Notes

---

Introduction

1 “Liliia saved my life,” Chichibabin observed in a 1993 interview. “We met when I was living through a very terrible, very catastrophic time … I was close to going mad – or to killing myself. And at that moment Liliia appeared in my life.” Chichibabin, “Ia siuda stremilsia vsiu zhizn’,” 91.

2 Mukha, “O pervom vystuplenii Borisa Chichibabina,” 44.

3 Mukha, 45.

4 The precise date of the poem is unclear. Chichibabin recalls its composition in 1959 or 1960. See Chichibabin, “Pis’mo Aideru Emirovu,” 77.

5 “O priznanii nezakonnymi i prestupymi repressivnykh aktov protiv narodov, podvergshikhsia nasil’stvennomu pereseleniiu, i obespechenii ikh prav (14 noiabria 1989 g),” 570.

6 “Doklad N.S. Khrushcheva XX s’’ezdu Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, 25 fevralia 1956g,” 372.

7 Burlatsky is quoted in Lur’e and Maliarova, 1956: Seredina veka, 107.

8 Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four, 46. As Aleksandr Nekrich observes with solemnity, the Crimean Tatars “might just as well have not existed” (The Punished Peoples, 136). In the superb Black Sea (1995), Neal Ascherson incorrectly states that Khrushchev “had specifically named and denounced the Tatar deportation” at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party (32).

9 Liliia Karas’-Chichibabina, interview with the author, 16 May 2013.

10 Liliia Karas’-Chichibabina, interview with the author, 23 May 2013.

11 Reddaway, “The Crimean Tatars,” 252.

12 In an emblematic example, prominent Ukrainian civic activist Yevhen Zakharov, director of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, ended a widely circulated Facebook post commemorating the anniversary of the Crimean Tatar deportation in May 2016 with Chichibabin’s poem, which – as Zakharov attests – “has been imprinted in the memory since childhood.” See “S’ohodni – 72 roky, iak deportuvaly kryms’kykh tatar.” The poem has its own page on the website of Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. See also, for example, Bekirova, “Boris Chichibabin.”

13 On the campaign trail, Democratic hopeful for the US presidency Pete Buttigieg spoke of the “gift” of literature, which helps us “better understand what it is like to be alive.” See “Pete Buttigieg: ‘Shortest Way Home.’”

14 Nazar, “Mystetstvo pro viinu: Mizh tvorchistiu ta ahitkoiu.”

15 I take the term nets of kinship from Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6. As Richard Rorty explains, “the goal of this manipulation of sentiment is to expand the reference of the terms ‘our kind of people’ and ‘people like us.’” Rorty, “Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality,” 74.

16 Steven Pinker uses the term empathy circle in The Better Angels of Our Nature, 210.

17 Pinker, 210–13.

18 Hunt, Inventing Human Rights, 38.

19 C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures, 70.

20 Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge, 171.

21 Nussbaum, Poetic Justice, 72–7.

22 Charles Altieri goes so far as to liken some of Nussbaum’s work to “imperialist philosophizing,” in Davis and Womack, Mapping the Ethical Turn, 44.

23 Nussbaum, Poetic Justice, 12. Richard A. Posner contests Nussbaum’s strident instrumentalization of this literary capacity in public life; in his view, it tethers the aesthetic to the ideological and “enlists literature … in the service of therapeutic and political goals.” Posner also says of Nussbaum: “She does not cite a single case of a nation, a group, a community, or even a single person edified by the novels of Dickens or James or of Wright or Forster, or any other works of literature.” Posner, “Against Ethical Literature, Part Two,” 398–400. The case of Liliia Karas’-Chichibabina alone is a riposte to Posner’s “aestheticist” critique.

24 Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge, 51. James’s original use of the term can be found in Art of the Novel, 45.

25 Take, for instance, a much-publicized 2013 study in Science by psychologists David Comer Kidd and Emanuele Castano. Drawing from a series of experiments on human subjects, they conclude that reading literary fiction enriches our facility to anticipate and understand the mental states of others. Lyric poetry does not figure anywhere in the analysis. Kidd and Castano, “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind,” 377–80. See also Zunshine, Why We Read Fiction, and Keen, Empathy and the Novel.

26 “Lyric poetry seems to me to raise different issues,” Nussbaum writes. “They are important to the continuation of the larger project; I leave them for those who are more involved than I am in the analysis of poems.” Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge, 46.

27 Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 286.

28 Among those stars are often constructive group discussions about literary works and their influence on our “moral self-exploration,” as Larry P. Nucci argues. See Nucci, Education in the Moral Domain, 177 and 212.

29 Steven Pinker refers to literature as “moral technology” in “The Seed Salon: Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein,” 48.

30 Rorty, Contingency, Irony, Solidarity, 146.

31 See, for example, Tsur, Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics.

32 The Swiss scientist and physician Hans Jenny (1904–72) is widely considered the pioneer of cymatics. See Jenny, Cymatics.

33 Hayden White, The Practical Past, 49 and 59.

34 Paul Ricoeur uses a different metaphor to impart a similar message: in his view, historical events drive narratives about the past as plot points, influencing the stakes of the story and the significance of its characters, determining who matters and who matters more. See Time and Narrative, 1:208.

35 Rilke, “Brief an Witold Hulewicz, 13.11.1925,” 899.

36 Apter, The Translation Zone, 243.

37 Wellek, Concepts of Criticism, 262.

38 Shafak, “The Silencing of Writers in Turkey.”

39 The Geography of Strabo, vol. 3, bk. 7.3.6, 189.

40 The Geography of Strabo, vol. 1, bk. 2.5.22, 478–80.

41 Sezer, “Balance of Power in the Black Sea,” 159. A more expansive cultural study of this kind would ideally include the other Black Sea countries of Georgia, Bulgaria, and especially Romania, which has had a particularly sizeable Crimean Tatar emigré community since 1783.

42 King, The Black Sea, 4. Constantine Pleshakov similarly regrets the neglect of Crimea’s Ottoman inheritance in contemporary Western discussions of the region. The impact of Istanbul “was no less significant and lasting than Kiev’s or Moscow’s.” Pleshakov, The Crimean Nexus, 71.

43 Ivanova, The Black Sea, 268. For an innovative interdisciplinary study of the Black Sea in the field of international relations, see Samokhvalov, Russian-European Relations.

44 The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, 2016, 35.

45 See, for instance, “Ukraine Seeks Closure of Turkish Straits after Russian Aggression”; “Genshtab: ChF Rossii mozhet unichtozhit’ protivnika eshche pri vydvizhenii s bas”; Urcosta, “Prospects for a Strategic Military Partnership.”

46 Ascherson, Black Sea, rev. ed., xi.

47 During the Second World War, Bratianu, a Romanian historian who was instrumental in promoting the Black Sea as an object of knowledge, taught a course entitled “The Black Sea Question” at the University of Bucharest. His default metaphor for the Black Sea was a “plaque tournant,” a “turntable” around which societies and cultures rotated and coalesced. See Bratianu, La mer Noire, 43.

48 In 1914 Ahmad Cavad (1892–1937) wrote a poem during a journey from Istanbul to his native Azerbaijan entitled “Çırpınırdın Karadeniz” (“Çırpınırdı Qaradəniz” in Azerbaijani; “The Black Sea Convulsed”), which became the lyrical foundation for a very popular Turkish march and a beloved song in both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Cavad was murdered in the Stalinist purges of 1937. See Zeyrek, “Şehit Ahmed Cevad,” 27.

49 Hrushevs’kyi, “Na porozi Novoï Ukraïny,” 236.

50 Belinskii, “Russkaia literatura v 1840 godu,” 427.

51 Kulish, “Kazky i baiky z susidovoï khatky, perelyts’ovani i skomponovani prydnipriantsem,” 305.

52 Quoted in Kaplan, Kültür ve Dil, 117.

53 Lenin, “O rabote Narkomprosa,” 331.

54 Mykola Skrypnyk, Statti i promovy z natsional’noho pytannia, 163–4.

55 Cited in Borak, Atatürk ve Edebiyat, 61–2. See also Karpat, Çağdaş Türk Edebiyatinda Sosyal Konular, 43–4.

56 Atatürk, Atatürk’ün Fikir ve Düşünceleri, 147; emphasis mine.

57 Halman et al., Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 4:31.

58 Nazım Hikmet, “Şevçenko’nun kalemi,” 58.

59 Sontag, “The Erdogan Experiment.”

60 Şakir Selim, “Vatan ve şiiriyet,” in Küneşten bir parça / Okrushyna sontsia, ed. Miroshnychenko and Kandym, 664. Throughout this book I translate the polysemous terms vatan (Crimean Tatar and Turkish), batkivshchyna (Ukrainian, motherland), rodyna (Russian, motherland), and otechestvo (fatherland) as “homeland.”

61 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 10–11 and 29.

62 Lazzerini, “The Crimea under Russian Rule,” 124. For more on the Crimean Tatar emigrations to the Ottoman Empire, see Karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830–1914.

63 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), f. 384, op. 8, d. 434, l. 23; cited in Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 2:616.

64 As Williams argues, “the Crimean ASSR was, from 1921–1945, established as an unofficial Crimean Tatar republic,” a fact that poses a “conundrum for many Crimean Tatar nationalists” who are unwilling to acknowledge the role of the Soviet state in consolidating a Crimean Tatar national identity. Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 337.

65 Williams, 360. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 138–40.

66 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 360.

67 Most of the Crimean Tatar deportees were sent to the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) and the Ural Mountains region. Other destinations included the Kazakh SSR and various oblasts of the eastern Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). Chubarov, “Peredmova,” 7. See also Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 4:180.

68 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 4:181–2.

69 Vozgrin, 4:181–2.

70 “Tovarishchu Stalinu, 10 maia 1944g,” in Deportatsiia narodov Kryma, ed. Bugai, 85; and “Postanovlenie GOKO No. 5859ss, 11 maia 1944g,” in Deportatsiia narodov Kryma, ed. Bugai, 70–3.

71 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 383.

72 Bugai, L. Beriia–I. Stalinu, 146. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 155.

73 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 378–9. For more on the provocations of Russian partisans, see Statiev, “The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance,” 310–11. To this list of “betrayals,” an internal Soviet memorandum of December 1941 adds “perfidious demagoguery” (kovarnoi demagogii), which allowed the Germans to win over “a certain part of the Crimean Tatars” (nekotoruiu chast’ krymskikh tatar; emphasis mine) to their side. See “Iz doklada Sekretaria Krymskogo OK VKP(b) V. S. Bulatova v Politbiuro TsK VKP(b), 20 dekabria 1941g” in Deportatsiia narodov Kryma, ed. Bugai, 56.

74 Broshevan and Tygliiants, Izganie i vozvrashchenie, 34.

75 Uehling, Beyond Memory, 53. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 161–2.

76 Bugai, L. Beriia–I. Stalinu, 146.

77 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 382.

78 Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 169.

79 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 385.

80 Uehling, Beyond Memory, 38 and 79.

81 Documents 59, 61, and 66 in Deportatsiia narodov Kryma, ed. Bugai, 86–9. On the NKVD soldiers’ lack of advance knowledge of the deportation, see Uehling, Beyond Memory, 38 and 79. Kobulov and Serov’s “efficiency” was due to their experience coordinating the deportations of the Karachay, Kalmyk, Chechen, Ingush, and Balkar peoples from the Caucasus months before. See Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 387, and Nekrich, The Punished Peoples, 108n.

82 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 4:192.

83 Vozgrin, 4:193.

84 Crimean Tatars sometimes refer to the deportation as the ikinci sürgün or “second exile” – the first being the mass emigration to Ottoman Turkey following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 1783. Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 109 and 374. As we will see in chapter 8, the displacement of Crimean Tatars and the crackdown on Crimean Tatar civil society on the peninsula after 2014 have invoked cries of a “third exile” and a “hybrid deportation.”

85 “Reizova, Shadie Dzhaferovna,” 90.

86 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 4:197.

87 According to Michael Rywkin, nearly eight thousand Crimean Tatars perished during the deportation itself. See Rywkin, Moscow’s Lost Empire, 67.

88 Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 237. The special settlement regime was lifted in April 1956, two months after Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech.”

89 Gul’nara Bekirova, Krymskotatarskaia problema v SSSR, 1944–1991, 108. According to Williams, the total percentage of those killed in the first five years was likely lower, “probably thirty percent of the deported population.” Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 401.

90 Ol’ga Glezer et al., “Krym v fevrale 1954,” 10.

91 Pleshakov, The Crimean Nexus, 90.

92 Glezer et al., “Krym v fevrale 1954,” 10.

93 “Stenogramma zasedaniia Prezidiuma Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR,” 48.

94 “Gorbanevskaia ob osnovanii ‘Khroniki tekushchikh sobytii,’” 46. See also Raskina, “Natal’ia Gorbanevskaia,” 523. On the Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR and its standing as the “first Soviet human rights NGO,” see Horvath, “Breaking the Totalitarian Ice,” 148.

95 Chervonnaia, “Krymskotatarskoe natsional’noe dvizhenie (1994–1996),” 16.

96 “Crimean Tatar Activist Confined in Psychiatric Hospital,” and “‘Povtoriu na dopyti shche raz.” The Mejlis has pushed back against such measures, and not without controversy. In late 2015, for instance, Crimean Tatar activists launched an economic and energy blockade of Crimea, which caused power outages across the peninsula and prompted a state of emergency. The Mejlis was subsequently banned as an “extremist” organization by the Russian Supreme Court. See Cooper, “Crimean Tatar Elected Body Banned in Russia.”

97 Since the Ottoman period, writes Hakan Kırımlı, Crimea has been the “cardinal issue in determining Turko-Ukrainian relations.” See Kırımlı, “The Ottoman Empire and Ukraine, 1918–21,” 205.

98 Sonevytsky, “Radio Meydan,” 110.

99 Gessen, “Russia Declares War on Eurovision”; “President Erdoğan Congratulates Jamala on Her Eurovision Victory.” In response to a popular video clip of Jamala’s performance modified with Turkish-language subtitles, a YouTube commenter remarked that “we rejoiced as if Turkey had won.” The comment was liked over 315 times. See “Ukrayna Eurovision 2016.”

100 Sasse, The Crimea Question, 4.

101 Arkanov, Ot Ilʹicha do lampochki, 171.

102 Said, Culture and Imperialism, 160.

103 Charron, “Whose Is Crimea?,” 225.

104 Snyder, “The Causes of the Holocaust,” 153.

1 Imperial Objects

1 Ségur, Mémoires; ou, Souvenirs et anecdotes, 179.

2 “Sadrâzamın Başkanlığında yapılan toplantıda Kırım ve Rusya Konularında alınan kararlar (15 Haziran 1783),” in Osmanlı belgelerinde Kırım Hanlığı, ed. Ünal and Gurulkan, 310.

3 Ünal and Gurulkan, 310–12.

4 Miranda, Puteshestvie po Rossiiskoi Imperii, 135.

5 Ségur, Mémoires; ou, Souvenirs et anecdotes, 175.

6 Ségur, 190.

7 Ségur, 191–2.

8 Ségur, 192.

9 Potemkin, “Rasporiazheniia svetleishago kniazia Grigoriia Aleksandrovicha Potemkina-Tavricheskago,” 287.

10 “Ekaterina II – G. A. Potemkinu (20–21 maia 1787),” in Ekaterina II i G. A. Potemkin, ed. Lopatin, 216.

11 For more on the “Greek project” for Crimea, see Zorin, By Fables Alone, 92–120.

12 “G. A. Potemkin – Ekaterine II (5 Avgusta 1783),” in Ekaterina II i G. A. Potemkin, ed. Lopatin, 180. As David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye observes, “[d]espite its Hellenic associations, or partly because of them, it was the Orient that the Crimea most often evoked in Catherine’s day, both in Russia and abroad.” Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Russian Orientalism, 47. As Susan Layton notes, “the Crimea would indeed acquire an aura of eastern exoticism in Russian literature.” See Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 1.

13 Said, Culture and Imperialism, 69.

14 Cambrensis, The Topography of Ireland, 68–70.

15 Pope, An Essay on Man, 14.

16 Tuan, Space and Place, 4.

17 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 2:418.

18 Holderness, Notes Relating to the Manners and Customs of the Crim Tatars, 49–50.

19 Sasse, The Crimea Question, 4.

20 Said, Culture and Imperialism, 225.

21 “Önsöz,” in Osmanlı belgelerinde Kırım Hanlığı, ed. Ünal and Gurulkan, 3. Koca Yusuf Paşa’s report, for instance, refers to Peter I as “Mad Peter” in “Sadrâzamın Başkanlığında yapılan toplantıda Kırım ve Rusya Konularında alınan kararlar (15 Haziran 1783),” in Osmanlı belgelerinde Kırım Hanlığı, ed. Ünal and Gurulkan, 313.

22 Çağman, “III. Selim’e sunulan bir ıslahat raporu,” 225.

23 “Rus işgalinden sonra Kırım’ın genel durumu (21 Aralık 1787),” in Osmanlı belgelerinde Kırım Hanlığı, ed. Ünal and Gurulkan, 335.

24 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 2:420.

25 Chepurin, “Orientir,” 47–61. Agnia Grigas argues that a “reimperialization policy trajectory” is at the heart of contemporary Russian foreign policy. See Grigas, Beyond Crimea, 10.

26 Arendt, The Life of the Mind, 203.

27 Mostafa, “The Cairene Sabil,” 34.

28 Sinyavsky, Strolls with Pushkin, 46.

29 Brodsky, “A Guide to a Renamed City,” 93. In reference to literature of and about Saint Petersburg, Brodsky writes of a “second Petersburg – the one made of verse and of […] prose.”

30 Schönle, “Catherine’s Appropriation of the Crimea,” 10–11.

31 Lotman, “Mezhdu veshch’iu i pustotoi,” 305.

32 Liusyi, Krymskii tekst v russkoi literature, 32.

33 Liusyi, 66.

34 Bobrov, Tavrida, 27.

35 Bobrov, 86.

36 Al’tshuller and Lotman, “Primechaniia,” 819; Bayley, Pushkin, 85.

37 Pushkin, Bakhchisaraiskii fontan, 177. Hereafter cited by page number.

38 Bobrov, Tavrida, 235.

39 Bobrov, 237.

40 For an example of a view on the khan’s putative marginality, see Bayley, Pushkin, 83.

41 Belinskii, “Sochineniia Aleksandra Pushkina,” 318.

42 Baudelaire, Petits poèmes en prose, 39.

43 Sandler, Distant Pleasures, 77.

44 Shakespeare, Macbeth, 1062 (3.1.60–4), emphasis added.

45 Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, 50.

46 Boym, 50.

47 Voloshin, “Dom poeta,” 80.

48 Voloshin, “Kul’tura, iskusstvo, pamiatniki Kryma,” 341.

49 “Dyskusiia ‘Krym v ukraïns’kii literaturi.’”

50 Nabokov, “Commentary,” in Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, 256.

51 Pushkin, “Otryvki iz puteshestviia Onegina,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5:28.

52 Tumanskii, “Elegiia,” 135–6.

53 Benediktov, “Oreanda.” 130–1.

54 Nekrich, The Punished Peoples, 105.

55 Voloshin, “Kul’tura, iskusstvo, pamiatniki Kryma,” 340–1.

56 Herzen [Gertsen], “Gonenie na krymskikh tatar,” 966–7.

57 “Muhacir Türküleri,” 27.

58 Tanpınar, 19uncu asır Türk edebiyatı tarihi, 441. If one prominent source is to be believed, the emotionality of Kemal’s plays prevailed in his personal life as well. Sultan Abdülhamid remembers Kemal, whom he banished to Lesbos in 1876 and counted “among his victims” (mağdurlarım arasında), as a “fickle and complicated” (karışık ve çapraşık) but nonetheless sincere man with a tendency to wear his heart on his sleeve. See İsmet Bozdağ, Abdülhamid’in Hatıra Defteri, 47–51. Decades later, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk would reportedly declare Namık Kemal “the father of his emotions.” See Parla, The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876– 1924, 93.

59 Greenleaf, Pushkin and Romantic Fashion, 2. Responding to his critics in 1830, for instance, Pushkin likened Bakhchisaraiskii fontan to the product of a young, naive poet prone to an exaggeration of feeling. See Pushkin, Pushkin on Literature, 253.

60 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 358.

61 Tanpınar, 19uncu asır Türk edebiyatı tarihi, 407.

62 Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 14. See also Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 15; and Fisher, Between Russians, Ottomans, and Turks, 79.

63 Tanpınar, 19uncu asır Türk edebiyatı tarihi, 400. See also Evin, Origins and Development of the Turkish Novel, 11.

64 Zürcher, Turkey, 74.

65 Tanpınar, 19uncu asır Türk edebiyatı tarihi, 410.

66 I am very grateful to Etem Erol for our discussions about this poem.

67 Kemal, Cezmi, 123.

68 Kemal, 125.

69 Kemal, 125.

70 Kemal, 125.

71 Akçura, Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset, 28–30.

72 Akçura, 31.

73 Akçura, 33.

74 Akçura, 40. Ali Kemal is also remembered today as the paternal great-grandfather of British prime minister Boris Johnson.

75 In Türkçülüğün esasları, Gökalp dismisses those who conceive of the nation primarily according to territory as “geographic nationalists.” See Parla, 36.

76 Öztürkmen, “Folklore on Trial,” 203, 211n13; Landau, Pan-Turkism, 38.

77 Gökalp, “Altın Destan,” 135.

78 Landau, Pan-Turkism, 1; emphasis mine.

79 Yurdakul is referred to as the “first nationalist poet of Turkey” in Schamiloglu’s “Tatar or Turk?,” 240. For the sake of clarity and consistency I refer to him by his pen name “Yurdakul” (which can be translated as “slave to the homeland”), although “Mehmet Emin” or “Emin Bey” is preferred in Turkish sources.

80 Yurdakul, “Nifâk,” 106.

81 Yurdakul, “Ey Türk Uyan,” 136.

82 Yurdakul, 136.

83 Yurdakul, 138.

84 Lazzerini, “Ismail Bey Gasprinskii (Gapirali),” 50.

85 Yurdakul, “İsmail Gaspirinski’ye,” 123–4.

86 Quoted in Kırımer, Gaspıralı İsmail Bey, 98.

87 Yurdakul, “Petersburg’a,” 251; Yurdakul, “Çar’a,” 250–1. For more on Gasprinskii, see also Fisher, “A Model Leader for Asia,” 29–47.

88 Schamiloglu, “Tatar or Turk?,” 238.

2 Colonial Eyes

1 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 2:796.

2 Gasprinskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 2:8; and Gasprinskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 1:8.

3 Abduramanova, “Gazeta ‘Terdzhiman’ kak istochnik po izucheniiu sotsial’no-bytovoi zhizni Kryma v kontse XIX v.,” 74–5.

4 Perevodchik (Tercüman) 40 (26 November 1893): 25–8.

5 See, for instance, Perevodchik (Tercüman) 32 (26 September 1893): 4; and Perevodchik (Tercüman) 33 (4 October 1893): 8.

6 Gasprinskii, “Russkoe musul’manstvo,” 57.

7 Gasprinsky’s views on Pushkin, which were originally published in Tercüman in 1899, are quoted in İsmail Asanoğlu Kerim, Gasprinskiyniñ “Canlı” tarihi 1883–1914, 87. For more on Gasprinsky’s views of Sultan Abdülhamid, see Ortaylı, Ottoman Studies, 204–7.

8 İsmail Gaspıralı, “Yine lisan bahsi,” Tercüman, 21 November 1905; cited in Kırımlı, National Movements and National Identity, 41.

9 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 2:805.

10 “Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan.”

11 “Prem’ernyi pokaz dokumental’noho fil’ma E.M. Kozhokina «Ismail i ego liudi».”

12 Sergei Aksenov, “Pozdravlaiu krymskikh tatar …”

13 Foucault, “What Is an Author?” 114.

14 Quoted in Hakan Kirimli, “The Young ‘Tatar’ Movement in the Crimea, 1905–1909,” 538.

15 Kirimli, “The Young ‘Tatar’ Movement in the Crimea,” 541.

16 Çergeyev, “Közyaş han çeşmesi,” 392.

17 Szymborska, “The Three Oddest Words,” in Monologue of a Dog, 28–9.

18 Ukraïnka, “Do sestry Ol’hy (11 veresnia 1897),” 380.

19 Ukraïnka, “Do M. P. Drahomanova (3 veresnia 1891),” 113.

20 In a letter to Ahatanhel Krymsky, Ukraïnka explains that there is something “diabolical” about the Don Juan legend that has “tortured people for 300 years,” prompting successive revisions and interpretations across cultures. Ukraïnka, “Do A. Iu. Kryms’koho (6 travnia 1912 r),” 395–7.

21 Ukraïnka, “Bakhchysarais’kyi dvorets’,” 107.

22 Derzhavnyi arkhiv Avtonomnoi Respubliky Krym (DAARK) / Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Respubliki Krym (GARK), f. 706, op. 2, d. 35, l. 519; quoted in Kerim, “Poeticheskii genii Asana Chergeeva (1879–1946).”

23 Çergeyev, “Eşit, mevta ne söyleyür!” 390.

24 “Tatarskaia lopatka” (literally, Tatar shovel) is a slur equivalent to “Tatar dog” or, here, “Tatar scum.”

25 Decades after Çergeyev, the Ukrainian poet Vasyl Stus would ask, “Who are you? Living or dead? Is it possible / To be both dead and alive?” See Stus, “Sto dzerkal spriamovano na mene,” 74.

26 Derrida, Specters of Marx, 99.

27 Ukraïnka, “Nad morem,” 160.

28 Ukraïnka wrote “Nad morem” in 1898, a year before Chekhov’s “Dama s sobachkoi” (“Lady with a Lapdog”).

29 Ukraïnka, “Nad morem,” 169.

30 Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs, 108.

31 Bhabha, “The Other Question,” 116.

32 Ukraïnka, “Nad morem,” 169.

33 Bhabha, “The Other Question,” 115.

34 Ukraïnka, “Nad morem,” 169.

35 Ukraïnka, 187.

36 Fanon, L’an V de la révolution algérienne, 29.

37 Fanon, Peau noire, masques blancs, 113.

38 Toktargazi, “Nale-i Kırım adlı eserin önsösü,” 395.

39 Kryms’kyi, “Literatura kryms’kykh tatar,” 179.

40 Toktargazi, “Fi-medkh-i-Qırım,” 396.

41 Toktargazi, 396.

42 Toktargazi, “Satma saqın,” 396.

43 Toktargazi, “Para,” 182.

44 Toktargazi, Mollalar proyekti, 398.

45 For more on this debate see Pavlychko, “Modernism vs. Populism,” 83–103.

46 I take the text of Pid minaretamy from Kotsiubyns’kyi’s Tvory v dvokh tomakh, 1:192–234.

47 On the struggle of Ismail Gasprinsky with traditional mullahs or “qadimists,” see Lazzerini, “Ismail Bey Gasprinskii (Gapirali),” 52–4.

48 Crews, For Prophet and Tsar, 326.

49 Iefremov, “U poiskakh novoi krasoty,” 110.

50 Nechui-Levyts’kyi, “Ukraïns’ka dekadentshchyna,” 177–8.

51 Kotsiubyns’kyi, “Lyst do Ol’hy Kobylians’koï” (25.10.02), 317.

52 Kotsiubyns’kyi, “Lyst do Ol’hy Kobylians’koï” (2.7.03), 318; emphasis mine.

53 Kotsiubyns’kyi, “Lyst do Ivana Franka” (16.2.03), 271; emphasis mine.

54 Krymsky explains his Crimean Tatar heritage in a letter of 1901 to Borys Hrinchenko. See Kryms’kyi, Tvory v p’iaty tomakh, 5:360.

55 Bahalii, Kryms’kyi, et al., “Poiasniuiucha zapyska do proektu orhanizatsiï Istorychno-Filolohichnoho Viddilu Ukraïns’koï Akademiï Nauk,” ix.

56 Pavlychko, Natsionalizm, seksual’nist’, oriientalizm: Skladnyi svit Ahatanhela Kryms’koho, 177.

57 Ukrayna, Rusya ve Türkiye, 30. For more on the Union of the Liberation of Ukraine, which published Ukrayna, Rusya ve Türkiye, see Hakan Kırımlı’s excellent study, “The Activities of the Union for the Liberation of Ukraine in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War,” 194–6.

58 Otar, “İstanbul Gazetelerinde Kırım,” 15–16.

59 Kırımer, Bazı hatıralar, 187.

60 “Ukraina i Krym,” Golos Tatar 2 (29 July 1917), 2.

61 Kırımer, Bazı hatıralar, 188–9.

62 Ivanets’, Pershyi Kurultai, 47.

63 Kırımer, Bazı hatıralar, 201.

64 “Dokument No. 121 (9 veresnia 1917),” 291.

65 “Doklad,” Golos Tatar 9 (23 September 1917), 3.

66 “Doklad,” 3.

67 Kermençikli, “Tatarym,” 85–6.

68 Fazıl and Nagayev, Qırımtatar edebiyatınıñ tarihı, 300–1.

69 Bektöre, “Tatarlığım,” 301.

70 Kyrymohlu [Dzhemilev], “Noman Chelebidzhikhan z namy,” 11.

71 Bunegin, Revoliutsiia i grazhdanskaia voina v Krymu, 326.

72 Kırımer, Bazı hatıralar, 213.

73 On Çelebicihan, Namık Kemal, and martyrdom (şahadet), see Kırımlı, National Movements and National Identity among the Crimean Tatars, 1905–1916, 155–6.

74 Çelebicihan, “Ant etkenmen,” 103–4.

75 Pulatov, “Ölümge ‘Yoq’ dep ayt,” 68.

76 Ivanets’, Pershyi Kurultai, 106.

3 Ethnic Cleansing, Discursive Cleansing

1 Bektöre, “Dalgalara,” 45–6. See also Şahin, “Kırım Mecmuasında Neşredilen Kırım Konulu Şiirler Üzerine Bir İnceleme,” 178.

2 Kırımlı, “The Activities of the Union,” 194–6.

3 Attila Bektore, A Nomad’s Journey, 38.

4 “Mustafa Kemal Paşanın Lenin’e Mektubu (4 ocak 1922),” 261.

5 Kırım Mecmuası 1, no. 13 (October 1918): 241.

6 Stalin, “Marksizm i natsional’nyi vopros,” 363.

7 Stalin, 361.

8 RTsKhIDNI (Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Most Recent History) 558/1/4490 (1929): 9; quoted in Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire, 5.

9 “Soviet legislation […] directly connected nationality with territory.” Khazanov, After the USSR, 18.

10 Trotskii, Predannaia revoliutsiia, 75.

11 Finnin, “Forgetting Nothing, Forgetting No One,” 1093.

12 See, for instance, Sharma, “Scholars Targeted as Uighur Purge Engulfs Universities”; Wong et al., “Facebook Bans Rohingya Group’s Posts as Minority Faces ‘Ethnic Cleansing’”; and Stevenson, “Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar.”

13 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Sobranie sochinenii v deviaty tomakh, 6:298.

14 Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 3:426.

15 Vozgrin, 3:494.

16 Vozgrin, 3:498–9.

17 Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire, 274.

18 Martin, 274.

19 Martin, 342.

20 Ubiria, Soviet Nation-Building in Central Asia, 161.

21 Buzuk, “Ab belaruska-ukrainskim literaturnym pabratsimstve,” 77.

22 Buzuk, 82.

23 Buzuk, 79.

24 Suny, “The Contradictions of Identity,” 22–3.

25 Fazıl and Nagayev, Qırımtatar edebiyatınıñ tarihı, 273–4.

26 The influence of Toktargazy on İpci was recognized in an article of 1936, which celebrated İpci’s twenty years of literary activity. A year later, İpci was arrested on charges of “bourgeois nationalism.” See “Dvadtsatiletnii iubilei literaturnoi deiatel’nosti t. Umera Ipchi,” 131.

27 For insight into the extraordinary success of VUFKU, see Hoseiko, Istoriia ukraïns’koho kinematohrafa, esp. 25.

28 “Novi viddili VUFKU,” Kino 10, August 1926, 19.

29 Mandelshtam eviscerated Leo Mur’s film Pesn na kamne (Song on the rock, 1926) for such an offence in “Tatarskie kovboi,” 432–4.

30 Ursu, Ocherki istorii kul’tury krymskotatarskogo naroda, 22.

31 “Liudy ekranu: H. Tasin,” Kino 3 (February 1927): 6. The critics also highlighted Tasin’s achievement in bucking a “distasteful” trend: “At the heart of Alim lay a great peril [velyka nebezpeka]: the peril of exoticism, of a thoughtless approach to ‘eastern peoples,’ which has become established among our directors as a rule. Everyone agrees that Tasin has skirted the peril of this distasteful and mendacious cliché.” Russian colleagues tended to agree, with one noting that “defying expectations, the director was not carried away by the horse chases so typical of ‘eastern’ films.” Vilenskii, “Novye fil’my,” 16.

32 O. Akçokraklı (Akchokrakly), “Tatars’ka poema Dzan-mukhammedova pro pokhid Isliam-Hireia II spil’no z Bohdanom Khmel’nyts’kym na Polshchu 1648–49rr,” 163–71.

33 A. E. Kryms’kyi, “Literatura kryms’kykh tatar,” 168.

34 Akçokraklı, “Tatars’ka poema Dzan-mukhammedova,” 163–71.

35 Hrushevs’kyi, Istoriia Ukraïny-Rusy, vol. 8, pt. 3, sec. 13, 171.

36 Akçokraklı, “Tatars’ka poema Dzan-mukhammedova,” 165.

37 Canmuhammed, “Tuğaybey,” 108. See also “Canmuhammed” in Fazıl and Nagayev, Qırımtatar edebiyatınıñ tarihı, 125–6.

38 Deny, “Redīf,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam.

39 Semeniuk, Nikoly ne smiiavsia bez liubovi, 6.

40 For more on the “hybrid tongues of the colonial space,” see especially Bhabha, “Of Mimicry and Man,” 121–31, and “Sly Civility,” 132–45.

41 Khvyl’ovyi, “Ostap Vyshnia v svitli livoї balabaiky,” 309.

42 Vyshnia, “Tatarynove zhyttia,” 76. The work was originally published as “Zhyttia Tatarynove,” Visti VUTsVK i KhHVK 25 (29 June 1924): 2–3.

43 See Iefremov, Korotka istoriia ukraïns’koho pys’menstva, 105–6.

44 I take this example from “Pobeh trekh brat’ev iz Azova,” in Mikhail Maksimovich, Sbornik ukrainskikh pesen, 24.

45 Vyshnia, “Tatarynove zhyttia,” 76–7.

46 See Markov, Ocherki Kryma, 314–31.

47 Markov, 314.

48 Nadinskii, Ocherki po istorii Kryma, vol. 1. As Greta Uehling notes, many politicians in the Crimean parliament continue to toe Nadinsky’s historical line. See Uehling, Beyond Memory, 35.

49 Markov, 314.

50 Vyshnia, “Tatarynove zhyttia,” 77. Markov, Ocherki Kryma, 315. Markov confuses the origins of Minikh and Lacey (Lassi) here; Minikh was ethnically German, Lacey an Irishman.

51 Vyshnia, “Tatarynove zhyttia,” 80. Markov, Ocherki Kryma, 317.

52 Vyshnevi usmishky kryms’ki was repeatedly reprinted on its own (1961 and 1969); sampled in general usmishky compilations (1965, 1967, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1979, 1983, and 1985); or included in Vyshnia’s multivolume collected works (1963, 1974, and 1988) – but always without “Tatarynove zhyttia.”

53 Vyshnia, Vyshnevi usmishky: Zaboroneni tvory (2011).

54 Glavnoe upravlenie po kontroliu za zrelishchami i repertuarom (GURK), “Rasporiazhenie 700/r (17 April 1937).”

55 See, for example, Rollberg, Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Cinema, 733.

56 “Ipchi, Dzhevair Umerovna,” 58–9.

57 Khabarova, Dnevnik [19 May 1944]. Weeks later, Red Army soldiers arrested Zoia’s parents for refusing to surrender their apartment to a party apparatchik, leaving her orphaned and homeless.

58 Khabarova, Dnevnik.

59 Vasil’ Sokil, “Nichto ne zabyto, nikto ne zabyt!” 353–4.

60 Solzhenitsyn, Arkhipelag GULag 1918–1956, vol. 1, 95.

61 Sokil, “Nichto ne zabyto, nikto ne zabyt,” 354. As Solzhenitsyn remarks, after the deportation “[t]obacco vanished from Crimea for many years to come.” Solzhenitsyn, Arkhipelag GULag 1918–1956, vol. 3, part 6, 407.

62 “V krymskom nebe,” Pravda, 12 May 1944, 3.

63 Muzafarov, Krymskotatarskaia entsiklopediia, 690. Years after the deportation Sultan wrote to the Central Committee of the Communist Party that “my people have been humiliated” and “deported from their native land needlessly and without foundation [bez nuzhdy i osnovaniia]. Return them to their native land – Crimea.” Quoted in Broshevan and Tygliiants, Izganie i vozvrashchenie, 45.

64 Shkadov and Babakov, Geroi Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1:51.

65 Aliadin [Alâdin], “Ia – vash tsar i boh,” 231.

66 Asanin, “Menim antım,” 397.

67 Kalaycı, “Interview with Professor Jay Winter,” 34.

68 Umerov, Chornye poezda. In the short story “Odinochestvo” (Loneliness), the Nazi occupation of Crimea and its aftermath, including the deportation, are focalized through the perspective of a dog named Sabyrly. “Chernye poezda” (Black trains), meanwhile, recounts the deportation operation in an elliptical, almost cinematic fashion.

69 Temirkaya, “Taras Şevçenkoğa,” 3.

70 Caruth, Unclaimed Experience.

71 Laub, “Truth and Testimony,” 66.

72 Quoted in Pulatov, “Vsem mirom – pomoch bratiam,” 127.

73 Conquest, The Nation Killers, 67. Conquest states that “nothing was said about the [Crimean Tatars and other deported peoples] for a period of about ten years” after 1944. The silence was in fact broken in Soviet literature as early as 1948, when prominent works of historical fiction began to brand the entire Crimean Tatar nation as traitors to the Soviet motherland, as we will see.

74 Muzafarov, Krymskotatarskaia entsiklopediia, 653–7.

75 Polian, Against Their Will, 152.

76 For very likely saving the hansaray, Leonid Pliushch sardonically exclaimed, “Thank you, Comrade Pushkin!” Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 250.

77 Subbotin, “Bor’ba s istoriei,” 10.

78 See Bushakov, “Svits’ki ta religiini tytuly i nazvy profesiinykh zaniat’,” 135–9.

79 Vul’, Nemetskie varvary v Krymu, 63–4.

80 Russian State Archive of Socio-political History (RGASPI), f. 14, op. 44, d. 759, l. 103, cited in Bekirova, Krymskotatarskaia problema v SSSR, 1944–1991, 44; emphasis mine.

81 Jones, “‘A Symptom of the Times,’” 163.

82 Shentalinsky, The KGB’s Literary Archive, 176.

83 Pavlenko, “Rassvet,” 450.

84 Pavlenko, 453.

85 Pavlenko, 455.

86 Kotyhorenko, Krymsʹkotatarsʹki repatrianti, 14.

87 Kotyhorenko, 14.

88 Wolfe, Settler Colonialism, 1. Wolfe cites Rose, Hidden Histories, 46.

89 “Ob uprazdnenii Checheno-Ingushskoi ASSR i preobrazovanii Krymskoi ASSR v Krymskuiu oblast’,” Izvestiia, 26 June 1946, 3.

90 Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 167.

91 “O zhurnalakh ‘Zvezda’ i ‘Leningrad’ iz postanovlenie TsK VKP(b) ot 14 avgusta 1946g,” Pravda, 21 August 1946, 1.

92 “Obrashchenie krymskikh tatar k K. Val’dkhaimu,” 2.

93 Ivan Kozlov, V krymskom podpol’e, 76.

94 Kozlov, 81–2.

95 Nekrich, The Punished Peoples, 32.

96 Ivan Kozlov, V krymskom podpol’e, 159 and 279. I was guided to these particular passages by Refik Muzafarov in Krymskotatarskaia entsiklopediia, no pages given. Born in 1928 in Simferopol, Muzafarov was fifteen years old when his family was deported to the Urals. He became an active leader in the Crimean Tatar movement in 1957. See Nekrich, The Punished Peoples, 198–9.

97 Muzafarov, Krymskotatarskaia entsiklopediia, no pages given. “Kogda russkii ukradet, govoriat: ‘Ukral vor,’ a kogda ukradet evrei, govoriat, ‘Ukral evrei’”; Maksim Gorkii, Zhizn’ Klima Samgina, 431–2.

98 Perventsev, Chest’ smolodu, 370. Italics reflect text taken directly from the 1946 Presidium decree.

99 The passage quoted was removed from the 1979 edition of Perventsev’s collected works. See Perventsev, Sobranie sochinenii, 4:329. Perventsev also wrote a screenplay called Tretii udar (The third strike) with many anti-Tatar passages, which he removed in later versions. In 1976 Perventsev published a book called Navstrechu zhyzni (Meet life) in which he expressed a positive sentiment toward the Crimean Tatars. See Muzafarov, Krymskotatarskaia entsiklopediia, 380–1.

4 The Guiltless Guilty

1 Berdinskikh, Istoriia odnogo lageria (Viatlag), 18.

2 Medvedev and Chiesa, Time of Change, 217. Evtushenko, “Krotost’ i moshch’,” 149.

3 Mazus, Istoriia odnogo podpol’ia, 319.

4 Rakhlin, O Borise Chichibabine i ego vremeni, 30 and 54.

5 Karas’-Chichibabina, “Predislovie,” 5.

6 Karas’-Chichibabina, 5.

7 “In every epoch,” writes Mikhail Epstein, “poetry is the battleground between convention and freedom.” Epstein, “Theses on Metarealism and Conceptualism,” 105–12.

8 Tvardovskii, “Po pravu pamiati,” 108.

9 “Iosif Brodskii v zashchitu Maramzina,” 11.

10 Aslan, Tablet and Pen, 275.

11 In 1921, for instance, Atatürk petitioned Nazım Hikmet, arguably Turkey’s greatest poet of the twentieth century, to write verse “committed” to the independence movement. See Goloğlu, Milli Mücadele Tarihi IV, 53.

12 Bezirci, Orhan Veli ve seçme şiirleri, 194.

13 Ayhan, Şiirin bir altın çağı.

14 The Ukrainian poet Lina Kostenko warns against the creep of the internal censor in the Soviet-era poem “Shukaite tsenzora v sobi” (Find the censor in yourself), who “quietly takes the ‘you’ out of ‘you,’” leaving behind only a shell. See Kostenko, Vybrane, 12.

15 Anna Akhmatova aptly described samizdat technology as “pre-Gutenberg.” See Komaromi, “The Material Existence of Soviet Samizdat,” 598.

16 Cited in Alekseeva, Istoriia inakomysliia v SSSR, 211.

17 Svitlychna, “Interv’iu z Nadiieiu Svitlychnoiu,” 29; Alekseeva, Soviet Dissent, 284.

18 Daniel’, “Istoki i smysl sovetskogo samizdata,” 20.

19 Daniel’, 20.

20 Aronov, “Ia b ne vzial tebia, konechno,” 97.

21 Grigorenko used scare quotes in referring to “our ‘dissidents’” (nashkikh “dissidentov”) in a letter to Leonid Pliushch of 3 March 1976. See Petro and Zinaida Grigorenko Family Papers (hereafter PGFP), series II, box 3, folder 2. For his part, Boris Chichibabin forcefully refused any association with the term. See Chichibabin, Pered zemleiu krymskoi sovest’ moia chista, 90.

22 Amal’rik, Zapiski dissidenta, 35. As Ann Komaromi argues, the blanket use of the term dissident can obscure a highly diverse and differentiated group of writers and readers, a patchwork of publics that “cannot be unified comfortably […] under a single discourse.” See Komaromi, “Samizdat and Soviet Dissident Publics,” 87. Or, as Michael Meerson-Aksenov and Boris Shragin put it, the term dissident “creates an illusion of clarity which does not exist in reality.” See their preface to The Political, Social and Religious Thought of Russian “Samizdat,” 13.

23 Daniel’, “Istoki i smysl sovetskogo samizdata,” 26. Andrei Siniavsky makes a similar point in Terts [Siniavskii], “Iskusstvo i deistvitelnost’,” 113.

24 Chornovil and the editors at Ukraïnskyi visnyk identify three phases in the development of Ukrainian samvydav: first, a seminal literary phase; second, a phase (1963–5) marked by political articles and anonymous letters; and third, a phase (from 1965 to the time of the publication of Ukraïnskyi visnyk in January 1970) marked by more public petitions, alerts, and open letters. Chornovil, “Pro ukraïns’kyi samvydav,” 153. See also Obertas, Ukraïns’kyi samvydav, 56; and Kas’ianov, Nezhodni, 89.

25 Zhylenko, “Homo Feriens” (part II), 16.

26 See, for instance, Meerson-Aksenov, “The Dissident Movement and Samizdat,” 28.

27 Even fresh studies of samizdat culture over the past two decades make this move. Sergei Oushakine, for instance, hops over the literary origins of samizdat to offer insightful critical assessments of “political samizdat,” which he argues manifests a “discursive dependency” on the Soviet state. What starts out as a study of “political samizdat,” however, soon leads to generalizations about “samizdat” and “dissident discourse” tout court. See Oushakine, “The Terrifying Mimicry of Samizdat,” 191–214. Aleksei Yurchak perpetuates this generalization – this unqualified conflation of “samizdat” with “political samizdat” – while critically engaging with Oushakine’s work. See Yurchak, Everything Was Forever Until It Was No More, 106, 130.

28 Gorbanevskaia is quoted in Reddaway, Uncensored Russia, 35.

29 For more on the transformation of Gorbanevskaia’s Olympia typewriter, see Hopkins, Russia’s Underground Press, 16.

30 The term cultural opposition is Andrei Amalrik’s. See Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984?, 16–18.

31 Giritli, “Modern cağda bilim ve ideolojiler,” 2.

32 See Komaromi, “Samizdat and Soviet Dissident Publics,” 81.

33 Alekseeva and Goldberg, The Thaw Generation, 4.

34 Solzhenitsyn, Zhitʹ ne po lzhi.

35 Amal’rik, Zapiski dissidenta, 40.

36 Grossman, Vse techet…, 71.

37 Chukovskaia, Sofʹia Petrovna.

38 Alekseeva, Istoriia inakomysliia v SSR, 210.

39 For an intriguing discussion of the importance of memorization of unofficial poetry in the Soviet Union, see Gronas, Cognitive Poetics and Cultural Memory, 7–8, 71–96.

40 Mukorovský, “Standard Language and Poetic Language,” 19.

41 Jakobson, O cheshkom stikhe preimushchestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim, 16.

42 Shklovsky, “Art as Technique,” 12.

43 Raskina, “Natal’ia Gorbanevskaia,” 523. Gobanevskaia’s remarks are cited in Hopkins, Russia’s Underground Press, 23.

44 “The dry, factual tone of Chronicle has led to the conclusion that its authors and producers were primarily scientists rather than literary intellectuals.” Gayle Durham Hollander, “Political Communication and Dissent in the Soviet Union,” 264.

45 “Kratkie soobshcheniia,” 45.

46 Hörmann, Meinen und Verstehen, 187 and 192–6; quoted in Iser, The Fictive and the Imaginary, 18.

47 Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 70.

48 Chichibabin, “Rodnoi iazyk,” 43. Chichibabin self-identified as Russian but lived most of his life in Kharkiv and professed love for Ukraine and Ukrainian culture.

49 Rakhlin, O Borise Chichibabine i ego vremeni, 23.

50 Rakhlin, 97.

51 Selim, “Ev,” 123.

52 Rakhlin, O Borise Chichibabine i ego vremeni, 97; emphasis mine.

53 Leonovich, “Mezh rozovykh barkhanov,” 228.

54 Leonovich, 228.

55 Correspondence between Viktor Sokirko and the author, August 2009.

56 Andrew Wachtel, Remaining Relevant after Communism, 40.

57 For an excellent study of reader letters to Tvardovsky’s Novyi Mir, which tended to focus more on the Stalinist crimes of 1937, see Denis Kozlov, The Readers of “Novyi Mir.”

58 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

59 For a fascinating discussion of Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” and its hasty composition, see Polly Jones, Myth, Memory, Trauma, 17–53.

60 Quoted in Paradzhanov, Dremliushchii dvorets, 89; emphasis mine.

61 Wilder, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, 16.

62 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

63 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

64 Chichibabin, “Genrikhu Altunianu,” 163.

65 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

66 Chichibabin, Pered zemleiu krymskoi sovest’ moia chista, 79.

67 Ginzburg, “I zaodno s pravoporiadkom,” 292.

68 Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, 25.

69 Boobbyer, Conscience, Dissent and Reform in Soviet Russia, 3.

70 Aşkın, “Tatar Türklerini savunan subayın hatıra defteri Paris’e kaçırıldı,” 3. Aşkın’s use of tımarhane echoes Grigorenko’s own use of durdom (madhouse) a year before in his samizdat pamphlet of 1969, “O spetsial’nykh psikhiatricheskikh bol’nitsakh (‘durdomakh’)” [Regarding special psychiatric hospitals (‘madhouses’)].” See Grigorenko, Mysli sumasshedshego, 232–42.

71 Grigorenko, “Vystuplenie P. Grigorenko na pokhoronakh A.E. Kosterina (14 noiabria 1968 g.),” 159; emphasis mine.

72 Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, 29.

73 Helen Lewis, Shame and Guilt in Neurosis, 30.

74 Gilbert, Human Nature and Suffering, 241 and 239. See too Darwin’s observation that “under a keen sense of shame there is a strong desire for concealment.” Charles Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animal, 320.

75 Tangney, “Recent Advances in the Empirical Study of Shame and Guilt,” 1137.

76 O’Connor and Berry, “Interpersonal Guilt,” 77.

77 Tangney, “Recent Advances,” 1137.

78 Thomas, “The Fictive and the Imaginary,” 624; Iser, Prospecting, 39.

79 Iser, The Implied Reader, 281.

80 Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 73.

81 Iser, Prospecting, 239; Iser, “The Fictive and the Imaginary,” 5.

82 Taylor, Sources of the Self, 36.

83 Goodhart’s opposition of solidarity and diversity has become notorious as a harbinger of pro-Brexit politics among moderate political circles in Great Britain. See Goodhart, “Too Diverse?”

84 Heise, “Conditions for Empathic Solidarity,” 197.

85 Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 2.

86 Schwarz, “A Humanistic Ethics of Reading,” 5.

87 Iser, Prospecting, 29; emphasis mine. Luc Boltanski views the faculty of the imagination as key to overcoming an essential distance between what he calls the “spectator” and the “unfortunate” in cases of suffering. See Boltanski, Distant Suffering, 38.

88 McGinn, Ethics, Evil, and Fiction, 176.

89 Frank, “Layers of the Visual,” 84.

90 Okudzhava, “Ia rad by byl pokoem voskhitit’sia,” 60.

91 Brysk, Speaking Rights to Power, 18.

92 I take the text of “Krymskie progulki” from Chichibabin, I vse-taki ia byl poetom, 73–6.

93 Waters, Poetry’s Touch, 8.

94 Seven years after the composition of “Krymskie progulki,” Grigorenko turned Chichibabin’s lyrical persona’s declaration into a question: “Est li u tebia sovest, Rossiia?” (Do you have a conscience, Russia?). See Grigorenko, “Rech’ Gen. P.G. Grigorenko,” 196.

95 Lotman, Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta, 66.

96 Eliot, “The Three Voices of Poetry,” 96.

97 Vendler, The Given and the Made, xi.

98 Grigorenko, “Pis’mo Iu. V. Andropovu,” 143.

99 As quoted in Lazzerini, “Local Accommodation and Resistance,” 174.

100 Emphasis mine.

101 Hosking, “The State and Russian National Identity,” 201.

102 Chichibabin, “Pis’mo Aideru Emirovu,” 78–83.

103 I take the text of “Chernoe piatno” from Chichibabin, Pered zemleiu krymskoi sovest’ moia chista, 81–2.

104 Furmanov, “Zametki o literature,” 393.

105 Emirov, “Istoriia odnogo stikhotvoreniia,” 1.

106 See Kirimca, “Symbols,” 71–83.

107 Boris Chichibabin: Zamist’ spovidi, directed by Rafail Nakhmanovich, 1993 (part of the Narody Ukraïny documentary film cycle produced by the Ukrainian Studio of Documentary-Chronicle Films).

108 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 252.

109 Sheehy, The Crimean Tatars and Volga Germans, 14. Petro Grigorenko recalls Crimean Tatar activists collecting over two thousand signatures in only one hour. See Grigorenko, Memoirs, 362.

110 Bekirova, Piv stolittia oporu, 195.

111 See, for example, “Arest i golodovka Mustafy Dzemileva”; “Delo Mustafy Dzemileva,” 207–10; or “Sud nad Mustafoi Dzhemilevym.”

112 Reddaway, “The Crimean Tatar Drive for Repatriation,” 227. The excerpts from the 1967 decree are taken from Russkie druz’ia krymskikh tatar, “Sudiat krymskikh tatar,” 174.

113 Grigorenko, “Kto zhe prestupniki?” 224.

114 Grigorenko, “Pamiati soratnika i druga,” 156.

115 Grigorenko, 156.

116 Grigorenko, “Pis’mo Iu. V. Andropovu,” 145.

117 Hablemitoğlu, Yüzbinlerin Sürgünü Kırımda Türk Soykırımı, 170.

118 Grigorenko, “Zapis’ rechi proiznesennoi 17 marta 1968 goda,” 150. See also Grigorenko, “Rech’ Gen. P.G. Grigorenko,” 198. Alekseeva, “Krymskotatarskoe dvizhenie za vozvrashchenie v Krym,” 9.

119 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 321.

120 Sarıkamış, “Sana Hasret Gideriz Güzel Kırım,” 23.

121 “Kırım Türkleri hala insanca yaşayamıyor,” 8.

122 Haluzevyi derzhavnyi arkhiv Sluzhby bespeky Ukraïny [State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine], Kyiv [hereafter HDA SBU], f. 16, op. 1, spr. 963, ark. 163.

123 Roditi, “Review of A Last Lullaby,” 763.

124 Halman, “Sovyet Cennetinde İzzet ile İdris,” 2.

125 Selim, “Ev,” 123.

126 Tvardovskii, Za dal’iu – dal’, 131–40.

127 Ognev et al, Akhmatovskie chteniia, 37.

128 The poem was published in Znamia 2 (1987) and Novyi Mir 3 (1987).

129 Alexander Tvardovskii, “Po pravu pamiati,” 111. For a helpful contextualization of the poem’s controversial reception, see Denis Kozlov, The Readers of “Novyi Mir,” esp. 317–20.

130 Emphasis mine.

131 Here is Pushkin: “Slukh obo mne proidet po vsei Rusi velikoi, / I nazovet menia vsiak sushchii v nei iazyk, / I gordyi vnuk slavian, i finn, i nyne dikii / Tungus, i drug stepei kalmyk.” (Word of me will pass through all of great Rus’ / And her every single tongue will call my name, / The proud descendant of the Slavs, and the Finn, and today’s savage / Tungus, as well as the Kalmyk, friend of the steppe.)

132 Nekipelov wrote the manuscript in 1976 and arranged for its passage to the West, where it appeared in English in an edition published by Farrar Straus and Giroux in 1980. Along with selections of Nekipelov’s poetry, Institut durakov was finally published in Russia in 2005 by an organization called Aid to the Victims of Psychiatry (Pomoshch postradavshim ot psikhiatrii).

133 Grigorenko, “O spetsial’nykh psikhiatricheskikh bol’nitsakh (‘durdomakh’),” 234.

134 Sakharov, Vospominaniia, 2:434.

135 Petrenko-Pod’’iapol’skaia, “Biografiia Viktora Nekipelova,” 2–3. See also Komarova-Nekipelova, Kniga liubvi i gneva.

136 Petrenko-Pod’’iaiapol’skaia, “Biografiia Viktora Nekipelova,” 1.

137 Nekipelov, “Chufut-Kale,” 37.

138 I take the text of “Gurzuf” from Nekipelov, Stikhi, 38–9.

139 With Tatiana Khodorovich and Tatiana Osipova, Nekipelov released the ekspress-zhurnaly “Oprichnina 76,” “Oprichnina 77,” and “Oprichnina 78,” three of the most influential compilations of documents from the Moscow Helsinki Group. See Petrenko-Pod’’iapol’skaia, “Biografiia Viktora Nekipelova,” 6.

140 Vendler, The Given and the Made, xi.

141 I take the text of “Ballada ob otchem dome” from Nekipelov, Stikhi, 40.

142 Michael Wachtel, The Development of Russian Verse, 23.

143 Russkie druz’ia krymskikh tatar, “Sudiat krymskikh tatar,” 176; emphasis mine. According to Dzhemilev, Yakobson was the primary author. Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019. Documents in Khronika tekushchikh sobytii detail that in 1968, at the time “Ballada ob otchem dome” was written, over ten thousand Tatars who had returned to Crimea after the discreet promulgation of Decree 493 were forcibly exiled from their homeland once again. See Chubarov, “Peredmova,” x.

144 Khronika tekushchikh sobytii 2 (June 1968). See also ‘“Delo’ krymskikh tatar,”’ 178–91.

145 PGFP, series II, subseries 1–2, boxes 3–5.

146 PGFP, series IV, subseries 3, box 14, folder 2.

147 Parts of “Sudakskie elegii” were published in the first issue of the Moscow-based samizdat journal Poiski (Quest) in 1979. Chichibabin, “Sudakskie elegii,” Poiski, 76–7. The poem was also reprinted in 1986 in Antologiia noveishei russkoi poezii u goluboi laguny, 75–6.

148 Kul’chyts’kyi and Iakubova, Kryms’kyi vuzol, 256.

149 Chichibabin, “Otvet redaktoru zhurnala Novyi mir,” 74–5.

150 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

5 Trident and Tamğa

1 HDA SBU, f. 16, op. 1, spr. 960, ark. 326.

2 Antonenko-Davydovych, Smert’, 32. In 1929 Antonenko-Davydovych was also a part of an infamous meeting of Ukrainian writers with Stalin in Moscow. His account of the meeting circulated in samvydav for decades. At one point, when approaching the headquarters of the Communist Party Central Committee, he calls to mind Dostoevsky’s House of the Dead. “If this isn’t ‘the house of the dead,’ what is?” Antonenko-Davydovych, “Spohad pro pryiom Stalinom ukraïns’koї delegatsiї 1929 roku,” 6–7. For more on the meeting, see Maximenkov and Heretz, “Stalin’s Meeting with a Delegation of Ukrainian Writers on 12 February 1929,” 361–431.

3 HDA SBU, f. 16, op. 1, spr. 960, ark. 326.

4 HDA SBU, f. 16, op. 1, spr. 960, ark. 326; emphases mine.

5 As Kul’chyts’kyi and Iakubova point out, “the Crimean Tatar movement already had Soviet authorities seriously concerned.” See Kul’chyts’kyi and Iakubova, Kryms’kyi vuzol, 270.

6 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 250.

7 Jakobson, “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles,” 93.

8 Central Intelligence Agency, The Spectrum of Soviet Dissent, 3.

9 References to non-Russian in Sheila Fitzpatrick’s introduction to an important study of everyday resistance in the Soviet Union are followed by the word nationalist, for instance. See Edel’man, Fitzpatrick, Kozlov, et al., Sedition, 3 and 14.

10 Horyn’, “Ostannie slovo Mykhaila Horynia (16 kvitnia 1966 r),” 40.

11 Horyn’, 39.

12 Kuzio, “Ukraine,” 342.

13 Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, 8.

14 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 282.

15 Pliushch, 283; emphasis mine.

16 Olgun, “Şevçenko’nun ülkesinde,” 29.

17 Conquest, The Nation Killers, 206.

18 Kul’chyts’kyi and Iakubova, Kryms’kyi vuzol, 252.

19 Arkhiv Tsentru doslidzhen’ vyzvol’noho rukhu [Archive of the Centre for the Study of the Liberation Movement] (hereafter ATsDVR), f. 23, t. 6, ark. 1032, 1.

20 ATsDVR, f. 23, t. 6, ark. 1032, 1–2.

21 ATsDVR, f. 23, t. 6, ark. 1032, 2–3.

22 Jameson, “Third World Literature,” 69.

23 Aristotle’s Poetics, 150.

24 Hikmet, “Nash Shevchenko,” 4.

25 Finnin, “Mountains, Masks, Metre, Meaning,” 426.

26 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 134.

27 Tarnawsky, “Dissident Poets in Ukraine,” 24.

28 Browne, Ferment in the Ukraine, 2.

29 Fanon, “National Culture,” 155.

30 I take the text of “Kurds’komu bratovi” from Symonenko, Bereh Chekan’, 162.

31 Chornovil, Tvory v desiaty tomakh, vol. 4, bk. 2, 969.

32 Sokulsky takes the term dukhovni pokydky (spiritual refuse, or even moral scum) from Vasyl Symonenko’s poem “Odynoka matir” (Single mother, 1962). See Symonenko, “Odynoka matir,” 181.

33 “Lyst tvorchoï molodi m. Dnipropetrovs’ka,” 93, 96.

34 Savchenko, “Khronika odnoho kryminal’noho protsesu,” 154.

35 Savchenko, 154.

36 Sokul’s’kyi, “Planovanyi – tut,” 125.

37 Sokul’s’kyi, “Kredo,” 124.

38 Savchenko, “Khronika odnoho kryminal’noho protsesu,” 159.

39 Eric Kudusov, “Ethnogenez korenogo naseleniia Kryma,” 16. Neal Ascherson, Black Sea, 21. In Ascherson’s eloquent framework the Crimean coast is the “zone of the mind” and the inland steppe the “zone of the body” (Black Sea, 17–18).

40 I take the text of “Bakhchysarai (Tsykl)” from Sokul’s’kyi, Oznachennia voli, 48–50.

41 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

42 See Rory Finnin, “Nationalism and the Lyric, Or How Taras Shevchenko Speaks to Compatriots Dead, Living, and Unborn,” 47–8.

43 Sokulsky’s lines call to mind a Ukrainian duma about the Cossack Holota in which a Crimean Tatar mountaineer addresses a young Tatar women with the question, “Do you see what I see?” (Chy ty bachysh, shcho ia bachu?). She responds, “I do not see what you see” (Ia ne bachu, shcho ty bachysh). Gatsak, Ukrainskie narodnye dumy, 77.

44 Iser, Prospecting, 134.

45 See Chornovil’s letters to Heorhii Davydov (16 June 1979), Iosyp Behun (21 July 1979), and Oleksandr Podrabinek (25 July 1979), in Chornovil, Tvory v desiaty tomakh, vol. 4, bk. 2, 728, 742, and 749.

46 Chornovil, “Do Mustafy Dzhemilieva (26.7.1979),” 752.

47 Dzhemilev, “Pis’mo M. Dzhemileva Viacheslavu Chernovilu ot 11 avgusta 1979g,” 152–3.

48 Dzhemilev, 157.

49 Chornovil, Tvory v desiaty tomakh, 777. Pliushch also describes Ivanychuk’s novel as a work of literature intended to support the Crimean Tatar cause. See Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 249.

50 Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 194. Serhii Plokhy considers Malvy “a new approach to the dramatic history of Ukrainian-Tatar relations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” Plokhy, Ukraine and Russia, 177.

51 Kosiv, “Zhyttia korotke, mystetstvo – vichne.”

52 As Plokhy notes, Ukrainian politicians in the post-Soviet era have highlighted this history to legitimize “the Ukrainian–Crimean Tatar political alliance of the 1990s.” Plokhy, Ukraine and Russia, 11.

53 Subtelny, “The Ukrainian-Crimean Treaty of 1711,” 809.

54 Shevchenko, “Khmel’nyts’kyi pered kryms’kym khanom,” 90.

55 In connection with the three-hundredth anniversary of the Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654, there appeared historical novels by Natan Rybak (Pereiaslavs’ka rada [The Pereiaslav council], 1948, 1954), Petro Panch (Homonila Ukraina [Ukraine stirred], 1954), and Ivan Le (Khmel’nyts’kyi, 1957–65). See Marko Pavlyshyn, “Ia Bohdan (spovid’ u slavi) Pavla Zahrebel’noho,” 62.

56 See, for example, Humesky, “Text and Subtext in Roman Ivanychuk’s Mal’vy,” 284–5.

57 Zaitsev, “Bezzbroinyi opir totalitarnomu rezhymovi,” 339.

58 Plokhy, Ukraine and Russia, 177.

59 Ravliuk, “Istoricheskii roman bez istorii,” 4.

60 Salyha, Vidlytyi u strofy chas, 101.

61 Kucher, Chornomortsi, 302–3.

62 Grekov, “O nekotorykh voprosakh istorii Kryma,” 3.

63 Grekov, 3.

64 Grekov, 3.

65 Nadinskii, Ocherki po istorii Kryma, 168. See also Fisher, Between Russians, Ottomans, and Turks, 182; and Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 74.

66 Putin, “Obrashchenie Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii (18 marta 2014 goda).”

67 See Ivanychuk, Mal’vy (Ianychary), 17.

68 Ivanychuk, Mal’vy (Ianychary), 17. Moreover, in his reflections on the origins and composition of Mal’vy, Ivanychuk refers to Mariia as “Mariia-Ukraina.” See Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 197.

69 Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 194 and 198.

70 For an insightful analysis of the perceptions of Ukrainians (as “mazepintsy” and “malorossy”) in the Russian imperial hierarchy, see Kappeler, “Mazepintsy, malorossy, khokhly,” 125–44.

71 Karavans’kyi, “Pisnia ianychariv,” 70.

72 Ivanychuk, Mal’vy (Ianychary), 194.

73 Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 195.

74 Ivanychuk, Mal’vy (Ianychary), 229.

75 Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 198.

76 Ivanychuk, 198.

77 Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine, 308n88.

78 Novosel’skii, Bor’ba moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII veka, 6. Novoselsky denies a correspondence between Crimean place and Tatar personality, referring only to tatary, not krymskie tatary, in his work.

79 Novosel’skii, 422. Historians like Valerii Vozgrin and Alan Fisher counter Novoselsky, making clear that the khans maintained a great degree of independence in this period. See Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar, 1:558; and Fisher, Between Russians, Ottomans, and Turks, 86–7.

80 Novosel’skii, 420. Khmelnytsky himself noted the desire of İslâm Giray to seek complete independence from the Ottoman Empire. See Smolii and Stepankov, Bohdan Khmel’nyts’kyi, 174.

81 Humesky, “Text and Subtext in Roman Ivanychuk’s Mal’vy,” 284.

82 Ivanychuk, “Iak ia shukav svoï «Mal’vy»,” 194.

83 Prezydiia zakordonnoho predstavnytstva ukraïns’koï holovoï vyzvol’noï rady, “U spravi povernennia tatar na Krym,” 91.

84 Prezydiia zakordonnoho predstavnytstva ukraïns’koï holovoï vyzvol’noï rady, 92; emphasis mine.

85 Prezydiia zakordonnoho predstavnytstva ukraïns’koï holovoï vyzvol’noï rady, 92.

86 Pliushch, Na karnavale istorii, 248.

87 Pliushch, 248.

88 Prezydiia zakordonnoho predstavnytstva ukraïns’koï holovoï vyzvol’noï rady, 92.

89 Beckett, “Dante … Bruno … Vico … Joyce,” 19.

90 Ivan Dziuba, “Vystup u babynomy iaru 29 veresnia 1966r,” 306.

91 Dziuba, 305.

92 Dziuba refers here to Shevchenko’s public protest against Vladimir Zotov’s anti-Semitic tirades in the Saint Petersburg journal Illiustratsiia in 1858.

93 Dziuba, “Vystup u babynomy iaru 29 veresnia 1966r,” 306–7.

94 For more on Ukrainian-Jewish relations, see Magocsi and Petrovsky-Shtern’s outstanding volume Jews and Ukrainians.

95 Dziuba, “Vystup u babynomy iaru 29 veresnia 1966r,” 305–6.

96 David A. Snow and Doug McAdam, “Identity Work Processes,” 42.

97 Rudnytsky, “Political Thought of Soviet Ukrainian Dissidents,” 485–6.

98 As quoted in Vlasenko, “Formula sontsia Mykoly Rudenka,” 12.

99 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

100 For more on Karavansky, see Etkind, Finnin, et al., Remembering Katyn, 63–8.

101 See “Novosti samizdata: T. Franko, M. Lysenko.”

102 Kulichenko, Natsional’nye otnosheniia v SSSR i tendentsii ikh razvitiia, 325.

103 Rudnytsky, “Political Thought of Soviet Ukrainian Dissidents,” 486.

104 Mykola Rudenko, “Donbas,” 81–2.

105 Mykola Rudenko, “V Donets’ku,” 169–70.

106 Raisa Rudenko, interview with the author, December 2007.

107 According to a letter from Vitaly Fedorchuk to Volodymyr Shcherbytsky in 1975, there were an estimated 693 Crimean Tatars in Donetsk around the time of the composition of Rudenko’s “Tataryn.” See “Z dopovidnoï zapysky holovy KDB pry PR URSR (8 travnia 1975r),” 23. Relevant census data from 1926, when Rudenko was a young child, give statistics only for “Tatars” in Donbas (over nine thousand), making no distinction between different nations with “Tatar” in the ethnonym.

108 Roman Jakobson, “Studies in Comparative Slavic Metrics,” 33–9, 55–7.

109 I take the text of the poem from Rudenko, “Tataryn,” in Poezii, 158–9.

110 Shevelov cites Rudenko as a talented but “programmatic poet,” in contradistinction to the “unprogrammatic” Stus, whose variable and diverse emotions constantly surprise. Shevel’ov, “Trunok i trutyzna,” 371–2.

111 Evtushenko, “Babii Iar,” 421.

112 Felman and Laub, Testimony, 116.

113 Mykola Rudenko, Naibil’she dyvo – zhyttia, 412.

114 Morgan, The Final Act, 6.

115 See Bilocerkowycz, Soviet Ukrainian Dissent, 82.

116 Rubenstein and Gribanov, The KGB File of Andrei Sakharov, 120.

117 Alekseeva, Soviet Dissent, 48.

118 Subtelny, Ukraine, 521. The KGB in Ukraine became particularly vicious with the appointment of director Vitaly Fedorchuk in 1970. At its height the members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group numbered forty, including seven women; the Moscow Helsinki Group numbered twenty-two. Bilocerkowycz, Soviet Ukrainian Dissent, 35 and 81.

119 Boris Chichibabin, “Ia plachu o dushe …,” 190. Rudenko received this poem from Chichibabin in 1977 and relied on it as an important source of moral support. “At the time I did not believe that I would see this poem published someday,” he recalled in 1997, “but I understood one thing: even if I did not survive to be remembered as a poet, Chichibabin had already immortalized me with his heavenly word.” Mykola Rudenko, “Slovo pro druha,” 210.

120 See Zakharov, “History of Dissent in Ukraine.” See also Zwarun, preface to The Human Rights Movement in Ukraine, 10.

121 Kas’ianov, Nezhodni, 175.

122 Ukraïns’ka hromads’ka hrupa spryiannia vykonanniu hel’sinks’kykh uhod, Ukraïns’kyi pravozakhysnyi rukh, 72. As Ivan Lysiak Rudnytsky points out, this prevailing attention to the “national factor” contributed to a greater cohesion among Ukrainian dissidents relative to their Russian counterparts, whose ideological views tended to vary widely. See Rudnytsky, “Political Thought of Soviet Ukrainian Dissidents,” 485.

123 Ukraïns’ka hromads’ka hrupa spryiannia vykonanniu hel’sinks’kykh uhod, Ukraïns’kyi pravozakhysnyi rukh, 97. Rudenko wrote the first three UHG memoranda before his arrest. His successor, Oles Berdnyk, a writer of science fiction, would perpetuate this poetic style.

124 Swoboda, “The Evolution of Mykola Rudenko’s Philosophy in His Poetry,” 78–9; Pavlyshyn, “‘Sobor” Olesia Honchara ta ‘Orlova Balka’ Mykoly Rudenka,” 55.

125 Kırımal, “Kırım Türkleri,” 21.

126 “Z redaktsiinoї poshty,” 375. See also Verba and Yasen, The Human Rights Movement in Ukraine, 31 and 252.

127 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019. Dzhemilev calls Zinaida Grigorenko “mama” in a letter of 19 May 1970. See PGFP, series II, subseries 2, box 3, folder 27.

128 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019. After Grigorenko protested the 1968 Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, an act that led to his expulsion from the Party, the KGB searched his home. Dzhemilev, staying in his apartment and fearing arrest, jumped out of the window and broke his leg. Soviet authorities apparently regretted that “it was not his neck.” Gorbanevskaia, Polden’, 284.

129 The TRT television channel broadcast an announcement that Dzhemilev had died on 5 February 1976. See Özcan, Kırım Dramı, 197.

130 See for instance “Sürgünü açlık greviyle protesto eden Kırım Türkü Cemiloğlu öldü,” 7.

131 Perlman, “Bütun Müslümanlar Mustafa Cemiloğlu’nu savunmali,” 1 and 10. Anatolii Levitin-Krasnov issued a similar appeal in “Müslüman Dünyasına Çağrı,” 22.

6 Incense and Drum

1 Chukovskaia, “Litso beschelovech’ia,” 49.

2 Dzhemilev, “Poema ‘Bakhchisaraiskii fontan’ Shiukriu El’china,” 436.

3 Dzhemilev, “Den’ shestoi,” 403.

4 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

5 Dzhemilev, “Poema ‘Bakhchisaraiskii fontan’ Shiukriu El’china,” 437.

6 Dzhemilev, “Den’ shestoi,” 405.

7 “Poslednee slovo Andreia Siniavskogo,” 155.

8 Beckett, “Dante… Bruno… Vico… Joyce,” 19.

9 Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 181; Kreindler, “The Soviet Departed Nationalities,” 396.

10 Reddaway, “The Crimean Tatar Drive for Repatriation,”’ 233.

11 Eren, “Crimean Tatar Communities Abroad,” 328.

12 Elçin, “Bahçesaray Çeşmesi,” 13–15. The poem was republished in Türk Kültürü 314 (June 1989): 328–9.

13 Zürcher, Turkey, 288. In privileging both an ancient concept of Turkishness and a devout Muslim way of life, the Synthesis bears the influence of Ziya Gökalp. See Eligür, The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey, 97.

14 Paul J. White and Joost Jongerden, Turkey’s Alevi Enigma, 79; Zürcher, Turkey, 288.

15 Elçin, Aşık Ömer, 1.

16 Elçin, “Bahçesaray Çeşmesi,” 13.

17 Elçin, Halk edebiyatına giriş, 209.

18 Lowell Bezanis estimates the circulation of Emel at roughly two thousand. See Bezanis, “Soviet Muslim Emigrés in the Republic of Turkey,” 107.

19 “Yeniden Çıkarken,” 1.

20 Aydin, “Turkish Foreign Policy,” 107–8. In 1945 the Soviet Union declared that it would not renew the Turkish-Soviet non-aggression pact. As Fisher notes, this declaration came soon after the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, which lends credence to the thesis that they represented for Stalin a potential fifth column in a war with Turkey. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars, 169.

21 These journals on the whole prefer esir Türkler to the more neutral dış Türkler (outside Turks), a term also in circulation in pan-Turkist circles. Unlike esir, dış explicitly introduces concepts of inside/outside that are irrelevant for the ardent pan-Turkist. In any case, as Lowell Bezanis notes, the term dış Türkler still “betrays a subtle irrendentism suggesting that these groups await deliverance and that Turkey is the natural protector of their interests.” Bezanis, “Soviet Muslim Emigrés in the Republic of Turkey,” 61.

22 See, for instance, the appeals of the editors of Türk Birliği, who wrote in 1966: “We await your poems too! Our magazine will have a large space for the poems of its readers.” Türk Birliği 1, no. 1: 36.

23 Körüklü, “Bırakın a dağlar,” 12.

24 Bolulu, “Bu Toprağa ve İnsanına Dair Destan’dan,” 43. This description of Turan is reminiscent of one found in the pan-Turkist canon: “[F]rom wherever the sun rises to wherever the sun sets” (güneşin doğduğu yerden battığı yere kadar). See Güzel et al., Genel Türk Tarihi, 9:398.

25 Ulusoy, “Gelsin,” 14.

26 Uytun, “Gelsin,” 12.

27 Belge, Kemalizm, 34.

28 Atatürk’s memorable tautology was made to help claim more power for the Grand National Assembly. See Rustow, “Political Parties in Turkey,” 12.

29 Less often used is the composite ethonym Kırım Türk-Tatarları (Crimean Turk-Tatars).

30 The Turkish state, which sought to assimilate its national minorities to the extent possible, also promoted the use of Türk at the expense of other ethnonyms, even citing on at least one occasion the use of Tatar as evidence of kabilecilik (tribalism). Bezanis, “Soviet Muslim Emigrés in the Republic of Turkey,” 81. See also Williams, The Crimean Tatars, 252.

31 Nekrich, The Punished Peoples, 19. Nekrich also believes that the term Crimean Turks, as employed by Crimean Tatar emigrés like Edige Kırımal advocating their cause in Germany during the war, “did much to harm the Crimean Tatars in the fateful year of 1944.” Nekrich, 19.

32 Eren, “Crimean Tatar Communities Abroad,” 337.

33 See especially Erer, “Kırım Türkleri ve Esir Türkler!” 25. Türk Birliği appeared in Ankara in 1966 and saw a print run of five years.

34 Türk Birliği 33 (December 1968): 22.

35 Kırımal, “Sürgündeki Kırımlılara dair,” 40. Many of Kırımal’s essays and articles in Dergi, the German-based Turkish-language journal under his editorship, were also carried in Emel.

36 Kırımal, 43.

37 See Türk Birliği 14–15 (1967): 5–6.

38 Yi-Fu Tuan coined the term topophilia to describe “all of the human being’s affective ties with the material environment,” in Topophilia, 93.

39 Giray, “Can Kırım,” 25.

40 Aliev, Antologiia krymskoi narodnoi muzyki, 84.

41 Güleç, “İçimde Bir Büyük Vatan Ağlıyor,” 19.

42 Halil Kırımman, “Kırımlı Sürgünler,” 23–4.

43 Kırımman, 24.

44 See Emel 63 (Mart-Nisan 1971), 47.

45 Dzhimbinov, “Epitafiia spetskhranu?” 243.

46 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

47 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

48 Kıvanç, “Kampta,” 6. An example of such advertisements can be found in Milliyet, 6 June 1973, 8.

49 Dağcı, Hatıralarda Cengiz Dağcı, 121–8.

50 Landsberg, “Prosthetic Memory,” 149–50; emphasis mine.

51 Halman, The Turkish Muse, 151.

52 Karatay, “Yansılar, Cengiz Dağcı ve Kırım,” 9.

53 Dağcı, Korkunç Yıllar, 113.

54 Dağcı, Hatıralarda Cengiz Dağcı, 258.

55 Karatay, “Yansılar, Cengiz Dağcı ve Kırım,” 9.

56 Dağcı, Korkunç Yıllar, 48.

57 Dağcı, 43.

58 Dağcı, 26.

59 Dağcı, Onlar da İnsandı, 21. For an example of a full list of the Ministry of Education’s top one hundred recommended books, see Doğan Hızlan, “‘1000 Temel Eser’den ‘100 Temel Eser’e.”

60 Dağcı, Onlar da İnsandı, 21.

61 Dağcı, 147.

62 Kılıç, “Kırım Türkleri ile niye ilgilenmiyoruz?” 3.

63 Sarıkamış, “Sana Hasret Gideriz Güzel Kırım,” 24; emphasis mine. The historian Necip Hablemitoğlu (also known as Necip Abdulhamitoğlu) uses the Crimean Tatars to take this “double standard” argument to another level. In the preface to the third edition of an influential work originally titled Türksüz Kırım: Yüzbinlerin Sürgünü (A Crimea without Turks: The deportation of hundreds of thousands, 1974), which emerged from a series of articles titled “Kırım Faciasının İçyüzü” (The inside story of the Crimean tragedy) in the newspaper Son Havadis (The Latest News) in the early 1970s, Hablemitoğlu complains that “Turkey has been sitting in the dock accused of genocide [against the Armenians] since 1915” while few pay attention to the “genocide of the Crimean Turks.” See Hablemitoğlu, Yüzbinlerin Sürgünü Kırımda Türk Soykırımı, 21.

64 Quoted in Dağcı, Yansılar 1, 96.

65 Dağcı, Korkunç Yıllar, 26.

66 A young boy named Halûk navigates a Crimea that is stricken with death and despair in the darkly titled Badem Dalına Asılı Bebekler (Babies hanging on the almond branch, 1970). See Dağcı, Badem Dalına Asılı Bebekler.

67 Dağcı, Badem Dalına Asılı Bebekler, 265.

68 Dağcı, Korkunç Yıllar, 252.

69 Dağcı, Onlar da İnsandı, 393.

70 Dağcı, 488.

71 Dağcı, 405.

72 Dağcı, 488.

73 Dağcı, 494.

74 Dağcı, O Topraklar Bizimdi, 128.

75 Dağcı, 128.

76 Dağcı, 138.

77 Dağcı, 140.

78 Dağcı, 384.

79 Dağcı, 510.

80 Yalçıner’s wife is believed to have secretly informed the national intelligence service about the junta’s activities. Kirişçioğlu, 12 Mart (İnönü—Ecevit) ve 1960 Tahkikat Encümeni raporum, 227.

81 This letter is given as an appendix to the novel Kırım Kurbanları. Pişkin and Coşar, Kırım Kurbanları, n.p.

82 Aydin, “Turkish Foreign Policy,” 125.

83 Pişkin and Coşar, “Sunuş,” in Kırım Kurbanları, 7; emphasis mine.

84 Pişkin and Coşar, 9 and 15.

85 Pişkin and Coşar, 218.

86 Pişkin and Coşar, 10.

87 Pişkin and Coşar, 12.

88 In this regard, Pişkin and Coşar follow in the footsteps of Hüseyin Nihal Atsız, whose ultra-nationalist novels (e.g. Bozkurtlar Ölümü [The death of the grey wolves, 1946] and Ruh Adam [Soul man, 1972]) appealed to a young audience. Jacob M. Landau, “Ultra-Nationalist Literature in the Turkish Republic,” 206.

89 Pişkin and Coşar, Kırım Kurbanları, 19.

90 Pişkin and Coşar, 115 and 142, for example.

91 Pişkin and Coşar, 47.

92 Pişkin and Coşar, 38.

93 Pişkin and Coşar, 9.

94 Atsız has been called the “subconsciousness of the ultra-nationalist movement” in Turkey. See Cenk Saraçoğlu, “Ülkücü Hareketin Biliçaltı Olarak Atsız,” 100–24. On “formal mimetics,” see Michał Głowiński, “On the First-Person Novel,” 103–14.

95 Anastasiou, The Broken Olive Branch, 1:148.

96 Anastasiou, 1:145; emphasis mine.

97 Lienhardt, Social Anthropology, 144–5.

98 Gündüz, Kırım, 119.

99 “Obrashchenie pisatelia A. I. Pristavkina v Prezidium Verkhovnoho Soveta SSSR,” 15 July 1987, 218.

100 “Soobshchenie TASS,” 23 July 1987, 219.

101 “Zaiava z’ïzdu na pidtrymku prahnen’ kryms’ko-tatars’koho narodu,” 216–17. See also Burakovs’kyi, Istoriia rady natsional’nostei Narodnoho Rukhu Ukraïny 1989–1993, 45. The Crimean Tatars were represented at Rukh’s founding congress, which ultimately produced an open letter in support of their right of return, and were considered one of the most active groups in attendance. Burakovs’kyi, 57. See also Drach, Polityka, 175.

102 “O priznanii nezakonnymi i prestupymi repressivnykh aktov protiv narodov,” 570.

103 In an allusion to Hegel’s “cunning of reason,” Elizabeth A. Povinelli employs the term “cunning of recognition” to refer to darker motives behind acts of the legal recognition of indigenous peoples subjected to settler colonialism. See Povinelli, “The Cunning of Recognition,” 635.

104 Dağcı, Yansılar 4, 65.

105 Dağcı, 67.

7 Selective Affinities

1 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

2 See, for instance, Dawson, “Ethnicity, Ideology and Geopolitics in Crimea,” 427–44.

3 Even clear-eyed scholarship on the crime of the deportation can neglect the colonial frame. See, for instance, Williams, “Hidden Ethnocide in the Soviet Muslim Borderlands,” 357–73.

4 David Chioni Moore’s essay “Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique” remains one of the most trenchant interventions into this problematic.

5 Adzhubei, “Kak Khrushchev Krym Ukraine otdal,” 20.

6 Adzhubei, 20–1.

7 Adzhubei, 21.

8 Hal’chyns’kyi et al, “Intehratsiia kryms’kykh tatar v ukraïns’ke suspil’stvo,” 209. The number cited in Ukrainian currency is UAH 776 million. In 1999 alone, for instance, Kyiv allocated UAH 20 million – approximately USD 5 million– for such purposes. See “Document 8655,” 5. According to this report, however, only a quarter of the budgeted total in 1999 was dispersed. For Turkish aid in the 1990s, see Karatay, “Demirel’in Tarihî Ziyaretinin Kırım İçin Önemi,” 1–6.

9 Pleshakov, The Crimean Nexus, 115.

10 V’iacheslav Kyrylenko, “Zaiava ‘Nashoï Ukraïny’ z pryvodu provokuvannia kryms’koiu vladoiu ta militsiieiu mizhnatsional’nykh konfliktiv (7 lystopada 2007 r).”

11 Vladimir Putin makes a similar quip about Crimean Tatar activism as a “profession” in the propaganda film chronicle Krym: Put’ na rodinu (Crimea: The way home), dir. Sergei Kraus, 2015.

12 Astakhova, “Prinesennye vetrom.”

13 Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, 110.

14 Memmi, 195; emphasis mine.

15 Hughes and Sasse, “Power Ideas and Conflict,” 318.

16 Shevel’, “Kryms’ki tatary ta ukraïns’ka derzhava,” 22.

17 Bahadıroğlu, Kırım Kan Ağlıyor, 17.

18 İpek, “Vatanda Gurbet,” 17.

19 I take the term allohistory from Gavriel Rosenfeld, “Why Do We Ask ‘What If?,’” 90.

20 Vasilii Aksenov, Ostrov Krym, 168.

21 Vasilii Aksenov, 22.

22 Vasilii Aksenov, 176.

23 Vasilii Aksenov, 202.

24 Vasilii Aksenov, 230.

25 Vasilii Aksenov, 307.

26 “Sergei Aksenov: Referendum nikto ne otmenit.”

27 Ulitskaia was a prominent critic of the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, describing it as a “revolting seizure” (otvratitel’nyi zakhvat). See, for instance, “Liudmila Ulitskaia pro ‘krymnash’.”

28 Ulitskaia, Medeia i ee deti, 188, 215.

29 In 2006 a Russian nationalist youth group called Proryv (Breakthrough) took up shovels and tried to separate Crimea from mainland Ukraine by digging across Perekop, citing Aksenov’s book as inspiration. See “19.01.2006, Chongar.”

30 Sid, Geopoetika, 72.

31 Sid, 11. The nickname stems from “bibo,” to drink, “calidus,” warm, and “merum,” potent wine. See Smet, Menippean Satire, 128.

32 Zhadan, “Pivostriv svobody.”

33 Saburov, “Sviatye Kirill i Mefodii kak ideologi avangarda,” 7.

34 Sid, Geopoetika, 61.

35 Sid, 69.

36 Sid, 72.

37 Quoted in Starozhyts’ka, “Nashe korinnia v Krymu.”

38 Sid, Geopoetika, 51.

39 I take the term reverse hallucination – “not seeing what is there” – from Abbas, Hong Kong, 6.

40 See especially the remarks of Leonid Pilunskii and Volodymyr Pritula in Ol’ga Dukhnich and Nataliia Belitser, Pliuralism identichnostei, 63–4.

41 Sontsia i moria na mezhi.

42 Kononenko, “Slovo do kryms’kykh ukraïntsiv.” This passivity is discussed in Dukhnich and Belitser, Pliuralism identichnostei, 62.

43 Kononenko, “Povernennia,” 232.

44 Korsovets’kyi, “Chokrak,” 93.

45 Şukur, “İqrarlıq,” 659–60.

46 Plokhy, The Gates of Europe, 75.

47 Hayden White, The Practical Past, 9.

48 The twin brothers Vitaly and Dmytro Kapranov, who have produced a history of Ukraine employing comic-book illustrations for narrative effect, emphasize the importance of the Ukrainian–Crimean Tatar encounter, in Braty Kapranovy, Mal’ovana istoriia Nezalezhnosti Ukraïny. For more on their interpretation of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar national symbols as mutually “inverted,” see “Krymskie tatary stali geroiami komiksov.”

49 Kryms’kyi, “Literatura kryms’kykh tatar,” 173.

50 Alâdin, İblisniñ ziyafetine davet.

51 Alâdin, “Toğaybey,” 364.

52 Historical evidence of the khan’s knowledge of Ukrainian and the hetman’s knowledge of Crimean Tatar can be found in the works of Cossack chronicler Samiilo Velychko. See Velichko, Letopis’ sobytii v Iugo-zapadnoi Rossii v XVII veke, 44.

53 Alâdin, “Toğaybey,” 360.

54 Alâdin, 354.

55 Laclau, “Politics and the Limits of Modernity,” 81. Parts of this section first appeared in Rory Finnin, “Oles’ Sanin, Mamai.”

56 For more on the “conceptual enigma” of the Cossack Mamai, see the visually arresting collection Kozak Mamai, ed. Bushak et al.

57 This comment is made by Frank Curot (“les plans sont plus juxtaposés qu’enchaînés”) in reference to the filmmaking of Sergei Paradzhanov. See Curot, “Singularité et liberté,” 231.

58 Sanin, “Khto boïtsia Mamaia.”

59 Sanin.

60 Excerpts from “Duma pro samars’kykh brativ” (“Usi polia samars’ki pochornily, / Ta ne iasnymy pozharamy pohorily, / Til’ky ne zhorily/ U richtsi Samartsi, / V krynytsi Saltantsi”) are also read in an extradiegetic voiceover at the beginning of the film.

61 Sanin, “Khto boïtsia Mamaia.” For more about the legend of the Golden Cradle, see Zarubin and Zarubin, Skazky i legendy krymskikh tatar, 77–89.

62 Sanin, “Khto boïtsia Mamaia.”

63 “‘Haytarma’ Filminin Türkiye Galası Eskişehir’de Yapıldı.”

64 Karatay, “Demirel’in Tarihî Ziyaretinin Kırım İçin Önemi,” 3.

65 “Cengiz Dağcı’nın Cenazesinde Dış İşleri Bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun Konuşması,” 11.

66 Volodymyr Prytula, “Krym vidviduie turets’kyi prem’ier.” After one of these meetings in October 2012, Turkish state television broadcast a nine-part documentary film based on Dzhemilev’s life and on the collective struggle of the Crimean Tatar people after the 1944 deportation. Among the prominent figures interviewed for the series were Demirel, Davutoğlu, and Erdoğan. See “V Turechchyni znialy fil’m pro istoriiu kryms’kykh tatar.”

67 Samar, “Mustafa Dzhemilev.”

8 Losing Home, Finding Home

1 It has become commonplace to refer to Yanukovych’s flight from office as an “ouster,” which – in the standard narrative, if left unqualified – implies that he was forced out of office by Euromaidan protesters. There is no direct proof of such a claim. In fact, there is as much circumstantial evidence that he was “ousted” by the Kremlin and told to leave office in order to facilitate rhetoric of Ukraine’s “illegitimacy” and feed justifications for intervention in Crimea. As Andrew Wilson points out, “video footage at Mezhyhirya [Yanukovych’s lavish mansion] shows Yanukovych packing […] over the course of three days before he fled Kiev, starting on 19 February.” (See Wilson, Ukraine Crisis, 88. See also Berezovets’, Aneksiia, 38–45.) Putin’s directive to seize Crimea reportedly took place the next day – on 20 Feburary 2014, two days before Yanukovych fled from Ukraine. (See Galeotti, Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine, 7.) In the information space, the Kremlin quickly proceeded to leverage Yanukovych’s sudden flight to allege a “coup” and to claim, as Dmitrii Medvedev did on 24 February 2014, that “there are major doubts about the legitimacy of the entire structure of organs of power in Ukraine.” (See “Dmitrii Medvedev.”)

2 Musaeva, “Oleg Sentsov.”

3 See the chronology in Kofman, Migacheva, et al, Lessons from Russia’s Operations, 8–9.

4 “Crimean Tatars Take Food to Ukraine Soldiers Blocked on Their Bases by Russian Troops.”

5 “Rossiiskie voennye shturmom vziali bazu morpekhov v Feodosii.”

6 Kalkay, “2014 ‘ün bıraktıkları!” 4.

7 Erdoğan, “Cumhurbaşkanımız mesajları,” 19; emphasis mine.

8 Hughes and Sasse, “Power Ideas and Conflict,” 320.

9 “Public Opinion Survey,” 17.

10 Knott, “Identity in Crimea before Annexation,” 283.

11 See, for example, Nakashima, “Inside a Russian Disinformation Campaign.”

12 Wilson, Ukraine Crisis, 113.

13 Vossoedinenie is used to describe, for instance, the formalization of the Ukrainian Hetmanate as a protectorate of Muscovy in 1654 and the annexation of Polish territory to Soviet Belarus and Soviet Ukraine in 1939.

14 This number is difficult to specify in total, but in 2017 Ukraine’s State Emergency Service announced that there were 22,822 IDPs from Crimea resident in mainland Ukraine. See “Rehional’nymy shtabamy DSNS zareiestrovano ponad 1 mln. 70 tysiach vnutrishn’o peremishchenykh osib.”

15 “15 marta 2014 goda v pole u sela Zemlianichnoe Belogorskogo raiona obnaruzhen trup muzhchiny.”

16 “Infografika po nasyl’nyts’kym znyknenniam v okupovanomu RF Krymu.”

17 See Andreiuk et al, Entsyklopediia represiї v Krymu z momentu okupatsiї Rosiieiu, vols. 1 and 2.

18 Rudenko and Sardalova, “Pro Putina, svobodu i Tsemakha.”

19 Gumeniuk, Poteriannyi ostrov, 129 and 290. See also “Krymskie tatary pomogaiut sem’e Sentsova.”

20 Rudenko and Sardalova, “Pro Putina, svobodu i Tsemakha.”

21 Musaeva, “Oleg Sentsov.”

22 “Sentsov: ‘Stal namnogo luchshe ponimat’ krymskikh tatar posle togo, kak menia vygnali s Rodiny.’”

23 Chubarov, “S’ohodni vidbulasia tepla druzhnia zustrich z Olehom Sentsovym.”

24 Sentsov, “Odniieiu z velykykh hrup.”

25 The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, 2016, 35.

26 Taraniuk, “Lider Medzhlisu.”

27 This distinction is made by Crimean Tatar lawyer Emil Kurbedinov in Gumeniuk, Poteriannyi ostrov, 302.

28 Üseyin, “Saqın mennen vedalaşma,” 32.

29 Savchuk, “Semeinoe delo.”

30 See, for instance, Uehling, “A Hybrid Deportation,” 62–77.

31 “Molytvy i povitriani kuli.”

32 “‘Govori, otets, govori…’ Chitaet Lilia Budzhurova.”

33 Karatay, “Başyazı,” 3–5.

34 Olgun, “Şevçenko’nun ülkesinde,” 27.

35 Olgun, 29.

36 See, for instance, “Holodomor Soykırımı Kurbanları İstanbul’da Anıldı.”

37 See “Hakkımızda,” KirimDernegi.org.tr, http://www.kirimdernegi.org.tr/dernek/hakk-m-zda.

38 “SMI.”

39 Yaltirik, Yedikuleli Mansur.

40 Çokum, Gözyaşı Çeşmesi, back cover.

41 Çokum, 241.

42 See, for instance, an interview with Gennady Katsov on the RTN WMNB (Russian Television Network of America) program “Chto noven’kogo?” YouTube (5 April 2015).

43 Krymskii klub, Nashkrym. All the poems of the anthology can be read at https://nkpoetry.com.

44 Krymskii klub.

45 Sid, Geopoetika, 349. Sid is guided toward this realization by Serhiy Zhadan.

46 Lukomnikov, “Moe uchastie v sbornike stikhov o Kryme…”

47 Lukomnikov.

48 Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, 11.

49 Higgins, “Oleg Sentsov”; Tsentr Razumkova, Identychnist’ hromadian Ukraïny v novykh umovakh.

50 Sereda, “‘Social Distancing’ and Hierarchies of Belonging,” 417.

51 Zubkovych, “Language Use among Crimean Tatars in Ukraine,” 173.

52 “Joint Meeting to Hear an Address by His Excellency Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine,” 15032.

53 “Crimean Tatars: Who Are They?”

54 Mustafa Dzhemilev, interview with the author, December 2019.

55 “Crimean Tatars: Who Are They?”

56 Ekaterina Mishchenko, “Predislovie. Golosa ostrovitian,” in Gumeniuk, Poteriannyi ostrov, 8.

57 Huk, “Liuds’ke zhyttia …,” 135.

58 Savka, “Khoch rizni my, brate, liniia doli spil’na.”

59 Kalytko, Zemlia zahublenykh, abo malen’ki strashni kazky.

60 Kalytko, “Nastupnoho roku v Bakhchysaraї.”

61 Kalytko, “Nastupnoho roku v Bakhchysaraї.”

62 Parts of this discussion of Evge also appear in Finnin and Kozachenko, “Beyond ‘Narrating the Nation.’”

63 Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, 3.

64 Seitablaiev fights off the comparisons with Spielberg. See, for instance, “U studiї Snidanku rezhyser fil’mu ‘Dodomu’ Nariman Aliiev ta aktor Akhtem Seitablaiev,” Snidanok z 1+1 (7 November 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Ilhrrsav4

65 Jouve, Lyrique, 59.

66 Chervotkina, “Toponimy (Tsykl),” 143.

67 Svitoch, “Pro shcho lysty Nasymy,” 237.

68 Svitoch, 243.

69 Dziuba, Chornyi romantyk.

70 “Serhii Zhadan v hostiakh u 503 OBMP, Chastyna 2.”

71 Andrukhovych, “Mistse zustrichi Germanschka,” 266.

72 I take the text of the poem from Serhiy Zhadan, Tampliiery, 8–9.

73 Kökçe, “Bizim evlerimiz nasıl qurula?” 285–6.

74 Dziuba, Chornyi romantyk, p. 4.

75 “There is no sun without shadow,” writes Camus, “and it is essential to know the night.” Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays, 123.

76 Crimean Tatar activist Edem Dudakov calls the project “Potemkin repair” and “vandalism,” in “Khanskii dvorets v Krymu.” For more on the Venice Charter, see International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites.”

77 Budzhurova, “Pochemu my molchim?”

78 Dudakov, “Tot ne znaiet …”

79 Rodichkina, “Dyvyshsia na suchasnu Ukraїnu …”

80 For more on Ukrainian public opinion on the issue of Crimean Tatar national-territorial autonomy, see “Povernennia Krymu.” Former president Petro Poroshenko condemned the longstanding failure of the Ukrainian state to “secure Crimean Tatar autonomy,” only to fail himself. See, for example, “Poroshenko zaiavyv pro hotovnist’ vnesty zminy do Konstytutsiї shchodo kryms’kotatars’koї avtonomiї.”

81 See “U Zelens’koho khochut’ obhovoryty kryms’kotatars’ku avtonomiiu z narodom.”

82 Marynovych, “Kryms’ka kryza i tsyvilizatsiini shansy Ukraïny.”

83 Schlögel, Ukraine: A Nation on the Borderland, 61.

Coda

1 See, for instance, Mearsheimer, “Don’t Arm Ukraine.” As Marci Shore observes, “Europeans preferred to put Crimea out of their minds.” Shore, The Ukrainian Night, 150.

2 “A/RES/74/17,” 2.

3 Kuku, “Poslednee slovo v sude.”

4 Edward Said critiques what he sees as a predominant representation of Palestinians as “interruptions” and “intermittent presences” in historical scholarship. See Said, After the Last Sky, 26.

5 Margalit, The Ethics of Memory, 144.

6 Myroslav Marynovych, interview with the author, November 2019.

7 Weaver, The Politics of the Black Sea Region, 135.