The Korean Deportation and Life in Central Asia 175I will now analyze and contrast Martin’s “Soviet xenophobia” with my
theory of “tsarist continuities.” First, Arsenev’s “Doklad” refutes the idea of
“Soviet xenophobia” being purely ideological and not racial. Arsenev’s paper
(1928) clearly described racial themes and characteristics for the Koreans
and the Chinese of the Rus sian Far East that made them “anthropologi-
cally, ethnographically, psychologically” alien to the USSR and Soviet so-
cialism.^131 These views, along with those of Geitsman in the NKVD, were
decidedly neither Marxist nor socialist and occurred at the height of koreni-
zatsiia. Furthermore, in 1934, despite the death of Arsenev, Dalkraikom
revived this report and took a vote on the full deportation of the Koreans.
Clearly, the report and its racialized vision of who was not “Soviet” (the
Koreans and the Chinese) had its supporters among the CP leadership in
the RFE. In addition, Geitsman’s report, and the NKVD secret vote that
rejected Koreans for Soviet citizenship, all took place (around March 1928,
when the first Geitsman letter was written) before collectivization and the
heightened tensions of pos si ble war with Japan, the chances of which greatly
increased after the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. These reports displayed sa-
lient and substantial tsarist racial and chauvinistic ele ments/tropes before
the Koreans and other diaspora peoples could have realistically been seen as
“ enemy nations.”
Second, there were over one million Poles, Germans, Jews, and Chi-
nese who were forcibly deported within or (in the case of the Chinese) out-
side the Rus sian Empire during the First World War.^132 These ethnic groups
on Rus s ian soil were also transformed into “ enemy nations.” This fact fur-
ther supports the idea of primordialist continuities from tsarism influencing
the Stalinist deportations.^133 Third, the 1936 Soviet constitution was writ-
ten to support the claim that the USSR was the only state in the world that
provided “real and legal equality” to all its peoples. The 1936 Constitution
stated that Soviet citizens would not be punished collectively (the right to
individual hearings/ trials for crimes), and that all citizens would receive the
same rights regardless of their nationality. The nationalities deportations
clearly violated the rights of equality and individual merit/guilt. The regime
must have understood that its actions were both illegal and racist, given this
document and its prohibitions.^134
Perhaps Martin’s theory over applies the term “ethnic cleansing.” His
argument straddles both sides of the fence regarding the Stalinist deporta-
tions. On the one hand (conservative), Martin pilloried the Stalinist regime
for its “ethnic cleansing” and the USSR for having practiced the highest
form of imperialism.^135 On the other hand (liberal), theoretically, he por-
trayed the Soviets as having practiced a relatively pure form of socialism by
removing the border nationalities based on an ideological hatred of cap i tal-