Russia in War: Havighurst Speaker Explains Decolonization on the Eastern Front

N. V. Kharitonov, View of a Village on the Caucasian Front, 1916.

By Leigh Winstead

OXFORD, OH – On Monday September 16, 2016 Joshua Sanborn, Professor of History at Lafayette College in Easton, PA, came to Harrison Hall at Miami University to deliver the kickoff lecture for the Fall 2016 Havighurst Colloquia lecture series on “Russia in War and Revolution.” Sanborn’s lecture, which shared a title with his 2014 book Imperial Apocalypse: The Great War and the Destruction of the Russian Empire, presented a challenge to traditional narratives of European History by arguing that The Great War (World War I) was actually the beginning of a decolonization process for the Russian Empire, a process which was characterized by its inherent violence. His “decolonization theory” included four distinct stages: Imperial Challenge, State Failure, Social Collapse and, finally, decolonization. By focusing on the ways that the first three of these stages can be seen over the course of World War I in the Russian Empire and its borderlands, Sanborn provided a compelling argument and a more nuanced way to understand the collapse of the Russian Empire and how its collapse paved the way for the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power.

Sanborn began his argument by claiming that the Russian Empire was not immediately threatened by the “Imperial Challenge,” the first stage of decolonization, presented by Polish and Ukrainian nationalists in the Empires “colonial spaces” before the War. During this phase, these groups began to see themselves as independent of the Russian ethnic majority, and possibly capable of national self-determination. However, due to the strength of the pre-war autocratic government and its administrators, the Russian Empire was able to maintain control in these colonial spaces. As Imperial strength waned, “State Failure” and “Social Collapse,” began to occur and Imperial regime was no longer able to maintain order in these spaces. The “intensification of ethnopolitics” occurred as groups increasingly identified themselves on ethnic terms, rather than “[previous identifications with . . . social class].”[1] Inter-ethnic violence became increasingly common throughout the war, as Russians deported “suspect” ethnicities, like Baltic Germans and Russian Jews, whom they thought were damaging the war effort. This type of violence only quickened the processes of “State Failure” and “Social Collapse” as the link between the autocratic government and its governed populace weakened and the state was no longer able to protect or exert power over its citizens.

The increasingly impotent Imperial regime ultimately led to the penultimate stage of Sanborn’s decolonization theory, “Social Collapse,” wherein people within the boundaries of the Empire experienced “physical insecurity” as the remnants of the government were helpless to remedy the situation[2]. Sanborn highlighted the importance of the Kerensky Offensive in 1917 as a key element of this stage in decolonization. The Offensive failed and the army retreated from the Eastern Front, leaving chaos and destruction in their wake. The Provisional Government, which had initiated the “Imperial-like” Offensive, was unable to maintain order amongst the soldiers. “Social Collapse” in the Russian Empire was thus categorized not only by the physical insecurity from the enemy, but from the very force that was supposed to maintain the Empire’s physical security in the first place.

By characterizing the dissolution of the Russian Empire in colonial terms, Sanborn’s argument presents a challenge to the traditional Western European narrative of colonialism. He asserts that the Russian Empire was an Empire, acted like an Empire within its “colonial spaces” and borderlands, and it fell like an Empire. Concluding, Sanborn remarked that decolonization was characterized by its intense violence, which was certainly highlighted by cases of interethnic violence throughout the war.  Bolsheviks were able to capitalize on “State Failure” and “Social Collapse”, because they had always asserted they were anti-war and anti-Imperial, while the Provisional Government had just illustrated a seeming willingness to carry on the Imperial quest for expanded territory through the Kerensky Offensive. The Bolsheviks were able to beat nationalist groups in their quest for self-governance, by appearing to offer them self-determination through representation in local government. Thus began what some might argue would be a new phase of Empire.

Ultimately, Sanborn’s lecture was an excellent foundation for this semester’s Havighurst Colloquia series as he provided student’s with a challenge to the traditional Western European narrative of colonialism and what it means to “decolonize.” Anyone interested in exploring more about “Russia in War and Revolution” could find more information from Sanborn’s book Imperial Apocalypse, or come to see one of the next Havighurst Colloquia lecture series.

Leigh Winstead is a second year M.A. student in History at Miami.

[1] Sanborn, Joshua A. Imperial Apocalypse: The Great War and the Destruction of the Russian Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 244

[2] Ibid.