Hostage of politics: Raphael Lemkin on “Soviet genocide”

Abstract

This article summarizes Raphael Lemkin’s views on Stalinist terror. To follow Lemkin’s train of thought, I consider the evidence he had, the importance he attached to it, and the ends to which he used that evidence. I argue that the discussion of the ethnic deportations in the Soviet Union was part and parcel of the evolving Cold War. Raphael Lemkin resorted to anticommunism to convince the US administration to ratify the Genocide Convention, which was essentially his creation. As the United Nations General Assembly was preparing to vote on the resolution against genocide, Lemkin approached the Soviet delegation through Jan Masaryk, the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister. Lemkin conveyed to the Soviets that the resolution was not a conspiracy against them. As a result, nobody in the Soviet bloc opposed the resolution, which was unanimously adopted on December 11, 1946. 1 Five years later, however, Lemkin was claiming that the Soviet Union was the only country that could be indicted for genocide. 2 How to explain such a dramatic transition? Lemkin’s concept of genocide covered Stalinist deportations by default. That concept, as outlined in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, differed significantly from the wording of the UN Genocide Convention. Lemkin identified several forms of genocide: political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious, and moral. He interpreted genocide as an intention to annihilate a group of the population by destroying essential foundations of life such as: social and political institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, economic means, personal security, liberty, health, dignity and, finally life itself. 3 Such a broad interpretation of the crime would make just any instance of gross human rights violation genocide. Indeed, from today’s perspective, several cases that Lemkin deemed “genocidal” back in 1944 (for example: German policy in occupied Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine, or Slovenia) did not amount to actual genocide. Despite the fact that the UN Genocide Convention only deals with physical and biological destruction of life, Lemkin stuck to his original interpretation of genocide.