In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

46 The Frontier of Loyalty role in the new government. Exile organizations that play or claim to play an active role among the underground opposition try to belittle the political importance of rival exile organizations concentrating on externally induced change. This was, for example, true of the Spanish exile communists who took pride in their close relations with the opposition to Franco in Spain. The exiled communists "accused members of other partisan groups in exile of excessive talk about bringing down the Franco government and a minimum of concrete action."20 Similarly, the Banderivtsi, the Ukrainian "nationalistrevolutionaries " exile faction, withdrew from the Ukrainian National Council in May 1950. After the end of World War II the faction had demanded a greater role in the Ukrainian government-in-exile, as the only exile group with active links to domestic revolutionary forces. They sought at the same time to minimize the political effect of the council in international politics.21 The insider-outsider dilemma was also a chief dividing line between leftist and rightist Cuban organizations in the United States in the early 1960s,22 and it was the principal theoretical issue fueling the futile debates among Russian exiles in Europe after the October Revolution. (See chapter 4.1 Foreign Intervention The insider-outsider debate among and within exile organizations often acquires ideological tints that perpetuate cleavages when the debate involves third-party intervention. Competing exile organizations heavily dependent upon different international benefactors may find themselves agitating against one another on issues that have nothing to do with their own struggle. This was the case among African exile organizations polarized into two rival leagues according to their affiliations with Peking or Moscow. As John Marcum points out, the deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1960s "introduced ideological discord, reinforced factionalism and thereby undermined both collective purpose and organizational stability within some of these [exile] movements."23 Of more critical importance is the question whether all means are justified in the struggle against the home regime, a question that often irrevocably splits political exiles. Many organizations avoid cooperation with foreign elements declared by the home regime to be "national enemies," for fear of abdicating their claim to be national loyalists. Others view cooperation with the hostile body as preferable to continued rule by the home regime. The tactical and ideological disagreements between and within the exile organizations on the 46 The Frontier of Loyalty role in the new government. Exile organizations that play or claim to play an active role among the underground opposition try to belittle the political importance of rival exile organizations concentrating on externally induced change. This was, for example, true of the Spanish exile communists who took pride in their close relations with the opposition to Franco in Spain. The exiled communists "accused members of other partisan groups in exile of excessive talk about bringing down the Franco government and a minimum of concrete action."20 SimilarlYJ the Banderivtsi, the Ukrainian "nationalistrevolutionaries " exile faction, withdrew from the Ukrainian National Council in May 1950. After the end of World War II the faction had demanded a greater role in the Ukrainian government-in-exile, as the only exile group with active links to domestic revolutionary forces. They sought at the same time to minimize the political effect of the council in international politics.21 The insider-outsider dilemma was also a chief dividing line between leftist and rightist Cuban organizations in the United States in the early 1960s?2 and it was the principal theoretical issue fueling the futile debates among Russian exiles in Europe after the October Revolution. (See chapter 4.) Foreign Intervention The insider-outsider debate among and within exile organizations often acquires ideological tints that perpetuate cleavages when the debate involves third-party intervention. Competing exile organizations heavily dependent upon different international benefactors may find themselves agitating against one another on issues that have nothing to do with their own struggle. This was the case among African exile organizations polarized into two rival leagues according to their affiliations with Peking or Moscow. As John Marcum points out, the deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1960s "introduced ideological discord, reinforced factionalism and thereby undermined both collective purpose and organizational stability within some of these [exile] movements."23 Of more critical importance is the question whether all means are justified in the struggle against the home regime, a question that often irrevocably splits political exiles. Many organizations avoid cooperation with foreign elements declared by the...

Share