Russia & Asia: Nomadic & Oriental
Traditions in Russian History
by Edgar
Knobloch (Hong Kong: Odyssey Books
& Guides, 2007).

DMITRY SHLAPENTOKH is Associate Professor of History at Indiana University, South Bend, and author, most recently, of Societal Breakdown and the Rise of the Early Modern State in Europe (2008).

This book is important not because of
profound ideas or new, unknown data
but because it could be placed in the context
of a long intellectual tradition and sheds light
on current events. The major point of the
book, that Russia is actually an Asiatic country
and is mistakenly perceived as being part
of Europe, is hardly a novelty and can be
traced back to the beginning of the nineteenth
century. Marquis de Custine’s journal
Journey for our Time, written after he traveled
in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I, is
one of the best examples of works putting
forth this idea.

All of the invectives against Russia as the
Asiatic monster deeply hostile to the West
were clearly connected with the geopolitical
arrangements of that time. France was defeated,
mostly because of Napoleon’s 1812
campaign and the transformation of the authoritarian
Russia of Nicholas I into the
dreaded “gendarme” of Europe, the force
that suppressed revolutions and prevented
minorities from creating their own independent
states. Custine’s work, much known in
Russia as one of the best examples of
Russophobic writing, represented the early
nineteenth century French Russophobia,
which was a rather fleeting phenomenon.
The French defeat in the Franco-Prussian
War (1870-71) and the later forging of the
Franco-Russian Alliance immediately transformed
Russia from a menacing Asiatic country
into a wholesome and, implicitly, European
nation. (In fact, during WWI, it was the
Germans who would be transformed into
“Huns” in the minds of the Allies.)

While the French image of Russians as
brutal Asiatics had not been lasting, another,
similar trend influenced the author of the
reviewed book. The initiator of this trend
was the Ukrainian-born Pole F.M. Duchinski,
who, in many ways, followed the footsteps of
Custine and other Frenchmen of that time.
While in France the image of Russians as
menacing Asiatics had either died out or
become rather marginal, this was not the case
in Poland or, in fact, in entire Eastern Europe,
especially in the second part of the twentieth
century when Eastern Europe had become a
part of the empire of the USSR, seen by
Eastern Europeans as a new edition of the
Russian empire.

The vision of the USSR/Russia as an
Asiatic power that suppressed the Eastern
Europeans, the integral part of Europe, was
apparently quite popular in post-WWII Eastern
Europe. This view could not be expressed
publicly, and the author complains
that two of his professors who planted the
ideas in his mind for his book were harassed
by officials. The end of the Cold War did not
bring much relief for those East European
intellectuals who tried to publish books. With
such visions of Russia as Knobloch entertains
his book could hardly pass the peer review
process; and it took a lot of time and effort
before he could find a place for his manuscript.
The result is an interesting book that
tells a great deal, not so much about Russian
history, but, rather, about the vision of Russia
in Prague, Warsaw, and, now, in Kiev as well.

Starting his narrative, the author states that
the social/economic and political arrangements
of the Russian state were originally
entirely different from those of Europe. Regarding
Kievan Russia as the beginning of
Russian statehood—the notion would definitely
displease quite a few present-day Ukrainian
historians—he pointed out that those
who had populated and dominated the Kievan
state were actually nomadic people regardless
of their actual ethnic background. Already at
that time the nomadic and Asiatic features—
and for the author both of them were the
same—had created a cultural/political framework
for Russia that has not been changed
since that time. Its essential characteristics are
love of violence, despotism, and quest for
global domination. Mongols who invaded
Russian in the thirteenth century had not
created anything new but just reinforced
these traditional elements of Russian life.

In the post-Mongol era, Russia is not
much of a European state, regardless of all
attempts at Westernization, but shall be better
compared with the Ottoman Empire. While
comparison with the Ottoman Empire may
look like a compliment to Russian Eurasianists,
such as Alexander Dugin and some Western
historians, the author evokes the comparison
just to show Russia’s despotic awkwardness
and its Asiatic nature. The Bolsheviks, as well
as other Russian radicals who emerged in the
Russian state, were themselves Asiatics. In
fact, the Bolsheviks looked like an Islamic
sect; and it was not surprising that the Soviet
regime exhibited nothing but blossoming
Asianism. Moreover, the collapse of the regime
did not mean much, for the Asiatic
nucleus was untouched. Russia will remain
outside the Western order regardless of those
who rule it.

The view of the author could well be
placed in the context of some conservative
Western historians, such as Richard Pipes,
but would be ignored now by people in both
academia and government. While in academia,
the explanation is quite simple: Knobloch’s
views are absolutely “politically incorrect”;
the situation is more complex with American
officials. Basically, they would not pay much
attention to this view simply because Russia
has drifted from the center of the stage,
replaced by China, Iran, and Muslim terrorism
and scores of other problems. In addition
there are increasing economic problems for
which American society has found no solution
in the context of the prevailing socialeconomic
arrangements. Still, the book might
provide not only important insight into the
mentality of the folks from Prague, but also a
different view of Russia for American officials
who still deal with Eastern Europe and
must take into account all the relevant factors
in shaping American policy.