Peter A. Blitstein.

"Cultural Diversity and the Interwar Conjecture: Soviet Nationality Policy in Its
Comparative Context." Slavic Review 65:2 (2006): 273-293.

Nationalism policy in the early years of the Soviet Union, known as korenizatsiia or
indigenization, often compared in the past to similar if not temporarily distant examples of 19th century
multiethnic empires, finds a new avenue for examination with Blitstein's inquiry into how the Soviet
example compares to more contemporary nationalism policies carried out in Eastern Europe and Africa
during the interwar period. Looking over secondary sources in order to draw broad conclusions,
Blitstein argues that while Soviet goals were on a different ideological level, with regards to the various
ethnic populations, their articulation came to closely mirror policies adopted later by the Western
Powers and the nations of Eastern Europe. The comparison hinges on the question of how did the
Soviets (and Western contemporaries) rule and transform culturally diverse populations? Whereas the
Western nations focused on policies of minority protection to facilitate assimilation into newly created
nation-states in Eastern Europe, with their own colonies in Africa a policy of complete separateness
ensued. The Soviets, in contrast, sought to identify and classify ethnic minorities in order to promote
their culture so as to prevent separatist feelings that, in part, brought about the downfall of the Russian
Imperial regime, while at the same time attempting to instill a universal model (the Soviet Citizen) that
transcended ethnic identity. Yet when these idealistic goals fells short, Soviet authorities turned to a
mentality that evoked assimilation under a larger Russian identity instead of a more universalist Soviet
citizen, a move that echoed policies implemented throughout Eastern Europe's new nation-states with
regards to their minority populations. Ultimately, Blitstein makes a convincing argument that warrants
further examination of the topics discussed.
After the conclusion of World War I, the Western powers sought to remake Eastern Europe
using the guiding principles first annunciated by Wilson in his Fourteen Points speech. This included
the promise of 'self-determination', an idea that the new states of Eastern Europe would be created by
the consent of the people governed and not by the arbitrary whim of an autocrat. However, as Blitstein
makes clear, the Western Powers did not seek to create equality among all the minorities involved but
instead to promote dominant populations into nation-states on the assurance that minority protection
measures would be enacted. These protection efforts were not designed to assuage fears of
discrimination for the pockets of minorities scatted throughout Eastern Europe but instead to defuse
separatist feelings once rampant under Hapsburg rule; in effect the West desired to reduce the chance of
war breaking out over nationalist causes. The Soviet example differed from that of Eastern Europe in
that the nationalism policy they created was not governed by an international body and sought to
largely preserve the territorial integrity of the former Romanov empire. Also guided by ideals of self-
determination and minority protection, Soviet nationalism policy, korenizatsiia, created ethnic
'republics', districts and villages, that allowed use of mother tongue in education and administration, as
well as the use of minorities in positions of local and central administration. However, korenizatsiia
policy never granted full autonomy and sought, overall, to instill a universal model of the Soviet citizen
among the diverse populations. In this way, Soviet and Eastern Europe nationalism policies aimed for
similar goals in that their separate policies sought to bolster assimilation of diverse groups into a larger
diaspora of either universal or regional composition, respectively.
Another comparative approach utilized by Blitstein measured Soviet policy against that of
African colonial measures pursued by the Western powers of Europe. Whereas populations in Eastern
Europe in theory possessed the opportunity to pursue self-determination, those ethnic groups that lived
in African colonial states found no such rights implemented on their lands. Legal impositions
segregated African peoples from European citizens, placing them in the category of subjects rather than
citizens and creating a 'legal pluralism' that characterized colonial policy during the interwar period.
While the West sought to bring 'modernity' to the peoples of Eastern Europe, they sought the exact
opposite in Africa; instead of assimilation they sought distinctiveness. African subjects, seen only as
peasants, clerks, or laborers, could not pursue more 'modern' courses of development without triggering
European fears of 'equality' and possible African demands for, then, welfare-state benefits becoming
the norm in the West. Conversely, Soviet indigenization policies maintained the forms of ethnic
traditions, such as language use, while at the same time actively destroying institutions or ethnic
governing traditions that could potentially harm the transition to a model Soviet citizen, such as land
holding rights or kinship networks. While the West saw in their African colonies a distinctness that
demanded segregation, Soviet policy makers desired the opposite of their minority populations and
sought to use language and administration access as the means by which diverse peoples could be
integrated into a universalist citizen model.
Blitstein concludes by analyzing the shift of Soviet korenizatsiia policy in the mid-30's away
from promotion of distinctiveness as a means to instill a larger Soviet identity and towards an
assimilation stance that promoted Russian language and culture as the enviable model to emulate across
the USSR. This shift, according to Blitstein, marked the point at which nationalism goals and policies
of both Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union begin to mirror each other. African colonial policy also
shifted in this period, when the West began to abandon segregation in favor of similar nationalization of
territory policies. However, while the West embraced distinctiveness as a means to segregate colonial
subjects before turning to assimilationist means, Blitstein argues that the Soviet koreinzatsiia instead
used distinctiveness as a means to move towards a universal modernity and thus should not be
classified as a 'colonial' project.

Jeremy Antley
jantley@gmail.com