Everyday Anti-Semitism in the USSR

Full text / tables, figures

Introduction

Relevance. The position of Jewish citizens in the USSR remains an important and controversial issue in historiography, a topic guided by the exceptional importance of interethnic relations for a multinational state.

The relevance of the problem is stipulated by the fact that the issue of national tolerance is the key to public order, social stability, and the well-being of a country’s citizens. In the USSR, where a significant proportion of Jews lived and where they occupied a prominent place in the governance and elite, the attitude towards them is of particular interest.

Elaboration of the problem. In scientific literature, anti-Semitism is studied from the perspective of xenophobia. The primary focus is on the state anti-Semitism and much less on the everyday one – in literature is to customarily refer to it in such a way as prejudice and mistrust, irritation, and hostility towards Jewish citizens on the part of the non-Jewish population. However, everyday anti-Semitism is of great importance, since it is multifaceted, commonplace; it surrounds and traumatizes Jews every day, and, in addition, state anti-Semitism is based on it. In a society with developed immunity against xenophobia, any anti-Semitism is spread only slightly. In historiography, everyday anti-Semitism receives insufficient attention for two reasons. Firstly, many researchers consider it to be derived from the state one and therefore less worthy of attention. Secondly, it is difficult for research due to the lack of sources – people prefer to hide negative attitudes towards any ethnic group and not to demonstrate it unless absolutely necessary.

The history of anti-Semitism in the USSR is studied in three paradigms: 1) the successful solution to the Jewish issue under Soviet rule and complete elimination of ethnic inequality; 2) permanent, severe and total discrimination against Jews in political, social, cultural, and economic life; 3) cyclical discrimination, alternating periods of its weakening and tightening. There are no more apologetic studies of national policy in the USSR. However, modern authors studying discrimination differ significantly in their assessments of its scale. In Russian historiography, there prevail studies within the third paradigm, in Western historiography ‒ in the second paradigm, although everywhere there are works that go beyond the boundaries of the prevailing views¹.

In world literature that is devoted to anti-Semitism there are tens of thousands of works. It is the international annotated current bibliography “Antisemitism” which was published annually in Munich by “De Gruyter Saur” from 1994 to 2013 that gives an idea of the scale of the study of the problem. There were published 22 volumes consisting of 367 to 559 pages. The total number of the annotated works over 20 years exceeded 50 thousand – an average of 2500 per year². In this huge database, literature on anti-Semitism in the USSR and post-Soviet Russia occupies a modest place; it is confirmed by the fact that only 124 books, brochures and dissertations devoted specifically to anti-Semitism are recorded in the subject and systematic catalogs of the National Library of Russia. To a large extent, this was a consequence of the fact that in the 1930–1950s in the USSR the Jewish issue in historiography was practically closed. In 1960–1989, the few historians of Jews did not consider anti-Semitism; their interests were focused on the study of political exile and hard labor, as well as the revolutionary and professional activities of Jews³. Only from the early 1990s the history of Soviet Jews began to be studied in detail, resulting in the appearance of major works on anti-Semitism⁴, historiographical reviews⁵ and bibliographies⁶. Despite the success of Russian Jewish studies in the post-Soviet period, it should be admitted that everyday anti-Semitism in the USSR has not been sufficiently studied.

The purpose of the study is to assess the dynamics and prevalence of everyday anti-Semitism during the Soviet period.

The source base. According to a long tradition, when studying any subjects, historians give preference to narrative sources, especially ego-documents that convincingly and vividly depict the events under consideration and their participants. It always attracts the attention of readers and arouses more interest than pallid statistics, which are boring and often difficult to understand. In addition, there is an aphorism among historians – “there are three types of lies: a lie, a blatant lie, and statistics.” However, the most curious and disturbing facts seem to reflect individual cases. The following question always remains open: what part of reality do they reflect, how typical and representative are they? This question can only be answered by mass statistics, with approximation and dependence on the opinions of those who produce them. In our opinion, it is the results of elections to local Soviets that make it possible to obtain a more or less adequate picture of the prevalence and level of development of everyday anti-Semitism in the USSR. The source analysis of electoral statistics shows that they are trustworthy⁷ (more on that below).

The key concepts of the study. There is ethnic discrimination in different forms across countries; therefore, it is worth defining the key concepts used in the study. Social psychologists believe that anti-Semitism is a form of xenophobia, and xenophobia is a psychological defense mechanism that is based on the idea that “we” (insiders) are better than “them” (outsiders) and operates at the level of the instinct of self-preservation. There are also instinctive xenophobia and political xenophobia. The former, an inherently emotional and irrational negative attitude of one ethnic group towards another, is in one way or another characteristic of any society. The latter, ideological xenophobia justified by various logical arguments or pseudo-rational considerations, is often embraced by masses during periods of crises and social upheavals and is inextricably linked with power. Xenophobia is based on a collective need (unconscious or conscious) to increase the prestige and self-esteem of one ethnic group by creating a negative image of another one. It manifests itself in the form of discrimination and construction of negative stereotypes about some ethnic groups and positive images of other ones. As a result, xenophobia contributes to the cohesion and stability of an ethnic group ‒ and this is its functional purpose and the reason for its survivability⁸. 

Antisemitism is arguably a form of xenophobia. However, there are two important nuances. Firstly, anti-Semitism is discrimination, stigmatization, hostility, prejudice towards only Jews; ethnic xenophobia is the same sort of thing towards any ethnic group. The manifestations of xenophobia are diverse: discrimination in hiring and admission to higher educational institutions, in access to a prestigious profession, impossibility to be elected to government bodies on an equal basis with other ethnic groups, to practice one’s religion, etc. If such policy is pursued towards not only Jews, but also other ethnic groups, then this is xenophobia, rather than anti-Semitism. If the rights of all peoples of the country, including the titular or dominant ethnic group, are violated in a similar way and to almost the same extent, then these are manifestations not of anti-Semitism or xenophobia, but of the undemocratic nature of the regime. Secondly, xenophobia leads to the fact that the rights of certain ethnic groups are infringed, they become inferior citizens; they occupy lower niches in the educational and professional structure of the population, and are underrepresented in government bodies, have a low standard of living and negative life prospects. Consequently, it is a difficult socio-economic and political situation of an ethnic group that should be considered as signs and indicators of xenophobia towards it.

The term “anti-Semitism” emerged in Europe only in the late 1870s, although an unfriendly attitude towards Jews and Judaism is an ancient phenomenon, recorded even back in the Hellenistic-Roman period. Anti-Semitism took many forms – from prejudice and ill will to hatred and pogroms. In some cases, it was openly and formally, at the legislative level, supported by a state and was part of national policy (for example, in fascist Germany or Italy); in other cases, the government encouraged it unofficially and covertly. Finally, often a state, both in words and in deeds, acted as a principled opponent of anti-Semitism, but the latter, contrary to this, existed at the everyday level, as is currently observed throughout the world, including many European countries. In view of this, it is advisable to separate state anti-Semitism from its everyday or popular variant.

Everyday anti-Semitism is prejudice and mistrust, irritation and ill will, and in some cases even open hostility towards Jewish citizens. Often such attitude is enshrined in collective beliefs, customary law and practices, and is passed on from parents to children, from generation to generation.

State anti-Semitism exists in overt and covert forms. In the former case, it is legally legitimatized, i.e., on the basis of official legislation, persecution by the state and, on its instructions, by society against Jews, because they are Jews. In the latter case, most restrictive measures do not have formal legislative or administrative registration; they are carried out on verbal instructions from the authorities, disguised as a struggle for interethnic justice or against the abuse of wealth and power by Jews – this is carefully hidden form of discrimination against Jews.

It is necessary to distinguish between the actual grounds of anti-Semitism: a) racial, ethnic, or religious and b) political, social or economic. In the first case, one can speak about traditional anti-Semitism – unconscious fear and transcendental prejudice towards Jews, a kind of archaic or traditional Christian Judeophobia; in the second case one can speak about modernized anti-Semitism – manifestation of unfriendliness, distrust, hostility caused by real factors, even if they are not fully or incorrectly realized and reflected. It is also worth differentiating between rhetorical or declarative and factual anti-Semitism. There are examples in history, when indulging anti-Jewish sentiments in society, a state verbally supports anti-Semitism, but does not provide it with any actual support and, if possible, abandons such rhetoric. As political scientist E. Pain rightly noted:

Many people consider anti-Semitism to be a type of xenophobia (Judeophobia), but I believe that such an assessment is not entirely correct. Regardless of whether Stalin personally had or did not have Judeophobia, his national policy, including that towards Jews, cannot be reduced to manifestations of xenophobia. Stalin's anti-Semitism was completely different – meaningful, controlled and pragmatically cynical. The dictator used this political instrument at certain historical moments and at his discretion could initiate and stop anti-Semitic campaigns, like any other ones⁹.

Finally, there is such discrimination against the Jewish ethnic group, which aims to formally limit its educational, career and other opportunities in order to create advantages and clear the way for ethnic groups lagging behind in development – this is the so-called positive discrimination¹⁰. For example, the US and Germany had restrictive quotas on the admission of Jews to universities or supportive quotas on the admission of black Americans; Western European countries now have mandatory quotas on the proportion of women in the legislative and executive branches. Positive discrimination certainly violates the principles of meritocracy and democracy, according to which competition should be fair, the worthiest ones should win, and power should be in their hands. However, in some cases, in the past equality of competitors was unfairly violated, and positive discrimination should be used to restore it.

Jews in local governance

The ethnic composition of the deputies of local Soviets reflects the attitude of the population towards Jews, and therefore the degree of everyday anti-Semitism development. The explanation is as follows: the status of a local Soviet deputy was lower than that of a republican and, even more so, an All-Union Soviet. Sometimes there was even a shortage of candidates for deputies to village and settlement Soviets. Therefore, the level of competition in local elections was lower; during election campaigns there was neither political fever pitch nor a high level of competition. The results of local elections were determined not so much by the influence of the authorities and the media, but by internal circumstances: the general situation in the area, the situation in the sphere of interethnic relations, and the attitudes of voters and their direct acquaintance with the candidates. In 1927–1989 the number of deputies of local Soviets was from 1.3 to 2.4 million people (Table 1); in the pre-digital era the authorities had no opportunity to carefully filter their composition. In addition, as a rule, the voters knew candidates for local Soviets personally; it was difficult to elect people who were odious, from the point of view of the population; and most importantly, such a leader would not be respected, which would discredit not only the local authorities, but the authorities in general.

The country's leadership always sought to form a corps of deputies at any level from people who were loyal and enjoyed confidence by and had authority with the population. This equally applied to the Soviets at the primary level (village, settlement, district, town). Higher authorities were well aware that it was the local authorities who having daily contacts with the population and who could both contribute to the implementation of their decisions, or sabotage it, incite and extinguish social and interethnic conflicts. For this reasons, when selecting candidates for the primary Soviets, the leadership took into account the sentiments, needs, desires and prejudices (including ethnic ones) of or- dinary voters, mainly workers and peasants who did not enjoy high culture, especially in the pre-war period, and who shared many traditional prejudices and misconceptions. In 1939, 89.2% of men and women aged 20 years and above had only primary education, 9.6% – secondary education and 1.2% – higher education. On average, in 1939 a typi- cal Soviet citizen went to school only 3.6 years, in 1959 – 5.1 years, in 1979 – 7.8 years, and in 1989 – 9.2 years, which means in 1939–1959 a person had primary education, in 1979–1989 – incomplete secondary education¹¹. Hence it appears that in local elections that voters had more opportunities to express their preferences, and the composition of local Soviets more adequately, compared to the All-Union and republican Soviets, reflected the mass sentiments and interethnic attitudes of the population. This sentiment included the attitude by voters towards Jewish candidates and deputies, towards the Jewish ethnic group in general, and towards national policy¹².

The source of the study is official electoral statistics. The data on the elections to local Soviets in 1918–1921 were collected, but not generalized due to their lack of detail. There is data for 1922–1989; but as for the data prior to 1926, there are gaps: in 1922 318 uezds (69%) sent them; in 1923 – 341 uezds (74%); in 1924 – 388 uezds (84%); in 1925 – 334 uezds (80%)¹³. In subsequent years, the dataset began to cover the entire territory of the country. In post-Soviet historiography, electoral statistics, like all Soviet statistics, were criticized, but the criticism was unfounded or based on rumors and assumptions – no direct evidence of mass falsification of electoral statistics was provided. But it is obvious that the figures of official statistics in the 1920–1930s were not perfect. The authorities claimed that from 1925 the statistics began to improve, and from 1937 they became satisfactory¹⁴. Unfortunately, there is no way to check its reliability on a large regional scale. Nevertheless, in the political life of the country there took place an experiment that helped verified the electoral statistics. The elections to the Supreme Soviet of the 1st–11th convocations were held under strict control and, as some people think, under coercion but the elections to the Congress of People's Deputies in 1989 were held in conditions of relative freedom (the presence of alternative candidates and public discussion of various election programs). In our opinion, the comparison of the election results allows answering the question about the degree of real support for the communists and, therefore, to reveal the maximum scale of possible falsification of the voting results. In March‒May 1989, 87.02% of voters, or, taking into account the turnout (89.75%), 78.1% of the country's adult population supported the communists, i.e., they still trusted them, despite a wave of protests that swept the country after all the difficulties, misfortunes and disasters experienced during the years of perestroika. It seems unlikely that the Communists had less support in the pre-crisis years than in 1989. Therefore, it can be assumed that the falsification of the elections to the Soviets prior to 1989, if there was any, was less than 13%. In other words, the bloc of communists and non-party people constantly had enormous popular support. The picture is the same when comparing the results of the elections to the Soviets of all levels during the years of perestroika¹⁵.

To assess discrimination against Jews in local Soviets, we will use the following indicators: 1) percentage share of Jewish citizens in the total number of deputies and 2) the ratio of the share of Jewish deputies to the share of Jewish citizens in the entire working population. The former indicator measures the degree of participation and influence of the Jewish ethnic group in the Soviets, the latter – its representativeness (we call it the index of ethnopolitical representativeness – IEPR). Both indicators are widely used in practice, although the second one is not accurately calculated. The Jews’ representativeness index makes it possible to assess the inequality more accurately: if it is greater than one, then Jews are overrepresented in the Soviets and enjoy confidence of the authorities and voters; if it is less than one, then they are underrepresented, they are not recognized as sufficiently loyal by the authorities, and do not enjoy much confidence among the population. If the index is approximately equal to one, then Jewish citizens are represented in the Soviets proportionally and democratically. Since the index can take any value, it can be used to judge the extent of the positive and negative attitude towards the Jewish ethnic group on the part of the authorities and the population.

The statistics of the participation of Jewish citizens in the local government bodies in the USSR for 1926–1987 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Representativeness of Jewish citizens in local Soviets of various levels in the USSR in 1926–1987

Calculated from: Natsional'nyi sostav vybornykh organov vlasti RSFSR v 1927 [National composition of the elected bodies of the RSFSR in 1927] (Moscow: Vlast Sovetov Publ., 1928), 70–71; Vybory v Sovety i sostav organov vlasti v SSSR v 1929 [Elections to the Soviets and the composition of government bodies in the USSR in 1929] (Moscow: Vlast Sovetov; Mospoligraf Publ., 1929), 90–91, 8–9; “Evrei [Jews],” in vol. 24 of Bol'shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia (Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia Publ., 1932), 85–101; Itogi vyborov v mestnye sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya RSFSR 24 dek. 1939 g. [Results of elections to local Soviets of Workers' Deputies of the RSFSR 24 December, 1939] (Moscow: Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta RSFSR Publ., 1940); Sostav deputatov Verkhovnykh Sovetov soiuznykh, avtonomnykh respublik i mestnykh Sovetov deputatov trudiashchikhsia 1959 g.: (Statisticheskii sbornik) / Otdel po voprosam raboty Sovetov Prezidiuma Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR [Composition of deputies of the Supreme Soviets of the Union, autonomous republics and local Soviets of Workers' Deputies in 1959: (Statistical collection) / Department on the work of the Soviets of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR] (Moscow: Izvestiia Publ., 1959), 7–85; Itogi vyborov i sostav deputatov Verkhovnykh Sovetov soiuznykh, avtonomnykh respublik i mestnykh Sovetov deputatov trudiashchikhsia. 1961 g. [Results of the elections and composition of deputies of the Supreme Soviets of the Union, autonomous republics and local Soviets of Workers' Deputies. 1961] (Moscow: Izvestiia Publ., 1963); Ibid., 1963; Ibid., 1969; Ibid., 1971; Ibid., 1973; Ibid.,1975; Ibid.,1977; Ibid., 1980; Ibid., 1982; Ibid., 1985; Sostav deputatov, ispolnitel'nykh komitetov i rezervnykh deputatov mestnykh sovetov (stat. sbornik) [Composition of deputies, executive committees and reserve deputies of local Soviets (Statistical collection)] (Мoscow: Sovietskaia Rossiia Publ., 1987); L.F. Boltenkova, Internatsionalizm v deistvii [Internationalism in action] (Moscow: Mysl' Publ., 1988), 93, 96; V. Konstantinov, Evreiskoe naselenie byvshego SSSR v XX veke: sotsial’no-demograficheskii analiz [Jewish population of the former USSR in the twentieth century: socio-demographic analysis] (Jerusalem: Lira Publ., 2007), 251–252.

In 1917–1987 the Jewish ethnic group had its representatives in all local Soviets, but it was constantly 2–4 times lower than its share in the population, and the proportion of Jews among deputies from 1927 to 1987 fell from 0.78 to 0.13%. In the local Soviets of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR (USSR) and Belorussian SSR (BSSR), republics which in 1926–1939 95‒96% of all Soviet Jews lived, and in the post-war period – 80‒82% of their total number in the USSR, there was the same situation (Table 2).

In the local Soviets of other republics, there were the same trends – a low percentage share of Jewish deputies and the growing underrepresentation of the Jewish ethnic group in the post-war years (Table 3).

Table 2

Representativeness of Jewish citizens in local Soviets of the RSFSR, USSR and BSSR in 1926–1987

Sources: see note to Table 1; Itogi vyborov i sostav deputatov mestnykh Sovetov deputatov trudiashchihsia RSFSR: (Statisticheskii sbornik) / Otdel po voprosam raboty Sovetov Prezidiuma Verhovnogo Soveta RSFSR [Election results and composition of deputies of local Soviets of Workers' Deputies of the RSFSR: (Statistical collection) / Department on the work of the Soviets of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR] (Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiaia Publ., 1969); 1971; 1973; 1975; 1977; 1980; 1982; 1987; Itogi vyborov i sostav deputatov mestnykh Sovetov deputatov trudiashchihsia Belorusskoi SSR 1963 g.: (Statisticheskii sbornik) / Otdel po voprosam raboty Sovetov Prezidiuma Verhovnogo Soveta BSSR [Election results and composition of deputies of local Soviets of Workers' Deputies of the Belorussian SSR in 1961: (Statistical collection) / Dep. on the work of the Soviets of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the BSSR] (Minsk: Belarus Publ., 1961); 1963; 1965; 1975; 1977; 1982; 1985; 1987.

Table 3

Representativeness of Jewish citizens in local Soviets of the Union republics in 1959 and 1990

Calculated from: Composition of deputies of the Supreme Soviets of the Union and autonomous republics and local Soviets of Workers' Deputies in 1959. P. 70–85; V. Konstantinov, Evreiskoe naselenie byvshego SSSR v XX veke: sotsial’no-demograficheskii analiz [Jewish population of the former USSR in the twentieth century: socio-demographic analysis] (Jerusalem: Lira Publ., 2007), 253.

The Jewish people were among the most urbanized in the Soviet Union. In 1897, in the Russian Empire, in towns there lived about 82% of Jews¹⁶, in the USSR in 1926 – 83%, and in 1989 – 99% of Soviet Jews lived urban areas, which contributed to their greater involvement in urban affairs. In town Soviets, the share of Jews among deputies was indeed higher than in village ones (Table 4).

Despite this, in 1927–1939 the representativeness of Jews in town Soviets was still below their share in the population, although in 1926–1934 in the USSR carried out an active campaign against anti-Semitism. On the contrary, Jews were overrepresented in the All-Union and Republican Soviets. It turns out that the same voters at the same time (since elections to the Soviets of all levels were held simultaneously) showed different attitude towards Jewish candidates: in elections to the local Soviets voters they generally did not trust them, but in elections to republican and all-Union Soviets they seemed to have trusted them. The representativeness of Jews grew from village to district, to republican Soviets and then to the All-Union Soviet. In settlement Soviets, that is, in urbanized areas, prior to the revolution of 1917 in the Jewish Pale, which were often former Jewish shtetls, the representativeness was higher than in village and district Soviets. This pattern was also observed in the 1970s–1980s (Table 5).

Table 4

Share of the Jewish ethnic group in urban local Soviets of the USSR in 1927–1987

Sources: see note to Table 1.

Table 5

Representativeness index of Jewish citizens in Soviets of various levels in 1926–1987

Sources: see note to Table 1. *‒ 1990.

The increase in Jews’ representativeness from village to district, republican and All-Union Soviets in the pre-war period can be explained by three factors. Firstly, Jews as town dwellers mostly lived not in villages and hamlets, but in urban settlements, therefore the management of small village settlements was beyond their interests and competence, and they did not claim representativeness in village Soviets. However, their interest grew with the enhancing of the status of the Soviet, the presence of the Jewish population on its territory, and the prevalence of trade and commercial activities. Secondly, the authorities did not have great opportunities to influence the composition of the primary Soviets, but they could regulate the representativeness of Jews in the Soviets of a higher level. Thirdly, there was common every day, or folk, anti-Semitism, the surge of which was in the 1920s due to the aggravation of the socio-economic and political situation in Soviet society. Certainly, urban residence did not serve as an insurmountable obstacle to Jews’ participation in village Soviets. It is known that workers were sent to create collective farms in 1929–1933. Nevertheless, the opportunity to influence elections and everyday anti-Semitism could undoubtedly affect election results. What gives one a reason to think so?

In the USSR, prior to the elections of deputies to the 1989 Congress of People's Deputies, the electoral process was under the full control of the ruling party, including the nomination of deputies, delegation of representatives to election commissions accor- ding to the population, voting, counting of votes, and announcement of results; over time their control increased. However, the electoral procedure, especially in 1918–1936, gave voters the opportunity to influence the deputy corps of the grassroots primary Soviets and completely deprived them of the opportunity to control the voting results in elections to the republican and All-Union Soviets for two reasons.

1. In the electoral procedure of 1918–1935 there were elements of traditional people's democracy, primarily open collective voting, which leveled out the opinions of individual voters and allowed showing only a collective mass typical attitude towards candidates, especially in direct elections to village and town Soviets. Prior to the 1936 Constitution, elections to all Soviets, except town and village ones were multi-stage and indirect. Volost and uezd Soviets were elected by village Soviets, and provincial and regional Soviets – by town and volost Soviets, etc., due to which the authorities had the opportunity to nominate the desired candidates to the Soviets of any level. There was in effect the production-territorial principle of elections. In towns and urbanized areas, electoral meetings were held at enterprises, institutions, and trade unions. Handicraftsmen, housewives, cab drivers, etc. who were not included in those elections, and participated in elections divided by territorial units (districts, areas, etc.). In addition, villagers elected deputies based on their place of residence. Under the law, the issue of closed or open voting was determined by provincial (regional) election commissions. In fact, elections were held at the meetings, to which only those eligible to vote were allowed, and elections were conducted by open voting (by the show of hands). Typically, voters were asked to approve or reject the entire slate of candidates, although they were not prohibited from nominating alternative candidates.
2. It was difficult for the authorities to appoint deputies to the lower Soviets, to whom voters had a negative attitude; fraud and distortion of voting results seemed an almost impossible task – voters knew very well who they voted for. In elections to the republican and All-Union Soviets, as is well known, it was impossible to verify the voting results. Therefore, the candidates lists for deputies of local Soviets included those ones who satisfied not only the interests of the authorities, but also the needs of the population; when compiling candidates lists for deputies to the republican and All-Union Soviets, the authorities took into account, above all, the state interests, and especially since at senior government level, there were still many Jews. In addition, the results of the elections to the republican and All-Union Soviets became known to the Soviet and foreign public, and the country's leadership tried to hide the anti-Jewish sentiments of the population. Due to this, the representativeness indices seem to assess the confidence of voters and the political status of the ethnic groups participating in local elections, and there is a reason to look at the representativeness of Jews in comparison with other ethnic groups.

We have information concerning the representativeness of 29 ethnic groups in the local Soviets of the RSFSR in 1927 and 36 ethnic groups in 1939, as well as concerning the representativeness of 39 ethnic groups in the local Soviets of the USSR in 1963 and 97 ethnic groups in 1985. Table 6 shows extracts from this information – data on the four most underrepresented and four most overrepresented ethnic groups (Table 6).

Table 6

Ethnic composition of local Soviets of the RSFSR in 1927 and 1939  and the USSR in 1939, 1963 and 1985

Sources: see note to Tables 1 and 2.

In three lists, Jews were first in terms of under-representativeness, and in one (1985) they were second after Roma (in 1927, 1939 and 1963 Roma were not recorded in the local government). The representativeness index by ethnicity for Jews was 0.14 in 1927, 0.57 in 1939, 0.35 in 1963, and 0.46 in 1985. This means that the Jewish ethnic group was represented below its share in the population: in 1927 – by 7.1 times, in 1939 – by 1.8 times, in 1963 – by 2.9 times and in 1985 – by 2.2 times. Taking into account the high activity of Jewish citizens in socio-political affairs and the low probability of refusing on their own accord the offer to become deputies of local Soviets, these data can be interpreted  as the presence of prejudice and distrust towards the ethnic group on the part of broad public, especially in the regions with large numbers of Jews.

The country's leaders were aware of the anti-Jewish sentiments in society and used them for political purposes. The prominent Jewish leaders tried to be less conspicuous to the public or hid their Jewish origin and name under a pseudonym. In 1918 L.D. Trotsky refused to accept the post of Commissioner for Internal Affairs for fear of giving anti-Semitic weapons to the enemies of Soviet power. For the same reason, in 1924, after the death of V.I. Lenin, it was A.I. Rykov of Russian origin rather than Jew L.B. Kamenev that was appointed the new head of the Council of People's Commissars. In 1926, in the questionnaire of a member of the Central Executive Committee of the third convocation, Trotsky and Kamenev did not indicate their nationality. In 1924, V.I. Lenin’s sister A.I. Ulyanova found out that their maternal grandfather, Alexander Dmitrievich Blank was a Jew, registered at birth as Srul Moishevich Blank. The Lenin Institute considered this discovery as “inconvenient for disclosure” and recommended to “keep this fact secret.” Ulyanova twice, in 1932 and 1934, appealed personally to J. Stalin with a request to reconsider the decision and notify the party about it, believing that her find was an important scientific confirmation of “the data about the exceptional abilities of the Semitic tribe” and about “extremely beneficial influence” of Jewish blood “in mixed marriages on offspring,” as well as a powerful weapon in the fight against anti-Semitism, “due to the authority and love that Lenin enjoys among the masses.” Stalin ordered “to keep it absolute secret.”¹⁷ In the 1920–1930s none of the prominent communists of Jewish origin wanted to be Jews. Trotsky declared: “I am not a Jew. I am a social democrat! I am an internationalist.”¹⁸ For the same reason, there became widespread the use of pseudonyms by people of liberal professions who worked in literature, art, theater, and journalism. According to famous journalist and writer D.I. Ortenberg (1904–1998), the editors of leading Soviet newspapers, no later than 1936, received an unstated instruction from J. Stalin that Jewish journalists should take Russian pseudonyms, allegedly under the pretext – “Don’t tease Hitler.”¹⁹ However, in 1936, Soviet-German relations were at such a low level that the reference to Hitler seemed ridiculous. The real reason was different – not to irritate the public. Moreover, when it was necessary to cast a shadow of doubt on a Jew, they indica- ted, depending on the circumstances, inadvertently or intentionally his nationality through obvious hints or the disclosure of a pseudonym. This practice probably dates back to Lenin. In 1911, he wrote a letter sent to an unknown person, “On the paint of shame in Judas Trotsky,” in which he named L.D. Trotsky Judas²⁰. In this case, it was not Gospel apostle Judas Iscariot that was meant, but Judushka Golovlev, a character in the novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “The Golovlyov Family.” The author gave the protagonist this name intentionally so that it would be associated with the biblical apostle. It is no coincidence that after publishing the novel in intellectual circles the name Judas began to be associated with all kinds of betrayal, hypocrisy, and disguised villainy²¹. By order of Stalin, the above letter was published in the “Pravda” newspaper on January 21, 1932, and from that time the nickname given by Lenin firmly stuck to Trotsky and was often used in propaganda. This practice became widespread in the 1920s during Stalin's struggle against the opposition. The pseudonyms of all Jews who fell out of favor with the authorities were later disclosed.

When Jews were engaged in executive bodies, their nationality could be hidden behind a pseudonym. In elections to the Soviets, the nationality of a deputy always became known to voters, and a candidate belonging to the Jewish ethnic group could and did cause rumors among the population about the dominance of Jews. When appointed to positions in the state apparatus, judicial and law enforcement agencies, a person’s nationality was known only to a narrow circle of people. This explained the high representativeness of the Jewish ethnic group in the executive branch compared to the legislative one. Researchers who studied the ethnic composition of the power structures constantly complained about this circumstance; for example, A.I. Solzhenitsyn wrote as follows:

The posts in the internal state apparatus can remain hidden for a long time (with the continued secrecy of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which came to power) <...> Many party posts were not announced even in the “Pravda” newspaper²².

Conclusions

The suspicious, distrustful or wary attitude towards Jews on the part of non-Jews was widespread throughout the entire Soviet period (as it was among Jews towards Russians and towards non-Jews in general²³). But, as a rule, this distrust was not anti-Semitism or any ethnophobia in its pure form. The anti-Jewish sentiments among the population and even the ruling class did not lead to the exclusion of Jews from the public life of the USSR, from government, or business management²⁴. Only after the transition of many Jews to formal opposing the regime and then mass emigration to the West, which began in the 1950s, there was a fundamentally worsening attitude towards them on the part of both the authorities and “ordinary Soviet people.” However, in no other state of the world, with a negative attitude towards the authorities, could Jewish citizens enjoy its admiration and protection. In addition, complaints of discrimination may be considered somewhat exaggerated: Jews were not oppressed or humiliated to a greater extent than citizens of other nationalities; when the Jews suffered, so did many other peoples of the Soviet Union, and vice versa.

Everyday anti-Semitism is an international phenomenon. From the Middle Ages to the present day, it has been spread throughout the world, including Europe and the USA, changing into different forms²⁵. Russia was by no means a leader in this aspect in the past, nor is it in the present. M. Brunstein, a Soviet Jew who has lived in Israel since 1991, an athlete and a certified Kabbalist, calls anti-Semitism a law of nature:

Anti-Semitism is not an invention of Germans or Russians, it is a natural phenomenon like rain or snow. It can appear at any moment and can subside at any moment. It is predictable by its constancy and not predictable by place and time. Only one thing can be said with certainty: the Jews will not be left alone. We affirm that anti-Semitism is a law of nature²⁶.

It is difficult to agree with this. Xenophobia in its various forms, including anti-Semitism, is a psychological defense mechanism. It is based on a collective desire to increase the authority and self-esteem of an ethnic group through the construction of positive stereotypes about oneself and negative ones about others. As a result, xenophobia contributes to the cohesion and stability of an ethnic group; this is its functional purpose and the reason for its survivability.

_{¹ D.M. Verkhoturov, Stalin i evrei [Stalin and the Jews] (Moscow: Yauza-press Publ., 2015).}

_{² Antisemitism: An annotated Bibliography / Edited by The Vidal Sassoon Intern. Center (München: Saur, 1994–2013).}

_{³ Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. Its roots and consequences. Jerusalem, 1979; Jews in Soviet Russia (1917–1967) (Jerusalem, 1975); A book on Russian Jewry: 1917–1967. New York, 1968; V. Zaslavsky, and R.J. Brym, Soviet Jewish Emigration and Soviet Nationality Policy. (London, 1983).}

_{⁴ A. Akhiezer, “Antisemitizm v Rossii: vzglyad kul'turologa [Anti-Semitism in Russia: the view of a culturologist],” Vestnik evreiskogo universiteta, no. 1 (1992): 98–128; O.V. Budnitskii, Rossiiskie evrei mezhdu krasnymi i belymi (1917–1920) [Russian Jews between Reds and Whites (1917–1920)] (Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., 2005); State anti-Semitism in the USSR. From start to climax, 1938–1953. Мoscow, 2005; G.V. Kostyrchenko, Tainaia politika Stalina: Vlast' i antisemitizm [Stalin's Secret Politics: Power and Anti-Semitism] (Moscow: International relationships Publ., 2001); G.V. Kostyrchenko, Tainaia politika Khrushcheva: vlast', intelligentsiia, evreiskii vopros [Khrushchev's secret politics: power, intelligentsia, the Jewish question] (Moscow: International relationships Publ., 2012); G.V. Kostyrchenko, Tainaia politika: ot Brezhneva do Gorbacheva [Secret politics: from Brezhnev to Gorbachev] (Moscow: International relationships Publ., 2019); A.I. Solzhenitsyn, Dvesti let vmeste [Two hundred years together] (Moscow: PROZAIK Publ., 2009); I.R. Shafarevich, Russkii narod v bitve tsivilizatsii [Russian people in the battle of civilizations] (Moscow: Institute of Russian Civilization Publ., 2012).}

_{⁵ Jews in Russia: Historiographical essays. 2nd half of the 19th century – 20th century (Moscow; Jerusalem, 1994); History and collective memory: Collection of articles on Jewish historiography (Мoscow; Jerusalem, 2008); V. Natans, “Ob istoriografii rossiiskogo evreistva [On the historiography of Russian Jewry],” Vestnik Evreiskogo universiteta, no. 6 (2001): 163–206; O.S. Ulyanova, “Otechestvennaia istoriografiia evreev v Rossii v XIX–XXI stoletii [Domestic historiography of Jews in Russia in the XIX – XXI centuries],” Molodoi uchenyi, no. 1 (2010): 273–279.}

_{⁶ A.V. Blyum, Evreiskii vopros pod sovetskoi tsenzuroi 1917–1991 [The Jewish Question under Soviet Censorship 1917–1991] (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg European University Publ., 1996); Literatura o evreiakh na russkom iazyke, 1890–1947: knigi, broshiury, ottiski statei, organy periodicheskoi pechati: bibliograficheskii ukazatel' [Literature on Jews in Russian, 1890–1947: books, brochures, reprints of articles, periodicals: biblio- graphic index] (St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt Publ., 1995); B. Pinkus, Russian publications on Jews and Judaism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1967: A bibliography (Jerusalem, 1970).}

_{⁷ B.N. Mironov, “On the Illegitimacy of the Soviet Power,” Modern History of Russia 12, no. 1 (2022): 8–38.}

_{⁸ S.V. Khakimova, “Teoreticheskie podkhody k izucheniyu yavleniya ksenofobii [Theoretical approaches to studying the phenomenon of xenophobia],” Gramota, no. 11 (2015): 189–191.}

_{⁹ E. Pain, Antisemitizm – fanaticheskii i istoricheskii. Ob osobennostiakh gosudarstvennogo antisemitizma v SSSR [Anti-Semitism is fanatical and historical. On the peculiarities of state anti-Semitism in the USSR], accessed October 30, 2023, https://liberal.ru/foundation-council-materials/7570/}

_{¹⁰ Positive discrimination, as a rule, is understood as policy aimed at giving priority to minorities in one or another area of life (social, political) by establishing privileges or quotas for them. Discrimination against the successful ones for the sake of the laggards is usually called positive discrimination. This literal translation from English cannot be considered appropriate.}

_{¹¹ V. Konstantinov, Evreiskoe naselenie byvshego SSSR v XX veke: sotsial’no-demograficheskii analiz [Jewish population of the former USSR in the twentieth century: socio-demographic analysis] (Jerusalem: Lira Publ., 2007).}

_{¹² V.A. Tishkov, “Etnichnost’ i vlast’ v SSSR (etnopoliticheskii analiz respublikanskikh organov vlasti) [Ethnicity’ and power’ in the USSR (ethnopolitical analysis of republican authorities)],” Sovetskaia etnografiia, no. 3 (1991): 3–17.}

_{¹³ Vybory v Sovety RSFSR v 1925–1926 godu (predvaritel'nye itogi) / RSFSR [Elections to the Soviets of the RSFSR in 1925–1926 (preliminary results) / RSFSR] (Мoscow: [N.s.], 1926), 1–2.}

_{¹⁴ V.N. Belonovskii, and A.V. Belonovskii, Predstavitel’stvo i vybory v Rossii s drevneishikh vremen do XVII veka: (Teoriia, istoriia, praktika) [Representation and elections in Russia from ancient times to the XVII century: (Theory, history, practice)] (Moscow: Prior Publ., 1999).}

_{¹⁵ B.N. Mironov, “On the Illegitimacy of the Soviet Power,” 8–38.}

_{¹⁶ “Demography of the Jewish population of the Russian Empire (1772–1917),” in Brief Jewish Encyclopedia (KEE) (Jerusalem, 1994), 382–390.}

_{¹⁷ O. Abramova, G. Borodulina, and T. Koloskova, Mezhdu pravdoi i istinoi: (Ob istorii spekuliatsii vokrug rodosloviia V.I. Lenina) [Between truth and truth: (On the history of speculation around the genealogy of V.I. Lenin)] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei Publ., 1998).}

_{¹⁸ Iu. Slezkin, Era Merkuriia: evrei v sovremennom mire [The Age of Mercury: Jews in the Modern World] (Moscow: New Literary Review Publ., 2005).}

_{¹⁹ D.I. Ortenberg, Sorok tretii: rasskaz-khronika [Forty-third: chronicle story] (Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 1991).}

_{²⁰ V.I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sichinenii [Full composition of writings] (Moscow: Politicheskaia lite- ratura, 1973), 96.}

_{²¹ A.S. Bushmin, and S.A. Makashin, Evoliutsiia satiry Saltykova-Shchedrina [The evolution of Saltykov-Shchedrin's satire] (Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984).}

_{²² A.I. Solzhenitsyn, Dvesti let vmeste [Two hundred years together] (Moscow: PROZAIK Publ., 2009).}

_{²³ Ibid., 435–436.}

_{²⁴ B.N. Mironov, “From korenizatsiia to sovereignty: How the disintegration of the USSR has been preparing,” Russiiskaia Istoriia, no. 6 (2021): 3–24; B.N. Mironov, “Ethnic Discrimination in the Formation of State Bodies of the USSR,” Modern History of Russia 11, no. 1 (2021): 149–173.} 

_{²⁵ L.D. Gudkov, Antisemitizm i ksenofobiia v sovremennoi Rossii (po materialam issledovaniia 2020 goda) [Antisemitism and xenophobia in modern Russia (based on a 2020 study)] (Moscow: IEAEI Publ., 2021); “ADL Survey: The ‘most antisemitic’ countries in Europe are also the whitest, most Christian, and safest,” Christians for Truth Team, November 22, 2019, https://christiansfortruth.com/adl-survey-most-antisemitic-countries-in-europe-are-also-whitest-most-christian-and-safest/}

_{²⁶ M. Brushtein, Antisemitizm kak zakon prirody. Na osnove lektsii Mikhaelia Laitmana [Anti-Semitism as a law of nature. Based on lectures by Michael Laitman] (Moscow: AST Publ., 2014), 92.}

About the authors

Boris N. Mironov

Author for correspondence.
Email: mironov1942@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8559-0019
SPIN-code: 7919-3929

Dr. Habil. History, Professor of the Department of Source Studies of Russian History

References