Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by solong 3567 days ago
as a russian, I'll try to clarify.

i believe there were two different concepts. the first one — an enemy of the state, or enemy of the people (враг народа) — is not about ethnicity. it's about "criminals" who deed horrible things to Soviet state and Soviet people.

some of these people were indeed criminals (although someone could argue that their crimes are usually not so horrible, i.e. banal theft), some of them — a lot, I think — were innocent.

enemy of the state/people was a working concept in 1930-1950s.

the second concept is about ethnicity. i don't know is there a name for it though. all of the ethnicities in Soviet Russia were declared equal, USSR was extremely anti-racist and anti-nationalist.

at the same time there were some nuances. for example, it was very hard to go to the top university if you are a jew (or jewish? I don't want to cause offence here). no one will tell you that you are not qualified because you are jewish, but you won't be there anyway.

there were two reasons behind that. the first one: it was too dangerous to give a good education to someone who could leave USSR for Israel later. the second one is quite obvious, i think.

I don't know when it began but it was relatively difficult for jewish kids to get to the top faculties of top universities even in 1980s. the same could be said about top-secret research and some other areas.

4 comments

> all of the ethnicities in Soviet Russia were declared equal

Declarations and actual policy were very different things in USSR (should I tell anything about Constitution of 1936?).

There were very brutal deportations of some Caucasian nations, of Germans, of Crimean Tatars based solely on ethnicity in 1940s. Many people died from cold and hunger, many children lost their parents. The forced labor (Labor Army) and movement restrictions were in place until mid-1950s and even children upon reaching age of 16 were required to report to local authorities as "special settlers" (I have archive documents from NKVD of such reports for my family). The practice of oppression was in place until end of 1980s: for example, Crimean Tatars were not allowed to return to their homes and were able to do so only in 1990s. Restoration of Autonomous Volga German Republic or creation of German autonomy within USSR in any other form was never allowed despite public demands.

These historical events are well-documented and recognized by government of Russian Federation, which rehabilitated the victims and in 1990s even paid small compensations (in form of increased pension) for these crimes.

I would call this "the risk of divided loyalties". If you spoke a foreign language, if you had relatives abroad, if you had been born abroad, if you had a distinct ethnicity, if you had a religion, if you had neighbours or friends who had anything of the above.

Any of these would make someone think that you might be disloyal to the Soviet state and loyal to something else, and therefore increase your likelihood of being arbitrarily picked up for espionage, treason or sabotage charges. And once picked up, the guilty one had been arrested, because the system does not make mistakes. At this point, it's only the crime that needs to be found.

(It is attributed to Stalin that he said "there are no innocent people, only people who haven't been properly investigated yet." Not sure if he actually said this anywhere.)

The risk of Jewish people having shared loyalties to Israel is mostly a post-1948 thing of course so it was in a different form during the Great Purges.

Fwiw this used to be a major concept in American political discourse as well, regarding both Jews and Catholics, although it typically didn't extend to actually arresting people, just keeping them out of political positions, and "sensitive" employment like schoolteacher. There was a widespread opinion that they had "divided loyalties" because while they were Americans, they also might feel loyalty to (depending on who you asked) foreign leaders or movements like the Pope or "International Jewry". The first serious Catholic candidate for U.S. president (Al Smith in 1928) was widely accused of being unfit to be U.S. president because his religion meant that he had a religious obligation to follow the infallible guidance of the Pope, a foreign head of state.
Quite. I suppose the interment of Japanese Americans in 1940's is a prime example of this. Later it has been widely denounced.
In Soviet Russia everyone could be a criminal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD_(...

Don't tell me just "Some of them" out of 111,091 executed Poles were innocent.

> all of the ethnicities in Soviet Russia were declared equal

So were all the people, but I'll wager the General Secretary of the Party had a nicer apartment.

All were declared equal, but the General Secretary was declared more equal.

However, that's not the real problem. A society cannot work without some economic and social inequality.

Taking large numbers of people in the early morning hours from their homes, imprisoning and starving and shooting them in the back of the head and burying them in a ditch, that is a problem, and the system that did this survived until 1980's, and now Russia is increasingly nostalgic about it.

I feel gratified that you mentioned this. Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" obsesses about apartments. I suppose this is because financial opportunities were otherwise constrained. In this story at least cheating seems to have been the norm.