergeevTsensky, Brusilov's Break-Through (London, 1944); S. Borodin, Dmitri Donskoi, trans. E. and C. Paul (London, 1944); Mikhail Bragin, Field Marshal Kutuzov (Moscow, 1944); K. Osipov, Alexander Suvorov; A Biography, trans. E. Bone (London, 1944); and R. Wipper (Robert Yuryevich Vipper), Ivan Grozny,trans. J. Fineberg (Moscow, 1947). In the last, This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR It 701 AlexanderVasilyevichSuvorov (1729-1800), who cruellysubdued,on theTsar's behalf,the peasant rebellionof Pugachev and thelast resistanceoffreePoland, became the greatesthero of the communistyouth; even General Alexei Brussilov, who was appointed in May, 1917, commander-in-chief of the Russian Armywhichthe Bolsheviksdid everythingat the timeto undermine,was honoredby a greatwar noveland by the "deep respect"whichthe Red Armypaper, Krasnaya zvesda,expressed on September3, 1943, for "the man who in the stern years of the last war upheld with dignitythe honor and glory of the Russian Army." The Russian nationalismset loose by events did not confineitselfto a defensivepatriotism,the chauvinismofwhichmightbe explainedby the military catastrophefacingthe country.It immediatelyasserteditselfin an aggressive way. The annexationofeasternPoland, ofBessarabia, and ofpart ofBukovina could be "justified"by nationalism,by the goal of unitingall Ukrainiansand Byelo-Russians under the Soviet flag (though this unificationdeprived the Soviet Ukrainiansofthat considerationwhichtheyhad receivedfromMoscow when the Soviet Ukraine was yet to attract the "brothersby race" living in Poland and Rumania). No similarjustificationexistedforthe annexationofthe Baltic Republics, but, quite naturally,many Russian non-Bolsheviknationalists greetedthis step. People who had pleaded forthe independenceof the Magyars or the Irish accepted the controlby Moscow of Transcaucasia, of the Baltic coast, and of the Ukraine,as justifiedby Russian needs of security and economy.8Understandably,meanwhilethe "Internationale"was abolished as the national anthemof the Soviet Union; its expansivepromise"the Internationale unites the human race," did notringtrue in an atmospheresatiated with gloryto Velikaya Rus, "the great Russia," as distinct fromthe rest of mankind.And the daringchallengeto the self-relianceofthe masses, "Nobody will bringus liberation,neithera Tsar, nor a God, nor a hero," became unacceptable in the era of VelikyStalin, "the great Stalin"-Tsar, God, and hero to his people and, what no tsar had claimed,ofall "progressive"mankind. In his electionspeech broadcast fromMoscow on February 9, 1946, Stalin praisedthe "Soviet multinationalstate system"as havingsurvivedsuccessfully the test of the war, because it was built on foundationspromotingthe-feeling of friendshipand fraternalcollaborationbetween the various peoples of the USSR. But in June,1941,the Soviet governmenthad thoughtitselfobligedto apply against one of these peoples a "barbarous measure" which the tsarist governmenthad long hesitated to decide upon. The victimswere those Germans who, in the later eighteenthcentury,had settled along the lowerVolga and developeda prosperouscommunitythere.In 1916,two yearsafterthe outa historian of repute tried to save Ivan's reputation as a reformerand "progressive" military strategist against moralistic "liberal" considerations. The liberal historians, according to Wipper, translated "the significant, and on the lips of Russians extremely majestic, surname 'Grozny' by the vulgar words. . . 'Ivan the Terrible' " (pp. 233-234). 8 The Russian nationalist point of view was expressed, for example, in Walter Kolarz, Stalin and Eternal Russia (London, 1944), pp. 48 if. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 702 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW break of World War I, the Russian governmenthad made up its mind to remove temporarilythe Volga Germans, but the March Revolution had intervened beforethe plan could be carriedout. After1917 Lenin singledout these same Volga Germansforespeciallyfavorabletreatment.Their Oblast,the first autonomousunit created by the communistgovernment(in July,1918), was raised in 1924 to the status of an autonomousrepublicof the RSFSR. Their city of Pokrovskwas renamedEngels and became the capital of the republic, while theirotherlarge town, Katherinenstadt,named afterCatherineII who settled the Germans there in 1764, was rebaptized Marxstadt.9However, in June, 1941, Stalin apparently became convinced that the two decades of Sovietlifeand educationwhichsupposedlyhad promotedthefraternal solidarity of peoples had been a failure.While Hitler'sarmieswerestillfaraway in western Russia, Stalin ordered,withoutany proofof collectivetreasonor any trial, the permanentevictionand dispersionof the Volga Germans.Their autonomy provedto be nothingbut a scrapofpaper. The regionwas clearedofall tracesof German cultureand ruthlesslyRussified,with the cities unprotectedeven by the names of Marx and Engels. Furthermore, this policy of wholesaledestruction of culturaland politicalentityby the Bolsheviststhemselveswas not carriedthroughon a class basis, but purelyon a racial one. was the case of fourMohammedan peoples in the Only somewhatdifferent Soviet Union. On December 17, 1917,a proclamationofthe new Soviet governmentsignedby Lenin and Stalin was addressedto the Moslems of Russia and the East: "The rule of the robbersand enslaversof the peoples of the earth is about to end-. . . A new worldis being born,a worldof workersand freemen ... Moslems of Russia, Tatars of the Volga and the Crimea, Kirgiz and Sarts ofSiberia and Turkestan . .. Chechensand mountaineersofthe Caucasus-all those whose mosques and chapels have been destroyed,whose beliefsand customs have been trampledunder foot by the Tsars and oppressorsof Russia. Henceforthyour beliefsand customs,your national and culturalinstitutions, are freeand inviolable. Build your national lifefreelyand unhindered."But in 1943 and 1944, four of the Mohammedan autonomous Soviet states-the Kalmyk ASSR, the Crimean Tartar ASSR, the Chechen-Ingush,and the Karachayev autonomousregionsin thenorthernCaucasus-were removedcompletelyfromthe map and fromlife,the peoples transportedto unknownregions in northernAsia, theirlanguageseradicated,theircitiesand villages renamed. No tracewas leftofthesehistoriccommunities,and the lands wereresettledby Russians. No reasons were given forany of these nationalistexcesses,but apparently all were based upon the assumptionof collectiveracial "guilt." And as the Mohammedanterritories werein factreachedby the Germanarmies,it can be 9 On the establishment of the autonomy of the Volga Germans, see Rudolf SchilzeMolkau, Die Grundzige des WolgadeutschenStaatswesens im Rahmen der russischen Nationalitdtenpolitik(Munich, 1931), and Manfred Langhans-Ratzeburg, Die Wolgadeutschen, ihr Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht in Vergangenheitund Gegenwart,zugleich ein Beitrrag zum bolschewistischenNationalitatenrecht(Berlin, 1929). This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 703 assumed that parts of the populations did collaboratewiththe Germans. In any case, manySoviet citizensofall nationalitieswentoverto the Germanside; and degradaifHitlerhad followeda less beastlypolicyofhumanextermination tion,the numberoftheelementsdisloyalto Stalinismprobablywouldhave been muchlarger.As it was, Stalin apparentlybecame convincedthat he could count only upon the support of the Great Russians, to whose emotionsthe annexations of the years 1939-1941 had appealed and among whom some began to look upon him as the leader who would bring about both the Pan-Slav and Pan-Asian expansionismof extremeRussian nationalistsand the utopia of universal social justice of Slavophil messianists. Conscious of the debt whichhe owed to the Great Russians, Stalin acknowledgedit publiclyin the toast withwhichhe concludedthe Kremlinbanquet for the Red Armycommanderson May 24, 1945: "I should like to drinkto the healthof ourSovietpeople-and firstof all to the health of the Russian people. I drinkfirstof all to the health of the Russian people because it is the most outstandingnation of all the nationsformingthe Soviet Union.... It has won in thiswar universalrecognitionas the leadingforcein the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.... The confidenceof the Russian people in the Soviet governmentwas the decisive forcewhich ensured the historicvictory over the enemyof mankind-fascism." The historicalsorrowsand triumphsof Stalin's. Afterhe had attackedJapan Russian imperialismbecame now officially in August, 1945-breaking his pact of friendshipand nonaggressionof 1941 with Japan as treacherouslyas Hitler had broken his own with Stalin-he celebratedthe quick victoryin a broadcast fromMoscow on September2, in which he said: "The defeat of Russian troops in 1904 in the period of the Russo-JapaneseWar leftgrave memoriesin the minds of our people. It was a dark stain on our country.Our people trustedand awaited the day when Japan would be routedand the stain wiped out. For fortyyears have we, men ofthe oldergeneration,waitedforthisgeneration,waitedforthisday. And now this day has come." This astonishingdeclaration,describingvictoryin a way whichresembledso closely Mussolini's triumphin wipingout the stain of the battle of Adua fortyyears later in the victoriouswar against Ethiopia, was a completereversalof the officialattitudeof Russian Socialismin 1905-an attitude unalteredin highschool textbookspublishedin 1941,whichdeclaredthat "Lenin and the Bolsheviksworkedforthe defeatof the tsaristgovernmentin this predatoryand shamefulwar, because the defeatfacilitatedthe victoryof the revolutionover tsarism." And in one of his leafletsagainst the RussoJapanese War, Comrade Stalin had written:"Let us wish that this war will become a still greaterdisaster for the tsarist regimethan was the Crimean War.... Then serfdomwas ended. Now, as a consequenceofthis war, we will burythe child of serfdom,the tsaristregimewithit stinkingsecretpolice and gendarmes."'0 10 The first quotation is from Istoriya SSSR, Vol. 3 (for the tenth grade), 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1941), p. 29. The quotation regarding Stalin's attitude is from Lavrentii Pavlovich Beriya, K voprosu ob istorii bolshevistskikh organizatsii v Zakavkazie [Concerningthe This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 704 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW Thus when the Soviet Union after thirtyyears revived Russia's past, it revivedthat past in its mostnationalistand-imperialistmood, whichhad never beforebeen sanctifiedas officialpolicyand had always been resistedby strong liberaland humanitariantrendsof thought.But the new Stalinistnationalism did not shed the worldwideimplicationsand ambitions of Leninism; what emerged was the "universal Russian monarchy" which the Czech historian Palacki had dreaded in 1848, but withthe addition of a new kind of monarch at its head, a man of the masses, a bearer of the social gospel endowed with qualities of "genius" and "omniscience"such as no Russian rulerand no leader of a people had ever claimed. It was only natural that in such an atmosphere the ghostof Pan-Slavism rose again-not the liberalPan-Slavism of the WesternSlavs of 1848,but the Pan-SlavismofMoscow and ofthe Pan-Slav Congress of 1867, a Pan-Slavism whichpreached the liberationof the otherSlavs from alien influencesby the Russian people, a Pan-Slavism whichwas Pan-Russism. The Chairmanof theCommissionon Credentialsof the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet, P. A. Sharia, as reportedby Izvestivaon March Question of the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasiaj, 5th ed. (Moscow, 1939), p. 56. In the new edition of the Istoriya SSSR, published in 1946, the text has been changed and Stalin's speech on September 2, 1945, after the victory over Japan is quoted (Vol. 3, p. 45). The military technology of the tsarist army is blamed for its backwardness: "In Port Arthur there was not even a wireless telegraph, though it had been invented in 1895 by A. S. Popov" (p. 29). The spirit of invincibility under a better government than that of the tsars was expressed in a pamphlet by N. M. Korobkov, Mikhail Kutuzov (Moscow, 1945), written especially for officers:"We are on the road to a new growth of the power of our country. Prepared historically for great feats, our army and our new Stalinist military art surpass everythingthat Russian history has ever known. But we do not forgetour great ancestors, we do not forget the heroic past of our nation. [Their] memory is a faithful guarantee of the great future to which the genius of a leader (genialny vozhd), Generalissimus Stalin, leads the country on new paths" (p. 5). Two official translations into English exist for the text of the pamphlet by Beriya, Stalin's fellow countryman and faithfulfollower: On the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasia, trans. from the 4th Russian ed. (New York, 1939) and trans. from the 7th Russian ed. (Moscow, 1949). Beriya's speech reveals the switch from "socialism" to "nationalism" in Stalin's line and establishes the officiallegend about Stalin's activities in his younger years. Stalin's attitude in 1905 is discussed on pp. 44-46 of the 1939 ed. (pp. 71-73 of the 1949 ed.): "In January 1904 the Russo-Japanese War broke out. The Bolsheviks of Transcaucasia, headed by Comrade Stalin, consistently pursued Lenin's line of 'defeat' for the Tsarist government, constantly urging the workers and peasants to take advantage of the military overthrow of the autocracy. The All-Caucasian Committee of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Bolshevik organization), the Tiflis and Baku Committees of the RSDLP issued a number of leaflets exposing the imperialist predatory character of the Russo-Japanese War on the part of both warring powers and calling for the defeat of Tsarism. One of the leaflets . . . said: 'However much they may call us non-patriots and the enemies at home, let the autocracy . .. remember that the RSDLP represents 99 % of the population of Russia.... Their brothers are being driven into the jaws of death to shed the blood of the sons of the Japanese, a brotherpeople! . . . We want this war to be more lamentable for the Russian autocracy than was the Crimean War. . . . ' Day in and day out the Bolsheviks urged the soldiers to support the revolutionary struggle of the people against Tsarism." This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 705 15, 1946, enlarged on Stalin's statementof the Russian people as the leading force of the Soviet Union: "Every people in the' Soviet Union understands perfectlywellthat the main,decisiverolein the achievementofvictoryoverthe enemy in the Great Patriotic War. . . was played by the great Russian people. For this reason the prestigeof the Russian people is so immeasurably high among the other peoples; forthis reason the peoples of the USSR bear towardit boundlessconfidenceand a feelingoftremendouslove and gratitude." The same love and gratitudewere expected fromthe youngerSlav brothers who had been liberatedby the Russian Army.The new Pan-Slavism,turning away fromthe West and lookingto Moscow, was also justifiedby the unique positionof Russian culture."Naturally our literature,whichreflectsa system much higherthan any bourgeois democratic system,a culture many times higherthan any bourgeoisculture,has the rightto teach othersa new universal morality.Where can you findsuch a people or such a countryas ours?" wrote AndreiAlexandrovichZhdanov in Pravda on September21, 1946,whenhe was probably the second most influentialman in the Soviet Union. On June 27, 1947,Pravda declared: "We may say withconfidencethat the centerofartistic cultureof the worldhas now moved to Moscow. From here mankindreceives the art of the most advanced thought,of greatfeeling,ofhighestmoralityand noteworthyartistry."This highestcultureon earth had, of course,foundits instrumentin the Russian language. "The futurebelongsto the Russian lanKomsomolets assertedon March guage as thelanguage of socialism,"Moskovsky 6, 1949; "the democraticpeoples are learningthe Russian language,the world language of internationalism."Under these circumstances,would not the Slav peoples ofthe West gladlyaccept the Russian cultureand the Russian language, akin to them by blood and traditionand at the same time the most advanced on earth? II Less than two monthsafterthe Germanattack on the Soviet Union a Pan, Slav Committeewas formedin Moscow, and on August 10, 1941,it held its first meetingunderthe chairmanshipofGeneralAlexanderSemyonevichGundorov. Though no officialSoviet leaders participated,the Russian communistintelligentsiawas well representedby such foremostmembersas the authorsNikolai Simenovich Tikhonov (the firstwriterto receive the Order of the Patriotic War, First Class), AlexanderAlexandrovichFadeev, and Alexei Tolstoi, and the composer Dmitri Shostakovich. The Poles were representedby Wanda Wassiliewska, wife of the Ukrainian playwright and communist leader, AlexanderKorneichuk;the Czechs by ZdenbkNejedly,professorofmusicology at Prague Universityand biographerof Smetana and, Masaryk, and by Jan Sverma, a communistwho died fightingin Slovakia in 1945. In his opening words, Tolstoi "rejected the old ideologyof Pan-Slavism" as reactionaryand contraryto the principlesof equality among the nations. "Slavs, let us unite, that each Slavonic nation may be entitled,as the othernations are, to a free, peaceful existence-that the cultureof our nations may flourishwithoutrestraint." The main emphasis of the meetingwas on the fightagainst the This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 706 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW Germanenemy,a call upon all Slavs to establisharmed forcesand to sabotage Much morerepresentativeand morecarefullypreparedwas the enemy'sefforts. the second meetingofthe Slavs in Moscow on April4 and 5, 1942. Shostakovich issued a call to arms: "I am proud to be a Russian, I boast of beinga Slav.... May all the spiritualforces,all the intellectualsof the gloriousfamilyof the Slavonic nations fearlesslyfulfilthe great missionentrustedto them by hisof history tory!" And Tolstoi summedup the revisedSlavophileinterpretation in an articlein Pravda: "We mustrevisethe wholehistoryof the Slav peoples. ... During one thousandyears,our youngblood vitalizeddecrepitByzantium. Thanks to the Slavs, Byzantiumpreservedancientcivilizationand transmitted it to feudalEurope. The Slav peoples,hard-working, loversoflibertyand peace and culture,had as theirneighborson the East nomadic empireswhichalways cherishedthe utopian designof worldconquest,and on the West medievalemperorswhoseimposingcavalcades wereequally vain. The aggressionsfromEast and West broke against the fearlessresistanceof the Slav world. The role of the Slav peoples in the formationof European humanismhas not yet been appreciatedat its true value.... "''i What no previousSlav congresshad attemptedwas now realized,thanksto officialgovernmentsupport.A monthlyperiodicalSlavyane [The Slays],began to appear in Moscow in January,1943; special committeesto workamong Slav youth,Slav scholars,and Slav womenwereformed;Slav scholarshipand publicationswereencouragedin the Soviet Union underthe leadershipof Professor Nikolai Sevastyanovich Derzhavin, who since 1898 had published numerous workson Slav history,especiallyon the Bulgarians,and who was awarded the Order of Lenin in 1945; above all, the Pan-Slav propaganda was carried to Britain, Canada, Latin America, and the United States, appealing as Hitler had done to the racial solidarityof citizens of Slav descent. A congressof Slavonic nations meetingin London on May 25, 1944,underthe chairmanship of R. W. Seton-Watson,was attended mostlyby Slavs living in England in temporaryexile. Of much greaterimportancewas the AmericanSlav Congress whichtook place in Detroit on April25 and 26, 1942. It made use of the wartime enthusiasmfor "our Russian ally" and triedto organizethe ten million Americansof Slav descent immediatelyin supportof the commonAmericanRussian struggleagainst Hitler and permanentlyin support of the Soviet Union and its policy.12 11 A good discussion of the Slav peoples in and after World War II is in Albert Mousset, The World of the Slavs (London, 1950), which is a revised edition of the French original, published in 1946. 12 Testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Judge Blair F. Gunther of the Court of Common Pleas, Pittsburgh, accused the American Slav Congress of being "the most dangerous fifthcolumn operating among our Slav population. Its chief aim is to subvert millions of Slavic Americans operating in our basic industries in order to cripple our national defense apparatus. It gives every evidence of Moscow direction and control." The Congress was listed as a subversive agency by the Attorney General of the United States on September 21, 1948. On June 25, 1949, the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities found that the Congress changed its keynote at the end of World This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 707 The officialrecognitionofthe Russian OrthodoxChurchby Soviet authorities in September,1943, and the elevationof the MetropolitanSergiusof Moscow to the dignityof a patriarchof all Russia made the Church-as it had been among the Pan-Slavs of the second half of the nineteenthcentury-an instrument of Russian imperialpolicy. Patriarch Alexei, who succeeded Sergius in May, 1944, praised Stalin as "a wise leader,placed by the Lord over our great nation." All churcheswere orderedto offerprayers"for the health and wellbeing of the God-sent leader of the peoples of our Christ-lovingnation." As in the nineteenthcentury,Pan-Orthodoxismwas to support Pan-Slavism; Orthodoxchurcheseverywherewere to be united under Moscow's leadership. Patriarch Alexei, at whose coronationthe patriarchsof Alexandria,Antioch, and Georgiaparticipated,visitedthe Near East in 1945 to renewthe ties which had existed in the time of tsarist Russia; Orthodoxchurchesin Europe and America whichhad split away fromthe Moscow patriarchatewere warnedto renter. In the same year Roman Catholicsin Czechoslovakiaheld a conference at Velehradin Moravia, whereSt. Cyriland St. Methodius had workedin the ninthcenturyforthe Christianizationof the Slavs and where the Pan-Slav enthusiasmof the nineteenthcenturyhad led to many demonstrationsof Slav spiritualsolidarity.The keynoteaddressat thisconferencecalled on all Catholic theologiansof Slav descent to join "the general Eastward orientationof the country." The victoriesof the Soviet Union in 1944 and 1945 in the Balkans, in the Danubian Basin, and along the Vistula completelychanged the picture in central-easternEurope. The Russian ArmyenteredKonigsberg,the cradle of the Prussianmonarchy,and Berlin,Budapest, and Vienna; the Kremlinclaimed the legacy of the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns.Though the Soviet Union had not enteredthe war for any purpose of "liberation,"neverthelessit demanded the gratitudeof the Slavs as theirliberator.FromLondon,King Peter of Yugoslavia declared on January 11, 1945, that "fraternalunion with Russia is one of the most deeply-rootedsentimentsof the Slav peoples." With greaterclaritythe new situationwas put forwardby a Bulgarian writer: For one hundred and fiftyyears the Slav idea served the private interests of two parasitic classes, the landowners and the bourgeoisie, i.e., it was exploited to the harm of the Slav peoples themselves. Today for the firsttime in 1300 years, Slavdom lives through a propitious moment which will make its security forever possible. The German danger has disappeared. The governments which fanned hatred among the Slav peoples have been thrown out. Now the Slavs can proceed to build up their society. What should be their program? The Slavs form a racial, linguistic and cultural group with a common character. They constitute a geopolitical and economic bloc which can be an important factor in the preservation of European peace. The Slav nations, in order to liberate themselves from German capitalism, must build up technically perfected national economies which would secure their independence. Their inner structure must be democratic, freedom-lovingand socially just. The Slav nations have to work out a political system for Pan-Slav cooperaWar II "from super-patriotism to outright treason." The Committee charged that the embassies of the USSR and of the Slav states cooperated actively with the American Slav Congress. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 708 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW tion, the principle of which ought to be full equality of small and great nations. The USSR should organize and lead this Slav society.'3 Pan-Slavism was to become the vehicleof a commoncivilization-the civilization of communistRussia, of the Soviet Union, and of its leading people, the greatRussian people. In 1946 the Soviet Union controlledall of Europe east of a line running fromStettin on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea. Behind this linetherewerenot onlyall the Slav peoplesbut,as Danilevskyin 1869and other Pan-Slavs had demanded, the Magyars, Rumanians, and Albanians as well. That Greece and Constantinopledid not live up to Danilevsky's expectations was due not only to the will of resistanceof theirown citizens,but also to the far-sightedstatesmanshipof Winston Churchilland Ernest Bevin. Yet there was no doubt that K6nigsberghad become Kaliningrad; Potsdam was under communistdomination;the two westernSlav nations,Poland and Czechoslovakia, had emergedfromthe war with their territorymuch diminishedand (under communistinspiration)on a purelyracial basis, since they had driven out the Germansand othernational minorities;Moscow claimednow the right -which had fallenin 1919 to the Westerndemocraciesand had been exercised in 1939 by Hitler's Germany-of settlingall territorialand other disputes in the area. In addition,by the annexationof Carpatho-UkrainefromCzechoslovakia, Russia became the immediate neighbor of Czechoslovakia and of Hungary,commandinga strategicfootholdin the Danubian plain south of the Carpathian Mountains and establishingfrontiersthere and along the OderNeisse line which conjuredup, as the fascistdictatorshipshad hoped to do, a racial past many centuriesold. Of all the Slav peoples, only the Poles abroad and the Polish governmentin London raised a passionate protest.As theyhad so oftenin the last two hundredyears,the Polish nationaltraditionsand hopes had to live on in exile. In the homelands,however,the Slav spokesmenstressed the "democratic" and "peace-loving" characterof the Slavs. This was no new melody. The romanticistsamong them had done it since the time of Herder. It had been the constantchant ofthe Slavophiles,and it was not changedsubstantially by being communist-directed. The hope was now held out to all peoples that they might partake in this "democratic" and "peace-loving" as the Slavs did, theirundyinggratitudeand communityiftheywould affirm, indissolubleattachmentto the greatleader ofthe Slav worldand ofprogressive mankind,Soviet Russia underStalin. In this atmospherea Pan-Slav congressmet in Belgrade forfivedays beginningon December 8, 1946. It markedthe thirdgreat congressin the historyof the Pan-Slav idea: the first,in Prague, representedthe Westerndemocratic trendamong the AustrianSlavs of 1848; the second,in Moscow, expressedthe aggressiveRussian nationalismofthe 1860's; the third,in the Yugoslav capital, was the triumphantaffirmation of Moscow's hold over the Slav world. Of all 13 ChristoGandev in Slavyanskobratstvo, sbornik[Slav Brotherhood; A Symposium], Biblioteka Izvori [Sources], No. 2 (Sofia, 1945). This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR 1I 709 its members,at that time the Yugoslavs and theirwartimeleader, the old and trustedcommunistfighterand organizer,Marshal Tito, received the highest consideration,second only to that of Russia's Marshal Stalin; and it was not by accident that Belgrade was chosen as the seat of the Pan-Slav Congress, the centerof the new Pan-Slav movement.(AfterSeptember,1947, Belgrade was also the home of the newlyestablishedCominform[CommunistInformation Bureau] and of its officialmagazine, the firstissue of which appeared there on November 15, 1947.) The programof the Congresscomprisedthree points: the Slav peoples in the world strugglefor peace and democracy; the contributionof the Slav peoples to worldculture;and organizationalproblems of Slav cooperation.For the firsttime in the historyof Pan-Slavism,this program and this Congresswereregardedas an officialand not a privatemanifestation; forthe firsttime,too, the Congresswas worldwide,withSlav delegates fromthe United States, Canada, South America,Australia,and New Zealand or menand women attending-Auslandsslavensimilarto theAuslandsdeutschen, of German descent and loyalty,though citizens of non-Germancountries,of Hitler's time. Interestinglyenough, however,the Slav representativeswere organizednot on a basis ofnationalitybut ofstates. There was a representation fromthe Soviet Union (includingUkrainiansand Byelo-Russians,but without takinginto account the manynon-Slavnationalitiesofthe Soviet Union,which now acted officiallyas a Slav state), Yugoslavia (comprisingSerbs, Croats, Slovenians and Macedonians), Poland, Czechoslovakia (comprisingCzechs and Slovaks), and Bulgaria. The officialstate-conceptdefinitelyreplaced the formerlypredominantnationality-concept. The Congress was opened by Marshal Tito, who was received,according to the officialreports,with a "long-lastingovation."' ("Equally enthusiastic" was the receptionaccorded to Marshal Fedor Ivanovich Tolbukhin,who had commanded the Soviet armies whichvictoriouslyenteredRumania, Bulgaria, Belgrade,and Vienna and thus "liberated" the southernSlavs.) In his opening address Marshal Tito said: "What would have happened if the gloriousRed Armyhad not existed?What would have happened ifthisstate of workersand peasants with Stalin, the man of genius,at its head, had not existed,which stood like a wall against fascistaggressionand whichwith innumerablesacrifices and rivers of blood liberated also our Slav nations in other countries. For these great sacrificeswhich our brothersin the great Soviet Union made, we otherSlavs thank them ... " He finishedhis talk witha three-foldtoast: to Slav solidarity (using the word which the Slovak Pan-Slav poet Kollar had coined in 1837), to "our greatestSlav brother,"the Soviet Union (forgetting that the Soviet Union was not Slav but supraracial), and to its leader of genius, Stalin (a climax of personal adulation unthinkableat the Moscow Pan-Slav Congress of 1867). Marshal Tito was followed by the two main speakers,the Yugoslav Milovan Djilas, who discussedthe struggleofthe Slavs for peace and democracy,and ProfessorBoris D. Grekov of the Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR, who read a long catalogue ofnames as "Slav contributors to world culture." The trite verbosityand the lack of ideas of these papers This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 710 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW distinguishedthe Belgrade Congress fromthe nineteenthcenturyPan-Slav congressesas much as did the harmoniousunanimitymanifestin all discussions and decisions.A Pan-Slav Committeewas elected, on whicheach of the five states was representedby five members.A Yugoslav, Major General Bozhidar Maslaric, became its president;a Russian, a Pole, a Czech and a Bulgarian were elected vice-presidents.Belgrade became the seat of this PanSlav Committee,and the formerPan-Slav Committeein Moscow was reorganized in March, 1947, as the Slav Committeeof the USSR, with Gen. A. S. Gunderov as its chairman,and threevice-presidents, AlexanderA. Veznesensky, rectorof the Universityof Leningrad,AlexanderVladimirovichPalladin, presidentof the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences, and Yakub Kolas, a ByeloRussian poet and vice-presidentof the Byelo-Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1947 the monthlySlavyane,whichso farhad appeared as the organ of the Pan-Slav Committeein Moscow, became the organ of the Slav Committeeof the USSR. The Pan-Slav Congressin Belgrade representedthe crest of the Pan-Slav tide afterWorld War II. Its resolutions,plans, and hopes came to naughtas had those of all the previous congresses-when far-reachingdesignsbroke upon the rocks of reality.One more success,however,was to be registeredby Moscow's Pan-Slavism, interestinglyenough among the Czechs, whose conciliatoryrealismand spiritof politicalmaturitywereunique among the Slavs. Despite this stability,it was onlyin Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech parts of Czechoslovakia,that the communistswere able' to achieve in freeelectionsin Europe-held on May 26, 1946-a vote of40.17 per cent.Wide circlesexpected a recessionof the communistvote in the electionsof May, 1948, and it might have been the fearof such a defeatwhichpromptedthe communistleadership to seize total controlof the countryin February,1948. Czechoslovakia quickly became an integral part of the Moscow-controlledand directed Pan-Slav empire, apparently adjusting fully to the intellectual,moral, and political modelset by the Kremlin.But thissuccess,achievedagainstthe mostWesternized Slavs, was morethan balanced by the event of June28, 1948, whichtook the world by surprisein its revelationof an open and wideningriftbetween Moscow and Belgrade-between Marshal Stalin and Marshal Tito, the two most prominentleaders of the new Pan-Slavism. The Yugoslav defectioncreated in the Slav "familyof nations" a situation similarto that whichhad existedbetween 1830 and 1945 as a resultof the enmityofthe Poles and the Russians. As Poland had done then, Yugoslavia now became the "Judas" and "traitor"to the Slav cause and a "tool" of "Western scheming"against the Slav worldwhichthe Russians, then as now, magnanimouslyidentifiedwith Moscow. The similarity,even to the very words used in the diatribesby Katkov and his generationand those now used by Stalin's spokesmen,was astonishing.But while the Polish communistsacknowledged that it was only thanks to Moscow that Poland could end the "feudal" age, and that Poland's liberationfromGermanoccupationwas due onlyto the Red Army-forgettingthat it was Soviet Russia's cooperationin 1939 whichfacili- This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 711 tated Poland's subjugationby Hitler-the Serbs could pointto a longtradition ofpeasant proprietorship and to theircourageousfight,independentofRussian help, waged against Turks and Germans for independence.The communist leadersin Belgrade refusedto admit that theircountryowed its liberationand its new orderof "social justice" only,or primarily,to Russia's help and guidance. They denied the thesis propagated fromMoscow that the Slav peoples could not preservetheirindependenceexcept under Russia's protection.They did not wish to subordinatethe economic modernizationof their countryto the needs of "the motherland"ofthe Slavs and ofthe socialistworldrevolution. Furthermore,Tito's defectionhad repercussionsin the Pan-Slav Congressin the UnitedStates; some ofits mostactive leaders,likeLouis Adamic,sided with the dissidentcommunists.The growinghostilityof the Kremlinto the democracies had made the Americanpeople more aware of the threat to the West impliedin the theoryand actions emanatingfromMoscow, the centerof the now intimately-fused movementsof Pan-Slavism and worldcommunism,with the resultthat the AmericanPan-Slav Congressceased most of its activities. Altogether,the period of Pan-Slavism in its third,communist,Pan-Russian formcame to its end. But even in its heyday it had been unable to solve, in spite of all totalitarianpressureand conformity, the old problems disputed amongthe Slav peoples: the controlof Teschen contestedby Czechs and Poles, the allegiance of Macedonia to Yugoslavia or Bulgaria, and the desire of the Ukrainianpeople forindependencefromthe Great-Russians. III The Pan-Slavism ofthe war years,promisingthe equality ofall Slav peoples, was openlyreplaced after1947 by a Pan-RussismwhichimposedRussian predominanceand leadershipon the Slav peoples first,but also on Magyars and Rumanians, on Uzbeks and Caucasians. In fact, the new Soviet patriotism hardly distinguishedbetween "Russian" and "Soviet." Soviet historiography had to followthe trend; books writtenand praised as recentlyas 1941, were rejected as not patriotic enough in 1947. Russian scholarshipnow began to extol the Russian past beyond anythingthat the most extravagantinstances of formerRussian historiographyhad ever attempted.The Kievan state now receiveda Slav past on Russian soil. Its rise was now foundto have originated in a veryancienthigheast-Slav civilization,muchsuperiorto that ofits neighbors; the multinationaland yet centralizedRussian state was dated back for many centuries,even beforethe sixteenthcentury,with the Great Russians, thanks to their cultural superiority,the leading element. The Great-Russian people was now generallycalled "the great Russian people,." and more and moreemphasiswas put on the factthat the Russians owed theirwholedevelopment to their own creative originalityand initiative.As one writerhas explained, "The Soviet imperial idea of a union of socialist peoples has given body to its own thinnedspiritualsubstanceby its absorptionofthe old Russian idea of the State, withall its expansionistand centralizingtendencies.It must by all means be made acceptable to the otherpeoples of the Soviet Union that This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 712 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW the Russian people-unlike Lenin's idea-has at present become the true bearer of the world revolutionarytasks of Marxism. The Great Brother is now the leader on the road to progressand liberty.If subjectionto Russia was once proclaimed 'the lesser evil,' it has now become no evil at all but sheer good fortuneand a blessing."' Accordingly,it is not surprisingthat in 1951 ProfessorMilitza Vasilyevna Nechkina (one of the well-knownyoungerhistoriansof Russia, authorof manyworkson the Decembrists,and editorof the second volume, covering the nineteenthcentury, of the officialtextbook Istoriya SSSR) wrote in the officialorgan of the Soviet historians,Voprosy istorii, that the conquestofcolonialpeoples by tsaristRussia had been not only "the lesser evil" comparedwith the conquest by Britain or Turkey to which they mighthave otherwisesuccumbed-the officialSoviet theorysince 1934but a positive good: the Ukrainians,Georgians,Armenians,and Usbeks were activelyhelped in theireconomicprogressby inclusionin the Russian empire. Tsarism oppressedthe peoples,above all the Russian people, "the olderbrother of all the peoples of the Soviet land." But the struggleagainst the common enemy,tsarism a struggleled by the Russian people-became the foundation of a fraternity of all the peoples devoted to the commonconstructionof a new socialistsociety,and the education ofthe non-Russianpeoples by the Russians createdthe conditionfortheirliberationand progress.To elucidatethese more "profound"aspects of the annexationof the non-Russianpeoples by the Russian Empire, had become one of the great tasks forSoviet historiography.15 nauka v Rossii [BourgeoisHistorical In 1931 in Burzhuasnayaistoricheskaya Sciencein Russia] (p. 92), Sergei A. Piontkovskyhad violentlyattacked the well-knownbook by Matvyei Kuzmich Lyubavsky, Obrazovanieosnovskoi narodnosti[The Development of theState territorii velikorusskoi gossudarstvennoi Territory oftheGreatRussian Nationality](Leningrad,1929),because it stressed "chauvinistically"the Great Russian element in the historyof the Russian state. The book was then characterizedby the disciplesof Pokrovskyas the "political programof the NEP bourgeoisie."Now, however,both Pokrovsky and Piontkovskyare regardedas un-Marxist and unscientific,and presentday Russian historiographygoes infinitelyfurtherthan Lyubavsky (1860the Russian national element.In 1951 1936) and his generationin glorifying Voprosyistoriipraised the thesis of Lt. Col. L. G. Beskrovny,professorof the historyof warfare of the Military Frunze Academy, entitled "Stroitelstvo russkoiarmiiv XVIII veke" ["The Buildingof the Russian Armyin the 18th Century"]. In it the author rejected the "cosmopolitan" views of "bourgeois 14 Georg von Rauch, "Die Sowjetische Geschichtsforschung heute," Die Welt als Geschichte(1950), No. 4, p. 258. 15 Mrs. Nechkina's article "K voprosu o formule neimenchee zlo" ["On the Question of the Lesser Evil"], Voprosy istorii, No. 4, pp. 44-48 (1951) was in the form of a letter to the editor and was specially recommended by the editor. Yet her volume in the Istoriya SSSR, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1947-49) had been censored in Voprosy istorii, No. 7 (1950) for insufficientunderstanding of tsarist colonial policy on the ground that she had not recognized the reactionary, pro-British and pro-Turkish character of the independence movement of the Caucasian peoples under Shamil against tsarism. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 713 historians accordingto whichPeter I built the Russian armyupon German models. On the contrary,Russia in the eighteenthcenturyproducedthe best arms in Europe and made manyinventionsin the fieldof artillery;the Russian army was then trained accordingto its own national system,which was the were Russians and not foreignmostprogressivein Europe; the leading officers ers,and Napoleon learnedmuchfromthe tacticsand the strategyofSuvarov.16 The same issue of Voprosyistoriibestowed similarpraise on a symposiumon the "progressiveinfluenceof the great Russian nation on the developmentof the Yakut nation.... The Yakuts, as a resultof theirinclusioninto the centralized Russian state, enteredthe most advanced culture of the period and acceleratedtherebythe process of theirsocial-economicand culturaldevelopment. The concrete elucidation of this question has at present,besides its purelyscientificinterest,great political significance.The study of the process of the historicaldevelopmentof the nationalitiesin the lightof theirhistorical interactionappears as one of the importantmomentsin the education of the workersof our countryin Soviet patriotism."'7It is hardlyastonishingthat, in an officialprogrammaticarticleabout the tasks of historicalscience published in the same journal laterin the year,I. Kon asserted: "Marxist historicalscholarship must wage an incessantwar against the falsificationof historyby the bourgeoisie.This war, whichplaces Soviet historiansin the firingline, is being conducted(and mustbe conducted)in all fieldsofhistoricalscience. . . . Soviet historicalsciencedevelopsunderthe constantand close leadershipofthe Soviet state, the Bolshevikpartyand Stalin himself.... All Soviet scholarshipworks under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin forthe welfareof our nation."' "The historiansinto the firingline" was not a new slogan but in line with Lenin's attitude. Themdifferencewas in what they were firingat. In 1939 Bolshaya SovyetskayaEntsiklopediya,the great depository of communist scholarship,devoted to Pan-Slavism a very shortarticle,less than a column. This articlequoted Marx and Engels as pointingout that "the immediategoal ofPan-Slavismappears to be the creationofa Slav empire,fromthe Erzgebirge and the Carpathian Mountains to the Black, Aegean and AdriaticSeas, under Russia's rule." It also stressedthe reactionaryand expansionistcharacterof Pan-Slavism; Marx and Engels were reportedto have looked with horroron a resultwhich would make all Slavs share "the terriblefate of the Polish nation."'9 In theircharacterizationofPan-Slavism as Russian imperialismwhichwould subject the otherSlavs as the Poles had been subjected duringMarx's lifetime, Marx and the CommunistEncyclopaediaseem for once to have been proved 16 Voprosy istorii, No. 1, pp. 155-156 (1951). The thesis had been defended on June 26, 1950. 17Review of ProgressivnoevWiyanie velikoi Russkoi natsii na rozvitie Yakutskogo naroda, Pt. 1, ed. A. I. Novgorod (Yakutsk, 1950) in Voprosy istorii, No. 1, p. 140 (1951). 18 J. Kon, "K voprosu o spetsifike i zadachakh istoricheskoi nauki," Voprosy istorii, No. 6, p. 63 (1951). 19"Pan-Slavism," Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Entsiklopediya, Vol. 44 (Moscow, 1939), Cols. 68 ff.The reference to Marx and Engels there is to Sochineniya, Vol. 7, p. 277. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 714 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW right.As in the worstperiodoftsaristnationalism,the rightofnationaloriginalityhas recentlybeen claimedfor,and reservedto, the Russians alone; the other Slav nations,Poles and Ukrainians,have had-to adapt themselvesto Russian nationalism.The result,-so far as the Poles are concerned,was made clear at the seventhcongressof Polish historianswhichmet in Breslau fromSeptember 19 to September22, 1948: "It is interestingto note that, while the campaign forthe culturaland national distinctness(of Russia) was being trumpeted,at least one significantexceptionwas made. The seventhcongressof Polish historians . . . was criticizedprincipallyfor writinghistoryfrom a nationalist point of view and forcontrastingRussian and Polish cultureratherthan drawEven the Poles who ing comparisonsbetweentheirfundamentalsimilarity."20 had propagated the new Pan-Slavism after 1945 came in forsharp criticism. Henryk Batowski, editor of the Pan-Slav magazine Zycie Slowiafiskie(which began publicationin January,1946) and authorof Historia WspolpracySlowianskiej [Historyof Slav Cooperation],was branded a bourgeoisnationalistbecause he overemphasizedPoland's role in the Slav world and glorifiedpast instancesof Slav cooperationat the expenseof the present.2' Had Stalin forgottenthe warningwhichhe voiced in his "Report on National Factors" beforethe twelfthCongress of the Russian Communist Party on April 23, 1923? He then regardedGreat-Russianchauvinism,"a forcethat is gaining in strength,"as a factor impedingthe amalgamation of the Soviet peoples, underminingthe confidenceof the "formerlyoppressed peoples" in the Russian proletariat."This is our most dangerousenemy,which we must overcome;foronce we overcomeit, we shall have overcomenine-tenthsof the nationalismwhichhas survivedand whichis developingin certainrepublics."22 In the discussionat the same CongressBukharinwent even further:"In our capacityas a formergreat-powernation,we mustcounternationalistambitions and place ourselves in a position of inequality,in the sense of making still greaterconcessionsto national tendencies.By such a policyalone . . . whereby we artificiallyplace ourselvesin an inferiorpositionas comparedwith others, only at such a price, can we purchasethe real confidenceof the formerlyoppressednations." Stalin opposed thispointofview because "We mustnot overshoot the mark in politics,just as we must not undershootit." Thirtyyears later, it seems that Stalin has more and moreundershotthe mark. In spite of all totalitariancontroland of the ever-growing purgesof "local nationalists," Great Russian chauvinismhas apparentlyaroused and strengthenedthe oppositionof the Slav and non-Slav peoples subject to Moscow.23 20 Anatole G. Mazour and Herman E. Bateman, in Journal of Modern History, Vol. 24, p. 64 (March, 1952). 21 See the review in Slavyane, August, 1947, pp. 51 ff; Elizabeth Valkenier, "Soviet Impact on Polish Post-War Historiography, 1946-1950," Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 11, pp. 372-396 (Jan., 1952); and Roman Werfel, "Konferenz polnischer Historiker," Fur dauerhaften Frieden, far Volksdemokratie(the official Cominform organ, Bucharest), March 6, 1952. 22 Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, tr. from the Russian ed. prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (New York, n.d., 1935?), pp. 167-168, 301. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 715 Soviet patriotism,the officialtermmost frequentlyused, has become more and more tinged with Slavophile Russianism. On-August 13, 1947, Izvestya published a lecture on the Soviet people's national pride which S. Kovalev had deliveredin the Moscow All-unionSocietyforthe Disseminationof Political and ScientificKnowledge. Kovalev had said: "In the process of socialist constructionin our country,the Soviet people have workedout theirownworld outlook,peculiarto themselvesalone. One ofits mostimportantcharacteristics is Soviet patriotism,a feelingof the most profoundlove forand devotion to the Socialist Motherland.A most importantpeculiarityof Soviet patriotismis the profoundunderstandingof the superiorityof the Soviet systemover the bourgeoisand all otherclass systems.... It is preciselythispeculiaritywhich above all characterizesSoviet patriotismas patriotismofthe highestkind. .. Like the Slavophiles,he attacked Peter I forhis Westernreformsand the nineteenth centuryWesternizersfortheir "worshipof the West." "Great are the services of our people to history.Our people have repeatedlysaved Europe fromdestructionby barbarians ... The great Russian people, as well as the otherpeoples of Russia, was also in the past not dependenton otherpeoples in the struggleforprogress,forthe developmentof science,literatureand art." Kovalev, the officialreport went on, "dwelt in detail on Russia's priceless contributionto worldcivilizationin all spheresofculture."24Pravda ofthe same day said editorially:"For centuriesRussian intellectualsfell over themselves in servilityand obsequiousnessbeforeeverythingforeign.For centuriestheir consciousnesswas poisonedwithabsurd prejudiceswhichattributedleadership in science,technology,and cultureto the West .... This mostharmfulsurvival fromthe past can still be foundamong a certainsection of our intellectuals. It is a survival which Bolshevik propaganda must utterlydestroy.Our intellectuals must be daily educated and strengthenedin their feelingsof Soviet national pride." In spite ofall theseeducationalefforts, some Soviet intellectualshave continued to succumb to the sin of "cosmopolitanism."In 1951 L. Knipper wrotea long article, "Protiv kosmopolitizma,za russkynatsionalny stil" ["Against Cosmopolitanism,fora National Russian Style"], in SovyetskayaMuzyka [Soviet Music], Moscow, in whichhe asked: "Can it be that Russian music is no 23 The future nationalist trend of Lenin's revolution had been foreseen by the Russian nationalists who published the symposium Smena vekh [The Change of Guideposts] in Prague, 1921. See especially Nikolai Vasilyevich Ustryalov, Pod znakom revolyutsii[Under theSign of Revolution],2nd enl. ed. (Kharbin, 1927), where in the introduction he writes: "No doubt, the motherland is being rebuilt and rises again" (p. v). His articles, written between 1921 and 1926 are divided into two sections: political articles on national Bolshevism, and sketches of the philosophy of our time. Some of the articles are remarkable for an understanding of the Russian nationalism of the twentieth century, especially "National Bolshevism," pp. 47-53 (originally published Sept. 18, 1921); "Of the Future Russia,"' pp. 132-135; "The Nationalization of October," pp. 212-218; "Russia and Blok's Poetry," pp. 346-356; and "Of the Russian Nation," pp. 374-393 (written originally for a Vseslavyansky Sbornik [Pan-Slav Symposium] published by the Union of Slav Committees in Zagreb in honor of the one thousandth anniversary of the Kingdom of Croatia). 24 The lecture by Kovalev was regarded as so important that it was published in English by Soviet Monitor, issued by Tass Agency (London), No. 8815, Aug. 13, 1947. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 716 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW longer Russian music because it became Soviet music? The Russian nation, years,has in no way whichhas changedin some respectin the last thirty-three ceased being Russian by becomingSoviet.... For therecan be no art whichis We own the treasureof the trulypopular art of our not rootednationally. great Russian classics. Only by goingback to these glorioustraditions,can we findnew ways forthe developmentofthe Russian song ofthe Soviet era.... In the brotherlyfamilyof the Soviet republics,the Russian cultureis the first among equals. The national culturesnot only of the Soviet republicsbut also of the people's democracies,orientthemselvesafterthe Russian culture and growto strengththroughit."25And the famousdirectivesofStalin on the question of languagein 1950 had one purpose-to make clearthat the "international" language ofsocialismwould be Russian. In an article,"The Great Language ofour Epoch," in the LiteraturnayaGazetaofJanuary1, 1950,David Zazlavsky declared: "The Russian language is the firstworld language of international significancewhichrejectssharplythe destructionof the national characterby cosmopolitanism.... Nobody can regardhimselfas educated in the full and true sense of the word,if he does not understandRussian and cannot read the creationsofthe Russian mindin the originallanguage." The Russian nationalism of nineteenthcenturyPan-Slavs had never voiced such uncompromising claims. In the nineteenthcenturyeven the Slavs most friendlyto Russia never went so far as to back Russia's claims to leadership,and at the Pan-Slav Congress in Moscow in 1867 even much milder pretensionsaroused strong oppositionon the part of the Czech spokesmen.Now, however,on March 4, reporteda long speechin which 1952,the Prague communistorganRude Pradvo the Ministerof Information,Vaclav Kopeck;, speakingbeforea conferenceof teachers,had said: It is known to us that one of the main weapons in America's ideological war is cosThe case of the mopolitanism, which destroys the tie to one's native land and people.... miserable traitor Slansk' . . . has shown how the malicious. agents of Western imperialism tried . . . to use cosmopolitanism in its Trotzkyite-Zionist form. Therefore we must resolutely destroy cosmopolitanism, this ideological monster which is today put to the service of American war-barbarism. We also know that, besides cosmopolitanism, the Western imperialist enemies use in their preparations for a criminal war another ideological weapon, The Judas-treason of the Tito clique in Yugoslavia ... and the case of nationalism.... Clementis ... prove that American imperialism ... tries in this way to loosen the close Today before all the workers ties of the people's democracies with the Soviet Union.... 25 The struggle against cosmopolitanism began with an article in Pravda, Jan. 28, 1949, "Ob odnoi antipatrioticheskoi gruppe teatralnikh kritikov" ["About an Anti-Patriotic Group of Theater Critics"], and in Kultura i zhizn, Jan. 30, 1949, "Na chuzhdikh pozitsiakh" ["On Foreign Positions"]. Stalin's articles on linguistics began to appear on June 26, 1950, as a contribution.to a discussion started by Pravda on May 9, 1950, about the theories of Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr (1864-1934), a Georgian like Stalin, whose recognition as the officialand the leading Marxist philologist had been assured by Stalin and who was now completely repudiated by the same Stalin. See Clarence A. Manning, "Soviet Linguistic and Russian Imperialism," Ukrainian Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 20-27 (1952). This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 717 of the world the question of a just and an unjust war and the question of patriotism are raised, and this in the sense that every action against the Soviet Union is unjust, while every action of the Soviet Union is sanctified with the seal of supreme justice because its goal is the welfare of the workers, of the whole working population of the world-the wel26 fare of all peoples and of all mankind... IV of harmonizing After1950 communistdialecticshad to solve the difficulty of Russia's past with a conRussia's national uniquenessand the glorification demnationofthe slightestemphasison the nationaloriginalityofotherpeoples. This may explain the violence of vituperation,unusual even for communist language, used against violators of the new line, as it helps account for the uncertaintiesof Soviet policy. One resultwas that the WesternSlavs faced the possibility of a new German-Russianrapprochementwhich would sacrifice them to Moscow's interests-a possibilityforeshadowedin Stalin's wire of October 13, 1949,to WilhelmPieck and Otto Grotewohlon the occasion ofthe establishmentof the German Democratic Republic: "The experienceof the last war has shown that the German and the Russian peoples have borne the greatestsacrificesin that war and that these two nations provide by far the greatestpotentialforcesin Europe forthe accomplishmentof great actions of worldsignificance."In theirreplythetwo Germancommunistleadersacknowledged, on behalfofthe Germanpeople,the historicalguiltwhichGermanyhad assumed by attackingthe Soviet Union. Thus a positive and a negative communityof fate was again establishedbetweenthe two peoples: in 1945, as in 1918, they were the two chiefvictimsof a World War; and Germanyhad become guiltynot by her march into Prague nor her dismembermentand subjection of Poland (helped by the Soviet union), but only by her aggressionof June22, 1941. Altogether,the little Slav brotherswere bound to realize theirdependence on the self-centeredpolicy of the older brother,with whom Yugoslavia had brokenbecause it feltitselftreated as a colony and its communistparty used as an instrumentforthe country'sexploitationin the economic,military,and politicalinterestof Moscow. By 1950 Pan-Slavism was hardlymentionedany morein the Soviet orbit.Moscow's policy toward Poland and Czechoslovakia as littlefromthat toward Hungaryor Rumania as its attitudetoward differed the Ukrainedifferedfromthat toward its Mohammedan subject nationalities. In June, 1951, a "decade" of Ukrainian art was celebrated in Moscow, 26 KopeckS stressed the point of supreme loyalty of all workers to the Soviet Union: "Wherever the question arises whether the working people prefer the land in which they live (but in which they are exposed to class exploitation, growing misery, and oppression) or the Soviet Union-they will always decide for the Soviet Union, even should they be exposed to the greatest terror of capitalist and pseudo-socialist patriots. The working masses of France, Italy, and other capitalist lands have already taken this decision. They declare that they will never bear arms against the Soviet Union and the people's democracies and that they will greet the Soviet army as liberator whenever it opposes the aggressor. Yes! The just character of such a war puts the seal of sacred patriotism on the effort of the peoples which lead it." This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 718 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW fifteenyears afterthe 1936 "decade," whichclosed the terriblepersecutionof the Ukrainian peasantry and intelligentsiabegun in 1929. The new decade, which culminatedin a glorificationof Stalin, of Soviet patriotism,and of the Pereyaslav Council of 1654 which decided on the union of the Ukraine with Moscow, coincidedwitha new attack on Ukrainianwritersand on the Ukrainian CommunistParty for"nationalistdeviation." In 1944 VolodimirSosyura, one ofthe mostrespectedolderworking-class poets ofthe Ukraine,had written a poem, "Love the Ukraine,"sentimentaland patrioticas a thousand Russian poems were at that time: The Ukraine lives for us in the songs which we sing, In the stars and in the willow trees along the rivers, And in the beat of our heart. How can one love other peoples, If one does not love her, our Ukraine? We are nothing without her, like dust of the fields or smoke, Eternally driven away by the winds. For seven yearsthispoem was manytimesreprintedin the Ukraine,and it was even twicetranslatedinto Russian. Only in July,1951,did Pravda discoverthe "nationalist deviation" in the poem and bitterlyattack the author, as well as AlexanderProkofiev,whose translationhad appeared in May, 1951, in the Leningradliterarymagazine Zvezda. "It is the duty of Soviet writers,"Pravda wrote,"to fightimplacably against all formsof nationalism .., and to sing in their works the heroic deeds of our great fatherland,which builds communism." Pravda did not say how to reconcilethe implacable fightagainst all formsof nationalismwiththe glorification of the great and unique Russian people and its past, but its articleopened a wholeseriesofattacks on "Ukrainian nationalism."27 AlexanderKorneichukand Wanda Wassiliewskawereeven accused of having not sufficiently stressedthe pro-Russian character of the UkrainianstruggleforliberationfromPoland underHetman Bohdan Khmelnitski, in the librettoto an opera of that name composed by Konstantin Dankevych. And immediatelyafter the appearance of the article in Pravda, a meetingof the Ukrainian Union of Soviet Writersin Kiev was called. This meetingrecognizedthe greatimportanceof the Pravda articleforthe development of Ukrainian literature,and all those presentindulged in a "profound analysis" of their"mistakes." A Ukrainianliterarycritic,Leonid Novichenko, summedup the accusations against Sosyrua; He had not "freedhimselffrom the influenceofhostilebourgeoisnationalisticideology,whichfindsa complete reflectionin the corrupt poem 'Love the Ukraine.' . . . He representsthe Ukraine as standing alone . . . without connection with the great Russian 27 See "Protiv ideologisheskikh izvrashchenii v literature" ["Against Ideological Perversions in Literature"], Pravda, July 2, 1951, and "Ob opere Bohdan Khmelnitsky" ["About the Opera Bohdan Khmelnitsky"], ibid., July 20, 1951. On July 10 Pravda printed an apology by Sosyura: "I think (your) criticismfullyjustified. I am deeply aware that the Soviet Ukraine is unthinkable detached from the powerful growth of our state of many nationalities; for the Ukraine achieved its happiness thanks to the fraternal help of the great Russian people and the other peoples of our motherland," This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR It 719 people and the otherpeoples of the Soviet Union. . . He refusesto see that in the battle to freethe Ukraine,the sons ofall the peoples ofthe Soviet Union, and in the firstinstance the sons of great Russia, took part; about them he crudelyand insultinglykeeps quiet. . . . Whilepraisinga certainexclusiveness of the Ukrainian language, he consideredit possible not even to mentionthe Russian language, whichis to everyUkrainianas mucha native language as is Ukrainian itself."28 Novichenko's last sentenceis revealingforthe new trend. When Professor Alexander VladimirovichPalladin, President of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Ukrainian representativein the Soviet Pan-Slav Committee, returnedfromthe InternationalCongressof Physiologyin England in 1947one of the many internationalscholarlycongresseswhichthe aged scholarhad attended-he reportedin the LiteraturnayaGazeta how he had therescoreda nationalisttriumph.Though he knew French and English perfectlywell, he refusedto use eitherof these officiallanguages. Instead, "We said we could not accept such a humiliatingtreatmentof Soviet science and of the Russian language. This, we said, was the language of a great victoriousnation,and of the nation whichhad createdthe greatestand most advanced formof state in the world,and this language must receive its legitimateplace in the work of the congress.We scored our point. We read our papers in our own language." What strikesone in thisstatementis not onlythe spiritofnationalistprideand intransigenceshown at an internationalscientificgathering("This episode, showed," ProfessorPalladin continued, "how important it is never for a momentto yield on points affectingour national honorand dignity,nor must we ever tolerateany kindoftoadyingto the West"), but thefactthat the President of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, an avowed nationalist,is not a Ukrainian nationalist. He is a Russian nationalist,who regards Russian as "our" language and reads his paper, in defianceof the rules of international courtesy,in Russian, not in Ukrainian.29 A similarrevaluationof theirhistoryand culturehas been imposedby Moscow on the non-Slav Soviet peoples. Until recentlyShamil, the famousfighter for the independenceof the North Caucasus (1834 to 1859), and Kenesary Kasymov, who led the Kazakh revoltagainst Russian conquest (1837 to 1846), were recognizedas heroesofliberty.Soviet Russian historiansagreedwiththe new Kazakh and Daghestani communistintelligentsiain praisingthe "anticolonial" and "progressive"characterof these wars forindependence.But in 1950 it was foundout that thesenationalheroeswereno liberators;"objectively, Russia fillsthe role ofliberatorof the Caucasian peoples fromthe crueland Pravda Ukrainy, July 15, 1951. The same paper reported, on July 22, that the Ukrainian Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge complained that "too few lectures are being given about the eternal friendship of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples and about the struggle against Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism and cosmopolitanism." 29 See the report sent from Moscow to the Manchester Guardian by Alexander Werth, Oct. 26, 1947. 28 This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 720 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW arbitraryoppressionby the Iranian and Turkishbandits." It was onlynatural that the new Soviet scholarshipsuddenlydiscoveredthat "the longingof progressivepeople in the Caucasus forunionwithRussia had reflectedthe feelings of the broad masses," and that "Shamil was forcedto overcomethe stubborn resistanceof the people. who expressedtheirsympathyforRussia, the savior of Daghestan fromthe easternbrutes."30No lesserbody than the "presidium" ofthe Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR adopted in November,1950,a resolution blaming leading Russian historians,among them the academy member Anna Mikhailovna Pankratova, for having idealized and misrepresentedthe "war of liberation"ofthe Caucasian mountaineersunderShamil's leadership.3' Thereinwas seen a remnantofthe "un-Marxist"school ofPokrovsky,who had not understoodthe importanceof the Black Sea and the Caucasus for the securityof (tsarist)Russia. The independencemovementsofthe Mohammedan people against Russian controlcould not be consideredprogressive,forthey allegedlyplayed into the hands of Pan-Turanismand of Britishimperialism, the foes of mankind. The new communistintelligentsiaamong the non-Russianpeoples had been encouraged,at the beginningof the Soviet domination,to explore the past, and especiallythe folksongs and epic poems,oftheirown peoples. The various state publishinghouses and academies of sciences of the national republics had published,and glorified, such epic poems and heroicsongs as "Altamych" (Uzbek), "Dede-Korkut" (Azerbaijan), "Korkut-Ata" (Turkmenistan) and "Gesser Khan" (Buryat-Mongol).But whilethe Russians wereexhorted,after 1934, to take pride in the unique beauty of the "Song of the Expedition of Igor" and of the byliny (oral popular poetrycelebratingthe exploits of the pre-TartarRussian princes),theepic poemsofthe otherpeoples wereunmasked as reactionaryafter 1949. In his Russian translationof the "Altamych," M. Sheikhsade had characterizedit as the revelationof "the best traits of character of the workingpopulationin the past, of its unceasinglongingforsocial justice, forhappiness and forthe good, a symbol of all the heroic and noble aspirationswhich.livedamongthe workingmasses of Uzbekistan." Now it was 30 See Solomon M. Schwarz, "Revising the History of Russian Colonialism," Foreign Affairs,Vol. 30, pp. 488-493 (April,1952); Mark Alexander,"Tensionsin Soviet Central Asia," TwentiethCentury,Vol. 150, pp. 192-200 (Sept., 1951);-and above all M. H. Ertuerk,"Was gehtin Turkestanvor?", Ost-Probleme, Vol. 3, pp. 1010-1016 (1950). 31 "Ob antimarksistskoi i Shamilya v trudakhnauchotsenkedvizheniyamyuridisma nykhsotrudnikovAkademii" ["About the Anti-MarxistAppreciationof Myuridismand ofShamilin the Worksofthe ScientificCollaboratorsoftheAcademy"],VestnikAkademii Nauk SSSR, No. 11 (Nov., 1950); E. Adamov and L. Kutakov, "Iz istoriiproiskovinostrannyagenturyvo vremyakavkazkikhvoin " ["From the Historyof the Intriguesof Foreign Agents at the Time of the Caucasian Wars"], Voprosyistorii, No. 11 (Nov., 1950). The most criticizedbook was that by R. Magomedov,Borba gortsev za nezavisimost pod rukovedstvom Shamilya [The Struggleof the Mountaineers for Their Independenceunder Shamil's Leadership](Makhach-Kala, 1939). The author was especiallyblamed forthe "horrifying assertion" that this war of independenceformedpart of the international revolutionary movement. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 721 condemned,as was the similar"Gesser Khan" epos:32"The poem cultivatesa hostileattitudetowardsthe Russian people. The Buryat-Mongolpeople,which owes its freedomand happiness to the great Russian people, cannot tolerate that its sentimentsforthe fraternalRussian people be hurt.... Only under the protectionofthe Soviet power. . . could the cultureofthe Buryat-Mongol people . . . floweras never before.It formsan indissolublepart of the united and harmoniousSoviet familyof peoples and progressestowardscommunism, thanks to the supportof the great Russian people underthe leadershipof the party of Lenin and Stalin." Historians of the Mohammedan peoples who had pointed to the influence of Arab, Iranian, and Turkishcivilizations,were accused of being "cosmopolitans." Accordingto the new theory,the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks, and Turkmens developed independentlyuntil the nineteenthcentury,when they came under the benevolentinfluence,not of the Russian tsars,it is true,but of the Russian people and the Russian culture. Kazakh communisthistorianswho had regardedthe struggleof their people for independencefromRussia as a school forthe political education of the masses, were censoredbecause "they failedto recognizethe deep progressivesignificanceofthe union of Kazakhstan with Russia.... The Kazakh workingclass had the greatestinterestin this union.The activitiesofthe Kassymovs (leadersofthe independencemovement) who wishedto hinderthe union,were in sharp oppositionto the desiresof the progressivepart ofKazakh society."33 V The futureofPan-Slavismis uncertaintoday. In 1930 it seemeda dead issue. World War II broughtan unexpectedrevival,withan unprecedentedbreadth and intensity.There was fora time some hope of a Pan-Slavism based upon the equality and free development of the various Slav peoples; Dr. Bene and Jan Masaryk apparentlybelieved in its possibility.What emergedwas a Pan-Russism of the kind preachedby the extremePan-Slavs of the nineteenth centurybut neveradopted by the tsaristRussian governmentand always combatted by liberal and humanitariantrends among the Russians themselves, as well as by the nationalismof Ukrainiansand Poles, Czechs, and Serbs. Now, however,a new dimensionhas been added, apparentlyas a permanentfeature, to theexclusiveand all-inclusivestatereligionofthe Soviet Union.BeforeWorld War II, Soviet citizenshad to worshipthe party of Lenin and Stalin and the great Stalin himself.Now a compulsoryobsequious deferenceto the "great" Russian people has been imposed on all its "youngerbrothers"-a category 32 See "Ob epose 'Altamych' " ["About the Epic Poem 'Altamych' "], Literaturnaya Gazeta, Feb. 14, 1952; and "O reaktsionnoi sushchestnosti eposa Gesser Khan" ["About the Reactionary Nature of the Epos Gesser Khan"], Kultura i Zhizn, Jan. 11, 1951. 33 "Za marksistko-leninskoe osveshchenie voprosov istorii Kazakhstana" ["For the Marxist-Leninist Elucidation of the Questions of the History of Kazakhastan"], Pravda, Dec. 26, 1950. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 722 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW whichall non-Russianpeoples must enter.In this respectthe Pan-Slav frame has been broadened and racial equality throughoutthe Soviet empire maintained: all its peoples, whetherwhite or colored,Slav or Turk, Christian or Mohammedan, have equally and continuallyto pay theirdeep respectto the Russian people and even to the Russian past! Yet there are signs-in Titoism, in the ever-repeatedofficialaccusations by Moscow against Polish, Ukrainian,Uzbek, and Caucasian writersand historians-that the non-Russianpeoples,Slavs as well as non-Slavs,do not sufficientlyappreciatebeingconstantlyremindedof the deep gratitudewhichthey owe to the "great" Russian people and of theirimmutabledependenceupon the leadership of the Russian people. It is not impossiblethat an enforced conformity and loyalty,drivento such length,may prove a weakeningfactor in the vast Moscow empireand may help one day to restorethe principlesof liberty,equality, and diversityon which the Pan-Slav movementinsistedin 1848, when it rejected categoricallyMoscow's leadershipand looked to the West forguidance and inspiration. This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz