The US liberal political and academic establishment on national-territorial transformation of Russia in 1917–1922

The paper examines the evolution of approaches and assessments of the US political and academic establishment regarding the national-territorial transformation of Russia at the final stage of the First World War, during the Revolution and the Civil War. During that period the US diplomacy was focused on developing and implementing its own ambitious program for the liberal-democratic reorganization of the post-war world with particular focus on issues of national self-determination. As a result, Wilson’s administration could not remain indifferent to the dramatic changes on the territory of the former Russian Empire. However, as the author notes, for European politicians its responses appeared rather unusual and often puzzling. The latter was due to a very specific interpretation of the principle of national self-determination adopted by W. Wilson and his associates as the right of the civil society to self-government rather than the right to ethnic separation. At the same time, the right to independently determine their own destiny was reserved, in a spirit of social-Darwinism, only for peoples who had reached a certain maturity. And moreover, each particular case was additionally assessed in terms of both political rationality and developments of political situation in Russia in general. For instance, the US liberal political and academic establishment consistently supported the independence of Poland and Finland while most other national minorities (the peoples of the Baltic region, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, the peoples of Central Asia, etc.) were usually encouraged to defend their autonomy within a united and democratic Russia. The author notes, that the US policy towards Russia became particularly controversial after the Bolsheviks came to power: the consistent rejection of the Bolshevik reforms was accompanied by the reluctance to incite separatism on the national outskirts out of fear of Russia’s uncontrolled disintegration and its subsequent transformation into a site of endless ethnic conflicts. As a result, the United States did not recognize most of the national entities that declared their independence in 1917–1922. At the same time, the author concludes that the growing ideological and political confrontation with Soviet Russia in the following years did not allow the US leaders to adequately assess the national-territorial transformations that were brought about by the creation of the USSR.

1. ‘14 punktov’ Vil’sona sto let spustya: kak pereizobresti mirovoi poryadok. 2018. [Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points 100 years on: Rethinking the liberal world order]. Moscow, Tsentr strategicheskikh razrabotok Publ. (In Russ.)

2. Zhuravleva V.I. 2004. Natsional’no-religioznyi vopros v rossiisko-amerikanskikh otnosheniyakh v period Pervoi mirovoi voiny [The national-religious question in the Russian-American relations during World War I]. Amerikanskiy ezhegodnik, no. 2002, pp. 215–243. (In Russ.)

3. Letnyakov D.E. 2018. Sovetskoe kak imperskoe: popytka problematizatsii [Soviet as imperial: An attempt of problematization]. Politika i obshchestvo, no. 1, pp. 62–71. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0684.2018.1.25409. (In Russ.)

4. Listikov S.V. 2020. ‘Nedoverchivaya sderzhannost’ Vil’sona’: amerikanskaya diplomatiya v poiskakh ‘russkoi politiki’, 1917–1918 gody [‘Wilson’s mistrustful restraint’: American diplomacy search of a Russian policy, 1917–1918]. Modern and Contemporary History, no. 2, pp. 192–203. DOI: 10.31857/S013038640008666-0. (In Russ.)

5. Listikov S.V. 2006. SShA i revolyutsionnaya Rossiya v 1917 g.: k voprosu ob al’ternativakh amerikanskoi politiki ot Fevralya k Oktyabryu [The USA and revolutionary Russia in 1917. On alternatives in American policy from February to October]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)

6. Mal’kov V.L. 2010. Vudro Vil’son i ego ‘printsip national’nostei’: vzglyad iz sovremennosti [Woodrow Wilson and his ‘principle of nationalities’: A sight from the present]. Modern and Contemporary History, no. 6, pp. 104–111. (In Russ.)

7. Narochnitskaya N.A. 2017. Russkaya revolyutsiya i mir v XX stoletii: cherez prizmu ‘russkogo voprosa’ na Parizhskoi mirnoi konferentsii [The Russian revolution and the world in the twentieth century: Viewed in the context of the Russian question at the Paris Peace Conference]. Perspectivy, no. 4 (12), pp. 7–37. (In Russ.)

8. Gerasimov I.V. et al. (eds.). 2004. Novaya imperskaya istoriya postsovetskogo prostranstva [New imperial history of the Post-Soviet space]. Kazan’, Tsentr issledovanii natsionalizma i imperii Publ. (In Russ.)

9. Romanov V.V. 2008. Vudro Vil’son o natsional’nom samoopredelenii [Woodrow Wilson on national self-determination]. Vestnik Vaytskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, no. 4 (1), pp. 30–38. (In Russ.)

10. Sevost’yanov G.N. 2004. Moskva — Vashington: na puti k priznaniyu [Moscow — Washington: On the road to recognition. 1918–1933]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)

11. Seleznev F.A. 2017. Vozzvanie velikogo knyazya Nikolaya Nikolaevicha k polyakam 1(14) avgusta 1914 goda [Appeal of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to the Poles on August 1 (14), 1914]. Slavyanovedenie, no. 5, pp. 28–41. (In Russ.)

12. Tikhiy K.T. 2008. Uolter Duranty o Sovetskom Soyuze: mify i real’nost [Walter Duranty on the Soviet Union: Myths and reality]. Modern and Contemporary History, no. 5, pp. 203–214. (In Russ.)

13. Dergachev O. (ed.). 1996. Ukrainskaya gosudarstvennost’ v XX stoletii (istoriko-politicheskiy analiz) [Ukrainian statehood in the 20th century (Historical and political analysis)]. Kyiv, Politichna Dumka Publ. (In Russ.)

14. Foglesong D.S. 1998. Soedinennye Shtaty, problema samoopredeleniya natsii i bor’ba protiv bol’shevikov v Pribaltike. 1918–1920 [The United States, self-determination and the struggle against Bolshevism in the Eastern Baltic Region, 1918–1920]. In: Mal’kov V.L. (ed.). Pervaya mirovaya voina. Prolog 20 veka. Moscow, Nauka Publ., pp. 602–626. (In Russ.)

15. Ambrosius L.E. 2002. Dilemmas of national self-determination: Woodrow Wilson’s legacy. In: Ambrosius L.E. Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson and his legacy in American foreign affairs. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 125–134.

16. Filene P.G. 1967. Americans and the Soviet experiment, 1917–1933. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

17. Foglesong D.S. 2007. The American mission and the ‘evil empire’: The crusade for a ‘ free Russia’ since 1881. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

18. Grant N. 1978. The Russian section: A window on the Soviet Union. Diplomatic History, no. 2, pp. 107–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7709.1978.tb00425.x.

19. Heater D. 1994. National self-determination: Woodrow Wilson and his legacy. New York, St. Martin’s.

20. Hirsch F. 2005. Empire of nations: Ethnographic knowledge and the making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

21. Kirby D.G. 1978. Revolutionary ferment in Finland and the origins of the Civil War 1917–1918. Scandinavian Economic History Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 15–35. DOI: 10.1080/03585522.1978.10407894.

22. Kusielewicz E. 1955. Woodrow Wilson and the rebirth of Poland. Polish American Studies, vol. 12, no. 1/2, pp. 1–10.

23. Lynch A. 2002. Woodrow Wilson and the principle of ‘national selfdetermination’: A reconsideration. Review of International Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 419–436.

24. Manela E. 2007. The Wilsonian moment: Self-determination and the international origins of anticolonial nationalism. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.

25. Martin T. 2001. The affirmative action empire: Nations and nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939. Ithaca; London, Cornell University Press.

26. Münkler H. 2018. The proclamation of the right of peoples to selfdetermination and its present-day repercussions. Aspen Review Central Europe, no. 1, pp. 26–32.

27. Pipes R. 1954. The formation of the Soviet Union. Communism and nationalism, 1917–1923. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

28. Radosh R. 1965. John Spargo and Wilson’s Russian policy, 1920. Journal of American History, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 548–565.

29. Rolf M. 2021. Nationalizing an empire: The Bolsheviks, the nationality question, and policies of indigenization in the Soviet Union (1917–1927). In: Seixas X.M. (ed.). The First World War and the nationality question in Europe: Global impact and local dynamics. Leiden; Boston: Brill, pp. 65–86.

30. Romanov V. 2019. American interpretations of the national-territorial settlement in Central and South-Eastern Europe at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919–1920: The way to resolve old contradictions? In: Arhire S., Rosu T. (eds.). The Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920) and its aftermath: Settlements, problems and perceptions. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 19–28.

31. Saul N.E. 2001. War and revolution: The United States and Russia, 1914– 1921. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas.

32. Smith T. 2017. Why Wilson matters: The origin of American liberal internationalism and its crisis today. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

33. Suny R.G., Martin T. (eds.). 2001. A State of nations: Empire and nationmaking in the age of Lenin and Stalin. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

34. Thompson J.M. 1966. Russia, Bolshevism and the Versailles Peace Conference. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

35. Tooze A. 2014. Deluge: The Great War and the remaking of global order, 1916–1931. New York, Viking.

36. Unterberger B.M. 1982. Woodrow Wilson and the Russian revolution. In: Link A.S. (ed.). Woodrow Wilson and a revolutionary world, 1913–1921. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 49–104.

37. Vilkauskaite D.O. 2013. From empire to independence: The curious case of the Baltic states 1917–1922. Honors Scholar Theses, no. 325. Available at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/325 (accessed: 27.02.2022).

38. Walaszek A. 1998. Polish immigrants in the USA and their homeland, 1914–1923. Društvena Istraživanja: Journal for General Social Issues, no. 7 (1), pp. 89–108.

39. Wolf L. 2020. Woodrow Wilson and the reimagining of Eastern Europe. Stanford, Stanford University Press.