First Migration of Peoples and Zarubinets Culture

In May of 1945, there were more than eight million persons (or DPs) in Germany--recently liberated foreign workers, concentration camp prisoners, and prisoners of war from all of Nazi-occupied Europe, as well as eastern Europeans who had fled west before the advancing Red Army. Although most of them quickly returned home, it soon became clear that large numbers of eastern European DPs could or would not do so. In the aftermath of National Socialism, Germany thus ironically became a temporary home for a large population of foreigners. Focusing on Bavaria, in the heart of the American occupation zone, Between National Socialism and Soviet Communism examines the cultural and political worlds that four groups of displaced persons--Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and Jewish--created in Germany during the late 1940s and early 1950s. The volume investigates the development of refugee communities and how divergent interpretations of National Socialism and Soviet Communism defined these displaced groups. Combining German and eastern European history, Anna Holian draws on a rich array of sources in cultural and political history and engages the broader literature on displacement in the fields of anthropology, sociology, political theory, and cultural studies. Her book will interest students and scholars of German, eastern European, and Jewish history; migration and refugees; and human rights.

The idea of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence was not new when Yugoslavia hosted the Belgrade Summit of the Non-Aligned in September 1961. Freedom activists from the colonies in Asia, Africa, and South America had been discussing such issues for decades already, but this long-lasting context is usually forgotten in political and historical assessments of the Non-Aligned Movement. This book puts the Non-Aligned Movement into its wider historical context and sheds light on the long-term connections and entanglements of the Afro-Asian world. It assembles scholars from differing fields of research, such as Asian Studies, Eastern European and Southeast European History, Cold War Studies, Middle Eastern Studies and International Relations. In doing so, this volume looks back to the ideological beginnings of the concept of peaceful coexistence at the time of the anticolonial movements, and at the multi-faceted challenges of foreign policy the former freedom fighters faced when they established their own decolonized states. It analyses the crucial role Yugoslav president Tito played in his determination to keep his country out of the blocs, and finally examines the main achievement of the Non-Aligned Movement: to give subordinate states of formerly subaltern peoples a voice in the international system. An innovative look at the Non-Aligned Movement with a strong historical component, the book will be of great interest to academics working in the field of International Affairs, international history of the 20th century, the Cold War, Race Relations as well as scholars interested in Asian, African and Eastern European history.

This welcome second edition of A History of Eastern Europe provides a thematic historical survey of the formative processes of political, social and economic change which have played paramount roles in shaping the evolution and development of the region. Subjects covered include: Eastern Europe in ancient, medieval and early modern times the legacies of Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire the impact of the region's powerful Russian and Germanic neighbours rival concepts of 'Central' and 'Eastern' Europe the experience and consequences of the two World Wars varieties of fascism in Eastern Europe the impact of Communism from the 1940s to the 1980s post-Communist democratization and marketization the eastward enlargement of the EU. A History of Eastern Europe now includes two new chronologies – one for the Balkans and one for East-Central Europe – and a glossary of key terms and concepts, providing comprehensive coverage of a complex past, from antiquity to the present day.

REVIEWS 367 living conditions and peasant participation in local governance institutions (zemstvo, volost´ governments, etc.). And finally, although avowedly about the entire Russian peasantry over time, this book is mostly focused on the central industrial region between Moscow and Petersburg. This feels like a lost opportunity, as a more substantive and clearer documentation of differences across space, over time and between Russian peasants and other groups would have strengthened the contribution of this study. While wide-ranging, written in a student-friendly way, and emphasizing a novel ‘ecological’ perspective on the history of the Russian peasantry, Gorshkov’s study offers few challenges to current historical interpretations. David Moon’s The Russian Peasantry 1600–1930 (London, 1999) covers much of the same ground in a way that nicely incorporates quantitative evidence, original sources and a comparative perspective on the heterogenous nature of rural Russian life. Reading the two books together would provide a useful entry point into the large, hugely important, and still evolving historiography of the Russian peasantry. Department of Economics Steven Nafziger Williams College Connelly, John. From People into Nations: A History of Eastern Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ and Woodstock, 2020. vii + 956 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Appendix. Index. £30.00: $35.00. East European history can be a daunting subject for historians and specialists let alone for those fair weather or armchair enthusiasts interested in events that shaped the region over the past decades. Writing a detailed history of Eastern Europe is an even more challenging undertaking. For this reason, John Connelly’s latest attempt at narrating and examining a considerable period of modern history set in the context of Eastern Europe is a welcome contribution to the topic’s growing historiography. The author is no stranger to the complex historical cleavages of the region at the centre of this monograph. Connelly, who specializes, among others, in topics of modern East and Central European political and social history, has previously written on the Sovietization of higher education in post-war Eastern Europe during the period of high Stalinism as well as about German occupational ethnopolitics in the east during World War Two. It is fitting that this scholar chose to tackle the project of chronologically mapping a complex 150-year period of East European development over five broad thematic sections totalling twenty-seven chapters. SEER, 99, 2, APRIL 2021 368 From the outset the author outlines what exactly he means by ‘Eastern Europe’, a term used interchangeably with ‘East Central Europe’ throughout the text. The book traces nineteenth-century anti-imperialist struggles that gave rise to twentieth-century nationalist trends before questioning the current state of nationalism in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; the former Yugoslav Republics; Bulgaria, Romania and Germany. Absent however, are more dedicated discussions on countries many today also associate as East European — the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine. Whereas some aspects of their national development are mentioned in the context of the aforementioned countries, the author explains how their experiences largely under the rule of other states during much of the period examined led to the creation of ‘separate stories’, thereby suggesting they deserve distinct attention. This argument may be contested by some, especially those who maintain how nationalist movements, for example in present-day western Ukraine, were also part of greater anti-imperial struggles. For Connelly however, the Eastern Europe designation serves more than just denoting a physical space on the reader’s mental map. Rather it is synonymous with his description of shared experiences and common narratives about the past still circulating throughout the region today. Connelly’s methodology of employing accepted and new vocabulary to trace how patterns and changes reverberated throughout the region deserves appreciation. Terms familiar to even the most amateur of historians like ‘decolonization’ and ‘national self-determination’ described events throughout the region discussed in the first half of his book; that is roughly until the outbreak of World War Two. From there a series of new phrases is introduced — ludobójstwo (the Polish term for genocide coined by Polish Jew Raphael Lemkin), ‘foreign in their own land’, and ‘reform communists’ — that to specialists may seem common, but which encapsulate the wartime events and...

Ivan T. Berend. History Derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. xix, 330 pp. Illustrations. Maps. Tables. Bibliography. Index. $39.95, hardcover.This synthesis of nineteenth-century Central and Eastern European history by Ivan T. Berend complements his two other works on the history of this region in the twentieth century and thus provides us with the complete authorial vision of the region's modern history. The value of this book is increased by the fact that, in comparison with a few general works dealing with the region in the twentieth century, there had been a definite lack of generalizing narratives about the area's nineteenth century. This wonderfully written book is the first synthetic work on East Central Europe's nineteenth century that has managed equally successfully to integrate social, cultural and political aspects of the region's history.Since the task of this book was to give the region its proper nineteenth-century history, the author avoids wading into hot discussions on the region's discursive construction and its political implications. Berend does believe that there are some objective features shared by all parts of the region and allowing one to speak about Central Eastern Europe. In his opinion, the countries of this region faced similar economic, social and political problems-all deriving from the developmental lag between them and Western Europe, they designed similar responses to these problems, and they faced similar consequences. Berend's Central and Eastern Europe consists of Austria-Hungary (usually excluding Austria proper), the Balkans (usually excluding Greece), and Poland.The book starts with an explanation of how the basis for the distinctiveness of the region was laid down in the early modern period. By the beginning of the nineteenth century the region's leading intellectuals were well aware of their own countries' backwardness. Just as for these intellectuals, for Berend the most important distinctive features of the region can be revealed through comparing it with the Western European core. Every chapter begins with a brief outline of the developments in Western Europe against which trends in Eastern and Central Europe are discerned and measured.First the author looks at culture. Here the differences between Eastern and Western Europe seem less unbridgeable than in social or political structures. Local thinkers were part of European intellectual life. At the centre of Berend's story is the epoch of Romanticism, which, he believes, in the ease of Central Eastern Europe was conflated with Enlightenment. This particular intellectual blend gave birth to the phenomenon crucial for understanding most of the region's developments throughout the modern period, namely-to nationalism. The author believes that romanticism left its imprint not only on this nationalism but on the totality of the region's mental pattern throughout the whole long nineteenth century.Nationalism was the intellectual movement guiding political responses in theregion to the challenges of the West. Despite the fact that the author is well aware of difficulties in distinguishing between good civic and bad ethnic nationalisms, he believes that because of their belatedness and the specific social structure of the region, the local nationalisms differed significantly from the civic and democratic nationalisms of the West. …

In the article, the author analyses the media discourse around the works of Timothy Snyder, one of the leading experts on the history of Eastern Europe. The relevance of the topic is that T. Snyder’s materials and interviews on Russian-Ukrainian relations are often used and analyzed by both Ukrainian and foreign media. The current Russian-Ukrainian war has escalated, and the changes in the views of the scholars’ critics are worth mentioning. The subject of the study is a criticism of Timothy Snyder’s views on Ukrainian issues. The aim is to outline the discourse around the author’s works and identify his criticism’s main tendencies. The following methods were used in the process of scientific research: comparative, historical, systems analysis, content analysis, and others. The novelty was a comparative analysis of criticism of the works of Timothy Snyder before and after the Russian invasion. As a result of the study, the criticism of Timothy Snyder’s monograph “Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin”, his texts on the past of Ukrainian society and the historical context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, as well as criticism of world politics and his predictions of declining democracy were reviewed. Timothy Snyder is mentioned as both the best interpreter of the twentieth century and an alarmist who unjustifiably emphasizes the disappearance of freedom and ignoring of history. The main tendencies in the criticism of the researcher were singled out: overly emotionally colored speech, dubious methodology, and obsession with statistics in the monograph. Critics of the works on the Russian-Ukrainian war had accused the author of distorting facts. The comparison of Vladimir Putin to both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin was believed to be unjustified, and allegations of Putin’s regime as fascist were considered inappropriate. At the same time, a large number of public intellectuals note his contribution to the discovery of significant problems in the history of Eastern Europe — less studied compared to other regions. Today, the scholar continues to draw the world’s attention to Ukraine’s past, and its ties with Europe and stands guard over freedom and democracy. Given this, there is a need for further study of both Snyder’s works and criticism of his views.

Research aim. To describe all known copies of Abraham Westerfeld's drawing “Meeting of Bohdan Khmelnytsky's Ambassadors with Janusz Radziwill” and, combining the plot with descriptions of the depicted event in written sources, to evaluate it as a historical source. Research methodology. The research is based on the principles of objectivity and historicism, and includes methods of analysis and synthesis, comparative and art historical analysis. Scientific novelty. For the first time, the original drawing by A. Westerfeld, which is kept in the National Art Museum of Ukraine (Kyiv), is analysed in detail – the technique of execution, the depicted persons and the room. Conclusions. Reproduced in copies of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, A. Westerfeld's 1653 drawing “Meeting of Ambassadors Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Janusz Radziwill” is an important reliable source on the history of Eastern Europe in the mid-seventeenth century. It reflects a meeting of Cossack centurions Stepan Podobaylo, Opanas Predrymyrskyi and Klanivskyi with the Lithuanian army leadership on 14 June 1651 in Horval. Having unquestionable confirmation in the written records of the time, the drawing visualises them, gives an idea of the appearance and clothing of the representatives of the Cossack officers of the Zaporozhian Army, Janusz Radziwil and his immediate entourage, led by the army (including German mercenaries) as of June 1651. It also depicts details of the interior of the room of Jan Mezhynskyi's Volkovyn subdean and the oldest surviving detailed depiction of the construction of the walls and ceiling of a room in the Naddniprianshchyna. According to the authors, the copy of the drawing in the collection of the National Art Museum of Ukraine is an original work by Westerfeld. At least, it fully corresponds to the Baroque style of European drawing and engraving of the middle – second half of the seventeenth century.

The revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe made it possible for people who had always considered themselves part of the European mainstream to reemerge from two generations of Communist separation. At the same time, however, the war in the former Yugoslavia threw doubt on the stability of the region. In Three Eras of Political Change in Eastern Europe, Gale Stokes, a noted specialist on the history of Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia, covers a broad range of topics, including the revolutions of 1989. The first section of the text describes the historical sources of the regions distinctiveness. Part two illuminates the background of the 1990s crisis in Yugoslavia and the final section discusses the conditions of Eastern Europe after 1945. Because the text is broken into three interrelated parts, instructors are able to choose the sections that are most appropriate for their courses. Stokes discusses the social determinants of East European politics, but argues that ideas were more important in the revolutions of 1989. These interpretations, along with his optimistic assessment of the regions future, are sure to provoke debate. Clear and concise, these articles are both wide-ranging and cross-cultural, giving students not only an overall historical view of the region, but also a glimpse into more recent events as well. The scope and penetration of the essays, along with their challenging viewpoints, are sure to engage undergraduates and scholars studying Eastern European history and international politics.

Lagno A.R. Borders and Spaces in the History of Eastern Europe: From the Fixed to the Phantom Ones // Slavic Studies. JournalofRussianAcademyofSciences. = Slavyanovedenie. 2022. No.1.

This paper deals with specific aspects of the crisis of social policy on the "central"-eastem European region, after the onset of political changes that commenced in 1989 with the so-called ..anti-communist revolutions", especially in "central" European countries. The period that began then has been characterised by fast political "transition" and restructuralisation of the economy and political institutions. It has brought with it the excitements of the "capitalisation" of the economy and society, greater individual liberties and rights. However, it has also inflicted on the region a social crisis of apocalyptic dimensions, which is truly unprecedent in this century's history of eastern Europe. The paper explores some particular elements of this social crisis, both statistically and qualitatively. These aspects of the crisis are interpreted, and in its concluding section the paper purports to suggest that any institutional and political change tends to have its more or less devastating social price, which in the case of most countries of "central"-eastern Europe could be have been lower if the reform had progressed at a more moderate and better planned pace.

Despite the Holocaust's profound impact on the history of Eastern Europe, the communist regimes successfully repressed public discourse about and memory of this tragedy. Since the collapse of communism in 1989, however, this has changed. Not only has a wealth of archival sources become available, but there have also been oral history projects and interviews recording the testimonies of eyewitnesses who experienced the Holocaust as children and young adults. Recent political, social, and cultural developments have facilitated a more nuanced and complex understanding of the continuities and discontinuities in representations of the Holocaust. People are beginning to realize the significant role that memory of Holocaust plays in contemporary discussions of national identity in Eastern Europe. This volume of original essays explores the memory of the Holocaust and the Jewish past in postcommunist Eastern Europe. Devoting space to every postcommunist country, the essays in Bringing the Dark Past to Light explore how the memory of the dark pasts of Eastern European nations is being recollected and reworked. In addition, it examines how this memory shapes the collective identities and the social identity of ethnic and national minorities. Memory of the Holocaust has practical implications regarding the current development of national cultures and international relationships.

14 From the Editors From the EDITORS The idea to devote the thematic program of the journal in 2008 to the problem of “gardening empire” emerged from discussions during the seminar held inAugust 2007 in Kazan, Russia. The seminar was organized by the Ab Imperio editorial team and historians from Mainz University, Germany.An international group of scholars representing historical studies of empire from the Russian Federation, former Soviet Union countries, Europe and the US attended the event. Most participants were specialists in the history of Eastern Europe and the Russian empire, while the role of the seminar’s discussant was taken up by Ann Laura Stoler, an expert on colonialism and Western overseas empires. It was the discussant who drew the attention of the participants to the significant difference between the research agendas of the studies of Eastern European empires (at least as presented at the seminar) on the one hand, and colonial empires, on the other. This critical commentary triggered a fruitful discussion of “exceptionalism ,” both as a mode of self-description of imperial regimes and as a persistent modus operandi of historical understanding of empires. Since the age of classical antiquity until today empires or composite polities have been founded on some idea of their own uniqueness and exceptional historical path. This conception was dialectically transformed into a strategic vision of imperial universalism that prioritized imperial loyalties over regional, ethnic, confessional, and social identities and relegated the latter to the domain of the local and particular. While this 15 Ab Imperio, 1/2008 perception of exceptionalism can be found in many different schools of historiographic thought about empire, it is in the history of Russia that it is often expressed most visibly due to historical context. The relative absence in Russian studies of such phenomena (traditional for the studies of colonial empires) as marginalization, power operation in the domain of the intimate, and “carnal knowledge” surprised the seminar participants. This situation naturally invites a conclusion about the exceptional nature of Russian imperial experience and exceptionalism as a mode of history writing about empire. A series of questions emerged from the encounter between different academic traditions in studies of empire. Should historians aspire for a meta-interpretative framework that would account for peculiarities of that imperial experience from the view point of an external observer? Or, alternatively, should they reproduce and creatively re-work the trope of exceptionalism provided to us by languages of self-description or historiography (looking at exceptionalism as a norm and the way in which imperial political and social spaces function)? It appears obvious that those practices explored by post-colonial studies – manipulation of power, drawing of boundaries between categories of citizens, sanitary projects of “cleansing” societies from “infected” or “polluted” elements – are all characteristics of modern colonialism. A lack or presence of these lines of inquiry in the research agenda is taken to be a proof of the archaic or modernizing imperium. At the same time, the question can be reversed: is the conclusion about the archaic nature of the Russian Imperium an outcome of peculiar historical experiences, or is it a result of historiographic inertia and uncritical reading of the reification of imperial archaism in the languages of self-description and political contestation? The “Theory and Methodology” section in the current issue addresses these questions. In particular, Nicholas Breyfogle demonstrates that contemporary historiography exhibits the coexistence of different interpretative paradigms: from “modernizing” to those that reproduce the “archaism” and “exceptionalism” of Russian imperial experience. Is this historiographic polyphony a reflection of multiple layers and vectors of the real historical time in empire? (In this case, a proper research agenda is always determined by the choice of a particular set of individual imperial situations and contexts.) Can this be taken as the ultimate reflection of imperial exceptionalism? An empire that Ann Stoler missed in the papers of colleagues dealing with Eastern Europe may be called the “gardening empire” – an analog 16 From the Editors to the “gardening state” of Zygmunt Bauman. This notion presupposes the existence of the interventionist state whose power is based on modern scientific knowledge pertaining to nature, society, and politics. This knowledge entails practices of governance for “cultivation,” rationalization...

This article analyzes the role of music in the negotiation of Scottish-Jewish identity in early twentieth-century Glasgow through the lives and work of Isaac Hirshow (1883-1956) and Meyer Fomin (1888-1960), cantors of Garnethill and South Portland Street synagogues, respectively. Both men were born in Vitebsk Guberniya, both established their reputations in Warsaw, and both moved to Glasgow in the early 1920s, remaining there for the rest of their lives. An analysis of these men's parallel journeys suggests a fruitful dialogue between their own backgrounds and the varied identities of their Scottish congregations. Drawing on archive materials, newspaper reports, and musical examples, I therefore explore the ways in which these cantors and their music were both metonymic of a real and known Eastern Europe for immigrant populations, but also metaphoric of an (often fondly) imagined Eastern Other to those for whom roots were often multiple. I then discuss in detail a number of musical texts created by the two men after their arrival in the United Kingdom: a series of commercial recordings made by Fomin in 1922, and a cantata written by Hirshow as part of his 1938 BMus degree. These texts capture a perspective that looks two ways at once—to the “tradition” and history of Eastern Europe, and to the modernity of the West and the acculturation of an immigrant experience. They thus speak to a moment of transition, simultaneously framing and problematizing discourses of authenticity as expressed through material cultural production.

The year 1989 is widely feted as a turning point in the history of Eastern Europe: nation-states were liberated from the tyranny of Soviet rule and regained their sovereign independence. This article challenges the conventional wisdom by arguing that the ‘limited sovereignty’ of the pre-1989 period, formally declared by Leonid Brezhnev in 1968, has been replaced by a new form of domination, this time from Brussels. However, while Eastern European states still face constraints on their political autonomy and self-government, the nature of this domination is different. Specifically, it coincides with the post-Cold War revision of the concept of sovereignty itself, where the attachment to the formal rights of sovereign independence and equality is lost. Eastern European states have found that continued limitations upon their sovereignty are today celebrated as the realization of the essence of sovereignty itself.

As the historians of Eastern Europe1 (defined here as the region between the Elbe and the Western borders of the USSR) emancipate themselves from what they call the dogmatism of the period of the cult of personality and as the dialogue between them and the Western historians is resumed, it becomes possible to take a fresh look at the history of Eastern Europe and, in a fruitful interplay of ideas, to discuss rationally the basic issues of Eastern European history and to seek an answer to many of the questions which this history poses. Recent years have witnessed the foundation in Eastern Europe of several research institutes and centres specifically devoted to a study of this region.2 The almost precipitous emergence of these institutes