Коллаборационизм: природа, типология и проявления в годы второй мировой войны по М. И. Семиряга (review)

Рецензии 578 Можно было бы представить, что Японская Империя могла бы быть любопытным контрастом как для европейских континен- тальных (в силу запаздывающей и потому ускоренной модерни- зации), так и для европейских заморских империй (в силу гео- графической удаленности владе- ний). Следует отметить очевидные заслуги работы Доминика Ливе- на – его превосходный стиль, что является немалым достоинством исторического трактата в четыре- ста пятьдесят страниц, порази- тельная широта взгляда и эруди- ция, попытка вернуть определен- ную легитимность истории меж- дународных отношений, вполне утраченную в наше время, когда культурная и социальная история заняла господствующее положе- ние в англоязычных исследова- ниях. Сравнительный подход в изучении “композитных государ- ственных образований” еще да- леко не исчерпал себя, как не ис- черпали себя и социально- политические процессы, создаю- щие такие образования, чему яр- кий пример – превосходно впи- санный Ливеном в контекст изу- чения империй процесс развития Европейского Сообщества. Эта книга, безусловно, должна занять видное место на полках истори- ков. Alfred RIEBER М. И. Семиряга. Коллабора- ционизм: природа, типология и проявления в годы второй миро- вой войны. Москва: РОССПЕН, 2000. 863 с. Throughout history conquest states have been based not only upon coercion but also to a greater or lesser degree on a mode of cooperation or at least acquiescence on the part of the subordinate population . Accommodation has taken many forms. The most stable and long-lived conquest states have sought to co-opt and integrate local elites into the ruling classes. As a political tactic this approach has offered distinct advantages over physically exterminating them. Cooptation facilitates in several ways the rule of the power center over its periphery. Using local elites to administer their own people helps to diminish the humiliation of foreign rule and offers opportunities for upward mobility for the talented and ambitious who otherwise might seek alternative and illegitimate paths to power. Although there are obvious material advantages to cooperating with the dominant power, motivations are often mixed and may vary considerably. In addition to opportunism, there may be a desire to mitigate the harsh condi- Ab Imperio, 3/2001 579 tions of occupation. Considerations of a “lesser evil” have been known to play a role; that is, accepting the domination of one state in order to avoid a worse fate. Or, finally, there might even be the temptation to play Athens to Rome, to influence the more primitive but stronger dominant power to accept the more enlightened cultural leadership of the conquered. But to be truly successful the policy of cooperation must be carried out from above with a high level of tolerance for cultural deviance. This has not always been the strong point of ruling elites of conquest states. By their very nature conquest states also engender resistance. The two phenomena – cooperation and resistance – are mirror images of each other. Like cooperation, resistance has also displayed a wide range of expression. Traditionally the spectrum has extended from open rebellion through “social banditry ” to the “hidden agendas” of everyday life. The motives of those who resist may also vary considerably . The humiliation of being defeated and conquered, the loss of status and property, persecution by the conqueror, opposition to what is perceived to be unjust or unfair distribution of state obligations like taxation and recruitment have all served often in combination to spur passive or violent resistance. Perhaps the most powerful motivation for resistance, and the most difficult to document, is the sheer hatred of control by “the other” who exhibits a degree of difference or foreignness that evokes the most powerful kind of emotional response. But resistance has often been directed as forcefully against the local supporters of cooperation as the conqueror . Under certain circumstances this may give rise to a kind of incipient civil war within the conquered territory. The forces of resistance frequently appeal for external assistance to further their cause. Indeed, the very fact of their having been defeated and occupied virtually requires them to seek allies among powers equal to those of their oppressors . In the twentieth century cooperation with a conquering power became known as collaboration. M. I. Semiriaga, the author of the first comprehensive work in Russian on the subject, makes clear in his introduction how collaborationism differs from cooperation. For him the former became the politicized and ideologized synonym for betrayal and treason while the latter retained its older definition of the necessary and unavoidable contact and relations under wartime conditions between the local population and the occupying power. As a Red Army veteran and fierce critic of fascism, Semiriaga insists that cooperation of certain individual citizens of Nazi Germany and its allies, especially as intelligence agents, Рецензии 580 with the anti-fascist powers, the USSR, Britain and the United States, was not collaborationism but a higher form of patriotism. Clearly, for him – although he does not openly state it – the cooperation of local communist and other left wing elements with the Soviet occupying authorities in order to undermine the postwar coalition governments in East Central Europe also was not collaboration. In short, Semiriaga views collaborationism as a the product of a very specific set of historical circumstances limited in time and place. His definition is restricted to those who during the Second World War placed the interest of the aggressive fascist occupying...