Search

The article discusses the history of the organization ASN, originally called the Association for the Study of Nationalities: USSR and Eastern Europe. Topics include the group's affiliation with the organization American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), the association of the journal "Nationalities Papers" with the City College of New York (CCNY), and the failure of the periodical "Journal of Soviet Nationalities." Also noted are the ASN's reaction to the end of the Soviet Union, the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, and speeches in New York City by leaders of former Soviet Republics.

By investigating the information and propaganda campaign surrounding the election of delegates to the 1929 World Congress of Poles Abroad, this article seeks to elucidate a complex interplay between foreign policy considerations, security concerns, and nationality policies of the Polish and Soviet governments. It examines the role of national minorities in the Soviet modernization effort and the ongoing Polish-Soviet rivalry of the interwar period. The focused study of the information campaign, and the public discussion surrounding the election process to the congress, contributes also to the debates on mass political culture in the interwar Soviet Union. Party communication, intelligence, and secret reports compiled during the local elections and conferences provide a unique source for sampling public opinion of the Polish population regarding the Soviet regime in the early years of Stalin's First Five-Year plan. The article argues that despite the considerable efforts of the party to define and promote Polish identity, and thus shift their loyalties closer to the Soviet state, the Polish population in Soviet Ukraine, even at the end of the 1920s, continued to express persistent nonconformity and a lack of faith in the Soviet government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present contribution analyzes systematically diplomatic reports written by German, Italian, British, and Polish representatives in the Soviet Union at the time of the Great Famine. Based on both published documents and unpublished archival sources, the article examines comparatively the perception of the Great Famine in these four countries. After providing a short overview of the diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the four countries at the time of the famine, this article examines how German, Italian, British, and Polish diplomats explained three key issues for understanding the Great Famine: (1) the role of the conflicts between state and peasantry in unleashing the famine; (2) the issue of whether the Soviet government intentionally caused the famine; and (3) the role of intentions in the development of the famine and the relationship between the nationalities policy of the Soviet government and the famine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the growing literature on de facto states and disputed territories, the parastate stands as the most contentious challenge to international sovereignty and one of the greatest threats to regional security. Parastates are territorial entities that have unilaterally declared independence and control territory claimed by another state. Though parastates have been a part of international studies since the 1960s, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have produced a number of breakaway entities that have challenged existing understandings of state theory and security studies. Without full legal international recognition, the de facto statehood of parastates cannot transform into de jure sovereignty. This special section introduces our collaborative project on the nature, scope, orientation, and character of parastates; a small, select, and particularly problematic subunit of the de facto state family. Though many of these examples should be familiar to researchers of disputed territories, we feel some that have been previously categorized as de facto , contested, or even unrecognized states are better understood as parastates due to the indefinite frozen conflict they find themselves in for years, if not decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the relationship between Kazakhstan and the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), examining questions of an ethnically distinct region's acceptance or rejection of "alien rule" over national independence. The Kazakhs would seem to have an extraordinarily strong cause to separate itself from a Russian-dominated union, the author states. Also discussed are ethnic groups who want to stay in a union state dominated by another group.