From: kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky)
Subject: Re: Communism as a Russian guilt (racist conception)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:03:46 GMT

verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>In article <kosinov.724631372@ceg.uiuc.edu> kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:
>>IN DISCUSSING RUSSIAN CULPABILITY FOR COMMUNIST  CRIMES
>>verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>	Are you mad, Tapani? What Soviet Russia?
>>>	USSR was a superpower, but Russian nationalists
>>>	were persecuted much more cruelly than 
>>>	dissidents or Jewish otkazniks.
>>
>>
>>  Now, Misha, I think that you maid a lot of good points in the rest of your
>>leangthy article, but the overstatement quoted above really riles me.
>>  The fact is that the ONLY none- or anti- Communist groups tolerated
>>during the Brezhnev era were Russian nationalists. Witness the continuous
>>publication of Nash Sovremennik throughout that time. It may not have been
>>as virulent back then, but its ideological gist was as clear as it is now.
>>  Now try to imagine reading a Jewish-nationalist, a pro-Western-democratic-
>>dissident, or, for that matter Estonian-nationalist publication openly at that
>>time, and you will understand how silly this overstatement is, and also
>>how insulting it may be to those people who were prosecuted UNLIKE, rather
>>then LESS than Russian nationalists.
>>					      Greg.

>I prefer to readdress the answering on this to some 
>Russian patriot on the net (Sergei Borodin, au!), but 
>anyway I don't think you are right. To call Brezhnev's Nash
>Sovremennik Russian nationalistic is no more valid than to call,
>say, Novyi Mir or Novyi Put' (or how the Yiddish magazine
>was called) Zionistic. The *real* nationalistic or monarchistic
>dissident activity (like the _Veche_ samizdat magazine)
>was persecuted more heavily than ordinary dissident activity.
>The reason is very simple: authorities saw more populist potential
>in "bei zhidov spasai Rossiyu" dissidents than in usual
>"human right above all" ones.

>Note that the Brezhnev's politic towards
>nationalists is not unlike tsarist persecution
>of slavyanophils (who were also being considered
>worse danger than Socialists and Zapadniks
>in 40-ies and 50-ies)

>Misha.

  Although I realize that I'm not dealing with a Russian nationalist, I once
gain must take issue with your views.

1) Nash Sovremennik was nothing like the "Yiddish Magazine". Sovetishe
Gaimland, as the name states, promoted the SOVIET HOMELAND, with a slightly
Jewish perspective but mouthing the party line 100%. Nash Sovremennik had
ITS OWN AGENDA, which of course was not openly anti-Communist, but which
was Russian-natioinalist in nature and had much less of the Soviet "newspeak"
you referred to earlier than would have been required for any other
Soviet publication.

2) Of course, those Russian nationalist organizations which were openly 
anti-Communist were persecuted. However, precisely becouse 'bei zhidov' was
such a popular sentiment (including among the communist elite, which only
wanted to be able to containe and manipulate it, not stamp it out), radical
Russian nationalism was persecuted Less, not more than other "dissident"
activity. Indeed, the current Red-Black alliance which so baffles the 
Westerners (and many Easterners as well) has very deep roots in the Brezhnev
era.

  To compare the relative intensity of persecution, remember, for example,
that Scharansky, at least wile he was in Russia, never made statements
challenging the legitimacy of the Soviet state or any of its key policies
(as much as we'd like to feel important, Jewish immigration was not a key
policy, determining the viability of the USSR). Likewise, thousands of people
of all ethnicites were persecuted for their stands on human rights (remember
Anatoly Marchenko). Can you name me ONE Russian Nationalist, who did NOT
challenge the fundumental Leninist dogma, who was imprisoned during Breznev
era.

				      Greg.