The studying trends of the issue of voluntary cooperation of Soviets with Nazis during the Great Patriotic War

Alenicheva Yana Sergeevna Postgraduate student, Department of history of Russia, Pushkin Leningrad state University 196605, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Pushkin, Peterburgskoe highway, 10 alenicheva.history@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The topic of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens with the German occupiers during the Great Patriotic War is traditionally considered insufficiently studied. There are several reasons for this: from the complete absence and limited statement of facts in Soviet historiography to speculation and tendentiousness of post-Soviet publicists and scientists, whose works are not always objective and rely on a sufficient evidence base.

O.V. Bulyga in his work notes that “...until the end of the 1960s, there was no mention of collaboration as a wartime phenomenon in Russian literature” ^{[6, pp. 83-84]}. For example, in the period from the beginning of the 60s to the end of the 80s of the XX century, a number of fundamental reference works on the history of the Great Patriotic War were published in the USSR ^{[15, 16]}, in which there are no materials concerning the issues of voluntary cooperation of the population of the Soviet Union with the occupation authorities of Nazi Germany.

One of the first works in which assumptions about voluntary cooperation with the enemy were first made was the book by M.M. Zagorulko and A.F. Yudenkov ^[14]. In particular, the authors note that “... bourgeois nationalists, professional spies, rural world-eaters who were dispossessed at the time, political criminals, criminals and similar elements were capable of conscious collaboration” [Ibid., p. 162].   In the work, the authors mention the experience of the Lokotsky district self-government [Ibid., pp. 163-164], describing political leaders, K. Voskoboynik (collaborator, first mayor of the Lokotsky district self-government, was killed by partisans in 1942) and B. Kaminsky (collaborator, creator of the Russian Liberation People's Army (RONA), headed the Lokotsky district self-government after the death of K. Voskoboynika), “experienced spies” and “counter-revolutionaries” [Ibid., p. 164]. It is also worth mentioning the article by F. Titov's "Perjurers" ^[30], published in the late 1970s: this work is certainly valuable for the introduction of new archival documents into circulation and the first serious attempt to investigate the development of collaboration as a full-fledged phenomenon. At the same time, the author called the collaborators “vile scum” [Ibid., p. 193] and explained the emergence and development of cooperation with the occupiers with base motives: the desire to realize ambitions, curry favor, out of fear or desire to profit from compatriots: “The trial of Vlasov and his accomplices in the gravest crimes before the Motherland exposed all the squalor of those who out of vanity, careerist motives or cowardice, for the sake of selfish interests, he zealously served any enemy of humanity - German fascism...” [Ibid., p. 209].

It should be noted that the traditional approach to the study of the phenomenon of collaboration in Soviet historiography was based solely on subjective factors: scientists and publicists shifted responsibility for episodes of cooperation to specific personalities and denied the principle of voluntariness and the possibility of the existence and manifestation of civil initiative of the Soviet population. The above-mentioned O.V. Bulyga noted that “... in the works of domestic authors, collaboration is most often presented as the lot of individuals, singles, i.e. it is considered not as a phenomenon, but as a misunderstanding not peculiar to Soviet man” ^{[6, p. 92]}. As a rule, in Soviet historiography, the problem of collaboration was highlighted by the examples of the Vlasov movement ^[17] and Cossack formations ^[33]. Other problems of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens with the Nazi occupiers were studied in fragments.

In the post-Soviet period, the first studies appeared on the topic of collaboration, considering collaboration as a complex process with socio-political, economic and religious roots ^{[1, 27, 28]}.

In particular, in his work ^[26] M.I. Semiryaga recognizes as the origins of collaboration “... difficult economic, political and national conditions ...” [Ibid., p. 21], and in relation to the USSR, the author notes that to study in the context of the prerequisites and reasons that prompted Soviet citizens to cooperate with the enemy, it is necessary not only the pre-war years, but earlier events when in the Soviet Union.“..there were such political conditions that favored his (collaboration - approx. author) growth” [Ibid., p. 15].  

In the scientific works of S.I. Drobyazko ^[10], A.B. Okorokova ^[23], I.G. Ermolova ^[11], P.M. Polyana ^[25], Yu.S. Tsurganova ^[34] the facts of cooperation of citizens of the USSR with the enemy are also considered in many ways: as phenomena requiring comprehensive analysis and systematic study.

For example, S.I. Drobyazko in his research ^[9] pays much attention to Cossack formations in Verkhmat. He notes that "The appearance of Cossack units in the Upper ranks was most facilitated by the reputation of the Cossacks as irreconcilable fighters against Bolshevism, won by them during the Civil War" [Ibid., p. 35].

I.G. Ermolov in his book ^[13] studies in detail administrative, economic, political, religious collaboration, as well as the cooperation of the local population with the occupation authorities in the field of science, culture and education. The author believes that "Civil collaboration is a new term in historical science, which has not even been mentioned in special works until now..." [Ibid., p. 8]. He also reviews the phenomenon of the Lokotsky district self-government: I.G. Ermolov is sure that the main actors of political, administrative, and economic changes in this zone, which led to stability and a fairly high standard of living of the population, in comparison with other occupied territories, were not German forces, but ideological collaborators: “Having become in the pre-war years a kind of settler of the disgraced the Elbow thus gave the basis for the development of strong anti-Soviet sentiments.” ^{[12, p. 227]}   

In recent decades, the topic of studying collaborationism in the USSR has become dominated by regional interest. There were scientific works on the occupation regime of the “south-western region” during the Great Patriotic War: in Bryansk ^[35], Kursk ^{[20, 22]}, Smolensk ^[24], Voronezh ^{[31, 32]} and other regions.

Interestingly, when studying territories close to each other, but different, researchers come to some similar conclusions: for example, about the complete confusion and disorientation of the Soviet population at the beginning of the war ^[21]. The state of shock and confusion, often caused by the failure of the promises of Soviet propaganda on the eve of the Great Patriotic War ^[5], gave rise to a sense of helplessness and extreme uncertainty in the party leadership and its ability to defend the Motherland. In such conditions, the further actions and motives of the population who found themselves in the occupied territories often depended on the personal attitudes, character and temperament of each citizen. So, L.A. Bolokina writes: “...the majority of residents of the region (Kalinin, now Tver - approx. the author) came to the conclusion that it is worth counting only on yourself, since there may not be instructions or help from above. Under these conditions, everyone chose their own line of conduct.”      

If we talk about the degree of study of the topic among foreign authors, it is impossible not to mention J. Hoffman ^[41], G. Fischer ^[37], M. Cooper ^[36], T. Schulte ^[38], A. Werth ^[7], S. Steenberg ^[29], D. Armstrong ^[2], A. Dallin ^[8].

Unlike the Soviet historiographical school, which was under ideological pressure and unable to pay close attention to the study of voluntary Soviet collaboration, foreign authors began publishing their first works on this topic almost immediately after the end of the war ^[39].

So, in G. Fischer's book, back in 1952, the historian writes about the formation of the "surprise attack school" (the theory of a sudden attack) and the “revolt school" (the theory of protest) as about the two main points of view explaining the mass surrender of the Soviet military in 1941-1942 ^{[38, p. 3]}. The first system of views is based on the work of F. Schumann (American historian, author of the book “Soviet Politics at Home and Abroad” (Soviet politics at Home and Abroad, 1946) and explains the early defeats of the Red Army by the “surprise effect” of the Hitlerite attack: the basis, however, for such a conclusion is Stalin's speech to the Soviet population from July 1941. However, a polar point of view prevails in the USA of the 1950s, says the historian, which can be succinctly expressed in the words of the famous American journalist Wallace Carroll: “... despite the fact that throughout the 1930s Soviet propaganda condemned the Germans, Soviet soldiers, peasants and townspeople, and, especially, representatives of national minorities, they met the Germans as liberators from the regime they hated” [Ibid., p. 4].  

G. Fischer himself elaborates in detail and defends the “concept of Inertia”, explaining the first military victories of Germany, which ensured the occupation of Soviet territories, by the chaos that arose in society and characteristic of both ordinary citizens and well-known party figures, due to the state of inertia, mass apoliticality and dependence on the momentary instructions of the leadership, made possible over the years of the totalitarian system. It can be seen that the concept of the American historian, formulated by him back in the 1950s, is voluntarily or involuntarily reflected in the above-mentioned studies of modern Russian authors, indicating the state of uncertainty and stupefaction in which Soviet society found itself at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

The opposite point of view is expressed by the German historian Norbert Muller, who claims that the popular movement against Hitler and his army became universal soon after the entry of enemy troops into the territory of the USSR, since citizens fought not only for their native land and their family, but also for communist values and the existing state system. “Defense of the Socialist Fatherland (...) it determined the content of this struggle and was crucial for giving it a mass character” ^[40]. This idea is also confirmed in modern works: exploring the impact of the Soviet propaganda apparatus on the mass consciousness of people, L.A. Bolokina writes: “...the ruling elite made the main bet on the representatives of the younger generation, educating them to be loyal to the regime, for which a whole range of educational and educational programs was developed.”

In general, the confrontation between domestic and foreign historiography on the topic of collaboration during the Great Patriotic War rested (often on the example of the ROA) in a dispute: were the citizens of the USSR, who were on the side of the enemy, a real independent force or not. The former defend a negative position: “If we turn to the transcript of the meeting in Hitler's mountain residence ... a lot becomes clear, and, first of all, the inconsistency of the claims about the guarantees allegedly given by the Germans to create the ROA as an independent combat-ready army for the liberation of Russia ...” ^{[16, p.]}, the latter argue that “...Under other political conditions, and if the Germans had understood Vlasov, the ROA would have shaken the entire complex system of the Soviet state apparatus to the ground only as a result of its emergence, only with the help of propaganda, without a struggle.”^[41]  

It is worth noting that the early studies of both foreign and domestic scientists devoted to the topic of collaboration are often one-sided: Soviet historians were limited by ideological frameworks, and foreign ones did not have access to archival documents of the USSR. In addition, it is clearly noticeable that the works of foreign scientists are primarily aimed at studying collaboration in the context of the struggle and confrontation with the Soviet government, other features and forms are considered fragmentary or ignored.

Separately, we note the latest research of 2020-2023 on the topic of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens with the Nazi occupiers.

Historians are very interested in studying the propaganda mechanisms of the Third Reich ^[17] and anti-Soviet periodicals, often produced by collaborators ^[3]. Taking into account the high degree of politicization of issues related to the Great Patriotic War, studies studying the transformation of memory about it are interesting ^[4]: in the context of the topic of collaboration, this is especially important, since it affects the change in attitudes and criteria for evaluating the actions of people who decided to cooperate with the Germans. In general, it can be noted that over the past few years, in the light of the current military conflicts, the topic of collaboration in the research of modern authors has become especially relevant.   

In conclusion, we note that despite the voluminous historiography and a weighty list of research papers, the relevance of studying the voluntary cooperation of the population of the Soviet Union with the Nazi occupation authorities is undeniable and important. Many aspects of this issue need additional objective and comprehensive analysis, free from manipulation and political regulation of the issue: for example, the forms, types and features of civil collaboration in the territories that have been occupied.