Beyond the Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia

Nathans, Ben. Beyond the Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Although I cannot do justice to University of Pennsylvania professor Benjamin Nathans's book Beyond the Pale, I will nonetheless attempt to briefly describe it. Essentially, Nathans describes the Jewish community that left the restricted area of the Russian Pale and went to St. Petersburg. Part of this story is the changing circumstances of Jews in Russia. The Jewish population expanded considerably at the time of Catherine the Great after she annexed Poland and other Baltic countries, which were home to much of Europe's Jewish population. This annexation led to official concern for the integration of Jews into Russian life. Nathans makes the point that this concern was not unique to the Jewish minority population in Russia--integration was always an imperial goal, but it was more overt and much more pronounced. Education and conscription seemed to be avenues to integration. Russia's draconian conscription policy of 25 years of service took many young Jews away from their families. At the end of the 25 year period, if you were still alive, you could move out of the Pale and into St. Petersburg. Special privileges to leave the restricted Jewish area (as large as the country of France) were also given to certain artisans, professionals, and to students. But Imperial Russia was never satisfied with the results of their policies over a hundred years of trying: quotas were tightened, loosened, and tightened again. Officials could not decide, for instance, if the Jews were a bad influence on Russians--turning them away from Christianity and toward Nihilism, or if Russians were a bad influence on the Jews--turning them into revolutionaries. In addition, popular and official beliefs were that the Jewish migrants to St. Petersburg were viewed as too successful; they were taking all the places in the professions; they had more babies than Russians; and they were invading the schools. Nathans looks at census documents, the shift of primary languages among the Jewish population and other details of acculturation; he explores the verifiable and mythological stories of the various ways some of the population attempted to circumvent the quotas and restrictions; compares Russia's policy toward its Jewish population with the policies of Europe. In many ways, Russia lagged far behind Europe both in its policies and its modernization. But it also has the sad legacy of anticipating the virulent anti-semitism that spread through Europe as the century turned. As with any excellent book, Nathans, by describing a particular opens the readers eyes to other similar instances perhaps closer to home, teaching a broader lesson in history. Nathan shows how Russia, though seeking to acculturate its Jewish population, could not resist continuing to single them out through laws of quotas and restrictions, thereby, creating a clearly defined "other," ripe for scape-goating and vilification. 

Find this book at a library near you.

Reading about Russia

Lukacs, John. June 1941: Hitler and Stalin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006

  Lukacs' irreverent style keeps this brief history of the months and days leading to Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union entertaining and a quick read. There are few people to admire in this turning point in Hitler's attempt to subdue all of Europe. Was Stalin's motivation to make and keep peace with Hitler motivated by his desire to stay out of a war for which Russia was ill prepared? Whether or not this was the case, Stalin's desire was so strong that he did not recognize Hitler's intent or chose to ignore all signs of the German preparations to invade. Lukacs points out that the many Communists suffering in Hitler's own prison camps would have lost all hope in support from Russia as this agreement was signed. As Stalin acted in good faith (seems incongruous to type Stalin and good faith so close to each other), sending to Germany promised trainloads of supplies along the railroads built by Soviet prisoners who were living in state imposed conditions of slave labor and starvation, Hitler made his plans to attack Russia. Because Stalin refused to acknowledge the many messages from not only his own ambassadors and diplomats, but from diplomats from Japan, England, and elsewhere, Hitler and his forces did not have to worry about operating in secrecy to secure a surprise attack. Germany was able to gather enough information to destroy the Soviet air force on the first day of their invasion. Lukacs delves into the psychology of Stalin and Hitler, comparing the two men and their rise to power and their shared need to do away with any any hint of opposition.

Frazier, Ian. Travels in Siberia. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010.

 Frazier describes his growing desire to travel across the remarkable expanse that is Siberia. As a prelude to his own journey, he becomes familiar with all of the literature provided by earlier travelers, most significantly, George Kennan, a relative of the more famous George Frost Kennan, who not only crossed Siberia but became acquainted with the Russian Siberian prison system that predated the system that was greatly expanded under the Soviets.

He begins his travels in stages, first heading to Alaska, where he waits for the opportunity to fly across the Bering Sea to Chukotka, on  Russia's eastern edge, from Nome, Alaska, a town I that you can only fly into. There are no roads leading into (or out of) Nome. (I spent a lot of time with Google maps finding the Diomedes Islands, Nome, Chukotka and able to get close enough to see the remote station on Big Diomedes...).

When he finally begins his journey, which he will undergo by car, Frazier engages two men who have their own ideas about how to get across the great land mass. Their ideas continually clash with Frazier's and Frazier responds petulantly, with exasperation, and with some self-awareness of his own inability to manage with his own personal resources. As seems to happen, the fact that Frazier can not communicate with them on an intellectual level to which he is accustomed, leads him to assume to interpret their conversation and actions as commical. Yet, they are the ones with the skill, cultural knowledge, and where-with-all to make his trip a success.

Frazier is intent on exploring references in the literature and histories he has read. Much of it represents a darker history than either of his fellow travelers are comfortable uncovering. When Frazier refuses to accept his partner's demand that he not photograph a sensitive sight, they nearly part ways.

This books is fascinating from cover to cover in all of its aspects: geography, history, the many people Frazier meets over the long period of his interest and fascination with Russia, the travails and rewards of his travels, and his evolving relationship with his continental cohort.

If you read this book .... you may find yourself plotting how you might indulge in even a small portion of this travel--perhaps, though, by train.


Petkevich, Tamara. Memoir of a Gulag Actress. Translated by Yasha Klots and Ross Ufberg. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010 (first appeared in Russia in 1993).


And here is the other side, not passing through, but inprisoned in various camps throughout the north for seven years. Petkevich was born into loyal revolutionary family, both mother and father. Her father was arrested in the 30s and sent away to camp. Petkevich became acquainted with young man while standing in lines to find out about her father's whereabouts. She eventually follows him to Frunze in Kazakhstan to marry him. Things begin their tragic course as first she hears of the Germana invasion, then the deaths of her mother and sister, her remaining sister sent to an orphanage. First her husband is arrested and then she herself is arrested under article 58, political crimes. It is 1943, Petkevich is 23. She is released at age 30 in 1950, having given birth to and lost her son to his free father. Traumatized but with strong ties to her fellow prisoners, the disaster begins again as one by one her friends are rearrested and once more sent away to exile and camps. Petkevich is heavily recruited to be an informer, but she decides that it is better to risk death than to cause others pain. Suddenly the pressure stops, and although there is no mention of a change in the government or in policy, the terror subsides (but does not disappear altogether).

Petkevich's memoir is a glimpse into prison society, the inhumane treatment, the exploitation of the imprisoned artists and intellectuals, the starvation of the body and the mind, and the amazing ability to survive and to retain spirit and integrity when there seems to be no hope, no joy, no future.

All of these books are available at a library near you!

Eichmann in Jerusalem

Hannah Arendt. Eichmann in Jerusalem: a Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press, 1963.

Reviewed by T. Hatch

The publication in 1963 of Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem was greatly resented in Israel. Evidence of this irritation was manifest in that it took over forty years for a Hebrew translation to appear. Arendt is evidence that while a gadfly is never a welcome guest empirically challenged creators of an ideology have all the more reason to resent self-appointed truth tellers in their midst.

Mossad agents captured Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May of 1960. Living under the name of Ricardo Clement, working for a local water utility company, Eichmann knew that he was being followed. After his capture/abduction he was spirited to Israel where he stood trial on fifteen criminal counts including crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people, and membership in an outlawed organization. He was eventually convicted on all counts and was hanged on May 31, 1962.

Hannah Arendt who was working as a reporter for the New Yorker magazine at the time was highly critical of what she saw as a show trial. Arendt, who for a short time had worked in the Jewish Agency's Paris office, was alienated from the Israel of David Ben-Gurion because she perceived it to be overly nationalistic, racist, too religious, unwilling to make concessions on the Arab question, not sufficiently liberal in regard to its own Arab minority, arrogant towards Jews living in other countries, and much too quick to ascribe to itself a set of moral virtues. She rejected the Zionist founding of Israel and its failure to separate church and state. Ben-Gurion, on the other hand, argued that the cause of the Holocaust was that Jews did not live in their own country and one of the goals of the Eichmann trial was to remind the world that the Holocaust obliged them to support Israel.

While Arendt characterized Eichmann as a liar and a braggart who was outrageously stupid; he was not inherently evil. What made Eichmann, and all of the future potential Eichmanns, dangerous was the relative ease with which a rather average person is converted into doing immoral acts. This is a profoundly misanthropic doctrine that Arendt puts forth but there is some validity to it. What if you knew George W. Bush as the avuncular fellow behind the counter at the bowling alley instead of his role as the “decider” overseeing a system of secret gulags where torture was practiced?

One of the common themes at the Eichmann trial was Israeli heroism and the weakness of Jews in exile; Arendt was a critic of both groups. In the instance of the Zionists she compared their search for “suitable [human] material” to Nazi racist attitudes “...the Jews from Palestine spoke a language not totally different from that of Eichmann” (p.55). In the case of the Judenrats (Jewish Councils) she was even tougher. These councils made the work of the Nazis easier. The Jewish authorities in many instances helped in administrative and police work (in Berlin the final round-up was done entirely by Jewish police) and without their assistance there might have been complete chaos or a severe drain on German manpower. “To a Jew this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story” (p.104).

While Arendt is critical of the conspirators of July 1944 who attempted the assassination of Adolf Hitler because they rarely mentioned the slaughter of Jews in the East in their correspondence, the extermination camps and the Einsatzgruppen were largely ignored by Hitler's opponents, the German Republic with its “veritable genius for understatement” regarding its Nazi past really drew Arendt's ire. There was a political implication to this criticism as Ben-Gurion was busy selling arms to the Germany of Konrad Adenauer at the time of the Eichmann trial and was already under fire for this activity.

Arendt pointed out that Eichmann's illegal arrest was justified by Ben-Gurion only because the verdict of the trial could be safely anticipated. Eichmann was clearly from the Nazi “B” team. His role in the Final Solution was “vastly exaggerated” because the defendants at the earlier Nuremberg trials had tried to exculpate themselves at the expense of the guy who was not at the trial. He had a terrible habit of boasting about his wartime exploits. He was also the one Nazi official who had been in close contact with Jewish officials.

In Arendt's view the Eichmann trial failed in at least four respects: Eichmann did not participate in Einsatzgruppen activity in the East; he was not the officer in charge of transporting Jews from Polish ghettos; he was not liable for what happened in the extermination camps; he was not responsible for the conditions in the Jewish ghettos.

If only Hannah Arendt could see the course history has taken since the Eichmann trial. At least Eichmann was charged (and not held in indefinite detention), he did not appear before a military tribunal, and he was not tortured.

Burling Library 1st Floor DD247.E5 A7