Empire depends not only upon the strength of the center but upon compliant behavior in the periphery, and the nature of interactions between center and periphery. Each of these three variables is changing rapidly in the former Soviet empire.

In the spring of 1990, Lithuanians surprised the world by first declaring their independence and then, after Moscow had declared the act illegal, refusing to retract their declaration even in the face of military occupation and economic blockade. Many foreign observers despaired of their “stubbornness,” but the Lithuanians' determination was based on their newly regained national pride as expressed in their concept of statehood (valstybingumas in Lithuanian and gosudarstvennost' in Russian). Lithania, they insisted, had a right and a historical destiny to be an independent state.

There has been considerable speculation as to which of the former Soviet republics could become viable economic entities following the Putsch of August 19-21, 1991, and the resultant dissolution of the USSR. The consensus is that after Russia, Ukraine has the best chances of survival as a European state with a highly developed economy. Yet the picture remains a bleak one. Although Ukraine has advanced industry and has been a major source of grain crops (of winter wheat in particular), a declining standard of living had been forecast by its economic experts for the period 1991-1995, even before the August 24 declaration of independence. The following study will show Ukraine's major advantages and weaknesses, and what sort of prospects lie ahead for an independent Ukraine. As with any statements on the future of the former territories of the Soviet Union, they have to be qualified with the phrase “pending future political developments.” For the most part, the assumption is made that relations between Ukraine and its once and future economic partners will be amicable.

Although the Tuvinskaya ASSR is one of the latest and, in fact, the largest of the territorial acquisitions of the Soviet Union (its area exceeds that of all three Baltic states at 170,500 sq. kilometers), there are few, if any, detailed accounts of its annexation in 1944.

It is an indisputable historical fact that between 1933 and 1945 groups and individuals in many countries of Europe, as well as in other parts of the world, sympathized (for different reasons and motives) with Nazi public pronouncements, especially those critical of the post-World War I settlement. It is also an indisputable historical fact that other groups and individuals in many European countries resisted (for different reasons and motives) Nazi domination, policies and practices. Unfortunately, current historical literature does not reflect clearly this dichotomy. Some nations, because of the activities of a few, are portrayed as Nazi collaborators, regardless of the human losses they suffered under Nazi rule; and, conversely, others are presented as anti-Nazi resisters, regardless of their actual contributions.

By the year 1453, when the vestigial remains of the Byzantine Empire were destroyed with the fall of Constantinople, much of the Balkan peninsula was already in the hands of the conquering Ottoman Turks. The overthrow of Byzantium in that year was the capstone in a century-long process that transformed an originally militant Muslim Anatolian border emirate into a powerful Muslim empire that straddled two continents and represented a major contender in contemporary European great power politics. Over half of the population subject to the Ottoman sultan were Christian European inhabitants of the Balkans: Greeks, Serbs, Vlahs, Albanians and Bulgarians. With the conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II Fatih, the victorious Turkish ruler, faced the quarrelsome problem of devising a secure means of governing his vast, Muslim-led empire that contained a highly heterogeneous non-Muslim population.

During the closing months of World War I in late 1918 and the break-up of the historic multinational empires that for centuries had ruled most of East Central Europe, it became common practice for the varying ethnolinguistic or national groups to form councils whose goals were to determine their group's political future. These national councils, as they came to be known, seemed to appear everywhere, but perhaps most frequently in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was not only the “large” former minorities like the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Romanians, or Ukrainians who formed national councils, but many smaller groups acted in the same way. And, like the national councils of the larger groups who very soon created independent republics alone or in cooperation with their immediate neighbors, so, too, did some of these smaller groups proclaim their independence. Thus, in the newspapers of the time and scholarly monographs of today one can still find references to the Baranya, East Slovak, Hutsul, or Przemysl “republics” among others, which during the last few months of 1918 seemed to sprout up like mushrooms after a rainfall, but which for the most part ceased to exist when the borders of East Central Europe began to stabilize as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that opened its deliberations in early 1919.

When the editorial board of the bi-weekly current affairs journal Politika decided, in early 1932, to organize a congress of members of the so-called young Slovak generation, its intent was to find a solution to Slovakia's pressing political, economic, social, and cultural problems. Attended by approximately five hundred members of the intelligentsia, most of them in their late twenties or early thirties, the congress was held on June 25 and 26 in the health resort town of Trencianski Teplice in western Slovakia. The Congress of the Young Slovak Generation attracted the attention of its contemporaries for two reasons. First, it marked the first time since at least 1920 that Slovaks from across the political spectrum came together to discuss issues of mutual concern relating to Slovakia. Second, the congress provided an opportunity for observers of Slovak political life to gauge the mood and become acquainted with the ideas of Slovakia's future leaders, especially as far as the crucial question of relations between Czechs and Slovaks in the Czechoslovak Republic was concerned. From the vantage point of the present-day historian, a further factor enhances the congress's importance: as a manifestation of Slovak national discontent, it was a milestone on Slovakia's road to autonomy. An in-depth examination of the Trencianske Teplice Congress, its background, its course, and its consequences, will illustrate the congress's importance for Slovak national and political development.

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes inherited a considerable number of Germans along with its ex-Habsburg territories when it was established in December 1918. The two most important German communities in inter-war Yugoslavia were the Germans of Slovenia and the Germans of the Vojvodina and Croatia-Slavonia, the so-called Donau Schwaben (Swabians). There were also scattered pockets of ethnic Germans in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The Yugoslavian ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche), like the other Yugoslavian non-Slav minorities, were objects of discrimination by the Yugoslavian government. The Slovenian German community responded to this hostility by developing a virulent German nationalism which, after 1933, rapidly turned into Nazism. The Swabian community, on the other hand, generally tried to cooperate with the central government in Belgrade. The Swabians remained rather ambivalent toward the rising Nazi movement until the tremendous successes of the Third Reich in 1938 made Nazism irresistibly attractive. In the face of the government's anti-German policies, why did each of these German communities manifest such different attitudes towards the Yugoslav state during the inter-war period? This article will show how several factors of history, demography, and geography combined to produce the different reactions of the two groups.

“Nationalism is not only about culture but about politics.” With these words, Professor Brudny launched his discussion of the recent evolution of Russian nationalism in the USSR, particularly the movement's failure to present a viable political alternative to the chaotic status quo. Much of this dilemma, he asserted, lies in the Russian movement's inability to define for itself a proper concept of nationalism.

Professor Altschuler launched his discussion of the volatile status of Jews living in the USSR by challenging the popular understanding of ‘Soviet Jewry.’ Fundamental questions arise: how many Soviet Jews are there? What are the various types of Jewish communities within the Soviet Union, and how do they differ one from another? What are the distinguishing cultural activities of Soviet Jews? and what is the status of their emigration from the USSR?

A dramatic population increase coupled with a reduction in per capita investment is producing a “demographic cauldron” in Soviet Central Asia. This was the focus of Professor Lewis's December 7 lecture. In his presentation, Professor Lewis outlined the political, economic and social conditions that frame a grim picture for Central Asia. The region is plagued by an unfavorable convergence of factors: a rapidly growing rural population, especially the indigenous population which is concentrated in rural areas, labor surpluses, relatively little rural or northward out-migration, deteriorating economic conditions especially in rural areas and environmental degradation, along with significant social development and, thus, rising expectations and national awareness. At current growth rates, the indigenous, the rural, the total, and the rural working-age populations will double about every generation or less. Besides, there has been little effort on the part of the central government to shift investment and resource allocation priorities to accommodate the demographic changes.

The 1980s witnessed a reversal of internal migration patterns in the Soviet Union as factors associated with ethnicity became one of the predominant influences on the character and volume of population mobility. This is one of the recent trends in Soviet migration highlighted in the presentation by Dr. Beth Mitchneck, a post-doctoral Fellow at the Harriman Institute. Dr. Mitchneck based her analysis on the censuses of 1959, 1970, 1979 and 1989, population registers and both Soviet and western estimates.

The Soviet empire, if not crumbling, is transforming itself almost beyond recognition, and Belorussia gives us a case-study insight into this process of political, social, cultural, and psychological change. This was the theme of Dr. Zaprudnik's February 8 presentation in which he surveyed the current political landscape in Belorussia.

A recent investigation of attitudes among nationalities living in Ukraine reveals a low level of tolerance and high level of hostility towards the non-Slavic nationalities. This was the foremost conclusion of Dr. Valentin Sazhin, who surveyed 10,000 residents of Ukraine on matters relating to ethnicity. Dr. Sazhin based his presentation on the findings from this investigation.

Is the Soviet Union heading towards a new federation, a new confederation, or simply disintegration? At this point, the Soviets themselves do not know, and this is due in part to the fact that they seem confused about the meaning of these terms. Professor Rywkin analyzed recent trends in the Soviet Union, noting three competing principles currently being voiced in the Soviet Union.

With the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, what will be the impact of resurgent nationalism on international and regional military conflict? This was the central question addressed by Jack Snyder, a specialist on international relations. He outlined the trends that give cause for optimism and those trends that should generate concern regarding peace and stability.

What are the chances for peace and stability in the Transcaucasus—a region that has been plagued by decades of exploitation and colonization and has recently been the setting for a violent conflict between neighboring nationalities? Nadir Mekhtiev, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the Azerbaijani Supreme Soviet and Chairman of the Azerbaijani Helsinki Committee, offered some thoughts and impressions on this matter.