¹ For a recent re-statement of the major themes of Soviet ideology in popular form see the collection of essays O sovetskom patriotizme (on Soviet Patriotism) (Moscow, 1950).Google Scholar

² Richard E. Pipes of the Harvard Russian Research Center and other young scholars are beginning to publish valuable work in this field. See, for example, Pipes, ' article, “The First Experiment in Soviet Nationality Policy, The Bashkir Republic, 1917. 1920,” in The Russian Review (10, 1950), pp. 303–319.Google Scholar

³ For the period prior to 1939, see the excellent but brief survey by DrYakobson, Sergius entitled “The Rise of Russian Nationalism,” in Nationalism, a report by a study group of members of the Royal Institute of National Affairs (London, New York, Toronto, 1939) Chap. V, pp. 57–80Google Scholar. See also such works as Kohn, Hans, Nationalism in the Soviet Union (London, 1933)Google Scholar. The provocative brochure by Mehnert, Klaus, Welt-Revolution Durch Welt-Geschichte (Kitzingen-Main, 1951)Google Scholar, as well as the heavily documented article by Meissner, Boris in Europa-Archiv, No. 4/5, entitled “Stalinistische Autokratie und Bolschevistische Staattspartei” 1951Google Scholar, also contain material and interpretations relating to the period covered by DrYakobson, . Meissner and the Soviet refugee Achminow, in his book, Die Macht im Hintergrund (Ulm, 1950)Google Scholar are among writers who have related the development of Stalinist “patriotism” or “nationalism” to the formation of a new ruling stratum within the U.S.S.R. In some ways, the views of these writers parallel aspects of the work of Peter Meyer in his two articles published in Dwight Mc-Donald's magazine, Politics, in 1944 under the title, “The U.S.S.R., A New Gass Society,” and of Bertram Wolfe and other critical analysts of Stalinism.

⁴ For an example of the hopes stirred among some foreign observers of the U.S.S.R. that Marxism was dead and a healthy national patriotism was triumphant, see Iswolsky, Helen's article entitled “Soviet Culture Today” in Commonweal for 05 28, 1943, pp. 138–141.Google Scholar

⁵ While the postwar Soviet “cultural purges” have not received nearly adequate treatment, if one considers the vastness of the intellectual and spiritual significance of these operations, there have been a number of good studies of individual sectors on what the Soviet leaders refer to as the “ideological front.” See, for example: Wrinch, Pamela N., “Science and Politics in the U.S.S.R.: The Genetics Debate,” World Politics, Vol. III (07, 1951), No. 4, pp. 486–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yakobson, Sergius, “Postwar Historical Research in the Soviet Union,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 263 (05, 1949), pp. 123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mosely, Philip E., “Soviet Research in the Social Field,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 94 (04, 1950), No. 2, pp. 105–110Google Scholar; Corbett, Percy E., “Postwar Soviet Ideology,” in the above AnnalsGoogle Scholar, and DrCorbett, 's “The Aleksandrov Story,” World Politics, Vol. I, No. 2, (1949), pp. 167–174Google Scholar. The magazine, Soviet Studies, has devoted a number of impressively documented articles to postwar Soviet intellectual life. While these are in some ways excellent, they convey the misleading impression that when Soviet intellectuals are forced to publicly discuss fundamental problems they are really engaged in free professional activity. The authors of many of these articles appear to be unaware of the contrived character of much of this discussion and of the utilitarian nature of Stalin's approach to science and scholarship.

⁶ See, for example, Inkeles, Alex and Curtiss, John S., “Marxism in the U.S.S.R.; The Recent Revival,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 61 (09, 1946), No. 3, pp. 349–364.Google Scholar

⁷ On this strength of Stalinism, see the penetrating remarks by Wittfogel, Karl, “How to Checkmate Stalin in Asia,” Commentary (10, 1950), p. 335Google Scholar; see also Gurian, Waldemar, “Thirty Years of the Soviet Regime,” The Review of Politics, Vol. X (01, 1948), No. 1, pp. 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See especially p, 6.

⁸ This quotation is taken from Stalin's new famous toast to the Russian people proposed at a Kremlin reception to Red Army commanders on May 24, 1945. For an English translation of this toast, see Stalin's War Speeches (London: Hutchinson and Co., n.d.), pp. 138–139.Google Scholar

⁹ Veliki russki narod—Vydayushchayasya natsiya i rukodovyashchayasya sila sovetskoga soyuza (The Great Russian People, the Leading Nation and Guiding Force of the Soviet Union).

¹⁰ See, for example, Politburo member G. M. Malenkov's reference to this toast on the last page of his contribution prepared in honor of Stalin's seventieth birthday in December, 1949. An English translation of this Malenkov article entitled “Comrade Stalin, Leader of Progressive Mankind” was published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House in 1950.

¹¹ Yakobson, , op. cit., p. 78.Google Scholar

¹² Gafurov, B. G., Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda, Vol. I (Moscow, 1949), p. 6.Google Scholar

¹³ Inkeles, and Curtiss, , op. cit., p. 359.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Pravda Vostoka (Tashkent), October 16; Pravda Ukrainy (Kiev), October 12; Zarya Vostoka (Tbilisi), 10 25, etc. All 1946.Google Scholar

¹⁵ On Shamil, see articles in Bolshevik, No. 13, 1950Google Scholar, and in Literaturnaya Gazeta for 07 27, 1950.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Partiinaya zhizn, No. 14, for 07, 1947Google Scholar, for example, reported “inter-oblast conferences” of the “party-economic active group” which disclosed a serious shortage of “native” engineering and technical cadres in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

¹⁷ In this connection the report by Denny, Harold in The New York Times for 10 23, 1938Google Scholar—of Stalin's finding that while his son could talk glibly of economic periods in English history he had never heard of Cromwell—is amusing. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1939, 1940) (Protiv Istoricbeskoi kontseptsii M. N. Pokrovskogo).

¹⁸ See the two volume work, Against the Historical Conception of M. N. Pokrovski

¹⁹ On the situation of history and the personal fate of historians during the 1920's and early 1930's, see Maksimovich, E., “Istoricheskaya Nauka v SSSR i Marksizm- Leninizm” (‘Historical Science in the USSR and Marxism-Leninism’), Sovremennye Zapiski (Paris), LXIIGoogle Scholar; see also Tompkins, Stuart R., “Trends in Communist Historical Thought,” Slavonic and East European Review (01, 1935)Google Scholar; B. H. Sumner, “Soviet History,” Ibid. (April, 1938).

²⁰ Geroicheskoe Proshloe Russkogo Naroda (Moscow, 1943).Google Scholar

²¹ Lack of space makes it impossible to discuss the folly and cruelty of the Nazis which was a major factor in the success of Soviet patriotic wartime propaganda. Evidence which has become available since the end of the war indicates that Hitler's treatment of the Russian, Ukrainian and other peoples enslaved by him was one of his greatest political mistakes.

²² The Year of Stalingrad (London, 1946)Google Scholar. This is an interesting and valuable book, although, of course, it is not a systematic scientific treatment and it goes much too far in identifying Stalinism with the aspirations of the Russian people.

²³ For some remarks on his subject, see my article entitled “The Soviet Union Between War and Cold War,” in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 263 (05, 1949), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

²⁴ Kozhukhov, S., “K voprosu ob otsenke roli M. I. Kutuzova v otechestvsnnoi voine 1812 goda” (On the Appraisal of the Role of M. I. Kutuzov in the Fatherland War of 1812), Bolshevik (08, 1951), No. 15, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar

²⁵ Some interesting remarks on this criticism of Tarle are contained in an article entitled “A New Purge of Russian History,” in The Economist for 10 6, 1951, p. 808.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, for example, The New Leader for 12 7, 1946, pp. 11, 14.Google Scholar

²⁷ For a long list of other Soviet works on Ivan, see The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. III, No. 13, pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pravda, front page, 09 7, 1947.Google Scholar

²⁹ On this point see, for example, my book, The Soviet Image of the United States (New York, 1950), Chap. III, pp. 51–68.Google Scholar

³⁰ This quotation is taken from Vol. I of a bulky handbook entitled International Relations and Foreign Policy of the U.S.S.R. (Vol. I, 1917–1929Google Scholar; Vol. II, 1929–1941), by ProfessorDeborin, G. A., published by the “Military-Political Order of Lenin Academy of the Red Army named after Lenin” (Moscow, 1942–1943), Vol. I, p. 4.Google Scholar

³¹ See, for example, my article, “D. I. Pisarev, A Representative of Russian Nihilism,” Review of Politics, Vol. X (04, 1948), No. 2, pp. 194–195Google Scholar. See also the brochure, Proniknovenie idei marksizma v Rossiya” (The Penetration of the Ideas of Marxism into Russia), by ProfessorChagin, B. (Moscow, 1948)Google Scholar. Very significant was the emphasis devoted to “Russian Classical Philosophy” in the outline of a course on political education reprinted in Propagandist, No. 14, 1945.Google Scholar

³⁶ For analysis of the general meaning of the linguistics discussion, see Mehnett, , op. cit., pp. 31–41Google Scholar; Meissner, , op. cit., p. 3753Google Scholar; “The Stalin-Marr Philological Controversy in the U.S.S.R.,” by ‘D.B.Y.’ in The World Today, Vol. VI (01–12, 1950), pp. 355–364Google Scholar; Ellis, Jeffrey and Davies, Robert W., “The Crisis in Soviet Linguistics,” Soviet Studies, Vol. II (01, 1951), No. 3, pp. 209–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stalin's five contributions to the linguistics controversy were published in Pravda for 06 20, 07 4, and 08 2, 1950Google Scholar. That of June 20 was by far the most important. An English translation of Stalin's major contribution, that of June 20, already referred to, and of the second of his five letters, that of August 2, 1950, has recently been published by the Kings Crown Press (New York, 1951) together with the major contributions by Soviet philologists which led to Stalin's pronouncement under the title “The Soviet Linguistics Controversy.” Stalin's five letters have been published in a brochure entitled Marksizm i Voprosy Yazykoznaniya by Gospolitizdt (Moscow, 1950). Unless otherwise noted, subsequent references to Stalin's statements on the question are to this brochure.

³⁷ Stalin's only other major postwar utterance was his well known preelection speech of February 9, 1946, which marked the beginning of the “Cold War.”

³⁸ It is pointed out in the article referred to above in The World Today that N. Ya. Marr, the basic Soviet authority on linguistics until 1950 was, among other things, a protege, in a sense, of Pokrovski.

³⁹ “Marksizm i Voprosy Yazykoznaniya,” op. cit., pp. 5–11.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See the King's Crown Press publication referred to above, especially pp. 48–56. Closely related to this problem was that of the importance of the Russian language as a medium for the dissemination of Russian culture. Many contributors to the linguistics discussion published in Pravda during the spring and summer of 1950 referred to this matter.

⁴¹ This statement by Vinogradov touches upon one of the important topics discussed in connection with the linguistics discussion, namely, that of the importance of not putting obstacles in the way of the introduction of Russian words and terms into the native languages of the non-Russian peoples of the U.S.S.R. Vinogradov also pointed out that the entire field of training and research of students, graduate students and research workers in Soviet languages had been “reconstructed” since June, 1950. Among other things, he gave an impressive list of publications on linguistics resulting from the inspiration of Stalin's interventions. The titles of these publications indicate that the emphasis is strongly on practical work in the teaching of the Russian language. For similar rejoicing, see on the first page of Russki Yazsyk v Shkole (The Russian Language in the School), No. 2–3, 1951Google Scholar, with an even more extensive list of publications.

⁴² “Marksizm i Voprosy Yazykoznaniya,” op. cit., p. 53Google Scholar. This quotation takes on added significance in the light of a curious item contained in Vol. XI of Stalin, 's Collected Works (Sochineniyia XI), pp. 333–355Google Scholar. In this item, in the form of a letter from Stalin to several “comrades” dated March 18, 1929, but according to an inconspicuous footnote, published for the first time in the above volume, Stalin points out that during the period between the Soviet Russian revolution and the establishment of world socialism, there may exist for a long time “zonal” languages. A similar thesis is advanced in an article published in the Soviet philosophic journal, Voprosy Filosofii, No. 2 for 1949 by T. M. Lomtev in which it is strongly emphasized that prior to the coming of world socialism, there must be an intensified development of the Russian language. These items are interesting in several ways. For one thing, they strongly suggest that the whole linguistics discussion in the spring and summer of 1950 was carefully planned in advance. It would require excessive space to develop this point here, but suffice it to say that in many ways the line taken by Stalin in his Five Letters to Pravda was foreshadowed in the foregoing two items. Most significant is the fact that the general line of these two items suggests that the Russian language is a supremely important cultural and political instrument in the hands of the Kremlin.

⁴³ In this connection, a rare publication of the Lenin Library in Moscow, entitled 80 years in the Service of the Science and Culture of our Motherland (80 let na sluzhbe nauki i kultury nashei rodiny) is highly instructive. This publication is full of pride in Russian culture but it is full of obviously sincere expressions of admiration and gratitude for the help rendered by foreign libraries and librarians to their Soviet colleagues.

⁴⁴ The testimony of Soviet refugees is ambivalent on this point. While they scoff at Soviet propaganda claims regarding Russian “priorities,” they are obviously pleased by Soviet propaganda regarding the leading role of the U.S.S.R. in World War II, etc. Some of them also take pride in the fact that Russian has become a major world language.

⁴⁵ For its impact on the Yugoslavs, see the official Yugoslav pamphlet, The Russian Language and Great Russian Chauvinism, by Lalic, Radovan (New York, Yugoslav Information Center, 1950).Google Scholar