How the Steel Was Tempered

Why did Islamists respond so differently to the Arab Spring? What do these different responses tell us about Islamists’ ideological commitment and resilience, or the contexts within which they were functioning? This book is based on fieldwork on Islamists in eight Middle Eastern countries: Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait and Syria. The contributors trace the transformation of the Islamists’ ideology, behaviour, and strategy since the beginning of the Arab Spring. The aim of the book is to show that Islamists necessarily have an interactive and dialectical relationship with the environments in which they find themselves, and that their behaviour and political calculations are based on a wide range of local, regional and global factors. They take into account the impact of the different contexts the groups found themselves in from authoritarian to open and reformist, and contexts of armed conflict and civil war. An interdisciplinary project, the book

Newton Arvin and the Police: Contexts for <i>The Scarlet Professor</i>

This article describes the all-Russian scientific conference “International Intervention and Civil War in Russia and the Russian North: key problems, historical memory, and lessons of history”, held in Arkhangelsk, September 10–11, 2020. Co-organizers of the conference were the Russian Military-Historical Society and its Arkhangelsk branch, the Government of the Arkhangelsk Region, the M. V. Lomonosov Northern (Arctic) Federal University , and the Association of the Russian Civil War Scholars. Conference sponsors were the Russian Military- Historical Society and the Government of the Arkhangelsk Region. Established and younger scholars from 14 regions of Russia, as well as from Ukraine and Norway, took part in the conference and its proceedings. Conference participators considered the key problems of genesis, origins, and causes for the Russian Civil War, its modern conceptualization, the role of international intervention in Russia and the Russian North, results, consequences, and historical lessons of this war. Special attention was given to preparing of Volume XII (in two books), Civil War in Russia, 1917–1922, of the 20-volume academic series History of Russia and problems of historical and cultural memory of the Russian Civil War. Four sections and three roundtables considered questions of the dialectical relationship of international intervention and Civil War in Russia and the Russian North; of international, national, regional, and local dimensions of the Civil War; and of the individual at war. Conference participators pointed out the necessity of responsible, competent, and objective historical studies of the Russian Civil War, an attitude of care towards existing monuments and memorials, and strict examination and scientific expertise of new memorial projects devoted to this war.

104 years ago the Civil War began in Russia. Civil War 1917–1922 is one of the largest civil wars in human history. She had a great influence on the course of not only Russian, but also world history in the XX century. In the conditions of the socio-economic catastrophe experienced by the country at that time, all social and political contradictions in society exacerbated, which gave the Civil War mass character and duration. Today the topic of "decossackization" remains very relevant and in demand. The scientific relevance of the problem of decossackization is caused by the lack of generalizing studies. Currently, there is a significant amount of literature, which reflects the history of civil confrontation in Russia. Literature was created at different times and, as a result, differed in different methodological positions. The Civil War in Russia was studied, seen, reflected from two opposite sides – from the side of the victors and from the side of the vanquished. Difficult times do not have unambiguous assessments and interpretations. It is no coincidence that this period is included in the list of the so-called “difficult questions of history”. Soviet historians began to deal with the problem of decossackization in the 60s. 20th century. Within the framework of what was permitted, researchers could talk about the problems associated with the policy of decossackization in Russia. In the Soviet period, "decossackization" was understood as the elimination of the Cossacks as a socio-ethnographic community in general, characteristic features, characteristics, properties, signs of the Cossacks. In different historical periods, the term "decossackization" was understood as the abolition of class benefits and hardships. In the second half of the 19th – early 20th century. there was no oppression, persecution, destruction and violent influence on the Cossacks at that time. In the late 80s. – the beginning of the 90s. the problem of decossackization is closely associated with the repressive policy of the Bolsheviks in the Cossack regions of the country. From this we can conclude that two different meanings are put into the conventional term “decossackization”. One interpretation of this term speaks of the formal, administrative abolition of the estate rights and obligations of the Cossacks as a social-class category. Another interpretation is about purposeful and large-scale repressive actions against the Cossacks. Today, scientific discussions about the causes, nature and consequences of the anti-Bolshevik struggle during the Civil War continue. More and more researchers are being drawn into the polemical space. The author does not pretend to cover the entire array of publications, the total number of which is several hundred, we will focus on the most general trends in the analysis of the events of the Civil War and armed uprisings against the policies of the Bolsheviks in 1917–1922. The hypothesis of the study is that the overwhelming majority of armed uprisings against the Bolshevik policy in Soviet Russia in 1917–1922. were of a local nature, without going beyond a certain territory, and also were not coordinated in time. The defeat of the anti-Bolshevik uprisings was influenced by: the insurrectionary movement was not homogeneous in goals, slogans, composition; the spontaneous nature of performances at the initial stage; lack of an organizing center; focus on intra-regional problems; superiority in the strength of the Red Army; territorial fragmentation. The movement against the policy of the Bolsheviks, in spite of its scale, as a result remained local, tied to their native farms, villages, villages. According to the author of the article, the scientific novelty of the research lies in the identification and study of the features of the military-political confrontation in the context of the "small Civil War" in the south of Russia.

BOOK REVIEWS Lincoln's Lee The Life of Samuel Phillips Lee, United States Navy, 1812-1897. By Dudley Taylor Cornish and Virginia Jeans Laas. (Lawrence : The University Press of Kansas, 1986. Pp. xv, 245. $29.95.) Lincoln's Lee is a welcome addition to the still small lexicon of historical biography of the early years of the United States Navy. This wellwritten book is a first-rate study of S. P. Lee, an important but longneglected figure whose career spanned forty-six years, including constant and invaluable service during the Civil War. One wonders why no one had written a biography of Admiral Lee before now? It is this mystery that the authors unravel so successfully. They have mined the rich collection of thousands of personal papers and primary documents in the Blair-Lee collection at Princeton, the National Archives , and the Library of Congress. Cornish and Laas have immersed themselves in this material, as well as in major secondary sources, and they thoroughly know their subject. As a result of this exemplary scholarship S. Phillips Lee emerges as an excellent example of the pre-Civil War naval officer. The poor son of a prominent Virginia family, his grandfather was Richard Henry Lee. Young Phillips Lee obtained a midshipman's appointment at age fourteen through family connections. For the next thirty-five years he served aboard various vessels, learning his profession. In a small navy with a large officer corps where advancement was by seniority only, promotion came slowly. But there were many opportunities for a young officer to experience all his profession had to offer. While still a young man, Lee had already sailed around the world, served in the Wilkes Exploring Expedition and in the Coast Survey, and served with distinction in the Mexican war. Yet with all these accomplishments and a thirty-five year career, Lee was just a naval commander when the Civil War broke out. One advantage Lee did have during those years was his family, namely his inlaws the Blairs, a powerful political family in Washington. In 1843, after a long and stormy courtship, of which her father particularly disapproved, Lee married Elizabeth Blair. Lee soon won over the elder Blair, and for the rest of his life he was a persuasive advoate for his son-in-law at the Navy Department. Blair's lobbying coincided very nicely with Lee's predilection, throughout his career, to ignore proper channels and go over the heads of his superiors to get orders changed. 174CIVIL WAR HISTORY During the early days of the Civil War, Lee came to the favorable attention of Navy Secretary Welles. However, Lee was surprised when Welles chose him, over many other available officers, to command the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron in September, 1862, with the rank of acting rear admiral. For the next two years, Lee's squadron did its job with deliberate efficiency. At its height, Lee commanded over one hundred ships which patrolled the thousands of miles of coast, rivers, sounds, and inlets on the Atlantic Coast between southeastern Virginia and the southern boundry of North Carolina. Lee's knowledge of the coast, from his early days with the Coast Survey, along with his good business qualities and untiring appetite for precise and detailed work, made his blockade effective and profitable. Lincoln's Lee is a valuable addition to the scholarship of Civil War naval history, particularly in its rich and detailed work on the longneglected naval blockade, an area whose standard work is still the century -old study by James R. Soley. It is unfortunate that the authors could not have spent more time on the pre-Civil War navy, whose history has been neglected, especially on its struggle to reform and humanize as well as modernize itself. The authors with their focus too firmly set upon Lee, omit or barely mention such important early naval issues as the campaigns to end the practices of flogging and issuing grog, the battle to make officer promotions based on merit rather than seniority, and the rapidly evolving military technology and steam engineering of this era. Some attention to these topics and perhaps less detail on Lee's numerous business and real...

The concept of hope holds profound significance in Ukrainian musical art, particularly within the contemporary ballet works of modern Ukrainian composers such as Viktor Rekalo, Ivan Nebesnyi and Ivan Harkusha. Amidst the backdrop of a nation shaped by a complex contemporary narrative and ongoing socio-political and historical challenges, these composers infuse their ballet music with themes of resilience, aspiration, and hope. This research explores how hope is conveyed through musical structures, sound effects, thematic motifs, and emotional expression within a selection of contemporary ballet scores. The study delves into the intricate relationship between music and choreography, analyzing how these elements harmonize to evoke a sense of hope in the audience. Moreover, it discusses the broader cultural and historical significance of hope in Ukrainian society, emphasizing how these composers contribute to the shaping of national identity and collective memory. By illuminating the distinctive ways in which modern Ukrainian ballet serves as both an artistic expression and a form of cultural commentary, this research offers valuable insight into the power of music to inspire hope in the face of adversity.

Based on Russian and non-Russian materials, this article examines the history of the Russian Red Cross Society during the Civil War. The ascension of the Bolsheviks to power led to the breakup of the Russian Red Cross Society (RRCS) into a multitude of national and political associations, each claiming its material and symbolic heritage. When the Civil War began, these fragments of the RRCS no longer existed as effective sanitary organisations. But in autumn 1918, as epidemics threatened troops and civil populations alike, RC institutions had to be set up again urgently. In view of their experience and infrastructure, the Moscow, Omsk, and Kiev RC organisations quickly became decisive players in the Civil War with the Red Army and the White armies of Kolchak, Denikin, and Wrangel. In many fields, these RC organisations acted as a substitute for the state. They were responsible for nursing, nutrition, and evacuation. On the external front, the material assets of the former RRC had to be recovered, Russian soldiers arrested abroad assisted, and the exclusivity of the RC emblem defended. In conclusion, this article argues that the Russian Civil War was a dramatic theatre of modern humanitarian action for the entire international RC movement (the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies) in terms of the practices and laws that had to be invented. Given its fragmentary nature, the mix of identity, social, and ideological conflicts, the civilian populations in the foreground, and the intermingling of national and international players, the Russian Civil War was a forerunner of the “new wars” of the late twentieth century.

The concept of ‘peasant wars’ in 17th- and 18th-century Russia was borrowed by Soviet historians from Friedrich Engels’ work on the Peasant War in Germany. The four peasant wars of the early modern period were identified as the uprisings led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1607), Sten’ka Razin (1667-1671), Kondratiy Bulavin (1707-1708) and Emel’ian Pugachev (1773-1775). Following a debate in the journal Voprosy istorii in 1958-1961, the ‘first peasant war’ was generally considered to encompass the period c.1603-1614 rather than simply 1606- 1607. This approach recognised the continuities in the events of the early 17th century, and it meant that the chronological span of the ‘first peasant war’ was virtually identical to that of the older concept of the ‘Time of Troubles’. By the 1970s the term, ‘civil wars of the feudal period’ (based on a quotation from Lenin) was sometimes used to define ‘peasant wars’. It was recognised by Soviet historians that these civil wars were very complex in their social composition, and that the insurgents did not exclusively (or even primarily) comprise peasants, with Cossacks playing a particularly significant role. Nevertheless the general character of the uprisings was seen as ‘anti-feudal’. From the 1980s, however, R.G. Skrynnikov and A.L. Stanislavskiy discarded the view that the events of the ‘Time of Troubles’ constituted an anti-feudal peasant war. They preferred the term ‘civil war’, and stressed vertical rather than horizontal divisions between the two armed camps. Western historians, with the notable exception of the American historian Paul Avrich, generally rejected the application of the term ‘peasant wars’ to the Russian uprisings of the early modern period, regarding them as primarily Cossack-led revolts. From the 1960s, however, Western scholars such as Teodor Shanin (following the American anthropologist Eric Wolf) began to use the term ‘peasant wars’ in relation to the role played by peasants in 20th-century revolutionary events such as those in Russia and China. Some of these Western historians, including Avrich and Wolf, used the term not only for peasant actions in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, but also for peasant rebellions against the new Bolshevik regime (such as the Makhnovshchina and the Antonovshchina) that Soviet scholars considered to be counter-revolutionary banditry. The author argues that, in relation to the ‘Time of Troubles’ in early 20th-century Russia, the term ‘peasant war’ is not entirely suitable to describe peasant actions against the agrarian relations of the old regime in 1905 and 1917, since these were generally orderly and non-violent. The term is more appropriate for the anti-Bolshevik uprisings of armed peasant bands in 1918-1921, as suggested by the British historian Orlando Figes.

Relevance. This article is devoted to a key and at the same time insufficiently studied historical aspect - the analysis of the agrarian policy of the White movement during the Civil War in Russia. In conditions when the peasantry constituted the majority of the population, the agrarian question determined the political loyalty of the masses. Studying the approaches of the White movement to solving the land issue allows us to understand the reasons for its defeat and identify strategic miscalculations, as well as assess the impact of agrarian policy on socio-political processes in Russia.Purpose. Based on a comprehensive analysis of historical sources and historiographic data, is to identify and systematize the main contradictions in the agrarian policy of the White movement during the Civil War in Russia.Objectives: analysis of the main approaches to solving the agrarian question among various political forces within the White movement; study of the evolution of the agrarian policy of the White movement at various stages of the Civil War.Methodology. In the article, historiographic, comparative-historical and problem-chronological methods were used to analyze the evolution of the White movement's agrarian policy.Results. The study identified key contradictions in the White movement's agrarian policy and assessed their impact on relations with the peasantry during the Civil War. The analysis of historiography showed the evolution of the approaches of the White governments: from restoration tendencies and postponing decisions to compromises and, finally, to an attempt at radical reform. The study confirmed that the inability of the Whites to resolve the agrarian issue and ignoring the interests of the peasantry became one of the key reasons for their defeat.Conclusions. The conducted research revealed that the agrarian policy of the White movement, evolving from restoration tendencies to attempts at reform, was characterized by inconsistency and belatedness. This inability to resolve the agrarian question, ignoring the interests of the peasantry and, as a result, the inability to enlist its support, were one of the key reasons for the defeat of the White movement in the Civil War. This historical experience emphasizes the exceptional importance of taking into account the agrarian question for any political force striving for success in Russia.

Reviewed by: The Worlds of James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens: Place, Personality, and Politics in the Civil War Era. ed. by Michael J. Birkner, Randall M. Miller and John W. Quist David N. Gellman (bio) Keywords James Buchanan, Thaddeus Stevens, Sectional crises, Politics The Worlds of James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens: Place, Personality, and Politics in the Civil War Era. Edited by Michael J. Birkner, Randall M. Miller, and John W. Quist. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2019. Pp. 288. Cloth, $47.50.) The instincts and alliances that propelled James Buchanan to the political apex also shredded the nation and his historical standing. Thaddeus Stevens left behind a more celebrated legacy by devoting his career not to sectional comity and white supremacy but to a new revolutionary foundation for the country’s future. Stephen A. Douglas, Buchanan’s Democratic Party rival and the third protagonist in this essay collection, lacked the imagination, moral or political, to find a viable path between the Democracy of the past and the Republicanism of the future. One of the striking takeaways from this compilation is how strongly conventional politicians clung to the assumption of continuity as the political world around them collapsed. Buchanan’s reputation as a northern political striver ever willing to serve the interests of the slaveholding South corresponds with aspects of his social life explored in this volume. Thomas J. Balcerski’s essay on the “Domestic Politics of Doughfacery” correlates the bachelor senator’s Washington boardinghouse friendships with southern colleagues to the votes Buchanan cast between 1834 and 1841. He saw the gag rule and slavery through the eyes of his friends. Joan E. Cashin digs deeper into gender in a brief, intriguing essay on Buchanan’s platonic friendship with Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis’s not-so-happily-married wife. The unionist-inclined spouse of the future president of the Confederacy conveyed her fondness for Buchanan as she left Washington—a dying ember of the intersectional warmth the northerner had long cultivated. Yet abiding personal loyalty to those who undertook political missions on his behalf does not appear to be a hallmark of Buchanan’s style, as William P. Mackinnon seeks to illustrate in a case study of Thomas L. Kane’s service to resolve the 1857 Utah War. The major crises of the 1850s revealed character and ideological commitments. Enter Douglas, whose presidential ambition matched Buchanan’s. The senator from Illinois shared not only a party with Buchanan but also the knowledge that a southern alliance required encouragement of territorial expansion. Managing to minimize political risk and sectional strife [End Page 519] was the tricky part. In an intriguing essay, Matthew Pinsker investigates an oft-cited 1857 exchange in which Douglas allegedly faced down Buchanan over the president’s accession to the proslavery Lecompton constitutional gambit in Kansas. When Buchanan claimed Andrew Jackson’s mantle of authority over the Democratic party, Douglas allegedly responded, “Mr. President, I wish you to remember that General Jackson is dead, sir” (83). Pinsker believes historians have been too credulous. The story first emerged in 1858 and resurfaced during the waning days of the 1860 presidential campaign. Douglas wished to appear far more resolute in opposition to proslavery machinations in Kansas than he actually had been. If he could not win the presidency, he could at least inflict some rhetorical vengeance against his nemesis in the White House. Known for their ambition-driven political acumen, these men struggled to navigate a rupturing national landscape. Douglas R. Egerton dis-mantles Stephen A. Douglas’s judgment by exposing popular sovereignty as a colossal miscalculation. The midwesterner-who-would-be-president “crafted a policy that was despised by both free-soilers and fire-eaters” (72). Politically speaking, the Illinois senator would have been better off embracing a racist, whites-only free-soil approach to the Kansas territory that would have preserved the Missouri Compromise. Instead, he paved the way for the Republican Party to flourish in the North. Buchanan’s comprehension of what was possible proved just as hopeless. Amy S. Greenberg describes how President Buchanan hewed to the old pro-southern Democratic script of Manifest Destiny, as if bullying and buying the United States’ way to...

Reviewed by: In This Land of Plenty: Mickey Leland and Africa in American Politics by Benjamin Talton Sobukwe Odinga BOOK REVIEW of Talton, Benjamin. 2019. In This Land of Plenty: Mickey Leland and Africa in American Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 328 pp. $45.00 (cloth). During the 1980s, Mickey Leland's stature as the US Congress's leading proponent of global hunger relief was largely unrivaled. The Texas representative was widely lauded immediately after his death in a 1989 plane crash en route to a refugee camp in southwestern Ethiopia. In the decades since, however, the dearth of scholarly interest in his legislative tenure and political legacy has been striking. Benjamin Talton's In This Land of Plenty: Mickey Leland and Africa in American Politics is thus a welcome addition to the scholarship on Black internationalism, US-Africa relations, and the nexus of social movements and legislative politics. Talton underscores Leland's historical significance amid the evolving African American foreign policy priorities, emerging African civil conflicts, and shifting US anticommunism policies that marked the late Cold War. At the center of his account is Leland's moral crusade against hunger and malnutrition, at home and abroad, yet the range of Leland's foreign policy commitments is deftly rendered, from his role in passing US sanctions against apartheid South Africa to his condemnations of US-backed authoritarian regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Despite Leland's foreign policy victories, Talton depicts him as the standard-bearer of a Black internationalism that reached the peak of its influence in Congress in the mid-1980s and quickly waned with the collapse of the last white-minority-ruled regimes in Africa. In this context, Leland sought an often untenable middle ground: on the one hand, he maintained a strident critique of American realpolitik, born of his days as a Black Power activist, doggedly pressuring the US government to look beyond Cold War competition in its diplomatic relations with African states; on the other hand, he often played into faulty notions of American exceptionalism, meant to inspire the American public to deepen its investment in humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. But as Talton illustrates, Leland bore these contradictions with grace, good humor, and an extraordinary dedication to the welfare of those whose deprivation usually garnered little attention in Washington. The book's firsts two chapters chronicle Leland's embrace of radical politics as a student at Texas Southern University in the 1960s, his organizing efforts as a Black Power activist in Houston, and his transition to elected office, first in the Texas State House, and then in the US Congress. [End Page 188] Young Leland's solidarity with progressive, newly independent regimes throughout the Global South was cemented by a 1971 trip to Tanzania, where he was deeply inspired by Julius Nyerere's pan-Africanism and Ujamaa socialism. Talton does an exceptional job of letting Leland speak for himself, and the lasting impact of this early encounter is unmistakable: "I got totally absorbed by Africa" (24). Talton notes that the growing radicalism of young Black activists like Leland throughout the US, the Caribbean, and Africa shared intellectual influences such as the anti-imperialist and Marxist analyses of Amilcar Cabral and C. L. R. James, yet with characteristic nuance, he makes clear that these young activists often parted ways regarding the practical implications of these ideas. Thus, while many proponents of Black Power throughout the transatlantic world lauded Emperor Haile Selassie as a defender of African autonomy, many student activists in Ethiopia channeled their radicalism into efforts to dismantle Selassie's monarchy. Talton adeptly situates Leland among a wave of Black activists who transitioned into electoral politics during the early 1970s and struggled to work within a political system they had been determined to reshape fundamentally. Upon reaching Washington in 1978, Leland joined a cadre of recently elected Black representatives working on African and Caribbean affairs, including Ronald Dellums, William H. Gray, and Juan Dixon. Talton demonstrates that this cadre was deeply influenced by the ideological commitments and legislative strategies of an earlier generation of officials, such as Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Charles Diggs, and Andrew Young, who sought to integrate...

IT is not a mere matter of euphony that the world-wide combination against the Axis fascist aggressors bears the title of Nations, in which there are four leading powers: The United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and China. Victory must be premised upon national no less than international unity. It is true that, unlike England, America and Russia, no word indicating unity is found in the official title of China; but it is equally true that the most outstanding feature with which China wishes to impress both her enemy and her friends has been her unity forged since the Japanese invasion. Both her friends and her enemy have been amazed by her unity, the decisive factor which has enabled her to put up a stubborn resistance for five years, after decades of internal strife and civil war. But how deep is this unity? How long will China keep on fighting in the face of the mounting difficulties for Allied supplies to reach the continental front in Asia? How much can China contribute to the Allied general offensive in the Pacific area in the future? And, a further question in the minds of those interested in the ultimate outcome of the war is, after victory, will China relapse into civil war again? Or will China march ahead as a united nation on the road of democracy, economic progress and world brotherhood ? These questions cannot be answered offhand or all at once. They depend upon the amount and direction of effort on the part of both China and her friends. They also depend upon how correctly China's historical heritage is understood and made to guide such effort. In this respect, recent studies in the social, economic and political history of China should be fully utilized and further expanded. The present investigation is but a small contribution in this direction-seeking to trace only some of the highlights of China's nationalist development and to indicate some of its historical limitations. In order, however, to avoid an arbitrary definition of nationalism

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to present a picture of the life path of Russians (military, cossacks) who witnessed and participated in two civil wars: in Russia and in China. This topic is relevant, since its research allows us to analyze the ways of adaptation of people who have experienced severe forms of transformation in various spheres of life of the two states. Methods and materials. The source base of the study is represented by narrative sources (personal diaries of Russian emigrants A.P. Budberg, G.P. Larin, E.N. Pastukhin, A.A. Tikhobrazova, I.I. Shtina) and periodicals published in Russian by Russian emigrants in China in the 1920 (newspapers “Molva”, “Zarya”, “Russian Voice”, “Gun-Bao”). To present a multifaceted picture of the life of Russian emigrants in China, the following methods were used: dialectical, systemic, analytical-synthetic, historical-comparative, historicalanthropological. Analysis. This study examines the unique history of various categories of emigrants who survived the collapse of spiritual values, ideology, political and economic systems, and the breakdown of the social structure during the civil wars. Against the background of political games, battles, the formation and destruction of military alliances, the story of former Russian military and civilians unfolds, who, in search of earnings and / or for ideological reasons, fought in the ranks of the military units of the Chinese militarists in the 1920–1930. The presented study reflects the struggle between Soviet and anti-Soviet ideology in the Far East, in China: the participation of Russians in the civil war in China, condemnation of Soviet policy on the pages of personal diaries and Russian-language newspapers published in China, support by some public organizations of fascist ideology and the occupation policy of Japan. Results. Historical events were identified that linked the fate of a large number of representatives of the two states. Shown are the various life paths that Russians chose in a foreign land, the difficulties they faced. Their attitude to the spiritual (moral) values of Russian culture is noted. The problem of disunity between military units and their leaders, which killed the “white” army in the civil war in Russia, was not overcome in China. The modern world never ceases to accept the challenges of supporters of radical transformations. This increases public interest in the experience of adaptation of Russian emigrants in China.

The Russian civil war was the paradigmatic revolutionary civil war of the twentieth century, but the term is an oversimplification for the extensive series of military conflicts waged in the remnants of the tsarist empire between 1917 and 1922. “The wars of the tsarist succession” would be a more adequate description. There was indeed a massive civil war among Russians, but in addition both Russian sides sought to extend their control over all the non-Russian peoples of the former empire, among whom a lengthy and confusing series of campaigns were waged. One historian has counted eleven different armies that at one time or another fought in Ukraine. Independent rulers briefly emerged in remote areas, while criminal bands ravaged sizable districts. The major powers intervened militarily on the periphery, but without determination or effectiveness, except in the Baltic. Even before winning the civil war in Russia proper, the new Bolshevik dictatorship attempted to send its poorly organized forces into Europe, producing a major war with Poland in 1920 and, more successfully, carrying out the conquest of Mongolia in 1921, extending its control even beyond the former tsarist domains. All the while, the last phases of the intra-Russian civil war were being fought within ethnic Russia. This enormous series of struggles, which lasted for five years, produced immense collateral damage among civilians in terms of executions, famine, and mass epidemics, and cost nearly five times as many lives as were lost on the eastern front in World War I.

Only rarely does a Civil War diarist combine detailed observations of events with an intelligent understanding of their significance. John Campbell, a newspaperman before the war, left such a legacy. A politically aware Union soldier with strong moral and abolitionist beliefs, Campbell recorded not only his own reflections on wartime matters but also those of his comrades and the southerners soldiers, civilians, and slaves that he encountered. Campbell served in the Fifth Iowa Volunteer Infantry from 1861 to 1864. He participated in the war's major theaters and saw early action at Island No. 10, Iuka, and Corinth. His diary is especially valuable because he viewed the war as both a field-commissioned officer able to make intelligent comments about combat and as a former enlisted man with a feel for the soldier's life. He was present during Grant's campaign at Vicksburg and depicted the bloody failure of the May 22 storming of Confederate fortifications in unsparing terms; he then went on to fight at Chattanooga and took Gen. William T. Sherman to task for his poor leadership at Missionary Ridge. The Union Must Stand contains more than Campbell's journal. Editors Mark Grimsley and Todd Miller have written an introduction that provides background information and places the diary in the context of current debate over the ideological commitments of Civil War soldiers. An appendix reproduces fifteen of Campbell's letters to his hometown newspaper, in which he shared his impressions of both war and slavery.With its unique point of view, valuable insights into the conduct of various campaigns, and some of the most vivid depictions of Civil War combat ever set to paper, Campbell's diary offers both a wealth of new primary material for historians and exciting reading for enthusiasts. Combining a journalist's accuracy with a zealot's idealism, it makes a forceful statement about why one man went to war. The Editors: Mark Grimsley is an associate professor of history at the Ohio State University and the author of The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865. Todd D. Miller is a history teacher and an independent researcher for Time-Life Books' Civil War series. He lives in Ashland, Ohio.