Pan-Slavism and World War II Author(S): Hans Kohn Reviewed Work(S): Source: the American Political Science Review, Vol

Home , Expansionism, Great Russian chauvinism, Russianism, Russians (organization), Russian nationalism, Turanism

Pan-Slavism and World War II Author(s): Hans Kohn Reviewed work(s): Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1952), pp. 699-722 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1952279 . Accessed: 07/01/2013 14:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II

HANS KOHN College of the City of New York In spite oflater claims that it had been theleader ofthe anti-fascistcamp and ofthe Slav worldfrom the beginningof the second WorldWar, the Soviet Union followed a strictlyRussian policy, neither anti-fascistnor Pan-Slav, from August, 1939, to June, 1941. This policy clearly foreshadoweda nationalist revival of the language and aspirationsthat had been most characteristicof Old Russia but were assumed to have been definitelyburied in the ten Novem- ber days of 1917 whichshook the world.During these two yearsnot the slightest sympathyfor the Czechs and Poles sufferingunder German occupation was expressed. Indeed, although Leninist communismduring World War I had conducteda violentdefeatist propaganda compaignin bothwarring camps, the subversivecommunist propaganda that was resumedin 1939 was directedonly against the democratic nations. "Moreover, officially,even ostentatiously, help was grantedto the camp of fascismso that, from1939 to 1941, the Soviet Union could be considereda non-belligerentpartner of the Axis. From the policy of benevolent neutralitytowards the Axis the Soviet Union was removed against its will. Circumstancesmade it an ally of the democracies.This change was performedreluctantly, only because no otherchoice was left."' The communistleadership was convinced even as late as May, 1941, that its policy of neutralitywould safeguardRussia's peace,2but in January,1945, the same leadershipboasted of having "always" correctlyforeseen the course of events, as well as of being alone able to recognizehow and whitherevents must develop in the future.3In any event,in his reportto the Moscow Soviet on November 6, 1941, Stalin rightlyaccused the German invaders of having "perfidiouslyattacked our peace-lovingcountry."4 Clearly against its foresight and will, the Soviet leadershipwas forcedto enter,not a war for proletarian revolution,social justice, or democracy,but a "war of national liberation" a 1 N. S. Timasheff,"Four Phases of Russian Internationalism,"Thought, Vol. 20, p. 47 (March, 1945). In 1927, at the FifteenthCongress of the Russian CommunistParty, Stalin declared: "The revolutionin USSR is only part of the worldrevolution, its begin- ningand the base forits successfuladvance." 2 Bolshevik,No. 10, pp. 1-2 (May, 1941). -3 "Our Party is theoreticallyequipped and unitedas no otherparty on earthbecause in its activityit leans on the Marxist-Leninisttheory and mastersthe knowledgeof the laws of social development.The dutyof the Partyand Soviet personnel. . . is unceasingly to studythe theoryof Marx and Lenin, rememberingthat it gives the Party the ability to orientitself in any circumstances,to foreseethe course of events,to understandthe innerconnections of currentdevelopments, and to recognizenot only how and whether eventsare now developing,but also how and whetherthey must develop in the future" (Bolshevik,No. 1, p. 10, Jan., 1945). 4 Stalin, 0 velikoiotechestvennoi voine Sovetskogo Soyuza [On theGreat Patriotic War of theSoviet Union], 5th ed. (Moscow, 1946), p. 17. See also, fromhis radio addressof July3, 1941: "Germany suddenlyand treacherouslyviolated the non-aggressionpact of 1939" (p. 10). 699

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 700 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

"great patrioticwar," the title previouslygiven by the Russians to the war of 1812. In his reportto the Moscow Soviet, Stalin accordinglyused words not heard officiallysince the "Great October Socialist Revolution," the twenty- fourthanniversary of which he was celebrating.Hitler, he said, was out to "exterminatethe Slav peoples, the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgar- ians, Ukrainians,and Byelo-Russians."The Nazis had the audacity "to call for the annihilationof the greatRussian nation,the nationof Plekhanov and Lenin, Belinskyand Chernyshevsky,Pushkin and Tolstoi, Glinka and Tschaikovsky, Gorky and Chekhov,Sechenov and Pavlov, Repin and Surikov,Suvorov and Kutuzov." And in his address to the Red Army Parade the next day, Stalin called upon Soviet soldiersto let themselvesbe inspiredin this war by "the manly images of our great ancestors-Alexander Nevsky, Dmitri Donskoi, Kuzma Minin, Dmitri Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov." The feudal saints of the Orthodox Church and the generals serving tsarist reaction,all of themexclusively Russian, werethus proclaimedthe ancestorsof the supernationalrevolutionary Red Army.5 In the war yearsthemselves the Russian fatherlandcompletely overshadowed the Soviet fatherland. Traditional national values were restoredwithout any referenceeither to class war or to the revolutionarystruggle and withoutany regardfor the national feelingof the non-RussianSoviet nationalities.To the nationalist heroes and warriorsof the past, everythingwas forgiven.At the end of S. Golubov's novel GeneralJBagration (1943), Prince Peter Bagration, the general mortallywounded in the battle at Borodino, was presented as kissingthe Emperor'ssignature on a letterof thanksjust broughtto him and as dying with the words, "Soul and body alike and my blood to the last drop, I give all to myfatherland and to his Majesty's service."' Field Marshal Count

Ibid., pp. 26-28, 36. In his Order of the Day as National Commissar for Defense on February 23, 1942, Stalin rightly emphasized that the policy of racial equality of the USSR was a factor of strength in comparison to Hitler's racial policy (ibid., p. 42). 6 In November, 1941, the popular young poet Konstantin Simonov (see the article on him by Elena Mikhailova in Soviet Literature, No. 8, pp. 46-49, Aug., 1946) wrote in a famous poem to his friend Alexei Surkov: "I am proud of this dearest of countries, this dear sad country that gave me my birth. I am proud that in Russia my life is to finish, that the mother that bore me was Russian of race, that when seeing me off,in the old Russian manner, she locked me three times in her loving embrace." And Surkov replied: "In the midst of night and darkness we have carefully borne before us the inextinguishable flame of faith in our Russian, our native folk." A fervent Russian patriotism became the theme of all the poems, short stories, novels, and plays, glorifyingthe "Holy Homeland" (svyashchennaya rodina). The general slogan was "za rodinu, za Stalina"-"for fatherland and Stalin." 7 See Michael Karpovich, "Soviet Historical Novel," Russian Review, Vol. 5, pp. 53- 63 (Spring, 1946). This novel was translated into English by J. Fineberg under the title of No Easy Victories (London, 1945). A number of other Russian war novels and biogra- phies about historical heroes are available in English translations, among them S. Sergeev- Tsensky, Brusilov's Break-Through (London, 1944); S. Borodin, Dmitri Donskoi, trans. E. and C. Paul (London, 1944); Mikhail Bragin, Field Marshal Kutuzov (Moscow, 1944); K. Osipov, Alexander Suvorov; A Biography, trans. E. Bone (London, 1944); and R. Wipper (Robert Yuryevich Vipper), Ivan Grozny, trans. J. Fineberg (Moscow, 1947). In the last,

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR It 701

AlexanderVasilyevich Suvorov (1729-1800), who cruellysubdued, on the Tsar's behalf,the peasant rebellionof Pugachev and the last resistanceof freePoland, became the greatesthero of the communistyouth; even General Alexei Brus- silov, who was appointed in May, 1917, commander-in-chiefof the Russian Armywhich the Bolsheviks did everythingat the timeto undermine,was hon- ored by a greatwar novel and by the "deep respect"which the Red Armypaper, Krasnaya zvesda, expressed on September 3, 1943, for "the man who in the stern years of the last war upheld with dignitythe honor and glory of the Russian Army." The Russian nationalismset loose by events did not confineitself to a de- fensivepatriotism, the chauvinismof whichmight be explainedby the military catastrophefacing the country.It immediatelyasserted itself in an aggressive way. The annexationof eastern Poland, of Bessarabia, and of part of Bukovina could be "justified"by nationalism,by the goal of unitingall Ukrainiansand Byelo-Russians under the Soviet flag (though this unificationdeprived the Soviet Ukrainiansof that considerationwhich they had receivedfrom Moscow when the Soviet Ukraine was yet to attract the "brothersby race" living in Poland and Rumania). No similarjustification existed for the annexationof the Baltic Republics, but, quite naturally,many Russian non-Bolsheviknation- alists greeted this step. People who had pleaded for the independenceof the Magyars or the Irish accepted the control by Moscow of Transcaucasia, of the Baltic coast, and of the Ukraine,as justifiedby Russian needs of security and economy.8Understandably, meanwhile the "Internationale"was abolished as the national anthem of the Soviet Union; its expansive promise"the Inter- nationale unites the human race," did not ringtrue in an atmospheresatiated with gloryto Velikaya Rus, "the great Russia," as distinct fromthe rest of mankind.And the daringchallenge to the self-relianceof the masses, "Nobody will bringus liberation,neither a Tsar, nor a God, nor a hero," became un- acceptable in the era of VelikyStalin, "the great Stalin"-Tsar, God, and hero to his people and, what no tsar had claimed,of all "progressive"mankind. In his election speech broadcast fromMoscow on February 9, 1946, Stalin praisedthe "Soviet multinationalstate system"as havingsurvived successfully the test of the war, because it was built on foundationspromoting the- feeling of friendshipand fraternalcollaboration between the various peoples of the USSR. But in June,1941, the Soviet governmenthad thoughtitself obliged to apply against one of these peoples a "barbarous measure" which the tsarist governmenthad long hesitated to decide upon. The victimswere those Ger- mans who, in the later eighteenthcentury, had settled along the lowerVolga and developed a prosperouscommunity there. In 1916,two years afterthe out- a historian of repute tried to save Ivan's reputation as a reformerand "progressive" military strategist against moralistic "liberal" considerations. The liberal historians, according to Wipper, translated "the significant, and on the lips of Russians extremely majestic, surname 'Grozny' by the vulgar words. . . 'Ivan the Terrible' " (pp. 233-234). 8 The Russian nationalist point of view was expressed, for example, in Walter Kolarz, Stalin and Eternal Russia (London, 1944), pp. 48 if.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 702 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

break of World War I, the Russian governmenthad made up its mind to re- move temporarilythe Volga Germans, but the March Revolution had inter- vened beforethe plan could be carriedout. After1917 Lenin singledout these same Volga Germans forespecially favorable treatment. Their Oblast,the first autonomous unit created by the communistgovernment (in July,1918), was raised in 1924 to the status of an autonomousrepublic of the RSFSR. Their city of Pokrovsk was renamedEngels and became the capital of the republic, while theirother large town, Katherinenstadt,named afterCatherine II who settled the Germans there in 1764, was rebaptized Marxstadt.9 However, in June, 1941, Stalin apparently became convinced that the two decades of Sovietlife and educationwhich supposedly had promotedthe fraternalsolidarity of peoples had been a failure.While Hitler's armieswere still faraway in western Russia, Stalin ordered,without any proofof collectivetreason or any trial, the permanenteviction and dispersionof the Volga Germans.Their autonomy provedto be nothingbut a scrap ofpaper. The regionwas clearedof all traces of German cultureand ruthlesslyRussified, with the cities unprotectedeven by the names of Marx and Engels. Furthermore,this policy of wholesaledestruc- tion of culturaland politicalentity by the Bolsheviststhemselves was not car- riedthrough on a class basis, but purelyon a racial one. Only somewhatdifferent was the case of fourMohammedan peoples in the Soviet Union. On December 17, 1917,a proclamationof the new Soviet government signed by Lenin and Stalin was addressed to the Moslems of Russia and the East: "The rule of the robbersand enslaversof the peoples of the earth is about to end-. . . A new world is being born,a world of workersand freemen ... Moslems of Russia, Tatars of the Volga and the Crimea, Kirgiz and Sarts of Siberia and Turkestan . .. Chechensand mountaineersof the Caucasus-all those whose mosques and chapels have been destroyed,whose beliefsand customs have been trampledunder foot by the Tsars and oppressorsof Russia. Henceforthyour beliefsand customs,your national and culturalinstitutions, are free and inviolable. Build your national life freelyand unhindered."But in 1943 and 1944, four of the Mohammedan autonomous Soviet states-the Kalmyk ASSR, the Crimean Tartar ASSR, the Chechen-Ingush,and the Karachayev autonomousregions in thenorthern Caucasus-were removedcom- pletelyfrom the map and fromlife, the peoples transportedto unknownregions in northernAsia, theirlanguages eradicated,their cities and villages renamed. No trace was leftof these historic communities, and the lands wereresettled by Russians. No reasons were given forany of these nationalistexcesses, but apparently all were based upon the assumption of collective racial "guilt." And as the Mohammedan territorieswere in factreached by the Germanarmies, it can be

9 On the establishment of the autonomy of the Volga Germans, see Rudolf Schilze- Molkau, Die Grundzige des WolgadeutschenStaatswesens im Rahmen der russischen Na- tionalitdtenpolitik(Munich, 1931), and Manfred Langhans-Ratzeburg, Die Wolgadeut- schen, ihr Staats- und Verwaltungsrechtin Vergangenheitund Gegenwart,zugleich ein Beitrrag zum bolschewistischenNationalitatenrecht (Berlin, 1929).

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 703

assumed that parts of the populations did collaboratewith the Germans. In any case, many Soviet citizensof all nationalitieswent over to the Germanside; ifHitler had followeda less beastlypolicy of human extermination and degrada- tion,the numberof the elementsdisloyal to Stalinismprobably would have been muchlarger. As it was, Stalin apparentlybecame convincedthat he could count only upon the support of the Great Russians, to whose emotionsthe annexa- tions of the years 1939-1941 had appealed and among whom some began to look upon him as the leader who would bring about both the Pan-Slav and Pan-Asian expansionismof extreme Russian nationalists and the utopia of universal social justice of Slavophil messianists. Conscious of the debt whichhe owed to the Great Russians, Stalin acknow- ledged it publiclyin the toast withwhich he concludedthe Kremlinbanquet for the Red Armycommanders on May 24, 1945: "I should like to drinkto the healthof our Soviet people-and firstof all to the health of the Russian people. I drinkfirst of all to the health of the Russian people because it is the most outstandingnation of all the nationsforming the Soviet Union.... It has won in thiswar universalrecognition as the leadingforce in the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.... The confidenceof the Russian people in the Soviet governmentwas the decisive forcewhich ensured the historicvictory over the enemyof mankind-fascism." The historicalsorrows and triumphsof Russian imperialismbecame now officiallyStalin's. Afterhe had attackedJapan in August, 1945-breaking his pact of friendshipand nonaggressionof 1941 with Japan as treacherouslyas Hitler had broken his own with Stalin-he celebratedthe quick victoryin a broadcast fromMoscow on September2, in which he said: "The defeat of Russian troops in 1904 in the period of the Russo-JapaneseWar leftgrave memoriesin the minds of our people. It was a dark stain on our country.Our people trusted and awaited the day when Japan would be routedand the stain wiped out. For fortyyears have we, men of the oldergeneration, waited forthis generation, waited for this day. And now this day has come." This astonishingdeclaration, describing victory in a way whichresembled so closely Mussolini's triumphin wipingout the stain of the battle of Adua fortyyears later in the victoriouswar against Ethiopia, was a completereversal of the officialattitude of Russian Socialismin 1905-an attitude unalteredin high school textbookspublished in 1941,which declared that "Lenin and the Bolsheviks workedfor the defeat of the tsaristgovernment in this predatoryand shamefulwar, because the defeatfacilitated the victoryof the revolution over tsarism." And in one of his leafletsagainst the Russo- Japanese War, Comrade Stalin had written:"Let us wish that this war will become a still greater disaster for the tsarist regime than was the Crimean War.... Then serfdomwas ended. Now, as a consequenceof this war, we will bury the child of serfdom,the tsaristregime with it stinkingsecret police and gendarmes."'0 10 The first quotation is from Istoriya SSSR, Vol. 3 (for the tenth grade), 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1941), p. 29. The quotation regarding Stalin's attitude is from Lavrentii Pav- lovich Beriya, K voprosu ob istorii bolshevistskikhorganizatsii v Zakavkazie [Concerningthe

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 704 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Thus when the Soviet Union after thirtyyears revived Russia's past, it revivedthat past in its mostnationalist and- imperialist mood, whichhad never beforebeen sanctifiedas officialpolicy and had always been resistedby strong liberal and humanitariantrends of thought.But the new Stalinistnationalism did not shed the worldwideimplications and ambitions of Leninism; what emerged was the "universal Russian monarchy" which the Czech historian Palacki had dreaded in 1848, but withthe addition of a new kind of monarch at its head, a man of the masses, a bearer of the social gospel endowed with qualities of "genius" and "omniscience"such as no Russian rulerand no leader of a people had ever claimed. It was only natural that in such an atmosphere the ghost of Pan-Slavism rose again-not the liberalPan-Slavism of the West- ern Slavs of 1848,but the Pan-Slavismof Moscow and ofthe Pan-Slav Congress of 1867, a Pan-Slavism whichpreached the liberationof the other Slavs from alien influencesby the Russian people, a Pan-Slavism whichwas Pan-Russism. The Chairmanof the Commissionon Credentialsof the Council of Nationali- ties of the Supreme Soviet, P. A. Sharia, as reportedby Izvestivaon March

Question of the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasiaj, 5th ed. (Moscow, 1939), p. 56. In the new edition of the Istoriya SSSR, published in 1946, the text has been changed and Stalin's speech on September 2, 1945, after the victory over Japan is quoted (Vol. 3, p. 45). The military technology of the tsarist army is blamed for its backwardness: "In Port Arthur there was not even a wireless telegraph, though it had been invented in 1895 by A. S. Popov" (p. 29). The spirit of invincibility under a better government than that of the tsars was expressed in a pamphlet by N. M. Korobkov, Mikhail Kutuzov (Moscow, 1945), written especially for officers:"We are on the road to a new growth of the power of our country. Prepared historically for great feats, our army and our new Stalinist military art surpass everythingthat Russian history has ever known. But we do not forgetour great ancestors, we do not forget the heroic past of our nation. [Their] memory is a faithful guarantee of the great future to which the genius of a leader (genialny vozhd), Generalissimus Stalin, leads the country on new paths" (p. 5). Two official translations into English exist for the text of the pamphlet by Beriya, Stalin's fellow countryman and faithfulfollower: On the History of the Bolshevik Organiza- tions in Transcaucasia, trans. from the 4th Russian ed. (New York, 1939) and trans. from the 7th Russian ed. (Moscow, 1949). Beriya's speech reveals the switch from "socialism" to "nationalism" in Stalin's line and establishes the officiallegend about Stalin's activities in his younger years. Stalin's attitude in 1905 is discussed on pp. 44-46 of the 1939 ed. (pp. 71-73 of the 1949 ed.): "In January 1904 the Russo-Japanese War broke out. The Bolsheviks of Transcaucasia, headed by Comrade Stalin, consistently pursued Lenin's line of 'defeat' for the Tsarist government, constantly urging the workers and peasants to take advantage of the military overthrow of the autocracy. The All-Caucasian Com- mittee of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Bolshevik organization), the Tiflis and Baku Committees of the RSDLP issued a number of leaflets exposing the imperialist predatory character of the Russo-Japanese War on the part of both warring powers and calling for the defeat of Tsarism. One of the leaflets . . . said: 'However much they may call us non-patriots and the enemies at home, let the autocracy . .. remember that the RSDLP represents 99 % of the population of Russia.... Their brothers are being driven into the jaws of death to shed the blood of the sons of the Japanese, a brotherpeo- ple! . . . We want this war to be more lamentable for the Russian autocracy than was the Crimean War. . . . ' Day in and day out the Bolsheviks urged the soldiers to support the revolutionary struggle of the people against Tsarism."

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 705

15, 1946, enlarged on Stalin's statementof the Russian people as the leading force of the Soviet Union: "Every people in the' Soviet Union understands perfectlywell that the main,decisive role in the achievementof victory over the enemy in the Great Patriotic War. . . was played by the great Russian people. For this reason the prestigeof the Russian people is so immeasurably high among the other peoples; for this reason the peoples of the USSR bear towardit boundlessconfidence and a feelingof tremendous love and gratitude." The same love and gratitudewere expected fromthe youngerSlav brothers who had been liberated by the Russian Army.The new Pan-Slavism,turning away fromthe West and lookingto Moscow, was also justifiedby the unique positionof Russian culture."Naturally our literature,which reflectsa system much higher than any bourgeois democratic system,a culture many times higherthan any bourgeoisculture, has the rightto teach othersa new universal morality.Where can you findsuch a people or such a countryas ours?" wrote AndreiAlexandrovich Zhdanov in Pravda on September21, 1946, whenhe was probably the second most influentialman in the Soviet Union. On June 27, 1947, Pravda declared: "We may say withconfidence that the centerof artistic cultureof the world has now moved to Moscow. From here mankindreceives the art of the most advanced thought,of great feeling,of highestmorality and noteworthyartistry." This highestculture on earth had, of course,found its instrumentin the Russian language. "The futurebelongs to the Russian language as the language of socialism,"Moskovsky Komsomolets asserted on March 6, 1949; "the democraticpeoples are learningthe Russian language, the world language of internationalism."Under these circumstances,would not the Slav peoples ofthe West gladlyaccept the Russian cultureand the Russian language, akin to them by blood and traditionand at the same time the most advanced on earth? II Less than two monthsafter the German attack on the Soviet Union a Pan, Slav Committeewas formedin Moscow, and on August 10, 1941,it held its first meetingunder the chairmanshipof GeneralAlexander Semyonevich Gundorov. Though no officialSoviet leaders participated,the Russian communistintelligentsia was well representedby such foremostmembers as the authorsNikolai Simenovich Tikhonov (the firstwriter to receive the Order of the Patriotic War, First Class), AlexanderAlexandrovich Fadeev, and Alexei Tolstoi, and the composer Dmitri Shostakovich. The Poles were representedby Wanda Wassiliewska, wife of the Ukrainian playwright and communist leader, AlexanderKorneichuk; the Czechs by ZdenbkNejedly, professorof musicology at Prague Universityand biographerof Smetana and, Masaryk, and by Jan Sverma, a communistwho died fightingin Slovakia in 1945. In his opening words, Tolstoi "rejected the old ideology of Pan-Slavism" as reactionaryand contraryto the principlesof equality among the nations. "Slavs, let us unite, that each Slavonic nation may be entitled,as the othernations are, to a free, peaceful existence-that the culture of our nations may flourishwithout re- straint." The main emphasis of the meeting was on the fightagainst the

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 706 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

German enemy,a call upon all Slavs to establisharmed forcesand to sabotage the enemy'sefforts. Much morerepresentative and morecarefully prepared was the second meetingof the Slavs in Moscow on April4 and 5, 1942. Shostakovich issued a call to arms: "I am proud to be a Russian, I boast of being a Slav.... May all the spiritualforces, all the intellectualsof the gloriousfamily of the Slavonic nations fearlesslyfulfil the great mission entrustedto them by history!" And Tolstoi summedup the revisedSlavophile interpretationof history in an articlein Pravda: "We must revisethe whole historyof the Slav peoples. ... During one thousandyears, our youngblood vitalizeddecrepit Byzantium. Thanks to the Slavs, Byzantiumpreserved ancient civilization and transmitted it to feudalEurope. The Slav peoples,hard-working, lovers of liberty and peace and culture,had as theirneighbors on the East nomadic empireswhich always cherishedthe utopian designof worldconquest, and on the West medieval em- perorswhose imposing cavalcades wereequally vain. The aggressionsfrom East and West broke against the fearlessresistance of the Slav world. The role of the Slav peoples in the formationof European humanismhas not yet been appreciated at its true value.... "''i What no previousSlav congresshad attemptedwas now realized,thanks to officialgovernment support. A monthlyperiodical Slavyane [The Slays],began to appear in Moscow in January,1943; special committeesto workamong Slav youth,Slav scholars,and Slav womenwere formed;Slav scholarshipand pub- licationswere encouraged in the Soviet Union underthe leadershipof Professor Nikolai Sevastyanovich Derzhavin, who since 1898 had published numerous workson Slav history,especially on the Bulgarians,and who was awarded the Order of Lenin in 1945; above all, the Pan-Slav propaganda was carried to Britain, Canada, Latin America, and the United States, appealing as Hitler had done to the racial solidarity of citizens of Slav descent. A congress of Slavonic nations meetingin London on May 25, 1944, underthe chairmanship of R. W. Seton-Watson,was attended mostly by Slavs living in England in temporaryexile. Of much greaterimportance was the AmericanSlav Congress whichtook place in Detroit on April 25 and 26, 1942. It made use of the war- time enthusiasmfor "our Russian ally" and tried to organizethe ten million Americansof Slav descent immediatelyin support of the commonAmerican- Russian struggleagainst Hitler and permanentlyin support of the Soviet Union and its policy.12

11 A good discussion of the Slav peoples in and after World War II is in Albert Mousset, The World of the Slavs (London, 1950), which is a revised edition of the French original, published in 1946. 12 Testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Judge Blair F. Gunther of the Court of Common Pleas, Pittsburgh, accused the American Slav Congress of being "the most dangerous fifthcolumn operating among our Slav population. Its chief aim is to subvert millions of Slavic Americans operating in our basic industries in order to cripple our national defense apparatus. It gives every evidence of Moscow direction and control." The Congress was listed as a subversive agency by the Attorney General of the United States on September 21, 1948. On June 25, 1949, the House Committee on Un- American Activities found that the Congress changed its keynote at the end of World

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 707

The officialrecognition of the Russian OrthodoxChurch by Soviet authorities in September,1943, and the elevation of the MetropolitanSergius of Moscow to the dignityof a patriarchof all Russia made the Church-as it had been among the Pan-Slavs of the second half of the nineteenthcentury-an instru- ment of Russian imperial policy. Patriarch Alexei, who succeeded Sergius in May, 1944, praised Stalin as "a wise leader, placed by the Lord over our great nation." All churcheswere orderedto offerprayers "for the health and well- being of the God-sent leader of the peoples of our Christ-lovingnation." As in the nineteenthcentury, Pan-Orthodoxism was to support Pan-Slavism; Orthodoxchurches everywhere were to be united under Moscow's leadership. Patriarch Alexei, at whose coronationthe patriarchsof Alexandria,Antioch, and Georgiaparticipated, visited the Near East in 1945 to renewthe ties which had existed in the time of tsarist Russia; Orthodox churchesin Europe and America whichhad split away fromthe Moscow patriarchatewere warned to renter. In the same year Roman Catholics in Czechoslovakia held a conference at Velehrad in Moravia, whereSt. Cyril and St. Methodius had workedin the ninth centuryfor the Christianizationof the Slavs and where the Pan-Slav enthusiasmof the nineteenthcentury had led to many demonstrationsof Slav spiritualsolidarity. The keynoteaddress at thisconference called on all Catholic theologiansof Slav descent to join "the general Eastward orientationof the country." The victoriesof the Soviet Union in 1944 and 1945 in the Balkans, in the Danubian Basin, and along the Vistula completelychanged the picture in central-easternEurope. The Russian Armyentered Konigsberg, the cradle of the Prussianmonarchy, and Berlin,Budapest, and Vienna; the Kremlinclaimed the legacy of the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns.Though the Soviet Union had not entered the war for any purpose of "liberation," neverthelessit demanded the gratitudeof the Slavs as theirliberator. From London, King Peter of Yugoslavia declared on January 11, 1945, that "fraternal union with Russia is one of the most deeply-rootedsentiments of the Slav peoples." With greaterclarity the new situationwas put forwardby a Bulgarian writer: For one hundred and fiftyyears the Slav idea served the private interests of two parasitic classes, the landowners and the bourgeoisie, i.e., it was exploited to the harm of the Slav peoples themselves. Today for the firsttime in 1300 years, Slavdom lives through a pro- pitious moment which will make its security forever possible. The German danger has disappeared. The governments which fanned hatred among the Slav peoples have been thrown out. Now the Slavs can proceed to build up their society. What should be their program? The Slavs form a racial, linguistic and cultural group with a common character. They constitute a geopolitical and economic bloc which can be an important factor in the preservation of European peace. The Slav nations, in order to liberate themselves from German capitalism, must build up technically perfected national economies which would secure their independence. Their inner structure must be democratic, freedom-lovingand socially just. The Slav nations have to work out a political system for Pan-Slav coopera-

War II "from super-patriotism to outright treason." The Committee charged that the embassies of the USSR and of the Slav states cooperated actively with the American Slav Congress.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 708 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

tion, the principle of which ought to be full equality of small and great nations. The USSR should organize and lead this Slav society.'3 Pan-Slavism was to become the vehicle of a commoncivilization-the civilization of communistRussia, of the Soviet Union, and of its leading people, the great Russian people. In 1946 the Soviet Union controlledall of Europe east of a line running from Stettin on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea. Behind this line therewere not onlyall the Slav peoples but,as Danilevskyin 1869 and other Pan-Slavs had demanded, the Magyars, Rumanians, and Albanians as well. That Greece and Constantinopledid not live up to Danilevsky's expectations was due not only to the will of resistanceof theirown citizens,but also to the far-sightedstatesmanship of Winston Churchilland Ernest Bevin. Yet there was no doubt that K6nigsberghad become Kaliningrad; Potsdam was under communistdomination; the two westernSlav nations,Poland and Czechoslo- vakia, had emerged fromthe war with their territorymuch diminishedand (under communistinspiration) on a purelyracial basis, since they had driven out the Germansand othernational minorities;Moscow claimed now the right -which had fallenin 1919 to the Westerndemocracies and had been exercised in 1939 by Hitler's Germany-of settlingall territorialand other disputes in the area. In addition,by the annexationof Carpatho-Ukrainefrom Czechoslo- vakia, Russia became the immediate neighbor of Czechoslovakia and of Hungary,commanding a strategicfoothold in the Danubian plain south of the Carpathian Mountains and establishingfrontiers there and along the Oder- Neisse line which conjuredup, as the fascistdictatorships had hoped to do, a racial past many centuriesold. Of all the Slav peoples, only the Poles abroad and the Polish governmentin London raised a passionate protest.As they had so oftenin the last two hundredyears, the Polish national traditionsand hopes had to live on in exile. In the homelands,however, the Slav spokesmenstressed the "democratic" and "peace-loving" characterof the Slavs. This was no new melody. The romanticistsamong them had done it since the time of Herder. It had been the constantchant of the Slavophiles,and it was not changedsub- stantially by being communist-directed.The hope was now held out to all peoples that they might partake in this "democratic" and "peace-loving" communityif they would affirm,as the Slavs did, theirundying gratitude and indissolubleattachment to the greatleader ofthe Slav worldand of progressive mankind,Soviet Russia under Stalin. In this atmospherea Pan-Slav congressmet in Belgrade forfive days begin- ningon December 8, 1946. It markedthe thirdgreat congressin the historyof the Pan-Slav idea: the first,in Prague, representedthe Western democratic trendamong the AustrianSlavs of 1848; the second,in Moscow, expressedthe aggressiveRussian nationalismof the 1860's; the third,in the Yugoslav capital, was the triumphantaffirmation of Moscow's hold over the Slav world. Of all

13 Christo Gandev in Slavyanskobratstvo, sbornik [Slav Brotherhood;A Symposium], Biblioteka Izvori [Sources], No. 2 (Sofia, 1945).

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR 1I 709

its members,at that time the Yugoslavs and theirwartime leader, the old and trusted communistfighter and organizer,Marshal Tito, received the highest consideration,second only to that of Russia's Marshal Stalin; and it was not by accident that Belgrade was chosen as the seat of the Pan-Slav Congress, the center of the new Pan-Slav movement.(After September, 1947, Belgrade was also the home of the newlyestablished Cominform [Communist Informa- tion Bureau] and of its officialmagazine, the firstissue of which appeared there on November 15, 1947.) The programof the Congresscomprised three points: the Slav peoples in the world strugglefor peace and democracy; the contributionof the Slav peoples to worldculture; and organizationalproblems of Slav cooperation.For the firsttime in the historyof Pan-Slavism,this program and this Congresswere regardedas an officialand not a privatemanifes- tation; forthe firsttime, too, the Congresswas worldwide,with Slav delegates fromthe United States, Canada, South America,Australia, and New Zealand attending-Auslandsslavensimilar to the Auslandsdeutschen,or menand women of German descent and loyalty,though citizens of non-Germancountries, of Hitler's time. Interestinglyenough, however, the Slav representativeswere organizednot on a basis ofnationality but ofstates. There was a representation fromthe Soviet Union (includingUkrainians and Byelo-Russians,but without takinginto account the many non-Slav nationalitiesof the Soviet Union,which now acted officiallyas a Slav state), Yugoslavia (comprisingSerbs, Croats, Slovenians and Macedonians), Poland, Czechoslovakia (comprisingCzechs and Slovaks), and Bulgaria. The officialstate-concept definitely replaced the formerlypredominant nationality-concept. The Congress was opened by Marshal Tito, who was received,according to the officialreports, with a "long-lastingovation."' ("Equally enthusiastic" was the receptionaccorded to Marshal Fedor Ivanovich Tolbukhin,who had commanded the Soviet armies whichvictoriously entered Rumania, Bulgaria, Belgrade, and Vienna and thus "liberated" the southernSlavs.) In his opening address Marshal Tito said: "What would have happened if the gloriousRed Armyhad not existed?What would have happened if this state of workersand peasants with Stalin, the man of genius, at its head, had not existed, which stood like a wall against fascistaggression and which with innumerablesacri- fices and rivers of blood liberated also our Slav nations in other countries. For these great sacrificeswhich our brothersin the great Soviet Union made, we otherSlavs thank them ... " He finishedhis talk with a three-foldtoast: to Slav solidarity (using the word which the Slovak Pan-Slav poet Kollar had coined in 1837), to "our greatestSlav brother,"the Soviet Union (forget- ting that the Soviet Union was not Slav but supraracial), and to its leader of genius, Stalin (a climax of personal adulation unthinkableat the Moscow Pan-Slav Congress of 1867). Marshal Tito was followed by the two main speakers,the Yugoslav Milovan Djilas, who discussedthe struggleof the Slavs for peace and democracy,and ProfessorBoris D. Grekov of the Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR, who read a long catalogue ofnames as "Slav contributors to world culture." The trite verbosityand the lack of ideas of these papers

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 710 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

distinguishedthe Belgrade Congress fromthe nineteenthcentury Pan-Slav congressesas much as did the harmoniousunanimity manifest in all discus- sions and decisions.A Pan-Slav Committeewas elected, on which each of the five states was representedby five members. A Yugoslav, Major General Bozhidar Maslaric, became its president;a Russian, a Pole, a Czech and a Bulgarian were elected vice-presidents.Belgrade became the seat of this Pan- Slav Committee,and the formerPan-Slav Committeein Moscow was reorgan- ized in March, 1947, as the Slav Committeeof the USSR, with Gen. A. S. Gunderov as its chairman,and three vice-presidents,Alexander A. Veznesen- sky, rectorof the Universityof Leningrad,Alexander Vladimirovich Palladin, presidentof the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences, and Yakub Kolas, a Byelo- Russian poet and vice-presidentof the Byelo-Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1947 the monthlySlavyane, which so far had appeared as the organ of the Pan-Slav Committeein Moscow, became the organ of the Slav Committeeof the USSR. The Pan-Slav Congress in Belgrade representedthe crest of the Pan-Slav tide afterWorld War II. Its resolutions,plans, and hopes came to naught- as had those of all the previous congresses-when far-reachingdesigns broke upon the rocks of reality.One more success, however,was to be registeredby Moscow's Pan-Slavism, interestinglyenough among the Czechs, whose con- ciliatoryrealism and spiritof political maturitywere unique among the Slavs. Despite this stability,it was only in Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech parts of Czechoslovakia, that the communistswere able' to achieve in freeelections in Europe-held on May 26, 1946-a vote of 40.17 per cent. Wide circlesexpected a recessionof the communistvote in the electionsof May, 1948, and it might have been the fear of such a defeatwhich prompted the communistleadership to seize total controlof the countryin February,1948. Czechoslovakia quickly became an integral part of the Moscow-controlledand directed Pan-Slav empire, apparently adjusting fully to the intellectual,moral, and political modelset by the Kremlin.But thissuccess, achieved againstthe most Western- ized Slavs, was morethan balanced by the event of June 28, 1948, whichtook the world by surprisein its revelationof an open and wideningrift between Moscow and Belgrade-between Marshal Stalin and Marshal Tito, the two most prominentleaders of the new Pan-Slavism. The Yugoslav defectioncreated in the Slav "familyof nations" a situation similarto that whichhad existedbetween 1830 and 1945 as a result of the en- mityof the Poles and the Russians. As Poland had done then, Yugoslavia now became the "Judas" and "traitor"to the Slav cause and a "tool" of "Western scheming"against the Slav world whichthe Russians, then as now, magnani- mouslyidentified with Moscow. The similarity,even to the very words used in the diatribesby Katkov and his generationand those now used by Stalin's spokesmen,was astonishing.But while the Polish communistsacknowledged that it was only thanks to Moscow that Poland could end the "feudal" age, and that Poland's liberationfrom German occupationwas due onlyto the Red Army-forgettingthat it was Soviet Russia's cooperationin 1939 whichfacili-

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 711

tated Poland's subjugationby Hitler-the Serbs could pointto a long tradition ofpeasant proprietorshipand to theircourageous fight, independent of Russian help, waged against Turks and Germans for independence.The communist leaders in Belgrade refusedto admit that theircountry owed its liberationand its new order of "social justice" only, or primarily,to Russia's help and guidance. They denied the thesis propagated fromMoscow that the Slav peoples could not preservetheir independence except under Russia's protection.They did not wish to subordinatethe economic modernizationof their countryto the needs of "the motherland"of the Slavs and ofthe socialistworld revolution. Furthermore,Tito's defectionhad repercussionsin the Pan-Slav Congressin the United States; some ofits mostactive leaders,like Louis Adamic,sided with the dissidentcommunists. The growinghostility of the Kremlinto the democracies had made the Americanpeople more aware of the threat to the West implied in the theoryand actions emanatingfrom Moscow, the centerof the now intimately-fusedmovements of Pan-Slavism and world communism,with the result that the AmericanPan-Slav Congress ceased most of its activities. Altogether,the period of Pan-Slavism in its third,communist, Pan-Russian formcame to its end. But even in its heyday it had been unable to solve, in spite of all totalitarian pressure and conformity,the old problems disputed among the Slav peoples: the controlof Teschen contestedby Czechs and Poles, the allegiance of Macedonia to Yugoslavia or Bulgaria, and the desire of the Ukrainianpeople forindependence from the Great-Russians. III The Pan-Slavism ofthe war years,promising the equality ofall Slav peoples, was openlyreplaced after1947 by a Pan-Russism whichimposed Russian pre- dominance and leadershipon the Slav peoples first,but also on Magyars and Rumanians, on Uzbeks and Caucasians. In fact, the new Soviet patriotism hardly distinguishedbetween "Russian" and "Soviet." Soviet historiography had to followthe trend; books writtenand praised as recentlyas 1941, were rejected as not patriotic enough in 1947. Russian scholarshipnow began to extol the Russian past beyond anythingthat the most extravagantinstances of formerRussian historiographyhad ever attempted.The Kievan state now receiveda Slav past on Russian soil. Its rise was now foundto have originated in a veryancient high east-Slav civilization,much superiorto that of its neigh- bors; the multinationaland yet centralizedRussian state was dated back for many centuries,even beforethe sixteenthcentury, with the Great Russians, thanks to their cultural superiority,the leading element. The Great-Russian people was now generallycalled "the great Russian people,." and more and moreemphasis was put on the factthat the Russians owed theirwhole development to their own creative originalityand initiative. As one writerhas ex- plained, "The Soviet imperial idea of a union of socialist peoples has given body to its own thinnedspiritual substance by its absorptionof the old Russian idea of the State, withall its expansionistand centralizingtendencies. It must by all means be made acceptable to the otherpeoples of the Soviet Union that

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 712 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

the Russian people-unlike Lenin's idea-has at present become the true bearer of the world revolutionarytasks of Marxism. The Great Brother is now the leader on the road to progressand liberty.If subjectionto Russia was once proclaimed 'the lesser evil,' it has now become no evil at all but sheer good fortuneand a blessing."' Accordingly,it is not surprisingthat in 1951 ProfessorMilitza Vasilyevna Nechkina (one of the well-knownyounger his- toriansof Russia, authorof many workson the Decembrists,and editor of the second volume, covering the nineteenth century, of the officialtextbook Istoriya SSSR) wrote in the officialorgan of the Soviet historians,Voprosy istorii, that the conquestof colonialpeoples by tsaristRussia had been not only "the lesser evil" compared with the conquest by Britain or Turkey to which they mighthave otherwisesuccumbed-the officialSoviet theorysince 1934- but a positive good: the Ukrainians,Georgians, Armenians, and Usbeks were actively helped in theireconomic progress by inclusionin the Russian empire. Tsarism oppressedthe peoples,above all the Russian people, "the olderbrother of all the peoples of the Soviet land." But the struggleagainst the common enemy,tsarism a struggleled by the Russian people-became the foundation of a fraternityof all the peoples devoted to the commonconstruction of a new socialist society,and the education of the non-Russianpeoples by the Russians createdthe conditionfor their liberation and progress.To elucidate these more "profound"aspects of the annexationof the non-Russianpeoples by the Rus- sian Empire, had become one of the great tasks forSoviet historiography.15 In 1931 in Burzhuasnayaistoricheskaya nauka v Rossii [BourgeoisHistorical Science in Russia] (p. 92), Sergei A. Piontkovskyhad violentlyattacked the well-knownbook by Matvyei Kuzmich Lyubavsky, Obrazovanieosnovskoi gossudarstvennoiterritorii velikorusskoi narodnosti [The Developmentof theState Territoryof the Great Russian Nationality](Leningrad, 1929), because it stressed "chauvinistically"the Great Russian element in the historyof the Russian state. The book was then characterizedby the disciples of Pokrovskyas the "political programof the NEP bourgeoisie."Now, however,both Pokrovsky and Piontkovskyare regarded as un-Marxist and unscientific,and present- day Russian historiographygoes infinitelyfurther than Lyubavsky (1860- 1936) and his generationin glorifyingthe Russian national element. In 1951 Voprosyistorii praised the thesis of Lt. Col. L. G. Beskrovny,professor of the history of warfare of the Military Frunze Academy, entitled "Stroitelstvo russkoiarmii v XVIII veke" ["The Building of the Russian Armyin the 18th Century"]. In it the author rejected the "cosmopolitan" views of "bourgeois

14 Georg von Rauch, "Die Sowjetische Geschichtsforschung heute," Die Welt als Ge- schichte(1950), No. 4, p. 258. 15 Mrs. Nechkina's article "K voprosu o formule neimenchee zlo" ["On the Question of the Lesser Evil"], Voprosy istorii, No. 4, pp. 44-48 (1951) was in the form of a letter to the editor and was specially recommended by the editor. Yet her volume in the Istoriya SSSR, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1947-49) had been censored in Voprosy istorii, No. 7 (1950) for insufficientunderstanding of tsarist colonial policy on the ground that she had not recog- nized the reactionary, pro-British and pro-Turkish character of the independence movement of the Caucasian peoples under Shamil against tsarism.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 713

historians accordingto which Peter I built the Russian armyupon German models. On the contrary,Russia in the eighteenthcentury produced the best arms in Europe and made many inventionsin the fieldof artillery;the Russian army was then trained accordingto its own national system,which was the mostprogressive in Europe; the leading officerswere Russians and not foreign- ers,and Napoleon learnedmuch fromthe tactics and the strategyof Suvarov.16 The same issue of Voprosyistorii bestowed similarpraise on a symposiumon the "progressiveinfluence of the great Russian nation on the developmentof the Yakut nation.... The Yakuts, as a result of theirinclusion into the cen- tralized Russian state, entered the most advanced culture of the period and accelerated therebythe process of theirsocial-economic and culturaldevelop- ment. The concrete elucidation of this question has at present, besides its purely scientificinterest, great political significance.The study of the process of the historicaldevelopment of the nationalitiesin the lightof theirhistorical interactionappears as one of the importantmoments in the education of the workersof our countryin Soviet patriotism."'7It is hardlyastonishing that, in an officialprogrammatic article about the tasks of historicalscience published in the same journal later in the year,I. Kon asserted: "Marxist historicalschol- arship must wage an incessant war against the falsificationof historyby the bourgeoisie.This war, whichplaces Soviet historiansin the firingline, is being conducted(and mustbe conducted)in all fieldsof historicalscience. . . . Soviet historicalscience develops underthe constantand close leadershipof the Soviet state, the Bolshevikparty and Stalin himself.... All Soviet scholarshipworks under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin forthe welfareof our nation."' "The historiansinto the firingline" was not a new slogan but in line with Lenin's attitude. Themdifference was in what they were firingat. In 1939 Bolshaya SovyetskayaEntsiklopediya, the great depository of communist scholarship,devoted to Pan-Slavism a very short article,less than a column. This article quoted Marx and Engels as pointingout that "the immediategoal of Pan-Slavism appears to be the creationof a Slav empire,from the Erzgebirge and the Carpathian Mountains to the Black, Aegean and AdriaticSeas, under Russia's rule." It also stressedthe reactionaryand expansionistcharacter of Pan-Slavism; Marx and Engels were reportedto have looked with horroron a result which would make all Slavs share "the terriblefate of the Polish nation."'9 In theircharacterization of Pan-Slavism as Russian imperialismwhich would subject the otherSlavs as the Poles had been subjected duringMarx's lifetime, Marx and the CommunistEncyclopaedia seem for once to have been proved 16 Voprosy istorii, No. 1, pp. 155-156 (1951). The thesis had been defended on June 26, 1950. 17Review of ProgressivnoevWiyanie velikoi Russkoi natsii na rozvitie Yakutskogo naroda, Pt. 1, ed. A. I. Novgorod (Yakutsk, 1950) in Voprosy istorii, No. 1, p. 140 (1951). 18 J. Kon, "K voprosu o spetsifike i zadachakh istoricheskoi nauki," Voprosy istorii, No. 6, p. 63 (1951). 19 "Pan-Slavism," Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Entsiklopediya, Vol. 44 (Moscow, 1939), Cols. 68 ff.The reference to Marx and Engels there is to Sochineniya, Vol. 7, p. 277.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 714 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW right.As in the worstperiod of tsarist nationalism, the rightof national original- ity has recentlybeen claimed for,and reservedto, the Russians alone; the other Slav nations,Poles and Ukrainians,have had-to adapt themselvesto Russian nationalism.The result,-so far as the Poles are concerned,was made clear at the seventhcongress of Polish historianswhich met in Breslau fromSeptember 19 to September22, 1948: "It is interestingto note that, while the campaign forthe cultural and national distinctness(of Russia) was being trumpeted,at least one significantexception was made. The seventh congressof Polish historians . . . was criticized principallyfor writinghistory from a nationalist point of view and forcontrasting Russian and Polish culturerather than draw- ing comparisonsbetween their fundamental similarity."20 Even the Poles who had propagated the new Pan-Slavism after 1945 came in for sharp criticism. Henryk Batowski, editor of the Pan-Slav magazine Zycie Slowiafiskie(which began publicationin January,1946) and author of Historia WspolpracySlowi- anskiej [Historyof Slav Cooperation],was branded a bourgeoisnationalist because he overemphasizedPoland's role in the Slav world and glorifiedpast instancesof Slav cooperationat the expense of the present.2' Had Stalin forgottenthe warningwhich he voiced in his "Report on National Factors" before the twelfthCongress of the Russian Communist Party on April 23, 1923? He then regardedGreat-Russian chauvinism, "a forcethat is gaining in strength,"as a factor impedingthe amalgamation of the Soviet peoples, underminingthe confidenceof the "formerlyoppressed peoples" in the Russian proletariat."This is our most dangerousenemy, which we must overcome;for once we overcomeit, we shall have overcomenine-tenths of the nationalismwhich has survivedand whichis developingin certainrepublics."22 In the discussionat the same CongressBukharin went even further:"In our capacity as a formergreat-power nation, we mustcounter nationalist ambitions and place ourselves in a position of inequality,in the sense of making still greaterconcessions to national tendencies.By such a policy alone . . . whereby we artificiallyplace ourselvesin an inferiorposition as compared with others, only at such a price, can we purchase the real confidenceof the formerlyop- pressednations." Stalin opposed thispoint of view because "We mustnot over- shoot the mark in politics,just as we must not undershootit." Thirtyyears later, it seems that Stalin has more and more undershotthe mark. In spite of all totalitariancontrol and of the ever-growingpurges of "local nationalists," Great Russian chauvinismhas apparentlyaroused and strengthenedthe op- positionof the Slav and non-Slav peoples subject to Moscow.23 20 Anatole G. Mazour and Herman E. Bateman, in Journal of Modern History, Vol. 24, p. 64 (March, 1952). 21 See the review in Slavyane, August, 1947, pp. 51 ff; Elizabeth Valkenier, "Soviet Impact on Polish Post-War Historiography, 1946-1950," Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 11, pp. 372-396 (Jan., 1952); and Roman Werfel, "Konferenz polnischer Historiker," Fur dauerhaften Frieden, far Volksdemokratie(the official Cominform organ, Bucharest), March 6, 1952. 22 Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, tr. from the Russian ed. prepared by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (New York, n.d., 1935?), pp. 167-168, 301.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 715

Soviet patriotism,the officialterm most frequentlyused, has become more and more tinged with Slavophile Russianism. On-August 13, 1947, Izvestya published a lecture on the Soviet people's national pride which S. Kovalev had deliveredin the Moscow All-unionSociety forthe Disseminationof Politi- cal and ScientificKnowledge. Kovalev had said: "In the process of socialist constructionin our country,the Soviet people have workedout theirown world outlook,peculiar to themselvesalone. One of its mostimportant characteristics is Soviet patriotism,a feelingof the most profoundlove for and devotion to the Socialist Motherland.A most importantpeculiarity of Soviet patriotismis the profoundunderstanding of the superiorityof the Soviet system over the bourgeoisand all otherclass systems.... It is preciselythis peculiarity which above all characterizesSoviet patriotismas patriotismof the highestkind. .. Like the Slavophiles,he attacked Peter I forhis Westernreforms and the nineteenth centuryWesternizers for their "worship of the West." "Great are the services of our people to history.Our people have repeatedlysaved Europe fromdestruction by barbarians ... The great Russian people, as well as the otherpeoples of Russia, was also in the past not dependenton otherpeoples in the strugglefor progress,for the developmentof science, literatureand art." Kovalev, the officialreport went on, "dwelt in detail on Russia's priceless contributionto worldcivilization in all spheresof culture."24 Pravda ofthe same day said editorially:"For centuriesRussian intellectualsfell over themselves in servilityand obsequiousnessbefore everything foreign. For centuriestheir consciousnesswas poisoned withabsurd prejudiceswhich attributed leadership in science,technology, and cultureto the West .... This mostharmful survival fromthe past can still be found among a certain section of our intellectuals. It is a survival which Bolshevik propaganda must utterlydestroy. Our intellectuals must be daily educated and strengthenedin their feelingsof Soviet national pride." In spite of all these educationalefforts, some Soviet intellectualshave continued to succumb to the sin of "cosmopolitanism."In 1951 L. Knipper wrote a long article, "Protiv kosmopolitizma,za russky natsionalny stil" ["Against Cosmopolitanism,for a National Russian Style"], in SovyetskayaMuzyka [So- viet Music], Moscow, in whichhe asked: "Can it be that Russian music is no

23 The future nationalist trend of Lenin's revolution had been foreseen by the Russian nationalists who published the symposium Smena vekh [The Change of Guideposts] in Prague, 1921. See especially Nikolai Vasilyevich Ustryalov, Pod znakom revolyutsii[Under theSign of Revolution],2nd enl. ed. (Kharbin, 1927), where in the introduction he writes: "No doubt, the motherland is being rebuilt and rises again" (p. v). His articles, written between 1921 and 1926 are divided into two sections: political articles on national Bolshe- vism, and sketches of the philosophy of our time. Some of the articles are remarkable for an understanding of the Russian nationalism of the twentieth century, especially "Na- tional Bolshevism," pp. 47-53 (originally published Sept. 18, 1921); "Of the Future Rus- sia,"' pp. 132-135; "The Nationalization of October," pp. 212-218; "Russia and Blok's Poetry," pp. 346-356; and "Of the Russian Nation," pp. 374-393 (written originally for a Vseslavyansky Sbornik [Pan-Slav Symposium] published by the Union of Slav Commit- tees in Zagreb in honor of the one thousandth anniversary of the Kingdom of Croatia). 24 The lecture by Kovalev was regarded as so important that it was published in English by Soviet Monitor, issued by Tass Agency (London), No. 8815, Aug. 13, 1947.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 716 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

longer Russian music because it became Soviet music? The Russian nation, whichhas changed in some respectin the last thirty-threeyears, has in no way ceased being Russian by becomingSoviet.... For therecan be no art whichis not rooted nationally. We own the treasureof the trulypopular art of our great Russian classics. Only by goingback to these glorioustraditions, can we findnew ways forthe developmentof the Russian song ofthe Soviet era.... In the brotherlyfamily of the Soviet republics,the Russian culture is the first among equals. The national culturesnot only of the Soviet republicsbut also of the people's democracies,orient themselves after the Russian culture and growto strengththrough it."25 And the famousdirectives of Stalin on the question of language in 1950 had one purpose-to make clear that the "international" language ofsocialism would be Russian. In an article,"The Great Language of our Epoch," in the LiteraturnayaGazeta of January 1, 1950, David Zazlavsky declared: "The Russian language is the firstworld language of international significancewhich rejects sharplythe destructionof the national characterby cosmopolitanism.... Nobody can regardhimself as educated in the full and true sense of the word,if he does not understandRussian and cannot read the creationsof the Russian mindin the originallanguage." The Russian nationalism of nineteenthcentury Pan-Slavs had never voiced such uncompromising claims. In the nineteenthcentury even the Slavs most friendlyto Russia never went so far as to back Russia's claims to leadership, and at the Pan-Slav Congress in Moscow in 1867 even much milder pretensionsaroused strong oppositionon the part of the Czech spokesmen.Now, however,on March 4, 1952,the Prague communistorgan Rude Pradvoreported a long speech in which the Ministerof Information,Vaclav Kopeck;, speakingbefore a conferenceof teachers,had said: It is known to us that one of the main weapons in America's ideological war is cosmopolitanism, which destroys the tie to one's native land and people.... The case of the miserable traitor Slansk' . . . has shown how the malicious. agents of Western imperialism tried . . . to use cosmopolitanism in its Trotzkyite-Zionist form. Therefore we must reso- lutely destroy cosmopolitanism, this ideological monster which is today put to the service of American war-barbarism. We also know that, besides cosmopolitanism, the Western imperialist enemies use in their preparations for a criminal war another ideological weapon, nationalism.... The Judas-treason of the Tito clique in Yugoslavia ... and the case of Clementis ... prove that American imperialism ... tries in this way to loosen the close ties of the people's democracies with the Soviet Union.... Today before all the workers

25 The struggle against cosmopolitanism began with an article in Pravda, Jan. 28, 1949, "Ob odnoi antipatrioticheskoi gruppe teatralnikh kritikov" ["About an Anti-Patriotic Group of Theater Critics"], and in Kultura i zhizn, Jan. 30, 1949, "Na chuzhdikh pozit- siakh" ["On Foreign Positions"]. Stalin's articles on linguistics began to appear on June 26, 1950, as a contribution.to a discussion started by Pravda on May 9, 1950, about the theories of Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr (1864-1934), a Georgian like Stalin, whose recog- nition as the official and the leading Marxist philologist had been assured by Stalin and who was now completely repudiated by the same Stalin. See Clarence A. Manning, "Soviet Linguistic and Russian Imperialism," Ukrainian Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 20-27 (1952).

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 717

of the world the question of a just and an unjust war and the question of patriotism are raised, and this in the sense that every action against the Soviet Union is unjust, while every action of the Soviet Union is sanctified with the seal of supreme justice because its goal is the welfare of the workers, of the whole working population of the world-the welfare of all peoples and of all mankind... 26 IV After1950 communistdialectics had to solve the difficultyof harmonizing Russia's national uniqueness and the glorificationof Russia's past with a con- demnationof the slightestemphasis on the national originalityof otherpeoples. This may explain the violence of vituperation,unusual even for communist language, used against violators of the new line, as it helps account for the uncertaintiesof Soviet policy. One resultwas that the WesternSlavs faced the possibility of a new German-Russianrapprochement which would sacrifice them to Moscow's interests-a possibilityforeshadowed in Stalin's wire of October 13, 1949, to WilhelmPieck and Otto Grotewohlon the occasion of the establishmentof the German Democratic Republic: "The experienceof the last war has shown that the German and the Russian peoples have borne the greatestsacrifices in that war and that these two nations provide by far the greatestpotential forces in Europe forthe accomplishmentof great actions of worldsignificance." In theirreply the two Germancommunist leaders acknowl- edged, on behalfof the Germanpeople, the historicalguilt which Germany had assumed by attackingthe Soviet Union. Thus a positive and a negative com- munityof fate was again establishedbetween the two peoples: in 1945, as in 1918, they were the two chiefvictims of a World War; and Germanyhad become guiltynot by her march into Prague nor her dismembermentand sub- jection of Poland (helped by the Soviet union), but only by her aggressionof June 22, 1941. Altogether,the little Slav brotherswere bound to realize their dependence on the self-centeredpolicy of the older brother,with whom Yugoslavia had brokenbecause it feltitself treated as a colony and its communistparty used as an instrumentfor the country'sexploitation in the economic,military, and politicalinterest of Moscow. By 1950 Pan-Slavism was hardlymentioned any more in the Soviet orbit. Moscow's policy toward Poland and Czechoslovakia differedas littlefrom that toward Hungary or Rumania as its attitudetoward the Ukraine differedfrom that toward its Mohammedan subject nationalities. In June, 1951, a "decade" of Ukrainian art was celebrated in Moscow,

26 KopeckS stressed the point of supreme loyalty of all workers to the Soviet Union: "Wherever the question arises whether the working people prefer the land in which they live (but in which they are exposed to class exploitation, growing misery, and oppression) or the Soviet Union-they will always decide for the Soviet Union, even should they be exposed to the greatest terror of capitalist and pseudo-socialist patriots. The working masses of France, Italy, and other capitalist lands have already taken this decision. They declare that they will never bear arms against the Soviet Union and the people's democracies and that they will greet the Soviet army as liberator whenever it opposes the aggres- sor. Yes! The just character of such a war puts the seal of sacred patriotism on the effort of the peoples which lead it."

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 718 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW fifteenyears afterthe 1936 "decade," which closed the terriblepersecution of the Ukrainian peasantry and intelligentsiabegun in 1929. The new decade, which culminatedin a glorificationof Stalin, of Soviet patriotism,and of the Pereyaslav Council of 1654 which decided on the union of the Ukraine with Moscow, coincidedwith a new attack on Ukrainianwriters and on the Ukrain- ian CommunistParty for "nationalistdeviation." In 1944 VolodimirSosyura, one ofthe most respectedolder working-class poets of the Ukraine,had written a poem, "Love the Ukraine," sentimentaland patrioticas a thousand Russian poems were at that time: The Ukraine lives for us in the songs which we sing, In the stars and in the willow trees along the rivers, And in the beat of our heart. How can one love other peoples, If one does not love her, our Ukraine? We are nothing without her, like dust of the fields or smoke, Eternally driven away by the winds. For seven years thispoem was manytimes reprinted in the Ukraine,and it was even twicetranslated into Russian. Only in July,1951, did Pravda discoverthe "nationalist deviation" in the poem and bitterlyattack the author, as well as AlexanderProkofiev, whose translationhad appeared in May, 1951, in the Leningradliterary magazine Zvezda. "It is the duty of Soviet writers,"Pravda wrote, "to fightimplacably against all formsof nationalism .., and to sing in their works the heroic deeds of our great fatherland,which builds communism." Pravda did not say how to reconcilethe implacable fightagainst all formsof nationalismwith the glorificationof the great and unique Russian people and its past, but its articleopened a whole seriesof attacks on "Ukrain- ian nationalism."27Alexander Korneichuk and Wanda Wassiliewskawere even accused of having not sufficientlystressed the pro-Russian character of the Ukrainianstruggle for liberation from Poland underHetman Bohdan Khmelnit- ski, in the librettoto an opera of that name composed by Konstantin Dan- kevych. And immediatelyafter the appearance of the article in Pravda, a meetingof the Ukrainian Union of Soviet Writersin Kiev was called. This meetingrecognized the great importanceof the Pravda articlefor the development of Ukrainian literature,and all those presentindulged in a "profound analysis" of their"mistakes." A Ukrainianliterary critic, Leonid Novichenko, summed up the accusations against Sosyrua; He had not "freedhimself from the influenceof hostilebourgeois nationalistic ideology, which finds a complete reflectionin the corrupt poem 'Love the Ukraine.' . . . He representsthe Ukraine as standing alone . . . without connection with the great Russian 27 See "Protiv ideologisheskikh izvrashchenii v literature" ["Against Ideological Per- versions in Literature"], Pravda, July 2, 1951, and "Ob opere Bohdan Khmelnitsky" ["About the Opera Bohdan Khmelnitsky"], ibid., July 20, 1951. On July 10 Pravda printed an apology by Sosyura: "I think (your) criticismfully justified. I am deeply aware that the Soviet Ukraine is unthinkable detached from the powerful growth of our state of many nationalities; for the Ukraine achieved its happiness thanks to the fraternal help of the great Russian people and the other peoples of our motherland,"

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR It 719 people and the other peoples of the Soviet Union. . . He refusesto see that in the battle to freethe Ukraine,the sons of all the peoples ofthe Soviet Union, and in the firstinstance the sons of great Russia, took part; about them he crudelyand insultinglykeeps quiet. . . . While praisinga certainexclusiveness of the Ukrainian language, he consideredit possible not even to mentionthe Russian language, whichis to everyUkrainian as much a native language as is Ukrainian itself."28 Novichenko's last sentenceis revealingfor the new trend. When Professor Alexander VladimirovichPalladin, President of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Ukrainian representativein the Soviet Pan-Slav Committee, returnedfrom the InternationalCongress of Physiologyin England in 1947- one of the many internationalscholarly congresses which the aged scholarhad attended-he reportedin the LiteraturnayaGazeta how he had therescored a nationalisttriumph. Though he knew French and English perfectlywell, he refusedto use eitherof these officiallanguages. Instead, "We said we could not accept such a humiliatingtreatment of Soviet science and of the Russian language. This, we said, was the language of a great victoriousnation, and of the nation whichhad created the greatestand most advanced formof state in the world,and this language must receive its legitimateplace in the work of the congress. We scored our point. We read our papers in our own language." What strikesone in thisstatement is not onlythe spiritof nationalist pride and intransigenceshown at an internationalscientific gathering ("This episode, showed," ProfessorPalladin continued, "how important it is never for a momentto yield on points affectingour national honor and dignity,nor must we ever tolerateany kindof toadying to the West"), but the factthat the Presi- dent of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, an avowed nationalist,is not a Ukrainian nationalist. He is a Russian nationalist,who regards Russian as "our" language and reads his paper, in defianceof the rules of international courtesy,in Russian, not in Ukrainian.29 A similarrevaluation of theirhistory and culturehas been imposed by Mos- cow on the non-Slav Soviet peoples. Until recentlyShamil, the famousfighter for the independenceof the North Caucasus (1834 to 1859), and Kenesary Kasymov, who led the Kazakh revoltagainst Russian conquest (1837 to 1846), were recognizedas heroesof liberty.Soviet Russian historiansagreed withthe new Kazakh and Daghestani communistintelligentsia in praisingthe "anti- colonial" and "progressive"character of these wars for independence.But in 1950 it was foundout that these national heroeswere no liberators;"objective- ly, Russia fillsthe role of liberatorof the Caucasian peoples fromthe cruel and

28 Pravda Ukrainy, July 15, 1951. The same paper reported, on July 22, that the Ukrainian Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge complained that "too few lectures are being given about the eternal friendship of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples and about the struggle against Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism and cosmopolitanism." 29 See the report sent from Moscow to the Manchester Guardian by Alexander Werth, Oct. 26, 1947.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 720 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

arbitraryoppression by the Iranian and Turkishbandits." It was only natural that the new Soviet scholarshipsuddenly discovered that "the longingof pro- gressivepeople in the Caucasus forunion withRussia had reflectedthe feelings of the broad masses," and that "Shamil was forcedto overcomethe stubborn resistanceof the people. who expressedtheir sympathy for Russia, the savior of Daghestan fromthe easternbrutes."30 No lesserbody than the "presidium" of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR adopted in November,1950, a resolu- tion blaming leading Russian historians,among them the academy member Anna Mikhailovna Pankratova, for having idealized and misrepresentedthe "war of liberation"of the Caucasian mountaineersunder Shamil's leadership.3' Thereinwas seen a remnantof the "un-Marxist"school of Pokrovsky,who had not understood the importanceof the Black Sea and the Caucasus for the securityof (tsarist)Russia. The independencemovements of the Mohammedan people against Russian controlcould not be consideredprogressive, for they allegedly played into the hands of Pan-Turanism and of Britishimperialism, the foes of mankind. The new communistintelligentsia among the non-Russianpeoples had been encouraged, at the beginningof the Soviet domination,to explore the past, and especiallythe folksongs and epic poems,of theirown peoples. The various state publishinghouses and academies of sciences of the national republics had published,and glorified,such epic poems and heroicsongs as "Altamych" (Uzbek), "Dede-Korkut" (Azerbaijan), "Korkut-Ata" (Turkmenistan) and "Gesser Khan" (Buryat-Mongol).But whilethe Russians wereexhorted, after 1934, to take pride in the unique beauty of the "Song of the Expedition of Igor" and of the byliny (oral popular poetry celebratingthe exploits of the pre-TartarRussian princes),the epic poems ofthe otherpeoples wereunmasked as reactionaryafter 1949. In his Russian translationof the "Altamych," M. Sheikhsade had characterizedit as the revelationof "the best traits of character of the workingpopulation in the past, of its unceasinglonging for social justice, for happiness and for the good, a symbol of all the heroic and noble aspirationswhich.lived among the workingmasses of Uzbekistan." Now it was 30 See Solomon M. Schwarz, "Revising the History of Russian Colonialism," Foreign Affairs,Vol. 30, pp. 488-493 (April,1952); Mark Alexander,"Tensions in Soviet Central Asia," TwentiethCentury, Vol. 150, pp. 192-200 (Sept., 1951);-and above all M. H. Ertuerk,"Was gehtin Turkestanvor?", Ost-Probleme,Vol. 3, pp. 1010-1016 (1950). 31 "Ob antimarksistskoiotsenke dvizheniya myuridisma i Shamilya v trudakhnauch- nykhsotrudnikov Akademii" ["About the Anti-MarxistAppreciation of Myuridismand of Shamilin the Worksof the ScientificCollaborators of the Academy"],Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 11 (Nov., 1950); E. Adamov and L. Kutakov, "Iz istoriiproiskov ino- strannyagentury vo vremyakavkazkikh voin " ["From the Historyof the Intriguesof Foreign Agents at the Time of the Caucasian Wars"], Voprosyistorii, No. 11 (Nov., 1950). The most criticizedbook was that by R. Magomedov,Borba gortsevza nezavisimostpod rukovedstvomShamilya [The Struggleof the Mountaineersfor Their Independenceunder Shamil's Leadership](Makhach-Kala, 1939). The author was especiallyblamed for the "horrifyingassertion" that this war of independenceformed part of the international revolutionarymovement.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PAN-SLAVISM AND WORLD WAR II 721

condemned,as was the similar"Gesser Khan" epos:32"The poem cultivatesa hostileattitude towards the Russian people. The Buryat-Mongolpeople, which owes its freedomand happiness to the great Russian people, cannot tolerate that its sentimentsfor the fraternalRussian people be hurt.... Only under the protectionof the Soviet power. . . could the cultureof the Buryat-Mongol people . . . floweras never before.It formsan indissolublepart of the united and harmoniousSoviet familyof peoples and progressestowards communism, thanks to the support of the great Russian people under the leadershipof the party of Lenin and Stalin." Historians of the Mohammedan peoples who had pointed to the influence of Arab, Iranian, and Turkishcivilizations, were accused of being "cosmopoli- tans." Accordingto the new theory,the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks, and Turk- mens developed independentlyuntil the nineteenthcentury, when they came under the benevolentinfluence, not of the Russian tsars, it is true, but of the Russian people and the Russian culture. Kazakh communisthistorians who had regardedthe struggleof their people for independencefrom Russia as a school forthe political education of the masses, were censoredbecause "they failedto recognizethe deep progressivesignificance of the union of Kazakhstan with Russia.... The Kazakh workingclass had the greatest interestin this union.The activitiesof the Kassymovs (leadersof the independencemovement) who wished to hinderthe union, were in sharp oppositionto the desiresof the progressivepart of Kazakh society."33

V The futureof Pan-Slavism is uncertaintoday. In 1930 it seemed a dead issue. World War II broughtan unexpectedrevival, with an unprecedentedbreadth and intensity.There was for a time some hope of a Pan-Slavism based upon the equality and free development of the various Slav peoples; Dr. Bene and Jan Masaryk apparentlybelieved in its possibility.What emergedwas a Pan-Russism of the kind preached by the extremePan-Slavs of the nineteenth centurybut neveradopted by the tsaristRussian governmentand always com- batted by liberal and humanitariantrends among the Russians themselves, as well as by the nationalismof Ukrainiansand Poles, Czechs, and Serbs. Now, however,a new dimensionhas been added, apparentlyas a permanentfeature, to the exclusiveand all-inclusivestate religionof the Soviet Union.Before World War II, Soviet citizenshad to worshipthe party of Lenin and Stalin and the great Stalin himself.Now a compulsoryobsequious deferenceto the "great" Russian people has been imposed on all its "younger brothers"-a category

32 See "Ob epose 'Altamych' " ["About the Epic Poem 'Altamych' "], Literaturnaya Gazeta, Feb. 14, 1952; and "O reaktsionnoi sushchestnosti eposa Gesser Khan" ["About the Reactionary Nature of the Epos Gesser Khan"], Kultura i Zhizn, Jan. 11, 1951. 33 "Za marksistko-leninskoe osveshchenie voprosov istorii Kazakhstana" ["For the Marxist-Leninist Elucidation of the Questions of the History of Kazakhastan"], Pravda, Dec. 26, 1950.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 722 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW which all non-Russianpeoples must enter. In this respectthe Pan-Slav frame has been broadened and racial equality throughoutthe Soviet empire main- tained: all its peoples, whetherwhite or colored, Slav or Turk, Christian or Mohammedan, have equally and continuallyto pay theirdeep respectto the Russian people and even to the Russian past! Yet there are signs-in Titoism, in the ever-repeatedofficial accusations by Moscow against Polish, Ukrainian,Uzbek, and Caucasian writersand historians-that the non-Russianpeoples, Slavs as well as non-Slavs,do not suffi- cientlyappreciate being constantlyreminded of the deep gratitudewhich they owe to the "great" Russian people and of theirimmutable dependence upon the leadership of the Russian people. It is not impossible that an enforced conformityand loyalty,driven to such length,may prove a weakeningfactor in the vast Moscow empire and may help one day to restorethe principlesof liberty,equality, and diversityon which the Pan-Slav movementinsisted in 1848, when it rejected categoricallyMoscow's leadership and looked to the West forguidance and inspiration.

This content downloaded on Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:53:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions