Nationalities Papers

Vol. 38, No. 5, September 2010, 741 –748

Stalin’s russocentrism in historical and international context

Andreas Umland∗

Institute for Central and East European Studies (ZIMOS), Katholische Universität Eichstätt-
Ingolstadt, Germany
(Received 20 February 2010; final version received 21 March 2010)

If Lenin were alive today and to find himself in Stalin’s hands, without any doubt, he would
have confessed being a German spy – and, maybe, with some more justification [than others
who had done so in 1937–1938]. (Georgii Fedotov after the third show trial (as quoted in
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

Liuks [Luks], Istoriia Rossii i Sovetskogo Soiuza 258)).

In 2002, David Brandenberger published with his National Bolshevism a monograph that I
suspect of being a landmark in the study of Stalinism. At least, the investigation constitutes a
rather important contribution to the historiography of contemporary Russian nationalism –
a body of literature I am familiar with. I have gladly used the book in my research and teach-
ing as well as reviewed it extensively (Umland, “Was Stalinism Nationalistic?”). It has been
a pleasure to read Brandenberger’s further elaboration on the historical role of Stalinism,
and an honor to have the opportunity to briefly comment on it.
As in the case of Brandenberger’s other publications on russocentric tendencies under
Stalin, I have learnt greatly from this brief text. Being interested in the comparative
interpretation, rather than engaged in the empirical study, of Stalinism, I am, however,
not quite sure what to do with his book’s conclusions, and what to make of the inferences
in Brandenberger’s last article. I would be prepared to embrace Brandenberger’s notion
that the spread of Russian national identity under Stalin was the result of a historical acci-
dent. But there remain too many open questions regarding the substantive, conceptual and
bibliographical aspects of his argument in order to easily accept his explanation, at once.
Below, I shall argue that, in order to become more persuasive, Brandenberger’s argument
about the merely “populist” character of Stalin’s russocentrism needs further contextuali-
zation. Namely, it calls for a consideration of the broader changes in Soviet policies and
society that took place in the 1930s – 1950s (Umland, “How Much Self-Reflection”), and
included a number of other developments paralleling the abandonment of ethnic egalitar-
ianism in educational and propaganda policies extensively documented by Brandenberger.
I would also suggest to keep in mind that fundamental revisions of Marxism also happened
in other parts of the world before, during and after high Stalinism when discussing whether
Stalinist russocentrism was merely “populist” or not.

Complementing and competing scholarly accounts

As mentioned in my 2005 comment (Umland, “Was Stalinism Nationalistic?”) on Bran-
denberger’s book (National Bolshevism), there is a body of literature within Stalinism
and totalitarianism studies that pertains indirectly, if not directly to both empirical and

∗
Email: andreas.umland@ku-eichstaett.de

ISSN 0090-5992 print/ISSN 1465-3923 online

# 2010 Association for the Study of Nationalities
DOI: 10.1080/00905992.2010.498469
http://www.informaworld.com
 742 A. Umland

interpretative issues of Brandenberger’s publications, and that is not adequately discussed

in his texts or even listed in his bibliographies. To be sure, Brandenberger mentions a lot of
publications located around the issue of whether there was Russian nationalism in the
1930s – 1950s – mainly those on earlier periods in the emergence of Russian national iden-
tity. But a number of publications that seem also pertinent to the interpretation of Russian
russocentrism under Stalin, including texts related to contextual and conceptual issues of
its historical context, still remain ignored (e.g. Billington; Kolstǿ; Kraus; Mehnert;
Popovich; Oberländer; Shlapentokh). One could argue that some of these books and
papers, like for instance some accounts of Stalinist anti-Semitism (Boschtschagowski;
Lustiger; Rapoport; Shvarts; Vaksberg) are not worth extensive scholarly review. But
others mentioned below, I would think, are. For an outsider to Stalinism studies, like
myself, it is difficult to decide what this situation would imply concerning the various
books and articles on Stalin’s revolution from above that are clearly relevant to the
argument of, but not mentioned in, Brandenberger’s text.
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

The most obvious omission concerns Erik van Ree who has published both a mono-
graph concerning a number of empirical aspects touched upon in Brandenberger’s publi-
cations (The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin), and some pertinent articles (“Stalin and
the National Question,” “Socialism in One Country,” “Nationalist Elements,” “Stalin’s
Bolshevism”). Oddly, the latter also include the, as far as I know, only scholarly paper,
apart from Agursky’s well-known book, published so far on the notion of National
Bolshevism (van Ree, “The Concept of ‘National Bolshevism’”) – the very construct
used by Brandenberger to title his book. To be sure, Brandenberger mentions briefly
one paper by van Ree (“Heroes and Merchants”). Yet, he does not introduce him as a
major interpreter of topics often dealing with questions treated by Brandenberger too.
The interested reader is left to figure out how to reconcile certain differences in the find-
ings of these two major interpreters of Stalinist russocentric policies.
The same concerns almost the entire body of literature on anti-Semitism under Stalin
(Umland, “Soviet Antisemitism,” “Ofitsial’nyi sovetskii”). Again, Brandenberger does
mention briefly the leading scholar in that field, Gennadii Kostyrchenko. But here too, Bran-
denberger ignores Kostyrchenko’s major and more recent studies on the topic (e.g. Tainaia
politika, Gosudarstvennyi antisemitizm), and only lists an earlier work that was seminal at
its time, but is dated by now (V plenu u krasnogo faraona). While Brandenberger seems to
be well-aware of the existence of a body of literature on anti-Semitism under Stalin
(Brandenberger, “Review of Kostyrchneko”), in the present article, he does not mention
most of the members of the community of scholars who have, in various languages, pub-
lished more or less relevant accounts on the situation of Jews under Stalin including
Dymerskaia-Tsigel’man (“Nezabyvaemyi 1953 – i,” “Sovetskie korni”), Gilboa, Gincberg,
Grüner, Korey, Liuks/Luks (“Evreiskii vopros,” “Antisemitizm,” “Zum Stalinschen Anti-
semitismus,” Der Spätstalinismus und die “jüdische Frage”), Medvedev, Messmer,
Naumov, Redlich (Propaganda and Nationalism; War, Holocaust and Stalinism), Vetter,
or Weinryb. While Brandenberger does mention such episodes as the “Doctors’ plot” in
his monograph (National Bolshevism 235 – 238), other aspects (e.g. Azadovskii and
Egorov) as well as the larger issue of the entire turn from philo- to anti-Semitism in early
Soviet history remain altogether insufficiently treated in Brandenberger’s book and article.

Stalin’s russocentrism in its historical context

One might argue that Brandenberger’s topic was not anti-Semitism, but Russian ethno-
centrism. Yet, the temporal coincidence of the increasing political salience of both
 Nationalities Papers 743

phenomena under Stalin suggests that the question of who the dominant people of the
Soviet Union are or should be is linked to the issue of who is not or should not be, at
the center of the Soviet system and attention of its institutions (e.g. Sinitsyn). If russocentr-
ism implies the idea that ethnic Russians are or ought to be the primary executors and
beneficiaries of Soviet cultural and cadre policies, the question arises what or who will
be (re-)located to this new system’s periphery (e.g. Weiner). Obviously, the change in
treatment of Jews was part and parcel of the russocentric redefinition of the politico-
ideological system of the USSR, under Stalin.
The latter argument can be extended to a broader critique of Brandenberger’s
approach. Brandenberger has, in his book and some further publications, immersed
himself deeply into the study of Russocentrism in educational, cultural and propaganda
policies. Perhaps, it was his particularly far-reaching penetration of these specific issues
that led him to ignore the broader historical and international context of Stalin’s russo-
centric turn. The changes that Brandenberger describes in his publications were – as
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

most readers of this debate are, of course, aware – constituent parts of a larger reconfigura-
tion in the rhetoric, image and policies of the Soviet regime in the 1930s– 1950s. The ideo-
logical-cultural aspects of Stalin’s “revolution from above” related not only to those fields
that Brandenberger is concerned about. Not the least, in reaction to the rise of the extreme
right in inter-war Europe (Liuks [Luks], Entstehung der kommunistischen Faschismusthe-
orie 182), Stalin’s “turn to the right” in the mid-1930s touched also other areas than history
writing, propaganda and education. It included, among other fields, nationalities policies
(e.g. Weitz, “Racial Politics”; “On Certainties and Ambiguities”), gender relations (e.g.
Conze), international affairs (e.g. Behrends), cadre development (e.g. Bialer), religious
policy (e.g. Kurliandskii), social policy (e.g. Carrère d’Encausse), and academia (e.g.
Gincberg). Brandenberger, I am sure, knows about all this – probably, more than myself.
What seems important here and, especially, relevant to a full assessment of the nature
of Stalinist russocentrism is, however, that these other changes went roughly “in the same
direction” as the revisions made in those policy fields that Brandenberger has focused on.
It is fascinating to read in Brandenberger’s book how, for instance, Russian history was re-
written under Stalin in ways that rather bluntly violated both Marxist-Leninist dogma, in
particular, and a scientistic, universalistic approach to world history, in general. But fun-
damental revisions happened, of course, also and, approximately, at the same time, in, for
instance, the definition of the place and role of women in Soviet society (e.g. Conze). This
aspect had, to be sure, no direct relation to the propagation of pre-revolutionary Russian
national heroes. But the changes in gender and family policies as well as in numerous
other policy fields were in so far phenomena paralleling the various russocentric revisions
in that they too violated more or less openly the initially emancipatory premises of com-
munist ideology, and had a “right-wing” bent. When Brandenberger in his book aptly
writes that the rise of russocentric tendencies in the 1930s “amounted to no less than an
ideological about-face” (National Bolshevism 8) one might add that this turn was of an
even larger dimension than documented and analyzed by Brandenberger.
Obviously, these other changes were not (and, perhaps, could not be) Brandenberger’s
subjects of study, and may not even have been topics of interest to him. Yet these parallel
developments become of concern when it comes to a more general interpretation of the
nature of Stalin’s rule that Brandenberger seemingly attempted, in his book’s conclusions
as well as in the brief paper discussed here. Elaborating on an idea that had been uttered by
Georgii Fedotov as early as 1935 (Liuks [Luks], Zwei Gesichter des Totalitarismus 102),
the argument in Brandenberger’s book and article seems to be that, in spite of its manifest
russocentrism, the Soviet dictatorship under Stalin continued to be a properly communist
 744 A. Umland

one. Such a paradox can, according to Brandenberger, be explained by the less than
genuine – or “populist” – embrace of the nationalist rhetoric and ideas by the Soviet lea-
dership. Brandenberger might well be right with this interpretation. Yet, in that case, the
Soviet leadership’s “populism” went, apparently, much further than implied by Branden-
berger. It also included more or less radical changes of policies regarding national min-
orities, the two sexes (including homosexuality), the Russian Orthodox Church, foreign
countries (e.g. Nazi Germany in 1939 – 1940), communist party veterans, salaries of
elite members, access to education, etc. Here too, the Soviet leadership clearly went
beyond or against what a left-wing world view, in general, and original communist ideol-
ogy as well as classical “Bolshevik ideals,” in particular, would seem to prescribe.
To be sure, already Lenin had, when it came to practical issues, shown considerable
“pragmatism” in the application of Marx’s dogma (Nielsen). Arguably, Lenin’s elitism
and authoritarianism may already have been major departures from classical Marxism
(Lovell). Yet, Lenin’s revision could still be and has frequently been interpreted as a
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

necessary adaptation of communist theory to the reality of revolutionary Russia. While

they arguably “betrayed” some of orthodox Marxists’ most cherished ideals, Lenin and
most of the “Old Bolsheviks” not only rhetorically, but (at least, in their own view)
also practically remained faithful to certain basics of an optimistic attitude towards
human nature and the resulting rationalism, internationalism, antisexism, antitraditional-
ism, etc. when describing the society they aimed to construct. In contrast, Stalin’s aberra-
tions, as a whole, were of a different magnitude and went more obviously against the
fundamentals of the socialist world view. They have since been seen by a number of
left-wing or left-leaning observers around the world as manifest betrayals of Marx (e.g.
Daniels; Golubović; Marković).

The ubiquitousness of apostasy from Marxism in interwar Europe

This leads me to the final point concerning a general interpretation of Stalinism that Bran-
denberger seemingly attempted here. Stalin’s turn from the militant internationalism of
Old Bolshevism to the cryptic and, sometimes, not so cryptic russocentrism of the
1930s – 1950s was, of course, not the only such turnaround in post-World War I Europe.
In fact, already before and during the Great War such prominent socialists as Georges
Sorel or Benito Mussolini had completed stunning ideological travels from the radical
left to the extreme right. Among the many originally left-wing socialists who followed
them, during the interwar period, were the Frenchmen Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot,
Flemish burgher Hendrik de Man as well as English aristocrat Oswald Mosley (Vogt).
More recently, some of the former ruling parties of the Soviet bloc, first and foremost
the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (e.g. Gregor, “Fascism and the New
Russian Nationalism;” Umland, “Neue ideologische Fusionen” 393 – 402; Vujačić),
made also astounding adaptations of their ideologies to the post-Soviet world.
Zeev Sternhell (The Birth of Fascist Ideology; Neither Right nor Left has, in his pub-
lications, developed an entire theory of fascism out of the idea that certain brands of
modern ultra-nationalism had their origins in various socialists’ rethinking of some
basics of their view of the world. Partly paralleling Sternhell, A. James Gregor (Contem-
porary Radical Ideologies; The Ideology of Fascism; The Fascist Persuasion; Italian
Fascism; Phoenix; The Faces of Janus) has, in numerous publications, gone even
further in seeing fascism as constituting, above all, a revision of Marxism. To be sure,
Gregor has, with his idiosyncratic interpretation of fascism, remained – in my opinion,
rightly so – largely isolated within comparative fascist studies. Also, Stalin’s revisionism
 Nationalities Papers 745

did – and, perhaps, for reasons of path dependency – could not go as far as those of the
inter-war fascists (Luks, Entstehung der kommunistischen Faschismustheorie, 184), or of
the post-Cold War neo-communists. Still, Gregor’s, Sternhell’s and others’ elaborations
on the transmutation of originally left-wing ideologies into extremely right-wing doctrines
after World War I might have been worth considering when claiming that Stalin’s russo-
centric turn during roughly the same time period was of a merely “populist” nature.
The point of this critique is less to get into the tricky endeavor of a hermeneutics of
Marxist revisionism than a questioning of an interpretation of Stalinist russocentrism as
mere “populism” without a consideration of other consequential and presumably
equally “populist” alterations of the legitimizing codes, if not the normative foundations
of the Soviet system. Unless, Brandenberger answers why and how the entire “shift to
the right” – and not only the russocentric turn – under Stalin can be dismissed as mere
propaganda tactics and why exactly Stalin’s revision was thus fundamentally different
from that of other socialist renegades of his time, I shall remain unconvinced.
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

References
Agursky, Mikhail. The Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the USSR. Boulder, CO: West-
view, 1987. Print.
Azadovskii, Konstantin and Boris Egorov. “From Anti-Westernism to Anti-Semitism.”
Journal of Cold War Studies 4.1 (2002): 66– 80. Print.
Behrends, Jan C. “Vom Panslawismus zum ‘Friedenskampf:’ Außenpolitik, Herrschaftslegiti-
mation und Massenmobilisierung im sowjetischen Nachkriegsimperium (1944 –1953).”
Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 56.1 (2008): 27 – 53. Print.
Bialer, Seweryn. “How Russians Rule Russia.” Problems of Communism 13.5 (1964): 45 –52.
Billington, James H. “The Legacy of Russian History.” The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of
the Totalitarian Era. 3rd edn. Ed. Robert V. Daniels. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1990.
183 –193. Print.
Borschtschagowski, Alexander. Orden für einen Mord: Die Judenverfolgung unter Stalin.
Berlin: Propyläen, 1997. Print.
Brandenberger, David. “Review of Kostyrchenko, V plenu u krasnogo faraona, Kostyrchenko,
Out of the Red Shadows, and Borshchagovsky, Obvinyaetsya krov’.” Europe-Asia Studies
51.2 (1999): 347 –350. Print.
———. National Bolshevism: Stalinist Mass Culture and the Formation of Modern Russian
National Identity, 1931 –1956. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2002. Print.
Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène. “The Return of Inequality.” The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of
the Totalitarian Era. 3rd edn. Ed. Robert V. Daniels. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1990.
131 –38. Print.
Conze, Susanne. “Weder Emanzipation noch Tradition: Stalinistische Frauenpolitik in den
vierziger Jahren.” Stalinismus: Neue Forschungen und Konzepte. Ed. Stefan Plaggenborg.
Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 1998. 293– 320. Print.
Daniels, Robert V. “Was Stalin Really a Communist?” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review
20.2 –3 (1993): 169 – 75. Print.
Dymerskaia-Tsigel’man, Liudmila. “Nezabyvaemyi 1953-i.” Forum noveishei vostochnoevro-
peiskoi istorii i kul’tury 2.1 (2005). Web. 19 Jan. 2010 ,http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/
ZIMOS/forum/docs/04Dymerskaja1953.pdf.
———. “Sovetskie korni sovremennogo antisemitizma.” Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeis-
koi istorii i kul’tury 3.2 (2006). Web. 19 Jan. 2010 ,http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/
forum/docs/Dymerskaja.pdf.
Gilboa, Yehoshua. The Black Years of Soviet Jewry, 1939– 1953. Boston/Toronto: Little,
Brown and Co./Brandeis University, 1971. Print.
 746 A. Umland

Gincberg, Lev. “Das bolschewistische Regime und die Geisteswissenschaften: Erinnerungen

eines Zeitzeugen.” Forum für osteuropäische Ideen- und Zeitgeschichte 9.1 (2005): 203–
23. Print.
Golubović, Zagorka. “Stalinism Against Socialism.” The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the
Totalitarian Era. 3rd edn. Ed. Robert V. Daniels. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1990. 251–
63. Print.
Gregor, A. James. Contemporary Radical Ideologies: Totalitarian Thought in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Random House, 1968. Print.
———. The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale for Totalitarianism. New York: Free Press,
1969. Print.
———. The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1974. Print.
———. Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1979.
Print.
———. “Fascism and the New Russian Nationalism.” Communist and Post-Communist
Studies 31.1 (1998): 1 – 15. Print.
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

———. Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1999. Print.
———. The Faces of Janus: Fascism and Marxism in the Twentieth Century. New Haven:
Yale UP, 2000. Print.
Grüner, Frank. Patrioten und Kosmopoliten: Juden im Sowjetstaat 1941– 1953. Köln: Böhlau,
2008. Print.
Kolstǿ, Pål. “The Concept of ‘Patriotic Internationalism’: A Contribution to the Understanding
of Soviet Ideology.” Nordic Journal of Soviet and East European Studies 1.4 (1984): 1 –29.
Print.
Korey, William. “The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis.” Slavic
Review 31.1 (1972): 111 –35.Print.
Kostyrchenko, Gennadii. V plenu u krasnogo faraona: Politicheskie presledovaniia evreev v
SSSR v poslednee stalinskoe desiatiletie. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 1994.
Print.
———. Tainaia politika Stalina: Vlast’ i antisemitizm. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia,
2003. Print.
———. Comp. Gosudarstvennyi antisemitizm v SSSR: Ot nachala do kul’minatsii, 1938–
1953. Ed. Aleksandr N. Iakovlev. Moskva: MFD-Materik, 2005. Print.
Kraus, Tamash. Sovetskii termidor: Dukhovnye predposylki stalinskogo perevorota (1917 –
1928). Budapest: Vengerskii institute rusistiki, 1997. Print.
Kurliandskii, Igor’ A. “O mnimom povorote Stalina k pravoslavnoi tserkvi.” Voprosy istorii 9
(2008): 3 –16. Print.
Liuks [Luks], Leonid. “Evreiskii vopros v politike Stalina.” Voprosy istorii 7 (1999): 41 –59.
Print.
———. “Antisemitizm v politike Stalina.” Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeiskoi istorii i
kul’tury 5.2 (2008): 32– 72. Web. 19 Jan. 2010 ,http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/
forum/docs/forumruss10/3LuksFR10.pdf.
———. Istoriia Rossii i Sovetskogo soiuza: Ot Lenina do El’tsina. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2009.
Print.
———. Entstehung der kommunistischen Faschismustheorie: Die Auseinandersetzung der
Komintern mit Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Stuttgart: DVA, 1985. Print.
———. “Zum Stalinschen Antisemitismus: Brüche und Widersprüche.” Jahrbuch für Histor-
ische Kommunismusforschung 13 (1997): 9 –50. Print.
———, Ed. Der Spätstalinismus und die “jüdische Frage:” Zur antisemitischen Wendung des
Kommunismus. Köln: Böhlau, 1998. Print.
———. Zwei Gesichter des Totalitarismus: Bolschewismus und Nationalsozialismus im Ver-
gleich. Köln: Böhlau, 2007. Print.
Lovell, David W. From Marx to Lenin: An Evaluation of Marx’s Responsibility for Soviet
Authoritarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Print.
 Nationalities Papers 747

Lustiger, Arno. Rotbuch: Stalin und die Juden. Berlin: Aufbau, 1998. Print.
Marković, Mihailo. “Stalinism and Marxism.” Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation.
Ed. Robert C. Tucker. New York: Norton, 1977. 299 – 319. Print.
Medvedev, Zhores. Stalin i evreiskaia problema: Novyi analiz. Moskva: Prava Cheloveka,
2003. Print.
Mehnert, Klaus. Stalin versus Marx: The Stalinist Historical Doctrine. London: Allen &
Unwin, 1952. Print.
Messmer, Matthias. Sowjetischer und postkommunistischer Antisemitismus: Entwicklungen in
Russland, der Ukraine und Litauen. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre, 1997. Print.
Naumov, V.P. “Razgrom Evreiskogo antifashistskogo komiteta.” Forum noveishei vostoch-
noevropeiskoi istorii i kul’tury 2.2 (2005). Web. 19 Jan. 2010 ,http://www1.ku-
eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/forum/docs/8Naumov%20rus.pdf.
Nielsen, Kai. “On Marx Not Being an Egalitarian.” Studies in Soviet Thought 35 (1998): 287–
326. Print.
Oberländer, Erwin, Ed. Sowjetpatriotismus und Geschichte. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch,
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

1967. Print.
Popovich, N. “Sovetskaia politika po ukrepleniiu russkogo patriotizma i samosoznaniia
(1935 – 1945 gg.).” Rossiia v XX veke: Istoriki mira sporiat. Moskva: Nauka, 1994. 468–
74. Print.
Rapoport, Louis. Stalin’s War Against the Jews: The Doctors’ Plot and the Soviet Solution.
New York: The Free Press, 1990. Print.
Redlich, Shimon. Propaganda and Nationalism in Wartime Russia: The Jewish Anti-Fascist
Committee in the USSR, 1941 – 1948. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1982. Print.
———. Ed. War, Holocaust and Stalinism: A Documented Study of the Jewish Anti-Fascist
Committee in the USSR. Luxembourg: Harwood, 1995. Print.
Shlapentokh, Dmitry. “Bolshevism, Nationalism, and Statism: Soviet Ideology in Formation.”
The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The Revolution and the Civil Wars. Ed. Vladimir
Brovkin. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1997. 271– 97. Print.
Shvarts, S.M. Antisemitizm v Sovetskom Soiuze. New York: Izd-v im. Chekhova, 1952. Print.
Sinitsyn, Fedor L. “Problema natsional’nogo i internatsional’nogo v natsional’noi politike i
propagande v SSSR v 1944-pervoi polovine 1945 goda.” Rossiiskaia istoriia 6 (2009):
40 –53. Print.
Sternhell, Zeev. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolu-
tion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1994. Print.
———. Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1995.
Print.
Umland, Andreas. “Soviet Antisemitism after Stalin.” East European Jewish Affairs 29.1– 2
(1999): 159 –68. Print.
———. “Ofitsial’nyi sovetskii antisemitizm poslestalinskogo perioda.” Pro et Contra 7.2
(2002): 158 –68. Print.
———. “How Much Self-Reflection Does Stalinism Studies Need?” H-Net Reviews in the
Humanities & Social Sciences February 2003. Web. 19 Jan. 2010 ,http://www.h-net.org.
———. “Was Stalinism Nationalistic?” Labour History News April 2005. Web. 19 Jan.
2010.
———. “Neue ideologische Fusionen im russischen Antidemokratismus: Westliche Konzepte,
antiwestliche Doktrinen und das postsowjetische politische Spektrum.“ Gefährdungen der
Freiheit: Extremistische Ideologien im Vergleich. Ed. Uwe Backes and Eckhard Jesse. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprechte, 2006. 371– 406. Print.
van Ree, Erik. “Stalin and the National Question.” Revolutionary Russia 7.2 (1994): 214 –38.
Print.
———. “Socialism in One Country: A Reassessment.” Studies in East European Thought 50
(1998): 77 –117. Print.
 748 A. Umland

———. “Nationalist Elements in the Work of Marx and Engels: A Critical Survey.” MEGA-
Studien. 1 (2000): 25– 49. Print.
———. “Stalin’s Bolshevism: The Year of the Revolution.” Revolutionary Russia 13.1 (2000):
29 –54. Print.
———. “The Concept of ‘National Bolshevism:’ An Interpretative Essay.” Journal of Political
Ideologies 6.3 (2001): 289 – 307. Print.
———. The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary
Patriotism. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. Print.
———. “Heroes and Merchants: Stalin’s Understanding of National Character.” Kritika 8.1
(2007): 41 –65. Print.
Vaksberg, Arkady. Stalin Against the Jews. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994. Print.
Vetter, Matthias. Antisemiten und Bolschewiki: Zum Verhältnis von Sowjetsystem und Juden-
feindschaft. Berlin: Metropol, 1995. Print.
Vogt, Stefan. “Zwischen Sozialismus und Faschismus: Nationaler Sozialismus im Europa der
Vor- und Zwischenkriegszeit.” Ideengeschichte als politische Aufklärung: Festschrift für
Downloaded By: [Umland, Andreas][Umland, Andreas] At: 14:55 2 August 2010

Wolfgang Wippermann zum 65. Geburtstag. Eds. Stefan Vogt et al. Berlin: Metropol,
2010. 72 –107. Print.
Vujačić, Veljko. “Gennadiy Zyuganov and the ‘Third Road’.” Post-Soviet Affairs 12.2 (1996):
118 –54. Print.
Weiner, Amir. “Nature, Nurture, and Memory in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet
Socio-Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism.” The American Historical Review 104.4
(1999): 1114 – 55. Print.
Weinryb, Bernard D. “Antisemitism in Soviet Russia.” The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917.
3rd edn. Ed. Lionel Kochan. New York: Oxford UP, 1978. 300– 32. Print.
Weitz, Eric D. “Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and
National Purges.” Slavic Review. 61.1 (2002): 1 – 29. Print.
———. “On Certainties and Ambivalences: Reply to My Critics.” Slavic Review. 61.1 (2002):
62 –65. Print.