¹ Timasheff, N. S., “Four Phases of Russian Internationalism,” Thought, Vol. 20, p. 47 (March, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In 1927, at the Fifteenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, Stalin declared: “The revolution in USSR is only part of the world revolution, its beginning and the base for its successful advance.”

² Bolshevik, No. 10, pp. 1–2 (May, 1941)Google Scholar.

³ “Our Party is theoretically equipped and united as no other party on earth because in its activity it leans on the Marxist-Leninist theory and masters the knowledge of the laws of social development. The duty of the Party and Soviet personnel … is unceasingly to study the theory of Marx and Lenin, remembering that it gives the Party the ability to orient itself in any circumstances, to foresee the course of events, to understand the inner connections of current developments, and to recognize not only how and whether events are now developing, but also how and whether they must develop in the future” (Bolshevik, No. 1, p. 10, 01, 1945Google Scholar).

⁴ Stalin, , O velikoi otechestvennoi voine Sovetskogo Soyuza [On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union], 5th ed. (Moscow, 1946), p. 17Google Scholar. See also, from his radio address of July 3, 1941: “Germany suddenly and treacherously violated the non-aggression pact of 1939” (p. 10).

⁵ 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 Mikhailova, Elena in Soviet Literature, No. 8, pp. 46–49, Aug., 1946)Google Scholar 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, glorifying the “Holy Homeland” (svyashchennaya rodina). The general slogan was “za rodinu, za Stalina”—“for fatherland and Stalin.”

⁷ See Karpovich, Michael, “Soviet Historical Novel,” Russian Review, Vol. 5, pp. 53–63 (Spring, 1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This novel was translated into English by Fineberg, J. under the title of No Easy Victories (London, 1945)Google Scholar. A number of other Russian war novels and biographies about historical heroes are available in English translations, among them Sergeev-Tsensky, S., Brusilov's Break-Through (London, 1944)Google Scholar; Borodin, S., Dmitri Donskoi, trans. Paul, E. and Paul, C. (London, 1944)Google Scholar; Bragin, Mikhail, Field Marshal Kutuzov (Moscow, 1944)Google Scholar; Osipov, K., Alexander Suvorov; A Biography, trans. Bone, E. (London, 1944)Google Scholar; and Wipper, R. (Robert Yuryevich Vipper), Ivan Grozny, trans. Fineberg, J. (Moscow, 1947)Google Scholar. In the last, a historian of repute tried to save Ivan's reputation as a reformer and “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 Kolarz, Walter, Stalin and Eternal Russia (London, 1944), pp. 48 ff.Google Scholar

⁹ On the establishment of the autonomy of the Volga Germans, see Schilze-Molkau, Rudolf, Die Grundzüge des Wolgadeutschen Staatswesens im Rahmen der russischen Nationalitätenpolitik (Munich, 1931)Google Scholar, and Langhans-Ratzeburg, Manfred, Die Wolgadeutschen, ihr Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, zugleich ein Beitrag zum bolschewistischen Nalionalitätenrecht (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The first quotation is from Istoriya SSSR, Vol. 3 (for the tenth grade), 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1941), p. 29Google Scholar. The quotation regarding Stalin's attitude is from Beriya, Lavrentii Pavlovich, K voprosu ob istorii bolshevistskikh organizatsii v Zakavkazie [Concerning the Question of the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasia], 5th ed. (Moscow, 1939), p. 56Google Scholar. 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 Korobkov, N. M., Mikhail Kutuzov (Moscow, 1945)Google Scholar, 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 everything that Russian history has ever known. But we do not forget our 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 faithful follower: On the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasia, trans. from the 4th Russian ed. (New York, 1939)Google Scholar 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 official legend about Stalin's activities in his younger years. Stalin's attitude in 1905 is discussed on pp. 44–46 of the 1939 ed. (pp. 71–73 of the 1949 ed.): “In January 1904 the Russo-Japanese War broke out. The Bolsheviks of Transcaucasia, headed by Comrade Stalin, consistently pursued Lenin's line of ‘defeat’ for the Tsarist government, constantly urging the workers and peasants to take advantage of the military overthrow of the autocracy. The All-Caucasian Committee of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Bolshevik organization), the Tiflis and Baku Committees of the RSDLP issued a number of leaflets exposing the imperialist predatory character of the Russo-Japanese War on the part of both warring powers and calling for the defeat of Tsarism. One of the leaflets … said: ‘However much they may call us non-patriots and the enemies at home, let the autocracy … remember that the RSDLP represents 99% of the population of Russia…. Their brothers are being driven into the jaws of death to shed the blood of the sons of the Japanese, a brother people! … 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.”

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)Google Scholar, 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 fifth column 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 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.

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

¹⁴ von Rauch, Georg, “Die Sowjetische Geschichtsforschung heute,” Die Welt als Geschichte (1950), No. 4, p. 258Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar 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, 1947–1949)Google Scholar had been censored in Voprosy istorii, No. 7 (1950) for insufficient understanding of tsarist colonial policy on the ground that she had not recognized the reactionary, pro-British and pro-Turkish character of the independence movement of the Caucasian peoples under Shamil against tsarism.

¹⁶ Voprosy istorii, No. 1, pp. 155–156 (1951)Google Scholar. The thesis had been defended on June 26, 1950.

¹⁷ Review of Progressivnoe vliyanie velikoi Russkoi natsii na rozvitie Yakutskogo naroda, Pt. 1, ed. Novgorod, A. I. (Yakutsk, 1950)Google Scholar in Voprosy istorii, No. 1, p. 140 (1951)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Kon, I., “K voprosu o spetsifike i zadachakh istoricheskoi nauki,” Voprosy istorii, No. 6, p. 63 (1951)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ “Pan-Slavism,” Bolshaya Sovyetskaya Entsiklopediya, Vol. 44 (Moscow, 1939), Cols. 68 ffGoogle Scholar. The reference to Marx and Engels there is to Sochineniya, Vol. 7, p. 277Google Scholar.

²⁰ Mazour, Anatole G. and Bateman, Herman E., in Journal of Modern History, Vol. 24, p. 64 (March, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ See the review in Slavyane, August, 1947, pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar; Valkenier, Elizabeth, “Soviet Impact on Polish Post-War Historiography, 1946–1950,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 11, pp. 372–396 (Jan., 1952)Google Scholar; and Werfel, Roman, “Konferenz polnischer Historiker,” Für dauerhaften Frieden, für Volksdemokratie (the official Cominform organ, Bucharest), March 6, 1952Google Scholar.

²² Stalin, Joseph, 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, 301Google Scholar.

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, 1921Google Scholar. See especially Ustryalov, Nikolai Vasilyevich, Pod znakom revolyutsii [Under the Sign of Revolution], 2nd enl. ed. (Kharbin, 1927)Google Scholar, wherein the introduction he writes: “No doubt, the motherland is being rebuilt and rises again” (p. v). His articles, written between 1921 and 1926 are divided into two sections: political articles on national Bolshevism, and sketches of the philosophy of our time. Some of the articles are remarkable for an understanding of the Russian nationalism of the twentieth century, especially “National Bolshevism,” pp. 47–53 (originally published Sept. 18, 1921); “Of the Future Russia,” pp. 132–135; “The Nationalization of October,” pp. 212–218; “Russia and Blok's Poetry,” pp. 346–356; and “Of the Russian Nation,” pp. 374–393 (written originally for a Vseslavyansky Sbornik [Pan-Slav Symposium] published by the Union of Slav Committees in Zagreb in honor of the one thousandth anniversary of the Kingdom of Croatia).

²⁴ The lecture by Kovalev was regarded as so important that it was published in English by Soviet Monitor, issued by Tass Agency (London), No. 8815, Aug. 13, 1947.

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

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

²⁷ See “Protiv ideologisheskikh izvrashchenii v literature” [“Against Ideological Perversions in Literature”], Pravda, July 2, 1951, and “Ob opere Bohdan Khmelnitsky” [“About the Opera Bohdan Khmelnitsky”], ibid., July 20, 1951. On July 10 Pravda printed an apology by Sosyura: “I think (your) criticism fully 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.”

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 Werth, Alexander, 10 26, 1947Google Scholar.

³⁰ See Schwarz, Solomon M., “Revising the History of Russian Colonialism,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 30, pp. 488–493 (April, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, Mark, “Tensions in Soviet Central Asia,” Twentieth Century, Vol. 150, pp. 192–200 (Sept., 1951)Google Scholar; and above all Ertuerk, M. H., “Was geht in Turkestan vor?”, Ost-Probleme, Vol. 3, pp. 1010–1016 (1950)Google Scholar.

³¹ “Ob antimarksistskoi otsenke dvizheniya myuridisma i Shamilya v trudakh nauchnykh sotrudnikov Akademii” [“About the Anti-Marxist Appreciation of Myuridism and of Shamil in the Works of the Scientific Collaborators of the Academy”], Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 11 (Nov., 1950); E. Adamov and L. Kutakov, “Iz istorii proiskov inostranny agentury vo vremya kavkazkikh voin” [“From the History of the Intrigues of Foreign Agents at the Time of the Caucasian Wars”], Voprosy istorii, No. 11 (Nov., 1950). The most criticized book was that by Magomedov, R., Borba gortsev za nezavisimos pod rukovedstvom Shamilya [The Struggle of the Mountaineers for Their Independence under Shamil's Leadership] (Makhach-Kala, 1939)Google Scholar. The author was especially blamed for the “horrifying assertion” that this war of independence formed part of the international revolutionary movement.

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-Ieninskoe osveshchenie voprosov istorii Kazakhstana” [“For the Marxist-Leninist Elucidation of the Questions of the History of Kazakhastan”], Pravda, Dec. 26, 1950.