1. See, e.g., Walter Laqueur, “Glasnost's Ghosts,” an article distributed by USIA on August 10, 1987; Howard Spier, “Soviet Antisemitism Unchained: The Rise of Pamyat,” and “Russian Chauvinists and the Thesis of a Jewish World Conspiracy: Three Case Studies,” Institute of Jewish Affairs Research Reports, Nos. 3 and 6 (July and August), 1987; Vladimir Tolz, “Zhido-Masonskii mif Sovetskoi propagandy i pravda istorii,” a program script, broadcast in Russian by Radio Liberty on June 1, 1987; Julia Wishnevsky, “The Emergence of Pamyat and Otechestvo,” Radio Liberty Research Bulletin, 342/87, August 26, 1987; “A Second Pamyat Emerges,” Radio Liberty Research Bulletin 463/ 87, November 16, 1987; and “Reactionaries Tighten Their Hold on the Writers' Union,” Radio Liberty Research Bulletin 148/88, March 28, 1988. See also Aron Katsenelinboigen, “Will Glasnost Bring the Reactionaries to Power?” and George Gibian's critique of it in the Spring and Summer, 1988, issues of Orbis. Google Scholar

2. The word “judophobia” is used in this paper in lieu of “antisemitism.” The latter seems especially unsuitable in the discussion of Pamyat whose leaders profess sympathy for the Arabs who are, after all, no less Semitic than the Jews.Google Scholar

3. There exist different versions of Pamyat's history. According to Ogonek, No. 21, 1987, it originated in the early 1980s under the wings of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. However, Pamyat's own Proclamation (see note 7), issued in December 1987, prides itself on a three-year span of its activities. In any case, it was before perestroika. In English, see Wishnevsky's Radio Liberty Research Bulletin articles (note 1). Unfortunately, Wishnevsky often fails to separate fact from opinion. Moreover, she does not discriminate between various ideological trends among Russian nationalists, tending to label them all as “reactionaries,” “antisemites,” and even “Stalinists.”Google Scholar

4. Elena Losoto, “V bespamiatstve: Kuda vedut rukovoditeli tak nazyvaemogo obshchestva Pamiat',” Komsomol'skaia pravda, May 22, 1987.Google Scholar

5. Andrei Cherkizov, “O podlinnykh tsennostiakh i mnimykh vragakh,” Sovietskaia kul'tura, June 18, 1987.Google Scholar

6. Some tried to accentuate a distinction between Pamyat's “hysterical” leaders and well-meaning “patriotic” members who have done some “good deeds.” Ogonek's Anatolii Golovkov and Aleksei Pavlov (No. 21, 1987), for instance, said that they “could have written a whole article devoted to Pamyat's good deeds” (but they did not). Pavel Gutiontov (Sovetskaia Rossiia, July 17, 1987) mentioned that he could not ignore “the bitter facts” of the destruction of Russian culture, but he failed to describe a single bitter fact. Anatolii Ezhelev (Izvestiia, August 1, 1987) defended a Leningrad cultural preservation group “Spasenie” from Cherkizov's insinuation that it was just as anti-Communist as Pamyat.Google Scholar

7. One notable exception is Franz Kossler's report on Austrian TV which included an interview with Vasiliev. In his own interview with Moscow News (No. 7, 1988), Kossler pointed out that “the atmosphere of being semi-legal and ‘harassed’ is an asset for Pamyat, because it gives it some mythical aura and creates a legend around its martyrdom… the criticism should be business-like, specific and well-reasoned. All too often a caricature is drawn, which is then criminalized.” It was prudent advice to Soviet journalists. But it has been hardly followed by Kossler's Western colleagues, such as Esther Fein of The New York Times. Based on interviews with whomever who wanted to pass for a Pamyat member, her latest report (February 27, 1989) suggests that all Pamyat sympathizers are inveterate “conservatives,” “anti-Jewish,” and “Stalinists,” while it says nothing about Pamyat's programmatic documents. Remarkably, Soviet samizdat publications have shown more objectivity in their treatment of Pamyat than either Western or Soviet press. Aleksandr Podrabinek's Ekspress-Khronika ran an interview with Vasiliev (reprinted in Russkaia mysl' on June 17, 1988), and Sergei Grigoriants' information bulletin, Glasnost, published Gleb Anishchenko's polemic article, “Who Lobotomized the Russian People?”, one of the most objective assessments of Pamyat and of its critique by G. Popov (See English edition, Glasnost, issues 13–15, October, 1988, pp. 5561). The Russian emigre newspapers, Novoe Russkoe Slovo (New York) and Russkaia mysl' (Paris) have been rather negative in their reporting on Pamyat. Yet Vladimir Kozlovskii's series of articles in NRS (January 1988), including an interview with one of Pamyat's activists, is an excellent example of objective and responsible reporting.Google Scholar

8. The full titles of the two “manifestos” are: (1) “Obrashchenie patrioticheskoao istoriko-literaturnoqo ob “edineniia Pamiat' k russkomu narodu. ko vsem narodam nashei velikoi derzhavy, zhelaiushchim sokhranit' otechestvo svoe ot Pozhara”. (Appeal of Patriotic Literary-Historical Association Pamyat to Russian People and to All Peoples of Our Great Country who Wish to Protect Their Fatherland from Conflagration), issued on May 21, 1986 by Pamyat's governing body (see Arkhiv Samizdat document No. 6079, October 9, 1987) ¡ and (2) “Vozzvanie patrioticheskoqo ob” edineniia Pamiat' k russkomu narodu. k patriotam vsekh stran i natsii” (Proclamation of Patriotic Association Pamyat to Russian People and to Patriots of All Countries and Nations), issued on December 8, 1987 (AS No. 6138, February 1, 1988). Henceforth, they will be respectively referred to as the “Appeal” and the “Proclamation”.Google Scholar

9. “Appeal”, p. 1.Google Scholar

10. “Proclamation”, p. 16.Google Scholar

11. “Appeal”, p. 1.Google Scholar

12. “Proclamation”, p. 2.Google Scholar

13. Ibid., p. 8.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., p. 2.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 7.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 2.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., p. 2.Google Scholar

24. It is noteworthy that, Vladimir Petrov, in a Pravda article entitled “Pamyat and Others” (February 1, 1988) indirectly linked Pamyat with Sergei Grigoryants' Glosnost. According to Petrov, both Pamyat and Glasnosts' discredit the non-formal movement by undermining our “patriotic, internationalist upbringing and socialist ideals.”Google Scholar

25. Vadim Kozhinov, “My meniaemsia?”, Nash sovremennik, (October) No., 10, 1987, pp. 160–174.Google Scholar

26. See Wishnevsky's “Second Pamyat” (note 1).Google Scholar

27. Valentin Rasputin, “Zhertvovat' soboiu dlia pravdy: Protiv bespamiatstva,” (Speech at the 5th congress of VOOPIK, July 1987), Nash sovremennik, No. 1, 1988, p. 171.Google Scholar

28. G. Kh. Popov and Nikita Adzhubei, “Pamiat' i ‘Pamiat’,” an interview (beseda) about “problems of historical memory and contemporary nationalities relations,” Znamia, No. 1, (January), 1988, pp. 188–203, esp. p. 196.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 193.Google Scholar

30. Argumenty i fakty (No. 23) reported that on May 28, 1988, Dmitrii Vasiliev was warned by the KGB to cease and desist from “anti-social activities which might provoke national discord.” (See his interview with the Ekspress-Khronika reprinted by Russkaia mysl', June 17, 1988). In October 1988 Washington Times reported that Vasiliev sued the KGB for “defaming” Pamyat (NRS, November 2, 1988).Google Scholar

31. “Printsipy perestoiki: revoliutsionnost' myshleniia deistvii,” Pravda, April 5, 1988.Google Scholar

32. Ekspress-Khronika, No. 39, September 25, 1988.Google Scholar

33. Alexander Solzhenitsyn et al., From Under the Rubble (Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1975), pp. 138–140.Google Scholar

34. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Misconceptions About Russia Are A Threat To America,” Foreign Affairs, April 1980, pp. 797–834, esp. p. 814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. See note 35.Google Scholar

36. John B. Dunlop, The Faces of Contemporary Russian Nationalism (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1984), p. 290.Google Scholar

37. In his latest article on the subject, “The Contemporary Russian Nationalist Spectrum” (Radio Liberty Research Research Bulletin, Special issue of December 19, 1988), Dunlop has identified the moderates with the “liberal nationalists,” such as Academician Dmitrii Likhachev, the philosopher Sergei Averintsev, a number of the “villagers,” and the group of intellectuals around Sergei Zalygin's magazine Novyi mir. Google Scholar

38. See Dunlop's letter to the editor, Policy Review, No. 45, Summer 1988, p. 88.Google Scholar

39. Pamyat is not the only informal group concerned with the preservation of Russian national heritage. Besides Pamyat's affiliates in Leningrad and Novosibirsk (and perhaps in dozens of smaller towns), there is Spasenie (Salvation) and “Epitsentr” in Leningrad, Otechestvo (Fatherland) in Sverdlovsk and Krasnoyarsk, Soiuz Blagodenstviia (a vaguely monarchist group) and a NTS group in Moscow, a group “Russia” (formerly “Radonezh”) in Moscow oblast'. There are also a number of informal groups and seminars that are primarily concerned with Russia's religious heritage, such as the samizdat magazine Vybor (Choice). In addition, there are some informal periodicals of Russian nationalist orientation, such as Vladimir Osipov's Zemlia (Earth) in Moscow and Rossiiskie vedomosti (Russian News) in Leningrad. With the exception of Pamyat, none of them has been overtly anti-Zionist or judophobic. Valerii Senderov, a NTS member and a long-time critic of Soviet antisemitism, has repudiated Pamyat leaders, but spoke very favorable of the Russian monarchists (Possev, No. 7). On December 17, 1988 a Christian-Democratic Party (Khristianskii Patrioticheskii Soiuz), was founded in Moscow by 32 delegates form various cities. One of its founders, Osipov, criticized Pamyat for its judophobia, but insisted on its right to speak out.Google Scholar

40. Dmitrii Likhachev, who has occasionally been attacked by Pamyat, nevertheless defended its right to exist. Agreeing with Likhachev, Darrell Hammer likewise concluded that “While [Pamyat] has flourished under glasnost, its success is due in part to limitations on glasnost.” (See Hammer's article in Radio Liberty Research Bulletin's special issue of December 19, 1988).Google Scholar

41. No. 9, March 1989.Google Scholar

42. Reported by Ekspress-Khronika, No. 48, November 27; reprinted in Russkaia mysl', December 2.Google Scholar