Russian Liberation Movement Research Articles

СУДЬБА И СВОБОДА НАТАШИ КАЛЫМОВОЙ: ТРАГЕДИЯ ЭСЕРОВ-МАКСИМАЛИСТОВ В РОМАНЕ М.А. ОСОРГИНА "СВИДЕТЕЛЬ ИСТОРИИ"

The article is devoted to the study ofM.A. Osorgin's understanding and comprehension of the problem of terrorism in the Russian liberation movement of the early 20th century on the material of the novel «Witness of History»; consideration of the image of the main character of the novel Natasha Kalymova and the evolution of her understanding of the problem of freedom; the study of the artistic expression of the idea of denying terrorism as an inhuman means of solving social and political problems. The relevance of the work is determined both by the subject of study itself (the phenomenon of freedom), which generates the alleged plurality of meanings and reflections, and by the search for new aspects of the study of the artistic space of the prose of the first wave of Russian emigration, the experience of solving the problem of freedom in Russian socio-political and literary thought of the early 20th century. The study is based on an integrated approach, including the use of historical-literary, biographical, cultural-historical, descriptive-analytical methods. It was established that M.A. Osorgin, well aware of the history of revolutionary terrorism in the Russian Empire and the fate of the prototypes of the heroes of his novel, rethought their life stories in accordance with his artistic goals. The evolution of the consciousness of the main character, her understanding of the phenomenon offreedom was studied and described. It was shown that the position of the author-narrator is convincingly expressed in the plot and compositional organization of the work, in the dynamics of circumstances, characters, searches of heroes and actualizes the axiological aspect of the perception of a literary text. It was proved that the novel clearly expresses the denial of both terror and violence, which bring neither solutions to social problems, nor personal happiness, and terrorism as an ideology.

Дневники В. А. Щеголевой в собрании М. С. Лесмана

Valentina A. Shchegoleva was an actress, the addressee of several poems by A. Blok, the wife of P. E. Shchegolev, a renowned historian of the Russian liberation movement and a prominent Pushkin scholar. Her Diaries are a part of the collection of the great Russian bibliophile M. S. Lesman. The Diary of 1919 offers an impressive picture of the post-revolutionary devastation in Petrograd; the Diary covering 1923–1929 reflects a number of episodes concerning the literary and artistic life of the day, and contains lively portraits of the members of «Serapion Brothers» group, as well as of E. Zamyatin, O. Forsh, K. Petrov-Vodkin, Yu. Shaporin, etc.

The Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution: Illiberal Liberation, 1917–41 ed. by Lara Douds, James Harris and Peter Whitewood

Reviewed by: The Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution: Illiberal Liberation, 1917–41 ed. by Lara Douds, James Harris and Peter Whitewood Ivan Sablin (bio) Lara Douds, James Harris, and Peter Whitewood (Eds.), The Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution: Illiberal Liberation, 1917–41 ( New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2020). 319 pp. Select Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 978-1-350-11789-1. The three editors of this book, Lara Douds (Northumbria University), James Harris (University of Leeds), and Peter Whitewood (York St. John University), have assembled a comprehensive collection of sixteen essays on the history of Bolshevism and the early Soviet state. Their main genre is intellectual and political history. The authors, predominantly from North America and Europe, include both established scholars and early career researchers. The volume works well as a whole and makes a good addition to literature on the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, while the individual essays intersect and engage with each other thematically and conceptually. In the introduction, the editors seek to reconsider the notion of the intentional choice between authoritarianism and democracy (P. 2) by putting the early Soviet experience into the broader European context of democracy's troubled history. The editors make use of the Bolsheviks' own argumentation against contemporary political democracy. Reformulating the idea of proletarian dictatorship as "illiberal liberation," they suggest decoupling democracy from liberalism by looking at the Bolshevik order as alternatively democratic. They understand this alternative democracy as rule in the interest of the majority rather than rule by the majority (P. 5). I wonder if the use of the term "democracy" is analytically productive. The idea of the Bolshevik regime as a democracy is in fact challenged already in chapter 1. Furthermore, at the Third Congress of Soviets, which constituted the Soviet state, Vladimir Lenin explicitly dismissed democracy altogether, implying that it could not be decoupled from capitalism when debating with other socialists.1 The introduction could also benefit from a critical reflection on the key concepts it employs, beginning with "the working masses": for one thing, the proletariat was a minority in Russia, while most peasants were classified as "petty bourgeoisie." Furthermore, even though peasants were gradually included in Soviet institutions, they were represented unequally there: hence, the early Soviet regime, not unlike the prerevolutionary [End Page 307] one, not only practiced selective representation but also marginalized the peasants. This was pointed out by contemporary socialist critics of the Bolshevik autocracy.2 Another fundamental flaw of the introduction is its homogenizing and thus implicitly Russifying reading of the Russian Revolution, rather than treating it as an imperial phenomenon.3 Indeed, the ideas of democracy differed across the former empire, and the main political targets of the Bolsheviks were not the liberals but other socialist parties, which were very popular and often integrated into national movements. The introduction ignores the problem of federalism in the Russian liberation movement, which the Bolsheviks' initial program blatantly discarded and only later in the Civil War embraced as an appropriation of the competing socialist discourse.4 Finally, instead of a longue durée perspective on the Soviet period that spanned most of the twentieth century, the introduction skips everything between the early 1920s and 1991 (P. 10). This telescopic optics contributes to the text's advancement of a homogeneous and static vision of the Soviet regime. Aside from the introduction that narrows rather than broadens the perspective on modern approaches to the Bolshevik Revolution, the rest of the volume is well structured and thematically rich, with most of its sixteen chapters written in a critical and nuanced manner. The first two chapters form Part 1, "Bolshevik Ideology and Practice," and discuss the authoritarian inclinations in the Bolsheviks' theory and practice. Erik van Ree (University of Amsterdam) convincingly argues against reading Lenin as a democratic thinker, demonstrating the flawed nature of his ideas about the state and radical democracy and that his 1917 writings were conducive to autocracy (Pp. 17–18). Lenin favored etatism and centralization, brought about by the Great War, and envisioned socialism as a state-capitalist monopoly – the sole employer of the workforce (Pp. 21–22). In Lenin's interpretation of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's ideas, self-government was replaced...

Концепция террористической войны в России пореформенного периода

The work carried out a historiographic reconstruction of the conceptual justification of the terrorist war in Russia of the post-reform period. The concept of a terrorist war is seen as an alternative to the concept of the Russian liberation movement. On the basis of historical evidence of the «Russian Right», objective preconditions for the formation of the concept of a terrorist war are analyzed. It is shown that the Black-Hundred literature contained the basic definitions of revolutionary terror as a total war aimed at the destruction of the Russian national state. The psychodiagnostic characteristics of terrorists by Russian psychiatrists are given. The historiographic works of modern authors of the patriotic direction are reviewed, in which the concept of a terrorist war developed in black-hundred journalism has been rethought and supplemented. The author analyzed the statistical data and historical evidence of contemporaries about the leading role of revolutionary Jewry in a terrorist war. The reveals the issue of the formation of active participants and leaders of terrorist organizations from the the Jewish Pale, as well as the problem of sponsorship and ideological support of anti-Russian terror by the special services of Western countries. The author raised a topic concerning the ways and methods of resistance of the Russian people to revolutionary gangs. Given the main characteristics of the concept of a terrorist war as an anti-Russian, anti-state, criminal activity. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the concept of the Russian liberation movement is palliative, ideologically one-sided, Russophobic and does not reflect the objective processes of anti-Russian terror. Conversely, the concept of a terrorist war allows researchers to uncover historically accurate facts and approach an objective study of the causes and specifics of the phenomenology of terrorism in Russia.

Партійні бойові групи в Россії.

The aim of the article is to verify the hypothesis about the significant influence of party militias on the formation of the Russian political scene, while assuming that the greater their participation, the more the ruling class in Russia is organized as a totalitarian party-state apparatus.The newest world’s scientifical literature on party militias is largely focused on the analysis of historical cases (including the history of tsarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century) and modern examples concerning mainly African and South-American countries. There is a lack of theoretical approaches concerning the role of party militias in the totalitarian party-state apparatus and hard military authoritarianism. The paper about Russian party militias is supposed to fill the gap regarding not only party militias in contemporary Putin’s Russia, but also their place in creating or stabilizing non-democratic political regimes.The authors analyzed the activity and character of the most important party militias currently operating in Russia. It was also examined what institutions of the state apparatus control individual militias. The following militias were analyzed: SERB (Russian liberation movement) – South-East radical block, NOD (National liberation movement), Anti-Maidan, Sorok sorokov (equivalent to a “large number”), Russia Officers (All-Russian civic organisation «Russia Officers») and Neo-Kazachestvo (New-Cossacks).A careful analysis of the most important organizations fighting with opposition activities and intimidating oppositionists proves that this hypothesis should be in great part falsified. Diverse organizations that also function as party militias are few, not subordinated to one institution and, in addition, their effectiveness is not too high.

Revolutionaries in Deed

Revolutionaries in Deed Victoria Frede (bio) O. V. Budnitskii, Terrorizm v rossiiskom osvoboditeĺnom dvizhenii: Ideologiia, etika, psikhologiia (vtoraia polovina XIX–nachalo XX v.)(Terrorism in the Russian Liberation Movement: Ideology, Ethics, Psychology [Second Half of the 19th to the Beginning of the 20th Centuries]) 2ndrev. ed. 383 pp. Moscow: Politicheskaia entsiklopediia, 2016. ISBN 978-5824320299. Carola Dietze, Die Erfindung des Terrorismus in Europa, Russland und den USA 1858–1866(The Invention of Terrorism in Europe, Russia, and the United States, 1858–66). 752 pp. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2016. ISBN 978-3868542998. €42.00. Christopher Ely, Underground Petersburg: Radical Populism, Urban Space, and the Tactics of Subversion in Reform-Era Russia. 325 pp. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-0875807447. $39.00. Tat´iana Saburova and Ben Eklof, Druzhba, semía, revoliutsiia: Nikolai Charushin i pokolenie narodnikov 1870-kh godov(Friendship, Family, Revolution: Nikolai Charushin and the Populist Generation of the 1870s). 444 pp. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 2016. ISBN 978-5444805589. The Russian revolutionary movement is coming out from behind the shadows of October 1917. The 20th century produced a long list of well-wrought, archivally based histories that described the varied ideologies, objectives, and activities of populists, anarchists, and Marxists, their internal conflicts and debates. Some aimed to explain October itself, some to draw attention to historical paths not taken. 1To the new generation of historians that has emerged over [End Page 627]the last decade, 1917 ceased to be convincing as a teleological endpoint, even as the profession geared up for the revolutionary centenary. Bolsheviks are no longer the standard against which other revolutionary groups are measured. 2More recent events have overtaken 1917, most particularly the reemergence of terrorism as a global phenomenon. 3 Participants in the Russian revolutionary movement from the 1860s on held highly diverse beliefs and priorities. As members of a society unable to achieve consensus on the resolution of basic political and economic problems, they were often at odds, even with close allies. The authors of the four books under review here—Budnitskii, Dietze, Ely, Eklof, and Saburova—do not attempt to tabulate an average "median" among revolutionaries but rather take heterogeneity as a given. With the partial exception of Budnitskii, they self-consciously assign ideology a secondary place, instead foregrounding [End Page 628]practices, techniques, technologies, personal dispositions, and moral norms. 4What participants in the revolutionary movement believed in and what they were willing to die for now seems less important than how they sought to convey their messages to society and alter its structure, as well as the techniques that allowed revolutionaries to survive. ________ Of the four books under review, Saburova and Eklof's Druzhba, semi'a, revoliutsiia, subsequently published in English as Nikolai Charushin and Russian Populism, takes the greatest pains to peel away the interpretive layers that 1917 cast over the revolutionary movement. 5Charushin, erstwhile populist and chaikovets, is the main protagonist, accompanied by his wife, Anna Kuvshinskaia, and they are treated as representatives of their generation. The book tracks their lives from childhood through their student years, radicalization, and involvement in spreading revolutionary ideas among workers in St. Petersburg in the early 1870s. Arrested and held in solitary confinement from 1874 to 1878, Charushin developed grave doubts about his erstwhile political and social beliefs but was nonetheless sentenced to hard labor in Kara for three years together with other well-known populists. Kuvshinskaia accompanied him and settled with him into civilian exile. Both took advantage of previous revolutionary contacts, family relations, and new acquaintances to find employment, working as teachers, journalists, editors, and, in Charushin's case, as a photographer and insurance salesman. Increasingly, personal qualities came to seem more important than political convictions, at least to Charushin (177, 182). From the 1890s on, he attached himself primarily to liberal groups, most notably the zemstvo movement. Charushin did not welcome the revolution of October 1917: he viewed the Bolsheviks as demagogues who sowed discord instead of building workable solutions. Ever an optimist, he was too ready to believe in the possibility of consensus. Forced to reinvent himself once again in the 1920s, Charushin became a librarian [End Page 629]and...

Max Weber: «Vse moi simpatii prinadlezhat russkomu osvoboditel'nomu dvizheniyu»: stat'i, pis'ma i ocherki klassika sotsiologii o revolyutsiyakh, voyne i demokratii

Max Weber: «Vse moi simpatii prinadlezhat russkomu osvoboditel'nomu dvizheniyu»: stat'i, pis'ma i ocherki klassika sotsiologii o revolyutsiyakh, voyne i demokratii

Russian Intelligentsia at the Turn of Epochs: Liberation Movement Participants of the Late 19th — Early 20th Centuries in Russia and Abroad

This article is devoted to the generation of the Liberation Movement participants in Russia in the late 19th — early 20th centuries. The author seeks to analyse the peculiarities of the psychological and value attitudes of the said generation of Russian intellectuals who were the main participants of the Russian revolutions. The methodology of the research is based on the principles of new intellectual history. The analysis relies on personal letters of Russian intellectuals kept at the Hoover Institution Archive on War, Revolution and Peace (Stanford, USA), Bakhmeteff Archive Research at Columbia University (New York, USA), Leeds Russian Archive (Leeds, United Kingdom). The author also uses some memoirs of these intellectuals. He concludes that the mental attitudes of this generation were rooted in the 19th century and it was deeply affected by the collapse of its youth’s ideals in the 20th century. Participating in the Russian Liberation Movement, being deputies of the State Dumas and members of the parliamentary opposition, they were trying to create a new Russia. They continued to believe in democratic values and human rights throughout their whole life. But the majority of them realised that the Soviet state was an autocratic political project supported by many ordinary people. And they understood that global trends of development of the 20th century civilization were much more complex than they had thought before. At the end of their life, they understood the mistakes in their struggle for democracy in Russia.

Religious Toleration, Freedom of Conscience, and Russian Liberalism

Religious Toleration, Freedom of Conscience, and Russian Liberalism Randall A. Poole (bio) In 2008, Martha Nussbaum published Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality. She believes that tradition to be under threat, not only from Christian fundamentalists but also from "new atheist" public intellectuals like Daniel Dennett.1 To defend our tradition of religious freedom and pluralism, a tradition she esteems, Nussbaum begins her book with a chapter on perhaps the most important founder of that tradition, Roger Williams, who established the colony of Rhode Island on the principle of unlimited religious liberty. In works such as his 1644 book The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, Williams anticipates and goes deeper than John Locke's more famous treatise of 1689, A Letter concerning Toleration. Nussbaum argues that Williams is concerned not only, or even primarily, with civil peace but also with the nature of human personhood, dignity, and equality. He found their source in conscience, which for him meant the capacity for moral choice and aspiration, or for self-determination. In this, Nussbaum notes, he was influenced by Stoic natural-law doctrine. She also points to the striking similarity with Kant's later ideas of human autonomy and dignity. The link between this natural-law tradition of philosophical anthropology, with its emphasis on conscience as the source of human dignity, and freedom of conscience in the specific sense of religious liberty, is that individuals must be permitted and encouraged to seek God or ultimate meaning in their own way.2 [End Page 611] In the first years of the 20th century, Roger Williams was known by Russian liberals, who appreciated him for the same reasons Martha Nussbaum does today. In 1901, Petr Struve, the leader of the Russian Liberation Movement that would culminate in the Russian revolution of 1905, published an important essay, "What Is True Nationalism?" which lays out his liberal theory.3 Struve calls Williams the first apostle of the idea of the inalienable rights of man, beginning with freedom of conscience—the "first word of liberalism," in Struve's phrase. He refers in this connection to the work of his Russian colleague, Pavel Novgorodtsev, who devoted a few pages of his History of the Philosophy of Law to Williams.4 Struve and Novgorodtsev were then organizing Problems of Idealism, conceived as a defense of liberty of conscience and of its importance in liberalism.5 By the time it was published in November 1902 as a type of philosophical companion to Struve's famous émigré newspaper Osvobozhdenie, the Russian Liberation Movement was well under way. Freedom of conscience was its common platform. "The desire for religious freedom in the empire had ... accomplished what seemed beyond the capacity of all other public issues," writes John Basil in one recent study. "It drew together for one purpose all but a handful of Russians."6 That purpose seemed to be achieved when Nicholas II issued the Manifesto of 17 October 1905, though, as Paul Werth and others [End Page 612] have recently shown, the October Manifesto granted freedom of conscience more as a promise that was to be implemented through future legislation—legislation that was in fact never enacted.7 Before 1905, the autocracy generally described its policy toward non-Orthodox religions in the empire as "religious toleration," which meant something different from freedom of conscience. The nature of this difference is one of the main themes of this forum. Toleration in imperial Russia was a revocable privilege or concession granted by the state to recognized religious groups, while freedom of conscience is an inalienable individual right. Freedom of conscience, because it specifies an intrinsic and inviolable entitlement or right, is incompatible in principle with autocratic state power—and for that reason the tsarist regime resisted recognizing it as long as possible. This is also why, as Werth indicates in his article here, scholars have tended to treat it (naturally) as a problem in the history of Russian liberalism, which aimed to transform autocratic Russia into a constitutional regime under the rule of law. Russian liberal philosophers, as I shall try to show, understood freedom of conscience as more than one natural right among others: for them...

Religion, War, and Revolution: E. N. Trubetskoi's Liberal Construction of Russian National Identity, 1912-20

Rarely has religion been as closely associated with national identity as in the case of Russia, at least at the level of conscious representation. Religion, the very essence of "Holy Russia," is central to most versions of the "Russian Idea."1 The religious element has been most conspicuous in conservative thought (e.g., Slavophilism), but radical representations of Russia were also often religious in form if not (consciously) in content, as in the undeniable eschatological and millenarian features of Bolshevism. The Russian religious-philosophical renaissance at the beginning of the 20th century was especially rich in diverse ideas about Russian national identity. These are more difficult to classify, in large part because they tended to reflect the complex, ambiguous legacy of Vladimir Solov´ev (1853–1900), Russia's greatest religious philosopher. Solov´ev condemned nationalism but assigned Russia a messianic role in his grand utopian project of "free theocracy," which would unify Eastern and Western Christianity under the spiritual authority of the pope and the imperial authority of the tsar. [End Page 195] This brief overview suggests that the prominent religious component in Russian national identity has been, in general, an illiberal one. Against this history, the work of Evgenii Nikolaevich Trubetskoi (1863–1920), one of Russia's major religious philosophers, merits consideration. Prince Trubetskoi came from one of Russia's most distinguished aristocratic families. One of his brothers, Sergei (1862–1905), was also a famous idealist philosopher, disciple of Vladimir Solov´ev, and Moscow University professor; another brother, Grigorii (1873–1930), was an influential diplomat. After graduating from the Faculty of Law at Moscow University in 1885, Evgenii began his academic career at the Demidov Juridical Lycée in Iaroslavl´, where he taught philosophy of law. His magister and doctoral dissertations were critical studies in the intellectual history of theocracy in medieval Europe.2 His university appointments were in the history and philosophy of law, first at St. Vladimir University in Kiev (1892–1905) and then at Moscow University (1906–18), where he in effect succeeded his brother Sergei. He had a prominent role in Russia's first and most important philosophical society, the Moscow Psychological Society (1885–1922), as well as in the Vladimir Solov´ev Religious-Philosophical Society in Moscow (1905–18). He was deeply influenced by Solov´ev, whom he met during the winter of 1886–87. From their first meeting, Trubetskoi later wrote, "all my intellectual life was connected with Solov´ev. My whole philosophic and religious Weltanschauung was full of Solov´evian content and expressed in formulations very close to Solov´ev."3 His two-volume study, Mirosozertsanie Vl. S. Solov´eva (Vl. S. Solov´ev's Weltanschauung [1913]), is the classic work on the philosopher. Taking Solov´ev as his point of departure, he advanced a powerful synthesis of religious philosophy (a metaphysics of vseedinstvo or the "unity of all"), Kantian transcendental idealism, and philosophical liberalism.4 [End Page 196] In politics, Trubetskoi was a member of the Beseda circle of zemstvo opposition, the Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists, and the Union of Liberation; through these organizations he was active in the Russian Liberation Movement that culminated in the Revolution of 1905. He was one of the founders of the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party but resigned from it in January 1906 (he rejoined the party in 1917). He served on the State Council from February 1907 to August 1908 (and again in 1915–17). Later in 1906, he joined the Party of Peaceful Renewal, which shared with the right Kadets and left Octobrists a political program of moderate liberalism. This program was advanced in the newspaper that Trubetskoi and his younger brother Grigorii published from March 1906 to August 1910, Moskovskii ezhenedel´nik. After the newspaper's...

The Birth of the Civil Rights Movement in Russia? Some Reactions to the Rise of Nationalism

In general, it is not easy for a new publication to survive in the former Soviet Union without receiving substantial subsidies. Dozens of new newspapers have gone bankrupt due to the high price of paper, bureaucratic bottlenecks and other problems. Yet newspapers do not seem to have experienced serious problems. They continue to grow. The Russian Society of Cooperation with Compatriots Abroad, for instance, produces 100,000 copies of their weekly newspaper, Russkii Vestnik. This newspaper is circulated by subscription and is also sold in the street. The magazine, Molodaya Gvardia, which can be purchased by subscription only, has a circulation of 300,000. State authorities have done virtually nothing to stop the spread of these and other mass-circulation publications, partly because it is extremely difficult for them to control production and circulation. In the first place, the true nature of a publications is often concealed when it is registered with the City Council's Committee on Publications. Descriptions submitted with applications can be so vague that officials find it difficult to detect the publication's real objectives. Moreover, once the publication receives a permit, there is follow-up to insure that its contents correspond to the original description. True, the St. Petersburg City Council has created a Committee for the Defense of Freedom of the Press and the Mass Media which, among other things, is intended to control the spread of newspapers. But this committee has staff, money, and clear mandate.' Second, even though there is a law which criminalizes activities that incite ethnic conflict, it has not been en f~ rced .~ Many agents of social control are inactive because the communication links between the militia and security organs have been broken? Third, even if the District Attorney were to shut down some newspapers, they could easily reappear under different names. This strategy is already being used by some organizations. For instance, an openly antisemitic newspaper, Moskovski Traktir, is simply a reincarnation of an earlier publication, Russkoe Voskresenie, which was in turn the reincarnation of Voskresenie. The Russian National Liberation Movement is behind all three publication^.^ While Russian state authorities are unable to control antisemitic organizations and the hate literature they produce, a number of people have raised their voices in opposition to the rise of forces, their growing popularity and the fact that they act with impunity. Whereas just a few months ago the mass media were silent about the threat such organizations pose, now some journalists sound alarmed. For instance, A. Prodkopalov, a Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent, attended a meeting of the National Socialist Union (a fascist organization) and warned his readers that no one took Hitler seriously either. In his view, what makes the National Socialist Union particularly dangerous is that its three commercial enterprises offer it a substantial material base enabling it to hire loyal staff and pay them a salary as much as twice that earned by the average workerq5 The activities of the Russian Liberation Movement (ROD) have drawn the attention of several journalist^.^ The objectives of this movement are: (1) to replace the present government by an exclusively Russian government; (2) to close the borders; (3) to grant citizenship to ethnic Russians only; (4) 40 create an exclusively Russian militia, security force and mobile military force. The latter could intervene quickly in case Russian minorities are attacked in other sovereign states of the former Soviet Union. The Republic of Russia they envision would include only Russian territories and exclude those which presently constitute nonRussian republics of the Russian Federation. The use of the swastika as their symbol clearly identifies them as Nazis. In his article on ROD, Murashko warns of the danger of being under the totalitarian rule of an ambitious nationalist force.' For I. Tkachenko, the rise of such is an indication of the revival of animal instinct^.^ 0 . Basilashvili, a Deputy of the Russian Parliament, wrote an open letter to the St. Petersburg District Attorney which was published in Smena. He drew attention to the dramatic increase in the activities of national-patriotic movements in St. Petersburg which, among other things, claim that it is sinful to socialize with Jews, who desire Russian blood. Basilashvili cited the law which prohibits activities provoking ethnic violence and asked the District Attorney to explain his failure to take measures against the ~rganization.~ A number of journalists also ridicule the antisemitic press. M. Petrov, for instance, analyzes a number of newspapers, such as Russkie Vedomosti, Russkoe Delo, Russkii Vestnik, Nasha Rossia, and Otechestvo. Russkie Vedomosti, for instance, is d n ultra-nationalist newspaper published near Moscow. Its editorials include

Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article: MAKING THE BICENTENAR: A Special Issue of Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 23, No. 91 (October 1988) Edited by S. Janson and S. Macintyre. GOOD MEN AND TRUE: The Aboriginal Police of the Port Phillip district 1937–1853 By Marie Hansen Fels. THE MAKING OF THE ABORIGINES By Bain Attwood. RACE RELATIONS INCOLONIAL QUEENSLAND: A History of Exclusion, Exploitation and Extermination By Raymond Evans, Kay Saunders & Kathryn Cronin. THE PRESS IN COLONIAL QUEENSLAND: A Social and Political History 1845–75 By Denis Cryle. JAMES SMITH. The Making of a Colonial Culture By Lurline Stuart. COURAGE A GRACE: A Biography of Dame Mary Gilmore By W. H. Wilde. BREAKER MORANT AND THE BUSHVELDT CARBINEERS Edited by Arthur Davey. BLOCKADE: The Queensland Loans Affair 1920 to 1924 By Tom Cochrane. THE LABOUR EXPERIMENT By Stuart Macintyre. DISPLACED PERSONS: CALWELL'S NEW AUSTRALIANS By Egon Kunz. LOCATIN AUSTRALIA'S PAST: A Practical Guide to Writing Local History By The Local History Coordination Project. AUSTRALIA IN MIND: Thirteen Influential Australian Thinkers By Mark Thomas. AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL FACTS By I. McAllister. M. Mackerras, A. Ascui, and S. Moss. AUSTALIA'S POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS By D. Aitkin, B. Jinks and J. Warhurst. POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA Edited by Rodney Smith and Lex Watson. AUSTRALIAN STUDIES: A Survey Edited by James Walter. THE RISE OF COLONIAL NATIONALISM: Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa First Assert Their nationalities Edited by John Eddy and Deryck Schreuder. THE IDEAL SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES. The Foundation of Modern New Zealand Society 1850–1900 By Miles Fairburn. ANTACTICA'S FUTURE: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? Edited by R. A. Herr, H. R. Hall and M. G. Haward. PLES BLONG INUI: Solomon Islands: The Past Four Thousand Years Edited by Hugh LaracyNAMIBIA 1884–1984: Readings in Namibia's History and Society SOUTH AFRICA BELONGS TO US: A History of the African National Congress By Francis Meli. DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN ANTHENS By R. K. Sinclair. THE POLITICS OF PROGRESS: The Origins and Development of the Commerical Republic 1600–1835 By Hiram Caton. MODERNIZATION FRUSTRATED. The Politics of Industrial Decline in Britain Since 1900 By Scott Newton and Dilwyn Porter. SELLING THE STATE: Privatisation in Britain By Cento Veljanovski with Mark Bentley. PRIVATISATION: Theory, Practice and Choice By Madsen Pirie. BRITAIN AND THE FALKLANDS WAR By Lawrence Freedman. NORTHERN IRELAND SINCE 1968 Paul Arthur and Keith Jeffrey. VLASOV AND THE RUSSIAN LIBERATION MOVEMENT: Soviet reality and Emigre Theories By Catherine Andreyev. UNDERSTANDING SOVIET SOCIETY Edited by Michael Paul Sacks and Jerry G. Pankhurst. THE JEWS IN POLAND Edited by Chimen Abramsky, Maciej Jachimczyk and Antony Polonsky. THE GERMAN STUDENT CORPS IN THE THIRD REICH By R. S. G. Weber. GERMANY, AMERICA, EUROPE: FORTY YEARS OF GERMAN FOREIGH POLICY By Wolfram F. Hanrieder. THE MAFIA OF A SICILIAN VILLAGE, 1860–1960. A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs By Anton Blok. CINA AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Participation in Non‐governmental Organizations Since 1971 By Gerald Chun. THE ORIGINS OF THE VIETMAN WAR By Anthony Short. COLD WAR ON CAMPUS: A Study of the Politics of Organizational Control By Lionel S. Lewis. HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Volume II. The Test of War 1950–1953. By Doris M. Condit. THE POSTMODERN PRESIDENT: The White House Meets the World By Richard Rose. RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES: Consequences of International Economic Disorder By Hans W. Singer and Javed A. Ansari. AGINS AND POLITICAL LEAERSHIP Edited by Angus McIntyre. IN THE AGE OF THE SMART MACHINE: The Future of Work and Power By Shoshana Zuboff. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION Edited by Ramesh Thokur. ARMS CONTROL By Michael J. Sheehan MEN, MACHINES AND WAR Edited by Ronald Haycock and Keith Neilson. THE POLITICS OF SCANDAL: Power and Process in Liberal Democracies Andrei S. Markovits and Mark Silverstein. THE RULE OF LAW: Foundations of Constitutional Democracy By Geoffrey de Q. Walker. TRADITIONS OF LIBERALISM: Essays on John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill Edited by Knud Haakonssen. LIBERALISMS: Essays in Political Philosophy By John Gray. HUMAN RIGHTS Edited by Peter Davies. THE BITTERSWEET CENTURY: Speculations on Modern Science and American Democracy By Paul N. Goldstene. BIOLOGY AND FREEDOM: An Essay on the Implications of Human Ethology By S. A. Barnett. POWER, MODERNITY AND SOCIOLOGY: Selected Sociological Writings By Raymond Aron XPLANATION IN SOCIAL HISTORY By Christopher Lloyd.

Traitor or patriot? Andrey Vlasov and the Russian liberation movement 1942–45

Catherine Andreyev, Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigre Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Pp.251; $34.50. Sergej Froehlich, General Wlassow: Russen und Deutsche zwischen Hitler und Stalin (revised and edited by Edel von Freier). Koeln: Markus Verlag, 1987. Pp.403; DM.39.80. Joachim Hoffmann, Die Geschichte der Wlassow‐Armes. Freiburg: Verlag Rombach, 1986. Pp.468; DM32.

Catherine Andreyev. Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emiqré Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. xiv, 251 pp. $34.50.

Catherine Andreyev. Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emiqré Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. xiv, 251 pp. $34.50.

Late Modern

Late Modern

Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigre Theories

Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigre Theories

Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigre Theories

Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigre Theories

Vlasov And The Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality And Émigré Theories. By Catherine Andreyev. Soviet and Eastern European Studies. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1987. xiv, 251 pp. $34.50, cloth.

Vlasov And The Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality And Émigré Theories. By Catherine Andreyev. Soviet and Eastern European Studies. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1987. xiv, 251 pp. $34.50, cloth. - Volume 47 Issue 1

Against Stalin and Hitler: Memoir of the Russian Liberation Movement 1941–45

Against Stalin and Hitler: Memoir of the Russian Liberation Movement 1941–45

Against Stalin and Hitler. General Vlassov and the Russian Liberation Movement

Against Stalin and Hitler. General Vlassov and the Russian Liberation Movement