Soviet intellectuals were closely related with indoctrination practices and the legitimisation of the regime. During post-Stalinism Soviet intellectuals experienced the impact of destalinization by opening more room for (...)
Soviet intellectuals were closely related with indoctrination practices and the legitimisation of the regime. During post-Stalinism Soviet intellectuals experienced the impact of destalinization by opening more room for the dynamic exchange of ideas and expressions. It is important to explore the Soviet peripheries, which were important for the demise of USSR, and to track down similar manifestations in them. This article pays special attention to those controversial situations in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia, that showed the shift in ideologies, conflicts in cultural establishment and the lines of cleavage that have emerged within the dissident movements. By embracing the Cold war atmosphere in Soviet peripheries, this article analyses the trajectories of two intellectuals - the poet Tomas Venclova and the literary critic Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who came from the families of cultural nomenclatura in Soviet periphery, but who in the 70’s increasingly moved to the position of dissidents and human rights activists. Bearing in mind that Gamsakhurdia adopted an increasingly harsh nationalist rhetoric and Venclova declared cosmopolitan values, though both became well-known dissidents, the analysis provides the context of cultural process and ethnoparticularism in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia, revealing the similarities and differences in Tomas Venclova’s and Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s relationship with the cultural establishment and dissident movement. In doing so, this article places these cases in the broader context of ethnic particularism during the Cold War. The comparison of both cases allows us to argue that cosmopolitanism, especially bearing in mind that Soviet Lithuania was more open to various ideas from the West (if compared with Georgia), felt a stronger disciplining effect than a covered nationalist position.
Keywords: Human rights; dissidents; Venclova; Gamsakhurdia; Soviet Lithuania; Soviet Georgia; Cold war; ethno-particularism; nationalism; cosmopolitanism
The “Cold Warriors”, participants of the conflict that gripped the world for nearly fifty years, were not only the creators of confrontational policies and harsh rhetoric, but also those who adopted dissenting stances at the cultural and political level, often manifesting their approval for the standards of living and values of the other side. A cultural opposition emerged in Central Europe and in the USSR during the post-Stalinist period. It expressed its distance from Soviet and socialist standards and its fascination for Western democratic models. These views gradually gained ground, to the point that, in the late 1980s, they were no longer the expression of an isolated opposition, but had rather become part of the new mainstream.. During détente, a number of intellectuals had immediately decided to take a stance on the emerging issue of human rights violations in the Soviet Union, turning de facto into dissidents. Indeed, in the 1970s human rights movements in the USSR became the symbol of the dissatisfaction of part of the society, and of the appeal that Western ideals had on it. Daniel C. Thomas argues that the demise of Communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was significantly influenced by the transnational diffusion of human rights values and standards. Hence, this cultural shift was significant not only in East European societies, but also in the Soviet cultural establishment, which also felt the impact of these processes.
After the death of Stalin, Soviet intellectuals experienced the impact of destalinization, which opened up spaces for the expression and circulation of new ideas that often aimed at the reform of the Soviet system. After the Prague Spring and its repression, however, in response to the tightening up of the Party’s grip and influenced by the general atmosphere of Cold War, some intellectuals chose to confront the regime. Most of the studies focus on networks of dissent and underground activities in the Centre (Moscow, Leningrad). However it is equally important to explore the Soviet peripheries, which played a crucial role in the demise of USSR, and to track down similar emerging manifestations of dissent. This paper specifically focuses on those controversial situations that show shifts in ideologies and conflicts within the cultural establishment, as well as the emergence of cleavages within the dissident movements themselves. Such controversial situations can be seen in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia in the two multi-faceted cases of the “cosmopolitan” poet Tomas Venclova and the “nationalist” literary critic Zviad Gamsakhurdia. They both came from the milieu of the cultural nomenklatura (their fathers were recognized Soviet writers or poets), but in the 1970s both participated in the human rights movement and expressed criticism of the cultural establishment. Although both of them eventually became well-known dissidents, Gamsakhurdia and Venclova represented two very different approaches: the former adopting an increasingly harsh nationalist rhetoric and the latter declaring his cosmopolitan values. Therefore, it can be interesting to compare their cases. Through the analysis of the artistic and socio-political trajectories of both these figures, the paper attempts to: 1) unravel the similarities and differences in Tomas Venclova’s and Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s relationship with the cultural establishment and dissident movement; 2) identify similarities, differences, and turning points in the cultures of two Soviet peripheries by placing these cases in the broader context of ethnic particularism during the Cold War.
The justification for the comparison of Lithuania/Georgia and Gamsakhurdia/Venclova is based on the observation that both peripheries had strong national and human rights movements and nationalist-oriented elites during the Soviet period, even if the Georgian ethno-particularism was stronger and the country’s elites were more conservative that the ones in Lithuania. This research is based on three historiographical traditions: the cultural studies of Cold War, the studies of cultural and national policies in the USSR, and those on the nationalisms within the USSR. These approaches complement, rather than contradict, each other.
Among the scholarship on the cultural aspects of the Cold War, I will refer primarily to the works of Daniel C. Thomas, Sarah B. Snyder, Lyudmila Alekseeva and Ann Komaromi, who showed the importance of the human rights and dissent movement in the USSR in the context of bipolar confrontation between Washington and Moscow. For instance, Sarah B. Snyder has demonstrated how transnational networks of human rights activists pushed both Western and Eastern governments to pursue policies that fostered the rise of organized dissent in Eastern Europe and human rights activism in USSR. Lyudmila Alekseeva, who is a Russian historian, famous Soviet dissident and founding member of the Moscow Helsinki Watch group, has described the human rights movements in different Soviet republics. Ann Komaromi has looked at the history of Soviet dissidence by studying samizdat and the idea of a private-public sphere. Regarding cultural and national policies in the USSR, I am using the insights of Yury Slezkine and Terry Martin, who illustrated that the Soviet system not only performed cultural standardization but also promoted ethnic particularis and ensured “affirmative actions” policies in favor of some nationalities. The latter co-existed with Russocentrism, an aspect that has been highlighted by several other authors, including Geoffrey Hosking.
Concerning nationalism in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia, several scholars have argued that local elites in these peripheries were strongly nationalist while their position partially complied with the Soviet nationality policies. For instance, Erik R. Scott has shown that, during the Soviet period, Georgian elites were extraordinarily successful in adjusting to the Soviet system. They also contributed in shaping the system. At the same time, however, it was the intellectuals who ultimately called into question the legitimacy of Soviet power. Zviad Gamsakhurdia was one of them. The Lithuanian party and cultural elites also became nationalist-oriented after the death of Stalin, defending the peripheries' interests in various realms, from economy to culture. Soviet Lithuania’s elites and the intelligentsia, in comparison with Georgia‘s cultural elites, were less connected with the center and its dynamics. However, the case of Tomas Venclova illustrates a deviation from the usual path: indeed, this is the case of a member of the cultural elite who actually detached from the milieu of local intellectuals. He was also nationally indifferent and who, having gained experience from Moscow dissident circles, chose rather an individualist trajectory in the 1970s (a development that was quite typical for democratic dissidents in Moscow).
This article is based on a selection of primary sources - the most important are those collected in the archives of Lithuania, Georgia and Russia, along with the interviews recorded with cultural figures in Lithuania and Georgia.
Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia entered the USSR under different circumstances. Both states declared independence in 1918, but their historical trajectories were different. Georgia had independence only for a limited number of years: in 1921 it was captured by the Bolsheviks and was incorporated into the USSR in 1922. Meanwhile, Lithuania lived through a period of independence from 1918 to 1940, when it was occupied by the Soviet Union. In both countries, intellectuals represented an important group that helped to legitimize the Soviet system.
The development of Soviet intellectuals in Georgia coincided with similar processes taking place in the Soviet Union. Among intellectuals, the writers emerged as the dominant group. A famous quote from Stalin‘s speech at the home of Maxim Gorki in 1932 revealed the importance of writers in the cultural process: “Man proceeds in his life. However, you need to help him to transform his soul. The human soul is a very important product. You are the engineers of human souls.”
The implementation of Soviet regional policies followed specific dynamics, taking different forms in the different regions. One can mention, first of all, the ethnicities question, which was not ignored, but rather managed by adopting affirmative action, which guaranteed a certain amount of preferential support to national minorities. There was, indeed, some room for ethnic particularity. Accordingly, this approach allowed for the “korenizatsyia” (indigenization) in the field of culture. This increasingly opened some space for ethnic representations in different Soviet republics. However, early Stalinism was not the best time to promote a Georgian identity, whereas the Bolshevik policies were aimed at transforming society from an agrarian to an industrial one. The Great Purges strongly swept across a majority of the Georgian intelligentsia, including writers such as Titsian Tabidze, Mikheil Javakhvashvili, and others.
Despite the Great Terror, in the mid-1930s, the attention to the Georgian ethnic issues increased, gaining support at the central level. There were a few reasons for this shift. One was related to changes in the federal structure. In 1936, with the new "Stalin" constitution, the Transcaucasian SFSRabolished, and a separate Soviet Georgian republic was formed. Another reason for this was related to Stalin’s personal interest in giving higher priority to Georgian culture, since he felt domestic and foreign enemies still perceived him in ethnic terms, as a “savage Georgian, who occupied power in Russia.” With the personal patronage of Stalin, 'Georgian intellectuals, had greater facility than other groups (except Russians) to emphasise history, ethnic features and the national culture. For instance, two events organized at the end of the ‘30s revealed this attention to Georgian culture. The 750-year anniversary of the Georgian poet Shota Rustaveli, organized in 1937, became the biggest event of Georgian culture in the 1930s. The second event was the so-called Ten-day Festival (dekada) of Georgian Art”, organised in Moscow on January 5-15, 1937. At that moment, it was probably the most important event representing Georgian culture, covering also the cultural production of the Mingrelian, Guri, Svaneti, Abkhazian, and Ossetian people. It became an introduction to the upcoming Rustaveli anniversary celebration. Georgian music, art, literature, and theatre gained great attention from the intelligentsia in the center and the central Soviet press.
During the pre-war years, escape from the Great Terror shaped the Stalinist milieu of Georgian intellectuals, who clearly avoided risky situations and showed devotion to Stalin. During WWII and the post-war period, the Stalinist leadership, seeking greater mobilization of the society, promoted patriotic narratives, emphasizing the role of Soviet nations fighting against fascism.  The “exoticism” of Georgian culture was expressed in a much broader field, covering not only the high culture, but also food, and even toasting traditions, which were also co-opted into the general Soviet everyday culture. Previous members of different “fellow travellers” groups, who survived the Great Purges, such as G. Leonidze, B. Zhgenti, S. Chikovani, I. Abashidze, and K. Gamsakhurdia, became an important part of the establishment, increasingly routinizing their authority in the local cultural milieu. Tzdanovshchina period (campaign against Western influence) in 1946-1948, demonstrating much bolder behavior than their colleagues in Lithuania.
The Lithuanian case was rather different. After occupation, Lithuanian Soviet writers were forced to ensure the legitimacy of Soviet order, while having hardly any possibility to express ethnic particularism.in 1940-1941 and after the war, during the postwar Soviet policy of denazification (Nazi occupation was between June 1941 and July 1944), and the anti-Soviet national resistance (1944-1953). For these reasons, attention to ethnic issues was limited. During the war and post-war period, Lithuanian writers, as well as the rest of the republic’s cultural intelligentsia, were new participants in the game. They learned how to be Soviet writers during their activities in the Soviet territories not occupied by Germans and had an intensive contact with USSR writers.
This group of so-called Muscovites shaped the new writers’ establishment. The purpose of Lithuanian writers was to visualize Soviet achievements. However, it was not an easy task to recognize which demands were being made from above. The zdanovschina in Lithuania showed that even major writers did not know how to produce texts without causing objections about their form or their content. zdanovschina
kolkhozes(dekada)dekadadekadadekada, local leaders (secretaries A. Sniečkus and V. Niunka, and the chairman of Lithuanian Council of Ministers M. Gedvilas), rather than the writers themselves or their reviewers, represented Lithuanian literature at the central level.
in Lithuania created wider possibilities for discussing ethnic issues. In Georgia, however, it primarily meant a challenge to the existing pattern of cultural production, which already contained attention to ethnic questions. shestidesyatniki,rdand decadentism, giving the example of the importance of preserving Georgian national songs and dances, whilst warning against the possibile harmful influences of modern dances
It would be impossible to clarify the personal trajectories of Tomas Venclova and Zviad Gamsakhurdia without studying their family backgrounds and especially the influence of their famous fathers and their fathers' relationship with both the system and the establishment. The father-son relationship in their cases was immensely important in their search for their own path, in absorbing or rejecting certain attitudes. The family factor allows one to speak of the social milieu of both writers as one of the key factors.
During the early period of his work, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Zviad’s father, was interested in Symbolism and Expressionism. When Georgia became a Soviet republic, he was for some time a member of the 'Academic group' (the so-called “fellow travellers”) of writers and did not hide his nationalist attitudes. Solovki prison campsmilieumention can be made of the speech of the chairman of the writers’ organization Simon Chikovani at a meeting of Georgian writers in 1947, where Konstantine Gamsakhurdia was criticized. zhdanovschina
a left-oriented literary journal in interwar Lithuania (1930-1931) that brought together so called “progressive authors”)
peaking against the possible falsification of history He supported the traditional Orthodox Church and did not limit this position to the kind of ethnic particularism that was promoted through the official cultural channels of Soviet Georgia. Even when he started to cross redlines, Zviad Gamsakkurdia could feel safe because of his father's connections among high-ranking Georgian officials.
Khronika tekushchikh sobytii” (Chronicle of Current events) 
“...he had been arrested before but I helped him then because Konstantine Gamsakhurdia said he would kill him if he did that again. Konstantine was a brother to me and his family was my friends. Later I visited him five times; he called me and Giorgi Natroshvili every day. It is our fault and we assume responsibility.”
“I grew up in a family of a well-known and convinced communist, was a member of the Young Communist League and was interested in Marxism. I consider November of 1956, when the Hungarian uprising was suppressed, a boundary in my life (and possibly in the life of my generation). It was then that my attitude towards Communism, which has not changed (maybe became deeper as I acquired more experience and information), evolved. At the beginning there still were some hesitations and compromises. Let us say, I was impressed by the Soviet cosmos program – I even wrote a book about it. In general, like many in Khrushchev's times I was still expecting some gradual spontaneous humanization of the system. Time showed that they were rather futile hopes. Around 1962 I realized I would not write or work for them. I would not write at all and would not say what I did not believe. Having thus made up my mind, almost the only job left for me was that of a translator. On principle, I did not translate books that I found deceitful. Even that was difficult here. Of course, somebody else would have found it even more difficult. I was somewhat saved by my father's name and certain (rather relative, I must admit) financial independence: it is a rare thing here”. (1977)
“I was not a dissident in the true sense of the word during my father's lifetime. It was obvious that I could not find a place in the space of Soviet culture; he did not find it pleasant – after all, he wanted me to be published. I am grateful to him for never making any literary or other projections for me. It was a thoroughly correct position. After my father's death I became an open dissident who could be threatened with prison”.
The case of Tomas Venclova in the space of Lithuanian literature was very much out of the ordinary. Having grown up in the environment of the Soviet cultural elite and having lived in Moscow for some time, he immersed himself into the circles of the liberal intelligentsia, socialized with poets who were criticized by the authorities, and became friends with one of the best-known Russian poets Joseph Brodsky. He performed dissident individualism and democratism, like Moscow’s democratic dissidents Amal’rik, Vol’pin and Alekseeva. samizdat On that occasion, out of ten candidates only Venclova was not admitted to the union. His father hoped that these were just procedural disruptions and failed to accept the fact that his son had been rejected by the local environment of writers. This expectation found reflection in his diary:
“Tomas was not admitted to the Writers' union because of insufficient quorum. Just. Marcin[kevičius] and Algimantas Baltakis praised him much at the meeting and said that he would be admitted in the nearest future” (2 April); “Tomas visited me yesterday again – enlivened, better-looking, and brimming with ideas. His poetry has been published in the fourth issue of Pergalė, Nemunas and Poezijos pavasaris also contain his material. All this boosts his mood and I am sincerely happy about it”.
wasTomas Venclova and other Lithuanian writers remembered that, almost from the very beginning, he was an alien in the circles of Lithuanian writers and he was misunderstood by both ideological writers and those who followed the national line. At first, Tomas, the son of a famous poet, was seen as “born in a bookcase”. The gap was widening. A couple of months before his death, his father wrote in his diary about his son's quests:
“No doubt, he is a young man of great talent. I just wish he would not be distracted and focus on one aim, for example, poetry. Was it not a big mistake of my life (even if necessitated by the epoch) that all the time I was distracted by various genres when I could have written not two but four, six, or even eight novels. Or maybe it was good that I tried to move along with life and give what it demanded of me”.
It seems that the failure to identify with the circles of the local intelligentsia and the close ties with Moscow dissidents pushed the writer towards a more open confrontation with the system through participation in the human rights movement. Tomas Venclova became one of founders of the Lithuanian Helsinki Watch group, which was established in 1976. With the confrontation between Tomas Venclova and the authorities intensifying, in 1977, he was issued a permit to emigrate to the West (apparently, his father's authority played a role in this). It was a decision that was favorable to the local Soviet government, which did not want to have additional Venclova-related troubles with the central authorities, to the writer himself, and to the local writers who were inclined to push a different opinion out of their field of vision:
“Sometimes I used to joke that I left to lose the touch not as much with Soviet power as with the Lithuanian intelligentsia. I was utterly discontented with the helpless whisper in the kitchen (incidentally, people used to speak louder in Russian kitchens), and with that sick desire to preserve some uniqueness”.
Two forms of protest against Soviet standards are identified in the article: on the one hand, the national aspirations of those who sought a return to the ethnic origins and traditions beyond the level which was supported by official channels (Zviad Gamsakhurdia), on the other hand, the attraction to Western humanism and cosmopolitism (Tomas Venclova). However, both forms were strongly related to Western democratic values as expressed by the defenders of human rights. Both forms of protest political mission in the context of the Cold Warultimately called into question the legitimacy of Soviet power.
The relationship of the litterateurs Tomas Venclova and Zviad Gamsakhurdia with the Soviet system had a number of similar features.
Both authors grew up in the families of recognized Soviet art figures, yet despite their adaptation to the Soviet environment, their fathers were not ardent communists. Although well adapted to the Stalinist epoch, their privileged fathers were not entirely permeated by the communist ideology and did not create a protective ideological environment for their families. On the contrary, family status and social connections opened more paths for their sons to get acquainted with global literature, prevailing trends or issues of cultural heritage.
The involvement of both authors in official literature was rather limited, and gradually they became increasingly involved in the non-official environment of writers: Tomas Venclova in Moscow and Lithuania, Zviad Gamsakhurdia in Georgia. For both writers, this dissociation from the establishment developed into dissident behaviour, human rights movement and an open conflict with the system. Both were affected by the global 60’s and 70’s, in the light that significant part of Soviet intellectuals opened up to Western universalism in the 60’s, but only some joined dissent and human rights movement in the 70’s. They also tried to detach themselves from the role of standard Soviet intellectual and tried to avoid the intellectual trends promoted by older colleagues.
To quote this article : Vilius Ivanauskas, « From Establishment to Dissent: The Cases of the Litterateurs Tomas Venclova and Zviad Gamsakhurdia in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia », Histoire@Politique, n° 35, mai-août 2018 [en ligne, www.histoire-politique.fr]
 The collections described by the international research project “COURAGE. Connecting collections:
Cultural Opposition – Understanding the Cultural Heritage of Dissent in the Former Socialist Countries” (funded by the European Union‘s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program) show the scale of these cultural opposition activities in Central and Eastern Europe. See: http://cultural-opposition.eu/#project.
 Daniel C. Thomas, „Human Rights Ideas, the Demise of Communism, and the End of the Cold War”, Journal of Cold War Studies, April 2005, 7(2): 110-141. ·
 Sarah B. Snyder, Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History of the Helsinki Network (New York : Cambridge University Press, 2011).
 Ann Komaromi, „Samizdat and Soviet dissident publics“, Slavic Review, vol. 71, no.1 (Spring 2012): 70-90.
 Yuri Slezkine, „The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism“, Slavic Review, vol. 53, no. 2 (Summer, 1994): 414–452
 Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2001).
 Geoffrey Hosking, „Review of Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union“, by Francine Hirsch, Journal of Modern History, 79, no.2 (summer 2007): 492.
 Erik R. Scott, Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2016).
 Saulius Grybkauskas, Sovietinė nomenklatūra ir pramonė Lietuvoje 1965-1985 (Soviet nomenclatura and industry in Lithuania in 1965-1985) (Vilnius: LII Leidykla, 2011).
 Vilius Ivanauskas, Lietuviškoji nomenklatūra biurokratinėje sistemoje: tarp stagnacijos ir dinamikos (1968-1988) (Lithuanian nomeclatura in bureaucratic system: between stagnation and dynamics (1968-1988)) (Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2011).
 Vilius Ivanauskas, Įrėminta tapatybė: Lietuvos rašytojai tautų draugystės“ imperijoje (Framed identity: Lithuanian writers in the friendship of nations empire), (Vilnius :Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2016).
 ‘No.38 Vospominanie K.L. Zelinskogo “Vecher u Gorkogo” (26 oktyabrya 1932 goda)’, in T. Vodop’yanova, T. Domracheva & L. Babaeva (eds), Mezhdu molotom i nakovalnei. Soyuz sovetskich pisatelei SSSR. Dokumenty i komentary (Between the hammer and the anvil. Union of Soviet Writers of the USSR. Documents and Comments) (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2011), 163.
 Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 2001).
 A grandson of the poet G. Leonidze during an interview in his grandfather’s house mentioned that Stalin was not recognized among pre-revolutionary Georgian local elites, the he sharply distanced himself from them once gained power, but at a later stage, being permanently conceived as a Georgian, he was willing to add more prestige to the Georgian side.
 The striking example of the state’s focus on ethnic lines was Stalin’s speech (pledge) “For the Russian nation” on May 24, 1945, which were the culmination of this line (after the war attention to ethnic issues slightly diminished). See Nevezhin, Zastol’ya Iosifa Stalina.Kniga pervaya: Bolshie Kremliovskie priemi 1930-1940 gg (Feasts of Joseph Stalin. The first book. The Great Kremlin receptions of the 1930s-1940s) (Moscow : Novyi chronograph, 2011).
 Speech of S. Chikovani in 1947, (National archives of Georgia (Central Archive of Contemporary History), f.8, op.1, d.1106, l.1- 62).
 Erik R. Sott, “Edible Ethnicity, How Georgian Cuisine Conquered the Soviet Table”, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 13, 4 (Fall 2012): 831–58.
 Juliane Furst, Stalin’s Last Generation: Soviet Post-war Youth and the Emergence of Mature Socialism (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
 Vilius Ivanauskas, ‘Engineers of the Human Spirit’ During Late Socialism: The Lithuanian Union of Writers Between Soviet Duties and Local Interests, Europe-Asia Studies, 2014, 66(4), p. 645–665.
 The speech of I. Abashidze “High ideas requires high mastership”, 1959, RGALI, f.631, op.42, b.35., l..1-33).
 Lyudmila Alekseeva, Pol Goldberg, Pokolenie otepeli. Vospominaniya (Generation of Thaw. Memories) (Moscow : Zacharov, 2006).
 Vladislav Zubok, Zhivago's Children: The Last Russian Intelligentsia (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 2011).
 Vilius Ivanauskas, Įrėminta tapatybė: Lietuvos rašytojai tautų draugystės imperijoje (Framed identity: Lithuanian writers in the friendship of nations empire) (Vilnius : Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2016).
 Lyu︡dmila Alekseeva, op. cit.
 Sarah B. Snyder, “Human Rights in the Cold War,” in Artemy Kalinovsky and Craig Daigle (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of the Cold War (New York: Routledge, 2014), 237-48.
 A strong impulse for such an attitude is offered by John Connely's work in which the author analysed the adaptation of the professorship of the socialist period to the system in Poland, Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic, see John Connely, Captive University. The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
 During Soviet time “fellow traveler” or “poputchik” identified an intellectual, who was intellectually sympathetic to the Communist ideology, and who co-operated in the organization's politics, without being a formal member of Communist party.
 Stephen Jones, 'The Establishment of Soviet Power in Transcaucasia: The Case of Georgia 1921-1928', Soviet Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4 (October 1988), p. 616-639.
 Simon Chikovani's speech (1947), Georgian State Archives, f.8, ap.1, b.1106, l.1-62.
 Correspondence of the National Commission of the Writers' Union of the USSR, 7 January 1967 (an excerpt from the transcript of 6th Congress of the Georgian Writers' Union), RGALI, 631, 42, 411.
 General meeting of Soviet Lithuanian writers, 1-2 October 1946, LMA, f.34, ap.1, b.19, l. 14.
 Tiesa, 8 April 1945, LMA, f.34, ap.1, b. 10l. 66. In No.34 of 1944, Literatura i isskustvo (Literature and art) published A. Atabekian's review of Antanas Venclova's collection Rodnoe niebo (Native sky).
 Author's interview with the writer Vytautas Bubnys.
 Document No. 1 of the criminal case No. 4612, in: Mary Barbakadze, 'The Beginning of the National Movement', The Archival Bulletin, no.12, 2012, LEPL Archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, 5-7.
 Lyu︡dmila Alekseeva, op. cit., 114.
 Court verdict of 19 May 1978. See: Mary Barbakadze, 'Dissident Movement', The Archival Bulletin, no.12, 2012, LEPL Archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, 11-18.
 Mary Barbakadze, Nino Kipshidze, Sophia Torchinava, The Archival Bulletin, no.12, 2012, LEPL Archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, 11-18, 19-23.
 Author's interview with Irakli Kentsoshvili, Zviad Gamsakhurdia's friend and brother-in-arms, 9 May 2012.
 Lyu︡dmila Alekseeva, op. cit., p. 105-120.
 Nino Kisphidze, ‘Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s Expulsion from the Soviet Union’ The Archival Bulletin, no.12, 2012, LEPL Archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, 34-52.
 Transcript of the meeting of the Writers' Union of Georgian SSR of 1 April 1977, p. 36-37. See: 'Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s Expulsion from the Soviet Union’. The Archival Bulletin, no.12, 2012, LEPL Archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, 34-52.
 Op. cit ., 40.
 Op. cit ., 42-43.
 Op. cit., 47-48.
 Manau, kad… Pokalbiai su Tomu Venclova (I think that…Conversations with Tomas Venclova), Vilnius, 2000, 8.
 Op.cit., p. 297.
 Op.cit.., p. 121.
 Ann Komaromi, “Samizdat and Soviet dissident publics”, Slavic Review, vol.71, no.1 (Spring 2012): 70-90.
 Antanas Venclova, Prie Nemuno liepsnoja uogos (Berries are flaming at Nemunas) (Vilnius : Knygnešys, 1996), 560-561.
 Manau, kad… Pokalbiai su Tomu Venclova ((I think that…Conversations with Tomas Venclova), (Vilnius : Baltos lankos, 2000).
 Vilius Ivanauskas, “"Engineers of the Human Spirit"During Late Socialism: The Lithuanian Union of Writers between Soviet Duties and Local Interests”, Europe-Asia Studies, 6:4, 645-665.
 Author's interview with Algimantas Baltakis and Vytautas Bubnys.
 Antanas Venclova, Prie Nemuno liepsnoja uogos ((Berries are flaming at Nemunas),, (Vilnius: Knygnešys, 1996), 561-562.
 The prominent Russian dissident Lyudmila Alekseeva remembers that Tomas Venclova was one of her main assistants on the issues of human rights and in the attempts to found Helsinki groups when in the mid-1970s she came to Lithuania. See: Lyudmila Alekseeva, Pol Goldberg, Pokoleniye ottepeli (Moscow : Zacharov, 2006), 432.
 Lyu︡dmila Alekseeva, op. cit., 80.
 Manau, kad… Pokalbiai su Tomu Venclova ((I think that…Conversations with Tomas Venclova), (Vilnius : Baltos lankos, 2000), 266.
Vilius Ivanauskas holds a PhD degree in history. He is a senior research fellow at the Lithuanian institute of history. In 2012-2013 he was a Fulbright scholar at UC Berkeley (US). His newest book on nationalism and soviet writers (Framed Identity: Lithuanian writers in “friendship of nations” empire) was published in 2015. His first book (“Lithuanian nomenklatura in bureaucratic system: between stagnation and dynamic (1969-1988)”) was published in 2011. One of his articles on writers was also published in the major international journal Europe-Asia” studies (66, 2014). His research interests are soviet intellectuals, ethno-particularism in soviet peripheries, party and cultural elites in Lithuania.