Friedrich Engels
Panslawismus

[il] Pan-Slavism.

I General Introduction. Romance peoples, Germans, Slavs. 2,000-year-long struggle of the first two, eliminated by civilisation, revolution and the impossibility of one tribe’s lasting rule over the others. Entry of the Slavs as the third great race, who claim, however, not merely equal rights but rule over Europe.

II. The Slavs. 80,000,000: I. South-eastern Slavs, Great Russians, Little Russians, White Russians; Bulgarians, Serbs, Slovenes. II. North-western Slavs: Czechs (Slovaks), Poles, Sorbs. – Geographical division and weakening by the German-Magyar-Romanian wedge along the Danube as far as the Black Sea; furthermore the disruption of the Oder and Vistula borders by Germans, of the Baltic coast by Finnish, Lithuanian and Swedish strips. Petersburg almost the only point where a Slavonic language actually touches the Baltic.

III. History of Pan-Slavism. Dobrovsky, Kollar, the mournful epoch, preaching spiritual awakening and spiritual unification. Simultaneously Russian war threats and intrigues. Emergence of scientific Slavistics. Schafarik, Vuk St. Karadzic, Metelko, Kopitar; in Russia Vostokow. Polish literature of the 18th and 19th centuries, Russian Derjavin and Puschkin; Bohemian and Serbian folk songs. Second epoch*):

*) Polemics against the German language in Bohemia, etc., against Hungarian in Hungary. Emperor Joseph’s Austrian government, which maintained German as the dominant language, and the Hungarian Diet. Abolition of the Latin language and introduction of Magyar. Hence the struggle against German and Magyar. Here Austria first became the centre of Pan-Slavism.

189

Friedrich Engels

Hatred of the Germans while Germany was theoretically taking an interest in the Slavs – Vuk and the Serbian priests with direct, either unconscious or conscious, leaning on Russia. Confusion of ideas corresponding to the reactionary old-German liberal tangle in Germany 1810–1825. The Bohemians the centre, and the South Slavs. The Poles directly anti-Pan-Slavist.

IV. Epoch: Separation of the parties: 1) reactionary, directly Russian Pan-Slavism, mostly upheld by Russian agents. Gurovski; 2) liberal, republican, socialist Pan-Slavism, embellished with all the modern European phrases, seemingly fraternising with the West, in reality exploiting its credulity. The Russians are the centre in this epoch, the entire Pan-Slavism takes on a Russian character. Hatred of the Germans persists. Bakunin, Golovin, Herzen. The Polish emigration entangled in it – equally credulous and ignorant. The Slav federation of states openly proclaimed, the reunification committees openly at work, Constantinople, Hungary, all Europe east of the Elbe and Bohemian Forest and Isonzo directly or covertly claimed. In fact, however, Slav nationality is everywhere on the frontier line with Germany and almost everywhere throughout Hungary in retreat (this to be merely indicated here for now).

V. 1848. Slav Congress, general reaction of the Slavs against the revolution in Germany, Hungary and Italy.

VI Theoretical justification of Pan-Slavism. I. Old Europe and young Russia. II. The socialist institutions of Russia. Re I: The theoretical justification became possible only once the movement was entirely in the hands of the Russians, the conquering ones. The other Slavs are almost as old as Europe. This whole regeneration idea from Schlözer; the French Revolution proved its nullity. Now it resurfaces in periods of armistice and exhaustion, just like the Eastern Question. This argument is of use mostly to the reactionary Russians, but the liberal social-democratic Russians also cling to it and even blab it about. That they find allies in the West proves what stupidity democracy is capable of. – Re 2: Stolen from Haxthausen, who knew perfectly well the difference between the peasant communism of the Russians and the revolutionary communism of the West. Common ownership of the waste lands is the Russian reality, voilà tout. This argument too is only for the reactionaries, not the Social-Democrats, but now these also come along with it and base on it Russia’s right to regenerate Europe, since Europe is not strong enough to go through the crisis and conquer communism on its own. | 790

Panslawismus

I VII Pan-Slavism. Two kinds: 1) those who merely want to have the slovenska zemé, 2) the regenerators of all Europe. But this distinction is unfounded as well; in reality both are the same, Europe can tolerate neither the one nor the other. The real difference, therefore, between: 1) the various small Slav nations and their claims. 2) the Russians and their great claims. Re 1 the small ones:

1) The Sorbs, out of the question. 2) The Bohemians, 7,000,000, with a respectable history, but only for Bohemia, i.e. 1/4 of the people. Chief pride the 15th/16th century, but while Germany failed in the 15th, in the 16th it made good everything – undertook the Thirty Years’ War for Bohemia. The territory of the Czechoslovaks an impossible state. Common only the written language, not the popular language – nor the historical traditions. Moravia and the Slovaks always separated from Bohemia. 1/4 of the population in the Czechoslovak territory German and Magyar. Germany no more than Hungary can permit such a state formation; it is as if the German farmers of Pennsylvania wanted to declare themselves independent. The true question is historical vitality, and for this the position of a people in a revolution such as 1848 is decisive.

VII Poland. The downfall of Poland, its own fault. Now nearly 11 million, but only 7 million compact, a part the Water Poles and Masurians without historical connection with Poland for centuries. The rest in mixed territories. The position of the core, however, favourable, compact, a quadrilateral, as favourable as for the Magyars and far more so than for the Czechs. However, 7 million alone not sufficient to found in Eastern Europe any state other than a new Belgium – hence the assimilation of foreign elements necessary: Can the Poles and Hungarians do this? Poland has not only been revolutionary since its fall, it is also placed in the necessity of being revolutionary at all times. The peasant must become free, otherwise no Poland possible. In this lies the guarantee of Poland’s future; on the other hand, Russia can never russify the Polish peasants either. |
|[2]| Pan-Slavism IX. The West Slavs entirely Europeanised, the South-eastern Slavs still Asiatic in conditions of life, organisation, property, family, custom and mode of thought. This Asiatic element will later prove the basis of the claim to youth and regenerative power.
South Slavs. Number about – 11 million. Seemingly very compact, in reality by no means. 1) 3 different languages; the Bulgarians not intelligible to the other two; Serbian and Slovene very rich in inflections, Bulgarian none at all. Only if Serbian were to become the exclusive written language could one count on unification. 2) Each tribe has its own history: the Slovenes none at all, divided between Hungary and Germany, the Serbs and Bulgarians each for themselves, constantly at war, and even calling in foreign enemies. 3) The Bulgarians more unnerved by Turkish pressure, wholly servile and without aspirations; many Turkish colonies in the country, the highest Bulgarian ideal being liberation from the infidel yoke by Russia. – The Serbs brave and warlike, have proved their future capability through their revolution, and their 14th and 15th centuries have glorious moments. They are now proving themselves capable of a future through the assimilation of Western civilisation. But all this applies only to the free Serbs – 950,000, while over 4 million are either directly reactionary or apathetic. – 1¾ million in Turkey. – 1 million crushed like the Bulgarians, ½ million Mohammedan. The Montenegrins pure robbers, robbing not so much the Turks as the Christian peasants of the surrounding area. The Dalmatians have a different religion, alphabet and literature. 4) The religious difference very great; among the South Slavs 4 million Roman Catholic, 6 million Greek Orthodox, 700,000 Mohammedans; in countries where the priests are so powerful, these religions cannot get on with each other, and the Mohammedans are even directly hostile, fanatical. 5) External difficulties: the Turkish Empire is already to be removed, but then comes the struggle with Hungary over the Banat and the coast, with Germany over part of Styria and Illyria.

X. The conflicts of the Slavs with other nations are confined to the small Slav peoples; and what the Slavs wanted was shown in 1848.

In all Western countries, incl. Hungary and Poland, an internal social revolution formed the basis of the rising; with the Bohemians and Croats it did not. Among them no class struggle; the attempt at it was regarded as high treason.

Slav Congress, Prague uprising, Viennese Reichstag – everywhere the reaction of the Slavs. Then the Croats and Serbs – almost all frontier soldiers. They demand the separation of the Vojvodina from Hungary, where the Serbs are not even in the majority. – Impossibility of the South Slav and Czech restoration, as far as Hungary and Germany are concerned.

Poland and the Turkish Serbs are in a different position; they have a future. |
|[3]| XI. 1) The Russians. Development essentially the same as that of the other Slavs. The struggle for natural boundaries, especially the coasts. Only with the Russians different results, success.

2) The Russian ancestral land: the inland territory of the upper and middle Don and Dnieper, Dvina, Volga. Originally coast only by Petersburg, for which the Russians have been struggling with Finns and Swedes for 1,000 years. This finally maintained, and in addition effectively Russified the northern coast of the Black Sea from Akerman to Perekop, and the Azov coast. The rest merely conquered, thus the Baltic coast and the Caspian.

3) Tribes: Great Russians and Little Russians. The former the mainstay and core. Great capacity for development and assimilation, proved also in the Russification of the barbarian frontier peoples, particularly the Tatars. Impotent, on the other hand, against nations of equal or higher culture. The Little Russians still retain their national peculiarity; where they are Polonised they retain it in its Polish form; Poles and Germans cannot be Russified at all; on the contrary, in the German Baltic province a completely distinct nation has developed, the Baltic one, which, by virtue of its connection with German culture, governs Russia.

The Little Russians and White Russians a tribe of Slavs – dismembered and oppressed by Poles and Great Russians just like the Czechoslovaks by Germans and Magyars. Never capable of being anything themselves, but also too divided and Polonised for the Russians ever to be able to claim them entirely.

XII 4) Natural boundaries. Given by the course of the rivers that rise in the interior. The lower Don, Dnieper, Volga, Neva, northern Dvina unconditionally necessary for Russia. But further to the west is encroachment, justified by no material interest. The main grain export of the Russian territory proper needs neither Riga nor Odessa; both are the natural harbours of the Lithuanian-Polish territory. Russia has its harbours in the Dnieper-Bug Liman, in Kerch and the Sea of Azov, in Petersburg and Reval. Petersburg itself, as capital, a provocation; should be merely a commercial outpost. The more communications, industry and culture advance, the more Moscow will rise, and Petersburg as capital will be all the less worth the enormous costs of upkeep in money and men. Whereby it is, après tout, not even a seaport.

Result: Russia has overstepped its natural boundaries to the west, and with the advance of civilisation to the east this

30 Overstepping for Russia’s free development ever more superfluous, for Europe ever more threatening. Thus Russia must either go forward or backward, either conquer Prussia, Galicia, Moldavia, and finally Hungary & the great Slavonic peninsula or give up Poland & Little Russian Lithuania.

35 That however is precisely the question at issue.

13. Manifest Destiny: (Regeneration of Europe or Regeneration of Northern Asia) I

I[4]I Panslavism XIII Manifest Destiny: Regeneration of Europe or
Of Asia? The Russians want the former, I For the time being leaving aside all phi-  
losophical arguments – just the facts. Romanic & Germanic Europe small & densely populated against Russia.

793

Friedrich Engels

150 million against 80. Impossible. War of liberation against Napoleon.  
The Crimean campaign proves that Russia cannot remove itself far from  
its centre of gravity towards the west and south. For what does Russia  
bring to Europe? Look at Poland. Thus here no Manifest Destiny.

On the other hand, in Asia there is much to do. The Russians are entirely the people, half bar- 5
barians, to deal with whole barbarians. The Tatar-Finns rapidly assimilated.  
Heathen tribes never exterminated as in America & Australia –  
What great things the Russians have done, is of this kind – colonisation of  
the Ukraine & South Russia, statistics cf. Petermann.

Siberia especially the country. Certainly many geographical disadvantages, 10
but these themselves the condition of this enormous stretch  
being able to belong to Russia. Mineral resources. Position on the Pacific,  
the sea of the future. Amur – necessarily also Manchuria  
Russia’s inheritance. & All this to have & to hold without effort. 15
One battalion holds the Amur – compare Poland and say where Russia’s  
destiny is! Poland costs money, men etc. fruitlessly, Siberia yields  
profit. And just the attempt to take Constantinople, what will it cost  
Russia! cf. the last war.

If Russia does not want otherwise, it will be forcibly taught what  
its destiny is. [5]| Panslavism XIV. So much for the practical capability & calling of the  
Russians to regenerate Europe. Now the theoretical claims. These  
themselves, as already said, of non-Russian origin, through the impression  
which the rapidly rising Russia of Peter the Great & Catherine made on  
Schlözer, in contrast to the decaying aristocratic Europe & especially 25
Germany perishing in particularism & pigtailism & the Holy Roman Empire.  
This way of looking at things was put an end to by  
the French Revolution & the Napoleonic wars.  
Recently this view, which was neutral in origin, directly  
reactionary, warmed up by timid European reactionaries & by the government- 30
friendly Russian party in literature (Panslavisme moscovite see Herzen Idées).  
Herein only one side honest & theoretically justified:  
the old-Russian reactionary, which would forcibly lead degenerate Europe back  
to faith & obedience.  
It moreover, as will be shown, also lies at the bottom of the modern social- 35
democratic Panslavist side, so that this needs only to be treated as a  
degeneration of the first.

Russia young, Europe old, Russia united & strong, Europe torn apart, eaten away by  
overcivilisation & dissension of theories. Russia believing, 40
Europe godless, Russia obedient, Europe rebellious. These are the eternal

794

Panslawismus

basic ideas, quite correct for a reactionary Russian or Occi-  
dental, for everything they revere is in the Occident rotten, incapable of life,  
dying. For him who regards the movement of the West beyond the  
Russian status recognised as the highest goal of human development as  
a degeneration, Europe must be old & the modern struggle 5
a struggle like that of the Praetorian emperors or the Byzantine  
theologians, & the only possibility of liberation & regeneration  
lie in Russian conquest. For such a one, Russian  
bondage, the patriarchal economy, common ownership of the land  
etc. etc. are the normal condition, the freedom of the peasants, the modern 10

private property, the development of trade & industry consequently a degenerate  
condition. In all these matters, occidental feudalists & Muscovite  
patriots agree exactly. For them  
the modern movement has no meaning & must end in general devastation. 15
But all this only proves that they do not understand this movement &  
do not want to understand it. Haxthausen an example. With it, it is often very  
fine that people like Haxthausen themselves belong to the bureaucracy which  
in its time often hatched these revolutionary duck’s eggs as a broody hen  
& now runs desperately up and down the bank when the young ducks  
ot odnavo berega otstali: The motionlessness – that is the so-called 20
youth, unity, strength, the faith & obedience of Russia.

ad rem: First, the view of young & old peoples entirely oriental. The more Europe is drawn into history, the more this  
has disappeared. Formerly nations existed only after one another, now  
side by side (see note contra Herzen, 2nd b. & where this is treated in greater detail.)

25

Secondly, as regards youthful vigour, to compare England & Russia,  
their respective development over the last 100 years. Third, the greatest development  
of Russia, in the south through colonisation, directly conditioned by the industrial  
upswing of Europe. Fourth, the world since 1500 has grown too large  
to permit “world empires” & rejuvenations through migrations of peoples. 30

Direct overland & sea traffic, the mighty means of communication,  
now rejuvenate the peoples & shake them together. Fifth, industrial development  
also already established in Russia, & so Russia itself  
eaten into; and w |

|[6]| Conclusion: 1) Are the Poles being Russified by Russian rule & the apathy 35
of the West? Will they join Panslavism?  
a) The peasant Russia cannot Russify, he is 1) peasant &  
bondsman, first 2) Pole, b) the few nobles & burghers in the country may go to the devil.

2) How about the conquest of the Western Russians & Baltic provinces? 40
Through peasant emancipation. Should the Russian peasant also rise up,  
il faut voir what the Western Russian does

3) Germany – amicable agreement inevitable. |

795

APPENDIX

Dubiosa