Sunday, May 10, 2015

Honour the victors over fascism!

On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the victory over fascism, you would think that the whole world would join with the people of the former Soviet Union in honouring Stalin, the Red Army and the Soviet people who bore the brunt of the fascist onslaught (20 million dead) and who defeated the Nazis and planted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag.

Instead, the Anglo-US imperialist bloc snubbed invitations to attend the VE (Victory in Europe) march in Moscow.  This is no surprise to me.  I've lived the better part of those seven decades in a country which has attacked and maligned the Soviet Union.  All my life I've heard of D-Day and the Battle of the Coral Sea.  Stalingrad and Kursk?  No, they've been disappeared in favour of a distortion which has justified our subservience to the US.

Rather than continue to vent my spleen on the criminals who disrespect the glorious Soviet resistance to, and victory over, fascism, I am reprinting a speech by journalist and film-maker Joshua Tartakovsky, made a week ago in Moscow.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, respected guests
Governor Andrey Vorobiev
Veterans of the Great Patriotic War,
People who remember the war.

We are marking today 70 years for the victory of the Russian and Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. We are here to remember the immense heroic actions and the immense sacrifice. I stand before you honored and humbled that I was given the opportunity to speak.
70 years is not such a long time, it falls within the lifespan of a single individual, if he merits to live that long.

Yet how quickly have some people forgotten.

The West, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, claim today the central responsibility for winning the war without even a small sense of shame. Barack Obama and David Cameron wrote explicitly in an article they published that “together we defeated Hitler” while not mentioning Russia. They were born after the war. Long after.

Popular perceptions in the West have changed. In a poll in France on the question on which country was most responsible for the victory of the war there have been changes. In May 1945, 57% of the people attributed the victory of the war to the Soviet Union and 20% to the United States. In June 2004, 58% attributed the victory to the United States 20% attributed the victory to the Soviet Union.

The Western discourse regarding the war in recent decades has negated to mention the central role played by the Soviet Union in defeating Nazism. They choose instead to present Stalin and Hitler as allies.

Western academics claim that Communism and Nazism were equally cruel. They do that to points to the West’s supremacy. Yet they downplay the fact that without the Red Army, the war would have never been won.

They conveniently ignore the fact that Stalin offered the English and the French to form a common alliance against Germany in August 15, 1939. France and the UK refused. All following actions ensued from this basic fact.

Perhaps we should ask Jews if Communism and Nazism were equally bad. It would be interesting to hear what they say.

3 million Jews found a refuge in the USSR during the war. Western critics take issue with the fact that the USSR invaded Poland. What would have been the fate of the Jews in half of Poland had the USSR not invaded? We all know the answer.

Calls for equating Communism and Nazism come from those countries which collaborated with the Nazis. In the Baltics today there is an ongoing effort to equate Communism with Nazism. In Hungary, a museum is dedicated to the issue.

The West likes to take credit for itself while minimizing the contribution of others.

Some Western states have decided to boycott the 70th year of celebrations of the Great Victory. As if their opinion matters. Winston Churchill famously said that the Soviet Union could have defeated Hitler on its own, without Western help. Let us not forget that between 1933 and 1941, the West tried to appease Hitler. Ingratitude is not a good virtue.

Memory is sacred. Those who bother to study history – know by whose efforts the war was won. Those who were during the war- know. I know because my great grandparents were killed by the Einsatzgruppen and Ukrainian Nazis in Babi Yar and my grandfather fought in the Red Army. Without the victory of the Soviet people, I would of course not be here today.

The West can make such absurd claims today, only because many Nazis have already died. While these Nazis were alive, they would have not dared to make such claims.

Yet as if denying history is not bad enough, the West is now supporting a fascist junta in Kiev that is engaging in the bombardment of the people of Donbass that it considers subhuman.

The president of the Junta claims that the UPA and OUN are heroes of Ukraine.

It is now illegal to criticize the actions they took.

Communist symbols are illegal.

Monuments of Lenin have been destroyed by vandalists.

Neo-Nazi gangs are being trained by NATO.

In a sense, we cannot blame Kiev. They are Banderites. But how can the West support them and forget so quickly? That is the question.

It should not come as a surprise. Once history is rewritten, wrong actions are taken."

I just returned from a visit to Donetsk, just last week.

I went there with a mission of journalists, since the Western media has been misrepresenting the situation there.

In Donetsk I saw elderly women and men, some of who survived the war, living in buildings that bear scars of shooting.

Every day they are being shelled by Ukrainian forces. They have nowhere to go and no one to take care of them. A woman I talked to told me that her husband died and she has no kids. She lives alone, facing daily bombardment.

I saw it with my own eyes. While I was there, we were shelled.

What can I tell people who survived the Great Patriotic War and now face bombardment by Kiev?

I visited Stepanovka. near Donetsk. Entire rows of homes in the village were destroyed. After the brother of a neo-Nazi leader Dmytro Yarosh was killed, Ukrainian forces went on to shell as many homes as possible and kill as much as possible. The Germans used this same tactic.
I visited a memorial for World War II. It is located on top of a tall mountain, overlooking the region. The Ukrainian Army took over it and shelled villages below. After DNR forces blockaded the area from supplies, the Ukrainian army went on to delivery by helicopters. Two helicopters were shot down by DPR forces. 

The hill was eventually liberated. But the Nazi gangs placed explosives which demolished the monument in various locations.

They were trying to erase the history of the Great Patriotic War and the heroism of the Red Army. In this way, they are no different from leaders of the West who deny the sacrifice of the people of the Soviet Union in the war and seek to rewrite history.

I was very upset but what I saw in Donetsk. But I was also inspired.

I met many people, young and old, who are determined to resist the Kiev junta and protect their homes and territory.

The streets of Donetsk were clean. Even cleaner than in Moscow. Cafes were open.

The National Theater has plays which show every day at 2 in the afternoon.

I saw a band playing for May Day in Lenin Square on the main stage. The area was filled with young people.

The people of Donetsk gave me hope. They are strong and they will resist pressures from Kiev to force them into submission.

Nazism was arrogant, it viewed Russians, Slavs, Jews, Gypsies as less than humans.

Today we have a regime in Kiev that views the people in Donbass as subhumans. But not only in Kiev.

The United States views the rest of the world as its playground, as it frequently invades countries. It believes in military aggression in order to secure its goals. It views Russians as undesirables and subhuman, but not only Russians. Also, Syrians, Libyans, Venezuelans, Iraqis. The death of people in Donbass means nothing to the United States. Even in its own country, the United States has its undesirables. Its police shoots black youth with impunity. We see what is happening in Baltimore now. What was Nazism if not arrogance and faith that some people are more worthy than others? What was Nazism if not military aggression?

The US is acting as an empire and destroying countries, their cultures and their lands. It is responsible for invasions and bloodshed throughout the world.

It believes in its inherent supremacy above others.

Such actions can be taken only by those who have no historical memory.

Had World War II been taught correctly in the US, the government would have not been able to go on to sponsor Banderites in Kiev.

Had the history of Vietnam been studied thoroughly, perhaps more people would have opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Such actions can only be carried out by people who have no historical memory.

Such actions can only be carried out by people who have no respect for the sacrifices others made.

And with arrogance and belief in one’s supremacy also comes impatience.

Nazi Germany could not wait patiently. It prematurely attacked Moscow, Kursk and Stalingrad, resulting in its eventual loss.

The United States is very impatient in its invasions and coups around the world.
We are entering difficult times. 

It seems that the US will stop at nothing to pursue its goals. The West is arrogant and rewriting the past. It takes credit where credit is not due. It openly supports a fascist junta in Kiev which is committing atrocities against people who are considered undesirable.

At these difficult times, memory is sacred.

Without memory life has no meaning.

Without memory, crimes are enabled.

Without memory, there is no humanity.

Today we cherish and remember the great sacrifice made by millions of Russian and Soviet people and their victory in defeating Nazism.

Thank you"

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Australian Constitution used in Abbott attack on living standards

Today’s front page of Murdoch’s unAustralian carries the news that billions of dollars will be stripped from funding to the states in the coming federal budget.
Schools and hospitals will be the hardest hit with Treasury figures showing the commonwealth savings from cutting funding to the states for hospitals and schools will escalate rapidly, rising from $1bn in 2017-18 to $3bn in 2018-19 and $7bn the following year. By 2020-21, it will be $10bn.
Hockey and Abbott justify these funding cuts by pointing out that under the Australian Constitution health, education and housing are state responsibilities.
The article contains the following paragraph:
Joe Hockey said yesterday the growth in funding under Labor’s formula was not sustainable and it was up to the states to find their own funding for hospitals. “The states want us to do the unpopular things to raise the moneys so they can spend it,” the Treasurer said. “The states need to accept responsibility for the things they run. If they do that and if we’re all -accountable for the things we are actually responsible for, we’ll have a more efficient system.”
Abbott has already said that if the states can’t run hospitals and schools with the money the commonwealth provides, then they can reintroduce their own income tax schemes or agree to put up GST.
What the Coalition is doing represents a seismic shift in the delivery of “soft services” like education and health.  It is a massive attack on the equitable provision of such services and the pointy end of a nasty austerity agenda.
This little booklet is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the Coalition’s use of an out-of-date Constitution to force each state to raise the revenue for schools, hospitals and housing.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Julius Fučík: Report from the Gallows

This is a cross-posting from the onefortheplough blog.  We need to remember and celebrate fighters against fascism.

“Look, my play is also approaching its end. That’s something I haven’t yet written. That’s something I don’t yet know. It’s no longer a play. It’s Life. And in life there are no spectators. The curtain goes up. People, I have loved you. Be on your Guard!”- Julius Fučík

Today a wave of anti-communism is being unleashed across Europe. While communists are generally attacked, ridiculed, or simply ignored by the big business controlled mass media, in Eastern Europe communist parties are being banned, leading members arrested, and in some sickening cases governments are celebrating the traitors who joined the SS while partisans, who fought for their countries, are being put on trial for alleged war crimes.

In the Czech Republic, the communist party, which has mass popular support, faces following the same fate as its youth section in being outlawed. The intensification of anti-communism in Europe is sinisterly taking place at the same time when communist parties, particularly in Greece, Portugal, France and Spain, are leading resistance to brutal anti-people austerity measures being implemented by the EU and IMF.

Last year we celebrated the 65th anniversary of the victorious struggle against fascism that our grandfathers fought. The Nazis, openly supported by sections of the capitalist class, arrested those who would stand up to prevent their plans for genocide, the trade unionists and socialists. But the Nazis were most vicious in their elimination of their greatest foes-communists.

One of the greatest heroes who stood up for freedom was the Czech communist Julius Fučík. Julius was born into a working class family in Prague at the turn of the twentieth century. He grew a keen interest in politics and literature, something that got him into trouble as he was arrested many times by the Czechoslovakian Secret Police in the 1930s. Julius traveled to Nazi Germany and the USSR and wrote extensively about the dangers of fascism and the huge advances in human progress being made in the Soviet Union.

The Czech government banned in the Communist Party in 1938, but this didn’t stop Julius joining the army in an attempt to protect his nation. The cowardly governments of the capitalist countries of Europe were keen to appease Hitler and communists increasingly found themselves being banned and having to operate underground.

After the Nazis had taken control of Czechoslovakia Julius continued carrying out communist party work and in 1942 he was arrested in a raid. He was imprisoned, interrogated, tortured and eventually taken to Berlin where he was executed in 1943.

Report from the Gallows (or Notes from the Gallows) was written about this experience. He managed to write the entire book on cigarette paper that was smuggled out of prison by sympathetic guards. These were collected together after the war by his wife Gusta Fučíková-who had also been arrested but liberated from a concentration camp in 1945. Gusta retrieved the cigarette papers from the various places in which they had been hidden and published Report from the Gallows in 1947.

The book is often very difficult to read in its graphic description of the horrors of Nazi prisons. If you read this book alone at night you find yourself there with Julius alone in his cell. You can hear the echoing screams of the other prisoners. Yet the book is even harder to put down as Julius’s continuing ability to consider a brighter future for humanity stands in direct contrast to his brutally depressing environment. Julius stands tall and defiant in face of all the evils of fascism. You can see Julius sat in his cell audaciously scribbling notes on cigarette papers. In short the book is inspirational in its depiction of the tenacity of humanity to shine through and overcome tyranny.

If Julius’s book was simply a piecemeal account of courageousness written secretly in a Nazi prison it would be a compelling read yet it's legendary status was attained by Julius's talent. Report from the Gallows is a work of art forged by a genius word smith, thoroughly planned and written down on meticulously numbered cigarette papers-rescued from oblivion only as a result of all those who gave their lives to liberate occupied Europe.

Julius’s account has been hailed by some of the world’s best writers. Pablo Neruda, Chilean communist and winner of the 1971 Nobel Prize for Literature, stated that “We live at a time which in literature will be known tomorrow as the ‘Fučík period’, a period of simple courage.” The foreword of the English language edition of Report from the Gallows is written by winner of the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize for Literature James Aldridge who challenges all who pick up the book:

“Read this book, you Communists, you Socialists, you Tories. Then go out and walk the wonderful real pavements and ask yourself what philosophy of life it was that kept this man’s belief in himself and in other men.”

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Canadian educator on teaching Aboriginal history

Ben Sichel is a progressive Canadian secondary school teacher who put up a post on his blog about the ethics of a non-Indigneous Canadian teaching Canadian Aboriginal history.

I won't copy the whole post in here, but I recommend you access it on his blog, where you can also look at a range of other topics he has dealt with:

The only thing I took issue with is the use of the term "settler" which I think we all need to challenge.  At the March 4 rally in Adelaide, I urged anyone with kids at school or who was at school themselves, to bring home any history text books (a disappearing artefact in any case) and go through and cross out the words "settle" and "settlement" and write in over the top of them "unsettler" and "unsettlement".  I said they were not acts of vandalism or of damage to history textbooks. They were necessary corrections to the vandalism and damage done to history by words that carry loaded meanings.

I put the following comment on Ben's post:

Ben – I’ve just finished reading the reprint of this post in Our Schools Our Selves.  I work at the Australian Education Union in South Australia.  One other approach you might like to use is to work with your kids to examine just how loaded the word “settler” is.  How often have you, as a teacher, called on a class to “settle down”.  To “settle” implies the positive action of bringing calm and order to a situation that is disorganised and out of control.  To refer to white invaders of First Nations lands as “settlers” (as mine were in 1839, three years after the foundation of South Australia) is to confer on them a benign title at odds with colonisation and displacement.  How can colonisation “settle” communities that were stable, sustainable and organised?  I have asked my students to read “unsettler” for “settler” and “unsettlement” for “settlement” out of respect for the settled communities that were disrupted and torn apart by colonisation.

I’ve also taken students outside to do the “brick count”.  Aboriginal Australians are known to have occupied this continent for somewhere between 50-60,000 years before unsettlement.  Students often don’t relate to that enormous span of time in any concrete conceptual way.  So we take a school building with a nice long wall and assign 1000 years to every brick, choose a starting point, and then walk the length of 50 bricks in the wall.  When we get to the last one, we divide it into fifths.  That roughly represents the slightly more than 200 years of European unsettlement.  It helps the kids see the significance of talking about “the world’s oldest continuous culture” and what Aboriginal Australians are entitled to take pride in and to protect.

Anyway, just wanted to share those two things with you and to thank you for your article.

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

Stalin and anti-Semitism


Amongst the many lies told about Stalin is the one that says he was anti-Semitic.

I am reposting below a refutation from the blog Stalinsmoustache.  In it the author refers to a question sent to Stalin by the US-based Jewish News Agency in 1931.

Stalin was the only world leader of any stature to unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism.  He responded to the Jewish News Agency as follows:

In answer to your inquiry :

National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

J. Stalin

January 12, 1931

Did any other world leader of comparable stature denounce anti-Semitism in such strong terms?  Did any other government declare anti-Semitism to be hostile to its economic and political system, and have such strong penalties for active anti-Semitism? 
If Stalin was insincere in his opposition to anti-Semitism why then did Pravda publish Stalin’s statement five years later, on November 30, 1936?  In the four years from 1933 to the end of 1936, Nazi Germany introduced 24 laws and regulations restricting the rights of its Jewish citizens, the last of which was a prohibition on the genital examination of Aryan women by Jewish medical students.[1]  Anti-Semitism was rife in other parts of Europe and was of growing concern to Jews in the US, Britain and its dominion states.  It was a phenomenon to which a great deal of momentum was attached, and against this tide, only one world leader stood firm.  Stalin’s definitive statement on anti-Semitism, communicated to US Jews in 1931, was reproduced in Pravda in 1936 to clearly communicate Soviet opposition to the growth of anti-Semitism.

There are some who claim that Stalin was an anti-Semite from his earliest days in the Tiflis Seminary; there are others who trace his alleged anti-Semitism to the alleged murder of Solomon  Mikhoels and the campaigns against Zionist influence in the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948. Yet the committee compiling the Russian edition of Stalin’s collected works saw fit to include Stalin’s 1931 statement in the collected works published in 1949.  It seems strange that if Stalin had decided on a course of virulent anti-Semitism in 1948 he would want his 1931 statement condemning anti-Semitism brought back to the attention of the Soviet people.  The same statement was included in the English language edition of the collected works published after Stalin’s death in 1955.
Here is the stalinsmoustache post:
Stalin’s ‘Anti-Semitism’
Posted by stalinsmoustache under communism, Stalin | Tags: anti-semitism, reading Stalin |
[5] Comments 
The accusation that Stalin was an anti-Semite is a strange one. Neither Stalin’s written texts nor his actions indicate anti-Semitism. Indeed, they indicate precisely the opposite, as I will show in a moment. So those who wish to make the accusation have to rely on hearsay – second- and third-hand snippets from passing conversations, whether from an estranged daughter or from those within and without the USSR who were not favourably disposed to Stalin.[1] And once such a position is ‘established’, it is then possible to read some of his actions and written comments in such a light. For instance, the ‘anti-cosmopolitan’ campaign of the late 1940s becomes a coded ‘anti-Semitic’ campaign. Or the ‘doctors plot’ of 1952-53 – in which leading doctors were suspected of seeking to assassinate government officials – is seen as an excuse for a widespread anti-Semitic purge and deportation,[2] halted only because of Stalin’s death (we may thank Khrushchev for this piece of speculation). However, the only way such an assumption can work is that many doctors in the Soviet Union were Jewish; therefore the attack on doctors was anti-Semitic. Equally, even more doctors were Russian, but for some strange reason, the plot is not described as anti-Russian.
Unfortunately for Stalin’s accusers, even the hearsay indicates that Stalin was opposed to the deep-rooted anti-Semitism of Russian culture. During the anti-cosmopolitan campaign of 1948-49 – which was actually anti-capitalist in the wake of the Second World War – it became the practice in some journal articles to include, where possible, the original family names in brackets after the Russian name. Sometimes, such original names were Jewish. When Stalin noticed this he commented:
Why Mal’tsev, and then Rovinskii between brackets? What’s the matter here? How long will this continue …? If a man chose a literary pseudonym for himself, it’s his right…. But apparently someone is glad to emphasise that this person has a double surname, to emphasise that he is a Jew…. Why create anti-Semitism?[3]
Indeed, to the Romanian leader, Gheorghiu-Dej, Stalin commented pointedly in 1947, ‘racism leads to fascism’.[4] At this point, we face an extraordinary contradiction: those who would accuse Stalin of anti-Semitism must dismiss his deep antipathy to fascism and deploy the reductio ad Hitlerum. If one assumes, even subconsciously, that Hitler and Stalin were of the same ilk, then it follows that Stalin too must be an anti-Semite. Apart from the sheer oxymoron of an anti-fascist fascist, this assertion seems very much like the speculative thought bubble that becomes ‘true’ through a thousand repetitions.[5]
I prefer to follow a rather conventional approach, instead of relying on hearsay, gossip and speculation. That approach is to pay attention to his written statements and actions. These are rather telling. Already in ‘Marxism and the National Question’ (1913), in which Stalin deals extensively with the Jews and the Bund (The General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia), he points out that dispersed minorities such as the Jews would be given the full range of protections, in terms of language, education, culture and freedom of conscience, within a socialist state. This would become his standard position, reiterated time and again and contrasted with the tsarist autocracy’s fostering of pogroms.[6] It was also reflected in extensive programs among Jews, including the fostering – not without problems and failures – of Yiddish, Jewish institutions and the significant presence of Jews at all levels of government.[7]
From time to time, Stalin had to deal with outbursts of anti-Semitism that still ran deep in Russian culture (thanks to the residual influence of tsarist autocracy). For example, in 1927 he explicitly mentions that any traces of anti-Semitism, even among workers and in the party is an ‘evil’ that ‘must be combated, comrades, with all ruthlessness’.[8] And in 1931, in response to a question from the Jewish News Agency in the United States, he describes anti-Semitism as an ‘an extreme form of racial chauvinism’ that is a convenient tool used by exploiters to divert workers from the struggle with capitalism. Communists, therefore, ‘cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism’. Indeed, in the U.S.S.R. ‘anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system’. Active ‘anti-semites are liable to the death penalty’.[9]
This was no empty boast, as those who accuse Stalin of anti-semitism seem to assume. It is worth noting that article 123 of the 1936 Constitution ensured that this position was law.[10] Active anti-Semitism, even racial slurs, were severely punished. It may be surprising to some, but one of the key tasks of the NKVD (precursor to the KGB) was to counteract waves of residual anti-Semitism.[11] Yes, one of the jobs of the infamous secret police of the USSR was to root out anti-Semitism.
Further, the ‘affirmative action’ program of the Soviet Union,[12] enacted in Stalin’s capacity as Commissar for Nationality Affairs (1917-24), was explicitly a program in which territories of identifiable ethnic minorities were established, with their own languages and forms of education, the fostering of literature and cultural expression, and local forms of governance. As for dispersed minorities, even within such regions, they were provided with a stiff framework of protections, including strong penalties for any form of racial denigration and abuse. Already in 1913 Stalin had prefigured such an approach, specifying among others ‘the Jews in Poland, the Letts in Lithuania, the Russians in the Caucasus, the Poles in the Ukraine, and so on’.[13] They too – in a program of indigenization (korenizatsiia)[14] – should be able to use their own languages, operate their own schools, law-courts and soviets, and have freedom of conscience in matters relating to religion. Indeed, by the mid-1930s the Jews too were identified as a ‘nation’ with territory, having the Jewish Autonomous district in Birobidzhan.[15] This importance of this move (part of Crimea had also been proposed) is rarely recognised. It eventually failed, but it was the first move towards Jewish territory in the modern era.[16]
A final question: what about the attacks on Judaism as a religion? In 1913, Stalin wrote of the ‘petrified religious rites and fading psychological relics’[17] fostered by pockets of the ‘clerical-reactionary Jewish community’.[18] Is this anti-Semitic? No, it is anti-religious. Judaism too was subject anti-religious campaigns, which had the result not so much of divorcing Jews from their religious ‘roots’ but of producing a profound transformation in Jewish institutions and culture, so much so that one can speak of a ‘sovietisation’ of Jewish culture that produced Jews who were not religious but proud of contributions to Soviet society.[19]
What are we to make of all this? Do the hearsay and implicit assumptions speak the truth, or do Stalin’s words and actions speak the truth? I prefer the latter. But if we are to give some credence to the hearsay, then it may indicate a profoundly personal struggle for a Georgian, who was brought up with an ingrained anti-Semitism, to root it out in the name of socialism.
[1] For useful collections of such hearsay, see Erik Van Ree, The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism  (London: Routledge Curzon, 2002), 201-7; Erik Van Ree, “Heroes and Merchants: Stalin’s Understanding of National Character,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 8, no. 1 (2007).
[2] Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov, Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors, 1948-1953  (New York: HarperCollins, 2003); Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar  (London: Phoenix, 2003), 626-39.
[3] Van Ree, The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism, 205.
[4] Van Ree, The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism, 205.
[5] As a small sample, see Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: a History of a National Minority  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 138-45; Vojtech Mastny, The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years, vol. Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1996), 157-58, 162; Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice  (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 33-38; Philip Boobyer, The Stalin Era  (London: Routledge, 2000), 78; Konstantin Azadovskii and Boris Egorov, “From Anti-Westernism to Anti-Semitism: Stalin and the Impact of the ‘Anti-Cosmopolitan’ Campaigns of Soviet Culture,” Journal of Cold War Studies 4, no. 1 (2002); Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, 310-12; Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin  (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2007), 264; Van Ree, “Heroes and Merchants: Stalin’s Understanding of National Character,” 45; Paul R. Gregory, Terror By Quota: State Security from Lenin to Stalin (An Archival Study)  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 53, 265.
[6] I. V. Stalin, “The Russian Social-Democratic Party and Its Immediate Tasks,” in Works, vol. 1, 9-30 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1901 [1954]), 20-21; I. V. Stalin, “Rossiĭskaia sotsial-demokraticheskaia partiia i ee blizhaĭshie zadachi,” in Sochineniia, vol. 1, 11-32 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1901 [1946]), 21-23; I. V. Stalin, “To the Citizens: Long Live the Red Flag!,” in Works, vol. 1, 85-89 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1905 [1954]); I. V. Stalin, “K grazhdanam. Da zdravstvuet krasnoe znamia!,” in Sochineniia, vol. 1, 84-88 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1905 [1946]); I. V. Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question,” in Works, vol. 2, 300-81 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1913 [1953]), 319-21; I. V. Stalin, “Marksizm i natsionalʹnyĭ vopros,” in Sochineniia, vol. 2, 290-367 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1913 [1946]), 308-10; I. V. Stalin, “Abolition of National Disabilities,” in Works, vol. 3, 17-21 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1917 [1953]), 17; I. V. Stalin, “Ob otmene natsionalʹnykh ogranicheniĭ,” in Sochineniia, vol. 3, 16-19 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1917 [1946]), 16; I. V. Stalin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question: Theses for the Tenth Congress of the R. C. P. (B.) Endorsed by the Central Committee of the Party,” in Works, vol. 5, 16-30 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1921 [1953]), 17, 27; I. V. Stalin, “Ob ocherednykh zadachakh partii v natsionalʹnom voprose: Tezisy k Х s”ezdu RKP(b), utverzhdennye TSK partii,” in Sochineniia, vol. 5, 15-29 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1921 [1947]), 16, 26; Stalin, “Concerning the Presentation of the National Question,” 52-53; Stalin, “K postanovke natsionalʹnogo voprosa,” 52-53.
[7] Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: a History of a National Minority, 58-71, 77-84; Anna Shternshis, Soviet and Kosher: Jewish Popular Culture in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939  (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006), xv-xvi.
[8] I. V. Stalin, “The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), December 2-19, 1927,” in Works, vol. 10, 274-382 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1927 [1954]), 332; I. V. Stalin, “XV s”ezd VKP (b) 2–19 dekabria 1927 g,” in Sochineniia, vol. 10, 271-371 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1927 [1949]), 324.
[9] I. V. Stalin, “Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States,” in Works, vol. 13, 30 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1931 [1954]), 30; I. V. Stalin, “Ob antisemitizme: Otvet na zapros Evreĭskogo telegrafnogo agentstva iz Аmerik,” in Sochineniia, vol. 13, 28 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1931 [1951]), 28.
[10] I. V. Stalin, “Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, With amendments adopted by the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., Kremlin, Moscow, December 5, 1936,” in Works, vol. 14, 199-239 (London: Red Star Press, 1936 [1978]), article 123; I. V. Stalin, “Konstitutsiia (osnovnoĭ zakon) soiuza sovetskikh sotsialisticheskikh respublik (utverzhdena postanovleniem chrezvychaĭnogo VIII s”ezda sovetov soiuza sovetskikh sotsialisticheskikh respublik ot 5 dekabria 1936 g.),” (Moscow: Garant, 1936 [2015]), stat’ia 123. This also applied to the earliest constitutions of republics, such as the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belorus. See Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: a History of a National Minority, 52-57.
[11] Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: a History of a National Minority, 84-88; Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 169, 186-87.
[12] Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939  (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001); Terry Martin, “An Affirmative Action Empire: The Soviet Union as the Highest Form of Imperialism,” in A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin, ed. Ronald Grigor Suny and Terry Martin, 67-90 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
[13] Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question,” 375-76; Stalin, “Marksizm i natsionalʹnyĭ vopros,” 362. See also the exposition of the seventh and ninth clause of the Party Program, concerning equal rights, language and self-government in I. V. Stalin, “The Social-Democratic View on the National Question,” in Works, vol. 1, 31-54 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1904 [1954]), 42-46; I. V. Stalin, “Kak ponimaet sotsial-demokratiia natsionalʹnyĭ vopros?,” in Sochineniia, vol. 1, 32-55 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1904 [1946]), 43-47.
[14] Korenizatsiia, a term coined by the Bolsheviks, is ‘derived directly not from the stem koren- (“root”—with the meaning “rooting”) but from its adjectival form korennoi as used in the phrase korennoi narod (indigenous people)’ Martin, “An Affirmative Action Empire: The Soviet Union as the Highest Form of Imperialism,” 74.
[15] Stalin, “Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, With amendments adopted by the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., Kremlin, Moscow, December 5, 1936,” article 22; Stalin, “Konstitutsiia (osnovnoĭ zakon) soiuza sovetskikh sotsialisticheskikh respublik (utverzhdena postanovleniem chrezvychaĭnogo VIII s”ezda sovetov soiuza sovetskikh sotsialisticheskikh respublik ot 5 dekabria 1936 g.),” stat’ia 22.
[16] For a little detail, see Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: a History of a National Minority, 71-76.
[17] Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question,” 310; Stalin, “Marksizm i natsionalʹnyĭ vopros,” 300.
[18] Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question,” 374-75; Stalin, “Marksizm i natsionalʹnyĭ vopros,” 361.
[19] Shternshis, Soviet and Kosher: Jewish Popular Culture in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939, 1-43.