Discussion about the Soviet collaboration: a View on the problem of domestic and foreign history researches

Alenicheva Yana Sergeevna Postgraduate student, Department of history of Russia, Pushkin Leningrad state University 196605, Russia, Saint Petersburg, g. Pushkin, shosse Peterburgskoe, 10 alenicheva.history@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Collaboration, in the sense of voluntary cooperation of the population with the enemy of the country of citizenship in wartime, was and remains a difficult phenomenon to study. On the one hand, the study of the problem of assistance to the enemy at a time vulnerable to the state enriches socio-political history: focusing on the conditions prevailing in the pre-war period, analyzing the causes of certain sentiments among the population, analyzing the scale and consequences of complicity. On the other hand, the study of collaboration can be regarded by society as an attempt to blur the boundaries between traitors and heroes, belittle the role of military victories and the merits of their country, actions to decompose patriotic feelings and change the traditions of the culture of memory.  

One way or another, the issue of Soviet collaboration during the Great Patriotic War does not cease to worry domestic and foreign authors: having, sometimes, radically different points of view on this phenomenon, historians enter into discussions, cite the arguments obtained during the research, trying to carefully study little-known episodes in the history of cooperation between Soviet citizens and the German invaders, to obtain new data in the archives.

Even in wartime and the first years after the end of World War II, two main trends can be traced on the topic of collaboration in the USSR: domestic authors focus on the mass character of the partisan movement and crimes committed by the Germans in the occupied territories ^{[1, 11, 32, 37, 40]}, and foreign ones explore the history of Soviet-German relations on the eve of the war ^[59]. Separately, the book by A. Leontiev ^[27] should be noted: written in a style not devoid of emotion ^[1], the work tells about the directive on the management of the occupied territories of the USSR captured by the Red Army. In terms of collaboration, the author notes the following: “Only some pathetic renegades, people without kin and tribe from among the criminal or decomposed elements were found by the German occupiers and used for their own purposes” [Ibid., p. 41]. Among the significant books of foreign researchers of that time, A. Task should be mentioned ^[60]. The French journalist describes the specifics of relations between the USSR and Germany since 1917, since the time of the Weimar Republic and the RSFSR: analyzing the opportunities that the Rapallo Treaty gave the countries mutually, A. Taska tells about the gradual rapprochement between Moscow and Berlin, culminating in the question of the partition of Poland. Claiming that Germany evaded the military provisions of the treaty and, bypassing the requirements of the Versailles Peace, built factories for the production of aircraft parts on the territory of the USSR, the journalist, meanwhile, declares: “It was Hitler, and only Hitler, who showed the first signs of hostility towards his powerful partner in the East. Stalin ... was forced to take precautions in the face of this growing threat” [Ibid.].

In the 50s and 60s of the XX century, Russian historiography continued to be dominated by works devoted to partisan struggle ^{[9, 46]}. One by one, books are published abroad claiming that the roots of Soviet collaborationism grew out of the anti-communist sentiments of the population, which constitute opposition to the Stalinist government ^{[49, 57]}. Critical articles appear against the United States of America, which facilitated the forced repatriation of Russians who fought against the Soviet country ^[58]. The book of that period, written by the British military, scrupulously studying the communist partisan movement, looks provocative: paying tribute to the successes of the Soviet partisans, the authors suggest that the USSR deliberately did not sign the provisions of the Geneva Convention in order to anger the “people's avengers” with the excesses of the Germans and strengthen the guerrilla struggle in the occupied territories ^[12]. The British remark: “If the answer we tried to give to the questions posed is correct, then we can say that the Soviets managed to carry out the most dexterous event that psychological warfare has ever known” [Ibid.]. W. Shearer, meanwhile, emphasizes that the Russians always fought “to the last” and even being partially defeated, in October-November 1941, they did not realize this. Recalling the meeting of Colonel General G. Guderian with the old tsarist general from Orel, he quotes the following words: “If you had only arrived twenty years ago, we would have welcomed you with open arms. But now it's too late ... Now we are fighting for Russia, and in this matter we are all united” ^[56].

Over the next decade, scientists in Russian historiography also talk a lot about the partisans ^[20], publish declassified documents ^[38], but two new trends appear: the study of management in the occupied territories ^[5] and the first open discussions with foreign authors ^[4]. Thus, L.A. Bezymensky writes: “Western historiography speaks least of all and most reluctantly about the power of the Soviet state, about the heroism of Soviet soldiers, about the fortress of the Soviet rear. There is a taboo on all this” [Ibid.]. New directions in the development of thought about collaboration are becoming noticeable among foreign sources: professional researchers are beginning to talk about the inefficiency of German governance in the occupied territories due to National socialist ideological attitudes, and, as a result, the impossibility of forming full-fledged opposition forces ^[54], and the memoirs of former Vlasovites confirm this. A.G. Aldan writes in his memoirs: “The Nazi leadership, of course, had reason to distrust the Russians. They understood that the Russian Liberation Movement (ROD) and the ROA were equally directed against Bolshevism, as well as against Nazism and Fascism” ^[2].

The 1970s are characterized by the coincidence of the close interest of domestic and foreign historians in the “Vlasov region”. S. Steenberg argues: “He (Vlasov - approx. the author) wanted to return Russia back to the normal state it was deprived of thanks to the October Revolution” ^[39], Lieutenant Colonel G. Pshenichny, an active participant in the Vlasov movement, recalls: “There was mutual distrust, insincerity on the part of the Germans, contemptuous attitude towards Russians, unwillingness or inability of German circles to assess reality. This drowned out everything healthy, caused various ideological fluctuations...” ^{[34, p.84]}, but A.V. Tishkov condemns his contemporaries for such thoughts, reproaching them for their desire to “whitewash” the traitor general ^[41].

Among the works of the 80s, books by V.N. Zemsky ^[21] are notable, who separately highlighted the role of the working class in the struggle against the German occupiers, as well as M.M. Zagorulko and A.F. Yudenkov ^[19]. Researchers introduce previously unpublished documents, including from German archives, and are among the first to mention the experience of the Lokotsky district government [Ibid., pp.163-164]. At the same time, foreign authors are actively studying the pro-Russian German elite, which is in opposition to Hitler in Germany: A. Alexiev in his work lists such prominent political figures (V. Schulenburg, K. Stauffenberg, H. Treskov and others), talking about internal contradictions and disputes over whether it is worth supporting the national sentiments of some segments of the Soviet Union the population and their aspirations for independence or not ^[48].

The 1990s were characterized by a real “explosion” of publications devoted to the issue of Soviet collaborationism: the number of works by domestic historians here is disproportionately greater than foreign ones. Freed from ideological pressure, Russian historiography unfolds heated discussions among compatriots on its pages: most of them are again interested in the Vlasov movement ^{[25, 35]}, but more openly asks questions, formulates bold assumptions ^{[26, 29]}. There are books and articles devoted to the study of Soviet collaborationism on a national basis ^{[8, 28]}, telling about the post-war fate of the anti-communists ^[22]. The first scientific works of S.I. Drobyazko are published, paying special attention to the topic of participation of Soviet citizens in the ranks of the Wehrmacht ^{[13, 14]}. Against this background, among the foreign authors of the 90s, we highlight V. Roer ^[55], A. Munoz ^[53], J. Hoffmann ^[42], V.K. Strik-Strikfeldt ^[47]. The latter, by the way, talked about the intention to create a power unit from the remaining Vlasov, as well as Czech, Yugoslav and German volunteers, which was to operate after the war on the territory of Yugoslavia: “This international corps was to form the core of military and political resistance to Stalinist Bolshevism invading Europe” [Ibid.].   

The first years of the XXI century showed that Russian historical science, passionate about the issues of voluntary cooperation of Soviet citizens during the Great Patriotic War, is actively developing, enriched by serious scientific research, the authors of which define their main task not to evaluate collaboration from the point of view of morality and morality, but an objective study of the diversity of this phenomenon ^{[3, 15, 23, 33, 36]}. Russian and foreign historians pay special attention to the study of the activities of collaborators in the south of the USSR ^{[18, 50]}, continue to explore the role of white emigration in the formation and spread of the anti-Soviet agenda in the occupied territories ^[44]. Discussions about the party's policy in the pre-war years, which in one way or another influenced the mood of the population, do not cease. Y.S. Tsurganov criticizes the Soviet government: “1917 showed that, it turns out, it is permissible to live without a tsar ... then it turned out that it is permissible to take out the iconostasis from the building of the parish church, build a lavatory out of it, and use the building itself like a warehouse. Against this background, the question of whether it was possible to live under the Germans disappeared by itself” ^[43], and O.V. Vishlev, on the contrary, believes that the strategy of the Soviet government before the war was correct: “The Soviet-German non-aggression treaty represented the most significant diplomatic and political act of the final phase of the pre-war crisis ... and It was concluded in conditions when, in Moscow's opinion, it was no longer possible to prevent a military conflict in Europe ... It contradicted only the interests of those Western forces who hoped to provoke a German-Soviet conflict and achieve the development of German expansion in the eastern direction” ^[10].

In the 2010s, the dissertations of I.Y. Molodov ^[31], E.N. Shantseva ^[45], B.S. Martynov ^[30] were defended on the topic of collaboration. The researchers asked questions about the number and social composition of German collaborators, the specifics of the activities of specially created collaborative structures, and the assessment of the role of collaboration at regional and geopolitical levels. Books telling about the life of the population trapped in the occupied territories are being published ^{[16, 24]}, new declassified documents are appearing ^[6] and diaries of collaborators ^[7]. Among the serious studies of foreign authors of these years, E. Mark should be mentioned ^[52]: the scientist, using new methods of historical statistics and a socio-cultural approach, studies the motives and specifics of the conditions under which the soldiers of the Red Army were forced to voluntarily surrender. Among other things, E. Mark comes to the conclusion that the most common reason for this phenomenon was the desire to survive, and not ideological “charge”: “It may have been a war of ideologies, but not everyone involved in it was ideologically motivated” [Ibid., p. 10].

Over the past few years, since 2020, Russian historiography has been supplemented with several collections on the topic of collaboration: D. Zhukov and I. Kovtun presented articles and documents on the interpretation of the term “collaboration”, the political and military activities of B. Kaminsky, the occupation press and much more ^[17]. Foreign authors have published an interesting study on the culture of memory of the Second World War among the youth of Belarus and Latvia ^[51]: the ability to recognize the fact of collaboration and the opportunity to look critically at the historical past of their country.

Speaking, in conclusion, about the specifics of the controversy surrounding the issue of Soviet collaboration among domestic and foreign authors, we note the following. The discussion with the difference in approaches and assessments of the phenomenon under consideration, in fact, existed only until the 1990s: that is, until the moment when foreign scientists wrote about what was under ideological prohibition in the USSR. On the one hand, this had a positive outcome: the deliberate silence about voluntary cooperation with the Germans or the downplaying of the influence of opposition sentiments on the behavior of the population of the occupied territories, fueled the interest of foreign scientists focusing on the socio-political prerequisites of collaboration, which made it possible to significantly replenish the facts of the general historiography of the issue. On the other hand, the daily life of the population of the occupied territories, the motives and moods of ordinary citizens faced with the problem of adapting to new conditions dictated by the German occupation policy, have practically fallen out of the foreign research focus. From this point of view, the works of Russian authors devoted to the topic of collaboration are filled with richer and more comprehensive empirical material: over the past 20-30 years, scientists have managed to create a whole layer of serious scientific works and research, as well as books and articles written in an atmosphere of pluralism and glasnost, which positively affected the development of the national historiography of the issue.

^[1] For example: “... nowadays, the entire Soviet people, the entire civilized world should know the contents of this document, by which the Hitlerite clique is pilloried as a gang of unscrupulous warmongers, merchants of death, flooding the world with streams of blood...”.