University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository

History Faculty Publications History

2000 Soviet Social Mentalité and Russocentrism on the Eve of War, 1936-1941 David Brandenberger University of Richmond, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/history-faculty-publications

Recommended Citation Brandenberger, David. "OrgSoviet Social Mentalité and Russocentrism on the Eve of War, 1936-1941." Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 48, no. 3 (2000): 388-406.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Brandenberger,Harvard University SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrism on theEve ofWar, 1936-1941*

In January1939, the theatercritic V. Blium wroteto Stalin in despair that: "Socialistpatriotism sometimes and in someplaces is startingto displayall thecharacteristics ofracial ... [Our people] don't understand that to beatthe enemy fascist, we must - underno circumstancesuse hisweapon (racism), but a farsuperior weapon internationalist socialism."1 What had provoked such a letter?Soviet society witnesseda major ideological about-face duringthe mid-to-late1930s as russocentricetatism superseded earlier internationalist slo- gans. Nevskii, Peter,Kutuzov and Pushkinhad joined Lenin, Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Frunze and Dzerzhinskiiin a newly-integratedSoviet pantheonof heroeswhich aimed to co- - opt charismaticelements of thetsarist past.2 Blium foundthis shift oftenreferred to as the - "great retreat"3 to be a betrayalof Communistideals. Despite wide-spread awareness of this ideological transformationin scholarly circles, manyrecent works on the 1930s contendthat at leastuntil the outset of war in 1941, socialist ideals (internationalism,class, "Soviet patriotism")functioned as the principlesignifiers of Soviet social identity.4One recentstudy observes that"what standsout about the powerful * Researchfor this article was supportedin partby a grantfrom the International Research & Ex- changesBoard (IREX), withfunds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the UnitedStates Department of State,which administers the Russian,Eurasian, and East European ResearchProgram (Title VIII). Earlierversions of this article were presented at theRussian and East EuropeanHistory Workshop at HarvardUniversity and at theMidwest Russian History Workshop at theUniversity of Torontoon October1, 1998 and April10, 1999,respectively. This piece has also benefitedfrom suggestions from Terry Martin, Sarah Davies, JeffreyRossman, Sheila Fitzpatrick, StephenKotkin, Jochen Hellbeck, Serhy Yekelchyk, Peter Blitstein, Katia Dianina and Francine Hirsch. Conclusionsand errorscontained herein remain the sole responsibilityof theauthor. 1 "GlubokouvazhaemyiIosif Vissarionovich! (from Blium)" (31 January1939), in: Rossiiskiitsentr khraneniiai izucheniia dokumentov noveishei istorii (hereafter RTsKhlDNI), fond 1 7, opis' 120, delo 348, listy63-65. See myforthcoming publication (with Karen Pétrone) of theletter in: Voprosy istorii. 2 The evolutionof theofficial historical line reveals that this era s relianceon Russianimagery, myths,and artifacts was a pragmaticmove to constructa single historical narrative on thepre-revolu- tionaryera. The party hierarchy viewed the co-option of imperial charisma and even Russian nationalist rhetoricas themost expedient way to mobilizepopular patriotic sentiments and loyaltyamong the USSR's poorly-educatedcitizenry. Chauvinistic aspects of this campaign, which have been frequently usedto labelStalin, A. A. Zhdanovand othersas closetRussian nationalists, are in factbetter under- stoodas fall-outfrom the party hierarchy's perhaps excessively cynical and calculatingrehabilitation oftsarist heroes, legends and regalia; see D. L. Brandenberger,A. M. Dubrovsky 'The PeopleNeed a Tsar': theEmergence of NationalBolshevism as StalinistIdeology, 1931-1941, in: Europe-Asia Studies50 (1998) No. 5, pp. 873-892. For a moreinstitutional interpretation, see Gerhard Simon Nationalismusund Nationalitätenpolitik in der Sowjetunion: Von dertotalitären Diktatur zur nach- stalinschenGesellschaft. Baden-Baden 1986, pp. 153-194. 3Nicholas TimasheffThe GreatRetreat: The Growthand Decline of Communism in .New York 1947. Lowell Tillet The Great SovietHistorians on theNon-Russian Nationalities, unapei Friendship: - Hill 1969, pp. 49-61; Christel Lane The Ritesof Rulers:Ritual in IndustrialSociety theSoviet Case. Cambridge1981, p. 181; Alexander Werth Russia at War, 1941-1945.New York 1984, pp. 120,249-250; TimothyDunsmore SovietPolitics, 1945-1953. New York 1984,p. 128; Vera S. Dunham In Stalin'sTime: MiddleclassValues in SovietFiction. Enlarged and updatededition.

Jahrbücherfür Geschichte Osteuropas 48 (2000) H. 3 o FranzSteiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart/Germany SovietSocial Mentalité and Russocentrism onthe Eve of War, 1936-1941 389 new nationalidentity developed under Stalin was its Soviet,rather than solely Russian, character,"ethnic and nationalidentity being subordinated to "a senseof belongingto the SovietUnion."5 Such analysisrequires nuancing in orderto acknowledgethe full effect of russocentricpropaganda in thesecond half of the1930s. This articleseeks to examinethe resonancethat the above-mentioned ideological turn-about elicited among Soviet citizens by lookingto an arrayof accounts(letters, diaries, secret police reports) that provide glimpses ofpopular opinion under Stalin.6 Admittedly anecdotal, this approach nevertheless holds the mostpromise for such reception-oriented discussions as thereare few other sources available whichcan detailpopularly-held sentiments during the period.7

SarahDavies arguesin her recent monograph on popularopinion in prewar Leningrad that Russiannational identity before the mid- 1930s was a ratheramorphous entity. Noting that itwas "definedin implicitopposition to othergroups such as Jewsand Armenians, but was

Durham,London 1990, pp. 12, 17, 41, 66; Stephen K. Carter RussianNationalism: Yesterday, Today,Tomorrow. New York 1990,p. 5 1; JohnBarber, Mark Harrison The SovietHome Front, 1941-1945:A Social andEconomic History of the USSR in WorldWar II. London1991, p. 69; Nina TumarkinThe Livingand theDead: The Rise and Fall of theCult of WorldWar II in Russia.New York 1994,p. 63. A recentbook considers the formation of popular Russian national identity to be an even laterphenomenon - see Yitzhak Brudny ReinventingRussia: RussianNationalism and the SovietState, 1953-1991. Cambridge, MA 1999,pp. 3, 7, etc. 5 Stephen Kotkin MagneticMountain: as a Civilization.Berkeley 1995, pp. 215-230, 235-237,21-23, herep. 230; Idem 1991and the : Sources, Conceptual Categories, AnalyticalFrameworks, in: Journalof ModernHistory 70 (1998) No. 2, pp. 385^425, herepp. 419- 421; IdemPopular Opinion in Stalin'sRussia, by Sarah Davies [review],in: Europe-Asia Studies50 (1998) No. 4, pp. 739-742, especiallyp. 741. 6 Pioneeringwork on Sovietpopular opinion includes E. Iu. Zubkova Obshchestvoi reformy, 1945- 1964. Moskva 1993; E. Iu. Zubkova Mir mneniiSovetskogo chelo veka, 1945-1948 gody: po materialamTsK VKP(b), in: Otechestvennaiaistoriia (1998) No. 3, pp. 25-39; No. 4, pp. 99-108; G. D. Burdei Bytovanieistoricheskikh znanii v massovomsoznanii v godyVelikoi Otechestvennoi voiny, in: Rossiiav 1941-1945:Problemy istorii i istoriografíi- mezhvuzovskii sbornik nauchnykh statei. Saratov1995, pp. 39-54; N. A. LomaginNastroenie zashchitnikov i naseleniia Leningrada v period oboronygoroda, 1941-1942 gg., in: Leningradskaiaepopeia. S.-Peterburg 1995, pp. 200-259; Idem Soldiersat War:German Propaganda and the Morale of theSoviet Army during the Battle for Lenin- grad,1941-1944, in: The CarlBeck Papers in Russian& East EuropeanStudies 1206 (1998) passim; S. A. ShinkarchukObshchestvennoe mnenie v SovetskoiRossii v 30-egody (po materialamSevero- zapada). S.-Peterburg1995; Lesley RimmelAnother Kind of Fear- theKirov Murder and theEnd of BreadRationing in Leningrad,in: Slavic Review56 (1997) No. 3, pp. 481-499; Sarah Davies PopularOpinion in Stalin'sRussia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1933-1941. Cambridge UK 1997; E. A. Osokina Za fasadom"stalinskogo izobiliia": raspredelenie i rynok v snabzheniinaseleniia v gody industrializatsii,1927-1941. Moskva 1998; and Ol'ga Velikanova The Functionof Lenin'sImage inthe Soviet Mass Consciousness,in: SovietCivilization between Past and Present. Ed. byMette Bryld and ErikKulavig. Odense 1998,pp. 13-38. See also myreview of Shinkarchukin: RussianReview 58 (1999) No. 2, pp. 338-339. 1differ with Shinkarchuk and Davies on thedegree to whichany source is representativeenough to reliably characterize Soviet public opinion as a whole(even within Lenin- gradenvirons). Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence is usefulas a meansof identifyingvoiced opinions in theSoviet and circulating7 public privatespheres. Althoughone commentatorhas recentlyquipped that "the plural of anecdoteis notdata," such standardsare unrealistic for discussions of mentalité anywhere in theworld at mid-century,systematic public opinionresearch being a postwarinvention of thewestern democracies. In theabsence of reliablestatistical surveys, extensive accumulation of admittedlyimpressionistic accounts remains the onlyprofitable way of assessingpopular reception during the Stalin era. On anecdoteand data,see Robert E. JohnsonStalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survivalin theRussian Village after Collectiv- ization,by Sheila Fitzpatrick[review], in: Slavic Review 55 (1996) No. 1,pp. 186-188,here p. 187. Generally,see Peter Holquist Anti-SovietSvodki from the Civil War: Surveillanceas a shared featureof Russianpolitical culture, in: RussianReview 56 (1997) No. 3, pp. 445-450. 390 David Brandenberger usuallynot articulatedin a morepositive way," she concludes that"there was littlenotion of what Russianness meant forordinary workers and peasants."8 This was hardlya new problem,of course. Before 1917, the autocracyhad actually frus- tratedthe emergence of a singlemass Russian nationalidentity out of the fearthat populariz- ing an ethnically-basedform of solidaritymight inadvertently undermine monarchical au- thority.9As a result,negative caricatures of the German enemy did more to unitethe empire duringthe FirstWorld War thanthe clumsynativist patriotic slogans thatwere hastilydis- seminated.10Over thecourse of thefirst fifteen years of theSoviet experiment,international- ist propaganda similarlydiscouraged the coalescing of a popular sense of Russian national identity,equating it with"Great Power ."11The lack of a coherentmass identity, boasting a glorious historyand triumphantpantheon of semi-mythicalpatriot-heroes, left withlittle more in common thantheir prejudice towardthe non-Russianpeoples. Davies mustersan arrayof voices fromthe mid-1930s that illustrates the situation effectively: "Look,we are Russiansand we arebeing led byJews and others-just takeComrade Stalin. He isn'tRussian, he's Georgian."[...] "Betterif they had killedStalin - he is an Armenian[!], andComrade Kirov was a pureRussian." [...] "Themajority in the Soviet of Nationalities from theRSFSR willbe nationalminorities - won't they keep the Russians down?"; "I won'tvote forStalin because he isn'tRussian and does not defend the interests of the Russian people. One shouldvote only for Russians;" "Jews and Poles are capable of all kindsof tricks. Where there arenon-Russians, there are enemies and wreckerseverywhere. As longas nationalitiesexist, therewill be wreckersand enemies." [...] "Thereis notone sensibleperson in power- theyare all Yids, Armenians,and otherzhuliki [thieves, swindlers]."12 United more by chauvinismthan an articulatenational identity,when Russians did ascribe characteristicsto themselves,they imagined an ethniccommunity which was colored with an abstract- almost maudlin- fascinationwith national suffering and the abilityto endure hardship.Although Davies acknowledgesthat the Soviet stateattempted to rallythis popula- tionafter 1937 withwhat she terms"Russian nationalistimagery," she leaves the issue un- problematized,explicitly indicating that the problemrequires further research.13 8 Davies PopularOpinion in Stalin'sRussia pp. 88-89. Archivalmaterial from ethnographic com- missionssupports similar analysis in Francine Hirsch Empireof Nations: Colonial Technologies and theMaking of theSoviet Union, 1917-1939. Ph.D. diss.,Princeton University 1998, pp. 87-88. Hans Rogger Nationalismand theState: a RussiaDilemma, in: ComparativeStudies in History and Society4 (1962) No. 3, pp. 253-264; Theodore R. Weeks Nationand Statein Late Imperial Russia:Nationalism and on theWestern Frontier, 1863-1914. DeKalb 1996,pp. 4, 9, 11, etc.;Ana Siljak Rival Visionsof the Russian Nation: the Teaching of RussianHistory, 1890-1917. Ph.D. diss.,Harvard University 1997, pp. 279-282. 10 A. V. Buganov Russkaiaistoriia v pamiatikrest'ian XIX vekai natsional'noesamosoznanie. Mos- kva 1992;and my review of the book in: Europe-Asia Studies 50 (1998) No. 2, pp. 385-386; Huber- tus F. JahnPatriotic Culture in Russiaduring World War I. Ithaca,London 1995, pp. 172-175. 11 SimonNationalismus und Nationalitätenpolitik inder Sowjetunion pp. 83-91; Ierry martin An AffirmativeAction Empire: Ethnicity and theSoviet State, 1923-1938. Ph.D. diss.,University of Chicago 1995,pp. 241-252. 12 All Davies' materialcited in thispiece is drawnfrom komsomol, party and NKVD reportscon- - cernedwith popular opinion (obshchestvennoe mnenie) see Davies PopularOpinion in Stalin's Russiapp. 88-89, 136.For similar material, see JeffreyJ. Rossman Worker Resistance under Stalin: Class andGender in the Textile Mills ofthe Ivanovo Industrial Region, 1928-1932. Ph.D. diss.,UC- Berkeley1997, pp. 123-125, 131,278-279; Lesley RimmelThe KirovMurder and SovietSociety: Propagandaand PopularOpinion in Leningrad,1934-1935. Ph.D. diss.,University of Pennsylvania 1995,pp. 128-36 and David L. HoffmannPeasant Metropolis: Social Identitiesin , 1929- 1941. Ithaca,London 1994,pp. 124-125. An anonymousletter published by Mensheviksin dovetailswith these sentiments - see M. Natsionalizmpovorachivaetsia protiv Stalina i protivkomemi- grantov,in: "Sotsialisticheskiivestnik," 10 February1934, p. 11. 13 Davies PopularOpinion in Stalin'sRussia pp. 90, 124-144. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936- 194 1 391

In fact, as A. M. Dubrovskii and I have argued elsewhere,the partyhierarchy actually realized the necessityfor developing a mass social identityearly in the 1930s. Responding to the simultaneousneed forindustrial mobilization and national defense,14steps were taken to reconfigurenarrow class-based officialpropaganda in orderto stimulatea broader sense of mass patrioticidentity. Frustrated by the ineffectivenessor stallingof early campaigns promotinginternationalism and "Soviet patriotism,"the partyhierarchy began to flirtwith an etatistideology expressed throughfamiliar Russian myths,heroes and symbols duringa transitionperiod which stretchedfrom early 1934 untillate 1937.15 As inconsistentand hesitantas officialrhetoric was duringthis time period, it seems that as earlyas themid-1930s some of thesociety's most acute observerswere beginningto sense thedirection in which Soviet ideologywas headed. Some saw theexplicit reification of state power and authorityin the gradual reappearance of uniforms,epaulettes and hierarchyin Soviet society.16Others saw it in the rehabilitationof termslike "motherland"[rodino]. Accordingto a letterfrom Moscow publishedin theMensheviks' Parisian"Sotsialisticheskii vestnik,"an entirelynew atmosphereswept through the capital followingthe announcement of a high-rankingFrench envoy's impendingstate visit: "Theytalk about it in Soviet institutions,factory smoking rooms, student dormitories and commutertrains. [...] It's thesense oí nationalpride. Russia has againbecome a GreatPower andeven such powerful states as Francedesire her friendship. [...] Narrow-mindedbureaucrats in Sovietinstitutions who had longbeen quiet now confidentlytalk of national patriotism, of Russia's historicmission, and of thereviving of theold Franco-Russianalliance, [notions which]are greeted approvingly by their Communist directors. [...] Thereis clearpanic among Communistidealists."17 While not as articulateas Trotskii'sdiagnoses of Stalinismas "Thermidor"and "the revolu- tionbetrayed"18 (or TimashefFsas the"great retreat"), Soviet citizensdemonstrated consider- able awareness of the increasinglytraditionalist aspects of the Soviet state. Because of thecentrality of theirfield to propagandaefforts, historians devoted consider- able time and energyto tryingto discernthe directionof the emergingideological line. B. A. Romanov and anotherLeningrad historian correctly sensed thatthe new Soviet historical line was to stressimperial Russia's "gatheringof peoples" over the centuries,according to an NKVD informant'sreport.19 But if some successfullydeduced how the new view was to 14 Witheerie precision, Stalin predicted war in ten years' time in 1931 . See I. V. Stalin O zadachakh khoziaistvennikov:rech' na pervoiVsesoiuznoi konferentsii rabotnikov sotsialisticheskoi promyshlen- nosti,4-go fevralia1931, in: Leninizma.Moskva 1934, 439-447, here 445. 15 Voprosy pp. p. Brandenberger,Dubrovsky 'The PeopleNeed a Tsar':the Emergence of as StalinistIdeology pp. 873-892; and David Brandenberger The ShortCourse to Modernity: Stalinisthistory textbooks, mass culture and theformation of popularRussian national identity. Ph.D. diss.,Harvard University 1999, chapter 2. On theshift in meaning of the term "patriotism," see Erwin Oberländer Sowjetpatriotismusund Geschichte. Köln 1967; SimonNationalismus und Nationalitä- tenpolitikin derSowjetunion pp. 106, 172-173. See thediary entry from November 7, 1935in A. G. Solov'ev Tetradikrasnogo professora (1912- 1941gg.), in: Neizvestnaia Rossiia XX vek.Tom 4. Moskva1993, pp. 140-228,here pp. 182-183.The introductionofepaulettes is mistakenlydiscussed as a wartimeevent in Klaus Mehnert Weltrevolu- tiondurch Weltgeschichte: die Geschichtslehredes Stalinismus.Kitzingen/Main 1950, pp. 71-72. A. Sovetskiipatriotizm - Legalizatsiia obyvatel'skogo patriotizma, in: "Sotsialisticheskii vestnik," 25 March1935, p. 24. See also A. Kazem-Bek Rossiia,mladorossy i emigratsiia. Paris 1936. The RevolutionBetrayed: What is theSoviet Union and where is itgoing? London 1937. 19 "Spetssoobshchenieo reagirovanii leningradskikh istorikov na postanovlenieTsK VKP(b) i SNK SSSR ot26.1.36 i opublikovaniezamechanii o konspektakhuchebnikov istorii SSSR' i 'Novoi Isto- rii'"(early 1936), in: Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv istoriko-politicheskikh dokumentov v Sankt- Peterburge(hereafter TsGAIPD SPb), f. 24, op. 2v, d. 1829, 1. 93. The authoris gratefulto Sarah Davies forthis reference. Romanov and his colleague's awareness of the new centrality of the"gather- 392 DavidBrandenberger be orchestrated,the ambiguous, shifting nature of theofficial line in themid- 1930s caught manyveteran party members unawares. Instructive is thecase of N. I. Bukharin.Despite majorpolitical defeats in thelate 1920s,in themid- 1930s Bukharin retained an influential positionat "Izvestiia"and remaineddeeply engaged with ideological issues including the developmentof theall-important history catechism.20 Nevertheless, in February1936 he cameunder fire for an articlecharacterizing the Russians before 1917 as "a nationof Oblo- movs"and for noting in anotherpiece that minority distrust of Russians was a naturalconse- quenceof tsarist colonial policies. Despite the fact that both themes had longbeen a partof Bolshevikdiscourse (Lenin had been particularly fond of the Oblomov reference), Bukha- rin'spublic scolding warned of the mounting sensitivity of these subjects.21 Other reversals soonconfirmed the extent to which the traditional line was in flux.M. A. Bulgakov's"Ivan Vasilievich,"a comedy which poked fun at the Muscovite state-builder Ivan the Terrible, was canceledbefore it could open that spring.22 Five monthslater, the staging of Dem'ian Bed- nyi's"Bogatyri," a satire on thelegendary drunkenness surrounding epic Russian heroes and thecoming of Christianityto Rus', costthe author his career.23Others writing on historical ingof peoples" myth stemmed from their having attended a Politburodiscussion on historytextbooks in March1934. As thismeeting, A. S. Bubnov,the Commissar of Education, proposed that the official historicalline concern not just thelinear pre-revolutionary "history of the USSR," buta broaderand moreinclusive "history of the peoples of Russia." Interrupting him, Stalin disagreed and assertedthe needfor a focuson a singlethousand-year political narrative, noting simplistically that "the Russian peoplein thepast gathered other peoples together and have begun that sort of gatheringagain now." Stalin'scomment on theRussian people's historic consolidation of non-Russian minorities during thetsarist era echoesa similarstatement in his famous1913 essayon thenational question. Striking is hisexpansion of the analysis in 1934 to identifya leading role for Russians in Sovietconstruction. See I. V. Stalin Marksizmi natsional'nyivopros, in: Marksizmi natsional'no-kolonial'nyivopros: sbornikizbrannykh statei i rechei.Moskva 1934,pp. 3-45, herep. 10. The accountof the 1934 Polit- buromeeting is drawnfrom the diary of S. A. Piontkovskii,which is heldin theinaccessible archives of theformer NKVD (TsA FSB RF, d. R-8214) and is excerptedin Aleksei Litvin Bez pravana mysl':istorik v epokhuBol'shogo terrora - ocherksudeb. Kazan' 1994,p. 56. 20 TsGAIPD SPb f.24, op. 2v, d. 1829,1. 92; and David Brandenberger Who KilledPokrovskii (the secondtime)? The Preludeto theDenunciation of theFather of SovietMarxist Historiography, January1936, in: Revolutionary Russia 1 1 (1998) No. 1,pp. 67-73. Anotherembattled Old Bolshevik, K. B. Radek,actually led thedrafting of a textbookon thehistory of colonialismwhich was never published. 21 Bukharin'sstatement on colonialismwas inthe context of an argumentsuggesting that the Russian - peoplewere "the first among equals" within the Soviet family of nations see N. Bukharin Mogu- shchestvennaiafederatsiia, in: "Izvestiia," 2 February1936, p. 1 - whilehis use ofthe "nation of Oblo- movs"epithet is containedin an articleabout Lenin - see IdemNash vozhd', nash uchitel', nash otets," ibidem,21 January1936, p. 2. He was assailedon February10 and 12 in "Pravda"and publishedan apologytwo days later- see Ob odnoigniloi kontseptsii, in: "Pravda,"10 February1936, p. 3; A. Leont'ev Tsenneishiivklad v sokrovishchnitsumarksizma-leninizma, ibidem 12 February1936, p. 4; andN. BukharinOtvet na vopros,in: "Izvestiia," 14 February1936, p. 1. On Lenin'suse ofthe Ob- lomovreference, see V. I. LeninPolnoe sobranie sochinenii. Tom 1-55. Moskva 1958-1970,torn 43, p. 228; torn44, pp. 365,398; torn45, pp. 3-4, 13. Formore on theincident, see thesomewhat hyper- bolic Roy Medvedev NikolaiBukharin: The Last Years.Trans.: A. D. P. Briggs.New York 1980, pp. 103-106; and L. Dymerskaia Demarshprotiv Stalina? (o povestiBruno Iasenskogo 'Nos'), in: Novoe literatumoeobozrenie (1998) No. 3, pp. 144-154. 22 DnevnikEleny Bulgakovoi. Ed. by V. I. Losev and L. Ianovskaia.Moskva 1990,p. 120. The argumentthat the play was cancelledbecause the party hierarchy had lostconfidence in Bulgakov himselfstrikes the reader as excessivelyteleological. See Ia. S. Lur'e IvanGroznyï i drevnerusskaia literaturav tvorchestve M. Bulgakova,in: Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. Tom 45. S.-Peterburg 1992,pp. 3 15-321,here p. 321. " Bednyi'sgentle deriding of theRussian ethnicity had gottenhim into trouble as earlyas lyjl whenStalin and L. Z. Mekhlischastised him in private and public, respectively - see StalinTov. Dem'- ianuBednomu (Vyderzhki iz pis'ma),in: Sochineniia.Tom 13.Moskva 1951, pp. 23-27; L. Mekhlis Za perestroikuraboty RAPP, in: "Pravda,"24 November1931, pp. 2-3. The publishedversion of SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936-1 94 1 393 topicswere arrestedoutright.24 While the details of each case are interesting,more salient is thefact that even themost savvy of the Soviet intellectualelite were findingthe orientation of theemerging line difficultto gauge. Only withthe denunciation of Bednyi did theybegin to realize theperils of engagingin "insultingdepictions of our country'spast" which contra- dictedthe etatist dimensions of the developing officialline.25 K. F. Shteppa, teachingat the time at Kiev State University,recalled laterthat : "Thecases of Demian Bedny and N. Bukharinindicate^] thatthe shift on thehistorical front was thebeginning of a new era in theofficial world view. It was a swervetoward Russian patriotism- not only toward the justification but the canonization of the Russian historical past [and]toward a cultof [the]people's heroes.[...] Moreover,this new trend was notlimited to historyalone, but was extendedto thefields of literatureand art."26 The definitivestatement on this ideological turn-about- A. V. Shestakov's "Short Course on theHistory of theUSSR" - appeared a year later,a textbookwhich promised to authorita- tively scriptthe Stalin era's historicalnarrative.27 Although the Shestakov textwas lauded in the officialpress forits presentation of thehistory of all the Soviet peoples instead of just thedominant Russian majority,the text's agenda actuallyprecluded the realization of such claims.28In fact,its stridentlyetatist russocentrism troubled a Magnitogorskstudent named G. Kh. Bikbulatov enough to provoke him to address the followingconcerns to Shestakov himself: "Thetextbook is entitledA Historyof the Peoples of the USSR}29] but according to itscontents itis neverthelessnot a historyof the peoples. [...] The conqueringof one regionafter another bythe Russian autocracy is shownin thetextbook, as is theincorporation of variousnational stateslike the Caucasus and eastern [ones] in chronological order. But in orderto successfully presentthe history of the peoples of the USSR, it is necessaryto directsome [more] attention to thisquestion, particularly considering when textbooks on thepeoples of theUSSR willbe compiled."30

Stalin'sletter to Bednyi is a gentrifiedversion of the original correspondence - see RTsKhlDNI,f. 558, op. 1,d. 2931. On Bednyi'sfall from grace, see Edward J.Brown The ProletarianCrisis in .New York 1953,pp. 188-190; A. M. Dubrovskii Kak Dem'ian Bednyiideologicheskuiu oshibkusovershil, in: Otechestvennaia kul'tura i istoricheskaianauka XVIII-XX vekov.Briansk 1996, pp. 143-151; Leonid MaksimenkovSumbur vmesto muzyki: stalinskaia kul'turnaia revoliutsiia, 1936-1938.Moskva 1997,pp. 212-222; Sto sorokbesed s Molotovym:iz dnevnikaF. Chueva.Ed. by F. Chuev.Moskva 1991,p. 269. 24 LitvinBez pravana mysF;A. N. Artizov Sud'byistorikov shkoly M. N. Pokrovskogo(seredina 1930-khgodov), in: Voprosy istorii (1994) No. 7, pp. 34-48; and Iu. P. Sharapov Litseiv sokol'ni- kakh:ocherk istorii IFLI. Moskva 1995,pp. 140-150. 25 P. M. Kerzhentsev FaFsifikatsiianarodnogo proshlogo (o 'Bogatyriakh'Dem'iana Bednogo), in:"Pravda," 15 November1936, p. 3. Thismove had been foreshadowed by the early 1936 condemna- tion of Pokrovskii'shistoriographie "school" for"leftist internationalism." This referredto those associatedwith M. N. Pokrovskiiduring the 1920s who had had a reputationfor being highly critical of tsarismand theRussian people's willingparticipation in theadministration of theempire. On the denunciation,see V. A. BystrianskiiKriticheskie zamechaniia ob uchebnikakhpò istoriiSSSR, in: "Pravda,"1 February1936, p. 2. Forits role in clarifyingcritical issues, see E. V. Gutnova Na istfake, in: Vestnik universiteta.Series 8 (1993) No. 6, 63-77, here 73-74. 26 Moskovskogo pp. pp. Konstantin ShteppaRussian Historians and theSoviet State. New BrunswickNJ 1962, 127. 27 p. Kratkiikurs istorii SSSR. Ed. by A. V. Shestakov.Moskva 1937. 1 treatthe production of this textbookin considerabledetail in myThe ShortCourse to Modernity,pp. 62-88, 374-393. On thealleged "multicultural" focus of the text, see A. K. Kratkiikurs istorii SSSR [review],in: Bol'shevik(1937) No. 17,pp. 84-96,especially pp. 95, 87. The statistorientation of the new textbook is moreaccurately appraised in Iu. Osokin Stalinizatsiiaistorii, in: "Sotsialisticheskiivestnik," 14 October1937, pp. 4-9, especiallyp. 8. Bikbulatovwas a ofthe Shestakov textbook issued under a differenttitle for adults. 30 using copy "Tov. Shestakov(from Bikbulatov)" (1 April1938), Arkhiv Rossiiskoi akademii nauk (hereafter ArkhivRAN), f.638, op. 3, d. 330, 1.35. 394 David Brandenberger

Others,however, welcomed thesea-change in theofficial view of Soviet history.Shestakov received massive amounts of mail relatingto the project,much of which was congratula- tory.31More tellingis thefact that while Bikbulatovwas addressinghis critiqueto Shestakov, - D. P. Petrov,a commanderin theRed Armyreserves, was denouncingtwo Orientalists A. I. Artaruniand S. L. Vel'dman - to the army's political directorate.They had apparently referred"negatively to theRussian historicalprocess in general,to theprocess of theRussian state's formation,and to the will of the Russian working class, which transformed[the Russian state]into the and themotherland of Socialism."32Petrov saw the new officialline forwhat it was: rehabilitated,Russian imperialhistory was to extend legitimacy and pedigreeto the Soviet experiment.That is not to say thatpress coverage of Soviet minor- itiesceased. Instead,it shiftedin focusto emphasizeexotic or archaiccultural forms, comple- mentinga developing press campaign which labeled the Russian people "the firstamong - equals."33Soviet citizensviewed non-Russiansaccordingly a partyfunctionary and would- be writernamed A. G. Solov'ev aimed a barb at Dzhambul, one of the most orientalized34 figuresof the day: 'The papersare describing the awarding of the Order of Leninto theKazakh bard Dzhambul. Sucha rarity!A wizenedold fellow,illiterate, unable to read or write,becomes a famouspoet. That'stalent for you. And I don'thave anything like it."35 Althoughfew people expressed feelingsas bitteras Solov'ev in regardto the non-Russian peoples, many of theirstatements nevertheless reflect considerable naïveté and a tendency to objectifythe minority cultures and theirrepresentatives. Entries in thediaries of thewriters 31 See theletters stored under ibidem 11. 62, 83, 88, 89, 90, 96, 99, 103, 104,etc. When a relatedset oftextbooks was issuedfor higher education in 1940,the scientist V. I. Vernadskiiwrote at lengthin hisdiary about his mixed impressions: "I finishedthe first volume of the 'History of the USSR.' The stridenttendentiousness is very obvious, but, on theother hand, this revising [of the history of the state] froma newpoint of view is veryenlightening. That the 'classics of Marxism' [are referred to] on equal termswith scholarly findings creates the strange impression of naive cynicism. [Still,] Marx and Engels are interestingin places.It is veryuneven, but in general,it is probablytrue that this [interpretation] is inmore agreement with reality than the courses by Kliuchevskii, Platonov or Solov'ev. [A senseof] officialpatriotism is very evident. There are some interesting nuances to the Ukrainian question. Aside fromthat, one is astoundedby themoral poverty of the XVII and XVIII centurytsars. Initially, [the bookis slated]for the masses (75 000 copies).I was able to buya copyonly though connections (via [B. D.] Grekov)."See hisdiary entry from April 15, 1940 in: V. I. Vernadskii Dnevnik1940 goda, in: Druzhbanarodov (1993) No. 9, pp. 173-194,here. p. 176. 32 Artaruniand Fel'dman supposedly conducted anti-Soviet agitation "under the guise [pod vidom]" ofdiscussing tsarist colonial policies. "Zaiavlenie (from Petrov)" (10 January1938), in: Rossiiskiigo- sudarstvennyivoennyi arkhiv (hereafter RGVA), f. 9, op. 29s, d. 355, 1.68, see also 1.69. Petrovwas, ofcourse, glossing Stalin's famous 1924 essay Ob osnovakhleninizma, in: VoprosyLeninizma. Mos- kva 1935,pp. 1-74, herepp. 49, 72-74. 33 Firstused in the mid-thirties, the"first among equals" rhetoric became prevalent late in the decade. See RSFSR, in: "Pravda,"1 February1936, p. 1. 34 Generally,see Edward Said Orientalism.New York 1979. Fordifferent readings of theSoviet exotic"other," see Martin An AffirmativeAction Empire pp. 928, 944-945, 949; Karen Pétrone 'Life has becomemore joyous, comrades': Politics and culturein Sovietcelebrations, 1934-1939. Ph.D. diss., Universityof Michigan1994, pp. 170-173; Michael G. SmithCinema for the 'Soviet East': NationalFact and Revolutionary Fiction in EarlyAzerbaijani film, in: Slavic Review56 (1997) No. 4, pp. 645-678,here pp. 669-678; Greg Castillo Peoplesat an Exhibition:Soviet Architecture andthe National Question, in: SocialistRealism without Shores (South Atlantic Quarterly Special Issue Edition)94 (1995) No. 3, pp. 715-746; Yuri Slezkine ArcticMirrors: Russia and theSmall Peoples ofthe North. Ithaca, London 1994. 35 Diary entryfrom November 21, 1936 - see Solov'ev Tetradikrasnogo professora (1912- 1941 gg.) pp. 189-190. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936-1 94 1 395

V. P. Stavskiiand K. I. Chukovskii stand out in thisregard.36 More outspokenwas the con- ductor S. A. Samosud, who was overheardby an informantcriticizing a Ukrainian dance troupe forhaving "no high, serious art" duringa springtimecelebration ofthat republic's culturein the Soviet capital. His companion,M. I. Rostovtsev,was even more blunt in his chauvinism,grumbling that "now in general they [the leaders] are praising and rewarding ethnics. They give medals to Armenians,Georgians and Ukrainians - everyone except Russians."37A letteraddressed to Zhdanov in 1938 indicatesthat such sentimentsin regard to the non-Russian peoples were not restrictedto white-collarand intelligentsiacircles, a long-timeworker in Leningrad complainingderisively to the partyleader that"you must come to the factories;that would be more useful thanyour presence at the academic theater in Moscow ([for a] dekada of Azerbaidzhani art)."38More obnoxious was Milovanov, a soldierin theGorki regiment working in thegarrison canteen, who served the Kazakh Khai- bulaev only a half a plate of borscht.When the latterprotested, the formerdeclared: "You are a Kazakh and thatmeans half-humanso I've given you what you deserve."39As such examples indicate,the press' orientalizationof non-Russiancultures trivialized them in the eyes of Soviet citizens,reinforcing popular russocentrism. While such trendsare quite clear in hindsight,the ambiguityof the situationduring the ideological transitionis also veryvisible in thesources. If some quicklygrasped the implica- tions of the valorization of Russian historyand culture,many others initiallyresisted it, despitethe statistrussocentrism in the press thathad been increasinglyprominent since the Pushkin centennial in early 1937.40A certain Girfand's question at a Leningrad lecture revealed typicalconcerns about the emergingline: "Recently,in an arrayof journalisticarticles about Suvorov, he has been referredto as a people's hero[narodnyi geroi]. Without doubt, Suvorov was a brilliantmilitary leader who neverexperienced a defeat, but at the same time he was himselfan instrumentoftsarist politics in Europe,[particularly] Gendarme of Europepolitics. So is itcorrect to call hima people's hero?"4r Equally instructiveis thereaction of Leningradoblast' school inspectorKarpova, who failed to appreciatethe magnitude of thechanges underwayin her 1937 complaintthat Prince Svia- toslav was being "depictedin an arrayof schools as havingbeen a superiorprince who slept with his soldiers, ate with his soldiers, [etc., -] the childrenspeak of him with such high 36 Diaryof V. P. Stavskii,in: Intimacyand Terror:Soviet Diaries of the 1930s. Ed. by Véronique Garros,Natalia Korenevskaya and ThomasLahusen. New York 1995,pp. 228, 234; K. Chukovskii Dnevnik,1930-1969. Tom 2. Moskva 1994, 145. 3/ p. TsGAIPD SPb f.24, op. 2v,d. 1839,11. 272-3, quoted in Sheila FitzpatrickEveryday Stalinism - OrdinaryLife in ExtraordinaryTimes: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. New York 1999,pp. 168-169; see thedescription of a different on 181 and note61 . 38 complaint p. TsGAIPD SPb f.24, op. 2g, d. 149,1. 129,quoted in Da vies PopularOpinion in Stalin'sRussia p. 128. "Nach.Osobogo Otdela NKVD SSSR St. maiorugos.bezopasnosti t. Bochkovu,'Dokladnaia za- piskao nedochetakh,sviazannykh s prokhozhdeniem voennoi sluzhby krasnoarmeitsami natsmenami v chastiiakh,obsluzhivaemykh 00 NKVD MVO'" (19 May 1939),RGVA f.9, op. 39s, d. 75, 1.56. Otherexamples of interethnichostility continue until 1. 59. 40 On therehabilitation ofA. S. Pushkin,see my'The People'sPoet': RussocentricPopulism during the1937 Pushkin Commemoration, in:Russian History / Histoirerusse 26 (1999) No. 1-2, forthcom- ing.Note the reaction from abroad in V. Aleksandrova Pushkini sovetskoeobshchestvo, in: "Sotsia- listicheskiivestnik," 17 January1937, pp. 4-5; and IdemLiteraturnaia biurokratiia nastupaet, ibidem 25 March1937, 4. 41 p. Shestakov'stextbook indicated that it was. See Girfand'snote passed to A. V. Shestakovduring a publiclecture between 1938-1940 at ArkhivRAN f.638, op. 3, d. 333, 1.21. A similarquestion - "WereSuvorov and Kutuzovnational heroes?" - was askedat a differentlecture, ibidem 1. 126. 396 David Brandenberger praise thatit is simplyrevolting [vozmutitel'no]"*2 Moreover, the confusionwas allowed to persistfor months, "Pravda" waitinguntil mid- January 1938 to hintat the new line when it argued vociferouslyfor the reinstatementof a teacherwho had been dismissed forrusso- centricremarks in class.43The descriptionof a disputeon a crowded Moscow-bound train in early 1938 recordedin the diaryof M. M. Prishvinprovides one of the most interesting glimpses of the impactthat the ideological changes were having on the popular level: "[...] somewherein the stench [of the train car] there was a marvelouschoir singing an ancient Russiansong. This song tugged at the heartstrings ofmany of the simple people [aboard], some crooningalong, some keeping quiet, some snoring, some singing quietly to themselves,[an effectwhich was] notonly not distracting, but indeed intensified the power of thesong - the peoplesang. During a pausebetween songs, before the beginning of a newone, one somewhat- tipsyperson said outloud: 'You singwell, but it's all old stuff-he whothinks of the past is a fool[kto staroe pomianet, tomuglaz von]' Fromthe choir came theanswer: 'But he who forgetsthe past is a biggerfool [A ktostaroe zabudet,tomu dva glaza von].y 'But you'rewrong in sayingthat,' said thefirst guy, 'we needcheerfulness for our new way of lifeand lookwhat you're doing: you're resurrecting the past. Forget the past.' 'Whatabout Pushkin?' asked a newvoice. Thisstymied the of the new ways for a moment,but he quicklyrecovered: 'Pushkin was an isolatedcase. Pushkinmanaged to foreseeour time way back then and stoodfor it. He was an exception.' 'And Lomonosov?' 'Also an exception.' 'No, that'salready the second, and thenyou can't forget Peter the First' - a third. Andon andon theycounted - purelogic. A feelingof discomfort swept through the train car: it was clearto everyonethat Pushkin was notan exceptionand thatone couldnot forget the folksong. But someone had raised the question and since he had,it was necessaryto finda way out- theissue was no longerone ofpure logic. Just then the choir led intothe song '[Shiroka] stranamoia rodnaia* and everyone joined in eagerly, the song being familiar to one and all. This account indicates the extentto which the officialrehabilitation of historicalRussian heroes and cultureduring 1936 and 1937 was resonatingwithin at least theRussian-speaking segmentsof Soviet society.Projected through the lens of partypropaganda, Pushkin,Lomo- nosov and Peter had foundtheir way into the popular mind on its most basic level as Red Russian hybrids.45 Perhaps some of Prishvin's fellow travelershad seen V. Petrov's "Peter the First" the precedingfall, a filmwhich had hitthe screens just as Shestakov's historytext was beginning to roll offthe presses. Based on a scriptby A. N. Tolstoi, it was actuallypart of a cycle of Petrine-orientedworks by the same authorthat included plays and a novel in additionto its filmadaptation. These works had a high profileeven in social circles not known fortheir appreciation of literaryculture: a regimentcommissar named Otianovskii, for instance, admittedat one pointin late 1939 that"Peter the First"had been the only book he had read 42 "Stenogrammasoveshchaniia territorial 'nykh inspektorov s otchetami o proverke raboty nachal'noi shkolypo itogampervoi chetverti" (20 November1937), Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi federatsii (hereafterGARF), f. 2306, op. 70, d. 2427, 1. 11. Similarexamples of suchconfusion are housed in RGVA. f.9. od. 29s. d. 452, 1.57: op. 36s, d. 3778, 1.64. 43 4. is N. Kruzhkov Prestupleniestarogo uchitelia, in: "Pravda,"19 January1938, p. The author gratefulto E. ThomasEwing for this reference. 44 M. M. PrishvinDnevniki, 1905-1954, in: Sobraniesochinenii v vos'mitomakh. Tom 8. Moskva 1986,p. 334. 45 M. V. Lomonosovwas thefocus of Genial'nyisyn velikogo russkogo naroda, in: "Pravda,' 18 November1936, p. 1; on Peter,see below.Especially Pushkin suffered the indignity of beingincluded in Stalinistmass culture in all sortsof iconoclastic contexts, e.g. G. V. Aleksandrov's1940 box-office hit"Shining Path." SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936-1 94 1 397 duringthe previous year.46Although the filmadaptation initially confused some audience members with its heroic portrayalof representativesof the old regime,47observers soon grasped Tolstoi's suggestive analogy between the Stalin revolutionand Peter's reformef- forts.48When the filmwas made available to collectivefarmers in the Nurlatskraion outside of Kazan', some eightthousand peasants streamedto make-shifttheaters to see it. Perhaps because of the film,workers in a studycircle at the Putilov factoryin Leningrad displayed a keen interestin the epoch of Peter the Great, especially "how Peter foughtthe Swedes, founded the Russian navy, etc." The same was reportedat Moscow's Kaganovich Bali- Bearing Plant.49 "Peterthe First" was quicklyfollowed by an even more importantfilm in the same patri- otic genre:"Aleksandr Nevskii," shotby S. M. Eisenstein.50Released in 1938, it was greeted withgreat enthusiasm. "Pravda" reportedthat: "AleksandrNevskii has comedown to us inthe history of the Russian people as a militaryand politicalleader. He was nota usureror a slave traderlike the majority of theNovgorodian princes.He was a militarystrategist [organizator] who defeated the Swedes and Germans.He strengthenedour country's north-western borders. His descendantsunderstand and treasure this;this is whyKomsomol members in 1938 applaudwith such gratitude."51 While manycommentators have notedthat films with everyday subject mattersuch as G. V. Aleksandrov's"Circus" and "Volga- Volga" eclipsed more explicitlypropagandistic pieces 46 "Dokladnaiazapiska po obsledovaniiu55 Aviabrigady"(5 May 1939),RGVA f.9, op. 29s,d. 452, 1. 224. For A. M. Gor'kii'sstatement concerning the popularity of A. N. Tolstoi'sPetrine-oriented work,see Pervyivsesoiuznyi s"ezd Sovetskikhpisatelei, 1934 - Stenograficheskiiotchet. Moskva 1934,p. 225; see also P. Erin Iz opytaprepodavaniia v shkole, in: Istoriiav sredneishkole (1934) No. Lp.61. 47 Althoughsome observers like G. V. Shtangewere impressed by Petrov'sfilm, others were dis- turbedenough to ask A. V. Shestakovduring public lectures how he feltabout not only "Peter the First,"but "Aleksandr Nevskii" as well.The historian N. M. Druzhininand graduate student (and future historian)A. G. Man'kovwere similarly puzzled, while Magnitogorsk's John Scott mistook "Peter" fora foreignfilm due to itsiconoclastic subject matter. See Diaryof GalinaVladimirovna Shtange, in: Intimacyand Terror:Soviet Diaries of the 1930s,p. 210; ArkhivRAN, f.638, op. 3, d. 333, 11.4, 6, 120,123, 125,130, 136;Dnevnik Nikolaia Mikhailovicha Druzhinina, in: Voprosyistorii (1997) No. 7, pp. 121-143,here pp. 132, 129-30;A. G. Man'kov Iz dnevnika,1938-1941 gg., in: Zvezda (1995) No. 11, pp. 167-199,here pp. 173,176, 181; JohnScott Behindthe Urals: An AmericanWorker in Russia's Cityof Steel.Bloomington 1989, p. 236. 48 Unafraidof anachronism, Tolstoi once wrote that "in every historical moment, we musttake what we need,discard what's archaic, and extract that which will resonate in our epoch." A. N. Tolstoi Pisa- ter i teatr,in: Teatr i dramaturgiia(1934) No. 4, p. 12. 1.L. Solonevichnoticed the peculiarities of Tol- stoi'sapproach to historical drama in emigration,writing in 1951 that"psychologically, you see here StalinistRussia, which by Petrinemethods is realizingthe Petrine rally ing-call: 'catch up to and overtakethe leading capitalist countries!' Stalin becomes the continuer of Peter'spolicies, sort of a IosifPetrovich, who accomplishes the affairs of the 'Great Transformer.'" I. L. Solonevich Narodnaia monarkhiia.Buenos- Aires 1951, reprint Moskva 1991, pp. 427-428. See generallyV. Aleksandrova Na putiakhzaversheniia revoliutsii, in: "Sotsialisticheskii vestnik," 28 May 1938,p. 11; IdemPoterian- naia i vozvrashchennaiarodina, ibidem 14 June1938, pp. 4-6. Zvukovoekino v kolkhozakh,in: "Pravda," 12 November1938, p. 3; Bol'shoiinterés k politiches- kimzaniatiam (Gruppovoi partorg 4-go uchastka,sverlovshchik tov. Morshchinin), ibidem 19 March 1938,p. 3; V zavodskoibiblioteke, in: "VecherniaiaMoskva," 10 October1938, p. 2. Beforeits release, Eisenstein s "Nevskn was assailedby severalhistorian-consultants forits ten- dencyto essentialize historical events and interpolateovertly anti-German and anti-Japaneseimagery intothe medieval tale. R. Iurenev SergeiEizenshtein - zamysly, fil'my, metod. Tom 2. Moskva 1988, pp. 144-145.Eisenstein revealed his political intentions behind "Aleksandr Nevskii" in S. Eizenshtein Patriotizm- nashatema, in: "Kino," 11 November1938, pp. 3-4. "' M. K.OLTSOVNarod-bogatyr', m: "Travda," 7 November 1938, p. 2. 398 David Brandenberger in the mid-1930s,52 the returnof the Russian historicalhero gave new life to the Soviet - political cinema almost immediately."Nevskii" drew recordaudiences V. S. Ivanov, the directorof Moscow's Art Cinema, told a newspaper correspondentthat "not since the days of Chapaev has therebeen such an enormous flood of viewers."53Far away in the Rostov oblast' townof Shakhty,an amateurcorrespondent wrote that long lines were formingevery day outside of the local movie theater'sticket office some two hours before the window would even open. Twenty-onethousand people apparentlyhad seen the filmduring the first seven days of itsrun in thisprovincial town.54 Elsewhere, people were reportedto be cueing up to see the filmtwo or even threetimes in orderto relive the experience.55In Moscow, ticketsremained virtually impossible to obtain forweeks afterthe film's première.56 "Vecherniaia Moskva" ran stories regarding"Aleksandr Nevskii" almost daily in late Novemberand earlyDecember of 1938. One such piece asked audience memberswhat they had thoughtof the film,answers which illustratethe extentto which russocentrismwas becoming an intrinsicelement of Soviet patriotism: 'The filmtouched me to the depths of my soul. It is a genuinemasterpiece [shedevr] of Soviet cinematography.The unforgettable'Battle on theIce' episodecharacterizes the patriotism of theRussian people, their unwavering bravery and their deep love for their motherland." [Com- radeShliakhov, Red Armyofficer.] "A spectacularfilm has been created which tells in a simpleand beautiful way of the power and heroismof theRussian people. This filmfills [its viewer] with a senseof pridefor our great motherland."[V. Vagdasarov,schoolboy from School No. 26.] "Thegreatness of the ideas and thegrandiose nature of their staging make the film one of the bestmeans of mobilizingour people in thestruggle with those who in 1938 have forgotten aboutthe delicate lessons of theyear 1242. May thecontemporary 'mongrel knights' 'psy- rytsary]lS7]remember the tragic and shamefulrole played by theirforefathers, the 'crusader- bastards'[krestonosnye svolochi]'" [P. Lunin,engineer.] '"Who comesto us withthe sword shall perish by the sword.' These words of AleksandrNev- skii's,pronounced seven hundred years ago, are relevant even now. We willanswer every blow ofthe enemy with a triple-blow.The Russianpeople have [always]beaten, are beating [now] and will [always]beat all theirenemies." [Comrade Galotov, metal worker in theGorbunov factory.]5* As visible in the above-cited statements,the impact of "AleksandrNevskii" was powerful enough forclichés fromthe filmto be assimilatedinto the discourse of the era. In one case, afterLeningrad teacher E. E. Kozlova finisheddescribing Nevskii's 1242 repulsingof the Teutonicknights, children from her class announcedwith confidence that if any enemies"are 52 See, forinstance, Shinkarchuk Obshchestvennoemnenie v SovetskoiRossii v 30-e gody pp. 123-124;Richard Taylor Ideologyand Popular Culture in SovietCinema, in: The Red Screen: Politics,Society and Art in SovietCinema. Ed. byAnn Lawton. London, New York 1992,pp. 42-65, here 61-62; Peter Kenez Cinemaand SovietSociety, 1917-1953. New York 1992,p. 162. 53pp. * L. V. ZriteFo fil'me AleksandrNevskii', in: "VecherniaiaMoskva," 4 December1938, p. 3; Maya Turovskaya The Tastesof Soviet Moviegoers during the 1930s, in: Late SovietCulture: from Perestroikato Novostroika.Ed. by ThomasLahusen with Gene Kuperman.Durham, London 1993, 95-108, herep. 103. pp.54 "Redaktorugazety 'Pravda'" (9 January1939), Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i ís- kusstva(hereafter RGALI), f. 1923,op. 1,d. 2289, 11.27-29ob. 55 "O kinofil'me'Aleksandr Nevskii' (by I. A. Sudnikov)"(30 December1938), ibidem 1. 32. 56 Uspekhfil'ma 'Aleksandr Nevskii', in: "Vecherniaia Moskva," 2 December1938, p. 3; N. Kruzh- kov AleksandrNevskii, in: "Pravda,"4 December1938, p. 4. 57 Thisterm was KarlMarx's - see K. Marks Khronologicheskievypiski, in: ArkhivMarksa i En- Tom 5. Moskva 1938,p. 344. gel'sa.58 Zritel' o fil'me'Aleksandr Nevskii' p. 3. See similarcomments by a captainin theRed Army namedDubrovskii, reported in L. V. Na posmotrefiFma 'Aleksandr Nevskii', in: "VecherniaiaMos- kva,"29 November1938, p. 3. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1936-1941 399 brave enough to attack our Union, we'll give them a Battle on the Ice or even worse."59 Similar sentimentswere voiced by three studentsnamed Vasil'ev, Golant and Gamynin outsideof a Moscow movie theater:'"Aleksandr Nevskii' is a menacing [groznoe] warning to thefascist aggressors whose forefatherswere so thoroughlybeaten by the Russian people. If the enemy attacks,he'll be even more devastatinglyrebuffed than die 'mongrel knights' were on the ice of Lake Chud."60 Private lettersdrawn from Eisenstein's archive echo the enthusiasm that resounded throughoutthe Soviet press. One personwrote to Eisensteinwaxing rhapsodic about charac- ters like Vas'ka Buslai and noted in regardto the film's lead that:"You have depicted the image of AleksandrNevskii verywell. It even anticipateswhat was to be 700 years hence. It speaks to us in contemporaryterms that 'He who comes to us withthe sword will perish by the sword,' 'Where go theRussian lands,' etc."61Addressing Eisenstein with the ancient Slavic word foran epic folkhero - bogatyr- a sailor named V. Bunitswrote that: "I learned from'Pravda' about yourvictory over the 'mongrelknights.' I am veryglad. I send you my congratulationsand my greetingfrom the harsh shores of the Pacific Ocean [...]."62 Equally pleased with the underlyingthematics of the epic was a teacher from Kriukovsknamed V. Rogach who testifiedthat "the Russian warriors'readiness to sacrifice themselvesin thedefense of theirmotherland evokes greatlove... [and] a burninghatred for theGerman occupiers who dared to [treadon] theRussian land." His conclusion? "We need more filmswhich stimulatethe viewer's patrioticsentiments!"63 Seconding thisview was a Russian workerfrom Central Asia named I. A. Sudnikov whose letterdeserves to be quoted at length: "Thereare lines at theticket windows. [...] Manyhave gone to the movie several times in order towatch this notable cinematic page from the history of our motherland's distant past again and again. This is not coincidental.Our country'sbest directorshave createdan unusuallybrilliant, truthfuldepiction [obraz] of the Russian people, defending their right to independenceagainst themiddle ages' mongrelknight feudal lords, relatives of the fascists of today. Thisprofoundly well thought-out historical film opens up beforeus thepages of thehistory of whatwas and awakenswithin us a feelingof pride which strengthens [our resolve] to defend ourindependence forever. [...] We needsuch films. I, forone, as an audiencemember, consider it impermissibleto stop with'Aleksandr Nevskii.' It wouldnot hurt to movetoward the production of filmson the subjectof 'The 1812Invasion of Napoleon Bonaparte,' 'The Sevastopol'Campaign of 1856,' 'The Battle of Kulikovo Field,' 'The Battle of the Kalka,' 'The Invasion of Batyi,' 'Tamerlane'sMarch,' etc."64 Such calls were answered in surprisinglyshort order. 1939 saw the release of "Ruslan and Liudmila" and "Minin and Pozharskii,"with "Bogdan Kmel'nitskii" and "Suvorov" foliow- 59 S. DziubinskiiVospitatel'naia rabota na urokakhistorii SSSR, in: Vospitatel'naiarabota v na- chal'noishkole: Sbornik statei. Ed. by S. N. Belousov.Moskva 1939,pp. 100-114, here p. 102. In a LeningradMilitary District study circle, a certainprivate Erofeev was reportedfor being unable to makethe connection between Nevskii's defensive victory at Lake Chudand the "contemporary interna- tionalsituation." See "Nachal'nikupolitupravleniia LVO" (29 March 1939), RGVA f. 9, op. 36s, d. 3778, 1.64. 60ZriteP o fil'me 'AleksandrNevskii' d. 3. 61 "Dorogoitovarishch Eizenshtein! (signature illegible)" (n.d. [early1939]), RGALI f. 1923,op. 1, d. 2289, 11.55-36, here1. 36. 62"Uv. SergeiMikhailovich (from Bunits)" (20 November1938). ibidem1. 24. 63ZriteP o fil'me'Aleksandr Nevskii' 3. 64 p. "O kinofil'me'Aleksandr Nevskii' (by I. A. Sudnikov)"(30 December1938), RGALI f. 1923,op. 1,d. 2289,11. 32-32ob. Similar themes were suggested by Iu. V. Ivanovand other letter writers in early 1939- see 11.65-66ob, 102,etc. 400 David Brandenberger ing two years later.65Red Army LieutenantA. I. Matveev found "Ruslan and Liudmila" memorableenough to mentionin his diaryat theFinnish front. His contemporary,a graduate studentnamed A. G. Man'kov, reportedliking V. Pudovkin's "Minin and Pozharskii" in his diary somewhat earlier thatyear, while Iurii Baranov, a schoolboy, applauded the same - director's"Suvorov" in 1941. Baranov's descriptionof "Chkalov" several weeks later a film which could have cast the heroic pilot according to the orthodoxSoviet aestheticsof Socialist Realism - reveals thatit too reliedon nationalfolkloric tropes popularized in "Nev- skii": "Fromthe first frame it was possibleto sensea certainuniqueness to thefilm - finallyit be- came clear:in thepicture Chkalov was castas an Old Russianepic folkhero [bogatyr]. The picturewas filledwith that fairy-tale romanticism. [...] The tonewas convincingand the picture unforced.I liked it."66 Complementingother sorts of officialrhetoric in circulationin the mid-to-late1930s, the "Nevskii" genreof patriotichistorical cinema capturedthe public's imagination.Maya Tu- rovskaya probably only slightlyoverstates the case when she asserts thatthe film's "cos- tumedfairy tale heroes" Vas'ka Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich even replaced Chapaev late in thedecade at thecenter of children'splayground games!67 Even such unlikelyheroes as Ivan theTerrible proved to be viable candidates forStalinist canonization. If intellectualslike B. L. Pasternakregarded such developmentswith skepticism,68 many othersreacted less criti- cally, as demonstratedin the diaryentry of a metal workerfrom the city of Molotov (now Perm'), G. F. Semenov: "I am [presently]reading "Ivan Fedorov."1691 It's truethat there were many noteworthy people inOld Rus'. IvanIV's strugglewith the boyars is well-done.As a Sovietindividual, it seemed odd tome: why would a tsarsuddenly clash with his boyars? What for? So thatRus' mightbe trulygreat, it turns out."70 Presenton thestage, on thescreen and on classroomand libraryshelves, the new ideological line's use of familiarRussian mythsand traditionsfound considerable resonance in Soviet society. 65 See "Ruslani Liudmila"(I. Nikitchenkoand V. Nevezhin,1939), "Minin i Pozharskii"(Vs. Pu- dovkin,1939), "Bogdan Khmel'nitskii" (I. Savchenko,1941) and "Suvorov"(Vs. Pudovkinand M. Doller,1941). 66 A. I. Matveev'sdiary, stored at RGVA underf. 34980, op. 14,d. 84, is excerptedin Prodolzhaem prodvigat'siav glub' Bezuiutnoi Strany, in: Istochnik(1993) No. 3, pp. 29-45, herep. 43; Man'kov Iz dnevnika,1938-1941 gg. p. 181;Iurii Baranov Goluboirazliv: Dnevniki, pis'ma, stikhotvoreniia, 1936-1942.Iaroslavr 1988, pp. 83, 109. 67 Turovskaya The Tastesof SovietMoviegoers p. 103. Forpersuasive analysis artistic produc- tions'shaping of popular memory, see Anton Kaes FromHitler to Heimat:the Return of Historyas Film. Cambridge,MA, London1989, pp. 196, 198. The authoris gratefulto Katia Dianinafor this reference. 68 Pasternakwrote to O. M. Freidenbergon February4, 1941 that"It mustseem to Our Protector [Stalin]that up untilnow [things]have been too sentimentaland thatit is timeto sober-up[odu- mai'sia]. Peterthe First has turnedout to be an inadequateparallel. The new infatuation,openly professedto, is Ivanthe Terrible, the oprichnina and iron will [zhestokost ]. New operas,plays and film screenplaysare being written - 1 kidyou not." Excerpts of the letter are published in B. M. Borisov, E. B. Pasternak Materialyk tvorcheskoiistorii romana B. Pasternaka'Doktor Zhivago,' in: Novyi mir No. 203-248,here 218. Indeed, Sovietcultural agents like Tolstoi and (1988) 6, pp. p. prominent - Eisensteinhad been recruited to expand the campaign within years of its launching in 1937 see Kevin Platt, David BrandenbergerTerribly Romantic, Terribly Progressive or Terribly Tragic: Rehabili- tatingIvan IV UnderI. V. Stalin,in: RussianReview 58 (1999) No. 4, pp. 635-654. " I. Bas Ivan Fedorov.Moskva 194Ü. Diaryentry from June 7, 1941,in: Gennadii Semenov I stainam polem boia tsekh:Dnevnik tron- tovoibrigady. Perm' 1990, p. 21. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936-1 94 1 40 1

Not only Soviet citizens foundthe new line compelling. Émigrés otherwiseopposed to . Stalin includingG. P. Fedotov and N. A. Berdiaev grudginglyacknowledged the success of thecampaign to selectivelyrehabilitate the tsarist ethos and heroicpast. Arguingin 1937 that Soviet patriotism"is simplyRussian patriotism,"Berdiaev conceded thatthe Stalin regime was having unprecedentedsuccess in mobilizinggenuinely popular supportby deftuse of ideological appeals. N. Timasheffsimilarly tipped his hat to the ideological pragmatismin his seminal postwar study.71"Sotsialisticheskii vestnik" commentator Vera Aleksandrova offeredperhaps the most sophisticatedanalysis of the official line's on-going evolution, notingthat: "Props[rekvizity] ofthe historic past - thepeople, ethnicity [narodnost % themotherland, the nation[natsiia], and patriotism- play a largerole in thenew ideology. The mostcharacteristic aspect of the newly-forming ideology[...] is thedowngrading [ottesne- nie]of socialist elements within it. This doesn't mean that socialist phraseology has disappeared or is disappearing.Not at all. The majorityof all slogansstill contain this socialist element, but itno longercarries its previous ideological weight, the socialist element having ceased to play a dynamicrole in new slogans.It is mostpossible to see thesesubtle moves in minorbut representativeexamples. At first, one was to speakof the USSR as the'country of theproletar- iandictatorship,' and thenthe 'motherland of socialism'and the'motherland of toilers of the whole world.'During the ''construction period, the USSR was re- ferredto officiallyas the'socialist fatherland.' Toward the end of theFirst Five-Year Plan, the moreintimate 'socialist or 'sovietmotherland' while [term] motherland,'' appeared, today[the USSR] is referredto overand over [splosh i riadom]as simply'our motherland.*According to our contemporaries'perceptions, 'our motherland'sounds warmer and morejoyful, less officialand bureaucratic[kazenno], than 'socialist motherland'."72 The persuasive appeal of the depoliticized "motherland"sloganeering that Aleksandrova identifiedis confirmedby a collectionof severalhundred letters between Red Armysoldiers and theirfamilies from the 1939-40 Soviet-Finnishwar. Almostcompletely disengaged from Marxist-Leninistand internationalistthemes, the term"motherland" repeatedly appears as somethingdenoting a geographic locale. One Red Army commander stationed in Omsk announcedto his brother:"Mitia, if the samurais1731steal into our dear and beloved mother- land, then,brother, I myselfwill hit themdead on [bit' na otlichno] forme and you - you have my Komsomol word on it." Otherssent a friendin a differentunit the semi-literate note: "Greetingsfrom the patriots of themotherland! [...] We've gottentogether [here] to drinkto victory!" For some, "motherland"was even conflatedwith a specificallyRussian ethno- cultural identity.V. Zenzinov noticed this nativistsentiment during an interviewwith a Soviet prisoner-of-warin a Finnish internmentcamp when the latterfrankly remarked: "Surely you don't thinkwe would have foughtthis hard if the Finns had attacked us in ?"74Such sentimentshad been promotedby the Red Army's political directorateto improvemorale withinthe ranks, a strategythat L. Z. Mekhlis linkedto significantimprove- 71 See Nicolas Berdyaev The Originsof RussianCommunism. Translated by R. M. French. London1937, pp. 171-77.Berdiaev in someways was echoinga statementmade during the previous yearby G. P. Fedotov,reprinted in his Sud'ba i grekhiRossii: izbrannyestat'i pò filosofii russkoi istoriii kul'tury.Tom 1. S.-Peterburg1992, p. 124; see also TimasheffThe GreatRetreat. 72 V. Aleksandrova Ideologicheskiemetamorfozy, in: "Sotsialisticheskiivestnik," 27 April1937, p. 14. K. F. Shteppamakes a similarpoint about the shift from Soviet patriotism to "Russiangreat powernationalism" in his memoirs- see ShteppaRussian Historians pp. 136, 134. 73 "Samurais"was a derogatorySoviet term for the Imperial Japanese Army during the 1930s. V. Zenzinov Vstrechas Rossiei:Kak i chemzhivut v SovetskomSoiuze - pis'mav Krasnuiuar- miiu,1939-1940. New York 1944,pp. 340, 405, 138. The 277 lettersand otherdocuments in this collectionapparently were taken as trophiesfrom the Soviet dead. 402 David Brandenberger mentein battlefieldperformance and disciplineduring a speech to theHigh Command in the springof 1940.75 Even beforethe Finnishwar, a "Sotsialisticheskiivestnik" correspondent reasoned that "the motherlandcult, instilled from above and inseparablyconnected with the cult of the all- powerful great leader, the 'fatherof the peoples,' answers the needs of the society's new elites." He elaboratedthat the campaign was not only aimed at the geographically-bounded Soviet polity,but also at "thenational distinctiveness of thepeoples who inhabitit, especially theGreat Russian tribewhich founded the Russian state.[...]" If early Bolshevik mythology had celebrated rebels fromthe Chartistsand Paris Communardsto Razin and Pugachev, "now the searchfor historical forefathers has broughtabout theexaltation of Saint Vladimir, Dmitrii Donskoi, AleksandrNevskii, Ivan Kalita, and Peter the Great - royal builders and organizersof theRussian stateand, later,the [...] now [Stalin] wants to trace his political lineage fromVladimir Monomakh,Aleksandr Nevskii, and Peter the Great."76 Domestic Soviet accountsechoed theémigrés' suspicions that the changes under way were notjust a selectiverevival of a few names fromthe distant past. V. I. Vernadskii,a biochem- ist and geologist (and the fatherof the émigré Russian historianGeorge Vernadsky),re- countedon thepages of his diaryin November 1938 that"last nightPasha and I were at an exhibiton the Tale of Igor's Host.' It was not only a stridentdemonstration of a heightened sense of nationalpride, but of the people's culturalupbringing in a spiritof nationalpatrio- tism."77Such impressionswere notjust restrictedto membersof the intelligentsia,something made clear by a diaryentry of an eighteenyear-old schoolgirl named Nina Kosterinain 1939: "Last night,as I walkedhome from seeing an exhibit[of Russianhistorical painting at the Tret'iakovGallery] through the center of the city, along Red Square,past the Kremlin, past the old spotwhere executions took place, past St. Basil's Cathedral,I suddenlyfelt again a sortof - deepkinship with the paintings at the exhibit. I am Russian[la russkaia].At firstthis fright- enedme - werethese, perhaps, chauvinistic stirrings within me? No, chauvinismis foreignto me,but at thesame time, I am Russian.As I lookedat Antokol'skii'smagnificent sculptures of Peterthe Great and Ivanthe Terrible, I was sweptwith pride: these people were Russians. AndRepin's 'The ZaporozhianCossacks'?! And Kotzebue's 'The Russiansin the Alps'?! And Aivazovskii's'The Battleof Chesme,' Surikov's 'The BoiaryniaMorozova,' and 'The Morn- ingof the Streltsys' Execution' - thisis Russianhistory, the history of myforefathers."78 Vernadskii'sand Kosterina'sdiaries suggest that the implications of thegradual valorization of Russian heroes and imagerywere abundantlyclear to Soviet citizens even before the officialline maturedfully on the eve of war.79L. V. Shaporina confirmsthis impressionin a diaryentry from 1939 writtenas she was musingover thechanging repertoire at herLenin- grad Puppet Theater: 75 See my'Lozhnye ustanovki v delevospitaniia i propagandy:' doklad nachal'nika Glavnogo politi- cheskogoupravleniia RKKA L. Z. Mekhisao voennoiideologii, 1940 g., in: Istoricheskii arkhiv (1997) No. 5-6. do. 82-99. hered. 90. 76 1.Garvi Patriotizmi diktatura, in: "Sotsialisticheskii vestnik," 14 June1938, pp. 2-4, herepp. 2-3. 77 Diaryentry from November 17, 1938.V. I . VernadskiiDnevnik 1938 goda, m: Druzhbanarodov (1991) No. 3, pp. 243-268, herep. 263. 78 Diaryentry from December 10, 1939. DnevnikNiny Kosterinoi, in: Novyimir (1962) No. 12, pp. 31-105,here p. 84. Ideologicalinstructors found Ivan IV to representthe prototypical Muscovite ruleramong second-year soldiers and junior officers enrolled in Red Armypolitical education courses. Whenasked about Ivan Kalita, the Muscovite prince who had begun the expansion of the principality's domains,one Red Armysoldier bluffed that "he was a greatmilitary commander under Ivan the Terrible."See "NachaFnikupolitupravleniia RKKA Armeiskomukomissaru 1-go ranga Mekhlis, 'Do- nesenieo politicheskikhzaniatii...'" (1 May 1939),RGVA f.9, op. 36s, d. 3778, 1.44. 79 proverke Brandenberger,Dubrovsky 'The PeopleNeed a Tsar:'the Emergence of National Bolshevism as StalinistIdeology p. 882. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1 936-1 94 1 403

"Whatshould we be doing?All I knowfor sure is thatin thetheater we oughtto be concentrat- ingonly on thingsRussian. Russian history, the Russian epic, [the Russian] song. To inculcate [vnedriat*] it in theschools. To familiarizechildren with this, the only wealth that is leftto them."80 Perhaps most amazing is the extentto which highlyeducated members of Soviet society bought into the new historical line. M. M. Litvinov demonstratedhis acceptance of the official line while rantingto a friendin 1939 about the "lawlessness and repressions of foreignbandits and our own national isolationistswho suppressed the Russian people and theirtalents for hundreds and thousandsof years."81A year later,Vs. Vishnevskii sat down in an agitatedstate to writein his diaryabout his fearsregarding the coming war: "Russiaand the USSR aregoing to have to fightto the death - thisis nota Europeanjoke any more,put] we areRussians, God damnit. We havebeaten the Germans and Tatars and French andBrits [Britov] and manyothers besides - we'd soonerdie becauseit's notworth it to live otherwise.But we'll be fightingfor ourselves, for the eternal180 million-strongRussian people. It's fineif the Ukrainiansfight along-side us - they'resturdy fellows... about the others,I can't say forsure. [...] [W]e'regoing to fight.[...] We are an enormousand mighty - nationand we do notwant to be subordinate[to anyone]. I knowthe West 1 saw it.It sitslike a damnedsplinter in the soul: I saw theirwhole civilization, all theirdelights and temptations... [E]xchangewhat is nationallyand historicallyours for the European standard? No way,not ever." Apparentlytroubled by his own chauvinism,Vishnevskii subsequentlycrossed out of his diarythe patronizing passage above thatconcerns the Ukrainiansand the othernon-Russian Soviet peoples. Nevertheless,a militantsense of nationalpride and a tendencyto conflatethe Russian ethnicexperience with the Soviets' need forvigilance is veryvisible throughoutthe restof theparagraph.82 Although only rarelyexpressed in such aggressive terms,the diaries of M. M. Prishvinand Vishnevskiiare litteredwith statements testifying to thedistinctiveness of the Russian ethnicityduring the mid-to-late1930s.83 In fact,the accounts of Vernadskii,Kosterina, Shaporina, Litvinov, Prishvin and Vishnev- skii suggest somethingimportant about Soviet society's receptionof the officialline: few seem to have understoodthat the regime's propagandists were stressingSoviet state-building (expressed throughrussocentric motifs) and not explicit .84Perhaps overlookingthe now routineinternationalist propaganda (which was stillubiquitous in the late 1930s), theseobservers were struck- consciously or unconsciously- by the state's co- optionof Russian heroes,myths and imageryfrom the tsarist era and seem to have concluded thatthe new ideological currentwas on theverge of endorsingexplicit Russian chauvinism. Blium's misgivingsabout the officialline best illustratethis miscommunication: "Socialistpatriotism sometimes and in someplaces is startingto displayall thecharacteristics ofracial nationalism [...] [p]eopleof the new generations who have grown up in thecontext of Soviet culturewithout seeing the bourgeoispatriotism of the Guchkovs,Stolypins and Miliukovssimply do notdifferentiate the two types of patriotism. In thehunt for 'our' heroes 80 Renderingbased on thatfound in Intimacyand Terror:Soviet Diaries of the 1930s,p. 373. The authoris gratefulto ThomasLahusen for his furnishingof the passage in itsoriginal Russian. Litvinov'soutburst is recordedin theJune 22, 1939 entryof Solov'ev Tetradikrasnogo profes- sore(1912-1941 203. 82 gg.) p. Diaryentry from May 18, 1940."Dnevnik Vishnevskogo ys. V.," RGALI f. 1038,op. 1,d. 2077, 11.64-65. Vishnevskiiregularly conflated Russian and Sovietidentities - see ibidem11. 37, 47, 69; d. 2079, 11.31, 32, 37, etc. 83 PrishvinDnevniki, 1905-1954, pp. 322, 334-335, 360-361, 364, 381, 386, 390, etc.;"Dnevnik VishnevskogoVs. V," RGALI f. 1038,op. 1,d. 2075,11. 17, 37, 45; d. 2077, 11.47, 97; d. 2079, 1. 12. Sovietideology was notnationalistic, but instead aimed for the attainment of superpowerstatus throughadmittedly populist appeals. Nationalism, according to its principle theorist, is "a theoryof political legitimacy"and neither Russian self-rule nor some form of limitedsovereignty were ever on theparty hierarchy'sagenda. See Ernest Gellner Nationsand Nationalism. Ithaca, London 1983, p. 1. 404 David Brandenberger

of thedistant ages and the hastysearch forhistorical 'analogies' (that is, in art,specifically in the theater),publishing houses and the All-Union Committeefor Artistic Affairs are placing stakeson any anti-Polish1851and anti-Germanf86Jmaterial, and authorsare throwingthemselves into the [task of] fulfillingof this 'social commission' [sotsial'nyi zakaz]"*7 After unnamedSoviet authors that he termed"German, Polish and criticizing ' ' ' Japanese-eating cannibal-crusaders[ 'nemtseedy, 'poliakoedy, 'iaponoedy rytsari]" for promoting "a sim- plistic,pseudo-socialist racism" Blium bemoaned the fact that the authors "don't understand thatto beat the enemy fascist, we mustunder no circumstancesuse hisweapon (racism), but a farsuperior weapon - internationalistsocialism." Called upon to investigatethe letter, an Agitpropconsultant named V. Stepanovconcluded that Blium's complaints were hyperbolic andone-sided and noted that he hadfailed to recognize the progressive aspects of the histori- cal personalitiesbeing rehabilitated. Apparently contacted by Agitprop, Blium proved unwill- ingto acknowledgethat the Soviet "search for a usablepast"88 might ever legitimately pro- moteRussian state-builders from the tsarist era as "progressive."89 Judgingby thetenor of Sovietpropaganda between 1939 and 1941,90 it is clearthat the partyhierarchy dismissed the concerns of people like Blium with little more than perfunctory attention.91Unconcerned with the dissonance between their ideological production on high and its consumptionat theground level, Stalin, Zhdanov and othersmay not have even graspedthe dimensions of the miscommunication. To frame the paradox in theidiom of the day,if the hierarchy was stylingthe official line as "nationalin form, socialist in content" and constructingitas "nationalin form,etatist in content,"many in societyunderstood it to be "nationalin form,nationalist in content" because of the party's demonstrative trafficking in Russianheroes, myths and icons.Ultimately, the issue was an insignificantone, as many 85 Blium apparentlyknew thatS. M. Gorodetskii's anti-Polish"Ivan Susanin" would open in Mos- cow duringthe followingmonth. As anticipated,the play caught the imaginationof Soviets including Perm' metalworker G. F. Semenov - see his May 15, 1941 entryin: I stai nam polem boia tsekhp. 17. 86 I.e., S. M. Eisenstein's 1938 film"Aleksandr Nevskii". 87 "GlubokouvazhaemyiIosif Vissarionovich!(from Blium)" (31 January1939), RTsKhlDNI f. 17, op. 120, d. 348, 11.63-64. In a differentletter to Stalin, N. K. Krupskaia expressed similar sentiments in referenceto the infamous1938 decree: "I am verytroubled by how we are going to carryout this [union-wide Russian language instruction].It seems sometimesthat the small horns of GreatPower chauvinismare startingto show." See "Dorogoi Iosif Vissarionovich" (7 March 1938), publishedin K 120 letiiuso dnia rozhdeniiaN. K. Krupskoi, in: Izvestiia TsK (1989) No. 3, pp. 171- 180. here D. 179. 88 This expressionoriginated with a famous 1965 essay reprintedin Henry Steele Commager The Search fora Usable Past and Other Essays in Historiography.New York 1967, pp. 3-27. 89 RTsKhlDNI f. 17, op. 120, d. 348, 1. 65; "SekretariuTsK VKP(b) tovarishchuA. A. Zhdanovu (from Stepanov)" (16 February 1939), ibidem 11.76-77. 90 On the continuationof officialrussocentric statism between 1939 and 1941, see Ewa Thompson Soviet Russian Writersand the Soviet Invasion of Poland in September 1939, in: The Search forSelf- Definitionin Russian Literature.Ed. by Ewa Thompson. Houston 1991, pp. 158-66; Simon Nationalis- mus und Nationalitätenpolitikin der Sowjetunionpp. 196-98; Although Soviet ideological principles did not fundamentallychange afterAugust 1939, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentroptreaty did requirea briefreverse in the anti-Germanaspect of the officialline. This caused predictableconfusion within society. D., forinstance, a chemical engineerin Leningrad,questioned aloud: "How will our historiansfeel now? Afterall, they've been shoutingabout the mongrel-knights,about the Battle on the Ice, about AleksandrNevskii, etc., and now they'regoing to have to shout about a century,even several centuries,of friendship.""Spetssoobshchenie ob otklikakhna zakliuchenie sovetsko-german- skogo dogovora o nenapadenii"(August 1939), ArkhivUFSBg.SPbLO, reprintedin: Mezhdunarodnoe polozhenie glazami leningradtsev,1941-1945 (iz Arkhiva Upravleniia Federal'noi Sluzhby Bezopas- nosti po g. Sankt-Peterburgui Leningradskoioblasti). S.-Peterburg1996, p. 10. 1 Instead,in an unpublishedCentral Committee resolution, the hierarchyscolded literatoryand party - othercontributors to official"thick journals" fortheir reluctance to join the patrioticcampaign see O nekotorykhliteraturno-khudozhestvennykh zhurnalakh, in: Bol'shevik (1939) No. 17, pp. 51-57. SovietSocial Mentalitéand Russocentrismon theEve of War,1936-1941 405 pragmatists(from Stepanov to Berdiaev) seem to have feltthat the difference between Soviet patriotismand russocentrismwas largelysemantic. More importantwas thatthe new line was exhibitingconsiderable mobilizational success, somethingwhich would discourage any temptationto returnto more internationalistpositions. Metal workerSemenov perhaps best epitomized the phenomenonin his May 26, 1941 diaryentry: "I am presentlyreading 'Dmitrii Donskoi.'1921 It's a good read.I readVera Inber's'Ovidii,' whichI liked.But just thesame, I was moremoved by 'DmitriiDonskoi.' In tensetimes like these,it's as ifone hearsthe voice of one's distantforefathers."93 Semenov's sentimentswere echoed in thediary of a Leningradworker named Georgii Kula- gin,who realized thatthe staging of plays like "Suvorov," "Kutuzov" and "Admiral Nakhi- mov" was part of an upswell of patrioticpropaganda early thatyear.94 The outbreakof hostilitieswith Germany spurred forward many of the russocentricand statistthemes already maturingin the officialline on the eve of war. V. M. Molotov, for instance,compared the Nazi invasion to thatof Napoleon's in 1812 in his famous June22, 1941 address.Familiar with such rhetoricafter several yearsof similarhistorical propaganda, ordinarySoviet citizensresponded positively.95 Not unusual was the statementof Rumiantse- va, an executiveat theTel'man factoryin Moscow, that:"No one will ever defeatour people. We know fromhistory that the Russians have always emerged as the victors,although in those days therewere rich and poor in Russia, while now, because all our people are equal, a political union of the people has come about. This is a people thatno one can defeat."96 Wartimeappeals to Soviet patriotismtended to favorRussian-oriented themes, the Russian people's prominentprewar position in the multiethnicSoviet familychanging littleduring thefirst months of thewar and ultimatelyfinding endorsement in Stalin's November7th Red Square speech.97Declaring that"you mustdraw inspirationfrom the valiant example of our greatancestors," Stalin pointed to a numberof exclusivelyRussian pre-revolutionaryheroes who were to definepatriotic conduct duringthe war: AleksandrNevskii, DmitriiDonskoi, Kuz'ma Minin,Dmitrii Pozharskii, Aleksandr Suvorov, and Mikhail Kutuzov.98The popular 92 A. Merzon DmitriiDonskoi. Moskva 1940; orS. Borodin DmitriiDonskoi. Moskva 1941. 93 SemenovI stainam polem boia tsekhp. 18. Semenovmissed the announcement ofthe start of the waron June22, 1941because he was outwalking in thewoods. Obviously still mulling over what he hadbeen reading, he mentionsin his diary that the fir trees reminded him of "sharp-tippedhelmets of theOld Russianepic heroes,.... as ifDmitrii Donskoi's clan was marchingagainst Mamai's horde," ibi- demp. 22. 94 Georgii Kulagin Dnevniki 1978, 25. 95 pamiat'.Leningrad p. Vystupleniepo radioZam. PredsedateliaSoveta narodnykh komissarov SSSR i Narodnogokomis- sarainostrannykh del tov.V. M. Molotova,in: "Pravda,"23 June1941, 1. Kulaginnoted one of his friends'comment on theshop floorthat "Molotov's mentioning of Napoleon'sinvasion means it's serious,comrades." See hisDnevnik i pamiat'p. 17. See also theJune 22, 1941 diaryentries in Bara- nov Goluboi razliv:dnevniki, pis'ma, stikhotvoreniia p. 117; and V. I. Vernadskii "Korennyeiz- meneniianeizbezhnv...":Dnevnik 1941 eoda. in: Novvimir H995Ì No. 5. od. 176-221. hereo. 200. 96 "Dokladnaiazapiska nachal'nika UNKVD g. Moskvyi Moskovskoioblasti M. I. ZhuravlevaNar- komuvnutrennikh del SSSR L. P. Beriiao reagirovaniinaseleniia na razgromgitlerovskikh voisk pod Moskvoi"(30 December1941), TsA FSB RF, reprintedin Moskvavoennaia, 1941-1945: memuary i arkhivnyedokumenty. Moskva 1995,p. 206. 97 SimonNationalismus und Nationalitätenpolitik inder Sowjetunion p. 206, etc.;Mehnert Weltre- volutiondurch Weltgeschichte pp. 70-74. 98 Rech' PredsedateliaGosudarstvennogo komiteta oborony i Narodnogokomissara oborony tov. I. V. Stalina,in: "Pravda,"8 November1941, p. I. A day earlier,Stalin had provideda differentlist of heroeswhile detailing the German leadership's intentions to leada savagewar: 'These people,without conscienceand honor, [these] people, with the morals of animals, have the audacity to call forthe exter- minationof the great Russian nation, the nation of Plekhanov and Lenin, Belinskii and Chernyshevskii, Pushkinand Tolstoi, Glinka and Tchaikovsky, Gor'kii and Chekhov, Sechenov and Pavlov, Repin and Surikov,Suvorov and Kutuzov!"Doklad PredsedateliaGosudarstvennogo komiteta oborony tovari- 406 David Brandenberger reactionwas enthusiastic, underscoring the success of prewar investments inhistorical agitation - as a professorat LeningradState University noted, "[...] thepeople will owe muchto Com- radeStalin for victory. In hisspeech, Stalin was ableto find precisely those words that awaken hope and stimulatea Russian'sbest feelings,his love forthe Motherland, and, whatis especiallyimportant, connect us withRussia's past." Another professor added: "[...] inStalin's speech thereis a stunningunderstanding of thespirit of theRussian people, a sense and knowledgeof their history." Meanwhile, P. S. Barkovof the Moscow Svarz plant noted simply that"Com[rade] Stalin reminded us ofthe names of the great Russian military commanders. Theysounded like a rallyingcall, a battlecry for the annihilation of the occupiers."99

If StephenKotkin is rightin arguing that "the promotion of Great Russian nationalism [in the1930s is best]appreciated as, on theone hand,part of the groping for an understanding of whatconstituted socialism and, on theother hand, as indicativeof a strategicshift from thetask of building socialism to thatof defendingsocialism,"100 such subtleties were often loston Sovietcitizens of the era. True, the early Soviet historical-revolutionary narrative was popularizedafter 1934 in orderto havewider appeal, something which was accomplished throughthe interpolation oftraditional Russian heroes, myths and symbols into a reproblem- atizedMarxist narrative framework inwhich representatives ofthe pre-revolutionary Russian orderwould stand alongside more orthodox elements of theMarxist historical dialectic.101 However,this article indicates that Soviet citizens often understood the line to endorse Russiannationalism, ifnot full-blown chauvinism. I have demonstrated that although indi- vidualsranging from schoolchildren and Red Armysoldiers to workers,scholars and even émigrésoften found the new discourseappealing and evenpersuasive, they did so often- timeson theirown terms.102If a generalsense of patriotismwas widespread,it mayhave been foundedat timeson themisunderstanding that the era's officialetatist message was actuallynationalist in essence. Despitesuch miscommunication, itis clearthat the new line was compellingin termsthat theparty hierarchy did not find objectionable. In thissense, the party's sentimental nativism - functionedas a pragmaticmodus vivendi with Soviet society on theeve ofwar an ideologi- cal "Big Deal"103of sorts. As withmost pragmatic endeavors, however, there were inelegant aspectsof thecompromise, as those"speaking Bolshevik"104 in thelate 1930s gave a new voiceto russocentric and chauvinist sentiments in societythat had lackedarticulation during thefirst two decades of Sovietpower. shchaI. V. Stalina,ibidem 7 November1941, pp. 1-2, herep. 2. 99 "Spetssoobshchenie"(13 November1941), Arkhiv UFSBg.SPbLO, reprinted m: Mezhdunaroanoe polozhenieglazami leningradtsev pp. 19-20; "Iz zapisibesedy s rabotnikomzavoda SvarzP. S. Bar- kovym"(September 1942), Nauchnyi arkhiv Instituta rossiiskoi istorii Akademii Nauk, f. 2, razd.X, op. 1,d. 1, 1.54, reprintedin Moskvavoennaia p. 153. 100 Kotkin MagneticMountain p. 357. 101 Brandenberger,Dubrovsky iThe People Need a Tsar':the Emergence ot NationalBolshevism as StalinistIdeology pp. 873-892;Simon Nationalismus und Nationalitätenpolitik in der Sowjetunion p. 172-173. 102 A double-edgedsword, the line could alienate as wellas motivate.During the war, L. N. Seifulli- na complainedabout the russocentrism to Ilya Ehrenburg, noting that "my father was a russifiedTatar, mymother was Russian,and 1 have alwaysconsidered myself to be Russian,but when I hearsuch things,I feellike saying that I am a Tatar."See Il'ia Erenburg Liudi,gody, zhizn': vospominaniia v trekhknigakh. Tom 2. Moskva 1990,p. 257. 103See DunhamIn Stalin'sTime: Middleclass Values in SovietFiction pp. 4-5, 66. Dunhamexplic- itlyconcerns herself with postwar Stalinist society, but suspects that the party's revision of itssocial contractto promotemass mobilization had begunin the1930s. 104 Kotkin MagneticMountain chapter 5.