Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe: Elite Purges and Mass Repression

Description

This wide-ranging collection of essays is the first book in English to examine the impact of Stalinist terror on Eastern Europe in the years 1940 to 1956. Covering the Baltic states, Moldavia, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, the authors investigate terror both 'from above', in the form of elite purges and show trials, and 'from below' in the guise of large-scale arrests and deportations of ordinary people. Key questions addressed include the relative importance of Soviet influence versus 'local' factors; the persecution of particular groups, such as 'kulaks', church leaders, the middle-class intelligentsia and members of non-communist left-wing parties; cases where repression was more, or conversely less, intense than elsewhere; and the relevance of key events such as the Tito-Stalin split of 1948, the Rajk trial of 1949 and the Slansky trial of 1952. This book highlights areas of considerable diversity, making this volume an excellent starting point for all scholars and students interested in the wider history of political trials, forced labour and state-sponsored violence in the twentieth century's 'age of extremes'. -- .

Kevin McDermott is Senior Lecturer in Political History at Sheffield Hallam University Matthew Stibbe is Reader in History at Sheffield Hallam University

Norman Naimark's book seeks to demonstrate that 'Stalin's mass killings of the 1930s should be classified as "genocide" (1). Naimark recognizes the difficulties in arguing that case, given that in the USSR there was no one, single, act of genocide, but rather 'a series of interrelated attacks on "class enemies" and "enemies of the people", and he argues that this period, when millions of people were repressed in the USSR, should be regarded as 'an important chapter in the history of genocide' (2), and that the governmental system created at that time in the USSR should be seen as a genocidal regime. Book Reviews 187 While international law understands genocide to mean the annihilation of individual groups of the population according to racial, national, ethnic or religious criteria, or the deliberate creation of conditions of life calculated to destroy a group wholly or in part, Naimark seeks to broaden the concept. In his definition, genocide is 'systematic mass murder intentionally perpetrated by the political elite of a state against a targeted group within the borders of or outside the state that should distinguish genocide from other forms of mass killing, like pogroms, massacres, and terrorist bombing' (4). He argues his case in chapters dealing with Stalin himself, de-kulakization, the Ukrainian famine ('Holodomor'), the deportation of whole nationalities and the 'Great Terror' of the 1930s. The conclusions he draws are not particularly original, and the whole work is more of a political rather than a historical investigation. It has no separate discussion of historiography and sources, which leaves an impression that the author has ignored evidence which does not fit the picture he is trying to present. Naimark argues that Stalin did not start with genocidal intent, but the pressure of circumstances pushed him that way. One reason for that might be that Stalin, who often declared himself to be Lenin's pupil, enthusiastically continued with Lenin's punitive policies. Naimark's definition of 'genocide' could equally well be applied to the Soviet decree abolishing the social estates of Tsarist Russia (10/23 November 1917) and the persecution of people of noble origin, or to the process of de-Cossackization in 1919-20 which put an end to the Cossacks as a separate military caste. Moreover, when the Cheka's M. Latsis declared in 1918 that 'we are not struggling against individuals, we are destroying the bourgeoisie as a class', this could also count as an incitement to genocide. The weaknesses of Naimark's formulation become apparent when it is tested against Soviet realities, even though its humanistic intent should be welcomed. There is a difference between the destruction of six million Jews by the Nazi regime - a clear case of genocide - and what happened in the USSR. To be sure, Soviet Jews suffered persecution, many Soviet nationalities were deported wholesale, and de-kulakization was a tragedy for millions of peasants, but in the USSR they were not put into gas chambers, they were sent to special settlements, in sparsely-populated areas of the country, with restrictions on their freedom of movement. The term 'Great Terror', denoting the repression in Russia in the 1930s, became popular following the publication of Robert Conquest's eponymous book 1974. However, one could argue that there was just one ongoing state terror against Soviet citizens, inaugurated by the government decrees of 18 February 1918, which brought in extrajudicial execution, and of 5 September 1918, on the Red Terror. By 1922, Red and White terror had already claimed 1.5 million victims. Stalin merely continued and perfected Lenin's repressive policies. While arguing that the 'Great Terror' had 'genocidal qualities' (1). Naimark recognizes the difficulties in arguing that case, given that in the USSR there was no one, single, act of genocide, but rather 'a series of interrelated attacks on "class enemies" and "enemies of the people", and he argues that this period, when millions of people were repressed in the USSR, should be regarded as 'an important chapter in the history of genocide' (2), and that the governmental system created at that time in the USSR should be seen as a genocidal regime. Book Reviews 187 While international law understands genocide to mean the annihilation of individual groups of the population according to racial, national, ethnic or religious criteria, or the deliberate creation of conditions of life calculated to destroy a group wholly or in part, Naimark seeks to broaden the concept. In his definition, genocide is 'systematic mass murder intentionally perpetrated by the political elite of a state against a targeted group within the borders of or outside the state that should distinguish genocide from other forms of mass killing, like pogroms, massacres, and terrorist bombing' (4). He argues his case in chapters dealing with Stalin himself, de-kulakization, the Ukrainian famine ('Holodomor'), the deportation of whole nationalities and the 'Great Terror' of the 1930s. The conclusions he draws are not particularly original, and the whole work is more of a political rather than a historical investigation. It has no separate discussion of historiography and sources, which leaves an impression that the author has ignored evidence which does not fit the picture he is trying to present. Naimark argues that Stalin did not start with genocidal intent, but the pressure of circumstances pushed him that way. One reason for that might be that Stalin, who often declared himself to be Lenin's pupil, enthusiastically continued with Lenin's punitive policies. Naimark's definition of 'genocide' could equally well be applied to the Soviet decree abolishing the social estates of Tsarist Russia (10/23 November 1917) and the persecution of people of noble origin, or to the process of de-Cossackization in 1919-20 which put an end to the Cossacks as a separate military caste. Moreover, when the Cheka's M. Latsis declared in 1918 that 'we are not struggling against individuals, we are destroying the bourgeoisie as a class', this could also count as an incitement to genocide. The weaknesses of Naimark's formulation become apparent when it is tested against Soviet realities, even though its humanistic intent should be welcomed. There is a difference between the destruction of six million Jews by the Nazi regime - a clear case of genocide - and what happened in the USSR. To be sure, Soviet Jews suffered persecution, many Soviet nationalities were deported wholesale, and de-kulakization was a tragedy for millions of peasants, but in the USSR they were not put into gas chambers, they were sent to special settlements, in sparsely-populated areas of the country, with restrictions on their freedom of movement. The term 'Great Terror', denoting the repression in Russia in the 1930s, became popular following the publication of Robert Conquest's eponymous book 1974. However, one could argue that there was just one ongoing state terror against Soviet citizens, inaugurated by the government decrees of 18 February 1918, which brought in extrajudicial execution, and of 5 September 1918, on the Red Terror. By 1922, Red and White terror had already claimed 1.5 million victims. Stalin merely continued and perfected Lenin's repressive policies. While arguing that the 'Great Terror' had 'genocidal qualities', Naimark recognizes that it cannot be directly described as genocide (136). As he points out, the terror intensified after the end of July 1937, when NKVD chief Ezhov and the CPSU approved Decree No. 00447. On the basis of that decree, former kulaks, 188 European History Quarterly 42(1) criminals, former activists in other parties, opponents of Bolshevism, members of religious communities, former Tsarist civil servants and Cossacks were shot or imprisoned. Between August 1937 and November 1938 around 800,000 people were sentenced, approximately half of them to death, the rest to long sentences in prisons and corrective labour camps. The sentences were passed by extra-judicial bodies: three- and two-man panels, special conferences and the like. But while this was a crime against hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, it is hard to discern truly 'genocidal qualities' within it. During the Soviet period, the years 1921-22, 1932-33 and 1946-47 were years of famine, but, thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian diaspora, it was the famine of the early 1930s which got the name 'Holodomor'. This famine, Naimark argues, was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people (71-5). In 1993 an Association of Researchers into the Famine-Genocide of 1932-33 was formed in Ukraine, so Naimark is not the first to allege this. But there is no consensus on this question. At a conference of Russian and Ukrainian historians in May 2007 on the 1932-33 famine, there was just one question on which the historians could not agree - was the famine in the Ukraine an act of genocide against the Ukrainians? The Russian historians were categorically opposed to such a characterization, and the final resolution of the meeting recommended that the question be considered 'in a strictly scientific, rather than a journalistic and speculative way'. Naimark uncritically adopts the standpoint of Ukrainian politicians and certain historians, arguing that although Stalin did not kill or deport the Ukrainians he 'wanted to destroy them as a hostile nation' (78-9). He disregards alternative perspectives from Russian historians, and pays no attention to the polemic between V. P. Danilov and Robert Conquest, or to V. V. Kondrashin's study on the famine of 1932-33, which showed that it affected an area far beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately, Naimark's book is excessively politicized, and its contentions are not adequately demonstrated. Nonetheless, his attempt to widen the concept of 'genocide' will certainly stimulate further study. Kevin McDermott and Matthew Stibbe's collection, Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe stands in stark contrast to Naimark's book. It is much more academic and objective in its arguments. Its ten chapters contain detailed accounts of the Stalinist terror in the Baltic states (Aldis Purs), Soviet Moldavia (Igor Cascu), Eastern Germany (Matthew Stibbe), Poland (Lukasz Kamin' ski), Czechoslovakia (Kevin McDermott), Hungary (La' szlo' Borhi), Romania (Dennis Deletant), Yugoslavia (Jerca Vodus ek Staric ), Bulgaria (Jordan Baev) and Albania (Robert C. Austin). The editors' (1). Naimark recognizes the difficulties in arguing that case, given that in the USSR there was no one, single, act of genocide, but rather 'a series of interrelated attacks on "class enemies" and "enemies of the people", and he argues that this period, when millions of people were repressed in the USSR, should be regarded as 'an important chapter in the history of genocide' (2), and that the governmental system created at that time in the USSR should be seen as a genocidal regime. Book Reviews 187 While international law understands genocide to mean the annihilation of individual groups of the population according to racial, national, ethnic or religious criteria, or the deliberate creation of conditions of life calculated to destroy a group wholly or in part, Naimark seeks to broaden the concept. In his definition, genocide is 'systematic mass murder intentionally perpetrated by the political elite of a state against a targeted group within the borders of or outside the state that should distinguish genocide from other forms of mass killing, like pogroms, massacres, and terrorist bombing' (4). He argues his case in chapters dealing with Stalin himself, de-kulakization, the Ukrainian famine ('Holodomor'), the deportation of whole nationalities and the 'Great Terror' of the 1930s. The conclusions he draws are not particularly original, and the whole work is more of a political rather than a historical investigation. It has no separate discussion of historiography and sources, which leaves an impression that the author has ignored evidence which does not fit the picture he is trying to present. Naimark argues that Stalin did not start with genocidal intent, but the pressure of circumstances pushed him that way. One reason for that might be that Stalin, who often declared himself to be Lenin's pupil, enthusiastically continued with Lenin's punitive policies. Naimark's definition of 'genocide' could equally well be applied to the Soviet decree abolishing the social estates of Tsarist Russia (10/23 November 1917) and the persecution of people of noble origin, or to the process of de-Cossackization in 1919-20 which put an end to the Cossacks as a separate military caste. Moreover, when the Cheka's M. Latsis declared in 1918 that 'we are not struggling against individuals, we are destroying the bourgeoisie as a class', this could also count as an incitement to genocide. The weaknesses of Naimark's formulation become apparent when it is tested against Soviet realities, even though its humanistic intent should be welcomed. There is a difference between the destruction of six million Jews by the Nazi regime - a clear case of genocide - and what happened in the USSR. To be sure, Soviet Jews suffered persecution, many Soviet nationalities were deported wholesale, and de-kulakization was a tragedy for millions of peasants, but in the USSR they were not put into gas chambers, they were sent to special settlements, in sparsely-populated areas of the country, with restrictions on their freedom of movement. The term 'Great Terror', denoting the repression in Russia in the 1930s, became popular following the publication of Robert Conquest's eponymous book 1974. However, one could argue that there was just one ongoing state terror against Soviet citizens, inaugurated by the government decrees of 18 February 1918, which brought in extrajudicial execution, and of 5 September 1918, on the Red Terror. By 1922, Red and White terror had already claimed 1.5 million victims. Stalin merely continued and perfected Lenin's repressive policies. While arguing that the 'Great Terror' had 'genocidal qualities', Naimark recognizes that it cannot be directly described as genocide (136). As he points out, the terror intensified after the end of July 1937, when NKVD chief Ezhov and the CPSU approved Decree No. 00447. On the basis of that decree, former kulaks, 188 European History Quarterly 42(1) criminals, former activists in other parties, opponents of Bolshevism, members of religious communities, former Tsarist civil servants and Cossacks were shot or imprisoned. Between August 1937 and November 1938 around 800,000 people were sentenced, approximately half of them to death, the rest to long sentences in prisons and corrective labour camps. The sentences were passed by extra-judicial bodies: three- and two-man panels, special conferences and the like. But while this was a crime against hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, it is hard to discern truly 'genocidal qualities' within it. During the Soviet period, the years 1921-22, 1932-33 and 1946-47 were years of famine, but, thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian diaspora, it was the famine of the early 1930s which got the name 'Holodomor'. This famine, Naimark argues, was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people (71-5). In 1993 an Association of Researchers into the Famine-Genocide of 1932-33 was formed in Ukraine, so Naimark is not the first to allege this. But there is no consensus on this question. At a conference of Russian and Ukrainian historians in May 2007 on the 1932-33 famine, there was just one question on which the historians could not agree - was the famine in the Ukraine an act of genocide against the Ukrainians? The Russian historians were categorically opposed to such a characterization, and the final resolution of the meeting recommended that the question be considered 'in a strictly scientific, rather than a journalistic and speculative way'. Naimark uncritically adopts the standpoint of Ukrainian politicians and certain historians, arguing that although Stalin did not kill or deport the Ukrainians he 'wanted to destroy them as a hostile nation' (78-9). He disregards alternative perspectives from Russian historians, and pays no attention to the polemic between V. P. Danilov and Robert Conquest, or to V. V. Kondrashin's study on the famine of 1932-33, which showed that it affected an area far beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately, Naimark's book is excessively politicized, and its contentions are not adequately demonstrated. Nonetheless, his attempt to widen the concept of 'genocide' will certainly stimulate further study. Kevin McDermott and Matthew Stibbe's collection, Stalinist Terror in Eastern Europe stands in stark contrast to Naimark's book. It is much more academic and objective in its arguments. Its ten chapters contain detailed accounts of the Stalinist terror in the Baltic states (Aldis Purs), Soviet Moldavia (Igor Cascu), Eastern Germany (Matthew Stibbe), Poland (Lukasz Kamin' ski), Czechoslovakia (Kevin McDermott), Hungary (La' szlo' Borhi), Romania (Dennis Deletant), Yugoslavia (Jerca Vodus ek Staric ), Bulgaria (Jordan Baev) and Albania (Robert C. Austin). The editors' introduction deals with different perspectives and interpretations of the subject. The authors examine the realities of Stalinist terror in the countries concerned, where political show trials of prominent figures were virtually carbon copies of the Soviet trials of the 1930s. They draw attention to the specific features of the repression and persecution of dissidents. The introduction notes that the authors in the volume do not have a single view as to the motives for the terror in the countries they are discussing. Some consider that external factors (the Soviet occupation, or Book Reviews 189 the presence of Soviet advisors) were the main reasons for the repression; others attribute it to the desire of the new communist authorities to be rid of possible opponents and establish their own authoritarian power, while yet others blame it on a mixture of internal and external factors. Purs, for example, remarks that in the Baltic states, 'terror was "Soviet in form, local in content" (5). The introduction argues that the basic causes of these terroristic actions were Stalin's policies themselves, and the ceaseless attempts by the security organs under Soviet tutelage to find 'enemies'. The 'enemies' identified by the new rulers followed Soviet archetypes: kulaks, private entrepreneurs, minsters of religion, social-democrats, former army officers and civil servants, etc. (5-6). The individual chapters contain data on the numbers of victims of the terror, and the forms it took (prison, execution, making examples of people, and so on). This collection is both interesting and informative. It raises many questions which need to be studied further, such as a comparative analysis of the Soviet and Nazi occupations. Moldavia and the Baltic states experienced Soviet occupation between 1940 and 1941, then Nazi occupation under their fascist-leaning leaders, followed by a second Soviet occupation after 1944. In this way, they were repressed three times. Although Yugoslavia broke away from Soviet influence in 1948, and Stalin even tried to have Tito liquidated, the communist terror nevertheless continued in Yugoslavia. And Poland, whose leadership Stalin continually mistrusted, could suddenly become 'the freest cell in the socialist camp', as the Soviet poet Bulat Okudzhava neatly put it. The articles in this collection provide a solid foundation for further investigation into these questions. -- Alter Litvin and Alla Sal'nikova. European History Quarterly