Mark Hurst. Review of Martin, Barbara, Roy and Zhores Medvedev: Loyal Dissent in the Soviet Union

BOOK REVIEW

Roy and Zhores Medvedev: Loyal Dissent in the Soviet Union
by Barbara Martin

Academic Studies Press
2023. 260 pp.
(cloth), ISBN 979-88-87191-81-2.

Reviewed by Mark Hurst (Lancaster University)

During the twentieth century, opposition to the Soviet regime took a variety of shapes and sizes. In the latter years of the Cold War, the Western perception of the so-called Soviet dissident movement was dominated by two Nobel Laureates—the Slavophile writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the liberal physicist Andrei Sakharov. Their contrasting political positions have come to symbolize one of the major debates between members of the dissident movement, focusing on whether the Soviet Union, simplistically speaking, should develop along nationalistic or democratic lines. This conventional framing is a useful place to start assessment of Soviet dissent, but it misses an important third group of dissidents—those loyal to the premise of the communist regime.

The notion of loyal dissent is a challenging one in the face of a regime as punitive as the Soviet Union. Whilst conceptually confusing and contradictory, those who advocated loyal dissent wanted the communist superpower to reform along socialist lines. This was a necessarily “broad church” of individuals, whose views of what this meant in practice was as wide as the variety of interpretations of Marxism itself. Central to this group was the historian Roy Medvedev who, alongside his identical twin brother the scientist Zhores, forms the focus of Barbara Martin’s excellent assessment of an intriguing case of loyal dissent.

This dual biography of the Medvedev brothers is sensibly structured in a chronological fashion. It begins by charting their childhood experiences as sons of a veteran of the Russian Civil War who was persecuted during the Stalinist purges of the 1930s. This experience proved formative for both brothers, who went on to forge careers built upon challenging orthodox viewpoints—Zhores challenging the “scientific” nature of the controversial agronomist Trofim Lysenko and Roy critically reflecting on the impact of Stalinism on the Soviet Union as a historian. In both cases, this developed into a lifetime of challenging the Soviet authorities from a position of loyalty to Marxism—a complex balancing act for both brothers. While they often navigated this with particular aplomb, there were instances where they misjudged this tightrope. At its worst, this led to persecution at the hands of the Soviet authorities. Zhores was detained in a psychiatric institution against his will and later exiled from the Soviet Union, settling in London. Roy came under attack from the Soviet authorities who considered his clandestine academic work a threat. Despite this, he managed to avoid the worst excesses of persecution by evading the authorities and going into hiding—escapades not far from the imagination of Ian Fleming and John le Carré. Roy also came under criticism from others in the wider dissident movement who thought him an apologist for the regime, demonstrating the breadth of this loose intellectual grouping at the height of the Cold War.

The final years of the Soviet regime brought new opportunities and challenges for the Medvedev brothers. Gorbachev’s reforms opened a space for them to engage in state-sanctioned political activity. From his position in the Soviet Union, this was perhaps most applicable to Roy, who was elected as a member of the Congress of People’s Deputies, whilst Zhores’s reputation as a scientist was rehabilitated. However, the Soviet system itself was unstable, and its collapse in the early 1990s led to a much-studied period of political turmoil. In this period of uncertainty, Roy’s political concerns focused on the importance of the strong leader who could promote order, supporting the rule of Vladimir Putin through the publication of several supportive books. While this may feel at odds with his activity in the Soviet Union, in many ways this support for Putin chimes with his particular form of loyal dissent.

As Martin deftly notes, the questionable nature of the Medvedev brothers’ politics may go some way to explaining why historians have shied away from considering their role. Alongside this, the complexity of writing the biography of twin brothers is in itself a particular challenge—balancing the need to explore the overlaps of their lives while treating them as separate figures. In this context, Martin’s assessment of the Medvedevs is balanced, insightful, and engaging. It highlights the complexities of these loyal dissidents and how they interacted with other political figures, and it offers an intriguing insight into their political influence. This book vividly brings to life the personal and political challenges faced by those who sought to challenge the Soviet system, and their efforts to engage with the world beyond the iron curtain in this pursuit. It is built upon a formidable knowledge of the Medvedev brothers, both of whom published vociferously throughout the Cold War and beyond. Obtaining a grasp of this material, which has been bolstered by numerous interviews with the Medvedev brothers, demonstrates remarkable skill—something that should be commended. Alongside this, Martin’s work is very readable too, shifting from the small details of the lives of the brothers through to the wider implications of their actions for international politics. I was particularly enamored with the details of Roy’s ability to effortlessly shake off his KGB tail while being followed, and his speeding through Moscow’s streets in a borrowed Moskvich car. He managed to swiftly escape from the cars that were chasing him, later discovering that sightings of his speeding escapades had been noted with interest by the KGB (p. 144). These details really bring the brothers to life, demonstrating that individuals who can be stereotyped by the serious nature of their intellectual work can be so much more than just their writings.

Martin’s book neatly demonstrates the challenges of assessing political dissent in the Soviet Union. The case of the Medvedev brothers is an exemplar in the subtleties required in considering this group. While both were doubtless dissidents, who were persecuted by the authorities for their actions, they were also closely engaged with the Soviet system, including holding positions of political influence and relationships with some senior government figures. Alongside this, Zhores’s forced expulsion to the West exposes the challenges for dissidents in exile. From his position in London, Zhores was effectively Roy’s spokesman in the West, who also managed his financial interests such as royalties accrued from the publication of his works in translation. In doing so, however, Zhores had to be conscious of the impact this activity could have on his friends and family in the Soviet Union, including his imprisoned son Aleksandr. On top of this, the Medvedev brothers were notable for not shying away from disagreeing with other prominent dissidents. The relationship between the brothers and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in particular is fascinating, revealing much about the personality of political dissidents and the utter steadfastness in their views. Taken together, these challenges offer an important reminder that the Soviet dissident movement was a complex and far from homogenous group.

Despite the many positives of this book, there are a couple of smaller issues worth noting. First is the frustrating system of references used in this book. Instead of adopting either a conventional footnoting, endnoting, or in-line referencing system, this book has a vaguer set of “Works Cited” and “Further Reading” at the end of each chapter. This makes following the references in this book challenging, as there is no clear link between direct quotations in the text and their source. Given Martin’s commendable depth of empirical material, built on interviews and detailed archival work, this is especially frustrating. The impressive academic quality of this book is buried because of a formatting decision that ought to favor demonstrating the author’s knowledge through more transparent referencing. Second is the slightly awkward phrasing of key terms. For example, references to both a “British Minister of Foreign Affairs” and a “British Foreign Affairs Office” read jarringly to a reader expecting to read “Foreign Secretary” and “Foreign Office.” This is subtle, and undoubtedly more apparent to a British reader, but it is notable. In both instances, the publisher should be the focus of critical attention for these issues rather than the author. These are issues that could easily be rectified by a referencing style this is more academically focused, and by a more substantial proofreading offered to an author writing across several languages.

This is in many ways a fascinating book. Not only does it offer an absorbing insight into the intertwined political lives of two brothers, but it also sheds great insight into the broader operation of the Soviet dissident movement—both within the Soviet Union and across the iron curtain. It addresses a significant gap in the literature on the Soviet dissident movement, and will undoubtedly become a must-read for anyone interested in the characters that sought to change politics in the Soviet Union. It is a compelling read recommended to anyone interested in political dissent or the history of the Soviet Union.

[This review from H-Net is reproduced here under a Creative Commons License]