FROM THE CURRENT ISSUE OF

No. 1, 2011. Pages: 35-63.

RUSSIAN EMIGRATION IN 1917-1939: STRUCTURE, GEOGRAPHY, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Author: Irina Sabennikova, D. Sc. (History), chief of Department at the All-Russia Document Study and Archival Research Institute. The article was first published in Russian in the journal Rossiyskaya istoriya, No. 3, 2010. Russian emigration after the 1917 Revolution was a large-scale social phenomenon to which it is hard to find an analog in history or in the present time: it emerged as a factor that determined the development not only of Russia but of practically all the European countries.1 The 1917 Revolution and the Civil War that followed, and the establishment of the Soviet regime split the world into opposing sociopolitical systems the struggle between which determined the logic of historical development in the 20th century and, in a certain sense, the present-day picture of the world. The history of the problem comprises three main periods: first, the time when emigration was a distinct political phenomenon (1917-1939), second, the period of retrospective assessment of the phenomenon of emigration and its contribution to the social and political history of Europe and the world in the 20th century by émigré historians (1939—mid 1950s) and third, the latest period (1960s—2000s) which saw the transition to scientific study of emigration as a complex and diverse historical phenomenon.2 In the comparative historical perspective Russian emigration found itself at the center of a global social conflict because it was caught between two opposing political systems. Emigration was the result of a historically unprecedented social catastrophe and by and large it reflected the scale of that catastrophe. It turned into refugees two million people from different social classes, nationalities and cultural strata who were scattered practically among all countries. It generated a special cultural type springing from people’s wish to preserve their perception of a world that had ceased to exist in reality and survived only in the social memory, religious values, cultural traditions, literary works and language.

1

This article purports to analyze Russian emigration in 1917-1939 looking at the following main parameters: historiography and the methods of study, the structure of the source base, definition of the status of emigration in international law, description of the geography of Russian emigration, the features of the main diasporas, the sociocultural features of Russian emigration from a comparative point of view, the results and prospects of study.

Historiography and the Methods of Study Modern historiography of the problem comprises the following areas: first, assessment of emigration as a political and intellectual phenomenon; second, information on the legal status of various émigré communities and the character of their change in the interwar period in Europe; third, the problems of sociocultural adaptation of various Russian diasporas during the said period. The objects of study in recent historiography are the relationship between political, economic and legal views of émigré leaders,3 political parties,4 ideological trends5 as well as the archives of Russian emigration.6 The focus of study is on the countries with the largest number of Russian émigrés, i.e., Germany, France and China.7 Particular attention is paid to the documents of Russian emigration in Czechoslovakia8 and other Slavic countries because there exist the corresponding archives which have been accessible.9 The themes of studies, too, are in many ways determined by the content of émigré archives.10 The study of the cultures of various Russian émigré diasporas with characteristic designations of the themes such as “The New Mecca. The New Babylon. Paris and Russian Exiles,” “Culture in Exile: Russian Émigrés in Germany,” “The Homesick Million,” “Overseas Russia” initiated in the late 20th century was connected above all with the increase of migration processes in the world.11 The definitive study by Marc Raeff presents a general history of Russian emigration that draws on the sources that were available to the author at the time.12 The study of Russian emigration in China was largely conducted by Far Eastern authors. This is because in 1945 the Russian Harbin Archive was handed over from Manchuria to the State Archive of the Khabarovsk Territory (GA KhK). The availability of a fundamental source base made possible the study of postrevolutionary emigration in the Far Eastern region.13 We have a fairly complete picture of political emigration. Works on this range of problems address such themes as the main ideological and political trends in Russian emigration as well as biographies of its leaders Pavel Milyukov, Pavel Novgorodtsev, Aleksandr Kizevetter, Pyotr Struve, Pitirim Sorokin, Boris Bakhmeteff, Vasily Maklakov, Aleksandr Kerensky, Viktor Chernov and others, who were outstanding representatives of Russian humanities studies: philosophy, law, sociology and history.14 The tentative results of these studies are reflected in encyclopedias.15 The second area of historiography is devoted to the analysis of the legal status of emigration in Europe between the two wars. It draws on considerable material concerning international legal regulation in this field connected with the attempts of the League of Nations to regulate the flow of migrants from countries with unstable political regimes in general. Some studies (notably by Sir John Hope Simpson) can be regarded as a valuable historical source on this problem.16 The Russian legal and sociological school whose émigré representatives included such thinkers as Pavel Novgorodtsev, Lev Petrazhitsky,

2

Nikolay Timashev, Georgy Gurvich and Pitirim Sorokin did not only draw on the achievements of legal thought, but exerted an obvious influence on the evolution of European science of law in the 20th century.17 The activity of émigré lawyers in the study and teaching of law was complemented by their participation in various international organizations that sought to define the legal status of Russian refugees.18 The legal status of Russian émigrés in various countries has been studied from the following angles: international treaties concerning the legal and political protection of Russian refugees, the activities of international organizations (the League of Nations, the International Labor Office and the International Red Cross) which directly dealt with refugees from Russia, changes in the laws on citizenship in the early 20th century in the European countries with the largest number of Russian refugees in the 1920s—1930s and the impact of municipal law on the situation with Russian refugees in Europe. This makes it possible to trace the impact of the legal citizenship norms on the social characteristics of the Russian émigré community and models of its adaptation in various countries.19 The third area of the historiography of Russian emigration consists of works that reveal the structural parameters of sociocultural adaptation. These parameters include education (the organization of higher educational institutions and their specific features in various states), the spheres of education, i.e., theological, military, musical and technical; the work of research institutions; social and occupational mobility; the scientific life of the émigré community and its foremost representatives, the main areas of scientific activity, major research centers, institutes and societies. Works belonging to this area are the most numerous, but they are also fragmentary. They have been systematized in the bibliographic “Expatriate Archive Rossika” which we have been developing since 1998 at the All-Russia Institute of Document and Archival Research (VNIIDAD).20

The Structure of the Source Base Archives are undoubtedly the main source for the study of Russian emigration as a sociocultural phenomenon. The history of their formation, which in itself merits scientific study, gives insights into some important problems of Russian emigration: political, economic and social differences between the main geographical centers of Russian emigration; the legal status of Russian refugees in the period between the two world wars and the cultural heritage of the Russian émigré community. The main sources for the study of Russian emigration in 1917-1939 are the documents kept at the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF) which contains several stocks of the Russian Foreign Historical Archives, RZIA, also known as “the Prague Archive.” RZIA was created in Prague in 1923 by Russian émigrés to gather and preserve documents on Russian history. The Archive’s correspondents worked in 44 countries where Russian émigrés were scattered. In 1945 the archive was moved to the USSR, but access to its materials was restricted. Since 1987 RZIA stocks have been open to the public and in 1989 they were isolated as a body of archival documents on the history of the White Movement and emigration and provided with guidebooks.21 Standing out among the RZIA documents are the documents of civil, nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions abroad. These include, above all, materials of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union and the All-Russian Union of Cities, the Zemstvo-Urban Committee of Assistance to Russian Refugees Abroad (both its central

3

organization and its branches in Prague, Berlin, Belgrade, Sophia and other cities), the Russian Red Cross Society, the funds of Russian higher education institutions and student unions, unions of writers and journalists, lawyers, Russian unity societies in various countries and numerous personal archives of Russians abroad. Documents on the history of Russian emigration are also kept at the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts (RGALI) that include archives both of nongovernmental organizations, periodicals, émigré institutions and personal archives containing vast correspondence between cultural personalities and scientists. Examples are such funds as “Editorial Office of the Rech Newspaper,” “The Russian Cultural-Historical Museum in Prague,” “Collection of Manuscripts by Writers, Scientists and Public Personalities,” personal archives of Sergey Gessen, Sergey Melgunov, Nikolay Berdyayev, Sergey Bulgakov, Georgy Chulkov and others. The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace22 is a major collection of documents on postrevolutionary Russian emigration. The Hoover Archive has about 50 million documents, about 25% of all the collections, or 12.5 million documents being in Slavic languages. The bulk of Russian collections were handed over to the Hoover Institution by first-wave, as well as second and third-wave émigrés. In 1963 the Institution acquired the Boris Nikolayevsky collection, one of the most important émigré collections. Between 1919 and 1921 Nikolayevsky was director of the Revolutionary Historical Archive in Moscow before emigrating to Berlin, Paris and finally New York. It includes documents of such politicians as Irakly Tseretely and Lev Trotsky as well as important materials on Russian culture. Under the agreement on exchange of microphotocopies of historical documents, their multiplication and diffusion concluded between Roskomarkhiv and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, 26 stocks and collections from the Hoover Institution were handed over to the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF) and were granted the status of a collection that is equal to that of a fund (stock).23 A major center for the storage of Russian emigration archives is still the Bakhmeteff Archive created in 1951 at the initiative of Boris Bakhmeteff, former Ambassador of the Russian Provisional Government to Washington and Professor at Columbia University School of Engineering, to keep the documents from Russia and Eastern Europe which were taken abroad after the 1917 Revolution, the Civil War and in the following years. The Bakhmeteff Archive is the second largest depository (after the Hoover Institution) of Russian and East-European documents outside Russia and the former Soviet Union. The Archive’s stocks include documents by and about prominent Russian émigré writers. In addition to personal documents the Archive contains documents of institutions and organizations. Most of them are émigré charitable and professional organizations, mainly in France, for example, the Union of Writers and Journalists, the Association of Members of Military Unions, including the Russian Army Union (ROVS), the Union of Russian Drivers, etc. The same category includes documents of church organizations and prominent secular and religious figures who took part in the life of the Russian Church abroad. There are also several funds (some of them originally personal) that concern the main Russian political parties before and during the 1917 Revolution. A large body of documents in that archive reflects key historic events that triggered emigration from Russia, such as the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War. Numerous memoirs by those who

4

were involved in or witnessed these events reflect key political and social processes in the 20th century; the archive contains memoirs of prerevolutionary public and state personalities, leaders of political parties and the revolutionary movement, people who fought in the First World War and in the Civil War. The catalogue of the Bakhmeteff Archive includes descriptions of more than 900 collections of documents.24 One of the main centers of overseas Russian archives in the US is the Museum of Russian Culture in San Francisco founded in 1948 to keep documents on Russian history and Russian cultural objects. It contains unique historical materials, mainly on postrevolutionary Russian emigration and the Civil War period. The largest body of documents and materials in that archive has to do with Russian emigration from the Far East because many Russian émigrés had arrived in San Francisco in 1948 from Harbin and Manchuria. Beginning from 1999 the Hoover Institution has been microfilming the most important collections in the Museum of Russian Culture to make them available to users in the reading halls of the Hoover Archive. At present 85 funds and collections from the Museum of Russian Culture in San Francisco have been handed over in the shape of microphoto documents to the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF).25 The main center of Russian emigration in the interwar period was France which in the 1920s—1930s had the largest Russian diaspora that represented the broadest cross-section of Russian emigration in the period. That accounts for the presence of a wealth of sources on the Russian émigré community in various archives in France: Les Archives nationales de France, la Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Archive of the Prefecture of the Paris Police. A significant body of documents on the Russian emigration exists at the French National Archive where the documents are not arranged by individual thematic or personal stocks and are kept in the police fund (F7). They contain important correspondence between Russian émigré societies and international organizations (the League of Nations, the International Labor Office, the International Red Cross), as well as émigré organizations in various countries. These documents give an insight into the procedure of the issue of identification certificates (Nansen passports) and the registration of émigré organizations. Among the modern Paris archives the Archive of the Prefecture of the Paris Police is of undoubted interest for the students of the Russian émigré community as it brings together a large body of materials on Russian emigration, including police reports, results of surveillance, analytical memoranda, forecasts and personal files. Our studies carried out at the Paris Police Prefecture Archive (Préfecture de Police. Cabinet du Préfet Archives) have fetched up documentary information (files) on some major Russian émigré figures. They include above all, political and public personalities: Aleksandr Kerensky, Pavel Milyukov, Vladimir Nabokov (the writer’s father), Anton Kartashov, Yury Klyuchnikov, the leaders of the White Movement and persons thought to be suspicious by the French police. All the archival stocks have been described. The descriptions follow the standard of most French and European archives in which files are arranged by groups and stored in boxes devoted to individual themes. The themes are marked by a letter code and the ordinal number of the box. The huge stock of documents of surveillance of the activities of foreign police in Paris (including Russian police) has the code BA 1234 No. 4 Polices étrangères en France. The description of every box

5

contains general information on its content without reference to the specific files contained in it.26 The published sources on Russian emigration in the period under review are extremely diverse, being represented mainly by international legal acts (international conventions and agreements), documents of nongovernmental organizations and parties, scientific and political writings by the ideologists of various currents in the émigré community, reminiscences and memoirs of émigré figures, journalism and periodicals of various countries, correspondence, etc. The information base of the studies of the Russian emigration is focused in the data banks of some specialized research and scientific information centers. At present practically all the major Russian higher educational institutions, research institutes and libraries have centers for the study of the Russian émigré community. These centers seek not only to conduct studies into aspects of Russian emigration but also to collect the documentary legacy of the émigré community, organize specialized libraries and archives and publish thematic bibliographic collections. Among the largest centers for the study of Russians abroad are the Russian State Library (RGB), the State Public Historical Library (GPIB), the All-Russia State Library of Foreign Literature (VGBIL), the Russian National Library (RNB), the Academy of Sciences Library (BAN), the S.I. Taneyev Scientific Musical Library (NMB), the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF), the RAS Russian Literature Institute (Pushkin House) (IRLI RAN) as well as nongovernmental organizations that collect, store and study the cultural heritage of the Russian emigration. They also include “The Russian Abroad” Library-Fund, the Russian Culture Fund Archive-Library, and Prince Golitsyn Memorial Library.27 The “Overseas Archival Rossika” database was created at VNIIDAD for the purpose of tracking down and studying the documentary heritage of the Russian emigration. The creation of the data bank has important practical implications because it provides a solid scientific basis for the Contemporary Archival Rossika program and, instead of a bunch of accidental data provides systematic information on the location of Rossika documents and work with them. The result of the study of published sources, their systematization and bibliographic description is the ongoing bibliography, the bibliographic list “Overseas Archival Rossika” mentioned above.

The Status of Russian Emigration under International Law The concept of “emigration” as treated in present-day studies includes diverse types of movement of the population: migration, emigration, refugees, concepts that are anything but identical. Moreover, these movements of the population can have various social causes and motives that make people decide to move. An important factor that determines the status of various emigrations and their parts is the character of international legal regulation and internal state regulation of the position of émigré communities in various countries. From the point of view of international law the whole history of emigration is divided into two periods: before there emerged international legal regulation and after it was established in its own right, i.e., before and after the First World War. The second stage saw the creation of the League of Nations and the third stage coincided with the creation of the UN in the wake of the Second World War. Initial differences among the legislations of European countries on

6

granting citizenship (the terms and procedure of granting it) later gave way to a measure of uniformity of national legislations as a result of the efforts of the League of Nations and the adoption of international legal documents. The adoption of a single identification document for Russian and Armenian refugees changed their legal status in some important ways: they were granted easy terms for obtaining visas and there were curbs on the expulsion of émigrés. The course of the regulation of the position of Russian émigrés under these acts highlights the impact of international law on national law. Another factor that determined the status of émigrés was the powerful political challenge from the states which rejected liberal legal values. Authoritarian regimes did not recognize any rights of the émigré communities and sought to restrict their rights even outside their own borders. The relationship between legal and political factors determined the precarious position of emigration, a lack of a clear-cut international legal position on regulating that emerging phenomenon.28 Which is why it would be wrong to view that period in terms of modern ideas of international legal regulation of emigration that are based on a considerable body of international legal acts which saw the light of day after the Second World War. Distinct factors in analyzing emigration are the legal position of social minorities in the country from which they emigrate, the transitional period of migration and the period of assimilation in the host state. Under the 1951 Convention a refugee is defined as a person who 1) is outside his/her native country, the country of his/her origin; 2) is unable or unwilling to return to his/her native country; 3) whose unwillingness must be justified by proving that the person’s life is under threat; 4) who fears persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political factors or membership in a particular social group. That definition was the result of prolonged and painstaking work of the international community to define the status of a refugee, integrating the decisions on the position of refugees made during the First World War and taking into account the shortcomings of the earlier definition of the status of refugees. It comprised all the earlier definitions of refugees and expressed the consolidated position of Western democracies. If one considers that definition retrospectively one can see how its main parameters could be referred to the Russian émigrés in the interwar period. Russian émigrés met all the four parameters stated in the 1951 Convention which, consequently, came under the modern definition of refugees under international law. An analysis of Russian emigration according to the parameters of the definition of refugees’ status under the International Convention of 1951 leads to the following conclusions. 1. Russian emigration was outside the country of its origin. Being outside the country could be interpreted both in geographical and temporal terms because as a result of the Revolution Russian émigrés turned out to be citizens of a nonexistent state, the Russian Empire. They were stripped of their citizenship by the new Soviet state in 1924 and consequently in legal terms the émigrés lived outside the country of their origin.

7

2. The Russian émigré community was unable to and did not want to be protected by the USSR. The Russian legal tradition had been ruptured; as for the new Soviet legal system, it treated émigrés as enemies of the people. As a result they were denied protection and were liable to be persecuted due to the very fact that they had emigrated. The legal fact of the state refusing to protect them was most clearly manifested in the refusal to grant citizenship rights which formed the basis of the definition of Russian refugees by the League of Nations as any person of Russian origin that no longer enjoys the protection of the government of the USSR and has not become a citizen of another state. Thus Russian émigrés had no practical or legal possibility to return to the country of their origin. As a rule they did not want to return to Soviet Russia. Whenever an émigré did return to his country he often became the victim of political repressions. 3. The causes of emigration were rooted in the very real threat to people’s lives under the new regime, something the regime itself did not conceal. One proof of this was the Decree of December 15, 1921 that stripped certain categories of persons who were abroad of their citizenship as well as the expulsion, in 1922, from the USSR of more than 100 scientists who disagreed with the Bolshevik policies (on board the so-called “philosophers’ ship”). 4. Persecution included many of the motives stated in the 1951 Convention: religious (the USSR persecuted the Church and members of the clergy as a result of which a new Orthodox Church overseas was established under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople); national (Ukrainian, Georgian and some other ethnic minorities emigrated because their states ceased to be independent under the Soviet regime); being a member of a certain social group (many of the émigrés were defined by the Soviet authorities as representatives of the classes of exploiters); political reasons (all the political parties of the old Russia, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, were represented in the émigré community). Thus, two million Russian citizens who found themselves outside Russia as a result of the October 1917 Revolution, the First World War and the Civil War and who had no chance to return met the definition of refugees under modern legal norms. A comparative analysis of data on the position of refugees from Nazi Germany may be revealing. The law of July 14, 1933, annulled naturalization conducted between November 1932 and January 1933, mainly of Jews from Eastern Europe, depriving them of their citizenship. The Nuremberg Law on Citizenship of September 15, 1935 deprived German Jews and opponents of the Nazi regime in Germany of civil rights. As a result, German refugees, whose number in Europe was steadily growing, used German passports over a certain period, but became stateless persons after 1935. This situation prompted the adoption of the League of Nations Convention of 1938 and the issue of new identification documents for refugees from Germany. The main institutions that dealt with the refugee problem in the European countries between the two wars were the League of Nations, the International Red Cross and its branches in various countries as well as the International Labor Office. These international organizations were to provide legal assistance to refugees, in particular in determining their legal status; to issue them necessary documents and provide legal guarantees of protection, which was within the competence of the League of Nations and its International Committee for Refugees created in 1921. The International Red Cross

8

determined the number of refugees and provided them with early assistance by supplying food, clothing and medicines jointly with its Russian branch. The activities of the International Labor Office were aimed at spreading out refugees to prevent them from being concentrated in a particular region; that measure was intended to prevent an economic and political crisis due to the presence of a large number of unsettled population. The International Labor Office sought to relocate refugees to the countries where they had better chances of finding a job. For the Russian emigration at the initial stage of its history such a country was France, which during the First World War had lost a large part of its male population, and later the Latin American countries that needed agricultural workers. Along with international organizations the Russian émigré organizations were helping Russian refugees to settle down, to find work, to move, to acquire an education and have legal protection. The relations between Russian emigration and the host states were riddled with conflicts. Such conflicts were mediated by the branches of Zemgor (RZGK), the Russian Zemstvo and Municipal Committee for Assistance to Russian citizens abroad (Comité des Zemstvos et Municipalités Russes de Secours des Citoyens russes a l’étranger). That is why an important body of sources that help to recreate the true picture of events is the administrative correspondence between various parts of Zemgor, its branches in different countries, social, professional and political Russian émigré organizations and such international organizations as the League of Nations, the International Red Cross and the International Labor Office. That group of sources reflects the development of legal conflicts in different political conditions, the methods of solving them and consequently, the possibilities of sociocultural adaptation of individual groups of émigrés to the national conditions and political systems of the host countries. The question of granting citizenship gained particular importance. Mechanisms of granting civil rights to refugees who had lost such rights as a result of the world and civil wars and sought to obtain them in European countries were debated. This was about the status of minorities on the eve of emigration, the scale and character of—total or partial cultural and national—discrimination to which they were subjected. The cruelest manifestations of discrimination were widespread terror during the civil wars (physical extermination of people) in Russia and Spain and the genocide in Turkish Armenia; the practice of forcing people to emigrate was also widespread. Another disputed point was the status of minorities in the process of migration, the way they were treated as citizens of another state, and then as stateless persons and finally as persons who had temporary status as residents on the territory of the host state. Up until December 15, 1921, when the Russian government passed a decree on émigrés the Russian refugees who emigrated to Europe remained Russian citizens and enjoyed all the rights of foreign citizens.29 After the adoption of that decree they lost their Russian citizenship and became stateless persons without any civil rights. The Russian émigré organizations, its offices in various countries and international organizations raised the issue of granting Russian refugees civil rights similar to those of émigrés who had not been stripped of their citizenship and of giving them a measure of legal protection. The result of these activities was the introduction of “Nansen Passports” in 1924, however, by the beginning of the Second World War most Russian refugees had adopted the citizenship of the countries where they lived.

9

The Geography of Russian Emigration There are three types of Russian diasporas in terms of their location in Europe: 1) West European countries (Germany, France); 2) Slavic countries (Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia); 3) bordering, or limitrophe states (Poland, Finland, Romania, the Baltic States). Differences in the conditions in which Russian diasporas lived were due not only to the differences in the economic situation of the host states (regions) after the First World War, but also due to religious considerations, political regimes, cultural traditions and to a large extent the official policy pursued with regard to ethnic minorities in general and Russian refugees in particular. Using surviving data at RZIA we have compared the position of Russian diasporas in the above regions in terms of such parameters as the number of Russian émigrés, financial assistance from the governments of host countries, the intensity of social and scientific life in the émigré community as manifested in the existence of social, scientific and professional organizations and of Russian secondary schools and higher education institutions. Such comparative analysis made it possible to assess the degree of adaptation or naturalization of Russian émigrés in different European communities. In 1920-1924 the largest Russian émigré community was in Germany. By the autumn of 1920 it was probably 560,000-strong. After 1924 (when the German economy was stabilized and the cost of living was growing) the largest number of Russian émigrés headed for France, above all Paris and major industrial cities as well as its colonies. The total number of émigrés in France after 1924 was 400,000—450,000. Having sustained great human losses in the First World War France was short of industrial and farm workers, which prompted liberalization of the visa regime for Russian refugees. At the same time the liberal political regimes in the Central European states during that period favored the development of the social and cultural life of the Russian diaspora and provided not only moral but also material support for Russian institutions, schools and individual scientists and cultural personalities. In the Russian schools, Russian was either the language of instruction or was taught as a mandatory foreign language, which helped to preserve Russian culture within the diaspora, brought up Russian youth in the traditions of two cultures and introduced Russia to many French people, mainly through the theater, music and literature. By the beginning of the Second World War most Russian refugees (above all the youth) were naturalized French. In the Slavic countries—Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia—the number of Russian refugees was much smaller. By 1923-1924 Czechoslovakia had 22,100 Russian refugees, Yugoslavia in 1923 had more than 30,000 and Bulgaria 30,000—35,000.30 Many Russian refugees became naturalized in the Slavic countries much earlier than in Central European countries due to the common cultural and historical traditions, a shared religion and closely related languages. Russian refugees in the limitrophe states of Romania, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia found themselves in a more difficult economic situation. These states, having become independent as a result of the collapse of the Russian Empire, had

10

many former Russian citizens who had become ethnic minorities as a result of the redrawing of borders. After the October 1917 Revolution the national governments in the newly created states pursued a tough nationalistic policy with regard to ethnic minorities. In Romania by 1922, the Russian population consisted of 750,000 Russians who had lived on that territory before and 20,000 refugees. In Poland the refugees numbered 100,000. In Finland by 1928, there were 14,314 refugees according to government data (30,000 according to Zemgor). Percentage wise, the Russian population in the limitrophe countries was substantial: 9.9% in Latvia, 4.2% in Estonia, 5.9% in Lithuania, 47% in Bessarabia and 20% in Poland.31 The social activity of Russian diasporas in these regions was insignificant partly because of the deliberate policy of suppressing such activities on the part of the new national regimes which passed all sorts of laws that limited the teaching of Russian, the publication and import of Russian language literature, or else banned the activities of social and political émigré organizations, as well as the relatively small size of the cultural elite, compared with other European countries, within these Russian diasporas. All that limited the number of Russian periodicals, weakened the Russian educational system and social organizations.32 The Russian émigré community in the Far East, mainly in Harbin (the former administrative center of the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER), in Shanghai and in Japan revealed the largest number of features that distinguished it from émigré communities elsewhere. That Russian diaspora was more different from all others not so much in its composition as due to the cultural and national environment in which it lived. The quantitative parameters of the Russian emigration in the Far East were as follows: by 1923 there lived about 400,000 Russians within the strip of jurisdiction of the CER and 200,000 of them lived in Harbin. At least half of the Russians in the Far Eastern region were refugees while the other half were CER employees and permanent residents of the region. The Russian Far Eastern diaspora was the most isolated of all, because it lived in an alien cultural, linguistic and civilizational environment and was isolated from other emigration centers. As a result, Russian refugees were not assimilated into the alien cultural environment and the percentage of naturalized persons was small. The vast majority of Russian émigrés went on to emigrate from that region to the USA, Australia or returned to the USSR. The Russian diasporas in the 1920s—1930s formed by refugees from Russia and as a result of the change of state borders (Poland, Finland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) and annulment of the state legal treaties (a strip of alienation along the CER) differed greatly from one another demonstrating the dependence of the process of adaptation on different civilizational and cultural parameters. The position of Russian diasporas becomes clear if one compares it with that of other national diasporas in Europe at the same period. The infrastructure of various national diasporas depended on the goals that they set before themselves. While some diasporas were concerned exclusively with economic and professional matters and with obtaining citizenship (Armenians), others had declared political goals, for example, the overthrow of the political regime in their countries of origin (Spanish, German and Russian). The social function of education was particularly important. It was very manifest in the Russian émigré community which sought to inculcate to the young generation cultural stereotypes that were necessary for achieving political goals. Political

11

diasporas, however, were comparatively short-lived. They gradually disappeared either because many of their representatives returned to their home countries after the political regime had changed there or because they became citizens of their host countries. The political regimes that triggered emigration from Spain and Italy later pursued a more flexible policy with respect to emigration, which encouraged many of their refugees to return home. The Nazi regime in Germany had been destroyed and German refugees had to choose between returning home or being naturalized in other countries. The political regime in Russia changed but little so that most Russian émigrés were unable to return to Russia; however, the change of Europe’s political map during the Second World War and especially after its end brought it home to the Russian émigrés that they had no option but to become naturalized in their host countries. The new wave of emigration from the USSR after the Second World War was very different from the postrevolutionary wave in terms of goals and tasks, and it marked the end of emigration as a phenomenon in its own right.33 The position of various groups of émigrés in Europe between wars was different in democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian countries which allowed and even encouraged emigration if it was ideologically supportive of the regime. It should be noted that democratic states were more tolerant of various ideological groups, as witnessed by the example of France where socialism-oriented diasporas from Spain, Portugal and Italy and the monarchy-oriented and largely anti-Bolshevik Russian émigré communities lived side by side. The differences in the position of foreign diasporas in their host countries can also be traced to the differences of national laws on citizenship that envisaged different timeframes for obtaining citizenship. Of particular interest in the study of emigration are the exceptions made for certain émigré communities or groups of émigrés in some countries. For example, France offered a fast track regime for obtaining citizenship to Armenian refugees; Latin American countries offered similar regimes to agricultural workers while the US imposed a discriminatory quota regime for immigrants.34 Compared to other national diasporas the Russian émigré community had some distinctive features: its large size, the integrating role of Orthodoxy combined with difficulties in adapting to a different cultural environment as well as the predominant role of the intelligentsia in shaping the cultural ideas of the émigré community.

Sociocultural Adaptation Parameters To provide a comprehensive historical and sociological profile of the Russian émigré community in 1917-1939 in accordance with the main parameters of its social characteristics one has to establish the interconnection between such qualitative parameters as social background, ethnic, age and gender factors, the cultural-educational and religious orientation. That gives insights into how different groups and social strata of émigrés were becoming integrated into the Western civil society and into the specificities of this process in terms of social characteristics and rankings. That helps to answer a more general question that has taken on a new relevance in present-day conditions: to what extent can various structures of the traditional, basically agrarian society, be integrated into a Western-style industrial society, how does that process evolve and how does it differ for different social groups depending on their social status,

12

ethnic, gender, age, cultural-educational and occupational characteristics? At the same time it has become possible to establish the place and time specificities of the process of integration for different diasporas which existed and had to function in different and sometimes diametrically opposite sociocultural conditions. It is highly revealing to make a comparison of collective social portraits of Russian émigré diasporas in Western and Eastern Europe, in the Slavic countries, in the territories that were formerly parts of the Russian Empire, or in Asian countries. The massive emigration of Russian citizens that began immediately after the October 1917 coup, the dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly and the start of the Civil War continued intensively, heading for various countries until 1921-1922.35 Since that time the size of the émigré community remained largely constant, but its share in different countries kept changing due to internal migration in search of work, education and better living conditions. The process of integration and sociocultural adaptation of Russian refugees to different social conditions in the European countries and China passed through several stages and was largely completed by 1939 when most émigrés had come to realize that it was impossible to return to their home country. The Second World War broke out at that time, and it triggered a new wave of emigration. Russian emigration can be seen as a single sociocultural system cemented by negative characteristics (nonacceptance of the postrevolutionary Soviet regime and rejection by the new cultural habitat in a host country); positive characteristics (sociopsychological, religious and linguistic unity); uniformity of structure (based on émigré centers in various countries and coordination of their interaction by Zemgor) and the shared goal (the wish to restore their lost positions). Pivotal to our study of Russian emigration in 1917-1939 was the bringing into the scholarly domain of data from Zemgor which provide a unique source that can make it possible to trace changes in the size, social composition, professional affiliations, national, gender and age characteristics of the main groups of émigrés in various countries. Combined with analytical materials that survive in the documents of Russian émigré scientific institutions, higher educational establishments, émigré students’ organizations, trade unions and societies, and editorial offices of magazines and other periodicals, they add up to a collective sociological profile of the Russian émigré community. Of great significance for the purposes of this study was the comparison of these synoptic registration data with legal documents concerning that aspect of relations between the émigré community and the authorities and the public organizations in the host countries. That body of sources reflected how these conflicts unfolded in different political settings, how they were resolved and consequently made it possible to assess the chances of sociocultural adaptation of various émigré groups to the national conditions and political systems of their host countries. Current discussions about Russian emigration often ignore the typological approach to its study and concentrate on the philosophical ideas of émigré thinkers divorced from the geographical and historical context which lends them a very abstract character far removed from real life. Our analysis of the spread of Russian émigrés throughout the world helps to correct that approach. Émigré communities initially sprang up in practically all countries, including the Far East, Africa, Latin36 and North America. It has to be stressed, however, that the main flow of emigration moved to Europe which indirectly confirms the European choice of Russian emigration. But by applying the same

13

approach one finds that in Europe, too, there was a rigid scale of priorities. When given a choice, most émigrés preferred Western Europe, in particular such classical democracies as France, Britain, Belgium and Switzerland. Moreover, that process tended to gather momentum: the initial major centers in Eastern Europe and Germany moved westward as dictatorial regimes and authoritarian ideologies became entrenched there. With the occupation of France during the Second World War that movement continued towards the USA and other countries on the American continent. Integration into European society, the main trend in the development of emigration, was accompanied by a rival process, that of growing nationalism. Modern literature provides a fairly credible explanation of this 20th century phenomenon which sees a growing sense of national self-consciousness, a desire to preserve national identity, concern for preserving the ethnic cultures of small peoples or ethnic minorities in the face of globalization, growing uniformity and standardization of the world under the impact of powerful economic, technological and information processes. Russian emigration faced a dilemma similar to that faced by other massive emigrations in the past connected with religious wars, social revolutions and other world-scale upheavals. However, the historical decision to emigrate was even more significant for the Russian émigrés because nationalism had become more intense in the 20th century. Fascism that was spreading through Europe was an extreme form of nationalist and racist ideology which sought to establish total control over the world and ruled out any other forms of national identity manifestations. It is in this light that one should interpret the particular commitment of Russian emigration to preserve its own ethnic profile which was juxtaposed not only to European imperialist interpretation, but also to the Soviet internationalist trend of national resurgence. The Russian interwar emigration preserved its individuality for 20 years finding it difficult to become integrated into Western society and exerting considerable effort to resist denationalization, especially among its youth. This can be attributed to three causes: the tendency of Western society to reject Russian émigrés, the deeply ingrained Russian mentality and, perhaps most importantly, the hope of returning to Russia which was shared by people of different political views, social status and educational level. The threat of denationalization and naturalization was the less the more different was the society in which the émigrés lived from the traditional Russian society; conversely, the closer the links that tied them to the surrounding culture the more frequent were instances of émigrés taking dual citizenship or even the citizenship of the host country. This is particularly true of the Slavic countries where émigrés found similar Slavic traditions, languages, cultures and religion. The national priorities of the Russian émigré community were highlighted by its concept of education. Every educational concept offers a model of a desirable kind of personality which is sought to be molded in society. An analysis of the concept of education proposed within the Russian émigré community warrants the conclusion that it was a unique synthesis of European culture and national values. The model was basically European and liberal in character while at the same time seeking to preserve national identity. Its main aim was to bring up people capable of implementing democratic reforms in a future Russia.37 Sociocultural adaptation involves a range of parameters describing how an individual or group of people adapt to a foreign national and cultural environment. Essential for the speed of the adaptation processes are territorial, natural-climatic,

14

religious, legal, political, demographic and cultural features of the new environment. One of the key criteria of social adaptation is how migrants feel in a new social environment. The pace and results, a conflict-ridden character and effectiveness of adaptation are most vividly manifested in the sociopsychological sphere. An important indicator of successful adaptation is the growing feeling among migrants of belonging to a certain social group in the new society and the self-identification with that group. Psychologists consider this stage of adaptation to be preliminary to the process of assimilation on the basis of which prerequisites emerge for the migrant striking root in a different sociocultural environment and becoming dissolved in it, leading eventually to the virtual disappearance of the ethnic culture of the minority.38 The study of the process of adaptation is closely linked with the social profile of Russian émigré community, heterogeneous according to a set of parameters (cultural, educational, professional, age, gender). In spite of such differences the social profile of the Russian émigré community in the interwar period had some common features which were due to the position of the émigrés. After becoming refugees most Russian citizens lost their former social, class and professional status and were marginalized. The result was a loss of value orientations, pessimism in assessing the present and the future and split personality.39 The process of adaptation of Russian émigrés involved not only objective but also subjective factors, i.e., the émigré’s mind-set, economic position, command of the local language, professional skills or lack thereof, and the psychological predisposition for becoming adapted to the alien cultural environment. Undoubtedly, émigrés who had skills that were in great demand, who knew the local language and the cultural traditions of the host country, had financial resources or had entered into mixed marriages were better placed for quick adaptation. Objective factors included the political and economic situation in the host country, differences of cultural tradition and language, the emigration and immigration policies and the relevant laws of the host country. It has to be noted that in the 1920s when the main Russian émigré communities abroad took shape, the policies of the host countries varied from conscious encouragement of the process of adaptation in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and France to the use of legal and day-to-day methods in order to squeeze Russian émigrés out of Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries and Germany. The process of adaptation of Russian refugees was also greatly influenced by the policy with regard to them pursued by the Soviet government which ultimately convinced the majority of Russians who found themselves in exile that emigration would inevitably become prolonged. The process of social adaptation of the Russian interwar emigration saw three periods connected with the evolution of the social consciousness of the émigré community as a whole. The first period (early 1920s) was marked by an extremely slow process of adaptation because the majority of Russian émigrés considered themselves to be Russian citizens who were about to return to Russia. Many pinned their hopes for return on military intervention, which produced the type of a “White émigré.” The second period (1920s) saw the triumph of the Soviet system in Russia, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the new authorities and most European countries, the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP). These factors shook the political resolve of the Russian émigré community as reflected by the “Changing Landmarks” (smenovekhovstvo) movement, “Returnism” (vozvrashchenstvo) and Eurasianism (Evraziistvo). Pavel Milyukov, one of the émigré leaders, argued that “the defeat of the

15

White movement was irreversible” and proposed “new tactics” of fighting against Soviet power that put the stake on internal Russian forces of resistance and envisaged a longer period of struggle. Social consciousness in the émigré community began to be fragmented.40 All these are features of the political psychology of Russian emigration in the 1920s. The third stage (early 1930s) is marked by the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, the strengthening of the fascist regime in Italy, an overall change of the international situation and the growing threat of military conflicts. The complicated political situation required each émigré to take a stand, which led to further polarization of political sentiments that ranged from active rejection of fascism and intolerance of Stalinism to collaboration with the fascists. The totality of the political sentiments within the Russian émigré community in that period adds up to the prevailing mass consciousness in the community as a whole. The process of adaptation of Russian émigrés cannot be fully understood without considering the role of mixed marriages which enabled an émigré to enter the new cultural milieu much more quickly and painlessly, to obtain citizenship and become an equal member of the new society. Until 1927 the procedure of acquiring French citizenship remained prolonged and involved many stages (an immigrant could claim citizenship only after living in the country for ten years). A new law cut that period to three years and for those married to French citizens to one year. Mixed marriages undoubtedly accelerated the adaptation of Russian émigrés: 5803 Russian émigrés were granted French citizenship in 1926, ten years later that figure increased by nearly 2.5 times to 13,810. The picture of the life of the Russian diaspora will not be complete without answering the question: why did it find so difficult to become integrated into West European society? At least three main causes can be identified: the deeply ingrained mentality of the émigrés; rejection on the part of Western society, and perhaps most importantly, the desire to return home and, accordingly, the preservation of national identity in every possible way: the creation of the Russian secondary and higher educational institutions, theaters, libraries, archives, research institutions and academic organizations, and much else. This was the purpose of creating the Zemgor organization which had a far-flung network of branches under a coordinating center.41 With the strengthening of the Soviet regime the émigré community saw its hope of returning dwindle and became increasingly sensitive about its minority position in the West European society, which in turn shifted the emphasis from the political to the cultural field: the preservation of Russian traditions, education, language and faith.42

Russian Emigration in a Comparative Analysis An analysis of the structural parameters of the émigré community provides the scientific basis for classifying émigré communities in terms of their functioning in various types of societies. The structure of differences among émigré communities of various types (and within each émigré community) that we have identified is an important indicator of why these communities behaved differently in different cultural conditions. A functional analysis of emigration has to take into account two groups of factors: 1) the factors stemming from the overall cultural environment in which an émigré community exists; 2) the specifics of functioning of a concrete diaspora that are prompted by its structural

16

features and purposeful attitude towards the cultural environment and the host society. A theoretical model may envisage three situations: first, when the first group of factors (cultural milieu) becomes constant and unchanged while the second group of factors (the infrastructure of the diaspora) undergoes serious changes; second, the reverse situation where the first group of factors changes while the second group remains constant, and thirdly, when both groups of factors change at one and the same time. Let us consider the three cases illustrating each of the three models. An illustration of the first model is European emigration to the USA in the early 20th century. The cultural and social situation remained unchanged until the Great Depression, but it was the emigration proper that changed partly due to the quota system and the desire of the émigrés to become integrated into the new society. This was very different from the case of the Russian emigration in China. A distinctive feature of that situation was that the Russian émigré community in China did not have even a theoretical, let alone practical, chance to preserve its cultural connections to its country of origin. The Russian diaspora in China, according to numerous sources, had to effect that connection only indirectly, by means of creating a Russian school, deliberately fostering Russian national customs, publishing literature in the Russian language and maintaining cultural links with Russian émigré communities in Europe. The opportunities were obviously limited, which tended to make the Russian émigré community an unstable and isolated enclave in Chinese society which could never become its permanent part (unlike the Chinese immigrants to America). After the Second World War the Russian émigré community in China ceased to exist and faced a choice between returning to the USSR and emigrating a second time to the USA or Australia. Thus, the fate of Russian emigration in China, which survived after the revolution and the Japanese invasion, illustrates the second model. At the same time one should note that unlike the experience of the Russian émigré community in China, some other historical instances of this model’s functioning (when the cultural milieu changes but the émigré community remains the same) attest that because the émigré community remains the same quantitatively, it even gains some advantages in the changing social and cultural conditions. The conservative “White” émigrés in Italy and Germany in the early 1920s had no local public’s support because in those countries there was a tendency to idealize the new Soviet state. However, the attitudes in Italy and Germany towards Russian émigrés changed markedly for the better in the late 1920s as they came to be seen as martyrs. The reason lay not in the émigré community itself, which had not changed, but in the political actions of the Soviet government that caused resentment in European society, as well as the change of political regimes in those countries. The third model, i.e., when the cultural milieu and the émigré community change simultaneously, was observed in the states bordering on Russia because the political and cultural situation in the region was to a large extent shaped by the actions of the great powers and the reshaping of the world as a result of the First World War and the revolutions while the émigré community failed to adapt itself to the new situation within the newly formed states, felt uncomfortable and sought to radically change its position. Refugees from Germany in prewar Europe found themselves in a similar situation when emigration from Germany to other European countries was followed by emigration to the US as fascism advanced.

17

On the whole, the proposed experience of modeling diasporas correlates with geographical or geopolitical features of the position of diasporas in various regions of the world. With regard to Russian emigration, that criterion identifies four regions. The first adaptation model is characteristic of Slavic countries, the second of Central Europe and the Far East and the third, of the bordering (limitrophe) states. We have thus constructed the ideal type of emigration (a model based on the most typical features of all emigrations in the interwar period) in order to reveal the specifics of the main parameters of Russian emigration and establish its uniqueness in the 20th-century world. This ideal type is a synthesis of the results of our historical and sociological analysis of emigration and classification of its various types according to key parameters (revealed in previous empirical studies). The classification is based on structural, functional and dynamic concepts of sociological analysis: 1) structural parameters of the classification of emigration: problem aspects, normative regulation and social structure; 2) typology by functional parameters that determine the character of different diasporas and their place in the corresponding societies; 3) the dynamics of Russian emigration as a unique 20th century phenomenon. The functioning of various diasporas depends to a large extent on their structural features. Both quantitatively and qualitatively (for example, the exile of dissident writers from totalitarian regimes) we may be talking about different numbers: from a small group of people to millions of displaced persons. The question arises whether such emigrations can be treated as phenomena of one and the same order. In the former case we deal with a fairly common situation in the history of humankind when individuals are stripped of their citizenship and exiled (ostracism is an example from the history of Ancient Greece), and the practice of depriving criminals of human rights that recurs throughout history. We deal with a different situation when large groups of people migrate as a result of objective circumstances: famine, epidemics, and economic interests. A third situation, and the one that is of the greatest interest to us, is forced displacement of the population as a result of major social conflicts. The literature does not have a special term to denote the features of that category of émigrés. The phenomenon of that type of emigration (notwithstanding some superficially similar earlier analogues in the shape of religious wars or revolutions) is characteristic of the time after the First World War which saw the emergence of international legal regulation of that situation. This argues in favor of introducing a new concept that reflects the features of the new modern-day emigration: “mass antitotalitarianist emigration.” In our opinion, this concept specifies and expresses more clearly the essential features of the unique phenomenon that did not exist until the modern times and at the same time distinguish it from the very broad and ill-defined category of emigrations in history and in the modern world that were connected with the movement of people under the impact of specific economic, national and natural factors, but were not as all-embracing and did not have such clearly pronounced qualitative characteristics. We can attempt to sum up the key characteristics of the phenomena of mass antitotalitarianist emigrations. First. They are all the results of major sociopolitical conflicts which lead to a change of political regimes and of their entire social system in

18

corresponding countries, and often a change in the cultural and civilizational basis of its development (which accords with the very nature of totalitarian ambitions to make society over and even to create “the new man”). The second characteristic of this type of emigration is that along with being massive it represents practically all social groups of the population. This feature distinguishes it from other massive emigrations of our time when one particular social group (ethnic, religious, social and political minority) is discriminated against. The distinction of antitotalitarianist emigration is that it is represented not by minorities but by a cross-section of society in a country. The third characteristic of this type of emigration is that during its course an alien culture is grafted onto a new cultural milieu. The result is interaction of two cultures which may or may not be accompanied by conflict. The interaction may be patterned on the three models referred to above. The fourth characteristic is the leading role of the intelligentsia which accumulates those cultural parameters over which the émigré community enters into an insuperable contradiction with the newly established totalitarian regime (that accounts for the high degree of cultural homogeneity of such an emigration and its high level of self-identification defined by negative values common of all its representatives, values offered by totalitarian regimes). The fifth characteristic feature is the difficulty of the adaptation of that type of émigrés to the culture of the host country because it considers that its status is temporary and must be overcome through the overthrow of the totalitarian regime and the return of the émigrés. The cleavages within that emigration spring from fierce ideological and political debates over the attitude to the totalitarian regime and, accordingly, to various ideological and political trends within the host country. Among the features of such types of émigré communities is the character of their relationship with other émigré groups to which this model of the émigré consciousness is in a way projected and which are seen exclusively in terms of whether they can contribute to solving the overriding problem of the antitotalitarianist emigration. Antitotalitarian émigrés cannot return to their home country without risking their lives (isolated examples confirm rather than refute that rule). By using these criteria we are able to localize the phenomenon in time and space. If we consider the proposed construct as the ideal type of a particular kind of emigration in the modern times we can limit the range of phenomena studied to several concrete historical situations that gave rise to this phenomenon. The most typical situations corresponding to that model in the 20th century were the Armenian emigration connected with the genocide of 1911 (though with important reservations because several characteristics of the classical model were missing), the Russian postrevolutionary emigration of 1917-1939, the anti-Nazi emigration from Germany after 1933 and the Spanish emigration of 1936. A number of émigré movements sometimes mentioned in the same context also merit attention although they do not quite fit into the ideal model. Examples are Italian and Portuguese emigrations after authoritarian coups. They were less numerous, had less pronounced ideological characteristics and were less homogeneous. This study warrants the conclusion that there were great similarities between the Russian emigration and other antitotalitarianist emigrations in Europe that came later. Similarities can be found for all the characteristics of this type of emigration. Thus, the first feature (the result of a major social and political conflict) is present in all the three cases: the Revolution and the Civil War in Russia in 1917-1921, the passing of anti-

19

Jewish laws in Nazi Germany in 1933-1934, the Civil War and the establishment of the Franco regime in 1936. The key events that triggered emigration were the adoption of laws that stripped a certain population group of citizenship rights (Resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of October 28, 1921, and of the Central Executive Committee of December 15, 1921, in Russia; the Nuremberg Laws, in Germany; the Law of January 31, 1926, on Amendments and Additions to the Citizenship Law of June 13, 1912, in Italy; “Black Lists” of political refugees, in Italy and Spain). Another feature was that people emigrated irrespective of their former social, economic and political status (“alien class elements” in Russia, racially alien elements in Germany and anyone opposing the concepts of Franco’s National Revolution in Spain). Paradoxically, some of these criteria were of a diametrically opposite kind, which, however, made no difference to the character of emigration: anti-Communists in Russia and Communists in Spain, clergy in Russia and anarchists or opponents of the Church in Spain, nationalists in Russia and internationalists in Spain. These categories of émigrés were transplanted to another totalitarian regime with ease: tsarist officers took the side of Franco and, conversely, Spanish revolutionaries emigrated to the USSR. The third feature is that Russian emigration in Europe represented the old Russian culture, including the highest manifestations of aristocratic culture. Spanish emigration, by contrast, brought to Europe left-wing culture in the shape of socialist, anarchist and communist trends. The German emigration similarly represented the classical national German culture. The fourth feature—the role of the intelligentsia—was pronounced in all the three cases. It even translated itself into theoretical ideas about the ways in which a distinct identity for the entire émigré community could be created. An example is the educational system in the Russian émigré community and the main ideological theories, i.e., left-wing in the Spanish and the German intelligentsia (Spanish Marxism, the Frankfurt School and the Eurasian Theory, the latter more conservative and more perceptive of the character of the adaptation of Russian émigrés). The fifth feature is the difficulty of adaptation of that type of emigration to the culture of the host country because the émigrés believed that their status was temporary and that it would end after the overthrow of the totalitarian regime and return from emigration. The Russian émigré community provides a striking example. It sought to preserve its culture by engaging in diverse social activities: the creation of Russian schools, universities, youth organizations, publishing, and church activities abroad. The comparison, however, reveals that Russian emigration in the interwar period was different from Spanish and German emigrations which were closer to the European culture and were assimilated much more easily. Preparation for challenging the regimes in their home countries was a drain on the forces of antitotalitarianist emigration. The above analysis permits to identify the general typological features of the Russian postrevolutionary emigration in the context of antitotalitarianist emigrations in the interwar period. Russian emigration fits most perfectly the abovementioned ideal type of that kind of modern-day emigration. Not only does it reveal all the characteristic features of this ideal type, but it can be said to have formed these features in a certain sense. The reason for this is that Russian emigration was the first historical example of this kind of emigration in postwar Europe. It lasted longer than other emigrations because the totalitarian system in the USSR survived longer than in Germany and Spain where it was modified or destroyed. This analysis and the proposed new concept of

20

antitotalitarianist emigrations are important for the analysis of similar types of emigration in later times (emigration from Iran after the Islamic Revolution, from Chile after the 1973 coup, and partly emigration as a result of the collapse of the Soviet-type regimes in Eastern Europe).

Results and Outlook for the Study of Russian Emigration The issue of the dynamics of Russian emigration as a unique 20th-century phenomenon takes on added significance in present-day political conditions because the formation of the civil society in Russia resulted, on the one hand, in the opening up for scholars of many previously inaccessible archives and, on the other hand, an awareness of the history of the “Russian abroad” as part of Russian history, its cultural heritage and the need to understand the history of the “Russian abroad” in the context both of the present and the past of the Russian and world history.43 The following features make Russian emigration stand out as a unique phenomenon in-20th century world history. Created as a result of the October 1917 coup and the Civil War, emigration challenged the isolationist model of the Soviet type of the state and was the expression of the liberal-democratic potential of Russian society in the early 20th century. It was thus the European-oriented part of Russian society. That, however, did not rule out a certain ambivalence in the position of emigration in interwar Europe where it faced the threat of assimilation and loss of national identity, especially in the period when authoritarian fascist regimes were established in the countries which had been defeated in the First World War. It was the other side of emigration that fueled its interest in national problems, the resurgence of nationalism and in some extreme forms even support of the Soviet dictatorship (the Eurasian and “change of landmarks”—smenovekhovstvo—theories). A study of the polemics in émigré publications at various stages in its development suggests that a firm European commitment lent relevance to the preservation of national identity and the latter was a kind of reaction to the difficulties of adaptation to the European culture experienced by different strata within the émigré community. Looking at things from the present-day historical perspective, it becomes more evident that rejection of the Bolshevik Revolution and the integration of émigrés into the European culture were a powerful factor that brought Russian and European civilizations closer together at the end of the 20th century thus paving the way for a new democratic stage in the country’s development and its Europeanization that began with the crisis of the one-party ideological regime. Despite the fact that the first generation of Russian émigrés was largely successful in resisting the process of acculturation by the host countries, the generations that followed were rather more involved in that process. One can state that the process involving second- and third-generation Russian émigrés took the shape of bicultural integration as they identified themselves both with the old (Russian) and the new culture. That enabled the descendants of Russian émigrés (the second and third generations) to avoid complete assimilation (renunciation of the culture of their own ethnic group, above all, language, religion and cultural traditions) and preserve their ethnic self-consciousness. This is borne out by the surveys conducted at the First Congress of Compatriots in August 1991 held in St. Petersburg which was attended by representatives of three generations of the first-wave emigration from the USA, Australia and Europe.

21

Most of them (56% of the respondents) saw themselves as Russian-born citizens of the countries where they live at present, and a significant number (37%, mainly the first-generation of émigrés) said they were “simply Russians.” The majority of émigrés felt “at home” in Russia, but many of them preferred to stay in their countries of residence even though they said they “could live here.” 58% of the respondents perceive Russia as “the historical motherland of their ancestors” and 42% as “their true motherland.” When asked about why the émigrés preserved their ethnic identity, the majority named the Russian Orthodox Church (77% are believers), the Russian language and communication with their compatriots within the community. The survey warrants the conclusion that out of the three regions represented at the Congress of Compatriots—the USA, Australia and the European countries—the Russian émigrés in Europe found it most difficult to adapt themselves because in Europe distinct ethnic strata are more clearly defined and cultural traditions are deeper (than in the countries whose populations consisted of émigrés, i.e., the USA and Australia), and therefore in Europe the pressure to assimilate was stronger. The wish to oppose compulsory assimilation provoked a psychological resentment of the process among the émigrés, a desire to preserve their national culture and distance themselves from the culture of the dominant ethnic group in this or that country by creating their own system of education, social and cultural organizations, periodicals and other structural parts of the Russian émigré community. These trends were not at all characteristic of the USA where all the ethnic groups enjoyed equal legal status in respect to the state. Each new generation of Russian émigrés sees a significant change in its ethnic self-awareness: they feel less Russian than their predecessors, do not use the Russian language as much in communicating with one another, even within their families (where children often do not speak Russian).44 However, the Orthodox Church to which the vast majority of émigrés belong is still a significant factor of ethnic identity among the new generations of émigrés. The experience of sociocultural adaptation of postrevolutionary Russian emigration while preserving its cultural identity is relevant in the context of migration processes in the post-Soviet space. The phenomenon of Russian postrevolutionary emigration is relevant for modern scholars because it can be seen as an alternative path of the development of Russia after October 1917. Russian emigration can be seen as an independent and complete sociocultural phenomenon: it was a model of cultural development that emerged as an antithesis to the Bolshevik experiment and that had its own original strategy of the development of Russian postrevolutionary society. The idea of Revolution was replaced by the idea of reforms, the idea of national self-determination including secession, by the principle of a single and indivisible Russia that recognizes the federative structure of the state or gradual expansion of administrative decentralization as a real option; proletkult (proletarian culture) values were rejected in favor of the traditions of classical culture, the idea of proletarian dictatorship was opposed by the ideas of the civil society and the law-governed state; the idea of the world revolution and class war was opposed by the principle of social compromises; the ideas of a centralized planned economy, by the principles of a free market economy. Current attempts to build a civil society and a law-governed state objectively must take into account the experience of Russian emigration. The Russian emigration abroad was a kind of social experiment involving representatives

22

of all the social strata in prerevolutionary Russia of various ages, educational level, economic status and of the majority of political parties. The analysis of the structure of the Russian émigré community, the geographical distribution of its centers shows that its philosophical discussions and its harking back to the past were focused on transforming the Russian tradition which was confronted with the historical challenge of the social upheavals of the 20th century. In fact it was about rethinking the place of Russia and its culture in the world, searching for common ground between Russian society and the world community on various continents, in different social systems and political regimes. That provided a unique historical opportunity to compare many key parameters of the Russian cultural tradition with analogous parameters in other countries and test them. To sum up, a comprehensive study of Russian emigration as a 20th-century historical phenomenon reveals its role as the link between old and new Russia, between Russia and Europe. It becomes possible to assess the contribution of the émigré community to the formation of the present-day Russian society. Its main feature is a conscious quest for a synthesis between European and Russian culture in which the principles of democracy and the rights of the individual worked out by the European civilization over the centuries become part of the warp and woof of traditional Russian national culture. The cultural paradigm of emigration is a doctrine of political and legal modernization aimed at creating a democratic civil society, a law-governed state that preserves its national features. That strategy can be defined as a conscious and consistent European choice for Russia. NOTES 1 I. Sabennikova, Russian Emigration (1917-1939): Comparative-Typological Study,

Tver, 2002 (in Russian). 2 The results of these studies are presented in encyclopedic publications. Social Thought

in Russia in the 18th—20th Centuries: An Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2005; Social Thought of the Russian Abroad: An Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2009. See also: Russian Liberals, Moscow, 2001; The Model of Restructuring Russia, Moscow, 2004; Russian Liberalism: Ideas and People, Moscow, 2007 (all in Russian).

3 J.P. Nielsen, Milukov and Stalin, P.N. Milukov’s Political Evolution in Emigration (1918-1943), Oslo, 1983; V. Shelokhayev (ed.), Milyukov: Historian, Politician, Diplomat. Collection of Articles, Moscow, 2000; D. Aronov, The First Speaker: a Scientific Biography of S.A. Muromtsev, Moscow, 2006; A. Kara-Murza, A Russian Doctor and Politician, I.P. Aleksninsky (1871-1945): His Road to Calvary, Moscow, 2009 (in Russian).

4 W.G. Rosenberg, Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party, 1917-1921, Princeton (New Jersey), 1974; L.H. Himson, The Mensheviks. From the Revolution of 1917 to the Second World War, Chicago, London, 1974; J. Stephan, The Russian Fascists: Tragedy and Farce in Exile, 1925-1945, New York, 1978; P. Avrich, The Russian Anarchists1905-1917, New York, 1967.

5 On Eurasia and Europeans: (Bibliographic Index), Petrozavodsk, 1997; N. Tolstoy (ed.), The Russian Eurasianism: the East in Russian Thought, Moscow, 1997 (both in Russian).

23

6 S. Kuleshov (ed.), The Star and the Swastika: Bolshevism and Russian Fascism, Moscow, 1994; M. Omelchenko, The Political Life of the Russian Abroad: Historical Essays (1920s—1930s), Moscow, 1977; S. Kuleshov et al. (eds.) Political History: Russia—USSR—Russian Federation, in 2 vols., Moscow, 1996; V. Shelokhayev (ed.), Minutes of the Meetings of the Central Committee and the Overseas Groups of the Constitutional Democratic (Cadet) Party, 1905—1930s, in 6 vols., Moscow, 1977; N. Kanishcheva, “The Mainstream of the Constitutional Democratic (Cadet) Party in Emigration,” The Historian’s Calling: Problems of the Spiritual and Political History of Russia, Moscow, 2001; V. Tishkov et al. (eds.), Nationalism in World History, Moscow, 2007 (all in Russian).

7 H.T. Volkmann, Die Russische Emigration in Deutschland. 1919-1929, Würzburg, 1966; R.C. Williams, Culture in Exile. Russian Émigrés in Germany. 1881-1941, New York, 1972; M. Beyssac, La vie culturelle de l’emigration russe en France. Chronique (1920-1930), Paris, 1971; Russian Emigrants. Contribution to the Scientific and Cultural Life of America, New York, 1985; I. Okuntsov, Russian Emigration in North and South America, Buenos Aires, 1967; Russian Berlin. 1921-1923, Paris, 1983; V. Belyakov, Africa Gives Refuge to a Firebird: Russians in Egypt, Moscow, 2000 (in Russian); The Russian Diaspora in Africa: (1920s—1950s), a collection of articles, A. Letnev (ed.), Moscow, 2001 (in Russian); O. Kaznina, The Russians in England: Russian Émigrés in the Context of Russian-English Literary Ties in the First Half of the 20th Century, Moscow, 1997 (in Russian); G. Melikhov, Russian Emigration in China (1917-1924), Moscow, 1997 (in Russian); Der grosse Exodus. Die russische Emigration und ihre Zentren 1917 bis 1941, München, 1994; Ye. Pivovar (ed.), Russian Emigration in Turkey, South-East and Central Europe in the 1920s: (Civilian Refugees, the Army and Educational Establishments), Moscow, 1994 (in Russian).

8 Z. Nenasheva, “Masaryk and Krmař As Ideologues of Slavic Unity As Perceived by the Russian Consul in Prague,” Slavic Almanach, 1999, Moscow, 2000, pp. 123-130 (in Russian); T. Novoselova, “On the Role of Russian Émigrés in the Development of Agriculture in Czechoslovakia (1920s),” Slavic World: Problems of Study, Tver, 1998, pp. 122-130 (in Russian); I. Sabennikova, “Russische Volksuniversität (R.N.U.) in Prag,” Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte, Band 7, Stuttgart, 2004, S. 215-227.

9 Z. Karpus, “Emigracja rosyjska, ukraińska i białoruska w Polsce w okresie miedzywojennym (1918-1939). Stan badan i postulaty badawcze,” Regiony pograniczne Europy Srodkowo-Wschodniej w XVI-XX wieku, Torun, 1996, s. 93-100; M. Birman, “Russian Emigration in Bulgaria,” Novy zhurnal, Book 218, New York, 2000, pp. 167-179; V. Kosik, The Russian Church in Yugoslavia (1920s—1940s), Moscow, 2000 (in Russian); M. Jovanovich, Russian Emigration to the Balkans, 1920-1940, Moscow, 2005 (in Russian); Ts. Kyoseva, Russian Émigrés in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2005 (in Bulgarian).

10 The range of studies includes: “The Russian action” in Prague, higher and secondary education schools of the Russian émigré community in Czechoslovakia, the cultural and scientific life of the Russian community as a whole and individual social groups (students, professors, Cossacks, etc.), the structure of documents in the Prague

24

Archive (RZIA) at the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF) and of Russian Funds at the Slavic Library in Prague.

11 O. Boss, Die Lehre der Eurasien. Ein Beitrag zur Russischen Ideengeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden, 1961; R.H. Johnston, New Mecca. New Babylon—Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920-1945, Kingston, 1988; R.S. Williams, Culture in Exile—Russian Emigrants in Germany, 1881-1941, London, 1972.

12 M. Raeff, Russia Abroad. A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919-1939, New York, 1990.

13 N. Ablova, The CER and Russian Emigration in China: International and Political Aspects of History: the First Half of the 20th Century, Moscow, 2005; E. Aurilene, The Russian Diaspora in China (1920s—1950s), Khabarovsk, 2008; A. Khisamutdinov, Countries of Dispersion, in 2 vols., vol. 1, The Russians in China, vol. 2, The Russians in Japan, America and Australia, Vladivostok, 2000; V. Pecheritsa, The Spiritual Culture of the Russian Emigration in China, Vladivostok, 1999 (all in Russian).

14 P. Milyukov, The History of the Second Russian Revolution, Moscow, 2001 (in Russian); P. Sorokin, Sociology of Revolution, London, 1924; A. Kerensky, The Russian Revolution, Moscow, 2005 (in Russian); V. Chernov, The Great Russian Revolution. Reminiscences of the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly, 1905-1920, New Haven, 1936; V. Chernov, The Great Russian Revolution. New Haven, 1936; P. Struve, A Politician’s Diary (1925-1935), Moscow, 2004; V. Maklakov, Reminiscences, Moscow, 2006 (the latter two in Russian).

15 V. Shelokhayev (ed.), Political Parties in Russia: Late19th—the First Third of the 20th Centuries, an Encyclopedia, Moscow, 1996; A. Nikolyukin (ed.), The Literary Encyclopedia of the Russian Abroad (1918-1940), [vol. 1]. Russian Writers Abroad, Moscow, 1997, vol. 2, parts 1-3, Moscow, 1996-1997; The Russian Abroad: the Golden Book of the Russian Emigration, an Encyclopedic Biographical Dictionary, Moscow, 1997; Russian Social Thought in the 18th—20th Centuries. An Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2005; Social Thought of the Russian Abroad: an Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2009 (all in Russian).

16 The Refugee Problem. Report of a Survey by Sir John Hope Simpson. London, 1939. 17 A. Medushevsky, A History of Russian Sociology, Moscow, 1994; idem, Sociology of

Law, Moscow, 2006 (in Russian). 18 G. Starodubtsev, International Law Studies in the Russian Émigré Community,

Moscow, 2000 (in Russian). 19 The Legal Status of Russian Emigration in the 1920s—1930s, St. Petersburg, 2006 (in

Russian). 20 I. Sabennikova, “Overseas Archival Rossika. List of Sources and Literatures,” Vestnik

arkhivista, 1998, No. 5, pp. 119-126; 1998, No. 6, pp. 88-100; 1999, No. 1, pp. 96-104; No. 2/3, pp. 100-107; No. 4, pp. 115-123; 2000, No. 1, pp. 143-152; 2001, No. 4/5, pp. 218-240; 2006, No. 4/5, pp. 236-265.

21 Funds of the Overseas Historical Archive in Prague. A Guide, Moscow, 1999. 22 C.A. Leadenham (compiled by), Guide to the Collections in the Hoover Institution

Archives Relating to Imperial Russia, the Russian Revolutions and Civil War, and the First Emigration, Stanford, 1986; A. Bourguina, M. Jakobson, Guide to the Boris Nicolaevsky Collection, Stanford, 1989.

25

23 GA RF, Fund 10003 (Microfilm Collection from the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution and Peace).

24 Russia in the Twentieth Century. The Catalog of the Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture, Boston, 1987.

25 L. Petrusheva, “Overseas Archive Rossika at the State Archive of the Russian Federation, 1998-2009,” Vestnik arkhivista, 2009, No. 3, pp. 172-183.

26 This is a great hindrance to the search for information which often has to rely on intuition. More on these documents in Vestnik arkhivista, 2000, No. 1.

27 General Catalogue of Russian Overseas and Ongoing Publications in the Libraries of St. Petersburg, 1917-1995, St. Petersburg, 1996; General Catalogue of Periodicals and Ongoing Publications of the Russian Abroad in the Libraries of Moscow, 1917-1999, Moscow, 1999 (both in Russian).

28 The Legal Status of Russian Emigration in the 1920s—1930s. 29 Collection of Laws and Ordinances of the RSFSR, 1921, pp. 710-711; Collection of

Laws and Ordinances of the USSR, 1924, pp. 364-366; Collection of Laws and Ordinances of the RSFSR of December 5, 1921, No. 578; Collection of Laws and Ordinances of the RSFSR of December 16, 1921, No. 611 (all in Russian).

30 The synoptic data on the size of the Russian emigration have been discovered by this writer and are quoted here and elsewhere based on the reports of Zemgor surviving at the Prague Archive (GA RF, Stock 5764, Stock 5775, 5899). For more detail see I. Sabennikova, Russian Emigration (1917-1939), Chapters 4-5.

31 GA RF, Stock 5775, Inv. 1, File 257, p. 116. 32 S. Isakov, Russian Public and Cultural Personalities in Estonia: Materials for a

Biographical Dictionary, vol. 1, Tartu, 1994; T. Feigmane, Russians in Prewar Latvia, 1920s—1940s, On the Way of Integration, Riga, 2000 (both in Russian).

33 Russian emigration was compared with other emigrations from totalitarian countries according to the above parameters in synoptic analytical documents of the French political police: Prefecture de Police. Cabinet du Préfet Archives, BA 1681.

34 I. Sabennikova, “The Geography of Social Thought of the Russian Abroad,” Social Thought of the Russian Abroad: an Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2009.

35 See the materials of Round Tables: “The February 1917 Revolution in Russian History, Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2007, No. 5; “The October Revolution and the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2008, No. 6.

36 M. Moseykina, “The Slavic Committee of the USSR and the Latin American Branch of the Russian Emigration: Links and Problems,” The Second Nansen Readings, St. Petersburg, 2009 (in Russian).

37 See: Russian Liberalism: Theory, Programs, Practices, Personalities, Orel, 2009 (in Russian).

38 N. Lebedeva, The Social Psychology of Ethnic Migrations, Moscow, 1993 (in Russian).

39 Sources on the History of Adaptation of Russian Émigrés in the 19th—20th Centuries, Moscow, 1997 (in Russian).

40 For more detail see: “The Centenary of Change of Landmarks (the Vekhi). The Intelligentsia and Power in Russia. 1909-2009,” Rossiyskaya istoriya, 2009, No. 6, pp. 106-124.

26

27

41 More on the activities of Zemgor and its archive in: I. Sabennikova, “The Zemstvo-Municipal Committee of Assistance to Russian Refugees Abroad (Zemgor): Composition, Structure and Geographical Centers),” Zarubezhnaya Rossiya: 1917-1939, St. Petersburg, 2000 (in Russian).

42 A. Popov, The Russian Abroad and Archives. Russian Emigration Documents in Moscow Archives: Problems of Identification, Arrangement, Description and Use, Moscow, 1998 (in Russian).

43 The Civil Society and the Law-Governed State as Factors in the Modernization of the Russian Legal System. Proceedings of the International Scientific-Theoretical Conference, St. Petersburg, 2009 (in Russian).

44 Aspects of the position of Russian diasporas in Europe in the first half of the 20th century are widely represented in the materials of the conferences: The First Nansen Readings, St. Petersburg, 2008; The Second Nansen Readings.

Translated by Yevgeny Filippov