Система исправительно-трудо-вых лагерей в СССР, 1923–1960: Справочник ред по М. Б. Смирнов, Н. Г. Охотина, А. Б. Рогин ского (review)

681 Ab Imperio, 2/2004 тия еврейских беженцев в конце 1930-х гг.; она же обусловливала отсутствие информации об уже начавшихся событиях Холокоста в советской прессе (для избежания отождествления советской вла- сти с еврейством, свойственного нацистской пропаганде), что ин- формировало бы евреев об угрозе и содействовало бы их массовой эвакуации. В целом, политику советских властей в отношении евреев автор квалифицирует как “бездействие”, проявлявшееся на всех уровнях государственной системы, за исключением редких случаев, когда тема Холокоста пе- далировалась при защите внешне- политических интересов или была связана с пропагандой, направ- ленной на зарубежную аудиторию (это иллюстрируется автором на примере деятельности Еврейского антифашистского комитета). Резюмируя, отметим, что ав- тору монографии “Жертвы нена- висти” удалось создать широкую панораму событий Холокоста на оккупированных советских территориях и осветить тему комплексно, с учетом самых раз- нообразных ее аспектов, в том числе и тех, которые являются дискуссионными и требуют даль- нейшей проработки. Одним из главных ее достоинств является огромный массив информации (особенно по оккупированной территории России), вводимый на основе архивных данных в на- учный оборот. Другим не менее важным достоинством данной работы представляется то, что в условиях труднодоступности для большинства исследователей СНГ современной зарубежной литературы монография И. Аль- тмана может служить своего рода методическим ресурсом, так как использует и популяризирует раз- личные подходы, разработанные за последние десятилетия в об- ласти Holocaust studies. 1 Hanna Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, 1951. Kate BROWN Система исправительно-трудо- вых лагерей в СССР, 1923-1960: Справочник / Общество “Мемори- ал”, ГАРФ. Сост. М. Б. Смирнов. Под ред. Н. Г. Охотина, А. Б. Рогин- ского. Москва: Звенья, 1998. 600 с. The Gulag serves as a ready icon for the totalitarian Soviet regime. In 1951, Hanna Arendt called it one of the ur-institutions of totalitarianism .1 Simeon Vilensky in Till My 682 Рецензии/Reviews Tale is Told describes how the Gulag creates the Soviet citizen in inert, passive form.2 Anne Applebaum in Gulag: A History, foregrounds her work in the moral equation of the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. The Gulag, in Applebaum’s work, stands as a metaphor for Soviet society as a whole, a society living in unfreedom in the “bol’shaia zona”. G. M. Ivanova in Gulag v sisteme totalitarnogo gosudarstva categorizes the Gulag as the critical Soviet institution which held society in a moral and spiritual vice throughout the seventy years of communist rule. As Ivanova writes: “The Gulag allowed the upper echelons of power to implant on society uncontrolled any kind of exceptional measures, holding the people in blind obedience and slavish submission, to destroy at the very roots/buds the sprouts of rare dissent or free thinking.”3 The odd thing about this assertion is that many of the roots of dissent and dissident culture in the Soviet Union in the postwar period emerge from these very same dark corners of the camps. Songs, literature, poetry and the convicts themselves held a special place of moral authority within the Soviet counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s.4 Could the Gulag have been both an instrument for obedience and submission as well as a site of resistance and counterculture ? Unfortunately, for all of the assertions of the formative nature of the Gulag on Soviet society, there has been work that traces the impact of the structure and evolution of the Gulag as a reflection or influence on Soviet social and economic structures. How much was the Gulag economy part of the greater whole? Did the workings of the Gulag shape the larger economy and society? How much did the “malaia” and “bol’shaia” zones interact with one another administratively, socially and culturally? Okhotin and Roginskii’s edited volume Sistema ispravitel’no-trudovykh lagerei v SSSR, 1923-1960 is not to rehash the Gulag as a metaphor. The editors seek instead to ground the Gulag system in fact, statistics and detail. The devil is, after all, in the detail. Roginskii founded the dissident journal, Pamyat’, in the early seventies and has led the Memorial movement in Russia to compile a database of the mass repressions. Together the pair have 2 Simeon Vilensky (Ed.). Till My Tale Is Told: Women’s Memoirs of the Gulag. Bloomington, 1999. 3 G. M. Ivanova. Gulag v sisteme totalitarnogo gosudarstva. Moscow, 1997. P. 47. 4 Ludmilla Alexeyeva and Paul Goldberg. The Thaw Generation: Coming of Age in the Post-Stalin Era. Boston, 1991, and Christopher Lazarski. Vladimir Vysotsky and His Cult // Russian Review. 1992. Vol. 51. Pp. 58-71. 683 Ab Imperio, 2/2004 written a number of articles about the repression of national groups during the Great Purges.5 Few understand the great criminal acts of the Gulag in more detail than Okhotin and Roginskii. Yet, in the introduction to the work, they write that they have set out to describe and catalogue the corrective labor camps of the Gulag system dispassionately – a task in which they succeed admirably. What they have put together is an administrative and economic history of the labor camp system which serves as a valuable aid to the researcher. The guide is divided into four sections. The first section provides a biography for MVD/NKVD labor camps (ITL), supplying full names and acronyms, their dates of existence , location, character of work, numbers of inmates, administrative transfers of the camps from one department to another, the names of the officers in charge and archival sources. Section two provides similar information but in quick-reference form for camps which were run by both industrial enterprises and camp administrations. Section three describes, also in a quickreference format, camps which were under central control. Section four provides information on prisons run by territorial departments of...