Search

Begin New Search Topic Nationalism Publishing Institution Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw

1. From a Common to a National State(s) and the Lithuanian-Polish Dispute

Author:
Alfonsas Eidintas
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the restoration of the independent states of Poland and Lithuania, we will return to a fundamental question, namely, whether the relationship between our contemporary states, which had already become hostile during the restoration process, is a time of missed opportunities? Or maybe the interests of both sides were simply so different that it was impossible for them to agree on a matter of major importance – state territory (partly also on the issue of national minorities) – and to balance their interests, thus avoiding conflict and a particularly hostile bilateral relationship which lasted until the tragic developments for both Poland and Lithuania in 1939-1940, when our countries fell victim to two tyrants.
Topic:
Nationalism, Minorities, Conflict, and State Building
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Poland, and Lithuania

2. The Georgian Herald Samizdat Journal

Author:
Aleksandra Gryzlak
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
From the very beginnings of Soviet rule in Georgia, the communists were not very popular throughout Georgian society and treated as occupants. Almost all active forms of resistance ceased to exist after the bloody suppression of the August Uprising of 19241. The massive purge of the Georgian intelligentsia that followed deprived the nation of its patriotic elites. Only after the death of Stalin and in the wake of Nikita Khrushchev’s famous speech in 1956, did the situation change. Khrushchev’s words of accusation and criticism, leveled at Stalin for his cult of personality and other mistakes, were treated in Georgia as an attack on their nation and an element of Russian chauvinism. It gave rise to a series of mass protests in Tbilisi in March 1956, that were brutally dispersed by the army. Approxi- mately 150 people died as a result2. During the 1950s and 60s, Vasilii Mzhavanadze was the leader of the Georgian Com- munist Party. In keeping with Khrushchev’s strategy of somewhat reduced control over the national republics, one could observe a consolidation of power by the ruling elite in Geor- gia3. This led to the spread of corruption, bribery and other illegal economic operations. Despite a weak economy, according to official statistics, the average Georgian’s savings in the 1970s were nearly twice that of the average Russian. Also, during this time, a very high number of educated specialists – who while graduating, did not take job assignments were still able to live reasonably well. Another phenomenon characteristic for the 1950s and 60s was a growing sense of nationalism. Symptoms of this included a relatively small number of national minority representatives able to gain access to higher education in the Georgian Republic, as well as clear-cut Georgian control over local and national party structures. The situation did not change after the fall of Khrushchev.4 Only in the early 1970s, did things start to change. In 1972, the key position of the First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party was passed to the former Minister of the Inte- rior – Eduard Shevardnadze, who began his rule with a broad campaign against corruption, overgrown bureaucracy, nepotism, and the so-called “second economy” (black market). Harsh administrative methods used in this campaign brought some positive effects – especially in the agricultural sector – but also resulted in a negative reaction from Georgian society5. Shevardnadze was also supposed to fight against growing Georgian nationalism. Campaigns, that condemned such things as reluctance to learn Russian lan- guage and promotion of national chauvinism in culture, were initiated. The teaching cur- riculum of the subject of history was also put under siege by the new authorities.
Topic:
Agriculture, Communism, Corruption, Human Rights, Nationalism, and Culture
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, and Georgia

3. Independence by Muslim Communists: “Narimanovshchina”, the Downfall of National Communists in Azerbaijan

Author:
Shahla Kazimova
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
After the Soviet occupation of Azerbaijan in April 1920, the country had undergone major sovietization. The troops of the 11th Red Army, which were allegedly supposed to be sent to support fighting in Anatolia, but stayed in place, brought the totalitarian reigns of terror and repression. An occupation regime was introduced in the country. Despite formal independence Azerbaijan was subject to the decisions of the Russian Bolsheviks. In order to take over the country, the Soviets proclaimed a local puppet-government on April 28, 1920, comprised of local communists, with a prominent local politician – Nariman Narimanov – as the chairman. He was also appointed the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs. The choice of Narimanov was not incidental. He was the most renowned and influen- tial Azerbaijani communist, heard of both n the Caucasus and among central authorities in Moscow. He was in favour of the sovietization of Azerbaijan, which he deemed as the first step towards spreading revolution among the Muslim East.1 Recent studies on the history of the sovietisation of Azerbaijan clearly show that the Soviet government wanted to use the leader of the Azerbaijan communists as a symbol of the revolution from the very be- ginning, although it did not intend to give him real political power. Stalin’s letter of August 16, 1919, to Foreign Affairs Commissioner Georgy Chicherin, testifies to these plans "Karakhan’s presence in the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter Narko- mindel), Armenian in origin, the only “man from the East” who was supposed to represent Mus- lim nations outside, does not sound good, distorts harmony in our Eastern policy, weakens the strength and effect of our policy in the eyes of the nations of the East and above all Muslims... Taking this into account, during a visit in Moscow, I proposed to Lenin’s companion to raise the question in the Central Committee of changing Karakhan to someone from the Muslims, even with medium party preparation. Narimanov is for me one such Muslim, and this is not a problem if he lacks a global political vision: after all, he will not lead the politics but CC and Narkomindel. Narimanov is important as a banner. Such a change of scenery, or at least the removal of Karakhan from the East Department and bringing a Muslim to the forefront, I find an absolute necessity. If this is interesting, I can inform you that comrade Lenin expressed his full support. Such a change would be immediately noticed among Muslims (...). To object to the fact that Narimanov does not know the Far East, that he is old and slow, for me is not decisive, because I never thought that Narimanov would be in charge of Eastern policy. I repeat, he is just a banner and decoration for me" In the light of these data, questions arise about who Narimanov was. An idealist, naive romantic, cynic or cheated politician? To try to answer these questions, it is worth a closer look. Because Narimanov was the face of the sovietisation of Azerbaijan, the answer to the above questions will also answer to whether the Azerbaijani Socialist Republic was indeed independent.
Topic:
Nationalism, Religion, Minorities, and Independence
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, and Azerbaijan

4. The Rebirth of Polishness in the Baltic States as a Result of the Crisis and the Collapse of the USSR: The Case of Lithuania

Author:
Marcin Wakar
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
In turn, the term glasnost’, that is transparency, referred to various areas of life, but above all to media policy. The top-down pressures as well as personnel changes in the leading editorial offices led to the disclosure of information that has been censored so far. However, as noted by Canadian historian David Roger Marples: “In general, more progres- sive reportages could be found in the central press rather than in individual republics, with a notable exception to the Baltic states”8. Although perestroika in the initial years contained processes with varying effects, it finally ended in defeat. The failure of perestroika cou- pled with the success of glasnost, therefore made it impossible to cover up the first one. Additionally, it all happened during a lack of political unity in the Kremlin9. What’s more, Gorbachev’s policy led to a situation in which: „A sense of national identity was growing significantly in each of the republics belonging to the USSR. It also had a huge impact on the mood of all groups of national minorities, reflected in the desire to revive and preserve their mother tongue and national traditions”10. Thus, an increase in the consciousness of belonging to a particular nation was, on one hand, a factor leading to the desire for independence by societies of individual republics, and on the other hand, had a decisive influence on the revival of the identity of national minorities in their territory.
Topic:
Communism, Nationalism, Minorities, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, Poland, and Soviet Union

5. National Independence versus Societal Trauma: Can a Nation Enslaved by its Past be Independent?

Author:
Magda Stroniska
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Human history is a mixture of positive developments and setbacks, many of them of tragic proportions. Some historical events may have a dramatic and long-lasting im- pact on large groups of people. Sometimes entire nations have suffered the effects of what is referred to as societal, historical, collective or cultural trauma. While such historical traumas have been acknowledged in literature, little is usually done to assist societies or groups that have been affected in dealing, in practical terms, with various symptoms of post-traumatic psychological issues that affect individual members of the group, who, in turn, determine the behaviour of the group as a whole. This paper suggests that survivors of societal traumas, just like people who go through personal tragedies, need help in order to overcome the effects of their experience or face the risk of repeating the cycle of violence, often becoming the perpe- trators themselves. While the focus of this paper is on Polish historical traumas and how they influence the choices made by Polish society today, some observations may be applicable to post-traumatic societal behaviours in general.
Topic:
Nationalism, Trauma, Violence, and Independence
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Poland