Library
|
Your profile |
History magazine - researches
Reference:
Alenicheva I.S.
Discussion about the Soviet collaboration: a View on the problem of domestic and foreign history researches
// History magazine - researches.
2024. ¹ 2.
P. 196-205.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0609.2024.2.69180 EDN: NLWYAN URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=69180
Discussion about the Soviet collaboration: a View on the problem of domestic and foreign history researches
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0609.2024.2.69180EDN: NLWYANReceived: 01-12-2023Published: 10-04-2024Abstract: Continuing to explore Soviet collaboration, the author draws attention to the evolution of scientific thought about this phenomenon, analyzing in detail the work of domestic and foreign scientists. Decade after decade, the trends formed and put forward by historians as the main directions for analyzing, describing and evaluating the phenomenon of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens with the German occupiers are being analyzed. Of particular importance is the accumulation of scientific research on the topic, which allows us to see the key ideas, as well as their successive changes: declaring at the beginning the parallelism of views of domestic and foreign historians in the post-war period, the author identifies the first points of contact, finds coincidences and divergences of views, follows the development of the discussion about the prerequisites, motives, forms and fate of Soviet collaborationism. When writing this article, in order to organize voluminous disparate scientific information, the author used comparative and aggregate research methods, as well as the method of historical analysis. Noting the similarities and differences in the vectors of development of scientific interests of researchers on the topic of Soviet collaboration during the Great Patriotic War, the article shows how scientifically based disputes enrich each other in Russia and abroad. A special contribution of the author was the introduction of foreign literature that had not previously been published in Russian, as well as an appeal to the works of modern researchers of related history sciences (political science, international relations), which had not previously come to the attention of Russian historians. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of scientific concepts competing with each other, the author identifies areas on the topic of Soviet collaboration that need additional attention and development for both domestic and foreign specialists. Keywords: the Great Patriotic War, collaboration, German occupation, complicity, Collaboration with the Nazis, World War II, Soviet collaboration, The USSR in the war, Betrayal, Military historyThis article is automatically translated. Collaboration, in the sense of voluntary cooperation of the population with the enemy of the country of citizenship in wartime, was and remains a difficult phenomenon to study. On the one hand, the study of the problem of assistance to the enemy at a time vulnerable to the state enriches socio-political history: focusing on the conditions prevailing in the pre-war period, analyzing the causes of certain sentiments among the population, analyzing the scale and consequences of complicity. On the other hand, the study of collaboration can be regarded by society as an attempt to blur the boundaries between traitors and heroes, belittle the role of military victories and the merits of their country, actions to decompose patriotic feelings and change the traditions of the culture of memory. One way or another, the issue of Soviet collaboration during the Great Patriotic War does not cease to worry domestic and foreign authors: having, sometimes, radically different points of view on this phenomenon, historians enter into discussions, cite the arguments obtained during the research, trying to carefully study little-known episodes in the history of cooperation between Soviet citizens and the German invaders, to obtain new data in the archives. Even in wartime and the first years after the end of World War II, two main trends can be traced on the topic of collaboration in the USSR: domestic authors focus on the mass character of the partisan movement and crimes committed by the Germans in the occupied territories [1, 11, 32, 37, 40], and foreign ones explore the history of Soviet-German relations on the eve of the war [59]. Separately, the book by A. Leontiev [27] should be noted: written in a style not devoid of emotion [1], the work tells about the directive on the management of the occupied territories of the USSR captured by the Red Army. In terms of collaboration, the author notes the following: “Only some pathetic renegades, people without kin and tribe from among the criminal or decomposed elements were found by the German occupiers and used for their own purposes” [Ibid., p. 41]. Among the significant books of foreign researchers of that time, A. Task should be mentioned [60]. The French journalist describes the specifics of relations between the USSR and Germany since 1917, since the time of the Weimar Republic and the RSFSR: analyzing the opportunities that the Rapallo Treaty gave the countries mutually, A. Taska tells about the gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Berlin, culminating in the question of the partition of Poland. Claiming that Germany evaded the military provisions of the treaty and, bypassing the requirements of the Versailles Peace, built factories for the production of aircraft parts on the territory of the USSR, the journalist, meanwhile, declares: “It was Hitler, and only Hitler, who showed the first signs of hostility towards his powerful partner in the East. Stalin ... was forced to take precautions in the face of this growing threat” [Ibid.]. In the 50s and 60s of the XX century, Russian historiography continued to be dominated by works devoted to partisan struggle [9, 46]. One by one, books are published abroad claiming that the roots of Soviet collaborationism grew out of the anti-communist sentiments of the population, which constitute opposition to the Stalinist government [49, 57]. Critical articles appear against the United States of America, which facilitated the forced repatriation of Russians who fought against the Soviet country [58]. The book of that period, written by the British military, scrupulously studying the communist partisan movement, looks provocative: paying tribute to the successes of the Soviet partisans, the authors suggest that the USSR deliberately did not sign the provisions of the Geneva Convention in order to anger the “people's avengers” with the excesses of the Germans and strengthen the guerrilla struggle in the occupied territories [12]. The British remark: “If the answer we tried to give to the questions posed is correct, then we can say that the Soviets managed to carry out the most dexterous event that psychological warfare has ever known” [Ibid.]. W. Shearer, meanwhile, emphasizes that the Russians always fought “to the last” and even being partially defeated, in October-November 1941, they did not realize this. Recalling the meeting of Colonel General G. Guderian with the old tsarist general from Orel, he quotes the following words: “If you had only arrived twenty years ago, we would have welcomed you with open arms. But now it's too late ... Now we are fighting for Russia, and in this matter we are all united” [56]. Over the next decade, scientists in Russian historiography also talk a lot about the partisans [20], publish declassified documents [38], but two new trends appear: the study of management in the occupied territories [5] and the first open discussions with foreign authors [4]. Thus, L.A. Bezymensky writes: “Western historiography speaks least of all and most reluctantly about the power of the Soviet state, about the heroism of Soviet soldiers, about the fortress of the Soviet rear. There is a taboo on all this” [Ibid.]. New directions in the development of thought about collaboration are becoming noticeable among foreign sources: professional researchers are beginning to talk about the inefficiency of German governance in the occupied territories due to National socialist ideological attitudes, and, as a result, the impossibility of forming full-fledged opposition forces [54], and the memoirs of former Vlasovites confirm this. A.G. Aldan writes in his memoirs: “The Nazi leadership, of course, had reason to distrust the Russians. They understood that the Russian Liberation Movement (ROD) and the ROA were equally directed against Bolshevism, as well as against Nazism and Fascism” [2]. The 1970s are characterized by the coincidence of the close interest of domestic and foreign historians in the “Vlasov region”. S. Steenberg argues: “He (Vlasov - approx. the author) wanted to return Russia back to the normal state it was deprived of thanks to the October Revolution” [39], Lieutenant Colonel G. Pshenichny, an active participant in the Vlasov movement, recalls: “There was mutual distrust, insincerity on the part of the Germans, contemptuous attitude towards Russians, unwillingness or inability of German circles to assess reality. This drowned out everything healthy, caused various ideological fluctuations...” [34, p.84], but A.V. Tishkov condemns his contemporaries for such thoughts, reproaching them for their desire to “whitewash” the traitor general [41]. Among the works of the 80s, books by V.N. Zemsky [21] are notable, who separately highlighted the role of the working class in the struggle against the German occupiers, as well as M.M. Zagorulko and A.F. Yudenkov [19]. Researchers introduce previously unpublished documents, including from German archives, and are among the first to mention the experience of the Lokotsky district government [Ibid., pp.163-164]. At the same time, foreign authors are actively studying the pro-Russian German elite, which is in opposition to Hitler in Germany: A. Alexiev in his work lists such prominent political figures (V. Schulenburg, K. Stauffenberg, H. Treskov and others), talking about internal contradictions and disputes over whether it is worth supporting the national sentiments of some segments of the Soviet Union the population and their aspirations for independence or not [48]. The 1990s were characterized by a real “explosion” of publications devoted to the issue of Soviet collaborationism: the number of works by domestic historians here is disproportionately greater than foreign ones. Freed from ideological pressure, Russian historiography unfolds heated discussions among compatriots on its pages: most of them are again interested in the Vlasov movement [25, 35], but more openly asks questions, formulates bold assumptions [26, 29]. There are books and articles devoted to the study of Soviet collaborationism on a national basis [8, 28], telling about the post-war fate of the anti-communists [22]. The first scientific works of S.I. Drobyazko are published, paying special attention to the topic of participation of Soviet citizens in the ranks of the Wehrmacht [13, 14]. Against this background, among the foreign authors of the 90s, we highlight V. Roer [55], A. Munoz [53], J. Hoffmann [42], V.K. Strik-Strikfeldt [47]. The latter, by the way, talked about the intention to create a power unit from the remaining Vlasov, as well as Czech, Yugoslav and German volunteers, which was to operate after the war on the territory of Yugoslavia: “This international corps was to form the core of military and political resistance to Stalinist Bolshevism invading Europe” [Ibid.]. The first years of the XXI century showed that Russian historical science, passionate about the issues of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens during the Great Patriotic War, is actively developing, enriched by serious scientific research, the authors of which define their main task not to evaluate collaboration from the point of view of morality and morality, but an objective study of the diversity of this phenomenon [3, 15, 23, 33, 36]. Russian and foreign historians pay special attention to the study of the activities of collaborators in the south of the USSR [18, 50], continue to explore the role of white emigration in the formation and spread of the anti-Soviet agenda in the occupied territories [44]. Discussions about the party's policy in the pre-war years, which in one way or another influenced the mood of the population, do not cease. Y.S. Tsurganov criticizes the Soviet government: “1917 showed that, it turns out, it is permissible to live without a tsar ... then it turned out that it is permissible to take out the iconostasis from the building of the parish church, build a lavatory out of it, and use the building itself like a warehouse. Against this background, the question of whether it was possible to live under the Germans disappeared by itself” [43], and O.V. Vishlev, on the contrary, believes that the strategy of the Soviet government before the war was correct: “The Soviet-German non-aggression treaty represented the most significant diplomatic and political act of the final phase of the pre-war crisis ... and It was concluded in conditions when, in Moscow's opinion, it was no longer possible to prevent a military conflict in Europe ... It contradicted only the interests of those Western forces who hoped to provoke a German-Soviet conflict and achieve the development of German expansion in the eastern direction” [10]. In the 2010s, the dissertations of I.Y. Molodov [31], E.N. Shantseva [45], B.S. Martynov [30] were defended on the topic of collaboration. The researchers asked questions about the number and social composition of German collaborators, the specifics of the activities of specially created collaborative structures, and the assessment of the role of collaboration at regional and geopolitical levels. Books telling about the life of the population trapped in the occupied territories are being published [16, 24], new declassified documents are appearing [6] and diaries of collaborators [7]. Among the serious studies of foreign authors of these years, E. Mark should be mentioned [52]: the scientist, using new methods of historical statistics and a socio-cultural approach, studies the motives and specifics of the conditions under which the soldiers of the Red Army were forced to voluntarily surrender. Among other things, E. Mark comes to the conclusion that the most common reason for this phenomenon was the desire to survive, and not ideological “charge”: “It may have been a war of ideologies, but not everyone involved in it was ideologically motivated” [Ibid., p. 10]. Over the past few years, since 2020, Russian historiography has been supplemented with several collections on the topic of collaboration: D. Zhukov and I. Kovtun presented articles and documents on the interpretation of the term “collaboration”, the political and military activities of B. Kaminsky, the occupation press and much more [17]. Foreign authors have published an interesting study on the culture of memory of the Second World War among the youth of Belarus and Latvia [51]: the ability to recognize the fact of collaboration and the opportunity to look critically at the historical past of their country. Speaking, in conclusion, about the specifics of the controversy surrounding the issue of Soviet collaboration among domestic and foreign authors, we note the following. The discussion with the difference in approaches and assessments of the phenomenon under consideration, in fact, existed only until the 1990s: that is, until the moment when foreign scientists wrote about what was under ideological prohibition in the USSR. On the one hand, this had a positive outcome: the deliberate silence about voluntary cooperation with the Germans or the downplaying of the influence of opposition sentiments on the behavior of the population of the occupied territories, fueled the interest of foreign scientists focusing on the socio-political prerequisites of collaboration, which made it possible to significantly replenish the facts of the general historiography of the issue. On the other hand, the daily life of the population of the occupied territories, the motives and moods of ordinary citizens faced with the problem of adapting to new conditions dictated by the German occupation policy, have practically fallen out of the foreign research focus. From this point of view, the works of Russian authors devoted to the topic of collaboration are filled with richer and more comprehensive empirical material: over the past 20-30 years, scientists have managed to create a whole layer of serious scientific works and research, as well as books and articles written in an atmosphere of pluralism and glasnost, which positively affected the development of the national historiography of the issue.
[1] For example: “... nowadays, the entire Soviet people, the entire civilized world should know the contents of this document, by which the Hitlerite clique is pilloried as a gang of unscrupulous warmongers, merchants of death, flooding the world with streams of blood...”. References
1. Abros'kin, S. V. (1943). Nazi atrocities in the Voronezh region. Moscow, Russian Federation: Gospolitizdat.
2. Aldan, A. G. (1969). The army of the damned. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/aldan_ag01/index.html 3. Arzamaskin, IU. N. (2001). Hostages of the Second World War: Repatriation of Soviet Citizens in 1944–1953. Moscow, Russian Federation: Russian Historical Military-Political Library. 4. Bezymenskij, L. A. (1964). Hitler's generals with and without Hitler. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/bezymensky1/index.html 5. Boltin, E.A. (1965). Nazi occupation regime. Moscow, Russian Federation: Politizdat. 6. Budnickij, O.V. (2018). Harvard Project: Declassified Evidence of the Great Patriotic War. Moscow, Russian Federation: ROSSPEN. 7. Budnickij, O.V. (2012). It's over. The Germans have come. Ideological collaboration in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. Retrieved from: https://www.rulit.me/books/mys-strahov-lp-read-415171-1.html 8. Vzvarova, G. N. (1995). Turkestan legionnaires. Voenno-istoricheskij zhurnal, 2, 39-46. 9. Vinogradov, I. I. (1950). Guerrilla war in the Pskov region. Pskov, Russian Federation: Pskovizdat. 10. Vishlev, O.V. (2001). On the eve of June 22, 1941. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/vishlev/index.html 11. Volin, B. M. (1942). National guerrilla war. Moscow, Russian Federation: Gospolitizdat. 12. Dixon, C., & Heilbrunn, O. (1957). Communist Guerilla Warfare. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/dixon_heilbrunn/index.html 13. Drobyazko, S. I. (2000). Eastern legions and Cossack units in the Wehrmacht. Moscow, Russian Federation: AST. 14. Drobyazko, S. I. (2000). World War II, 1939-1945. Russian Liberation Army. Moscow, Russian Federation: AST. 15. Ermolov, I. G. (2005). The emergence and development of Soviet military-political collaborationism in the occupied territories of the USSR in 1941–1944. Retrieved from https://www.dissercat.com/content/vozniknovenie-i-razvitie-sovetskogo-voenno-politicheskogo-kollaboratsionizma-na-okkupirovann 16. Ermolov, I. G. (2010). Three years without Stalin. Occupation 1941–1944. Moscow, Russian Federation: Centrpoligraf. 17. Zhukov, D. (2020). Accomplices. Research and materials on the history of Russian collaborationism. Retrieved from https://libking.ru/books/sci-/sci-history/1056692-2-dmitrij-zhukov-posobniki-issledovaniya-i-materialy-po-istorii-otechestvennogo-kollaboracionizma.html#book 18. Zhuravlev, E. I. Civil collaboration during the years of the German occupation of 1941-43. on materials from the south of Russia. Vestnik CHelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 16, 66-73. 19. Zagorulko, M. M., & Judenkov, A. F. (1980). The collapse of the Oldenburg plan. Moscow, USSR: Jekonomika. 20. Zalesskij, A. I. (1962). In partisan regions and zones. Moscow, Russian Federation: Socekgiz. 21. Zemskov, V. N. (1968). The leading force of the national struggle. The struggle of the Soviet working class in the territory temporarily occupied by the Nazis (1941–1944). Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/zemskov_vn01/index.html 22. Kazancev, A. (1994). The Third Force. Russia between Nazism and communism. Retrieved from https://libking.ru/books/prose-/prose-military/361439-aleksandr-kazantsev-tretya-sila-rossiya-mezhdu-natsizmom-i-kommunizmom.html 23. Kovalev, B. N. (2009). Collaborationism in Russia in 1941–1945: types and forms. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/kovalev_bn01/index.html 24. Kovalev, B. N. (2011). Daily life of the population of Russia during the Nazi occupation. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/kovalev_bn03/index.html 25. Kolesnik, A. N. (1991). Fall? General Vlasov and his entourage. Harkov, USSR: Prostor. 26. Kudryashov, S. V. (1993). Traitors, “liberators” or victims of the regime? Soviet collaborationism (1941–1942). Svobodnaya mysl, 14, 91. 27. Leont'ev, A. (1942). “Green folder” by Goering. Moscow, Russian Federation: Gospolitizdat. 28. Litvin, A. G. (1991). Crimean Tatar formations: documents of the Third Reich testify. Voenno-istoricheskij zhurnal, 3, 91. 29. Malinovskij, V. V. (1996). Who is he, a Russian collaborator: a patriot or a traitor?. Voprosy istorii, 11, 165. 30. Martynov, B. S. (2016). The Nazi occupation regime and collaborationism in the southern and southeastern regions of the Kursk region (October 1941 – August 1943). Retrieved from https://www.dissercat.com/content/natsistskii-okkupatsionnyi-rezhim-i-kollaboratsionizm-na-territorii-yuzhnykh-i-yugo-vostochn 31. Molodova, I. Ju. (2010). The Nazi occupation regime on the territory of the Western region of the RSFSR: power and population. Retrieved from https://www.dissercat.com/content/natsistskii-okkupatsionnyi-rezhim-na-territorii-zapadnogo-regiona-rsfsr-vlast-i-naselenie 32. About the atrocities of the Nazi occupiers in the Stavropol Territory. (1943). Retrieved from http://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/177890-soobschenie-chrezvychaynoy-gosudarstvennoy-komissii-o-zlodeyaniyah-nemetsko-fashistskih-okkupantov-v-stavropolskom-krae-5-avgusta-1943-g 33. Okorokov, A. B. (2000). Anti-Soviet military formations during the Second World War. Moscow, Russian Federation: Voennij universitet. 34. Pozdnyakov, V. V. (1972). The birth of the ROA. Propagandists of Wulheide-Luckenwalde-Dabendorf-Riga. Syracuse, USA. 35. Ramanichev, N.M. (1995). Vlasov and others. Moscow, Russian Federation: Nauka. 36. Semiryaga, M. I. (2000). Collaborationism. Nature, typology and manifestations during the Second World War. Moscow, Russian Federation: ROSSPJeN. 37. Sidelskij, R. I. (1942). The struggle of Soviet partisans against the fascist invaders. Moscow, Russian Federation: Gospolitizdat. 38. Dashichev, V. I. (1967). Top secret! For command only! The strategy of Nazi Germany in the war against the USSR. Documents and materials. Moscow, Russian Federation: Nauka. 39. Steenberg, S. (1970). Vlasov. New York, USA: Alfred A. Knopf. 40. Trial in the case of the atrocities of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices in the territory of the city of Krasnodar and the Krasnodar Territory during their temporary occupation. Verdict. (1943). Retrieved from https://histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/23/613c12f55acbb08fe927b7634120b41b00f7bf8c.pdf 41. Tishkov, A.V. (1973). Traitor before the Soviet court. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 2, 89-98. 42. Hoffman, J. (1990). History of the Vlasov army. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/research/hoffmann/index.html 43. Curganov, Ju. S. (2008). World War II: a different view. Retrieved from http://militera.org/books/pdf/research/sb_vm-inoy-vzglyad.pdf 44. Curganov, Ju. S. (2001). Failed revenge. White emigration in World War II. Moscow, Russian Federation: Intrada. 45. Shanceva, E. N. (2011). The genesis of the partisan movement and collaborationism in the Great Patriotic War: on the example of the occupied territory of the Bryansk region. Retrieved from https://www.dissercat.com/content/genezis-partizanskogo-dvizheniya-i-kollaboratsionizma-v-velikuyu-otechestvennuyu-voinu 46. Sheverdalkin, P. R. (1957). Partisan struggle on Novgorod land. Novgorod, Russian Federation: Novogor. obl. tip. 47. Shtrik-Shtrikfeldt, V. K. (1993). Against Stalin and Hitler. Retrieved from http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/strick-strickfeldt/index.html 48. Alexiev, A. (1982). Soviet Nationalities in German Wartime Strategy, 1941–1945. Santa Monica, USA: Rand. 49. Fischer, G. (1952). Soviet opposition to Stalin. A case study in WWII. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press. 50. Jeffrey, W. (2005). “Every Family Has Its “Freak: Perceptions of Collaboration in Occupied Soviet Russia, 1943–1948. Cambridge, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Cambridge University Press. 51. Krawatzek, F., & Soroka, G. (2021). Remembering a Contentious Past: Resistance and Collaboration in the Former Soviet Union. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0888325420952154 52. Mark, E. (2017). Stalin's Defectors: How Red Army Soldiers Became Hitler's Collaborators, 1941–1945. Oxford, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Oxford University Press. 53. Munoz, A. (1997). Hitler Easter Legions. New York, USA: Axis Europa Books. 54. Reitlinger, G. (1960). The House Built on Sand; The Conflicts of German Policy in Russia, 1939–1945. London, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Viking Press. 55. Rohr, W. (1994). Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945): Beiträge zu Konzepten und Praxis der Kollaboration in der deutschen Okkupationspolitik [Occupation and Collaboration (1938-1945): Contributions to the concepts and practice of collaboration in German occupation policy]. Heidelberg, Germany: Hüthig. 56. Shirer, W. (1960). The rise and fall of the Third Reich. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster. 57. Shub, B. (1950). The choice. New York, USA: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. 58. Shub, B. (1952). Why America Is Losing World War III. The American Mercury, 25, 11-24. 59. Sontag, R. J., & Beddie, J. S. (1948). Nazi-soviet relations, 1939–1941. Washington, USA: Department of State Publication. 60. Tasca, A. (1951). The Russo-German Alliance: August 1939 – June 1941. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|