Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR: Contacts across the Baltic Sea

  1. #1
    Spirit of the Reich „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,216
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    228
    Thanked in
    129 Posts

    Lightbulb Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR: Contacts across the Baltic Sea

    Per Anders Rudling, Department of History, Lund University.


    Abstract. The 1920s saw a significant exchange between eugenicists in Sweden and the young Soviet state. Sweden did not take part in World War I, and during the years following immediately upon the Versailles peace treaty, Swedish scholars came to serve as an intermediary link between, on the one hand, Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, and, on the other hand, Western powers.

    Swedish eugenicists organized conferences, lecture tours, visits, scholarly exchanges, and transfers and translation of eugenic research. Herman Lundborg, the director of the world’s first State Institute of Racial Biology, was an old-fashioned, deeply conservative, and anti-communist “scientific” racist, who somewhat paradoxically came to serve as something of a Western liaison for Soviet eugenicists.

    Whereas the contacts were disrupted in 1930, Swedish eugenicists had a lasting impact on Soviet physical anthropologists, who cited their works well into the 1970s [...]


    [...] As a Swedish society for Racial Hygiene was founded in 1909 it followed a larger European pattern.3 But Sweden’s prominence within the international eugenics movement started when the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag, in 1921 established the State Institute for Racial Biology (Statens institut för rasbiologi, SIFR) in Uppsala, the world’s first government institute of eugenic research.

    Under the leadership of its director, Herman Lundborg (1868-1943), SIFR became a source of inspiration and a liaison between eugenicists around the world, and served as a model for the German Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Anthropologie, menschliche Erblehre und Eugenik.4 Among SIFR’s more notable associates was Hans F. K. Günther (1891-1968), known as Rassen-Günther, the future Nazi ideologue on racial matters, who spent the years 1923-1929 in Sweden and Norway.5

    Over the past two decades, the activities of SIFR have been well documented in a number of studies, not least its significant contacts with eugenicists in Germany, Britain, the United States, and the other Nordic countries.6 SIFR’s Soviet connections are, in comparison, much less known. Yet, for over a decade, Herman Lundborg was involved in a significant intellectual exchange with his Soviet colleagues Iurii Filipchenko (1882-1930) and Valerii Bunak (1891-1979).

    By examining this previously unstudied and almost completely forgotten relationship, this article casts light on the complex and contradictory co-operation between Swedish and Soviet racial biologists in the 1920s and its paradoxical afterlife. Condemned under Stalin but partially rehabilitated after 1956, Lundborg was cited as an authority by Soviet raciologists well into the 1970s, long after his ideas had fallen out of fashion and become highly controversial, if not outright rejected, in Sweden.

    Particular attention is given the enduring popularity in Soviet science of the concept of race. This article traces this set of co-operative relations before and after the Stalinist era to explore the interplay of eugenic ideas across political ideologies. It employs the term “eugenics” to describe an organized intellectual movement, rather than a specific scientific understanding or application. For instance, Lamarckian eugenics, which yielded some influence under Stalin, falls outside the frames of this study.


    HERMAN LUNDBORG AND EUGENICS IN SWEDEN

    The Riksdag’s decision to establish SIFR was reached in near-unanimity. To demonstrate Sweden’s position at the forefront of eugenic research, King Gustaf V (r. 1907-1950) personally supported the institute, and former Prime Minister Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (1862-1953) chaired its board of directors.7

    It secured support from many leading members of the Swedish cultural elite, including painter Anders Zorn (1860-1920), and Nobel Prize laureates Selma Lagerlöf (1858-1940) and Verner von Heidenstam (1859-1940). Like elsewhere, enthusiasm for eugenics in Sweden transcended political and social divisions.

    In the 1920s, feminist pioneer Ellen Key (1849-1926) described racial biology as “the cutting edge of tomorrow’s science” [framtidens yppersta vetenskap], while, in the 1930s, Social Democratic reformers Alva (1902-1986) and Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) regarded eugenics as a trend of the future.8

    Opposition to eugenics did, however, exist. The Riksdag’s small communist and socialist caucuses were opposed to the establishment of SIFR, and the prominent socialist Ture Nerman compared attempts to increase the Swedish population with cattle breeding institutions and stud farms.9 In his day, Herman Lundborg was an important scientist, influential in recommending and appointing Nobel Prize winners in medicine.10 In the 1920s eugenics was not a clear-cut political issue; publicists and intellectuals across Europe, including in Soviet Russia, regarded eugenics a progressive science, to be used for the benefit of society.11

    Its supporters and critics were found across the political spectrum. In the Soviet Union eugenic ideas were woven into the political visions for a post-revolutionary era of equality. Some left-leaning eugenicists in Western Europe and North America believed that the October Revolution would lead to the abandonment of social injustice, and that the implementation of a
    rational, consistent eugenic politics could be implemented in the USSR, allowing for the establishment of a true genetic elite.12

    In this context, “medical eugenics” was interconnected with “social hygiene.”13 Herman Lundborg articulated it in the following way: Racial biology is the study of the lives of kin, peoples, and races. … Its task is to establish the importance of inheritance and race, in respect to its relation to environment and culture, in order to investigate and combat hereditary diseases and degeneration, in whatever forms they appear among kin and peoples. … Racial hygiene (eugenics) constitute, so to say, the practical part of racial biology. Its aims and goals are—to the extent possible, to prevent hereditary degeneration to appear and spread, and to organize the societal conditions in such a way, so that successive generations will be as well-positioned as possible in the
    struggle for existence. As a basic principle of racial hygiene, one has to regard the modern idea, that the biologically valuable [biologiskt välborna], i.e. the physically, morally, and intellectually best equipped individuals, ought, to the 44 per anders rudling highest possible degree, reproduce the kin, and thereby minimize all degenerative environmental and social factors conditions.14

    The establishment of the institute took place against the backdrop of an intense debate in the wake of World War I that focused on race, blood, and the dangers of degeneration. Lundborg envisioned a society in physical decay, in which the culture would degenerate through miscegenation, liberalism, and feminism. The World War, with its enormous human devastation has also quite possibly opened many people’s eyes to the necessity and importance of eugenic measures and a new, more rational population policy. Generally speaking, we are beginning to realize that a healthy people of truly excellent racial quality is the greatest treasure of a nation …

    The peoples who have understood the importance of inheritance and race in time, and are thereby willing to subordinate themselves to the natural laws under which we humans exist, will emerge triumphant in history, not with the devastation of war, hunger, and disease in its traces, but preparing a path towards higher culture, a deepened and re-affirmed morality, and a healthier and happier human race.15

    Lundborg was a skillful lobbyist who dedicated considerable efforts to scientific outreach. His consistent message was to protect and preserve the “Nordic race,” which he claimed appeared in Sweden in its purest and most unspoiled form. His motto, to which he repeatedly referred, was “A national material of good racial quality is the greatest treasure of the nation” [Ett folkmaterial av god rasbeskaffenhet är ett lands största rikedom].16 In the tradition of 19th-century biological racism, Lundborg rejected the idea of the equality of races.17 He was concerned that the racially desirable sections of society were in decline, and that the “Nordic race,” as a whole, faced degeneration.18

    Lundborg explicitly objected to miscegenation with Slavic people, warning that “We must be on our guard to prevent inferior individuals of alien stock immigrating and settling in the country. Miscegenation between racially biologically valuable people (such as the Scandinavians) and less qualified racial elements, such as Gypsies, Galicians, certain Russian peoples, etc., is
    clearly undesirable.”19 Subsequently, Lundborg was inspired by the 1920s’ United States with its segregation laws, anti-immigrant sentiments, and prominent eugenicists. He fused racial and social elements into a Social Darwinist eugenic outlook.20 By the 1920s, Lundborg was already attracted by National socialist ideology, but for tactical reasons he kept his sympathies confidential.21

    In 1931, he acquired political programs from various Swedish fascist organizations, as well as National Socialist material on the negro question in France.22 In his 1934 tract, The West in Danger, Lundborg argued that “The biologically (physically and spiritually) best equipped peoples spread themselves and their culture,” approvingly citing Adolf Hitler’s words that “The racial question provides not Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 45 only the key to world history but also to human culture, in general.”23

    He enthusiastically approved of Hitler’s eugenic and agrarian policies, welcoming the 1933 Reichserbhofsgesetz aimed at establishing a class of “racially pure” farmers: “If a peasant marries a Jewess or a woman of colored race, none of the children of such a union would inherit the farm,” Lundborg noted approvingly.24 Lundborg also saw acute dangers in the emancipation of women, which he regarded as detrimental to the moral and racial health of the nation.

    “The emancipation of women (i.e. woman’s so-called liberation) in our time is, for the survival of our kin a very dangerous phenomenon. … One cannot emphasize strongly enough that
    hereditarily suitable women best serve their country as wives and mothers.”25 If they did not, Lundborg claimed, the population would decline, and barbarians of inferior races would fill the void, leading to racial and cultural degeneration.26 To reverse this perceived decline Lundborg argued for eugenic engineering on the state level, a higher purpose that transcended class and individual rights.27




    NATION AND RACE IN SOVIET NATION BUILDING

    Eugenics in Soviet Russia and Sweden developed along much different paths. Long understudied, the history of the Soviet eugenics movement has gained serious attention only in the past 20 years.28 In the 1920s, the Soviet eugenicists were actively supported by the People’s Commissariat of Health and Education. These aimed at establishing a Marxist, Soviet eugenics movement as part of a vision for a scientific organization of society.29 The young Soviet state gave the phenomenon of nationalism serious attention. In their nation-building efforts, Soviet ideologues affirmed the existence not only of nations, but also of races.

    The Soviet nationalities policies of the 1920s were pragmatic, maybe also politically opportunistic, but the Soviet anthropologists’ concepts of race and nationality also reflected attitudes prevalent in the European and North American discourse at a time before eugenics turned into a politically divisive issue.The drawing of Soviet internal borders and the codification and registration of its many nationalities were carried out at a time when citizenship laws all across continental Europe were based upon jus sanguinis.30

    Historian Yuri Slezkine goes as far as to claim that “Soviet nationality policy was devised and carried out by nationalists. Lenin’s acceptance of the reality of nations and “national rights” was one of the most uncompromising positions he ever took.”31 In the 1920s Soviet authorities were hostile even to voluntary assimilation.32 Stalin, the Bolsheviks’ specialist on the nationalities question, defined “nationality” largely by language. In doing so, he was inspired by the Herderian thought that all nationalities possessed equal dignity.33 The problem, however, was that many peasants lacked a modern, national consciousness and that their use of one particular language did not necessarily translate into national identification.34 Queried about their nationality, local peasants often provided “wrong” answers to Soviet census takers.35

    In cases where ethnic or “national” consciousness was weak or lacking, the authorities ascribed nationalities to the local populations, increasingly relying on ethnographic and anthropologic expertise for the purpose of redrawing internal administrative borders, gradually abandoning the principle of self-identification.36 Millions of people were assigned new ethnicities and nationalities through administrative decisions, followed by extensive affirmative action programs designated to establish and solidify these newly assigned identities. Historian Francine Hirsch argues that: for Soviet policymakers, colonization and “making nations” went hand in hand.

    … Dismissing the West European civilizing mission as a lie, they put forth their own civilizing program based on Marx’s proposed stages of human development. These administrators and experts advocated … a policy of “state-sponsored evolutionism,” exhorting Soviet leaders to give nationhood to feudal clans and tribes in order to push them along the imagined road to socialism.37
    Hirsch describes the Soviet Union as a new state, “an empire of nations,” the nationalities policies of which aimed at a “double assimilation,” a two-staged process in which diverse peoples were assimilated into official nationalities categories, but also into Soviet state and society.38

    The Commission for the Study of the Tribal Composition of the Population of the Borderlands of Russia surveyed the ethnographic composition of the Soviet lands and proposed where the borders should be drawn in territories with mixed ethno-national populations. Defining and delineating nationalities, Soviet ethnographers took their lead from 19th-century “race science,” arguing that each nationality had a different economic orientation based upon its physical type and byt, roughly translated as “way of life.” State planners agreed that scientific knowledge prepared by experts was imperative for state planning.

    Soviet physical anthropologists, with their applied anthropology, worked together with biologists, physicians, and pathologists and began comparing health, illness, blood group, morphological type, levels of intelligence, and physiological functions among different population groups. They used German indices to chart blood groups and constitutional traits and applied them to the Soviet population, contributing significantly to the growing field of racial anthropology.39 Yet, Soviet nationalities policies were not explicitly eugenic. Hirsch notes that “the Soviet regime had a scientific and a political concept of race, but race did not guide its nationalities polices.” Rather, she argues, “Soviet policies were … a reaction to the threat of nationalism.”40


    FILIPCHENKO, BUNAK, AND SOVIET EUGENIC RESEARCH

    The doyen and pioneer of Russian and Soviet eugenics was Iurii Aleksandrovich Filipchenko (1882-1930). Filipchenko was a product of the pre-revolutionary Russian academic tradition; in 1913 he taught the first university course in genetics in Russia, defending the first PhD dissertation and producing the first Russian university textbook on that topic in 1917. The following year he set up the first university genetics laboratory, which in 1919 developed into the first department of genetics, and, in 1921 became the Bureau of Eugenics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Petrograd.41 In 1925, it was again reorganized into the Bureau of Genetics and Eugenics and from 1930, the Laboratory of Genetics. In turn, this came to form the basis for the Institute of Genetics at the USSR Academy of Science.42

    Prior to 1925, the development of the Soviet eugenic movement largely resembled that of Western countries. Thereafter, Soviet eugenicists self-consciously attempted to distance themselves from their colleagues in the capitalist countries and to create a “socialist” eugenics of their own.43 Soviet eugenics was dominated by people with bourgeois backgrounds, representatives of a pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, who, after 1917 operated within the constraints of official ideology.44

    In the early years of Soviet power a number of rival centers of genetic research were organized, each of which developed its own different school of thought: other than Filipchenko and his associate Nikolai I. Vavilov (1887-1943) in Leningrad,45 there were Nikolai K. Kol’tsov (1872-1940) at the Institute for Experimental Biology in Moscow, and the geneticist and selection scientist Andrii A. Sapehin (1883-1946) in Soviet Ukraine.46 Filipchenko and Kol’tsov came to play dominant roles in the Soviet eugenics movement, not the least because almost all Soviet geneticists
    were trained either by Filipchenko, Kol’tsov, or their students.47

    Other important figures in the Soviet eugenic movement included biologists Sergei S. Chetverikov (1880-1959) and Aleksandr. S. Serebrovskii (1892-1948).48 Filipchenko was not only a leading Russian and Soviet scientist, he was a popular educator who introduced eugenics to the Soviet general readership.49 His textbooks appeared in inexpensive popular editions and were translated into minority languages.50 Despite criticism, Filipchenko has retained a reputation as a founding father of genetics in the Soviet successor states.51 In 1919 Valerii V. Bunak (1891-1979), supported by professor D. N. Anuchin (1843-1923), initiated a separate department of anthropology at the University of Moscow.52

    Bunak’s work was quite diverse, from studies of craniums (craniology [kraniologicheskaia rabota]) to inquiries into blood groups, racial history and classifications.53 Together these two dominant figures became founding faculty members at this department, and Bunak went on to become the leading Soviet physical anthropologist for over half a century.


    CHARTING RACE, BLOOD REACTIONS, AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

    This research collaboration formed the foundation of a branch of eugenic science that located “race” within the blood as a means of determining national or ethnic characteristics. Filipchenko’s Soviet Bureau of Eugenics at the Academy of Sciences charted the pedigrees of the Russian intelligentsia, a continuation of a pre-revolutionary tradition. 54 It cooperated with German eugenicists to conduct research on Lenin’s brain, working alongside the biochemist E. O. Manoilov at the Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR Biochemical Laboratory of the Institute of Surgical Neuropathology in Leningrad.55 Manoilov gained international notoriety after having claimed to discover a method to establish the racial and national identity of an individual by a chemical reaction of a blood sample.

    He alleged to have found a mystical “racial ingredient” that would colour the blood differently when exposed to certain chemical reagents. Whereas Manoilov stated that “We cannot say much about the chemism of the race reaction itself,” he deduced that “[t]he determination of the different races by blood, with the help of reagents—in our cases to distinguish Jewish blood from Russian (Great Russian)—gives the correct result in 91.7 per cent of the cases tested.”56 His assistant Anna T. Poliakowa at the State Institute of Public Health Commissariate in Leningrad claimed
    that “After the addition of the reagents, Jewish blood had a blue-greenish coloring; Russian blood, a blue-red one, as, according to Manoiloff, a part of the krezyl-violet remains undissolved in the Russian blood, because of a slower course of the oxidating process.”57

    A whole spectrum of colors appeared when the race reagent was applied to blood of people from different races.



    She argued that “in racially pure marriages the child’s blood has the same reaction as the father’s and mother’s,” and therefore suggested that Manoilov’s “race reaction” could be used to establish the paternity of children of “mixed origin.”59 Manoilov’s findings attracted international attention and were published in leading journals such as the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.60

    [...] During the first years of Soviet power, there was a lively discussion on sterilization among Soviet eugenicists. For instance, when, in 1922, the German Society for Racial Hygiene passed a series of resolutions calling for greater attention by legislators to eugenics, Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal (The Russian Eugenics Journal) printed the resolutions in full without editorial comment. Similar attention was paid to proposals from English and Swedish eugenics societies. In 1924 it translated and republished, again without editorial comment, a German racial biologist’s call for “colleagues-physicians both in the cities and in the countryside to search for defective persons, taking advantage of the help of local authorities, teachers, philanthropic institutions, and medical personnel, and to sterilize as many of them as possible.”63

    The authorities’ sensitivity to anti-Semitism notwithstanding, Soviet racial biologists, much like their Swedish and German colleagues, took a particular interest in Jews. The Russian Eugenics Society established a special commission for the study of the “Jewish race,” even publishing a study that presented Jews as inferior to other ethnic groups.64 As part of the international eugenics movement they reacted to, rather than initated, developments in the international eugenics movement beyond Soviet borders, but their reactions reflected deep divisions within the Soviet eugenic movement.

    Nevertheless, Soviet eugenicists were more cautious than their Western colleagues. The reception of Norwegian racial biologist Jon Alfred Mjøen’s eugenic program is rather typical: the Leningrad branch of the society disassociated itself from calls to prohibit racially mixed marriages, but declared its support for it “only on the basis of a decision of a special council of competent individuals and with the permission of the individual or his legal representatives and only on eugenic, not social grounds.” While they rejected racial measures, they accepted social and eugenic measures against certain categories of mentally ill and habitual criminals whose reproduction was deemed dangerous for society.65 Thus, at this time, eugenic sterilization was regarded as a legitimate field of inquiry.

    For the first Five Year Plan in 1929 Aleksandr Serebrovskii suggested a “truly socialist” way of eugenic engineering to breed superior Soviets through the “separation of love and reproduction,” using artificial insemination of the kind used in sheep and cattle breeding and inseminating Soviet women with “recommended sperm” from a “talented producer.” Yet, toward the end of the decade the political atmosphere was changing, and the Soviet eugenicists were attracting the attention of the authorities. Serebrovskii’s proposal, in particular, was harshly criticized
    and publicly scorned in the press, and would later be linked to the official renunciation of Soviet eugenics in 1930.66


    “A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN RESEARCHERS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES”

    The isolation of Weimar Germany and Soviet Russia in the first years after World War I brought the two pariah states closer. The exclusion of German and Soviet racial biologists from the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York in 1921 helped the resumption of German-Russian academic contacts.67 Three years later the German-Russian connection was formalized through the founding of a joint German-Russian Racial Research Institute, which deepened the medical, cultural, and scientific cooperation that had begun in 1921, and offered a counterbalance to the French and British influence.68

    Only once, following an appeal to the Permanent International Eugenics Commission in 1924, did a Soviet representative, the Moscow eugenicist Kol’tsov, take part in the meeting of the International Eugenic movement.69 Swedish academia continued its orientation towards Germany also after 1918. Like much of the Swedish elite, Herman Lundborg perceived the Versailles Treaty as grossly unfair to Germany, describing it “as nothing but an inextinguishable spot of shame for our entire contemporary culture.”70

    Sweden’s neutrality during World War I placed its eugenicists in a position to act as mediators in international fora. A director of a government institute, Lundborg attempted to use his influence within the international eugenic movement to break Germany’s isolation.71 In solidarity with his German colleagues Herman Lundborg declined to participate in the 1924 l’Institut International d’Anthropologie in Paris.72 In early 1923, Lundborg, Filipchenko, and Kol’tsov started a considerable correspondence and exchange of literature.73

    The following year, Lundborg invited Filipchenko to Uppsala to intensify the cooperation with his Soviet colleagues. “It will delight me and my assistants to learn from your work and in general to be better acquainted with the contemporary academic life in Russia,” Lundborg wrote.74 From 1924, Lundborg corresponded with the famous Russian Jewish anthropologist Leo Shternberg, (1861-1927), the director of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography at the Russian Academy of Science in Leningrad, a corresponce initiated by Lundborg sending him a copy of The Swedish Nation.75

    It was to be followed by the distribution of its publications to Soviet colleagues.76 Lundborg enthusiastically wrote to Bunak that I have received the four interesting four volumes of the journal Russe Anthropologique. It gives me great pleasure to know that your institute this way renews its intellectual exchange with the outside world. There is relatively little reported in Western Europe, especially about church geneological records in Russia. It is therefore enthusiastically welcomed, that the outside world again, through the dissemination of your publications, comes to pay attention to Russia. I will give these publications the most heartfelt recommendation to other learned colleagues.77

    In 1924, a number of prominent eugenicists and racial biologists visited SIFR from Germany, Italy, China, the US, Canada, Finland, Austria, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland. Filipchenko visited the Institute from Leningrad.78 “During 1924, even more so than during previous years, the institute has served as a middleman between researchers in different countries, for instance between Germans and Frenchmen, Englishmen and Germans, Russians, and representatives of a considerable number of different peoples,” Herman Lundborg proudly reported to His Majesty’s government in January 1925.79

    A highlight in the history of the Institute was the 1925 Nordic conference in Uppsala, which brought together racial biologists from Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Germany.80 Lundberg reported to the government in January 1927 that “regarding the value of the institute, the institute and its director have received a considerable number of flattering appraisals from the most knowledgeable in the field in Europe,” listing Bunak in Moscow and Filipchenko in Leningrad among Europe’s 15 most important eugenicists.81

    In the summer of 1926, as Lundborg’s main work, The Racial Characteristics of the Swedish Nation, was nearing completion, Lundborg asked Bunak for a report on the most important Russian and Ukrainian anthropologists to find out whether there were any significant anthropometric studies in the area of the former Russian empire.82 Lundborg asked Bunak to take part in a large project, an inventory of the races of Europe, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, to be published by the Gallach Institute in Barcelona.83 When The Racial Character of the Swedish Nation appeared in English, Swedish, and German editions in 1926 and 1928, it received international acclaim as a pioneering work, which confirmed Sweden’s position as an international leader within the field
    of racial biology.84

    V. V. Bunak lavished praise over Lundborg’s achivement: “Without doubt, your work will come to play a leading role in the development of anthropological science and will, for a long time to come, constitute an unattainable standard for similar enterprises in other countries.”85 Bunak responded by sending Lundborg his work, Ein Versuch der Bestimmung des Fenotypes der Haarfarbe mittels der Spectro Photometrie.86 Lundborg, in turn, informed Bunak about his “extensive genealogical research on various population groups in Sweden,” and inquired about church records in Russia.87 In 1926, before it had appeared in English, Lundborg obtained a copy of Manoilov’s article on his blood reaction through Filipchenko, and enthusiastically offered to have it published in Swedish.88 Lundborg corresponded with professors Kol’tsov in Moscow, E. S. Ivanitsky-Vasilenko in Saratov, and A. S. Shchepot’ev in Minsk, but unfortunately their exchanges do not appear to have been preserved.89

    The contacts between Statens Institut för Rasbiologi and its Soviet colleagues further intensified in 1927, when Lundborg’s assistant, Dr. Wilhelm Wolfgang Krauss,90 made a European research tour in March-April to anthropological institutions in Munich, Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Leningrad, and Helsinki “to study anthropological collections and museums and confer with leading scientists within the fields of anthropology and racial biology.” The institute reported to the government that “Krauss delivered lectures for the anthropological societies in Moscow and Leningrad about Swedish racial conditions and racial research in Sweden.”91 In addition, their study trip gave Krauss a chance “to study racial types from all parts of the Soviet Union.”92

    Lundborg, in turn, invited Filipchenko to carry out research and to give a popular scientific lecture in Uppsala on eugenics, “for instance on the attempts at eugenic development in the lands of the Soviet Union or something similar,” scheduled for September-October 1927.93 The peak years in the contacts between Swedish and Soviet racial biologists were 1926 and 1930. Each of these two years SIFR received 12 academic publications from Soviet colleagues, with Filipchenko being Lundborg’s most active Soviet partner.94 Zolotar’ev donated five books to the Uppsala Institute, all on the anthropology of Finno-Ugric peoples.95 Most of the works sent to SIFR from Soviet colleagues came from Manoilov, his own as well as studies of his work by other Soviet scholars.96

    Five medical academic works by a L. Leven, dealing partly with research on twins, were donated to the Uppsala Institute. All in all, 48 scientific books and articles were sent to the Institute from Soviet scholars between 1923 and 1931.97 In addition to these donations, the Institute subscribed to a number of Soviet journals on racial biology, two in 1924 and 1925, four in 1927, two in 1929, and one in 1931, reflecting the circulation of eugenic ideas throughout the 1920s.


    THE SEVERING OF CONTACTS

    The onset of the economic depression, the rise of Hitler and fascism in Europe, Stalin’s consolidation of power, and the launching of his “revolution from above” spelled the beginning of the end for this burgeoning intellectual network. Some of the leading Soviet eugenicists, among them Kol’tsov and Zolotar’ev, attempted to adjust their research to fit the ideological requirements, but their works on the genealogy of revolutionaries, reformers in Russian history, and on the genetic sources of young proletarians promoted through Soviet institutions and universities
    were criticized as artificial and strained. To his critics, Filipchenko remained a middle-class intellectual.98 In 1928 Filipchenko and Kol’tsov were denounced by Soviet authorities.

    Kol’tsov’s eugenic ideas were labeled “fascist,” Filipchenko was relieved of his teaching responsibilities in January 1930, and his Department of Experimental Zoology was disbanded. The Bureau of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences was transformed into the Laboratory of Genetics, and its leadership passed on to one of Filipchenko’s students after his untimely death from meningitis in May 1930.99 The Russian Eugenics Society was disbanded and its publications suspended. From 1930 on, efforts to produce a Soviet, socialist eugenics were ridiculed.

    In 1931 the Great Soviet Encyclopedia condemned eugenics as a “bourgeois doctrine.”100 In 1931, when Lundborg published his work Die Rassenmischung beim Menschen, in which he again repeated his warnings about the perilous dangers of miscegenation,101 Soviet anthropologists at the Institute for the study of the Nationalities of the USSR and the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography denounced his argumentation, linking him to Hitler and Mussolini.102

    With this, Lundborg’s contacts with his Soviet colleagues ended. SIFR’s annual report for 1932 contains no references to journals received, or indeed any further correspondence with Soviet colleagues.103 From that point on, the only information the institute could report on eugenics in the USSR was that which was reported in the international journals. The SIFR activities’ report for 1933, for example, limited itself to listing the leading Soviet research institutions in the field and their reported budget size.104


    RACIOLOGY IN THE GARDEN STATE: SOVIET PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS 1930-1956

    Soviet anthropologists who had done research on the possible negative effects of miscegenation were repressed after 1931.105 Soviet eugenicists who escaped persecution were isolated from the rest of the international academic community for much of the following quarter century. All sciences became subject to strict ideological control, and for the next 25 years, Lysenkoist biologists regularly invoked the eugenicist legacy to discredit the very topic of genetics itself as “fascist.”

    Under Stalin, Soviet anthropology closely mirrored the official party line that races reflected certain stages in the historical development and that, in the evolution from primitive societies along the timeline of historical materialism, races would mix and racial traits would become less distinct, until they would finally disappear altogether. This scheme interpreted miscegenation as a by-product of sociohistorical development, a measurement and sign of progress; the imagined archetypical Soviet man was thus imagined as a racial hybrid. Therefore Soviet anthropologists rejected the position that race “does not exist” as “subversive- idealistic,” arguing that the “present racial face” of the earth should be understood as a “phase.”106

    Valerii Bunak appears to have lost much of his contact with his westerncolleagues after 1932: until 1958, he published only one scientific Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 55
    paper outside the USSR.107 Toeing the party line, by 1938 Bunak was describing race as a historical category.108 He continued his research within anthropological institutions, continuing to focus on craniometry, heredity, and race.109 Bunak spent much of the 1950s crisscrossing the Russian SFSR, surveying the anthropological makeup of the Russian people, “something that yielded an enormous amount of material, including several thousand photographs, which were used for methodical and racial-ethnic investigations.”110



    Comparing himself to a gardener, Stalin stated in 1934 that “people must be carefully and attentively cultivated the way a gardener tends a favorite tree.”111 Historian Amir Weiner characterizes Stalinist society as a “garden state,”112 arguing that “In the wake of attaining socialism, the reference to any organ as an artificial creation by a foreign organization marked it as a weed to be uprooted from the Soviet garden,”113 and how “[g]roups and individuals perceived to be hostile were now referred to in biological or hygienic terms—for example, vermin, pollution, or
    filth—and were subjected to ongoing purification.”114

    By the late 1930s, the Soviet authorities had come to embrace the paradoxical notion that the national cultures, which they were actively constructing, were primordial and essential. In the words of historian Terry Martin, “Soviet policy had evolved into an oxymoron: ascribed primordialism.”115 Soviet ideology affirmed the existence of human races while sharply condemning racism. While the Stalinist authorities rejected eugenics, they could use biological metaphors—typical for eugenicists—to rationalize their policies. For instance, in 1939 Molotov presented the Soviet annexation of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine in terms of Soviet aid to “Belarusian and Ukrainian blood brothers.”116


    NEW DIRECTIONS IN SWEDISH EUGENICS

    Internationally, the 1930s was a period of redefinition and transformation in the field of eugenics, a move away from Nordic racial mysticism and focus on purity of blood and race towards population science and psychiatry.117 If Stalin’s “revolution from above” ended SIFR’s contacts with Soviet eugenicists in 1931, the rise of Hitler similarly became a turning point in the history of the institute. From 1930, its status and influence declined steadily. Lundborg’s retirement in June 1936 was accompanied by conflicts regarding his successor and the organization of the institute.

    Gunnar Myrdal was instrumental in securing the appointment of Lundborg’s successor, fellow social democrat Gunnar Dahlberg (1893-1956).118 Under Dahlberg’s directorship explicit racism
    was abandoned, and the institute developed in a different direction. Dahlberg argued that “there are no reasons, whatsoever, to assume that in Sweden there ever existed a pure, Nordic race which was later diluted,”119 openly mocking the racial romanticism of his predecessor.

    In the innumerable works on the topic of the Nordic race, you search, in vain, for a truly ugly person among the illustrations provided. … The Nordic race is characterized as blue- or green-eyed, with relatively fair hair, dolichocephalic with an elongated face [långskallig med ovalt ansikte]. Further, this race—which is supposed to be particularly well represented in our country—is relatively
    tall with smartly built bodies. True, there are relatively many individuals here Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 57 who are fair-haired and blue-eyed, etc. Yet, foreign racial researchers who visit our land are often disappointed when they see the somewhat overweight middle-aged Swedes. The ideal type they imagine is not so common.

    … Of the draftees, only 10 per cent lived up to the requirement for the Nordic race. In Germany the percentage is certainly much lower, and in Southern Germany, more so than in Northern Germany. There are no exact numbers.120 Alva and Gunnar Myrdal’s influential 1934 book, Crisis in the Population Question, [Kris i befolkningsfrågan], addressed the perceived and much debated problem of falling birth rates. The influential book heralded a new approach: further population decline would be combatted through improved social conditions and various welfare benefits.

    Neither Dahlberg nor the Myrdals had any interest in völkisch racial mysticism; instead of regarding the population as a biological entity they regarded it as a mathematical and physical quantity; a diminishing population was a social matter rather than a biological one.121 The Swedish Social Democrats were the driving force behind the Sterilization Acts of 1934 and 1941,122 which reflected a modernist utilitarianism that placed the needs of society above those of individual groups for the benefit of social progress.123

    Lundborg was certainly a strong supporter of eugenic sterilization,yet the Swedish sterilization laws came into being shortly before his retirement, at a time during which his influence had waned.124 Given the sometimes intense debates on the topic, it may be important to note Mattias Tydén’s findings that sterilizations in Sweden were, as a rule, neither racist nor forced.125 Further, there was no state policy for sterilization in Sweden. Sterilization was in principle voluntary and this arguably applied to most of the 62,888 documented cases. The practices also changed radically from the time the law was introduced in the 1930s until its abolishment in the 1970s.126


    PARADOXES OF POST-1956 SOVIET RACIOLOGY

    Stalin’s death brought changes to the field of Soviet physical anthropology. Filipchenko was partially rehabilitated, even though his heavy emphasis on nature or biology as a determining force faced continued criticism.127 Similarly, the 1931 condemnation of Lundborg appears to have been relaxed. During the quarter-century of isolation under the ideologically contained Stalinist regime, there had been important changes within the field of physical anthropology in the West, reflected in a sharp decline in the use of racial terminology.128

    When Bunak and other Soviet physical anthropologists resumed their contacts with Western colleagues after 1956, they often perceived Soviet raciology as anachronistic and old-fashioned.129 Under the headline “race as a historical category,” reflecting official ideology, Bunak asserted in 1961 that “races are classified along the lines of morphological dichotomy; e.g., the 58 per anders rudling light-skinned race divides up into long- and broad-headed forms, and these subdivide further along analogous lines.”130

    On his 70th birthday later that year, Bunak was celebrated as a leading Soviet scientist. A festschrift in his honor highlighted some of the contradictions within Soviet physical anthropology: “Together with other Soviet anthropologists and ethnographers he made a decisive contribution to the struggle against anti-scientific racist ideas of some reactionary scholars and political and societal figures of the capitalist countries,”131 his colleague Mikhail F. Nesturkh (1895-1979) wrote, emphasizing Bunak’s contributions to “human morphology, craniology, constitutionology [konstitutionologii], hematology, medicine, genetics, and Darwinism. V. V. Bunak’s studies also dealt with the area of anthropogenesis and raciology [rasovedenie], or ethnic anthropology.”132

    Nesturkh commended Bunak for having introduced craniological terms, such as “brachycephalization” [brakhikefalizatsiia] into Soviet scholarship before they appeared in the West and credited him with introducing “the so-called ‘geographic method’ of racial analysis.” which was then “used to distinguish a number of racial types, for instance, the Baltic race.”133 Bunak made a distinction between, on the one hand, racial science [rasovedenie], his work to classify human races, which was what he and other Soviet physical antropologists regarded as something positive and progressive, and, on the other hand, racism, which was condemned as ideologically unacceptable and regressive.134




    In this vein, Nesturkh’s work pedagogically listed schemes to outline the differences between the biological races: lips, noses, eyelids, eye and hair color, while arguing that race played no role in economic development: “The myth of the ‘pure race’ is an invention of the racists that contradicts scientific facts. In any case, the degree of racial ‘purity,’ or of mixing of peoples, never has played any role in their socio-economic and cultural development.”135

    Summoning up the perspective of official Soviet raciology for a western readership, Nersturkh concluded Races and racial differences are not something eternal, immutable and inherent in man. In accordance with their general conception of the constant change taking place in the human body under the influence of social, economic, and natural factors, Marx and Engels maintained that “even naturally emerging clan differences, such, for instance, as racial, etc., differences … can and must be eliminated by historical development.”136

    Soviet power had racialized and ethnicized the “backward” cultures, something Nestukh regarded as progress. “Such peoples as the Tajiks, Mari and others who occupied the ‘outskirts’ of tsarist Russia and had been doomed to gradual extinction, soon overcame their former economic and cultural backwardness.”137 Nesturkh asserted that “[t]he full-scale development of communist construction marks a new stage in the development of national relations in the USSR, a stage in which there will be further progress and nations will draw still closer together.

    The racist theories disseminated by the imperialists are intended to sow discord and enmity among peoples.”138 He went on to argue that “[b]y the 1980s the material and technical basis of communism will have been built in the USSR,” something which would ultimately extinguish racial differences.139 Thus, somewhat contradictorily, Soviet rule, which had prevented racial “extinction” of “backward” peoples after 1917, optimistically forebade the disappearance of racial differences within a near future.

    To a contemporary observer, the post-Stalin Soviet physical anthropologyappears paradoxical. Soviet raciologists often delivered harsh ideological critiques of German racism, distinguishing between their own “concrete raciology,” and “racism,” which they sharply denounced as “irrational thinking.”140 Bunak rebuked German “Nordicists,” whereas his colleague N. N. Cheboksarov declared himself “decisively against … essentially anti-scientific” attempts “to discover the Northern race wherever the German language is spoken.”141




    Yet, Soviet raciologists did not question the existence of a “Nordic race.” On the contrary, Bunak affirmed the existence of “authentically Nordic Norwegians” as a racial group.142 Bunak’s festschrift carried contributions that relied partly on the research by the Uppsala racial biologists—works that by the 1960s had become quite controversial in Sweden.143 Thus, the same Soviet raciologists who sharply rebuked Hans F. K. Günter regarded his Uppsala mentor Herman Lundborg’s work on “the Swedish race” as unexceptional.144

    In 1965, and again in 1976, Bunak’s work on the “The Racial History of Eastern Europe” referenced Lundborg’s The Racial Characters of the Swedish Nation.145 This article, Bunak’s final one, was illustrated with photos of race-typical Ukrainians, Mari, and Udmurt, in embroidered folk costumes to underline and emphasize their ethnicity. Bunak’s 1976 photographic representation of ethnicized racial types, which illustrated his last academic article, so happened to appear next to a photo from Lundborg’s raciological collection of Swedish “racial types” from the 1920s, depicting a race typical of “peasant woman with child from Dalecarlia”—indeed the same picture that had been used by Hans F. K. Günther.

    Figure 7
    Representatives of the two strands of the Europoid race. Nesturkh, Races of Mankind, p. 25. The image for Fig. 19 was originally published in Alette Schreiner, Antropologische
    Lokaluntersuchungen in Norge: Valle, Hålandsdal ind Eidfjord (Oslo: Dydwad, 1930), p. 63 and Tafel III. Schreiner described the person in the photo as a “prototypical Viking.”

    The photographs, while illustrating two separate articles in the anthology, compliment one another, illustrating the similarilties and interdependence of the two raciological traditions.




    PARADOXICAL LEGACIES

    More than 30 years after the scheduled arrival of communism, and 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Bunak is still held in high regard in Russia.147 The existence of biological human races is often taken for granted in the nationalizaing Soviet successor states, where concepts such as genofonds, genotypes, and studies of the physiological and psychological particularities of particular peoples enjoy certain popularity in an otherwise often passionately anti-Soviet intellectual environment.148 The paradoxical residue of Soviet raciology is still discernable in the nationalizing narratives in several Soviet successor states.

    In Sweden, where the government declared the protection of the “Nordic race” a key national priority and SIFR was established in near-consensus among its intellectual and social elites, there is today a similar elite consensus around the need to reject this legacy. Herman Lundborg and his institute are now used to illustrate the dangers of racism and departures from the principles of liberal democracy. In 2007, as part of a campaign to raise public awareness about the history of racial biology and sterilization, the Forum for Living History [Forum för Levande Historia], an opinon-making government agency established in 2003, mass-produced educational materials and exhibits to the effect that human races do not exist.149

    Two years later Ulf Pettersson, professor of Medical Genetics and current holder of the chair once instituted for Herman Lundborg at what today is called the Department of Genetics and Pathology at Uppsala University, in an op-ed in the leading Swedish daily similarly argued that “there are no human races since the genetic varations show a genetic continuity and the distributions of
    ‘races’ do not coincide with any genetic boundaries” and therefore “the arguments for abolishing the term ‘race’ for human beings are overwhelming.”150 Thus, race still retains an important place in the Swedish intellectual discourse, albeit for the opposite reasons from 1920.

    CONCLUSION

    In the immediate post-World War I years, the State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala acted as a middleman in the international eugenic movement, integrating not only German but also Soviet eugenicists into the international academic community. The 1920s saw significant cooperation in this field, and to some extent the works of Scandinavian eugenicists became a source of inspiration for Soviet anthropologists, who admired their ambitious work to chart the “racial characters” of the nation.

    While the exchanges navigated considerable ideological differences, these were by no means insurmountable. Soviet experimental Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 65
    eugenics and raciology were carried out in co-operation with international scholars and published in international journals. While eugenics was less prominent in the USSR than it was in much of Western and Central Europe, ethnology and ethnography played an important role in the drawing of internal Soviet boundaries. Following the rise of Stalin, in 1931 eugenics was condemned as “bourgeois” and “fascist” whereas, somewhat paradoxically, primordialism and the belief in the existence of physical human races became integral components of Stalinist ideology.

    The Soviet Union rejected racism and Soviet racial anthropologists came to sharply condemn the racist policies of Nazi Germany as well as racial discrimination in the United States and South Africa. Ironically, after 1956, Soviet scholars again came to rely on Lundborg as an authority on human races. Studies by Valeri Bunak and other Soviet raciologists came to share several characteristics in common with that of Lundborg, categorizing representatives of various groups according to racial characteristics, sharing conceptual frameworks of the authenticity of races, and compiling collections of photos of the various racial types, depicting them in folk costumes, embroidered shirts, or other ethnic markers. Lundborg’s works were not only regarded as
    unexceptional; they were invoked by Soviet physical anthropoligists to affirm a version of historical materialism which interpreted race a “historical category,” as part of the narrative of “scientific marxism-leninism.” Paradoxically, a far-right, anti-communist “scientific” racist who idenitified Slavs as “less qualified racial elements” remained an authority for Soviet Marxist scholars well into the 1970s, long after he had fallen into disrepute in Sweden.


    NOTES

    1 The author wishes to thank Erika Dyck, Lars Edgren, Wiebke Kolbe, Ulf Zander and two anonymous reviewers for reading and commenting on drafts of this article and generously sharing their ideas and time. He also wishes to acknowledge the generous funding from the International Research Training Group 1540, ”Baltic Borderlands: Shifting Boundaries of Mind and Culture in the Borderlands of the Baltic Sea Region” at the Ernst Moritz Arndt Universität Greifswald, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

    2 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), p. 109-11.

    3 Gunnar Broberg and Mattias Tydén, Oönskade i folkhemmet: rashygien och sterilisering i Sverige, 2d ed. (Stockholm: Dialogos förlag, 2005), p. 30-31. For an introduction on comparitive European eugenics, see Marius Turda and Paul J. Weindling, eds., Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe 1900-1940 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2007), p. 2, 6.

    4 Gunnar Broberg, Statlig rasforskning: En historik över Rasbiologiska institutet. Ugglan: Lund Studies in the History of Science and Ideas No. 4 (Lund: Avdelningen för Idé- och lärdomshistoria vid Lunds universitet, 1995), p. 56, Broberg and Tydén, Oönskade i folkhemmet, p. 38-39. On the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, see Mark B. Adams, Garland E. Allen, and Sheila Faith Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics: A Comparative Institutional Study of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor (United States), the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (Germany), and the Maxim Gorky Medical Genetics Institute (USSR),” Osiris 20, 1 (2005): 232-62, and Hans-Walter Schmuhl, “Rassenhygiene in Deutschland—Eugenik in der Sowjetunion: Ein Vergleich,” in Dietrich Beyrau, ed., Im Dschungel der Macht: Intellektuelle Professionen unter Hitler und Stalin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), p. 360-71.

    5 In 1923, for instance, Günther delivered six of SIFR’s 10 public lectures, dedicated to European Rassenkunde, followed by 11 lectures in anthropology the following year. Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 13, 15, 45. On Günther and Scandinavia, see Terje Emberland and Matthew Kott, Himmlers Norge: Nordmenn i det storgermanske prosjekt (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 2013), p. 56-65 and Jon Røyne Kyllingstad, Kortskaller og langskaller: fysisk antropologi i Norge og strien om det nordiske herremeneket (Oslo: Spartacus, 2004), 166-74. Günther’s racial thoughts were disseminated by J. F. Lehmann, one of the most prominent far-right German publishing houses, which came to influence fascist and nordicist thought across central and Eastern Europe. Alan E. Steinweis, Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 25.

    6 The most authoritative studies are Mattias Tydén, Från politik till praktik: de svenska steriliseringslagarna 1935-1975. Rapport till 1997 års steriliseringsutredning. SOU 2000:22 (Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, 2000); Broberg, Statlig rasforskning; Gunnar Broberg, “Statens institut för rasbiologi – tillkomståren,” in Tore Frängsmyr and Gunnar Broberg, eds., Kunskapens trädgårdar. Om institutioner och institutionaliseringar i vetenskapen och livet (Stockholm: Atlantis, 1988), p. 178-221. On the international contacts, see the articles by Paul Weindling, Peter Weingart, Dorothy Porter, and Nils Roll-Hansen in Scandinavian Journal of History, 24, 2 (1999), and Nils Roll-Hansen, “Eugenic Practice and Genetic Science in Scandinavia and Germany,” Scandinavian Journal of History, 26, 1 (2001): 75-86.

    7 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 151.

    8 H. Lundborg and J. Runnström, The Swedish Nation in Word and Picture: Together with Short Summaries of the Contributions Made by Swedes Within Their Fields of Anthropology, Race-Biology, Genetics and Eugenics. A Jubilee Book Given Out, with the Cooperation of Experts Commissioned by the Swedish Society for Race-Hygiene (Stockholm: Hasse W. Tullberg, 1921), p. 40f; Herman Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara: befolkningsfrågor i biologisk och rashygienisk belysning (Gothenburg: Ernst v. Hansson, 1934), p. 7; and Thomas Etzemüller, “Die Romantik der Rationalität”: Alva & Gunnar Myrdal – Social Engineering in Schweden (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2010).

    9 Tydén, Från politik till praktik, p. 22, 551 ff.

    10 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 40-41.

    11 Loren R. Graham, “Science and Values: The Eugenics Movement in Germany and Russia in the 1920s,” American Historical Review, 82, 5 (1977): 1158; and Amir Weiner, Making Sense of War: The Second World War and the Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) p. 7-39. Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 67

    12 Such eugenicists and geneticists included H. J. Muller (1890-1967) and John Burton Haldane (1892-1964). Stefan Kühl, Die Internationale der Rassisten: Aufstieg und Niedergang der internationalen Bewegung für Eugenitk und Rassenhygiene im 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1997), p. 93; and Adams, Allen, and Faith Weiss, “Human Heredity and Race,” p. 248.

    13 N. N. Medvedev, Iurii Aleksandrovich Filipchenko: 1882-1930. Izdanie vtoroe, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe (Moscow: Nauka, [1978] 2006), p. 70.

    14 Herman Lundborg, Rasbiologi och rashygien: Nutida kultur- och rasfrågor i etisk belysning, 2d ed. (Stockholm: Norstedts, 1922), p. 2.

    15 “Ett friskt folk av god rasbeskaffenhet är vår största rikedom: Två uppmärksammade föredrag av prof. H. Lundborg i lördags,” Blekinge Läns Tidning, 18 February 1924. Tidningsurklipp 1924-1925, samlade av H. Lundborg, Uppsala Universitets Arkiv (henceforth UUA), Statens institut för rasbiologi (henceforth SIFR). F1:1. Tidningsurklipp 1895-1927.

    16 Lundborg, Rasbiologi och rashygien, p. iii.
    17 Herman Lundborg, “Rasbiologi,” Stockholms Dagblad, 1 August 1923, and “Rasproblemet,” Vårt Land och Folk, 17 August 1923. Tidningsurklipp 1922-1923, samlade av H. Lundborg, UUA, SIFR. F1:1.

    18 Herman Lundborg, “Den svenska rastypen och dess bevarande,” Stockholms Dagblad, 7 July 1921, UUA SIFR F1:1,

    19 Lundborg, Rasbiologi och rashygien, 40. On Scandinavian stereotypes of Slavs, see Per Anders Rudling, “‘An Entirely Different Culture and an Alien Race:’ Scandinavian Ukrainian Encounters on the Canadian Prairies, 1910-1940,” Scandinavian-Canadian Studies, 30 (2011): 32.
    20 Lundborg, Rasbiologi och rashygien, p. 28.

    21 Herman Lundborg, letter to Sigurd Furugård, editor of National-socialisten, Molkom, 30 September 1924. Tidningsurklipp 1924-1925, samlade av Herman Lundborg, UUA, SIFR F1:1. Earler in 1924, the three brothers of Birger, Gunnar, and Sigurd Furugård founded the first Swedish Nazi movement, the small Svenska Nationalsocialististiska Frihetsförbundet or Swedish National Socialist Freedom League.

    22 1931, “No. 547, Det Nya Sverige, utkast till ett politiskt program. Från Lbg. 21/10,” 1932, “No. 373, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte: Frankreich und die Neger: Heft 29. Köpt, Lbg., 5/12,” UUA, SIFR, D2:1, Assessionskatalog för böcker och tidsskrifter 1922-1938.

    23 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 9. Emphasis in the original.
    24 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 46-47.
    25 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 22. Emphasis in the original.
    26 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 80.
    27 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 46. Emphasis in the original.

    28 On Soviet eugenics, see Paul Weindling, “German-Soviet Medical Co-operation and the Institute for Racial Research, 1927- c. 1935,” German History, 10, 2 (June 1992): 177-206; Adams, Allen, and Faith Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics”; and Mark B. Adams, The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). On eugenics in the People’s Republic of Poland, see William de Jong Lambert, “Przyczynek do myśli eugenicznej i łysenkizmu w polskiej biologii okresu międzywojennego i w latach powojennych,” in Magdalena Gawin and Kamila Uzarczyk, eds., Eugenetika-biopolityka-państwo: Z historii europejskich ruchów eugenicznych w pierwszej połowie XX w. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton and Instytut Historii PAN, 2010), p. 187-204.

    29 Kühl, Die Internationale der Rassisten, p. 93.

    30 Andrea Graziosi, “Stalin’s Foreign and Domestic Policies: Dealing with the National Question in an Imperial Context, 1901-1926,” paper first presented at the conference Istoriia Stalinizma: itogi i problemy izucheniia, Moscow, 5-7 December 2008, p. 4. 68 per anders rudling

    31 Yuri Slezkine, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment: or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic Review 53, 2 (1994): 203.

    32 Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2001), p. 32, 276.

    33 Graziosi, “Stalin’s Foreign and Domestic Policies,” p. 2, 4. This certainly did not prevent Stalin from measuring out collective punishment and deporting entire peoples, something Terry Martin describes as Soviet ethnic cleansing. Terry Martin, “The Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing,” Journal of Modern History, 70, 4 (1998): 813-61, and Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire, p. 328-43.

    34 Per Anders Rudling, The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014).

    35 Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire, p. 260; and Elissa Bemporad, “The Yiddish Experiment in Soviet Minsk,” East European Jewish Affairs, 37, 1 (2007): 95.

    36 Gero Fedke, “Wie aus Bucharern Usbeken und Tadschiken wurden: Sowjetische Nationalitätenpolitik im Lichte einer persönl ichen Rivalität,” Zeitschrift fürGeschichtswissenschaft, 54, 3 (2006): 214.

    37 Francine Hirsch, “Toward an Empire of Nations: Border-Making and the Formation of Soviet National Identities,” The Russian Review, 59, 2 (2000): 203-4.

    38 Hirsch, “Toward an Empire of Nations,” p. 204, 225.

    39 Hirsch, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithica: Cornell University Press, 2005), p. 91-92, 236-37; Hirsch, “Race without the Practice of Racial Politics,” Slavic Review, 61, 1 (2002): 33.

    40 Hirsch, “Race without the Practice of Racial Politics,” p. 37.

    41 Medvedev, Filipchenko, p. 140; Weindling, “International Eugenics,” p. 185; Adams, Allen, and Faith Weiss, “Human Hereditary and Politics,” p. 248.

    42 D. M. Golda, “Iu. A. Filipchenko—osnovopolozhnik otechestvennoi genetiki (1882- 1930 gg.),” Tsitologiia i genetika, 16, 1 (1982): 73.

    43 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1145, 1155.

    44 Mark B. Adams, “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” in Loren R. Graham, ed., Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 100.

    45 On Vavilov, see Peter Pringle, The Murder of Nikolai Vavilov: The Story of Stalin’s Persecution of One of the Greatest Scientists of the Twentieth Century (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008)

    46 Golda, “Iu. A. Filipchenko,” p. 73. Sapiehin led an experimental farm in Odessa, which developed into a selection station in 1918 and, in 1928, the All-Union Selection and Genetics Institute. Between 1933 and 1939 he served as deputy director of the Institute of Genetics in Moscow, 1933-1939. “Sapiehin, Andrii,” in Danylo Husar Struk, ed., Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Vol. IV (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), p. 534.
    47 Adams, “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” p. 99.
    48 Kühl, Die Internationale der Rassisten, p. 93.

    49 Iur. Filipchenko, Razvitie izotomy (Isotoma ctsinerea Nic.—Collemboka) (St. Petersburg: Stasiulevich, 1912); Iu. A. Filipchenko, Chto takoe evgenika (Petrograd: Akademiia nauk, kommissiia po izuch. Estestv. Proizv. Sil. Biuro po evgenika, 1921); Kak nasleduiutsia razlichnye osobennosti cheloveka (Petrograd: Akademiia nauk. Kommissiia po izuch. Estestv. Proizv. Sil. Biuro po evgenika, 1921).

    50 For instance, a Yiddish-language edition appeared as Iu. A. Filipchenko and G. Grinberg, Populere biologye (Moscow: Tsentraler felker farlag fun F.S.S.R., 1929).

    51 Golda, “Iu. A. Filipchenko,” p. 73.

    52 Viktor Vabrianovich Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoriia russkogo naroda po antropologichskim dannym (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka”, 1965), p. 11. Anuchin was a pioneer in Russian physical anthropology, publishing the first monograph Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 69 “on the anthropology (somatology [somatologii]) of the Russian population,” based upon a study of conscripts to the Russian army between 1874 and 1883. V. V. Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoriia russkogo naroda, p. 5, citing D. N. Anuchin, O geograficheskom raspredelenii rosta muzhskogo naselenia Rossii (po dannym o vseobshchei voinskoi povinnosti v imprerii za 1874-1883 g.) in Zapiski Imperatorskogo russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestvo (po otdeleniiu statistiki), t. VII, vyp. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1889).

    53 See, for instance, Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoriia russkogo naroda, p. 12; Crania aramenica: issledovanie po antropologii Perednei Azii (Moscow: Gos. Univ. Antrop. nauchno. issled. inst. Trudy, vyp. 2, 1927).

    54 Adams, Allen, and Faith Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics,” p. 248.

    55 Weindling, “German-Soviet Medial Co-operation,” p. 187. On brain research, see Micheal Hagner, Zur Geschichte der Elitengehirnforschung (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 2007); Michael Hagner, “The Pantheon of Brains,” in Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, eds., Making Things Public: Athmospheres of Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), p. 126-31.

    56 E. O. Manoiloff, “Discernment of Human Races by Blood: Particularly of Russians from Jews,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10, 1 (1927): 21. 57 Anna T. Poliakowa, “Manoiloff’s ‘Race’ Reaction and Its Application to the Determination of Paternity,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10, 1 (1927): 25.

    58 Poliakowa, “Manoiloff’s ‘Race’ Reaction,” p. 27.
    59 Poliakowa, “Manoiloff’s ‘Race’ Reaction,” p. 29.
    60 See, for instance, Manoiloff ’s “Discernment of Human Races,” p. 11-21 and “Chemical Reaction of Blood for Definition of Sex in Man, Animals, and Dioecious Plants:
    Third Modification,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 13, 1 (1929): 29-68.

    61 Nicollete P. Naidoo, Goran Štrkalj, Thomas J. M. Daly, “The Alchemy of Human Variation: Race, Ethnicity and Manoiloff’s Blood Reaction,” Anthropological Review, 70 (2007): 37-38.
    62 Naidoo, et al., “The Alchemy of Human Variation,” p. 41.
    63 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1148-49.

    64 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1147, citing V. V. Bunak, “Evgenicheskie zametki,” Russkii evgenichsekii zhurnal, 2 (1924): 58; S. S. Vermel’, “Prestupnost’ evreev,” Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal, 2 (1924): 153-58; and Bunak, “Materialy dlia sravnitel’noi kharakteristiki sanitarnoi konstitutsii evreev,” Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal, 2 (1924): 142-52.

    65 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1149 and Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 33, 38-39, 95. On Mjøen, see Jon Røyne Kyllingstad, “Norwegian Physical Anthropology and the Idea of a Nordic Master Race,” Current Anthropology, 53, S5, The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Histories, National Styles, and International Networks (2012), p. S51-S53.

    66 Nikolai Krementsov, “Eugenics in Russia and the Soviet Union,” in Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Eugenics (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 422; and Adams, Allen, and Faith Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics,” p. 250. Similar discussions on insemination and eugenics took place in other European countries in the previous decade. See Christina Benninghaus, “Great Expectations: German Debates about Artificial Insemination in Humans around 1912,” Studies in the History of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (2007): 374-92, and Christine Schreiber, Natürlich künstliche Befruchtung?: Eine Geschichte der In-vitrio-Fertilisation von 1878 bis 1950, Vol. 178 of Kritische Studien zu Geschichtswissenschaften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007).

    67 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1146, citing N. K. Kol’tsov, “Kritika i bibliografiia: Trudy 2-go mezhdunarodnogo evgenicheskogo s’’ezda,” Russkii evgenicheski zhurnal, 2 (1924): 69.

    68 Paul Weindling, “German-Soviet Medial Co-operation,” p. 177-79.
    70 per anders rudling
    69 Kühl, Die Internationale der Rassisten, p. 259.
    70 Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 34. Emphasis in original.

    71 For instance, in 1921 Filipchenko’s Varability and Evolution (Izmenchivost’ i evoliutsiia) was co-published by Soviet, German, Swedish, and British specialists, and type set and printed by Albert Bonniers’ publishing house in Stockholm. Iu. A. Filipchenko, Izmenchivost’ i evoliutsiia (Peterburg, Berlin, Stockholm, and London: Izdatel’stvo Z. I. Grzhebina, 1921). In 1927, it appeared in German as Jur. Philiptschenko, Variabilität und Variation (Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger, 1927).

    72 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 42.

    73 “Till Konungen, 18 februari 1924,” Inst:s årsberättelse för år 1923 (Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri aktiebolag, 1924), p. 14. UUA, SIFR, B1:1, Från styrelsen utgångna skrivelser 1921-1934, 1924, no. 2. In 1923, SIFR acquired the Russian Bulletins of the Bureau of Eugenics No. 1 (1923) and a 1922 volume by Filipchenko. They also acquired for their collections Filipchenko’s Variabilité de crane chez. Les Mammifières I and II and his Cranes des éspères savages. “Statens institut för rasbiologi, Accessionskatalog 1922- 1927,” UUA, SIFR, D2:1.

    74 “Prof. Philiptschenko, Leningrad, Inreserekommendation, Uppsala, 7 juni 1924.” UUA, SIFR, E2:2. Till institutet inkomna skrivelser 1922-1924, 1924, no. 161.

    75 Herman Lundborg, “No. 8, Dr. Leo Shternberg, Leningrad, Avböjande svar å br. 3-12 I.D,” UUA SIFR, B2:1, från institutet utgångna skrivelser 1925. On Shternberg, see Sergei Kan, Lev Shternberg: Anthropologist, Russian Socialist, Jewish Activist (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2009).

    76 UUA, SIFR, B2:3, från institutet utgångna skrivelser 1927. W[ilhelm] K[raus], no. 58, Prof. Bunak, V. Crania Lapponica, från prof. Santesson, 8 February 1927.

    77 Herman Lundborg to V. Bunak, 20 January 1925, “No. 33, Prof. D. W. Bounak, Moskva, Erkännande av mottagen skrift,” UUA, SIFR, B2:1.
    78 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 40.
    79 Herman Lundborg, “Till Konungen, 22 Januari 1925,” Inst:s årsberättelse för år 1924,” p. 8-9. UUA, SIFR, B1:1, 1925, No. 1.
    80 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 44-45.
    81 Herman Lundborg, “Till Konungen, 27 Februari 1927,” “1927, no. 2,” Inst:s årsberättelse för år 1926,” p. 6. UUA, SIFR, B1:1.

    82 However, Bunak’s report arrived too late to be included in Lundborg’s work. Lundborg to Bunak, 16 August 1926, “No. 439, Prof. V. Bunak, Moskva, ‘Begäran om uppgifter för Antr. Suec. 1926,’” Lundborg till Bunak, 3 Dec. 1926, “No. 653. Prof. Bunak, Moskva, ‘Tack för uppgifter till A. S. 1926.’” UUA, SIFR, B2:2, från institutet utgångna skrivelser, 1926.

    83 Lundborg to Bunak, 3 September 1926, “No. 483. Prof V. Bunak, Moskva, ‘Ang. Inst-Gallachs bok.’” UUA SIFR, B2:3; Lundborg to Bunak, 15 February 1927, “No. 79. Bunak, V. Professor, Moskva, ‘Ang. antr. unders. av Europas folk.’” UUA, SIFR, B2:2.
    84 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning. p. 43.
    85 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning. p. 24.

    86 “No. 273, V. V. Bunak, Moskva, ‘Tack för översänd skrift.’” UUA SIFR, B2:1.

    87 “No. 462, Prof. V. Bunak, Moskau, ‘Förfrågn. Om familjeregistr. i Ryssland’”; Herman Lundborg to V. V. Bunak, 3 December, 1925. UUA, SIFR, B2:1.

    88 No. 10, Prof. J. Philiptschenko, Leningrad. – Begärt särtryck.” Herman Lundborg, 7 January 1926. UUA, SIFR, B2:2. E. O. Manoilov’s article would soon appear in English as “Discernment of Human Races by Blood”; No. 172, Herman Lundborg, “Manoiloff, E. O. Leningrad. Om dr. E. D. Schötts undersökning” undated letter, April 1927. UUA, SIFR, B2:3.

    89 “No 64, Prof. Kolzoff, Moskva;” No. 107, Dr. Iwanitzky-Wassilenko, Saratov. Anh. om serol. särtryck,” “No. 564, Prof. Schepotieff, Minsk. – Om övers. av begärt tryck.” UUA, SIFR, B2:2. A. S. Shchepot’ev was one of the pioneers and founding faculty Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 71 members of the Faculty of Biology at the Belarusian State University, founded in 1922. “Istoriia Biologicheskogo Fakulteta BGU,” http://www.bio.bsu.by/dekanat/history.
    phtml. Accessed 15 March 2013. In 1928, he was fired from his position at the Belarusian State University after refusing to switch languages and teach in Belarusian. See National’nyi Archiv Respubliki Belarus (NARB), f. 701, op. 1, d. 104, ll.
    59-60.

    90 Lundborg’s anti-Semitism does not appear to have constituted an obstacle to working closely with Krauss, a Viennese of Jewish background. Broberg and Tydén, “Eugenics in Sweden,” p. 88.

    91 “Till Konungen, 20 Februari 1928. Inst:s årsberättelse för 1927,” p. 11-12, UUA, SIFR, B1:1. 1928, No. 1; Herman Lundborg till Bunak, 15 February 1927. “No. 80, Bunak, V. Professor, Moskva. Om Krauss’ resa,” No. 81, ”Beförderung für Dr. Krauss,” No. 82, “Legationen för de Soc. Rådsrepublikernas Union, Sthlm. Bef. för Krauss. Samma brev, svenska.” Herman Lundborg’s description of Krauss’ activities for the purpose of obtaining a Soviet visa stated that “Wilhelm Wolfgang Krauss, assistant at Statens rasbiologiska institut, is travelling to the USSR in order to establish scientific connections with the field of Anthropology, visit anthropological institutes and study the Soviet anthropological collections.” UUA, SIFR, B2:3. All 15 February1927.

    92 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 41.

    93 Herman Lundborg to Filipchenko, 8 February 1927. “No. 62. Philiptschenko, J. Professor, Leningrad. Begäran om prof. föredrag.” UUA, SIFR, B2:3.

    94 Filipchenko’s works had titles such as Studien über Variabilität; Über Spaltungsprozesse: Variabilität und Variation; and The Norwegian Eugenic Programme. Professor Bunak sent five works, with titles such as Ein Versuch des Bestimmung Des Fenotypes den Haarfarbe, mittels der Spec to Photometrie; On the Norms of Physical Development; Untersuchung d.Elemente der Irisfärbung beim.; Einige Daten über die Hohäuaggl. UUA, SIFR, D2:1.

    95 F. G. Ivanov-Diatlov, Nabliudeniia vracha na Kol’skom poluostrove (1 ianvaria – 11 maia 1927 g.) pod redaktsiei D. A. Zolotar’eva, E. G. Ivanov-Diatlev (Leningrad: Gosud. Russk. Geogr. Obshchestvo, Karel’sko-Murmanskaia kommissia, 1928), listed as Kolalapparna (ryska); Om Volgafolkens etnografi; Aperance ethnologiques de la population region d’ouest de Leningrad et de la république carelienne, Avec. 3 cartes ethnographoques; Karelerna i Ryssland; Expédition Ethnologique en Laponie. UUA, SIFR, D2:1.

    96 Manoilov sent Lundborg his works on his “race reaction.” Titles included Weitere Erfahrungen über meine chem. Blutreaktion: Eine chem. Blutsreaktion zur Rass. Best. Beim Menschen; Unters. über chron. Rekok. U. Anaphylaxie, Asthma, bronchine als und phylakt. Erscheinung; Discernment of Human Races by Blood; Untersuchungen über Unterscheidung russischer organischtherapistischer Preparate (Sexualhormone) staatliger Fabrikation mittels Reagenzien; Chemical Reactions of Blood for Definition of Sex in Man, Animals, and Dioecious Plants, and A Rare Case of Hereditary Hexadachtylism. He also received the works by Manoilov’s students, such as Anna Poliakowa, “Maniloff’s ‘Race’ Reaction and Its Application to the Determination of Paternity,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10, 1 (1927): 23-29; Anna Scharpiro, Experimentelle Studies ü.d. Zusammenhang d. Manoiloffischen reaktion; and E. F. Rastagaieff, Dr. Maniloffs Reaktion (R.M.) u Ihre Anwendung i. d. Veterinärmedizin. Statens institute för rasbiologi, Assessions-katalog 1922-1927, 1928-1932,” UUA, SIFR, D2:1

    97 Among journals received are Journal Russe Anthropologique, Bulletins of the Bureau of Eugenics, The Journal for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Research papers of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology. “Statens institut för rasbiologi, Assessions-katalog 1922-1927, 1928-1932,” UUA, SIFR, D2:1.

    98 Graham “Science and Values,” p. 1156.
    99 Adams, “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” p. 103.
    100 Graham, “Science and Values,” p. 1156, 1158.
    72 per anders rudling
    101 Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 44.
    102 Hirsch, Empire of Nations, p. 254.

    103 Herman Lundborg, “1925, No. 1 “Till Konungen, 22 januari 1925.” Inst:s årsberättelse för år 1924 10; 1926, No. 1. Idem., “Till Konungen, 11 februari 1926.” Insts:s årsberättelse för år 1925, 11; 1928, No. 1 Idem., “Till Konungen, 20 februari 1928. Inst:s årsberättelse för 1927, (Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri aktiebolag, 1930), 15-16; 1932, Idem., “Till Konungen, 27 januari 1932.” Inst:s årsberättelse för 1931, 7-8; 1933, No 1-3, Idem., “Till Konungen,” Inst:s årsberättelse för 1932, 7-8. UUA, SIFR, B1:1.

    104 The report lists the Scientific research chair in Kyiv, with 25 chairs, “which appear to be institutes, organized in several departments;” the State Institute for Experimental Agronomy, the Scientific Meloriation Institute, the Institute for Mechanical Processing of Coal and Iron Ore, and the Hydrological Institute, in Leningrad; and the Scientific State Institute for Health Protection, under which a number of Departments, such as the State Institute for Experimental Therapy, the Research Institute for Nutrition of the People’s Commissariat for Health, the Department of Biology, section Racial biology, and, finally, the Institute for Tropical Diseases, all in Moscow. Herman Lundborg, “Till Universitetsberedningen,” no. 17, 1933, 17 Okt. 1933, Bilaga 2, “Förteckning å självständiga forskningsinstitut (de viktigaste). /Efter Minerva, Jahrbuch der gelehrnten Welt, årg. 1930, 1933, No. 1-3. 7 February 1933. Herman Lundborg, ”Till Konungen,” Inst:s årsberättelse för 1932, 5. UUA, SIFR, B1:1.

    105 Hirsch, “Race without the Practice of Racial Politics,” 36, n. 27; Krementsov, “Eugenics in Russia and the Soviet Union,” p. 425.

    106 Hirsch, “Race without the Practice of Racial Politics,” p. 34-36.

    107 V. V. Bunak, “Typology of Growth Curves of Human Body,” The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26, 1 (1940): 69-85. Cited in M. F. Nesturkh et al., eds., Sovremennaia antropologiia, Trudy Moskovskogo obshchestva ispytatelei prirody, Vol. 14 (Moscow: Izdetel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1964), p. 16. 108 N. F. Nesturkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” in Nesturkh et al., eds., Sovremennaia antropologiia, p. 13.

    109 Adams, “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” p. 108. See also Mark B. Adams, “Eugenics as Social Medicine in Revolutionary Russia: Prophets, Patrons, and the Dialectics of Discipline-building,” in Susan Gross Salomon and John F. Hutchinson, eds., Health and Society in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 200-23. Also, see Paul Weindling, Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe 1890-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

    110 N. F. Nest urkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” in Nesturkh et al., eds., Sovremennaiaantropologiia, p. 10. On Bunak’s work during the Stalinist era, see V. V. Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoriia russkogo naroda, p. 14.

    111 Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941 (New York: Norton, 1990), p. 320.
    112 Weiner, Making Sense of War, p. 31.
    113 Weiner, Making Sense of War, p. 144.
    114 Weiner, Making Sense of War, p. 35.
    115 Terry Martin, “Modernization or Neo-Traditionalism?: Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism,” in Sheila Fitzpatrick, ed., Stalinism: New Approaches (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 360.
    116 Pravda, September 19, 1939, cited in Komu my idem na pomoshch’ (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe voennoe izdatel’stvo Narkoma Oborony Soiuza SSR, 1939), p. 27.

    117 Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 82-83.

    118 Gunnar Broberg and Mattias Tydén, “Eugenics in Sweden: Efficient Care,” in Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR 73 Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2005), p. 92.

    119 Gunnar Dahlberg, Arv och ras (Stockholm: Kooperativa förbundets bokförlag, 1940), p. 159-60.

    120 Dahlberg, Arv och Ras, p. 166-68.

    121 Broberg and Tydén, “Eugenics in Sweden,” p. 97. For an overview of the intense debates on the Swedish sterilization laws in the late 1990s, see Johan Stenfeldt, Dystopiernas seger: Totalitarism som orienteringspunkt i efterkrigstidens svenska idédebatt (Lund: Agerings bokförlag, 2013), 229-50.

    122 The motion for the new sterilization act of 1941 was signed by 43 members of parliament,of which 11 were women. 34 were Social Democrats, 7 were members of the Social Democrats’ Agrarian coalition partners (Bondeförbundet), and two were Liberals. Maija Runcis, Steriliseringar i folkhemmet (Stockholm: Ordfront, 1998), p. 161; and Anders Björnsson, Skuggor av ett förflutet: Bondeförbundet och trettiotalet. En idéhistorisk essä (Lund: Sekel Bokförlag, 2009), p. 113. On the opposition of the Swedish Communist Party to the sterilization laws, see Kristian Svenssson, Kravaller och steriliseringar: Vem har fått skriva vänsterns historia? (Malmö: Skrivareförlaget, 2001), p. 13, 49.

    123 Porter, “Eugenics and the Sterilization Debate in Sweden and Britain,” p. 151.

    124 “One ought to try to prevent the reproduction of such human beings, from which one can expect an inferior offspring. An appropriate aid in this direction is sterilization, which ought to be carried out with the consent of the person in question, or his or her guardian. Sterilization of healthy or racially valuable individuals should be explicitly forbidden.” Lundborg, Västerlandet i fara, p. 38; Broberg and Tydén, “Eugenics in Sweden,” p. 109-10.

    125 Under the first Sterilization Act, in force from 1 January 1935 until 30 June 1941, nearly 3,000 people were sterilized. In 1941 the law was amended, following which the numbers of sterilizations rose sharply, averaging between 1,500 and 1,900 operations per year until the mid-1970s. According to the official statistics, between 1935 and 1975, a total of 62,888 people were sterilized in Sweden. Tydén, Från politik till praktik, 41, 59.
    126 Tydén, Från politik till praktik, 529-30.

    127 A 1978 re-edition of Filipchenko’s work described the Soviet eugenicist in the following terms: “Filipchenko clearly overestimated the enlightening effects of eugenics. … [W]ithout corresponding social, revolutionary reeducation it is impossible to achieve one’s ideals, no matter how high or humane they may be. Among Filipchenko’s errors was his belief that society would be able to rid itself of hereditary diseases and, more importantly, raise its intellectual level through eugenics. His inadequate attention to natural-historical factors, and his heavy emphasize on man’s genetic and biological environment is the result of a certain methodological carelessness.

    Filipchenko turned out to be totally helpless, particularly in questions regarding the social structures of society.… Guided by statistical data, mechanically replacing biological methods with statistical data, Filipchenko arrived at an extraordinarily primitive explanation regarding the role of the intelligentsia in class society. According to Filipchenko, the intelligentsia is the result of a successful co-incidence of ‘hereditary embryos,’ rather than societal relations. It should be pointed out that the phenomenon of the appearance of the intelligentsia is first and foremost a social phenomenon, rather than a biological process. … [T]his testifies to Filipchenko’s erroneous conclusions regarding the social functions of eugenics and man’s social and biological environment.” Medvedev, Filipchenko, p. 177.

    128 Whereas 78% of the articles in the 1931 volume of the Journal of Physical Anthropology employed terms like “Caucasoid,” “Negroid,” and “Mongoloid” for racial classification, 36% did so in 1965, and only 28% in 1996. Leonard Lieberman, Robert C. Kirk, 74 per anders rudling and Alice Littlefield, “Perishing Paradigm: Race 1931-99,” American Anthropologist, 105, 1 (2003): 110-13.

    129 Wilton Marion Krogman, review of V. V. Bunak, G. F. Debets, M. G. Levin, and eight other contributors, Contributions to the Physical Anthropology of the Soviet Union, Russian Translation Series, Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnhology, Harvard University 1, 2, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 36, 3 (1961): 244.

    130 V. V. Bunak, “Race as a Historical Category,” in V. V. Bunak, Y. Y. Roginskiy, G. F. Debets, M. G. Levin, and N. N. Cheboksarov, eds., Contemporary Raciology and Racism, trans. Earl W. Count, Part II of International Journal of American Lingusitics, 27, 3 (July, 1961), (Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, 1961), p. 37.
    131 N. F. Nesturkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” in Nesturkh et al., eds., Sovremennaia antropologiia, p. 13.
    132 Nesturkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” p. 11.
    133 Nesturkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” p. 13; The introduction of this term was apparently something Bunak took great pride in, and he returns to it in his works. See, for instance, V. V. Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoriia russkogo naroda, p. 13.

    134 N. F. Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, trans. George Hanna (Moscow: Progress Publishers 1963) p. 17-18.
    135 Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, p. 65.
    136 Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, p. 9.
    137 Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, p. 106.
    138 Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, p. 108.
    139 Nesturkh, The Races of Mankind, p. 108
    140 Bunak, “Race as a Historical Category,” p. 37.
    141 Cheboksarov, “The Racial Types,” p. 120.

    142 Cheboksarov, “The Racial Types,” p. 118, citing Halfdan Bryn, Homo Caesius. Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, II, No. 2 (1930): 27.

    143 A. E. [Murent] Mourant, “Gruppy krovi narodov severnoi Evropy i Azii,” in M. F. Nesturkh et al., eds., Sovremennaia Antropologiia. Trudy Moskovskogo Obshchestvo Ispytatelei Prirody, Tom. xiv (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1964), 47, 53, citing Bertil Lundman, “Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Lappenforschung.” Anthropos, 47 (1952): 119-32. On Lundman, see Broberg, Statlig rasforskning, p. 84; Broberg and Tydén, Oönskade i folkhemmet, p. 165, 206.

    144 Bunak, “Race as a Historical Category,” p. 16; Bunak, Cherep cheloveka i stadii ego formirovania u iskupaemykh liudei i sovremennykh ras (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk, 1959), p. 205; N. N. Cheboksarov, “The Racial Types of the German People,” in Bunak et al., Contemporary Raciology and Racism, p. 133, citing G. Retzius Crania suecia antiqua (Stockholm, 1900), p. 63.

    145 Bunak, ed., Proiskhozhdenie i etnicheskaia istoria russkogo naroda, p. 276, 278, citing H. Lundborg and K. Linders, The Racial Characters of Svedish [sic] Nation (Uppsala, 1926); Valeri V. Bunak, “Rassengeschichte Osteuropas,” p. 7-101, in Karl Saller and A. A. Abbie, eds., Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, 4. Lief, Europa II: Ost- und Nordeuropa (Munich, Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1976), p. 16, citing Lundborg and Linders, The Racial Characters of the Swedish Nation.

    146 Valeri Bunak, Cherep cheloveka, p. 222, 225, citing Herman Lundborg, “Die Rassenmischung beim Menschen,” Bibliographia Genetica, VIII, 1930; and Viktor V. Bunak, “Rassengeschichte Osteuropas,” in Saller and Abbie, eds., Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, p. 16, citing Lundborg and Linders, The Racial Characters of the Swedish Nation.

    147 In 2001, the 110th anniversary of his birth in was commemorated with a volume in his memory.

    148 To mention a few recent examples, in 2005 a Minsk academic publisher published an “anthropology of the Belarusian ethnos.” See Alaiksei Mikulich, Belarusy u henetychnai prastory: Antrapalohiia etnasu (Minsk: Tekhnalohiia, 2005). In 2011, the Ivan Franko State University in Lviv wrote into its mission statement the university’s committement to “safeguarding the intellectual gene pool of the nation” [zberezhennia intelletualnoho henofondu natsii].
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and USSR.pdf   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Estonians, Belarusians Racial Types.jpg 
Views:	567 
Size:	138.8 KB 
ID:	112147   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	europids.jpg 
Views:	626 
Size:	177.1 KB 
ID:	112148   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Lundborg1.jpg 
Views:	643 
Size:	150.4 KB 
ID:	112149  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	races of mankind.jpg 
Views:	84 
Size:	590.7 KB 
ID:	112150   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	racial classification.jpg 
Views:	264 
Size:	52.5 KB 
ID:	112151   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	racial variations.jpg 
Views:	312 
Size:	119.2 KB 
ID:	112152   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tools.jpg 
Views:	228 
Size:	106.5 KB 
ID:	112153  


Similar Threads

  1. Oldest Contacts between Baltic and Finnish Languages
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, June 12th, 2016, 09:05 AM
  2. Something Weird Found at the Bottom of the Baltic Sea
    By Sigyn in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Sunday, June 17th, 2012, 02:44 AM
  3. Protect the Baltic Sea while it´s still not too late!
    By Blutwölfin in forum Natural Sciences & Environment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Friday, May 25th, 2007, 03:12 AM
  4. The Baltic Mentality: Story-telling around the Baltic Sea 1550-1800
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 05:40 PM
  5. Evolution of the Baltic Sea: "How the Baltic Sea was changing"
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Natural Sciences & Environment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, December 18th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •