Digest Autumn 2014 £1.00

Civil War in 1920. This article stated, very Contents directly, the essence of the Leninist approach to the First World War. It hints at “We value and love life too much”: Lenin, how central the war was to the evolution of Russian Revolution & Violence of WWI 1 Leninism as a revolutionary ideology and to SCRSS News 4 its continued relevance in Bolshevik Soviet Memorial Trust Fund News 9 discussions after the October Revolution in UK–Russian Relations: Through the 1917. In fact, the war was not just the British Library Looking Glass 9 context but, to a large extent, the Conference Report 12 justification for the October Revolution. Reviews 13

Feature

“We value and love life too much”: Lenin, the Russian Revolution and the Violence of the First World War By Dr James Ryan

In September 1918, during a short-lived period of official and very deadly Red Terror implemented by the Soviet political police, the Cheka, an article in the official Cheka journal justified the violence of the Soviet state in striking terms. Instead of the “many millions of class murders in the war”, instead of the “slow systematic sucking dry of the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (SCRSS Library) blood of the working people by the web of capitalism in the interest of the ruling It is worth stressing this in 2014 as we minority […] we have set about merciless commemorate the anniversary of the war. struggle” against the enemies of the people. For too long Russia’s involvement in the war This would be a truly humanist terror, has been marginalised or forgotten, both in because “we value and love life too much – the West and in Russia itself. Historians of it is a sacred gift of nature”. 1 Russia have in recent years endeavoured to redress this balance, and a major multi- The war in question was the world war that volume history of Russia’s Great War and had not yet ended, and that for the Revolution will soon be published in English Bolsheviks would not end until victory in the by an international team of scholars. 2 1

Over eighteen million men of the Russian was fundamentally opposed to war and Empire fought in the war. The historian envisaged a peaceful future, yet he believed Karen Petrone has demonstrated that, in waging a “war against war”, recognising though the Soviet Union “may not have the immense potential that the war had officially recognized as part of created for radical social upheaval. He its own founding myth”, it did take part in the made this particularly clear in a letter to his “pan-European intellectual movements that close friend Inessa Armand in January interpreted the war and coped with its 1917. There were, he pointed out, three aftermath”. 3 main types of international wars: those between exploiting, imperialist nations for Most of Europe’s socialist parties supported conquest; those between exploited and the war efforts of their respective countries. exploiting nations; and the most Of the Russian socialists, Lenin’s “complicated”, those between “equal” Bolsheviks and the left wing of the nations. He opposed national defence in the Menshevik party were firmly opposed to the war of 1914 only because socialist war. The war, according to Lenin and many revolutions were ripe in both warring camps, other socialists, was imperialist in nature. It and because the war was one of plunder. 5 was the inevitable product of the latest Violence, as he put it, was “alien to our imperialist stage of capitalism, characterised ideals”. However, he was convinced that the by international rivalries for markets and “salvation” (spasenie) of humanity “from the 4 colonies for the export of finance capital. horrors of the present and the future wars” would only come about through “the fierce class struggle and class wars” needed to achieve “that beautiful future” of a peaceful socialism.

Initially during the war, Lenin thought that Russia’s revolution would simply be a democratic one, not socialist. By 1915 his thinking had evolved, and he reasoned that a proletarian-led revolution in Russia would “at once […] bring about the socialist revolution in alliance with the proletarians of

Nicholas II blesses the troops, 1915 (SCRSS Library) Europe”. The Russian revolution would no longer be simply a “spark” that might ignite a Upon its outbreak, Lenin immediately called revolutionary conflagration across Europe, for “a revolutionary war by the proletarians but rather “an indivisible and integral part of of all countries” against the “bourgeoisie of the socialist revolution in the West”. all countries”. He believed that the war had Following the overthrow of the autocracy “placed on the order of the day the slogan of and the creation of a Provisional socialist revolution” for the more advanced Government in Russia in February–March Western European states, for it reflected 1917, Lenin reasoned that, in a limited capitalism’s inherent contradictions and political sense, the democratic revolution concentrated immense economic power in had already been achieved. He maintained the hands of the state. Convinced that the that Russia was in transition to socialism war was “no chance happening” but rather and, having processed the theoretical “just as legitimate a form of the capitalist significance of the war, he had arrived at the way of life as peace is”, Lenin predicted fateful conviction that a socialist political somewhat prophetically: “This war will soon revolution was necessary there also. In his be followed by others, unless there are a famous April Theses of 1917 he declared series of successful revolutions.” that Russia was passing from the first to the second stage of the revolution, “which must Lenin’s position was not anti-war as such in place power in the hands of the proletariat 1914, rather anti-imperialist. His socialism and the poorest sections of the peasants”. 2

Lenin’s rationale was based partly on his form of violence that will put an end once observation of the wartime state-controlled and for all to violence itself”. 8 economy (“state-monopoly capitalism”), which he thought had expedited history and placed Russia on the “threshold” of socialism; partly on the moral imperative of continuing the “civil war” he had advocated since 1914, for “[t]o achieve peace […] it is necessary that political power be in the hands of the workers and poorest peasants, not the landlords and capitalists”.

Following the revolution, and as the Civil War took hold of the country, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were in no doubt that the revolution was of immense global significance in the context of the world war. The brutality of the war certainly coloured their understanding of how to make sense of, legitimise and justify the violence to which they increasingly resorted. They understood that they were living through Lenin in Red Square, 1919 (SCRSS Library) times of unprecedented violence and upheaval. Despite the horrors on the That is what the Bolsheviks sought to battlefields of Europe, they were also achieve. They thought of themselves as convinced that the war – the civil war of the warriors for a just cause, and they sought to working masses against their oppressors – purify their acts of violence by emphasising needed to be fought with (as Lenin wrote) the purity, selflessness and humanity of “the utmost ardour and determination at a their motives, as well as the justness of their time when history demands that the greatest cause. To quote from one newspaper article problems of humanity be solved by struggle of January 1919: “Violence, which is set in and war”. motion by the proletariat, is sanctified (osviashchaetsia) in the eyes of the wide The concepts of ‘holy war,’ martyrdom and masses by that great goal which it serves!” self-sacrifice, in the Christian tradition, were That goal would be to rid the world of the important components of propaganda aimed social order that had, according to their at soldiers and civilians during the First convictions, plunged the world into war in World War. 6 Many religious figures during 1914. In this period of centenary the war sacralised the conflict against anniversaries, it is important to be mindful of national enemies as a form of redemptive the violent legacies of the First World War purification for the nations involved. 7 In and, as historians have been doing, to re- Soviet Russia during the Civil War, and insert the Russian Revolution firmly into the despite the overt atheism of Bolsheviks, the wider narrative of that conflict. violence of revolution was also clearly connected with concepts of the sacred and James Ryan has recently been appointed sacrifice. Violence occupied an ambiguous Lecturer in Modern European History at position in Bolshevik thought, as something Cardiff University. He completed a PhD in terrible and something to be opposed, but Modern History at University College Cork. also as something necessary in order to be He is the author of ‘Lenin’s Terror: The overcome. The philosopher René Girard Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State has explained that sacrificial customs are Violence’ (London and New York, 2012), concerned with “a radically new type of which was released in paperback in July violence, truly decisive and self-contained, a 2014.

3

Footnotes Association based in Moscow, Tatiana Skalkina. 1 ‘Ezhenedel’nik VChK’, No 1 (22 September 1918), in VK Vinogradov (Ed), VChK upolnomochena soobshchit’…, Moscow, Kuchkovo pole, 2004, pp 55–6 2 See Russia's Great War & Revolution website: http://russiasgreatwar.org 3 Karen Petrone, The Great War in Russian Memory, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 2011, p 13 4 To avoid an excessive number of references to Lenin’s works in this article, readers are referred to my book on Lenin’s thinking on violence, Lenin’s Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Left to right: Mayor of Southwark Cllr Sunil Chopra, Violence, London and New York, Routledge, Russian Chargé d’Affaires Alexander Kramarenko, 2012 SCRSS President Bill Bowring. Far right: SCRSS Vice-Chair Charles Stewart 5 See Document No 100 in IuN Amiantovyim (Ed), VI Lenin: Neizvestnyie dokymentyi, 1891–1922, Moscow, Rosspen, 1999, pp Over eighty members and invited guests 201–2 enjoyed drinks and an excellent buffet (food 6 See Allen J Frantzen, Bloody Good: provided by Russian Revels). A small Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War, exhibition explored some of the Society’s Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, past activities, with highlights from the 2004, and Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites: archive and collections. One particular The Origins and History of the Passions of exhibit attracted a great deal of attention: a page from the visitor book for the Society’s War, Holt / Metropolitan Books, 1997, th especially p 18 30 anniversary in 1954, signed by Prime 7 See James McMillan, ‘War’, in D Bloxham Minister , actors Laurence & R Gerwarth (Eds), Political Violence in Olivier (a member) and Sophia Loren. There Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge were library tours during the afternoon and University Press, 2011, pp 52–5 guests were impressed by the range and 8 René Girard, Violence and the Sacred, depth of our collections. The new flooring translated by Patrick Gregory, London and and recently installed hanging system in our New York, Continuum, 2005 [1972], p 28 ground floor space were given their first proper test. And visitors enjoyed the use of the rear garden to relax in the sunshine.

SCRSS President, Professor Bill Bowring, SCRSS News opened the formal part of the event with a welcome to members and guests. There th were speeches of congratulation from Mr 90 Anniversary Celebration Kramarenko, who made reference to one of the Society's famous founding supporters, The 90th anniversary of the SCRSS was Virginia Woolf; and from Cllr Chopra who marked by a full house at the Society’s spoke of the Society’s important role in the centre on 5 July. Guests included Chargé creation of the Soviet War Memorial in d’Affaires at the Russian Embassy, Southwark and in the ongoing organisation Alexander Kramarenko, the Mayor of of ceremonies and events through the Southwark, Cllr Sunil Chopra, Chair of the Soviet Memorial Trust Fund. St Petersburg Association for International Cooperation (SPAIC), Margarita Mudrak, Anton Chesnokov delivered an address on and Vice-President of the Russian-British behalf of Konstantin Kosachev, head of the 4

Russian federal agency Rossotrudnichestvo. hope that the success of the event would be It noted: “The Society was one of the first measured in more return visits, more which realised the full potential and saw the support for the Society’s activities, new perspectives for co-operation between members and a greater appreciation of the Russia and the UK, learned the importance unique and important library collections held of the engagement of civil society and by the Society. actively promoted these friendly initiatives.” Mr Chesnokov, based at the agency’s London office, went on to present the Anniversary Greetings organisation’s medal For strengthening peace, friendship and cooperation to Jean Below we reproduce formal letters of Turner, Hon Treasurer (and former greeting to the SCRSS, on the occasion of Secretary and Hon Secretary for some thirty our 90th anniversary, from our three long- years); Ralph Gibson, current Hon term partner organisations in St Petersburg Secretary; and John Cunningham, SCRSS and Moscow, Russia. Library & Administrative Assistant for the last twenty years. From the St Petersburg Association for International Cooperation Margarita Mudrak brought greetings both from SPAIC and the Committee for External St Petersburg, July 2014 Relations of St Petersburg and its new Dear Friends Chairman, Mr Evgeny Grigoriev. On his behalf, she presented the Society with a All members of the St Petersburg beautiful timepiece – set to St Petersburg Association for International Cooperation time and incorporating a Palekh design and and the Association for Cooperation with the city’s coat of arms. On behalf of SPAIC, Great Britain send their sincere and heartfelt she presented a lavishly illustrated album of congratulations to the members of the Russian costume from the city’s Society for Cooperation in Russian and ethnographic museum. Tatyana Skalkina Soviet Studies on the occasion of the 90th passed on congratulations from the Anniversary. Russian-British Association and presented gifts to Jean Turner and John Cunningham We are proud of being partners and friends in recognition of their longstanding work. of such a unique organization which helps to ensure cultural and people-to-people contacts between Great Britain and Russia. We feel we are members of one international family sharing our history and cultures, ideas and concerns.

Thanks to your collective efforts, your unique organization has gained strong positions in the sphere of British-Russian cooperation.

Your cultural activities, humanitarian support and expressions of solidarity with the Soviet people in the struggle against German Left to right: Kate Clark (EC), SCRSS staff John Cunningham, Hon Secretary Ralph Gibson, SPAIC Nazism during the Second World War are Chair Margarita Mudrak, Hon Treasurer Jean Turner, highly evaluated by our country and people. Anton Chesnokov of Rossotrudnichestvo We know that owing to your initiative a Memorial to the Soviet people who lost their On behalf of the SCRSS, Ralph Gibson lives in the War was unveiled in London in thanked all those present and expressed the 1999. 5

Today your reputation is demonstrated by Today you continue actively to popularise various cultural and educational Russian language and culture in Great programmes and longstanding partnerships Britain. with British and Russian organizations. We are grateful for your hard work and good will We are delighted that your contacts with the in promoting Russian Culture and Russian St Petersburg Association for International Language in Britain. Cooperation continue to be ever more fruitful. The SCRSS and its members have always been supporters and true friends of our We wish you and your colleagues success organization. in your noble activity, good health, well- being and prosperity. We have great admiration for your activities and are confident that you will continue to Yours sincerely build bridges of mutual understanding. We wish the SCRSS prosperity and continuing Evgeny Grigoriev, Chair of the Committee success. From the Russian-British Association Yours sincerely Moscow, 5 July 2014 Professor Leonid Seleznev, President, Dear Friends and Colleagues Association for Co-operation with Great Britain Please accept our heartfelt greetings on the Natalia Eliseeva, President occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Margarita Mudrak, Chairperson SCRSS. Tatiana Emelyanova, Director for International Programmes Over these years hundreds of UK citizens Julia Volkova, Executive Secretary have been dedicating their selfless efforts towards one noble goal – finding common From the External Relations Committee ground and promoting shared values to of the Government of St Petersburg ensure stable relations between the civil societies of the UK and Russia. St Petersburg, July 2014 Dear Mr Gibson The people of the former Soviet Union and Russia appreciate and will always We would like to extend our sincere remember the support that your congratulations on the occasion of the 90th organization has been continuously anniversary of the foundation of the Society extending to us during the most trying for Co-operation in Russian and Soviet periods of modern history, especially during Studies. the years of World War II.

For many years the Society has been a Celebrating the anniversary with you and centre for educational, scientific and cultural wishing you and your families every contacts, helping to strengthen the blessing, we hope that the experience and friendship between our countries. prestige that the SCRSS has gained over the nine decades will ensure every success In the difficult years of the Second World in your future endeavours. War the Society gave immeasurable moral support to our state. On the Society's Yours sincerely initiative a Memorial was unveiled in London in 1999 in memory of the Soviet people who Yuri Fokin, President, Ambassador perished during the Second World War. Tatiana Skalkina, Vice-President

6

7

Library Project Saturday 4 October 2.30–4.30pm Lecture: Dr Timothy Bowers on Alan Bush and Nationalism in Music The SCRSS library project was paused in Alan Bush (1900–95) was a leading British July to bring the first stage of the project twentieth-century composer who taught at brief to conclusion (assessment of the the for over fifty library collections and quick wins). The years. He was also a vice-president of the second stage, which focuses on library SCR (now the SCRSS). This special event strategy, is expected to re-commence later is in co-operation with the Alan Bush Trust, in the autumn with a re-defined set of which seeks to increase awareness of and objectives and schedule. performance of his music. Alan Bush’s daughter, Dr Rachel O'Higgins, will attend Discussion Group Starts and a CD of his works, including Africa, Symphony No 2 ‘Nottingham’ and Fantasia on Soviet Themes, will be on sale. Dr Our discussion group for non-native Timothy Bowers is Alan Bush Lecturer and Russian-speaking members of the Society Undergraduate Tutor at the Royal Academy held a successful first session in of Music in London. He will discuss Bush's September. The group will meet again from view of 'nationalism' in music, his music in 2–4pm on 2 October (with topics Cities – relation to it and comparisons with the work Moscow and St Petersburg, and Food / of his contemporaries. Normal admission Restaurants), 6 November and 4 December. fees apply. The Society will then review arrangements for 2015. The group is open to SCRSS Monday 27 October 6.30pm members only; a contribution of £2.00 per Exhibition: London–St Petersburg: City session includes tea / coffee. We have also and People Photo Exhibition received requests for an evening version, Launch of the SCRSS's joint photographic which will be considered by the SCRSS project with SPAIC. The exhibition includes Council. If you are interested, please photographic portraits, with short telephone the Hon Secretary on 020 7274 biographies, of a range of residents of our 2282 or email [email protected]. two cities. Following the launch, the exhibition will be on display from 30 October until end 2014 on weekdays and during Volunteering SCRSS events. For weekday visits, we recommend that you contact the SCRSS The regular work of the Society, and its beforehand to make an appointment. future development, rely heavily on volunteers to support our only (part-time) Tuesday 28 October 9.30am–6pm paid member of staff, John Cunningham. Event: The Role of Public Diplomacy in We’re looking for assistance on a regular or Fostering Russian-British Relations ad hoc basis – from working with the books A one-day conference, organised jointly by in the loan library and helping out at events the SCRSS and the St Petersburg to gardening and the general upkeep of the Association for International Cooperation, premises. If you have time to spare, please which aims to highlight the importance of contact the Hon Secretary. Please note: you public diplomacy in the development of must be an SCRSS member before you can relations between Russia and the UK, and volunteer! the role of British and Russian NGOs, cultural and educational institutions, and the media in this process. Places are limited Next Events and must be booked in advance. Fee: £20 per person. Venue: Rossotrudnichestvo, 37 For up-to-date details of all events listed Kensington High Street, London W8 5ED. below, visit the SCRSS website at For full details and to book, please email the www.scrss.org.uk/ cinemaevents.htm. SCRSS on [email protected]. 8

Saturday 8 November 10am–5pm Next Events Event: 3rd SCRSS Russian History Seminar This year's seminar focuses on Sunday 9 November 12.30pm Khrushchev's Thaw, the period of de- Event: Remembrance Sunday Stalinisation, relaxation of censorship and The ceremony marks the UK’s day of peaceful coexistence in the USSR from the remembrance for its war dead from all mid-1950s to early 1960s. Full details of our conflicts, and reflects on the joint sacrifices speakers and topics will be confirmed made by British and Soviet allies in the shortly, but we expect to cover aspects of defeat of fascism in World War II. Those on the period in relation to art, architecture, the Soviet Memorial Trust Fund (SMTF) literature and politics. The seminar is aimed mailing list will receive a formal invitation in at everyone interested in Russian and October, or see details on the SCRSS Soviet history. Fee: £50 (£40 for SCRSS website. If you would like to receive regular members), including lunch and tea / coffee. information about the SMTF, please contact Register your interest now by email. the Hon Secretary, SMTF, c/o 320 Brixton Road, London SW9 6AB or email Saturday 6 December 4–6pm [email protected]. Event: SCRSS Party A fun and fundraising event to mark the end The Soviet War Memorial, dedicated to the of the SCRSS's 90th anniversary year. 27 million Soviet men and women who lost their lives during the fight against fascism in Events take place at the SCRSS, 320 1941–45, is located in the Geraldine Mary Brixton Road, London SW9 6AB, unless Harmsworth Park, Lambeth Road, otherwise stated. Admission fees for films Southwark, London SE1 (adjacent to the and lectures: £3.00 (SCRSS members), Imperial War Museum). £5.00 (non-members). Admission fees for other special events: as indicated above.

Please note: dogs are not permitted on Feature SCRSS premises, with the exception of guide dogs. UK–Russian Relations: Through the British Library Looking Glass Soviet Memorial Trust By Katya Rogatchevskaia Fund News “Englishmen do not easily understand foreigners; still less do foreigners Ushakov Medal Presentations understand Englishmen. This is especially true of Englishmen and Russians.” With this The Russian Embassy in London has statement Sir JAR Marriott started his embarked on a major exercise to present survey of Anglo-Russian relations, Ushakov Medals to over 3,000 British published in 1944. 1 convoy veterans. A number of ceremonies have taken place at the Embassy, in Relations between our two countries can be regional venues such as Wiltshire County traced back to the sixteenth century, when Hall, and attachés have been dispatched Ivan the Terrible opened up the White Sea around the country to present medals to and the port of Arkhangelsk to the Muscovy individuals. More information can be found Company. Thus began a high-level on the Embassy’s website at correspondence between the Russian and http://rusemb.org.uk/ushakov/. English monarchs, initially focused on 9 commerce, but also containing an interesting exchange on military alliance and personal issues: Ivan the Terrible proposed to Elizabeth I and asked whether she could guarantee him political asylum. This correspondence is held by the National Archives at Kew, the British Library (Cotton MS Nero B VIII and B XI, and Royal MS 13 B) and at Oxford in the Ashmolean. 2

The next big momentum in Anglo-Russian relations came in the early modern era with the Grand Embassy of Peter the Great, a Russian diplomatic mission sent to Western Europe in 1697–98. The Russian tsar met with William III and, on his invitation, also visited England in January 1698. The visit is discussed in letters belonging to William Blathwayt, a politician and statesman who was Secretary at War from 1683–92 (Add MS 37979-37992). The British Library also holds A Congratulatory Poem to the Czar of Muscovy on his Arrival in England, printed in London for this occasion (shelfmark C.20.f.2.[208.]). The Grand Embassy failed to accomplish its main diplomatic goals, but the young tsar definitely enjoyed himself, as we can learn Edouard Luboff’s Soviet Dumping, published by the from The Diary of John Evelyn, Peter’s Anglo-Russian Press Association, 1931 (reproduced 3 landlord. by courtesy of the British Library)

The British Library holds several unique and The Anglo-Russian Literary Society, which large collections on economic, cultural, existed in London in 1893–1936, was one of political and diplomatic relations between the earliest British organisations to promote the two countries in the eighteenth and cultural relations with Russia. Membership nineteenth centuries. These include the was open to both Britons and Russians. papers of Prince Khristofor Andreevich Although the main activities of the Society Lieven, the Russian ambassador to Britain took the form of monthly meetings, events from 1812–34, and his family (Add MS and the formation of a library of Russian 47236-47435). There are also various books and periodicals, they also produced reports from the War Office, for example some publications, such as Early Russian Russian Advances in Asia, 1873–85, Intercourse with China by J Dyer Ball prepared by the Topographical and (London, 1912), held at the British Library Statistical Department (shelfmark W 671). (shelfmark W2/5921). The newspaper collections at the British Library hold the first The end of the nineteenth century saw a two periodicals solely devoted to creating significant growth of interest in Russian awareness of Russia. Free Russia (1890– culture and language among British 1915) was the organ of the Society of intellectuals. The British Museum Library Friends of Russian Freedom, which played quite an important role in this, both included Arthur H Dyke Acland MP, JG as a depository and as a centre for social Shaw Lefevre MP, Joshua Rowntree MP, interaction. 4 This was the time when Edward R Pease and Dr Robert Spence publications on various aspects of Anglo- Watson among its members. The Anglo- Russian relations started to emerge. Russian (1897–1914) was a monthly 10 newspaper that sought to promote more WP.1411). Other similar items were friendly relations with Russia. It advocated acquired much later, for example What I civil and religious liberties in Russia, Saw in Russia by the Dean of Canterbury, promoted English culture and literature in Hewlett Johnson (shelfmark Russia, and vice versa, but also had a YD.2010.b.3610); materials relating to commercial focus. 5 British support for the Soviet Union in the Second World War, such as Soviet Women Some other commercially focused Call to You! (London, Women's Anglo-Soviet periodicals were short-lived, for example Committee, 1942, shelfmark YD.2008.a.182); Anglo-russkii torgovyi zhurnal (London, and Souvenir Programme of the Barrow-in- 1884–85) published in Russian; Anglo- Furness Anglo-Russian Friendship Week Russkaia Gazeta = The Anglo Russian (1942, shelfmark YD.2005.a.1341). Gazette (London, the British Library holds issues 1 [1909] – 97 [1913]); and Anglo- russkii torgovyi biulleten = The Anglo- Russian Trade Bulletin (London, 1902), 6 issued in both languages. In 1919 the Anglo-Russian Trust, formed in 1909, undertook publication of The Russian Almanac (two copies are held at shelfmarks P.P.2456.gh and P.881/51), which replaced The Russian Year-Book (held at shelfmark P.P.2456.g for the year 1911).

Of course, it was impossible to stay above the fight, even in Britain. The publications issued by Hands Off Russia and the Anglo- Russian Parliamentary Committee, on the one hand, and the Russian Liberation Committee, on the other, are quite revealing. Less well-known organisations also contributed to the debate, for example the Anglo-Russian Press Association, founded by a journalist Dr Edouard Luboff. 7 Only two of the organisation’s books are held at the British Library, 8 but we know that Luboff was one of the first authors to write about Bolshevism in Russia. 9

Ephemera are the most difficult type of Brochure Soviet Women Call to You published by material to trace in the British Library the Women's Anglo-Soviet Committee, 1942 collections. Some of our items were (reproduced by courtesy of the British Library) received as legal deposit copies, others within larger bulks of material, which causes This short survey covers only a tiny difficulties. For example, the individual proportion of the material collected by the brochures bound together within a series of British Library on UK-Russian relations. volumes titled Miscellaneous Pamphlets and However, I hope it gives a flavour of the Leaflets have only recently been properly wealth of resources that remain to be referenced in the catalogue record. They discovered and analysed by scholars include a brochure Anglo-Russian Relations interested in this subject. written by Ruth Fry, peace activist and first chairman of the Russian Famine Relief Katya Rogatchevskaia is Lead Curator of Fund, and published by the National Council East European Studies at the British Library. for Prevention of War in 1927 (shelfmark Her research interests include medieval 11

Russian literature and language, Russian Literature of the twentieth century Conference Report (especially émigré literature), the history of the Slavonic collections of the British Library, and digitisation of Slavonic material. ‘British–Soviet Friendship and Cultural Exchange: Promotion, Footnotes Partnership and Propaganda’,

1 JAR Marriott, Anglo-Russian Relations, SCRSS, 24 May 2014 1689–1943, London, 1944, p (v) By Emily Lygo 2 See Tracey A Sowerby, ‘A Letter from Elizabeth I to Tsar Ivan “the Terrible”’ in The Textual Ambassadors Research Network The idea of the conference was to bring blog at http://www.textualambassadors.org together people researching forms of /?p=610#_ftnref4 (accessed on 6/9/2014); exchange between Britain and the USSR in Inna Lubimenko, ‘The Correspondence of various fields. During the twentieth century Queen Elizabeth with the Russian Czars’ in the SCR served as a conduit for many of the The American Historical Review, Vol 19, No exchanges between the USSR and Britain; 3 (April, 1914), pp 525–554. when it was not involved directly, its 3 First published in 1818 and has gone members often were. Thus, the SCRSS was through numerous editions since that date. the ideal place to hold this conference. I’m 4 See R Henderson, ‘Russian Political very grateful to the SCRSS for making it Émigrés and the British Museum Library’ in such a successful day. Library History, Vol 9 (December) 1991, pp 59–68; Anat Vernitski, ‘Russian Papers at the conference examined the Revolutionaries and English Sympathizers history of exchange between Britain and the in 1890s London: The Case of Olive Garnett USSR, and the representation of Soviet and Sergei Stepniak’ in Journal of European culture in Britain. They concerned, in Studies, 35(3), pp 299-314; Barry C particular, specific areas of exchange and Johnson (Ed), Tea and Anarchy! The contact, the practicalities of organising Bloomsbury Diary of Olive Garnett 1890– exchange with the USSR, and the 1893, London, Bartletts, 1989; E problematic search for neutral ground in a Rogatchevskaia, ‘The Most Important Books field where politics always loomed. It was Which I Would Strongly Recommend to very satisfying to see overlaps between Acquire: Petr Kropotkin and Vladimir papers emerge and common questions Burtsev in Correspondence with the British recur. Museum Library’ in Electronic British Library Journal, article 9, 2013, (http://www.bl.uk In Panel One, attempts to achieve exchange /eblj/2013articles/article9.html). between musicians and writers were shown 5 See John Slatter, ‘Jaakoff Prelooker and to have been fraught with problems. Pauline The Anglo‐Russian’ in Immigrants & Fairclough gave an account of the Minorities: Historical Studies in Ethnicity, difficulties in the 1940s that resulted in no Migration and Diaspora, Vol 2, Issue 3, real exchange between Britain and the 1983, pp 48–56. Soviet Union, and the frustrations that 6 The British Library only holds two issues. British individuals encountered when trying 7 See http://www.edouardluboff.com/ to surmount the obstacle of early 8 E Luboff, Soviet Dumping, London, 1931 politics; Louise Wiggins offered a fascinating (shelfmark X.519/517) and E Luboff, A Red insight into the role of the personal Year: A Record of Soviet Life, Activities and relationships Alan Bush developed in Intrigues ... during 1926, London, 1927 facilitating exchange, but also the frustration (shelfmark 8095.df.8) that politics was so obstructive, both to 9 GE Raine, E Luboff, Bolshevik Russia, cultural exchange between the countries London, Nisbet & Co, 1920 (shelfmarks and to the career of Bush in Britain. My 9456.a.10 and W20/8179) paper on the SCR Writers' Group showed 12 that there were similar problems in the Andrew Jameson reviewed the early literary field: Soviet censorship and various development of the Anglo-Soviet Journal, restrictions on citizens were a serious while Elena Ostrovskaia and Elena obstacle to genuine lines of communication Zemskova described their work on the being established. journal International Literature, produced in the USSR for foreign consumption, but with Panel Two dealt with British engagement the involvement of a variety of émigrés, as with ideas from the USSR, and the question well as Soviet specialists. Katya of whether a middle or neutral ground could Rogatchevskaia gave an account of the be maintained in such exchange. Matthew large and varied holdings of the British Taunton compared the ways that Harold Library relating to the subject (see also her Laski, DN Pritt and Stephen Spender article on page 9 of this issue of the SCRSS reported and responded to the Show Trials Digest). The papers pointed to the ways in of the 1930s, identifying illuminating which Soviet culture was presented to the differences between them, while Steve British public, and discussed the problems Ward demonstrated that the exchange of of neutrality and objectivity in a highly ideas on architecture between Britain and politicised context, as well as the question of the USSR was an important area of genuine what value such publications had then and cultural exchange in spite of encountering have now. the usual problems with politics. Sonja Grossmann’s paper on British–Soviet The conference was enjoyable and friendship and cultural exchange societies genuinely productive. It showed that gave a history of the difficulties that they exchange between Britain and the USSR had in establishing and maintaining their happened in a variety of contexts, and that own particular position with regard to politics similar questions and problems occurred in and the project of exchange with the USSR, each case: questions of political position, of and of avoiding, in some cases, the personal commitment, of personal interference of communist parties in their connections and relationships. It also affairs. highlighted the different levels at which exchange could be meaningful: between Panel Three was concerned with how Soviet countries, between organisations, between culture and Soviet-influenced culture was professions, and between individuals. presented in Britain. John Riley gave a history of the Film Society and its pioneering Dr Emily Lygo is Senior Lecturer in Russian screening of Soviet film, which was at the University of Exeter. Her research interesting to British audiences for both interests include Anglo-Soviet cultural artistic and political reasons. Pat Simpson relations, the history of literary translation in described a fascinating chapter in the Russia and twentieth-century Russian history of Down House in Kent, when it had poetry. a ‘Russian Room’ full of art and artifacts from the USSR relating to the history of science. Alison McClean traced a history of connections between pro-Soviet artists and the SCR, which resulted in a little-known, Reviews yet significant, mural produced in the house of long-time SCR president DN Pritt. The Malevich (Tate Modern, London, papers underlined the real importance that Web: www.tate.org.uk, Adult art played in British–Soviet exchange and the way that art, exchange, diplomacy and £14.50, Concession £12.50, until 26 politics became interwoven. October 2014)

Panel Four, the last panel of the day, In early twentieth-century Russia modernity concerned mainly printed material relating to was welcomed by both the artistic and the the history of British–Soviet exchange. political vanguards. Believing that these 13 were interdependent, Kasimir Malevich Often composed diagonally, rectangles, (1879–1935) embraced both with clear- triangles and circles speed across the minded passion. surface with a dynamism echoing that of flying machines. Uncompromisingly stark, Malevich was born into a large Polish family these paintings defy and deny any in Kiev, where his father managed sugar connection with tradition. refineries. His fragmentary art education lacked the lengthy academic discipline that Having arrived in Moscow in 1905, Malevich formed most other pioneers of modernism, fought in the Battle of the Barricades in that yet – like theirs – his early work looks like a year’s aborted revolution. He remained a crash course in recent innovatory styles. lifelong socialist, joining the Federation of Leftist Artists in the February 1917 The Tate’s Malevich exhibition duly begins revolution. with a succession of his Impressionist, Post- Impressionist, folksy Symbolist and carelessly brushed Expressionist paintings; many being stronger in daring than accomplishment.

He found his forte in 1912 once he reached the visual rigours of Cubism with its focus on form, line and space, rather than colour and touch. Combining Cubism with Russian Futurism’s socially subversive subjects led to his first mature works.

He soon faced the fundamental question: why should painting retain any contact with the visible world now that this was represented so accurately by the modern technologies of photography, film and photomontage?

In 1913 Malevich designed outlandishly ‘abstract’ costumes and sets for the avant- garde opera Victory Over the Sun (a film of its recreation is screened in the exhibition).

Two years later he painted his first Black Malevich: Woman with Rake, 1930–32, (reproduced Square and backdated it to 1913. So radical by courtesy of Tate Modern) was this provocative statement about the absolute essence of painting that it has It was no coincidence that, by the period of influenced generations of artists, and war (1917-22), Malevich’s remains contentious. He explained: “To paintings became ever simpler, paling into reproduce beloved objects and little corners white forms on white backgrounds. By 1919 of nature is like a thief being enraptured by they had completely faded out. “Painting his leg irons.” died like the old regime, because it was a part of it,” he said. Malevich called his new aesthetic Suprematism, wrote a manifesto and From the October 1917 revolution onwards created arguably his best paintings in the Malevich’s career exemplifies the promotion following three years. Flatly-painted simple of the avant-garde to high art status by the geometric forms in black or bold colours are young worker state – the first government in juxtaposed against an even white ground. the world to do so. 14

Appointed Commissioner for the The exhibition is too big, so that it is difficult Preservation of Historic Buildings and Art in to absorb the numerous drawings and 1917, and head of the experimental UNOVIS projects displayed towards its end. Petrograd Free State Workshops Yet, apart from its predictable anti-Soviet (SVOMAS) by1918, Malevich became an bias, it provides a meticulously researched influential art establishment figure. and comprehensive survey of Malevich’s work. Its unpretentious chronological From 1919 he continued to develop new organisation is welcome and its forms of art education, based on reconstruction of his 1915 Suprematist Suprematism, in his own department at exhibition is impressive. The exhibition is a Vitebsk Art School. He organised his must for all those interested in Soviet and students and himself into a collective under modernist art. the acronym UNOVIS (Champions of the New Art); together they set out to improve Christine Lindey daily life by exploring the essence of form, Note: This is a revised version of a review published colour and volume as prototypes for in the Morning Star on 3–4 August 2014. practical application by engineers, architects and designers. Having inspired many Christine Lindey is an art historian and lecturer. Her contemporaries, these principles, published areas of expertise are nineteenth and twentieth by Malevich in 1927, still underpin much century art, with a special interest in Soviet and Socialist art. Her publications include Art in the Cold modernist design today. War: from Vladivostok to Kalamazoo (Herbert Press, London, 1990) and Keywords of Nineteenth Century Malevich’s return to figurative painting in the Art (Art Dictionaries, Bristol, 2006). late 1920s may come as a shock, since these works were long marginalised. This The Years of Progress: The Soviet exhibition devotes two rooms to them, Economy 1934–1936 presenting them as surprising, ambiguous By RW Davies, with Oleg V and complex reinventions of figuration. Yet it interprets his themes of peasant life as Khlevnyuk & Stephen G Wheatcroft conveying the “dislocation, alienation and (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) despair” of collectivisation policies. In the sixth volume of his monumental By privileging the individual avant-garde history of Soviet industrialisation, RW artist, the curatorial stance undervalues the Davies (known to his many friends and urgency of the international left’s 1930s colleagues as Bob) reaches what Naum debates about artists’ social responsibility. Jasny called (and Davies concurs) the ‘good Malevich’s late experiments in blending years’ of the Second Five Year Plan. modernism with various forms of realism were part of a wide quest by Soviet artists to In what sense were they good? They were create an accessible, yet modern, art. certainly in sharp contrast to those that preceded and followed them: the violent upheavals and often near-chaos of the First After his premature death from cancer in Five Year Plan and the collectivisation of 1935, the city of Leningrad honoured agriculture, and the terror of 1937–38. The Malevich by paying for the grand economy grew at between 19 and 29 per Suprematist funeral that he had designed cent per annum and industry roughly himself. doubled, with many of the factories and plants commissioned in the first pyatiletka Malevich was a true radical and original coming into operation. While agricultural thinker. His major contribution to art theory production fell short of its targets, it still grew and education more than compensates for a at a substantial rate, enabling grain to be certain lack of intuitive flair and sensuous accumulated and famine to be averted after engagement with the act of painting. the very poor harvest of 1936. Economic

15 performance varied between sectors. While immediately following the guilty verdict), and the machine tool and defence sector saw Yezhov’s appointment as head of the NKVD spectacular growth, iron and steel were the in September, “Soviet politics entered a new poor relations of heavy industry. But the and much darker stage”. continuing high rate of investment and the impressive growth of labour productivity This will be the subject of the final volume of opened, in Davies’s words, “a qualitatively Bob Davies's magnum opus. It will be new period in Soviet industrialisation… an eagerly awaited by anyone who wishes to important and perhaps decisive stage in read / see the latest and finest research on Soviet development”. And as the sub-title of the formative years of the USSR. his book suggests, Davies sees this as progress not only in terms of economic John Barber growth, but in the fundamental and irrevocable transformation of Soviet society, Note: Dr John Barber is a Life Fellow of King's giving it the capacity to defend itself against College Cambridge and an Honorary Fellow of CREES (Centre for Russian and East European deadly enemies and the potential to provide Studies), University of Birmingham. He worked with its population with a quality of life previously Bob Davies at CREES in the late 1970s on the unimaginable. With a wealth of new data Soviet industrialisation project. He has researched from the Russian archives cited in the text Soviet history in World War II and co-edited (with and the many appended tables, much of it Andrei Dzeniskevich) Life and Death in Besieged Leningrad 1941–44, Macmillan, 2005. He is currently provided by Oleg Khlevniuk (on the Gulag) working on a project on sustainable urban and Stephen Wheatcroft (on agriculture), development with EU and Ukrainian colleagues. and analysed with exceptional insight and clarity, this volume will be the definitive account of the Soviet economy in this period for many years to come.

One of the many strengths of this volume is that economic developments are set in the context of political, social and international change. The period was, Davies argues, one of “relative political moderation”. The atmosphere at the Party congress in December 1934 was one of reconciliation: The SCRSS cannot accept responsibility for former opponents and critics of Stalin like incorrect information or unsatisfactory Bukharin and Pyatakov were given products. Always check with the important posts, exiled kulaks and their organisation concerned before sending families were treated more leniently, money. Reviews and articles are the conditions in the Gulag and ‘special opinions of the individual contributors and settlements’ improved, and a new not necessarily those of the SCRSS. Constitution was proclaimed in 1936. But the qualification is apposite. While Stalin Copyright notice: All rights reserved. No part conferred incessantly with his closest of this publication may be reproduced colleagues – his correspondence with without the permission of the copyright Kaganovich and Molotov is exceptionally owner. © SCRSS 2014 revealing – his absolute power over decision-making could be and was exercised with drastic effect, as for instance Printed and published by: his sudden decision in October 1934 to end SCRSS, 320 Brixton Road, London SW9 6AB bread rationing and, the following year, Tel: 020 7274 2282, Fax: 020 7274 3230 rationing of all foods. By 1936 storm clouds Email: [email protected] were gathering. As Davies notes, with the Website: www.scrss.org.uk trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev in August Registered Charity No 1104012 (and their execution on Stalin’s orders Editor: Diana Turner 16