Cultural Diversity and the Interwar Conjuncture: Soviet Nationality Policy in Its Comparative Context

Slavic Review ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Nationality Policy ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New States ◽  
Soviet Nationality Policy

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. Peter A. Blitstein situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of differentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial differentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic differentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and differentiation

scholarly journals Cultural Diversity and the Interwar Conjuncture: Soviet Nationality Policy in Its Comparative Context

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-46
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Nationality Policy ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New States ◽  
Soviet Nationality Policy

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. The author situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of diff erentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial diff erentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic diff erentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and diff erentiation.

Eastern Europe in the Global History of Decolonization

2018 ◽  
pp. 350-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Mark ◽  
Quinn Slobodian
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World War I ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New States ◽  
History Of ◽  
European Colonialism ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter places Eastern Europe into a broader history of decolonization. It shows how the region’s own experience of the end of Empire after the World War I led its new states to consider their relationships with both European colonialism and those were struggling for their future liberation outside their continent. Following World War II, as Communist regimes took power in Eastern Europe, and overseas European Empires dissolved in Africa and Asia, newly powerful relationships developed. Analogies between the end of empire in Eastern Europe and the Global South, though sometimes tortured and riddled with their own blind spots, were nonetheless potent rhetorical idioms, enabling imagined solidarities and facilitating material connections in the era of the Cold War and non-alignment. After the demise of the so-called “evil empire” of the Soviet Union, analogies between the postcolonial and the postcommunist condition allowed for further novel equivalencies between these regions to develop.

The Evolution of Centripetal Fraternalism: The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

1985 ◽  
Vol 481 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-103
Author(s):  
MARCIN SAR
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Economic Reforms ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Economic Independence ◽  
The West ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Soviet Union

The author comments on the dynamics of Moscow's effort to reconcile its pursuit of control over Eastern Europe with its interest in a viable Eastern Europe, one that is stable and capable of self-sustaining development. Although Moscow has always exercised control in military matters, it allowed some Eastern Europeans economic independence in the 1970s. Changing circumstances in the 1980s, however, have caused the Kremlin to rethink its relationships with its Eastern European “satallies”— half satellites, half allies. Moscow faces dilemmas in areas such as energy, agriculture, the Eastern European states' relations with the West, economic reforms occurring in Eastern Europe, and integration within COMECON. How Moscow resolves these dilemmas lies at the core of its future relationships with Eastern Europe. Other important factors include the lessons learned from Poland, East Germany's evolving relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany, and China's growing economic and political initiatives vis-à-vis Eastern Europe.

The Soviet Theory of “People's Democracy”

1949 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Amende Rosa
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Considerable Extent ◽  
The Body ◽  
New Democracies ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union

The concept of “people's democracy” has posed a real ideological dilemma for the U.S.S.R. Prior to the spring of 1948 Soviet theory was confronted with the fact that—partly because of Soviet policy itself—eastern Europe was not developing toward socialism by exactly the same pattern of violent revolutionary change which the U.S.S.R. had experienced, but in a manner more closely approximating gradual “reform.” To a very considerable extent it was in the interest of the Soviet Union to emphasize the differences between its own development and that of the “new democracies” in order to quiet national and non-Communist fears in those countries. At the same time, the U.S.S.R. apparently felt obliged to establish its own position of ideological “leadership” in eastern Europe and, simultaneously, to fit the concept of “people's democracy” into the body of orthodox Marxist-Leninist doctrine.

International Memory Wars

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-83
Author(s):  
Marlene Laruelle
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Second World

This chapter argues that the perception of Russia as an antifascist power has been reinforced by memory wars that have reshaped the relationship between Russia and its Central and Eastern European neighbors. It examines how the emergence and gradual visibility gained by the narrative of the Soviet Union as an occupier with a totalitarian ideology shocked the Russian elite and public opinion. Given the context of memory wars, the chapter focuses on the issue of defining who was fascist and who colluded with Nazism — the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1941 or the collaborationist forces in Central and Eastern Europe. This chapter then presents Russia's response to the new memories articulated by Central and Eastern European countries on two fronts: legal and historiographical. Ultimately, the chapter highlights how the Ukrainian crisis demonstrated that memories have been instrumental in “real” wars, as all parties claim that their martyrdom and heroism during the Second World War entitle them to some recognition today.

“Socialist in content, national in form:” the making of Soviet national art and the case of Buryatia

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Tagangaeva
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Socialist Realism ◽  
Fine Art ◽  
Institutional Practices ◽  
Nationality Policy ◽  
Russian Culture ◽  
Cultural Divide ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
Soviet Nationality Policy

This article examines the fine art of the Soviet national republics and its discourse in the Soviet Union, which were considerably shaped under the influence of socialist realism and Soviet nationality policy. While examining the central categories of Soviet artistic discourse such as the “national form,” “national distinctness,” and “tradition,” as well as cultural and scientific institutions responsible for the image of art of non-Russian nationalities, the author reveals the existence of a number of colonial features and discursive and institutional practices that foster a cultural divide between Russian and non-Russian culture and contribute to the marginalization of art. Special attention is paid to the implications of this discursive shaping for the local artistic scene in Buryatia.

scholarly journals Economic Evolutions During the Cold War – Romania in the COMECON (1949-1965)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 132-145
Author(s):  
Cristian Bențe
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Run Up ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
European Economies ◽  
Second World

AbstractThe purpose of this work is to present objectively and documented the evolution of Romania within the Council of Mutual Economic Aid (C.M.E.A. or C.O.M.E.C.O.N.) during 1949-1965. Choosing this period of time is not random: in 1949 COMECON was established at the initiative of Moscow, and the year 1965 represented the peak of the “dissidence” politics of Romania within the Council. The Romanian economy after the Second World War followed largely the same path as the other economies in Eastern Europe that entered the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. The war and the new international situation in which Romania found itself at its end determined a dramatic rupture with the economic model followed in the interwar period. In the run-up to the end of the world conflict, the main interest of the hegemonic power in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, was to benefit from the resources of the countries in the area to compensate for the immense damage caused by the war. The exploitation of Eastern European economies intensified after Moscow became aware of the impossibility of obtaining substantial war reparations from Germany.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document