These two volumes are reflective of a growing body of Soviet historical literature on Latin America. They are, moreover, indicative of the ever-widening sphere of scholarly interest in Latin American realities, past and present, for their author resides in a place as remote from the object of his research as the Prut and Dniestr are from the River Plate—the Moldavian capital of Kishinëv.
The first, entitled The Countries of Latin America in International Relations (1898-1962), is a lengthy work based on a relatively broad selection of primary and secondary sources and demonstrating considerable familiarity with the subject matter at hand. The author treats the general theme of Latin America as an object of competition among the leading capitalist powers and the area’s resultant struggle for economic and political independence. This work is significant, however, less as an original contribution to the literature on relations of dependency in the Western Hemisphere than as an indicator of growing maturity in Soviet writings on the history of Latin America.
Of greater interest is the second of these two volumes. Entitled The Countries of South America and Russia (1890-1917), this brief study of limited edition (600 copies) sheds new light on the history of Russo-Latin American relations. In contrast to the preceding work, it is based almost entirely on unpublished Russian archival sources and presents original data on Latin America’s ties with Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century. It comprises a foreword and five chapters, which treat Russian trade, maritime and diplomatic contacts with, and emigration to South America.
Korolëv begins his study with an overview of economic conditions in the region prior to World War I. As on occasion do other writers (e.g., Leopoldo Zea), he draws certain parallels between the historical experiences of Russia and Latin America. While acknowledging obvious differences, for example the fact that Russia was at once a dependent and a colonizing state, he attaches greater significance to the similarities. Thus the socioeconomic backwardness of the two areas, which translated into dependency on the industrially developed powers, was reflected in an ineffective foreign policy wherein both sides found it impossible to act in their own interests, "including the promotion and expansion of mutual relations” (p. 28).
While Korolëv offers much factual information on trade and diplomacy, this reviewer finds most interesting his discussion of Russian emigration to Latin America. Although their numbers were never great when compared with immigrants of other nationalities, the reader nonetheless learns that by the first years of the twentieth century, over 100,000 “Russians” had emigrated to Argentina and more than 40,000 to Brazil. In the main, they were Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Jews, the latter apparently constituting the largest single group. Adherents to Russian Orthodoxy, for their part, were sparsely represented. Here, unfortunately, the author has chosen to ignore the question of nationalities, limiting himself to the passing observation that most “Russian” immigrants came from the western and southwestern regions of the Empire. This, in turn, tends to support the general, if untested, view that in large part these immigrants were Ukrainians, Poles, and other non-Great Russian subjects of the tsarist state.
The author focuses special attention on the emigration of Russian Jews to South America, relating this phenomenon to the fledgling Zionist movement, which in the 1890s first began to agitate in tsarist dominions. The Russian government, he observes, sought initially to restrict emigration, as it represented a loss of manpower detrimental to the country’s landed interests. To this end the regime created a complicated system of exit visas. With the passage of time, however, voices began to be raised in official circles for the removal of barriers to emigration. This resulted in part, Korolëv suggests, from a reaction to mounting unrest in the Russian countryside, culminating in 1905 with demands that all “disruptive elements” be exiled to Siberia or forced to emigrate abroad. Of those who left Russia, more than a negligible number settled in distant Argentina and Brazil.
Scarcity and unassuming format would consign Korolëv’s modest contribution to academic oblivion. Yet a contribution it is, worthy of being read by students of modern Russian and Latin American history alike. This diminutive volume reminds one, if reminders are needed, that serious historical scholarship is not the exclusive domain of prestigious scientific institutions and the privileged scholars which they shelter.
