Eurasian movement

The Eurasian movement was a creation of émigré Russian intellectuals following the First World War and the October Revolution. The ideology of Eurasianism was formally proclaimed in 1921. It obtained considerable development, prominence, distinction and notoriety in the two following decades, essentially running its course by the time of the Second World War. Eurasianism attracts attention because of the novelty and originality of its central argument, proposing that the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union constituted an independent organic entity separate from both Europe and Asia, called Eurasia (it was the complete separation from Europe that represented an explosive novelty), and because of the intellectual variety and abilities, at times brilliance, of its proponents. Also, as an extraordinary phenomenon in Russian intellectual history, it demands explanation.

The Russiﬁcation Policy in Lithuania: The Case of Kazys Škirpa

Slavic World in the Third Millennium ◽

10.31168/2412-6446.2020.15.1-2.03 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1-2) ◽

pp. 37-46

Author(s):

Igor I. Barinov ◽

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Ethnic Groups ◽

Second World War ◽

Ethnic Communities ◽

World War ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The First World War ◽

The Russian Empire ◽

Second World ◽

This article sheds some light on the early life of Kazys Škirpa (1895–1979), a prominent military ofﬁ cer and statesman of interwar Lithuania. Škirpa was best known for his efforts to re-establish Lithuanian independence with the support of Nazi Germany after his country was annexed by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. For this reason, evaluation of his personal biography has previously been neglected by scholars. Striving to ﬁ ll this research and knowledge gap, this paper hypothesises that the formation of the future politician was deeply inﬂ uenced by processes that took place during his youth in Russia. Škirpa’s biography offers a fascinating insight into changes in the Russian Empire. The changes included the two trajectories of Russiﬁ cation; “from above” and “from below” and the transformation of the loyalty principles as well – social- religious loyalty became ethnonational. Russian governmental policy was to categorise its population on the basis of formal criteria. Škirpa’s biography demonstrates how the representatives of various ethnic groups (including Lithuanians) bypassed bureaucratic peculiarities to develop their national identity, which worked against the raison d’être of the empire. However, at the same time these representatives of the various ethnic groups remained “ideal subjects” of the Tzar. It was the First World War that contributed to the realisation of the national and political aspirations of such ethnic communities. The article also includes some of Škirpa’s previously undiscovered personal documents, which were found in the Russian archives.

Attitudes of the Soviet Union and Germany Towards the Question of Vilnius Between the World Wars

Lithuanian Historical Studies ◽

10.30965/25386565-00501008 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 131-160

Author(s):

Zenonas Butkus

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Second World War ◽

World War ◽

Baltic States ◽

Extensive Experience ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The First World War ◽

The Baltic ◽

Second World ◽

The aim of this article is to examine the attitudes of the Soviet Union and Germany towards the problem of Vilnius in the period between the First and Second World Wars. The article is based mainly on unpublished documents from Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, German and Soviet archives. The problem under review emerged after the First World War, when Poland occupied the capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, and kept it under its control almost until the Second World War. Lithuania refused to recognize the situation, and between the two countries there arose a conflict, which was instigated by the Soviet Union and Germany, as they did not want the Baltic States and Poland to create a defence union. The Soviet Union and Germany worked hand in hand in dealing with this conflict. In the process of its regulation they acquired quite an extensive experience in diplomatic co-operation, which they applied successfully in establishing the spheres of their influence in the Baltic States in 1939.

Moving People

Uprooted ◽

10.23943/princeton/9780691140247.003.0004 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Gregor Thum

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Ethnic Minorities ◽

Second World War ◽

Eastern European ◽

World War ◽

Nation States ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The First World War ◽

Second World ◽

This chapter considers how the remapping of Central Europe after the Second World War was radical not so much in terms of changes in national borders, as in the broadscale shifting of settlement boundaries. The borders had already been altered after the First World War and new countries created upon the ruins of the fallen Central and Eastern European empires. Prolonged mass migrations also ensued at that time. Many people did not want to live in the countries they found themselves in after the political map was redrawn, or they fled growing discrimination against ethnic minorities. After the Second World War, the Allied powers abandoned the principles to which they committed themselves in 1918. They wanted the territory between Germany and the Soviet Union to be made up of homogeneous nation-states that were no longer burdened by the existence of ethnic minorities.

CINEMA IN TURKISH-SOVIET RELATIONS IN THE ATATURK PERIOD

History and modern perspectives ◽

10.33693/2658-4654-2020-2-1-31-37 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 31-37

Author(s):

TEKEREK MELTEM ◽

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

International Relations ◽

World War ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The First World War ◽

Long Time ◽

Soviet Russia ◽

The Russian Empire ◽

The 19Th Century ◽

Cinema had been found at the end of the 19th century. The first cinema shows in the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire had been held in 1896. Since the beginning of the 20th century, cinema, which was an effective tool in propaganda, had some experiences until the end of the First World War. After the war, developments in international relations brought Turkey and Soviet Russia closer together. Thus, good relations that started in 1919 will have been continued for a long time. During this period, cinema was used by the Bolsheviks in Russia about realizing the objectives of the regime, and this experience affected Turkey. Therefore, one of the issues which mentioned in the relations between the two countries was the cinema. Turkey wanted to benefit from propaganda and indoctrination power of cinema in Atatürk period dominated by the friendly relations between the two countries. This study aims to examine how cinema reflected on the relations between the two countries during the Atatürk period. It has been seen that cinema had an important status in relations between Turkey and Soviet Russia. The interaction on cinema started in the 1920s and continued in the 1930s. Although the cooperation continued between the two countries about the cinema, Turkey had been sensitive to any threat to the regime which could be coming from the Soviet Union in this process.

Les pays socialistes de l’Est et l’unité européenne – La tradition dans le socialisme et le socialisme dans la tradition

Études internationales ◽

10.7202/700944ar ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 351-383

Author(s):

Paul Pilisi

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Eastern Europe ◽

World War ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The Federalist ◽

Political Forces ◽

The First World War ◽

Regional Reconstruction ◽

Second World ◽

Throughout the XIXth century federalism in Eastern Europe sought to regroup small nations and states within federal structures capable of guaranteeing their collective independence in the long-term vis-à-vis those powers directly interested in that region of the continent. After the First World War the federalist forces of Eastern Europe, conscious of the tragic effects of the balkanization of Central and Eastern Europe, had approached regional reconstruction in a spirit of unity. This unity, whose spirit and idea derived from a common historical experience, was taken up by the progressive forces active within the resistance during the Second World War. Shortly thereafter, among the political forces tending to promote regional unity, the socialist and communist parties engaged in activities of major importance. From their initial perspective, the solidarity of the Eastern Countries was to lead to the establishment of federal structures without the adhesion of the Soviet Union.

War and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941–1945

Contemporary European History ◽

10.1017/s0960777307003839 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 259-274 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

NORMAN M. NAIMARK

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Mass Murder ◽

World War ◽

Social Phenomena ◽

Eastern Front ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The Holocaust ◽

The First World War ◽

Military Campaign ◽

The historical connection between war and genocide is clear and apparent. Scholars of mass killing have repeatedly pointed out the linkages between the First World War and the Armenian genocide of 1915, between the Second World War and the Holocaust, between the 1993–4 war and the genocide in Rwanda, and between the war in Bosnia and the genocide in Srebrenica. Scholars of war, most often military historians, have been less ready to tie what they see as two distinct social phenomena – war and genocide – into the same bundle. This was especially the case, until recently, for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, and the subsequent mass murder of the Jews. The Wehrmacht, the German fighting forces, were seen to be implementing an enormously ambitious military campaign against the Soviet Union, which, in the end, they lost. Meanwhile, the Nazi security organs – the SS, the SD, and the Einsatzgruppen – carried out the ‘Final Solution’, inspired primarily by Hitler and the Nazi hierarchs.

Implications

10.1093/oso/9780198798156.003.0009 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Mark Edele

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Second World War ◽

Soviet Regime ◽

World War ◽

Ongoing Debate ◽

Middle Position ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

War Effort ◽

This chapter turns to the present and explains the implications of the current study for the ongoing debate about the Soviet Union in the Second World War and in particular about the role of loyalty and disloyalty in the Soviet war effort. It argues that this study strengthens those who argue for a middle position: the majority of Soviet citizens were neither unquestioningly loyal to the Stalinist regime nor convinced resisters. The majority, instead, saw their interests as distinct from both the German and the Soviet regime. Nevertheless, ideology remains important if we want to understand why in the Soviet Union more resisted or collaborated than elsewhere in Europe and Asia.

Brazilian historiography on the participation of the USSR in the Second World War

Latinskaia Amerika ◽

10.31857/s0044748x0016137-9 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 97

Author(s):

Boris Martynov

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Second World War ◽

World War ◽

Correct Treatment ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The People ◽

International Authority ◽

The Common ◽

The Baltic ◽

The article deals with the evolution of views of the Brazilian authors on the role, played by the Soviet Union in the WWII and its contribution to the victory of the anti-Hitlerian coalition. It contains a historiographical review of the works, written by the Brazilian authors on the theme, beginning from 2004. One follows the process of their growing interest towards clarifying the real contribution of the Soviet part to the common victory, along with the rise of the international authority of Brazil and strengthening of the Russo – Brazilian ties. One reveals the modern attitude of Brazilian authors towards such dubious or scarcely known themes as the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact, the battles for Smolensk and Rhzev, town–bound fights in Stalingrad, liberation of the Baltic republics, the Soviet war with Japan, etc. The author comes to conclusion, that in spite of the Western efforts to infuse the people`s conscience with the elements of the “post – truth” in this respect, the correct treatment of those events acquires priority even in such a far off from Russia state, as Brazil.

From Buzuluk to London: The Combat Trail and Everyday Service of Women Auxiliaries in the Polish Army (1941–1945)

International Journal of Military History and Historiography ◽

10.1163/24683302-03902006 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. 263-287 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anna Marcinkiewicz-Kaczmarczyk

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Middle East ◽

Daily Life ◽

Second World War ◽

World War ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

This article explores the establishment of the Polish Women’s Auxiliary Service (was) as part of the complex story of the formation of a Polish army in exile. In 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Polish Army in the Soviet Union was established. The Women’s Auxiliary Service was formed at the same time as a means to enable Polish women to serve their country and also as a way for Polish women to escape the Soviet Union. The women of the was followed the Polish Army combat trail from Buzuluk to London, accompanying their male peers first to the Middle East and then Italy. The women of the was served as nurses, clerks, cooks and drivers. This article examines the recruitment, organization and daily life of the women who served their country as exiles on the battlefront of the Second World War.

Między Kijowem a Konstantynopolem Relacje Kościoła ukraińskiego z Patriarchatem Ekumenicznym (X–XXI w.)

Kultury Wschodniosłowiańskie - Oblicza i Dialog ◽

10.14746/kw.2019.9.6 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 67-95

Author(s):

Konrad Kuczara

Keyword(s):

Soviet Union ◽

Second World War ◽

Russian Orthodox ◽

Orthodox Church ◽

World War ◽

Russian Orthodox Church ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

In The Beginning ◽

The 19Th Century ◽

Relations between the Ukrainian Church and Constantinople were difficult. This goes back as far as 988, when the Christianisation of the Rus created a strong alliance between Kiev and the Byzantine Empire. There were times when Constantinople had no influence over the Kiev Metropolis. During the Mongolian invasion in 1240, the Ukranian region was broken up and Kiev lost its power. The headquarters of the Kiev Metropolis were first moved to Wlodzimierz nad Klazma in 1299 and then to Moscow in1325. In 1458 the Metropolis of Kiev was divided into two; Kiev and Moscow, but Kiev still remained under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since that time, the orthodox hierarchs of Moscow no longer adhered to the title Bishop of Kiev and the whole of Rus and in 1588 the Patriarchate of Moscow was founded. In 1596 when the Union of Brest was formed, the orthodox church of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was not liquidated. Instead it was formally revived in 1620 and in 1632 it was officially recognized by king Wladyslaw Waza. In 1686 the Metropolis of Kiev which until that time was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople was handed over to the jurisdiction of Moscow. It was tsarist diplomats that bribed the Ottoman Sultan of the time to force the Patriarchate to issue a decree giving Moscow jurisdiction over the Metropolis of Kiev. In the beginning of the 19th century, Kiev lost its Metropolitan status and became a regular diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. Only in the beginning of the 20thcentury, during the time of the Ukrainian revolution were efforts made to create an independent Church of Ukraine. In 1919 the autocephaly was announced, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize it. . The structure of this Church was soon to be liquidated and it was restored again after the second world war at the time when Hitler occupied the Ukraine. In 1992, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when Ukraine gained its independence, the Metropolitan of Kiev requested that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine becomes autocephalous but his request was rejected by the Patriarchate of Moscow. Until 2018 the Patriarchate of Kiev and the autocephalous Church remained unrecognized and thus considered schismatic. In 2018 the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople looked into the matter and on 5thJanuary 2019, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine received it’s tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Moscow opposed the decision of Constantinople and as a result refused to perform a common Eucharist with the new Church of Ukraine and with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.