mail: Bill Thayer	Help	Up	Home
previous: Chapter 9 (end) This webpage reproduces part of a chapter of The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union by Roman Smal-Stocki published by The Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee, 1952 The text is in the public domain. This page has not been proofread. If you find a mistake though, please let me know! next: Chapter 10 (end)

 p339  Chapter X

The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union behind an "Iron Curtain" in the U. S. A.

9. The Direct and Indirect Allies of Russian Communist Propaganda and Their Methods in the U. S. A.

The direct allies are those in the American Communist Party, with all its front organizations, all the Communist press in the U. S. A. and Canada, edited in all the languages of the pes of the Soviet Union, together with the "national" organizations of Pan‑Slavic organizations supporting this press,⁠42 and the large number of fellow travelers.

The indirect allies are many gullible "liberal" university professors, who are used for the "noble cause of progress" by the specialists of Soviet propaganda. Among the indirect allies the old Russian 7emigres occupy the most important place. Every student of the methods employed by Russian Communism is aware of the existence of an ingenious  p381 Russian conspiracy within the United States, a conspiracy which has achieved and continues to achieve outstanding successes in every sphere of American life. But the ordinary American, the common man with his direct, open, and straightforward way of thinking, does not even suspect its existence. He is wholly unaware of the systematic way in which the solemnly proclaimed moral principles of American foreign policy are being undermined.

For a truly remarkable performance is being carried out every day in American public life by two well-trained and well-organized teams — the White Russian émigrés on the one hand and the representatives of Red Russia, with all its open and hidden auxiliary organs, on the other. The ball is so artfully hit from one side to the other that no one seems to see that the entire play is a fake, that in reality both teams are fighting a common struggle against a common enemy: the nationalism of the submerged and oppresses non‑Russian peoples of the Soviet Union. And both parties fight with a common basic aim: to deny the non‑Russian nationalities the right of self-determination. Let us take a look at these two efficient ball clubs.

After 1920, there was a considerable influx into the United States of White Russians from the former Tsarist Empire. This included a great many of the younger generation of the titled aristocracy, of the old Tsaristic bureaucracy, and a few Russian left-wing "democrats." Those of the younger generation, especially those with titles, easily established contact with certain levels of American society. Entries into business and science were made as well. Through this "under­ground work" of social friendship, they occupied, during succeeding decades, many important posts concerned with "Russia" and Eastern Europe in the universities, the press, business, and, after acquitting American citizen­ship, in many offices of State. This is partner Number 1.

Af American recognition of the U. S. S. R., the Soviet Union installed in the U. S. A. its missions, sits apparatus for propaganda, whose activities were reinforced during World War II by the millions spent on propaganda by the American government to vacillation the American people that the Soviet Union is not a Communist dictator­ship, but rather a "progressive democracy," in which the submerged non‑Russian peoples enjoy a paradise. And here we have the second partner in the game, the Soviet partner who convinced Americans by systematic propaganda that Soviet Moscow "yearns" for co‑operation with the United States!

During 1946 and 1947 came the rude awakening from these illusions. Now, in the "cold war," in which America of necessity must engage, we find old White Russian émigrés often acting as "experts" in solving American questions of policy with respect to the Soviets. Because of their American citizen­ship and their knowledge of things Russian these men are officially employed everywhere on the naïve assumption that between these former Tsarist patriots or Russian left-wing democrats and "Red Russia" there exists an impassable barrier of basic ideological differences. Nothing is further from the truth.

In reality the partners disagree only in so far as the desirability of the social system in the Soviet Empire is concerned. But upon the vital  p382 question of Russian nationalistic and imperialistic politics there is full agreement. Both groups form a common front in common act against the basic principles of American foreign policy as expressed in the Atlantic Charter, the Four Freedoms embodied within the Statutes of the UN, the principals proclaimed by President Truman, and, most important, the traditional ideals of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," for which ideals the non‑Russian peoples oppressed by Soviet Moscow are now fighting.

Both these groups, by the spoken word and the written page, have always defended the "unity and indivisibility of Russia" — meaning the nations contained within the Soviet Union — and they doggedly fight against the right of set on of all non‑Russian peoples under Soviet Moscow. Both sympathize, as secret "Russian patriots," with the territorial expansion of Moscow and her "Pan‑Slavic" achievements, of which the "Tsars could not even dream." And both ridicule always the tragic fate of the Baltic States, Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland, and Czecho­slovakia, and hate Catholicism and the Christian denominations of the West.

At the same time that America applauds the British and Dutch nations in granting the right of self-determination to the peoples of their former empires, the American press and officials have been induced through the conspiratorial efforts of these two Russian groups to deny these basic rights to the oppressed non‑Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union in order to preserve the "Russian Empire," that monstrous prison and cemetery of entire nations. Indirectly responsible in no small degree is this Great Russian conspiracy for having thus deprived the United States of the most power­ful weapon against Russian Communism: the revolutionary national ideal in Europe and Asia, a weapon which even in Tito's Communist hands is proving to be most efficient.

White Russia and Red Russia, in creating within the United States this veritable "Spiritual Soviet-Russian occupation zone," which includes many important posts in universities, in the world of journalism, and in the government bureaucracy, have had the support of American fellow travelers and left-wing enthusiasts, all under the protection of the American Communist Party. Thus these two supposedly antagonistic groups — White and Red Russia — have brought over into our he spent the timeless and unchanging attitude of the Kremlin rulers with respect to the non‑Russian nationalities. Today this attitude is expressed by the Soviets in their genocide program; for the Tsarist threatens we had the Russian version of the Jim Crow law as propounded by Purishkevich and Krushevan. And their common tactics here are now to decided utterly the heroic fight of Karelia, the Baltic States, White Ruthenia, the nations of the Caucasus and Turkestan, the Tatars, and the Cossacks and — above all — of Ukraine.

But the infiltration of this pernicious propaganda, the advice given by the "experts," the agitation of fellow travelers, mean more than the doom of the enslaved nations behind the Iron Curtain. The success of this activity is a direct threat to the moral foundation of summon world leader­ship.

 p383  Thus the Russian "democratic and social" émigrés in the U. S. A., with few exceptions, have a rather shady record as to the non‑Russian nationalities, their individual and national rights. These democrats and socialists, using the hospitality of this country, not only obstinately refuse to be "Americanized" in their political ideas, but they are uniting their efforts to "Russify" the U. S. A.

Here are a few examples of their attitude toward the Russian Communist dictator­ship. Mr. A. Kerensky⁠43 said: "It is better to have a bad dictator than to cut the live body of Russia," i.e., than to grant liberty to the non‑Russian peoples in the Soviet Union. The leader of the Russian mensheviks, R. Abramovich,⁠44 in his article entitled "The Numeration of Enemies," wrote: "They [the bolsheviks] are despots and tyrants, they are dictators and fire-spreaders; they are guilty of all crimes against the people, save one: They did not dismember Russia." The meaning is obvious. Abramovich is ready to condemn the Soviets for their many crimes, but he is gratefully kowtowing before Stalin for not granting self-determination to the non‑Russian peoples, because that would mean "the dismemberment of Russia." The theoretical anti-Communism of the Russian Socialists becomes in practice pro‑Stalinism. Abramovich's statement is a proof of complete amorality, which can be well evaluated by comparing it with the following sentences published by an American Socialist (Candidate for Governor of Wisconsin) William Osborne Hart, in the Milwaukee Journal, defending Socialism against the accusation of sympathizing with Stalinism:

The Russian bolsheviks and mensheviks always wavered.

The bestiality and cruelty of Abramovich is the more contemptible since he surely knows the fate of his Socialist comrades of all the non‑Russian nationalities. Very peculiar is the case of the White Russian,  p384 Vladimir Kazakevich, who made headlines in the year 1950, as we have mentioned. One possible explanation of his turnabout with respect to the Soviets is that the strength of his Russian nationalism predominates over antipathy against the Soviet regime. Num some other White Russian émigrés, in fact, have begun to regard Stalin as a super-Russian patriot, in that he has added other Slav territories to those already annexed by the monarchist regime; for them Russia apparently comes first, all other considerations, such as the undesirability of a Communist form of government, second.

The methods employed by the Russian Communist propaganda and its direct and indirect allies against the non‑Russian nationalities are manifold:

a) The Pinkos and their direct and indirect allies, in their works, on the one hand completely ignorant the existence of the nationality problem in the Soviet Union, and on the other they suppress any book or pamphlet presenting this problem in their book reviews, ac gas "specialists" for the Soviet Union.

This "conspiracy of silence" in the American literature and press about the nationality problem in U. S. S. R. is one of the greatest intellectual scandals of our century. We can say that neither in the scientific literature nor in the press have we found put into actual practice the principle so proudly proclaimed as American by the late George Bannerman Dealey: "Build the news upon the rock of truth and righteousness, conduct it always upon the lines of fairness and integrity, acknowledge continue right of the people to get from the news­paper both sides of every important question."⁠45

b) The many scholars of the non‑Russian nationalities in the U. S. A. are discriminated against in the formation of editorial committees and scientific advisory boards; for them a Jim Crow class is instituted by the Russian "socialists and democrats" and their American friends.

c) To them the right of public discussion is denied (cf. the case with the MLA).

d) The non‑Russian scholars are systematically defamed by these Russian politicos and their American allies in professional togas as "politicians, reactionaries, fascists," etc.

e) Since the Pinkos, the Russophiles, and their allies insinuated themselves into many key positions, their "recommendations" are regarded as conditions for obtaining teaching positions. Consequently the non‑Russian scholars are kept from contact with the American youth.

f) Titoism and the nationality revolution in progress in the Soviet Union has made the method of science difficult at the present time. Thus a new method is developed by the Russians; they offer positions to persons of non‑Russian nationalities who accept the political platform of the "Russian federation" or at least the conception of "Russian common culture." Thus is prepared, by the Russian Marxists in the U. S. A., a new species which is presented to Americans as the "good" Ukrainians, Georgians, Byelo-Ruthenians, etc. Just as Stalin has his Manuilskys, so the Russians in the U. S. A. are fabricating their Manuilskys.

 p385  g) A Russian method constantly employed is "threatening." These pinkos and their allies are terrorizing the Americans with the threat, "If you support morally the self-determination of the non‑Russian nationalities you will stimulate Russian nationalism "; in other words, "the Russians will support Stalin." This argument is designed for gullible "liberals" and quakers. How can present Russian chauvinism be still more intensified, which proclaimed the Russian language as the world language of the proletariat, Socialism and humanity, which began to expand into the universe by giving Russian names to apparently newly discovered stars,⁠46 which in its broadcasts applies the term "Russian America" to aka?

h) The Russians and their allies systematically silence or misrepresent the objections of the non‑Russian nationalities to their programs and the constructive program of the non‑Russian peoples. As an example we mention the Catholic magazine, the Commonweal, which published on December 31, 1948, an appeal of "The American Committee for Free Russia" advocating on behalf of the U. S. A. a "Russian Federation," including in it also the non‑Russian peoples, without consulting their will. (This Catholic organ refused to print a letter of the author, a Catholic scholar, and it appeared in the Ukrainian Quarterly, Vol. V, 1949, "The right of self-determination of the non‑Russian nationalities in the Soviet Union.") We include this discussion into the appendix.

i) The favorite Communist method in the U. S. A. is to denounce anyone who fights the dogma of "the solution of the nationality problem" in U. S. S. R. or of her "indivisibility" as an anti-Semite.

Thus the U. S. A. has become since 1947 a battlefield of the ideological war between Russian imperialistic Communism and the freedom-loving non‑Russian nations.

Russian propaganda attempts with all methods to hammer into the minds of the American public the dogma of the "indivisibility and unity" of the Russian "Lebensraum" and to use the U. S. A. as an accomplice for the enslavement of the non‑Russian nationalities. This propaganda has as its final aim the defense of the Pan‑Russian imperialistic interests of Soviet Moscow, the strengthening of the dictator­ship of Russian Communism in the Soviet Union, and the undermining of any confidence in American moral leader­ship in the world.

10. The Poor Showing of the American Universities in the Fight Against Russian Communism, the Enemy of Academic Freedom

With comparatively few exceptions among the American university professors who stood uncompromisingly against Communism-Leninism, the part played by the American university professors in the ideological fight was and is quite inconspicuous. What are the few books, opposing  p386 Communism, in comparison with the Niagara of the fellow-traveler literature of the academic teachers? We do not remember one great action of American universities in defense of academic freedom in the Soviet Union, but we remember all their distinguished members at the Communist gatherings in the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. As a matter of fact, the change which we are witnessing in the last two years intus is not the result of the work of American universities, which rather have failed, but it is the result of the great "literature of disillusion" created by the former Communists. These former Communists learned the hard way and by practical experience rediscovered the basic values of Western civilizations: Russel, Auden, Spender, Koestler, Orwell in England, Eastman, Dos Passos, Wilson, Hicks, Farrell, Gitlow, Budenz, Wolfe, Freda Utley, Chambers — not all of them have discovered as yet the quite‑den-old struggle for these values waged by the non‑Russian nationalities. What, in comparison with this "literature of disillusion" (contributors to which in Europe included Gide, Souvarine, Serge, Silone, Panait Istrati, Ciliga) is the contribution of the American universities? One most important discovery was made by all these writers, who saw through the Russian Soviet myths, which is very important also to the nationality problem, and that is the incredible cruelty which characterizes all of Russian Communism, and which regards the lives of human beings as raw material, like scrap or iron, for production. What these writers did not perceive, because their observations were usually limited to Moscow, was that this bestial cruelty is also the attitude of Russian Communism toward all non‑Russian nationalities, their cultures and languages.

And very often we have been tempted, instead of wasting time in appealing to American professors on behalf of these victims of Stalin, to appeal to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for they would surely show more compassion than the Jacobsons and Kohns and their pupils.

11. The Achievements of Russian Propaganda in the U. S. A.

There can be no doubt that the achievements of Russian Communist propaganda in the U. S. A. are unique.

Under the banner of the "avant-garde of humanity" and "the ideals of progressive democracy," which is "realizing in the Soviet Union the principles of the American Revolution" — Russian Communist propaganda placed its faithful collaborators in many key positions and used them for its aims. The trials of the last years gave ample evidence of these facts.

The penetration of universities created a special intellectual atmosphere of pro‑Russian and pro‑Soviet sympathy, in which gullible generations of American youth grew up. This atmosphere in the English-speaking world later nurtured such persons as Alger Hiss, Julian Wadleigh, Judith Coplon, Whittaker Chambers. The textbooks of history, of social science, of foreign politics used a false perspective regarding  p387 the Soviet Union, they "stacked the cards" in favor of Russian Communism, imbuing the students with Russian Communist ideas. Instead of giving both sides of the question, they gave only an apology for Soviet Moscow, silencing or completely misrepresenting the nationality problem inside the Soviet Union and the struggle of the non‑Russian peoples for liberty and democracy. Thus there developed in the American universities a type of people who you embra­cing Russian Communism wished to share in the feeling of superiority as belonging to the "avant-garde of humanity." This idealization of Russian Communism was an improved edition of E. Bellamy's Looking Backward, the famous utopia in American literature, and induced generations of youth to"Looking Forward" to Soviet Moscow.

The greatest achievement of the Russian Communist propaganda is the complete elimination from American psychological warfare and foreign politics of the weapon of the national idea the world over, and the institution of a kind of Russian monopoly for the "liberation of nations" and anticolonialism. Instead of using the American idea of self-determination of the nationalities the world over in the spirit of Jefferson, Washington, and Wilson,⁠47 in order to defend democracy against Russian Communism, the American statesmen permitted the Russians to turn this weapon against the democracies, which never were guilty of such exploitation in their colonies as the Russians in the non‑Russian republics of the Soviet Union. Leading American statesmen many times accused colonialism in Asia, and Africa, demanding freedom for the peoples there, but they never lost a single word concerning the colonialism of the non‑Russian peoples in the Soviet Union, completely dragging a struggle that has been going on for a quarter of a century. This systematic discrimination against the non‑Russian peoples and their political aspirations will some day surely be inscribed on the same page as the discrimination against the Jews and Negroes. This American misunderstanding and underestimation of the importance of the nationality question, created in the U. S. A. by systematic Russian propaganda, has led us to the Sovietization of Poland, Czecho­slovakia, Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, to the loss of China, Tibet, and the formation of a Russian Communist despotism embra­cing nearly half of the population of the globe. Late, very late, American policy began to understand in Korea the nationality problem, after having acquiesced in the swallowing of all her faithful allies in Europe. The Americans did not believe the democratic leaders of the non‑Russian peoples until the Communist Tito gave a lesson to American democrats about the importance of the national idea, even in Communist ideology, proclaiming, "No matter how much each of us loves the land of Socialism [the Soviet Union], you cannot ask us to love our own country less!"

American analysts will later "discover" the true reason for the present tragic world situation, and will declare that the American disregard of the nationality problem, created by the systematic Russian  p388 propaganda in the U. S. A., for the last one third of the century, resulted in the American defeat by Moscow in World War II, and created the present situation, in which Leninism-Stalinism is already at the throat of America. They will later "discover" that only by courageous revolutionary help extended to the democratic under­ground movements of the oppressed nationalities within the Soviet Union and behind the Iron Curtain can the Atlantic Pact become a victorious force in the World War III, which has been in full swing for several years. That all will be done "later." For the present the Russian propaganda still holds sway in American public life. The Iron Curtain is effectively working and good old Joe can sleep in peace. George F. Kennan⁠48 guards the "integrity and indivisibility of Russia." Some recent examples are:

(1) The National Committee for Free Europe, Inc., formed by a group of leading Americans with long experience in international affairs, attempts "to halt Communism and save our freedom" and to organize in the present struggle for man's mind the defense and counterattack against Communist expansion. Justly they say: "Only in the contest of ideas can there be final victory which will yield us one world dedicated to peace and freedom." The excellent program of this Committee is limited to Poland, Czecho­slovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia. A similar Committee is acting for "Free Asia."

Consequently: (a) The Committee for Free Europe has excluded from its program Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Byelo-Ruthenia, Ukraine, Karelia, and the other Finnish peoples, and also the Cossacks. The "Free Asia" Committee excluded all non‑Russian Asiatic nationalities of the Soviet Union from its program.

(b) They are Committees for half-free and half-enslaved Europe and Asia, respecting the "unity and indivisibility of the Soviet Union," and denying the right of self-determination of the non‑Russian nationalities.

(c) Can there exist a world half-free and half-enslaved? Can America with such half-principled measures, which overlook perfect political crimes regarding the other nationalities, achieve moral leader­ship in the world? Why do the Americans, "with long experience in international affairs," underestimate the intelligence of the leaders of the satellite countries, who well understand that the other notes are being sacrificed to Russian slavery as "bait" so that Moscow will not refuse a "compromise?" Who of these sate leaders will believe in the honesty of the American partners, will believe that they will not be ready to sacrifice them also to Moscow for a "compromise"? And can the Americans imagine the feelings of all the non‑Russian nationalities in the Soviet Union and their émigrés outside? The American Liberty Bell, the symbol of Free Europe Committee means freedom for the satellites, the non‑Russian nationalities inside the Soviet Union slavery and chains.

(d) Finally, who of the Americans really believes that dynamic  p389 Russian Communism, having subdued half the world, will voluntarily retreat from the satellite countries? Have they not studied the "Principles of Leninism"? As a matter of fact without the solution of the nationality problem in the Soviet Union, the nationality problem of the satellites in Europe and Asia cannot be solved.

(2) Congress for Cultural Freedom, Berlin, June 26‑30, 1950. This Congress organized by American intellectuals was characterized by a large attendance of Russian mensheviks from the U. S. A., but the intellectual representatives of the non‑Russian nationalities were ignored. In the light of all the information it is clear that the invitation of the Ukrainians to the Congress was cut off, even sabotaged by the secretary of the Congress. During the meeting in Brussels of the International Committee, elected in Berlin, the Polish representative, Czapski, proposed to enlarge the Committee by the co‑operation of the representatives of Hungary, Roumania, and Ukraine. Who immediately opposed the co‑operation of the Ukrainians? The Russian menshevik, D. J. Dallin.⁠49 Thus the representatives of the non‑Russian nationalities, fighting for one third of a century for their cultural freedom were excluded from the Congress and the whole Congress has not developed a single word to the theory of Marr, not a single word to the fate of the non‑Russian cultures inside the Soviet Union.

But on the other hand the secretary of this Congress, a naturalized American speaking on behalf of the Americans, Mr. M. Lasky, has contributed something that deserves to be kept on the record about this strange "fighter" for cultural freedom. The news­paper Natsionalna Trybuna, No. 15, 1951 (New York) published the information that the exclusion of the representatives of all non‑Russian nationalities was decided in the U. S. A. by the Kerensky and the Russian menshevik groups to whom the American accorded the "privilege and monopoly" of speaking on behalf of "all peoples of the Soviet Union." M. Lasky spoke to the protesting Ukrainians: "You Ukrainians are separatists and your accusation is not true that the Russians are imperialists (regarding the Ukraine). In that case the U. S. A. is also imperialistic, because it included Texas." We do not know in what field the ignorance of M. Lasky is greater, in American history or the history of Eastern Europe. In any case his wisdom concerning the nationality problems in the Soviet Union qualifies him as a fighter for "cultural freedom." It is a fine achievement of Russian propaganda. The Ukraine, an apparently independent State, member of the UN with a separate Slavic language and culture, is herein insulted by this "freedom-loving" representative of the free press by the old Tsarist police term "separatist," because it is like Texas in regard to the U. S. A., an "indissoluble part of the holy mother Russia, the Pan‑Slavicnon‑Russian nationalities in the Soviet Union?

(3) "Voice of America." In this field also the principles of Russian propaganda are, up to the present, victorious.

 p390  As a matter of fact the author was informed by a leading radio commentator in 1948, on whom his lecture, "The Nationality Problem in the U. S. S. R.," made an obvious impression, that the commentator "sympathizes personally with the unhappy nations fighting for the ideas of Washington and Wilson," but he cannot openly support their cause because of "advice of the State Department not to foster nationalism, especially that of the Ukrainians." Future American historians will have the ungrateful task of studying all the instructions about the nationality problem given by the respective offices and of discovering the real authors of these instructions.

Since 1948 the "Voice of America" has also done branch broadcasting in Ukrainian. But this branch is not a separate division; it is subordinated to the Russian division — "unity of Russia"! The Russian-Ukrainian dictionary of Kalynovych, Kiev, 1949, which has included all the results of Marr's Russification, is there proclaimed as the standard for the Ukrainian literary language. Thus not even in the free U. S. A. is the Ukrainian language exempt from Russian oppression. Of course the "Voice of America" is forbidden to encourage "nationalism in the Soviet Union in any way not only among the Ukrainians, but among all the non‑Russian nationalities. Therefore this fact of Rome thought control must go on record: President H. Stassen, University of Pennsylvania, after returning to the U. S. A. from a world tour, gave in January, 1951, a statement which was broadcast in English in the U. S. A. demanding freedom for the Baltic and Central European nations, including the Ukraine. The "Voice of America" broadcasting this statement in Ukrainian to the Ukraine had stricken out from the statement — "the Ukraine."

(4) Signing of the Freedom Pact in Philadelphia on Lincoln Day, 1951; "Independence Hall, the cradle of American freedom, witnessed a ceremony reminiscent of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, a declaration of liberation for Central and Eastern peoples." Such information was published in the American press and February 12, 1951. What happened at the same time, and will be remembered as a dark day in history of the non‑Russian nationalities is the fact that their representatives were excluded from the signing by the American democrats, who had invited to this ceremony Mr. A. Kerensky publicly denying the non‑Russian nationalities the right of self-determination. Thus in the name of the "equality of nationalities" the representatives of the U. S. A., directing the ideological war against imperialistic Communism, desecrated the American Independence Hall by establishing "first‑class nationalities, which were invited to participate in the ceremony, and the Jim Crow class for the non‑Russian nationalities.

Contrast this fact with the declaration of an old friend of the U. S. A., Carlos Romulo, a week later during the inauguration of "brotherhood week" in Boston:

Thus to the discrimination against Negroes and Jews in internal policy by some states in the U. S. A. there was add to foreign policy the discrimination against the non‑Russian nationalities. And Independence Hall and Lincoln Day were selected for this event.

(5) Slavic and Soviet Union studies and research. In the U. S. A. these are, with some few exceptions, completely under the control of Russian propaganda; the great American foundations have contributed millions to Russian studies. In comparison with these grants the other Slavic studies and the studies of the non‑Russian nationalities were not supported with even 1 per cent of the amount granted to Russia.

Thus Russian propaganda limited Slavic studies virtually to Russian studies, and American youth is in the U. S. A. getting a distorted Russian imperialistic view of the Slavic world and the Soviet Union, and their problems, looking on all Slavic and non‑Russian nations of the U. S. S. R. nations exclusively from the point of view of Moscow and through Russian glasses. The key position of Slavic logistics in Harvard is occupied by R. Jacobson, the key position of Slavic history and Soviet Union bibliography is held by S. Yakobson.

To the Russian studies are subordinated all Soviet Union studies, including the life of all the non‑Russian nationalities. The Ford Foundation even subordinated them to the "Free Russia Fund" with G. Kennan as president.

In the course of the last decades these teachers of Russian and their pupils occupied nearly all key positions in book reviews, the press, State offices, and public life. With the defense of the tentes of Russian pga in the U. S. A. are linked their positions and private business, and any attempt of the non‑Russian nationalities to bring into the Slavic and Soviet studies some objective approach is fought by the profiteers, the Russians and Russophiles, by every kind of smear, slander, and character assassination. Thus the U. S. A. even today dares look only through the Russian prism on Russian history, the Soviet Union, on the non‑Russian nationalities, and has to obey these Russian propagandists and politicians, who have propound for the U. S. A. the honorable mission of functioning as an associate jailer of all the non‑Russian nationalities in this Soviet prison.

A good example of how effectively the propaganda for Joe Stalin is conducted under the cover of the Columbia University are the films on the Soviet Union. The "Communication Material Center" of this university issues such educational films and one can read in the film catalogue:

An election still means, in the U. S. A., the choice between parties. Consequently how can there be an "election" in the Soviet Union if only one list, that of the Communist Party, si permitted? It is a Communist-propaganda lie that there are "elections" in the Soviet Union. There are many films of this kind: "One Day in Soviet Russia," "Peoples of the Soviet Union" (showing famous artist of the Jewish theater from 1937 which for nearly a decade has been liquidated), "Children of Russia" — they all are arranged and designed to show off the Soviet Union as a paradise of happy individuals and peoples, with the authority of the Columbia University behind them for the "advancement of knowledge."

Harvard University brought this pro‑Russian attitude⁠50 in Soviet Union and Slavic research even to Europe. In Munich an "Institute for the Study of the History and Institutions of the USSR" was organized and its direction put into the hands of Russian scholars, while the non‑Russian scholars were barred. The Institute started its work according to the old Russian imperialistic ideology and the old "integrity and indivisibility of Russia" conception. Soon the Harvard Russophiles learned their lesson that the nationality problem exists. In the conference of the DP scholars from the Soviet Union, organized January 11‑14, 1951, in Munich, the Ukrainian DP scholar, Derzhavyn, protested against the interpretations of "Soviet patriotism" by Prof. N. Osipov and unmasked it as the "old Russian patriotism" based on retrogression of the non‑Russian peoples. The Ukrainian scholar was supported by DP scholars from Turkestan, Azerbaijan, and other countries. The magnanimous statement of Prof. N. Osipov, that "only thirty years ago we Russians lost Finland and Poland, but only few of us grieve about it" got from the Turkestanians a sharp reply: "Listen, it somebody would steal your portfolio and you would have retrieved it, what would you say to the declaration of the thief, who magnanimously forgave the owner his action?" The whole non‑Russian press reacted to this type of Harvard studies in articles entitled: "Falsification of Science." The revenge interview project of the Harvard University was conducted in a similar way. Its lists of queries have a pro‑Russian bias and give no opportunity to speak the truth about the oppression of non‑Russian nationalities.⁠51

(6) A rift in the Iron Curtain in the U. S. A.?

Of course, we DP scholars, the free voice of the non‑Russian  p393 nationalities, are faced with the question, how could the Russian and Soviet propaganda gain such successes in the U. S. A.?

A deep-seated tradition in the American soul is sympathy for the underdogs and hostility to imperialism. This very word was even odious and the phrase "British Empire" proved, according to H. Steele Commager, a severe barrier to Anglo-American understanding. But for "Russian Empire" and Russian imperialism the Communist propaganda created among Americans an "enthusiasm."

A peculiarity of the Americans was and is the devotion to peace and aversion to all forms of aggression and persecution. But the "liberal," "humanitarian," and "idealist" professors for years quietly passed over the nationality problem of the Soviet Union in the U. S. A., ignored the truth about the process of vivisection on the living bodies of the non‑Russian nations, perpetrated by the Russian Communists.

These facts had tragic consequences for the U. S. A., because the U. S. A. is "the" world power. And world power means world responsibility; world responsibility for the national problem not only in Europe, Asia, Africa, but also in the Soviet Union.

We think that the victories of Russian propaganda in the U. S. A. must be understood on the background of Maragon, the deep freezers, mink coats,⁠a gamblers, cheating cadets⁠b — on the breakdown of morals in some intellectual spheres, which also violated and are violating the fair-play code. In some intellectual circles there exists a real jungle of opportunism, where material success remains the highest end to be pursued, by all means and at any price.

But we DP scholars did not doubt for a single moment that these negative symptoms, existing in larger or lesser degree among all peoples in this postwar time were passing phenomena in this nation, built on the foundation of justice and freedom. We began here in 1947, believing in the old American traditions, to interest the American public in the nationality problem of the Soviet Union, not admitting discouragement when the New York Times, Life, Time, etc., refused to publish our commentaries on their rather one‑sided information. We began to make known our situation to congressmen and senators and soon found friends — the idea of freedom is contagious.

As a turning point for the nationality problem in the Soviet Union we cite the inclusion in the Congressional Record the article: "The Struggle of the Subjugated Nations in the Soviet Union for Freedom"⁠52 by Congressman Lawrence H. Smith. Soon he included another article in the Congressional Record: "The Genocide Convention,"⁠53 reporting the sad condition of the non‑Russian peoples under Russian rule. Thus the nationality problem of the Soviet Union was put on the agenda of American foreign politics in its whole scope, supported also by Senator A. Smith and Herbert H. Lehman.

Prof. S. Soloveitchik, University of Kansas City, a Russian authority  p394 in misrepresentation of the nationality problem,⁠54 soon reacted publishing in Novyi Zhurnal, Nr. 1950, an article with a quotation from the works of one of the founders of Russian Socialism, F. Volkhovskii: "The tendency to national independence loses its lawfulness if it attempts to subordinate general human interests to the conservation of national peculiarities or of national differences." As we see, the old Marxian-Leninist principle regarding the subordination of the principle of self-determination to the "interests of proletarian world revolution," is by this Russian "democrat" a little mitigated for Americans by subordinating it to "general human interest." Of course, with the well-known Russian fairness and modesty, the Russian democrats also, like the Russian Communists, regard themselves as the only people authorized to declare what "general human interests" are; they regard themselves as the only people authorized also to act at once as "public prosecutors" of all non‑Russian nationalities on behalf of "humanity" and as infallible judges in the conflict between the Russian imperialism and the non‑Russian peoples, because they identify general human interests with unlimited Russian imperialism. He received an answer from the Ukrainian Socialists:⁠55 "before discussing the constant role to be played by the Russians in the cultural world process, it is first necessary to kill [in Russia] the lice."⁠56

Unprejudiced American scholars like Prof. C. A. Manning, an authority on the Baltic and the Ukrainian question, Prof. L. Dobriansky, Prof. James Burnham, A. P. Coleman apprised the American public of the fact that the Ukrainian Partisan army not Baltic partisans were still fighting. A courageous Ukrainian woman, Oksana Kosenkina, will never be forgotten by all freedom-loving peoples; she has given an unforgettable lesson to American Pinko professors. The menshevik, D. Dallin, soon directed an attack on James Burnham in his book: The New Soviet Empire, a masterpiece of Russian misrepresentation of the nationality problem in the Soviet Union.

The year 1951 began with a remarkable statement of Mr. H. Stassen, president of the University of Pennsylvania, after his return from Europe. This statement demands that the U. S. A. should accept a program of seven points, the first of which runs as follows: "The establishment of separate national sovereignty and true independence of the Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary."

In spite of the fact that the word "Ukraine" was suppressed in the Voice of America broadcast to Soviet Ukraine, the Achilles heel of Soviet Moscow was hit. Hardly two weeks later Piotr N. Pospielov, director of the Marx-Engels and lenient Institute in Moscow, on the occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of Lenin's death vented his  p395 rage against America. Giving up all pretense to historical truth, Pospielov asserted that President Wilson demanded at the Versailles Conference the "dismemberment of Russia" and declared "the Russian people will never forget that the hands of American imperialists are red with the blood of the Russian people." Pospielov was speaking also to the nations of Asia name Africa and to the satellites in Europe not to place their hopes for liberty in America but to count on the strength and the protection of Moscow.

There was an opportunity for a great moral victory for the Department of State to rally to the cause, by a programmatic declaration, all the oppressed nationalities around the flag of the U. S. A. and the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN. Instead, on January 31, the Assistant Secretary of State, Jack McFall, in an answer to P. N. Pospielov, declared that the U. S. A. had always shown great friendship, respect, and sympathy for the "great Russian nation" and had always opposed, and continued to do so, any dismemberment of the Russian Empire or the separation of any part from it, just as the America of 1918 had denounced the "infamous" Brest-Litovsk treaty (which has recognized an independent Ukraine in accordance with the declarations of President Wilson on self-determination). Thus Soviet Moscow won a great victory in the ideological warfare showing that official America is not standing for justice, equality, and freedom of the nationalities the world over. On March 15, 1951, there appeared a sensational article by Leonard J. Snow, "Weapon Against Russia," The Sign, supporting the Promethean ideology and stating that nationality problem is a more power­ful weapon against Russian Communism than the atomic bomb. Congressman Charles Kersten included the article into the Congressional Record, April 2, 1951. George F. Kennan considered the moment as opportune for a special kowtow before Russian imperialism in the April issue (1951) of Foreign Affairs in the article "America and the Russian Future," solemnly "rededicating" the Ukraine and the Baltic States to Russian imperialism.⁠57

He received many replies. We mention only two. On behalf of the Ukraine our article⁠58 "A Stalin Prize Book and George F. Kennan" analyzed Kennan's thought by proving the complete parallelism between the contemporary Russian Communist propaganda in the Ukraine (awarded the Stalin Prize) and Kennan's opinions. We said:

In Europe Kennan got an answer in the ABN-Correspondence, Nr. 10, by P. G. Andree, entitled "U. S. A. and U. S. S. R.":

The former Polish representative in the League of Nations, T. Komarnicki, analyzed the superficial economic and political conceptions of Kennan. He attempted to straighten out this American and to give him some sense of objectivity and proportion:

T. Komarnicki completed his article as follows:

 p401 The Ukrainian viewpoint against G. F. Kennan was supported also by comments in The Lithuanian Bulletin, January-June, 1951, and in The Armenian Review, Summer, 1951.

This discussion was going on, when in the U. S. A. all the non‑Russian nationalities showed their common front against Soviet Moscow during the manifestation, honoring the heroic death of the Commander of the U. P. A. General T. Chuprynka.⁠c

Then came a historic event, which started the ball rolling. Congressman Charles Kersten emphasized the nationality problem of the Soviet Union with his concurrent resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, April 17, 1951. This document, of historic value for the future traditions between all non‑Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union and the U. S. A., we give in the Appendix. In view of the tragic losses in Korea and the continuation of the victorious resistance of Tito to Russian Imperialism, the Secretary of State Dean Acheson addressed the people of Georgia, the home country of the Soviet dictator, calling upon the Georgians to share with the U. S. A. "a future that promised freedoms" they did not have. Mr. Acheson stated:

But the central and very significant idea of Mr. Acheson's speech, for all non‑Russian peoples, was his statement about Russian Communism as the continuation of the old Russian imperialism. He said that "the Russian rulers have followed the imperialist Russian tradition with only this difference: They have added to Russian military power the new weapons of Communist subversion, psychological warfare and indirect aggression." Stalin's policies, Mr. Acheson asserted, are merely an extension of expansionist and aggressive policies conducted by Russia in the past 500 years. The New York Times, June 28, 1951, declared in its editorial "Realism About Russia," commenting upon his remarks:

There was an immediate reaction against Mr. Acheson's statement on May 30, 1951, in Novoye russkoye Slovo, Russian daily appearing in New York, written as follows:

So we see, Russian anti-Communists, with few exceptions, are usually pro‑Stalinists for Stalin is preserving the "unity and integrity of Russia," against the "septs." For Russian émigrés, the tragic fate of all peoples of the U. S. S. R., including the Russian, appears to be purely a secondary consideration; for them the prime concern always is not the freedom for millions of people, but the "preservation" of the Russian despotic empire and for this purpose the Russian "democrats" revived in free America the old Tsarist police term: "separatist"!

On June 29, 1951, the Secretary of State, during the opening of the "Voice of America" for the Turkestanians, Volga-Tatars, and Azerbaijanians, made the following speech:⁠59

The long disregard by the American policy of the Moslem peoples of the Soviet Union and of their struggle for liberty — also an achievement of Russian propaganda in the U. S. A. — brought great harm to the prestige of the U. S. A. in the whole Near East. Therefore the statement of Mr. Acheson was very warmly welcomed in the whole Moslem world and among their political émigrés from the Soviet Union.

In answer to Mr. Dean Acheson's statement about Russian imperialism Prof. M. Karpovich, Harvard, published in the New Leader, June 4 and 11, 1951, two articles entitled "Russian Imperialism or Communist Aggression?" Thus he started very late a discussion in the U. S. A., which in Europe was carried through in the early nineteen twenties when Wynnychenko and Jordania, two Socialists, proved the thesis that Russian Communism is the contemporary form of Russian imperialism. Apparently, this thesis was accepted also in the U. S. A. by impartial students of the Soviet affairs; for instance Isaac Don Levin⁠60 writes: "It has finally become self-evident . . . that Russian imperialism is as much a part of the Soviet order as German imperialism was part of National Socialism, and there never was a chance of preserving peace in equal partner­ship with the Soviet Union." Russian nationalism forced Karpovich into the front line to separate the old Russian imperialism from present Soviet imperialism. The editors of The New Leader put in a note for the discussion with a question, misleading for Americans, formulated as follows: "Are we fighting Communism or the Russian not?" In our own the Russian nation is one thing and Russian imperialism another. The best friends of the Russian nation (I regard myself one of them) uncompromisingly fought and will continue to reply Russian imperialism in the very best interest of the Russian nation itself. What special proving for its preservation can the Russian imperialism claim in comparison with the English, German, French, or Italian?

Prof. M. Karpovich gives a whole series of splendid parallels between the imperialisms of European powers, but they all "limp" on one  p404 fewest or both; all his arguments are aiming to substantiate the following theses immediately by professional defenders of Russian imperialism in their articles; cf. Eugene Lyons, Freeman, August 17, 1951:

All these theses, formulated dogmatically, for the defense of Russian imperialism as many statements in the articles, are quite debatable and "contain a great deal of historical stylization." Unconvincing also are Karpovich's attacks on Prof. Jan Kucharzewski, whose book The Origins of Modern Russia brought into the Russia-worship of the current American "research" some objective approach to the subject, based on documentary sources. In our opinion, there is no doubt that old Muscovy has to be placed outside "Europe," and therefore it is a question whether "the rise of Moscow is a chapter in the modern history of Europe as whole," or whether it is rather the rise of an Asiatic force against Europe as a whole. We doubt that nationalism and character can be disregarded in the rise of Russian imperialism. The works of Dostoyevsky penetrated the whole Russian intelligentsia and even Alfred Rosenberg and Nazism. Some Russians did not need the principle of Talleyrand for lying, because the surely unbiased Turgeniev⁠61 declared the Russians as the greatest liars on earth — the statement refers in our opinion only to some Russians. The Russians did not need the doctrine of Machiavelli, Asia gave them early and better Machiavellis from Persian, Chinese sources through the practice of the Tatars, their teachers (cf. The History of Diplomacy, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1941 A. Svechin, Evolution of Military Art, Vol. 2, 1927‑1928). Is it really true that "the Soviet Union still occupies the same space as the Russian Empire before it "? What about the ateis and Mongolia which in fact belong to the Soviet Empire? Behind a lot of rather interesting comparisons of the imperialisms of European powers, their aims, methods, and general character, Prof. M. Karpovich concealed the essential problem of all imperialisms, the modern nationality and colonial problem in order not to give full upport to Mr. Dean Acheson's statement. Every imperialism has two faces. Prof. Karpovich limits himself, and he does it deliberately to the  p405 exterior, outside face, to the aims, methods, and general character of the foreign policy; but has not every imperialism also an inside content, aims, methods, and general character regarding the victims of imperialism? Is it, from the historical point of view, methodically right not to take this interior side into account in a comparison of imperialisms?

The whole discussion cannot be limited to the point of view about Russian imperialism of the Russian historians, representative the Russian patriotic schools, but the historians of the non‑Russian nationalities, representing the victims of Russian imperialism, should like also to present the other point of view and to compare the practice of Russian imperialisms with, let us say, the British. We limit ourselves to the elucidation of the following theses of Prof. Karpovich.

1. Was the prerevolutionary Russian imperialism really essentially no different from the imperialism of the other great European powers? In our opinion, the statement of Professor Karpovich is false.

a) European imperialism embra­cing gradually the whole globe contributed to the Europeanization of the whole world.

Russian imperialism (annihilating the Statehood of Ukraine, this fact is ignored by the Russian patriot, Karpovich, subjugating the peoples of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Poles, Ukrainians, Byelo-Ruthenians, Lithuanians, later the Latvians, Estonians, Finns, Ingrians, and Karelians, finally the highly civilized Armenians and Georgians), embra­cing a large part of Eastern Europe, which for centuries formed an entity with Western Europe, did de‑Europeanize these nationalities and forced them to a lower cultural and spiritual level by separating them from the Western European family of nations and their civilization. Consequently, Russian imperialism was essentially anti-European, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Jewish.

Even in Asia, Russian imperialism differs from the European essentially. We could present whole pages showing how the native populations were treated by the Russians; but we limit ourselves to the quotation from the popular Outline — History of Russia by Q. Kirchner (p49): "Torture, abduction, murder and cannibalism were among their crimes."

b) European imperialism was also essentially different in its methods. Of course, also the eunuch had its darker pages; but it went through an evolution in its justification and methods from brutal force to the conception of a "mission" finally developing into voluntary unions and the abolishment of the dictator­ship of the once privileged nation. European imperialism gradually was controlled by the public opinion in the imperial nation; it grew more or less into "enlightened imperialism" as did pure absolutism into enlightened absolutism.

Russian imperialism is completely beyond comparison also in this regard with the European. The worst abuses of the European type are quite mild as compared with the Russian, characterized as it is by anti-Christian cruelty and ferocity even until the recent pre‑World War I times. We also miss completely any progressive improvement. It was cruel and brutal from the times of the Muscovite oprichnina and remained so toward the non‑Russian nationalities until the downfall of the Empire.

 p406  What are the reasons of this phenomenon? We assume that, first, M. Gorky⁠62 may be right in declaring cruelty to be a special fa of the Russian common man (for which perhaps the climate is to blame). Second, Russian imperialism as compared with the European remained in a state of stagnation in its ideological evolution. Third, in conclusion, Russian imperialism represents the antithesis of the European.

With European power gave of the history in modern times such a monster as Muravyov, or such an ideology as the falsified Proto­cols of the Elders of Zion (from a French source), or organized such pogroms of the "alien " non‑Russian nationalities, their customs, languages, churches? Which European imperialism can be compared with the Russian?

c) The European imperialism, on the whole, wished above all to integrate and to exploit the subdued peoples economically, but again, on the whole, the native cultures, languages, customs, often their rulers, were not interfered with (cf. the evolution in modern Austria); consequently, as a classic example, the English imperialism in fact contributed to the cultural development of the peoples of the Empire.

Russian imperialism never respected the individuality of the non‑Russian nationalities, their languages, cultures, traditions, churches. Russian imperialism was totalitarian and the idea of a multinational Empire was absolutely foreign to its policy. This totalitarianism aimed at the complete Russification by terror of all "aliens," of their cultures, languages, and churches. Intolerance, complete absence of any respect for law and the rights of the non‑Russian peoples characterizes Russian imperialism. Russification is the primary aim. The secondary purpose is the economic exploitation of the non‑Russian elements.

We are summing up: Russian imperialism was essentially different from European; the Russian Empire was not a "conventional" one; its policies were not of the "traditional" European type. Its rise and expansion require special explanation.

2. Have we really to do after World War I and II, not with Russian imperialism, but with Communist aggression? In our opinion this thesis is false, but we respect the motives of Prof. M. Karpovich in expressing such an opinion.

a) Again we stress the fact that present Communist imperialism is essentially anti-European. The Eurasianic ideology played an important role in the nineteen twenties and Stalin's proved statement to the Japanese foreign minister during World War II: "I am an Asiatic" is characteristic.

As once Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ingria, Finland, Karelia, Byelo-Ruthenia were de‑Europeanized by terror behind a Russian Imperial Iron Curtain, so now in the same way are de‑Europeanized the Baltic States, Poland, Czecho­slovakia, Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany, and East Austria behind a Russian Communist Curtain. These peoples are forced down to a lower cultural and spiritual level  p407 by Soviet Moscow, being separated from the Western European family of nations and their civilization. Communist imperialism is essentially anti-European, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Jewish.

The example of Prof. Karpovich, given as a warning against regarding present Communist imperialism as the continuation of old Russian imperialism — "Yes," say the apologists for Soviet foreign policy, "Russia interferes in eastern European countries, but don't America and England do the same in Greece and iran? . . . Russia is creating puppet governments but what is America doing in Korea?" — supports our thesis. America and England act in the interest of freedom and European civilization in a rather unselfish way, but what happened to the satellites? A new barbarization. It is the ideological aim of the interference that counts and it is decisive whether some action is "imperialism" or defense against imperialism.

b) This example brings us to the next point. Present Communist imperialism remained faithful to the old methods of Russian imperialism, increasing the use of brutal force to an incredible degree. Cruelty, not only in the first revolutionary years, but continuous cruelty is its particular feature. On the point we have an extensive literature of disillusionment from the pens of former Communists of all European nations, who unanimously testify to this fact. And this cruelty characterizes the present Russian regime in its dealings with all non‑Russian nationalities. Is the oprichnina not a living fact in the political police? There arose not one Muravyov but dozens in the Soviet Union, and as the "success­ful" solution of the nationality problem the Jews, Germans, Chechen-Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Karachis "disappeared," Russian terror went so far as to resort to genocide as its most effective means.

c) The Communist policy toward all non‑Russian nationalities is a refinement of the old policy of Russian imperialism, aiming at the Russification of all non‑Russian peoples, including their cultures and languages, which are put under Russian strict censor­ship.

We are summing up: Communist imperialism was and is essentially the continuation of the old Russian imperialism.

3. Now we ask, can there be any doubt that this Communist imperialism was and is conducted by Russians and as a Russian imperialism?

a) Any imperialism has its bearer — a nation, functioning as a dynamo of expansion and aggression. The Communist imperialism is directed by Russians and Russian "neophytes."

b) The Russian proletariat under the leader­ship of a large part of Russian intelligentsia gradually proclaimed themselves the heirs of the old Russian empire, of the classical Russian language, and of the old Russian culture and literature.

c) Behind a deceit­ful slogan of "self-determination for all non‑Russian nationalities, including separation," the Russians by military aggression reoccupied in 1920 nearly all countries subdued by Russian Tsarist Imperialism. Was this move not dictated by Russian imperialism? These countries had Socialist governments.

On all non‑Russian nationalities was imposed the dictator­ship of the  p408 Russian Communist Party by its Russian secretaries. After the short respite from 1923‑1928, during the N. E. P. period, Soviet Moscow renewed its Russification of all non‑Russian peoples, restored the privileged positions of the Russians in the Soviet Union, developing the "big brother" theory, with the "great" Russian nation including Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, and the "great" Russian language and finally proclaiming Russian as the language of the world proletariat and advanced humanity.

Was and is all this not Russian imperialism? All the Communist oppositions in the national republics accused the Russian party of fostering old Russian imperialism and not of "Communist aggression" (we refer only to Ukraine: Skrypnyk, Liubchenko)ness acting contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which promised equality to all peoples.

d) During World War II did Stalin in his proclamations invoke Marx and Engels or all the great heroes of Russian-Muscovite history? What in Leninism is pontificated in Bolshevik, N. 2, January, 1944:

After the war this Russian political and cultural imperialism was imposed now on all satellites, Russian language, literature (with the old classic one), art, and music are forced by terrorism upon all the non‑Russian satellites and all their ties with Western Europe are forcibly broken. All this is not Russian imperialism but Communist aggression? Why does international "Communist" aggression not force upon them English?

e) There can be no doubt there is an interrelation between "domestic" policies and foreign politics, the latter being in fact an expression of the inward essence. There can be no doubt that these policies are conducted by Russians and their Janizaries. There can be no doubt that in this Russian imperialism the Russian nation functions as the master race and profits by it. There can be no doubt that this Russian imperialism is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Russians inside the Soviet Union, and also outside. The obstacle refusal of the Russian émigrés to grant programmatically self-determination to the victims of this Russian imperialism, to the non‑Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union, is the best proof of it.

To sum up, we fully agree with the opinion of the Russian philosopher, Berdyaev, who regards Bolshevism-Communism as the third form of Russian imperialism (after the first form, Muscovy, and Russia, the second). Since it is blended with the old Russian messianism, it is at the same time North Atlantic and universal. Russian imperialism is with Communism merged into one whole; Communist aggressions were and are the expressions of Russian imperialism. The Russian nation, its  p409 dreams of world conquest and aspirations, are the basis of this political phenomenon (which now restored to Alaska the name "Russian America") excellently formulated in the saying: "Our matushka Rossiya is the head of the whole world." Without the Russian nation and its mentality Communist aggression would be impossible; without the Muscovite traditions Marxism-Leninism- Stalinism is unthinkable.

4. Let us girl review the arguments of Prof. Karpovich, with which he attempts to show that a difference exists between the old "Russian imperialism" and its present continuation in Russian Communist form, terming it "Communist aggression."

a) The activities of the Politburo are "global," the activities of the old Russian imperialism were limited. What about the Ukas of 1921, which closed the entire North Pacific from the Bering Straits to the fifty-first parallel to the trade and navigation of any foreign power, provoking the Monroe Doctrine? Did not Russia extend her feelers toward Siam? What about the activities of Ashinov and Leontyev in Abyssinia under Alexander III? Russian imperialism was global, the difference between the old and new Russian imperialism is not in its "extent" but in its intensity, dependent on the fact that then the world still lived in the age of the horse but now of the aeroplane and technocracy, used in modern propaganda.

b) The old Russian Empire was not an "ideocracy" and can, therefore, not be compared with the present Soviet Union with its "Marxism-Leninism." All attempts by Prof. Karpovich to might make the importance of the Third Rome idea, of Pan‑Slavism, in reality, Pan‑Russianism, of Russian messianism, are unconvincing (apparently he does not know the recently published book of the Ukrainian scholar, O. Ohloblyn, about the Third Rome idea). Unconvincing are his statements about the "absence of imperial consciousness" among the Russian intelligentsia. (I wonder where the present "imperial consciousness" of the whole Russian intelligentsia among the émigrés came from?) All these ideologies had their influences and despite the fact that the old Russian imperialism did not have an "officially approved program" for outside expansion (which one did have beside slogans?), "the internal program" was officially approved: "Russian absolutism, Russian nationalism, and Russian Orthodoxy," and its expression in foreign policies was Russian imperialism with definite aims. The absence of an "officially" approved ideology of Russian imperialism made its dynamic power all the worse, often unpredictable because it was always enveloped with foggy mysticism. Writers like Dostoyewsky strengthened that imperialistic tendency among the whole intelligentsia and nearly all great Russian poets have dark pages in treating the oppressed non‑Russian nationalities, the Ukrainians, the Poles, and the Caucasians and their struggle for liberty against Russian imperialism. We dose not deny the existence of "liberal" trends among the Russian elite, but they were foreign to the Muscovite soul and led to no positive results.

c) Prof. Karpovich concedes that Tsarist diplomats did from time to time employ "irregular methods," but Soviet diplomacy made a principle zzz ephor the exceptions and is conducting a diplomacy of civil war. No!  p410 The "seeds" are old Muscovite and the Russian Communist must be credited only with their cultivation to full maturity. Again, this is only a question of the time we live in, horse and buggy days or the aeroplane. There is between old Russia and the Soviet Union no difference at all. The Russians had to conduct inside the Empire a constant civil war against the non‑Russian peoples and could only in times of relative peace use this method outside. But inside civil war again non‑Russians was the only Russian method of keeping the Russian Empire together.

d) Prof. Karpovich states that with the Communist "fifth column" something fundamentally now appeared on the historical scene. A great mistake! Old Russian imperialism systematically used the "fifth column" method during the partitions of the Polish Commonwealth, against Turkey in the Balkans, and against Austria-Hungary, where it developed a special Russophile group for combating the Ukrainian independence movement; the Russian Orthodox priests worked to this end even on the American continent. Cf. Svoboda, September 22, 1901, informs us that the Russian Orthodox priests demanded from Ukrainian Catholics the following oath: "Do you believe in the holy Synod?" Answer: "I do." "Do you promise to obey the Tsar?" Answer: "I do."

e) There is also no basic difference between the old Russian imperialistic concept of security and that of the present Russian Communist. The old Russian concept also aimed not only "at the territorial security of the nation, but at the political security of the regime in power." Not only the present Russian Communist regime considers it necessary for security reasons to "Stalinize" the neighboring satellites, but the old Tsarist Russian regime used the same method toward the previous neighboring States, the Ukrainian Cossack State, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Finland, Caucasus. Both regimes stand a common ground in their security concepts, that is" fear of freedom.

5. We must finally also evaluate the political aims of the article of Prof. M. Karpovich, a distinguished scholar and leader of the Russian anti-Communist émigrés in the U. S. A. We, the non‑Russian scholars, are sorry that Prof. M. Karpovich wrote this article against Mr. Acheson's statement and disregarded the nationality problem in the old and new Russian imperialism.

The Russian émigrés in the U. S. A. instead of fighting Russian Communist imperialism, which endangers the U. S. A. and the bleed of the whole world, are fighting on a common front with this Russian Communist imperialism, against all aspirations of the subject non‑Russian nationalities for self-determination and liberty; the Russian émigrés in the U. S. A. deliberately ignored for decades the policy of Russification inside the Soviet Union and are now fighting the free voices of the non‑Russian peoples in exile, together the Soviet propaganda. In this respect both parts of the Russian nation have a common imperialistic program: the preservation of the Russian Empire by upholding the slavery of the non‑Russian nationalities. From this point of view the Russian anti-Communist émigrés in the U. S. A. are in fact an active branch of Russian Communist imperialism and represent its fifth column,  p411 directed against the ideas of the American Declaration of Independence, and all human rights and liberties of the non‑Russian peoples. Here in the U. S. A. there is now going on the great ideological battle for liberation of the Russian "Negro Nationalities" in which the Russian émigrés in reality support Stalin, beclouding and concealing from the American public the whole nationality problem in the Soviet Union.

If the Russian people really "yearn for lasting peace . . . and abandon, for its own liberation from Communist aggression at home," as Prof. Karpovich says, then the Russian émigrés in the U. S. A. have a marvelous opportunity to contribute to the realization of this "yearning" by

a) Liquidating the Russian imperialistic ideology, which he calls "Communist aggression," immediately in the U. S. A. amongst the Russian émigrés by proclaiming unconditional self-determination for all non‑Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union.

b) And by uniting as a democratic and equal nation with the non‑Russian nationalities in the fight against Russian Communist imperialism, the modern form of the old Russian Tsarist imperialism.

When will the Russian émigrés finally give up all their attempts at subordinating the foreign policy of the U. S. A. and of the democratic public opinion of this cradle of"self-determination" to the interests of Russian imperialism, white or red? When will they cease to protect the Russian prison of nationalities? When will the mentality of the Russian émigrés, these obstinate political "Old Believers," adopt a little of the American way of thinking? Here we summed up our answer to Prof. M. Karpovich. He was also a joint author of a collective letter from a group of Russian intellectuals to the New York Times in connection with its editorial referring to Mr. Acheson's speech, published on July 8, 1951. This letter criticized the equating of Russian Communist policies with Russian national traditions and was signed by R. R. Abramovitsch, Prof. G. Fedotoff, R. Goul, porphyry M. Karpovich, A. Kerensky, Prof. B. A. Konstantinovsky, Prof. I. Kurganov, B. I. Nicolaevsky, Dr. S. M. Schwarz, Prof. L. Smirnov, Prof. M. Vishniak, V. M. Zenzinov.

Despite the usual tricky terminology of the letter we regard it as a great moral victory for the non‑Russian nationalities of the Soviet Union, because the Russian intellectual leaders cornered in free America by the Kersten Resolution for the first time have collectively stated:

Of course, all organizations of the non‑Russian peoples sought Soviet Union think that they have all are expressed their self-determination after the dissolution of the Russian Empire and in a bloody struggle of a century sufficiently manifested their will. Consequently their will,  p412 after the fall of Communism, will be the re‑establishment of their proclaimed Statehood and the formation of higher supernational organizations according to their cultural traditions and political and economic interests. But this statement proved before the forum of American public opinion our thesis:

a) The nationality problem is the paramount problem of the Soviet Union, and

b) It is an international and not a domestic Russian problem.

The statement of the Russian intellectuals also had consequences which the signatories did not anticipate. It led to a public discussion in the "Letters to the Times," in which leading representatives of the non‑Russian nationalities and American scholars participated, denouncing Russian imperialism.

Thus the Russian nationality policy and Russian imperialism arraigned in the U. S. A., and that resulted in a small rift in the Iron Curtain in the U. S. A., behind which Russian propaganda was hiding the turning point in American public opinion:

Unfortunately — the editorial is one third of a century behind the times. If such an understanding of the nationality problem of the non‑Russian nationalities with the recognition of their legitimate revolutionary ideas and their burning concept of equality, justice, and freedom would have directed American policy int 1920's — Leninism, would long ago have been forgotten, and no Hitler would have arisen to react against Russian Communist imperialism; there would have been no World War II with all its tragic results for Europe — and today Korea would not be drenched with the blood of the young Americans.

But there is no advantage in constant blindness especially at this time, when World War II is beginning to take its toll. Editorials are very well, but the "common cause of freedom" demands action on the part of the Americans. We ask our American friends to reorganize immediately their research institutes and to enlighten American youth on the true character of the Soviet Union.

The Russian institutes must reorganize as research institutes of the Soviet Union and the non‑Russian scholars must participate in their work in full equality with the Russians. The Russian monopoly must be ended.

Slavic studies and research in all fields must be systematically organized and Russian studies integrated with Slavic studies. The non‑Russian Slavic scholars must be given opportunity to participate as equals in Slavic research and teaching.

Only then will the still enslaved 'Negro nationalities of Soviet Moscow,' the non‑Russian nationalities consider their ideological battle for freedom and equality in the U. S. A. as culminating in a moral victory of the ideas, on which the American nation was founded.

With full confidence which were look to the future because freedom always wins the last battle. Some events of the past weeks are especially encouraging:

a) October 13, 1951, U. S. Displaced Persons Commissioner, Edward M. O'Connor, speaking in Philadelphia said:⁠63 "The overwhelming Jesus of those non‑Russian people, living in the 'captive states,' are freedom-loving patriots whose hopes and ambitions, yearnings and struggles, parallel those of the patriots who founded our nation."

O'Connor recommended the immediate formation of an organization to be known as the "American Committee for the Liberation of Non‑Russian Peoples of the Soviet Union." He pointed out that this is the first time anyone has suggested that "we direct our assistance toward the liberation of the majority of the people in the Soviet Union."

b) Some true friends of the non‑Russian nations are to be found among the new Russian DP émigrés. Thus in September Mr. Georgi  p414 Alexander published in Novoie Ruskoie Slovo, New York, an article entitled "Patriotism and Democracy." The following excerpts⁠64 are taken from it:

This article proves that the true democratic traditions of Herzen and Soloviev are among the Russians still alive. Such Russian democrats who respect the self-determination right of the non‑Russian nations will always find our outstretched hand of friendship for building a true peace founded on "justice and liberty for all" — individuals and peoples.

c) On December 29, 1951, we finally gained in free America the opportunity to discuss at the annual meeting of the MLA in Detroit, "The Influences of Marxism-Leninism on Linguistics in the Soviet Union," under the chairman­ship of Prof. A. P. Coleman. (R. Jacobson and E. Simmons did not honor the annual meeting by their presence.) In a crowded room the present writer outlined the points for the discussion, which had as main participants Prof. A. Salys, University of Pennsylvania; Prof. M. S. Mirski, U. S. Military Academy; Prof. W. Lew, Ukrainian University in Munich; Rev. W. C. Jaskiewicz, Boston College; I. Sydoruk, Ph. D.; and others. At the end of the first hour a participant of Columbia University asked the chairman how the name Marr is spelled, for he heard this name for the first time at that very meeting. Does Columbia train its young American scholars to ignore the central figures of the current ideological struggle between Moscow and the free Slavistic scholars of the world?

d) On December 14, 1951, Prof. L. Dobriansky and the present writer got the opportunity to present the nationality problem at Freedom Week Conference, sponsored by All American Conference to Combat Communism, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

 p416  The present writer explained:

Finally Soviet Moscow decided to help the hard-pressed Russian defenders of the "unity and indivisibility" in the U. S. A. by new propaganda in English, and, in 1951, in Moscow the pamphlet of Prof. M. D. Kammari appeared, "The Development by J. V. Stalin of the Marxist-Leninist Theory of the National Question," which asserts again that the nationality problem in the Soviet Union is solved and reaffirms the paramount role of the nationality role of the nationality problem in the Communist world revolution (p85):

In these final pages we have presented the high lights of the great discussion about our nationality problem which is now in full swing in the United States. We have presented some excerpts from it as material for thought for Americans who must now suffer all the consequences of the mistakes committed by the foreign policy planners regarding the nationality problem.

The Author's Notes:

42 Cf. Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications, Revised, May 14, 1951, U. S. House of Representatives.

43 Cf. "Russian Social-Democrats in Their True Light," Ukrainian Bulletin, June 1, 1950. Kerensky plainly writes in his article on Miliukov (Novelty Zhurnal, No. V, 1943): "Russia, a geographical backbone of history, should exist in all her strength and power no matter who or how he is ruling her. From this comes his (Miliukov's) testament for us: to be on watchful guard of Russia — no matter what her name is —- absolutely, unconditionally, and to the last breath."

44 Socialisticheski Vestnik, 1‑2, 1950.

45 Inscribed on the building of the Dallas Morning News.

46 Newsweek, Feb. 13, 1950: three new planets which Soviet astronomers claim they discovered have been named "Russia," "Moscow," and Komsomolia."

47 Cf. General Wainwright: "Psychological warfare is now our first line of defense."

48 Cf. R. Smal-Stocki, "A Stalin Prize Book and George F. Kennan," Ukrainian Bulletin, July 15, 1951.

49 Kultura, 1951, No. 1, Paris.

50 Cf. Roman Smal-Stocki, "The Harvard Handbook of Slavic Studies," Ukrainian Bulletin, Vol. III, Nr. 1.

51 Cf. Bosywenko, Svoboda-daily, July 17, 1951, New York

Cf. the public protest of the professors of the Ukrainian University in Munich, Mrs. Wasylenko-Polonska, Mr. G. Boyko, and I. Mirchuk, stating that the Harvard research program can only contribute to a falsification of real facts in favor of the traditional Russian imperialism (Svoboda, September 8, 1951).

52 Ukrainian Quarterly, 1947, Vol. III, Nr. 4.

53 Ibid., 1949, Vol. V, Nr. 2.

54 Cf. R. Smal-Stocki, "Pan‑Russian Propaganda and Scientific Facts," Ukrainian Bulletin, Vol. III, Nr. 23.

55 Vpered, "Forward," Ukrainian Review for Workers, November 3, 1950.

56 What an elementary force lice and bugs are in the country of attained Socialism and advanced humanity" the reader can learn from E. Lipper, Eleven Years in Soviet Camps, Chicago, 1951.

57 In order to be fair to G. F. Kennan we must state that in his article he did not expressly refuse to the Ukraine the right of political self-determination. Only the title of the article and some sentiences allow the readers to infer that this is possibly his attitude toward the non‑Russian peoples, especially now, after the publication of his American Diplomacy which is nothing more than diluted Machiavellianism.

58 The Ukrainian Bulletin, Vol. IV, Nr. 14.

59 Milij Turkestan, April-July, 1951, No. 72/73.

60 Plain Talk, November, 1947, p3.

61 In the novel Virgin Earth: "It is a known fact, if not easy intelligible, that the Russians are the greatest liars on earth."

62 In 1923 M. Gorky published a special article about the cruelty of the Russian peasantry.

63 Cf. Ukrainian Bulletin, October 15, 1951.

64 Cf. Ukrainian Bulletin, October 15, 1951.

Thayer's Notes:

a John Maragon was a low‑level staffer with White House access who was convicted and sent to jail in 1951 for perjury in connection with an influence-peddling scheme involving a number of government officials; freezers and mink coats were among the items received as kickbacks by other White House staffers.

❦

b The reference is to a massive cheating scandal at the United States Military Academy at West Point, in which ninety cadets were dismissed for having cheated on examinations by passing around test questions and answers, or having known about it and kept quiet. Front-page news in 1951, it shook the United States precisely because the Honor Code was taken, and continues to be taken, so seriously by generations of cadets.

❦

c Taras Chuprynka was the nom de guerre of Roman Shukhevych, who headed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army until his death in combat against paramilitary forces of the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1950. See the article at Encyclopedia of Ukraine.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:			The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two *asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.

Accessibility