The Revolution of 1917 in the Russian Empire culminated in the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The victorious leaders of the proletariat, the Bolsheviks, were faced with the task of forging a new ideology. Among their strategies was the method of debunking and critiquing all that was associated with Tsarism. Yet, the new authority did not shy away from intentions to control the vast territories of the Volga region, Siberia, Turkestan, and the Caucasus, thereby continuing the Tsarist policy of relentless continental colonial expansion. The quandary arose: how to denounce a past that you yourself, akin to Tsarism, are fervently realizing today, ruthlessly suppressing resistance? Our editorial team, in the vast expanse of the internet, chanced upon an exceedingly intriguing monograph by one author – the revolutionary and Sovietologist-orientalist Solomon Schwarz (1883-1973), who dedicated an entire mini-study to this question.
The monograph we are discussing today was published in the journal The Foreign Affairs in 1951. Solomon Schwarz completed his gymnasium education in his native city of Vilnius, studied at the Universities of Heidelberg and Berlin, and was a participant in the union and revolutionary movement. Before the revolution, Schwarz spent about a year and a half in prison, was exiled twice, and was expelled abroad three times. A member of the Menshevik party since 1907, he was previously a member of the Bolshevik party. In 1917, he was the editor of the journal «Workers’ Insurance and Social Policy». In 1921, he was arrested twice as a Menshevik, and in January 1922, he was expelled abroad. From 1922 to 1933, he lived in Berlin, from 1933 to 1940 in Paris, from 1940 to 1970 in the USA. From 1970, he resided in Jerusalem and passed away in 1973.
What is a Western Orientalist and a Soviet Orientalist?
The author begins by clarifying the objectives and tasks of Soviet ideologues, historians, and orientalists. He emphasizes that, as of the publication of the article in 1950, the USSR had launched an extensive campaign to justify the colonialism of Tsarist Russia with respect to those peoples whom the Kremlin of today inventively labels as ‘complementary to the Russians.’
«…In the Soviet Union, there is an onslaught against historical science. The Communist Party is achieving victory after victory in the ‘battle against objectivism and cosmopolitanism.’ The most recent task assigned to Soviet historians is the rehabilitation of Tsarist colonialism. The fact that they were also required to intensify efforts in ‘unmasking’ the colonial policies of Western countries further complicated this task.
In light of the above, the so-called ‘orientalists’ are today the focus of intense scrutiny. Their field of study is broader than that of ‘orientalists’ from other countries, extending not only to Southeast Asia, the Near and Far East but also encompassing the Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia. This field has recently been frequently discussed in the pages of the flagship journal ‘Questions of History,’ published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. For example, in the April 1949 issue, there is an article titled ‘On the Urgent Tasks of Soviet Historians-Orientalists,’ which states the following:
«…It is necessary to completely dispel the myth, fervently propagated by right-wing socialists, that within the frameworks of the British, French, and American colonial systems, conditions are being created for the gradual transition to the development of national independence by underdeveloped peoples, who need to be civilized. It must be demonstrated that British rule brought to India not culture and civilization, but poverty, hunger, and an extreme level of mortality. The tendency to idealize British rule can be traced in some works of progressive Western historians who by no means belong to the camp of imperialists, making this task even more significant. Thus, for instance, even Palm Dutt (note: a prominent British communist of Indian-Swedish descent, a faithful ally of Soviet ideologues, historians, and orientalists) in his work ‘India Today’ did not avoid such a misconception. The current situation has indeed undergone a fundamental shift, where even such comrades of ours as Palm Dutt – one of the most orthodox British communists and of Indian origin – no longer meet the requirements of the new political course…»
Fights Between Western and Soviet Orientalists
The author cites excerpts from ideological guidelines that Soviet orientalists were expected to use in their struggle to debunk Western colonialism and justify Tsarist colonialism:
«…As they expose the predatory colonial policy of the imperialists and their henchmen, bourgeois orientalists, and other varieties of pseudo-scholars trying to whitewash and glamorize this policy and further deceive the trusting public… Soviet orientalists in their work should propagate the great achievements of the exemplary republics of the Soviet East…» [i]
Schwarz comments on this as follows:
«Nevertheless, all this is but a secondary objective of the Soviet orientalists. The supreme goal, recently prescribed to Soviet orientalists, is the dissemination of a positive view of the process of Russian colonial expansion under the Tsars, i.e., when what is today called the Soviet East was integrated into the great Russian empire. Accordingly, the history of the peoples of the Soviet East should be interpreted as ‘the history of their friendship with the great Russian people.'» [ii]
«…Thus, in the last 15 years, the CPSU has made a 180-degree turn regarding the Russian colonial policy of the past. In the first two decades of communist rule, Russia’s penetration into the Caucasus and Turkestan was depicted in official literature and documentation as colonial plunder.»
Theory of Lesser Evil as a Trump Card for Orientalists
…In August 1934, Stalin, Zhdanov, and Kirov published «Remarks on the Content of Educational Historical Literature,» from which date and document begins the socialist interpretation of the pre-revolutionary past of the peoples of Russia-USSR. In these Remarks, the authors adhered to an anti-colonial assessment of Tsarist Russia and particularly criticized certain postulates from educational literature because «…they do not emphasize the annexationist-colonial role of Russian Tsarism…» [iii]
«…This past mistake of Stalin, Zhdanov, and Kirov is today not dared to be mentioned in the USSR. In contemporary Soviet historiography, these Remarks are no longer a foundational document. Today, this honor belongs to a document called ‘Decision of the Expert Commission of the Government Council on the Organization of the Competition for the Best Textbook on the History of the USSR,’ which was published three years ago, and in which it is written:
‘The fact, for example, that Georgia came under the protectorate of Russia at the end of the 18th century, as well as the fact that Ukraine came under the control of Russia, are considered by the authors of textbooks submitted for the competition as an absolute evil, but do not take into account the specific historical conditions of the time. The authors did not develop the idea that Georgia had a choice in the form of conquest by the Persian Shah or the Turkish Sultan, or protection under the protectorate of Russia… They do not take into account the fact that the latter option was the lesser of all evils.'»
Professor Nechkina and ‘Complementarity to Russia’
«…Soviet literature swiftly and universally embraced the theory of the lesser evil. Moreover, today it has grown into something more. For instance, in the article by Professor M.V. Nechkina, published in the form of a letter to the editor of the ‘Questions of History’ journal in April 1951. In it, the author not only questions the remarks of the Expert Commission but also attempts to advance a wholly new interpretation of the new official historiography. According to Nechkina, ‘…nonetheless, a lesser evil is still an evil… In general, the term ‘lesser evil’ does not imply something bad. It is, in fact, a positive factor… It cannot be taken out of the overall context. This fundamental thought of the Expert Commission had the effect of ‘establishing a positive factor.’ And no one should forget that there was national oppression – it was the root of all evils.'»
Professor Nechkina continues: «But can the concept of national-colonial oppression encompass the essence of all the facts and events that made up the life of the peoples AFTER their annexation to Russia and further incorporation into a new Russia? Of course not! Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, after their annexation by Russia, were incorporated into Russia’s economic life, which was at a higher level than theirs. In turn, these peoples made a significant contribution to the economic life of the country and its forward movement. The economic interaction of the conquered peoples was not undermined and depleted by national-colonial relations, although it existed under its yoke… Equally significant was the cultural exchange of peoples through their finest representatives.» Reflecting on the themes of the Big or Elder Brother, Nechkina concludes that «in assessing the results of the incorporation of peoples into the structure of Tsarist Russia, historians must pay special attention to the interaction of peoples and to the new and positive content that the great Russian people brought into their economic and cultural life, regardless of Tsarism. The task of historians is to show the historical perspective of the unity and struggle of the peoples of Russia under the leadership of Russian people.»
Solomon Schwarz writes that Nechkina’s article will likely attract a lot of critical fire, but notes that it accurately and comprehensively outlined the main contours of the new ideology in the field of history of the peoples of Tsarist Russia. He further notes: «…Certainly, it would be incorrect to paint Russia’s colonial expansion solely in dark colors. The arguments Nechkina presented as positive did indeed exist. But there were also opposite facts and trends, such as cruel national oppression and predatory colonial exploitation. Independent writers-historians never question the fact that there was more bad than good in colonialism. In the past, communists went further than anyone in blind criticism of Tsarism, ignoring all the positive aspects of Russia’s colonial expansion, just as today they ignore or deny the presence of positive sides in British colonialism in India or American in the Philippines. Today, communists ‘bend’ readers to forget the phrase ‘Russia – the prison of nations’.»
Kazakhs and Vainakhs as Testing Grounds for New Stalinist Historiography
Solomon Schwarz writes in his material:
«…It is impossible to briefly discuss how the new political course affects the attitude towards the history of the non-Russian peoples of the USSR. But there are two examples of a revised approach – the Kazakh uprising led by Khan Kenes (1837-1846) and the Caucasian Wars of 1834-1859 against Tsarist colonialism under the leadership of Shamil. In the first half of the 19th century, the Kazakh steppes were still not fully part of the Russian Empire. Vast territories were divided into three quasi-states – the Lesser, Middle, and Greater Hordes. The first two came under Russian protection in the 19th century but retained semi-independence, while the Greater Horde remained fully independent. The Kazakhs had already had painful experiences of contact with Russian pressure, especially when Russian colonialism took the form of state organization. Initially, the goals of colonization were military. The best lands were taken from the Kazakhs and given to the Cossacks. This policy largely ignored the vital interests of the Kazakhs and occasionally led to uprisings, the most significant of which was Khan Kenesary’s rebellion…»