The October Revolution of 1917 promised a totally new beginning. During his exile in Switzerland Lenin himself was one of the most severe critics of tsarist imperialism and a staunch defender of the right of national self-determination for the oppressed nations of the empire. However, this idealism was short-lived when, after the Revolution, in the newly independent states anti-bolshevist governments were installed. In the resulting civil war, from 1918 to 1922, the bolshevists reconquered most of the lost territories of the former tsarist empire.[52] There followed a controversy between Lenin and Stalin over what to do with these territories. Stalin, who headed the People’s Commissariat (Ministry) for Nationalities, did not want to grant the Soviet republics even formal independence. He preferred to make them autonomous republics within Russia proper. For Lenin this project smacked too much of the old tsarist imperial dominance, and he proposed to federate the other republics with Russia on an equal basis in a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[53] Should Stalin have had his way, it would certainly have made the dissolution of the empire seventy years later more complicated and possibly bloodier. Lenin’s Soviet Union pretended that it was not an empire, but a voluntary association of socialist republics. Officially, Pan Slavism, social Darwinist racism, and Great Russian chauvinism fell into disgrace. The Soviet Union did not define itself primarily as a national community, but as the representative of a class: the working class. Moreover, representative not only of the working class of Russia, but of the working classes of the whole world. Russia’s inward-looking nineteenth-century nationalism had, apparently, changed into an outward-looking universalism. This universalism, even if it defended only one class, was, in theory at least, genuine: because, according to Marxist theory, the end result of the socialist revolution—a communist society—was supposed to be in the interest of mankind as a whole—former capitalists included.
However, despite the fundamental difference between the communist internationalism and the former Pan Slav nationalism, the two had some elements in common. There was, first, their messianism. Similarly, communist Russia remained a special nation—not so much because of the supposed spiritual, biological, or cultural superiority of the Russian people, but because of its vanguard role in the world revolution. The second common element was its paranoia. The encirclement syndrome that characterized the nineteenth-century tsarist regime—at that time engaged in the “Great Game” over Central Asia with the British Empire—was strengthened even further in the young Soviet Union, which was declared the enemy of the capitalist world. The communist leaders, and particularly Stalin, added another, third element that was reminiscent of tsarist times: autocracy. It was not long before these three elements, thoroughly mixed together, produced the same well-known result: Great Russian nationalism and imperialist expansion. New in all this was that Russia used the internationalist communist movement to further its national imperialist ambitions, a phenomenon that had already been observed by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, when he wrote:
The Communist groups and parties all over the world are naturally of the greatest importance for Russian foreign policy. In consequence, there is nothing surprising in the fact that official Stalinism has of late returned to the practice of advertising an approaching struggle between capitalism and socialism—the impending world revolution—the impossibility of permanent peace so long as capitalism survives anywhere, and so on. All the more essential is it to realize that such slogans, useful or necessary though they are from the Russian standpoint, distort the real issue which is Russian imperialism.[54] …The trouble with Russia is not that she is socialist but that she is Russia. As a matter of fact, the Stalinist régime is essentially a militarist autocracy which, because it rules by means of a single and strictly disciplined party and does not admit freedom of the press, partakes of one of the defining characteristics of Fascism.[55]
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 gave Stalin the opportunity to annex the three Baltic states, a part of Poland, Bessarabia (Moldova), and to attack Finland. All this had nothing to do with the international class struggle, but everything to do with the restoration of the pre-1917 tsarist empire. During the Second World War internationalist and universalist claims were—at least temporarily—put aside. The war was celebrated neither as a “Great Proletarian War,” nor as a “Great Soviet War,” which one might have expected, and even less as a war against the capitalist “class enemy.” It went into Soviet history books as the Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voyna—the Great Patriotic War. After the Stalinist Purges of the 1930s[56] stirring up nationalist fervor was the only effective way for Stalin to unite the people behind the regime. It is telling that even old Pan-Slav slogans emerged during and after the war. According to Hannah Arendt, “Stalin came back to Pan-Slav slogans during the last war. The 1945 Pan-Slav Congress in Sofia, which had been called by the victorious Russians, adopted a resolution pronouncing it ‘not only an international political necessity to declare Russian its language of general communication and the official language of all Slav countries, but a moral necessity.’”[57]
The Yalta Conference of February 1945, which gave Stalin a free hand in Eastern Europe, was, in fact, the realization of an old Pan Slav dream: the unification of Eastern Europe’s Slav peoples under Russian hegemony. According to George Kennan, not communism, but territorial expansion was Stalin’s ultimate goaclass="underline"
If Russia could not rely on the Western nations to save her, it then seemed to Russian minds that the alternative lay not only in the utmost development of Russian military power within the 1938 borders, but also in new territorial acquisitions designed to strengthen Russia’s strategic and political position, and in the creation of a sphere of influence even beyond these limits. In drawing up this expansionist program, Soviet planners leaned heavily on the latter-day traditions of Tsarist diplomacy.[58] …It would be useful to the Western world to realize that despite all the vicissitudes by which Russia has been afflicted since August 1939, the men in the Kremlin have never abandoned their faith in that program of territorial and political expansion which had once commended itself so strongly to Tsarist diplomatists.[59]
In fact, despite the recurrent obligatory lip service to the ideal of “world revolution,” the ultimate goal of the Soviet leadership was the defense and enlargement of the Russian empire. This logic guided Soviet foreign policy until the very end of the Soviet Union’s existence, including the—failed—invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 the epoch of Russian imperial expansion seemed to have come to a definitive end. The question was, however, whether Russia was prepared to accept this new post-imperial reality—as other former European colonial powers, such as Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal, had done before. In the next chapter we will see how Russia struggled with the new status quo and how—after a short period of post-communist empire fatigue—the old imperial habits and attitudes soon reemerged.
52
According to Yegor Gaidar, “Russia is unique in restoring a failed empire, which it did in the period 1918–22. This required an unprecedented use of force and violence. But that was not the only factor in the Bolshevik’s success. Messianic Communist ideology shifted the center of political conflict from a confrontation between ethnic groups to a struggle among social classes. That struggle garnered support from people in the non-Russian regions, who fought for a new social order that would open the way to a brilliant future, and played a large role in forming the Soviet Union within borders resembling those of the Russian Empire.” (Yegor Gaidar,
53
Cf. Robert Service,
54
Joseph A. Schumpeter,
56
On the devastating consequences of the purges, not only for the general population, but also for the communist elite, George Kennan wrote: “And the great old names of communism had not died alone. With them had gone a full 75 percent of the governing class of the country, a similar proportion of the leading intelligentsia, and over half of the higher officers’ corps of the Red army.” (George F. Kennan, “Russia: Seven Years Later,” Annex to George Kennan,