The research and ideas in this article benefitted from interactions with many people. Here, I have room to thank only those who commented on this particular iteration: Katerina Clark, Adeeb Khalid, Stephen Kotkin, Benjamin Nathans, Michael A. Reynolds, and Jonathan Steinberg. I am particularly indebted to Derek Hirst, Peter Holquist, and Mark D. Steinberg.

1. Massell, Gregory J., The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionär)/ Strategies in Soviet Central Asia, 1919-1929 (Princeton, 1971), 218–19.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Edgar, Adrienne, “Bolshevism, Patriarchy, and the Nation: The Soviet ‘Emancipation’ of Muslim Women in Pan-Islamic Perspective,” Slavic Review 65, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 252–72Google Scholar; Kamp, Marianne, The New Woman in Uzbekistan: Islam, Modernity, and Unveiling under Communism (Seattle, 2006), esp. 66–75 Google Scholar; Khalid, Adeeb, “;Backwardness and the Quest for Civilization: Early Soviet Central Asia in Comparative Perspective,” Slavic Review 65, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 231–51.Google Scholar Albeit as part of a different story, the comparison of modernization programs is key in Findley's, Carter Vaughan The Turks in World History (Oxford, 2005), 175–223.Google Scholar

3. Kotkin, Stephen, “Modern Times: The Soviet Union and the Interwar Conjuncture,“ Kritika 2, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 111–64.Google Scholar

4. For an excellent account of debates that relate geopolitics to the meaning of a different set of cultural and social reforms, see Cracraft, James, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 2004), 1–24.Google Scholar On Peter the Great's relevance in the SovietTurkish context, see the description of Mustafa Kemal's reaction to a report on the Russian tsar in Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI), f. 544, op. 3, d. 122,1.19 (Aralov to Karakhan, 4 February 1923).

5. Masseil,Surrogate Proletariat, 219.

6. Support for Massell's hypothesis can be found in Northrop, Douglas, Veiled Empire: Gender and Power in Stalinist Central Asia (Ithaca, 2004), 71.Google Scholar

7. See, for example, the Turkish ambassador's request to silence unfavorable comparisons in the Caucasus: Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii (AVP RF), f. 4, op. 39, pap. 244, d. 53295,1.13 (Conversation between Tevfik [Biyikhoğlu] and Lev Karakhan, 10 February 1928).

8. For reflections that focus on Moscow and Ankara, see Reynolds, Michael A., Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge, Eng., 2011), 259–62;Google Scholar Khalid, Adeeb, “Central Asia between the Ottoman and Soviet Worlds,” Kritika 12, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 470–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Khalid's account of the SovietTurkish story differs significantly from mine because he looks at the Soviet Union primarily through the activities of the Communist International and its associates rather than the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs (NKID). The former organization provides evidence of the very real ideological difference between the two states, but, at least in the case of Turkey, it was the NKID that determined interstate relations.

9. In accordance with editorial policy, I have not capitalized west, east, and other related terms. Nonetheless, in every instance in this essay that I refer to west or east, I refer to a political and cultural construct. On the instrumentalist nature of the Soviet and Turkish states’ policies toward women, see Kamp, New Woman in Uzbekistan, 67; and Zehra F. Arat, “Turkish Women and the Republican Reconstruction of Tradition,” in Göcek, Fatma Müge and Balvaghi, Shiva, eds., Reconstructing Gender in the Middle East: Tradition, Identity, and Power (New York, 1994), 58–59.Google Scholar

10. Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (Oxford, 1961), 285;Google Scholar Barlas, Dilek, Etatism and Diplomacy in Turkey: Economic and Foreign Policy Strategies in an Uncertain World, 1929-1939 (New York, 1998), 111;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Steiner, Zara, The Lights That Failed: European International History, 1919-1933 (Oxford, 2005), 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. See also Hoffmann, David L., and especially his comparisons of the Soviet Union to Turkey and other “late-developing nations.” Hoffmann, Cultivating the Masses: Modern State Practices and Soviet Socialism, 1914-1939 (Ithaca, 2011), esp. 100, 167, 217–18, 306-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. For evidence of personnel continuity, see Ivan Komzin's account of his interwar stay in Turkey and Cold War sojourn in Egypt. Komzin, I. V., Ia veriu v mechtu (Moscow, 1973).Google Scholar On discontinuity, see Boden, Ragna, “Cold War Economics: Soviet Aid to Indonesia,” Journal ofCold War Studies 10, no. 3 (Summer 2008): 110–28;Google Scholar Zubok, Vladislav M., A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold Warfrom Stalin to Gorbachev (Chapel Hill, 2009), 109–10.Google Scholar For a longer trajectory, but ultimately an argument that also emphasizes the novelty of Cold War Soviet aid, see Odd Westad, Arne, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making ofOur Times (Cambridge, Eng., 2007), esp. 55,67.Google Scholar

13. Much of the literature on Soviet ideology and the Enlightenment cites as inspiration Malia's, Martin The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 (New York, 1994);Google Scholar one of the classic accounts of Turkish westernization is Lewis's Emergence of Modern Turkey,

14. See Adas, Michael, “Contested Hegemony: The Great War and the Afro-Asian Assault on the Civilizing Mission Ideology,” Journal of World History 15, no. 1 (March 2004): 31–63;Google Scholar Aydin, Cemil, The Politics ofAnti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in PanIslamic and Pan-Asian Thought (New York, 2007), esp. 136–37.Google Scholar

15. On the “supremacy-oriented ethnoracialist elements” of Turkish nationalism, see Davison, Andrew and Paria, Taha, Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order? (Syracuse, 2004), esp. 80;Google Scholar Yildiz, Ahmet, Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene: Türk Ulusal Kimliginin Etno-Seküler Simrlan, 1919-1938 (Istanbul, 2001);Google Scholar Cagaptay, Soner, Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who Is a Turk? (New York, 2006), esp. 48–56.Google Scholar

16. Clark, Katerina, Moscow, The Fourth Rome: Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Evolution of Soviet Culture, 1931-1941 (Cambridge, Mass., 2011);Google Scholar David-Fox, Michael, Showcasing the Great Experiment: Cultural Diplomacy and Western Visitors to the Soviet Union, 1921-1941 (Oxford, 2011).Google Scholar

17. Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley, 1998);Google Scholar Kane, Eileen, “Pilgrims, Holy Places, and the Multi-Confessional Empire: Russian Policy toward the Ottoman Empire under Tsar Nicholas 1,1825-1855” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2005);Google Scholar Karpat, Kemal H., The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructingldentity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State (Oxford, 2001);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kinmli, Hakan, National Movements and National Identity among the Crimean Tatars, 1905-1916 (Leiden, 1996);Google Scholar Meyer, James H., “Immigration, Return, and the Politics of Citizenship: Russian Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, 1860-1914,” International Journal ofMiddleEast Studies 39, no. 1 (February 2007): 15–32;Google Scholar Tuna, Mustafa, “Imperial Russia's Muslims: Inroads of Modernity” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2009).Google Scholar

18. Reynolds, Michael A., “Buffers, not Brethren: Young Turk Military Policy in the First World War and the Myth of Panturanism,” Past and Present 203, no. 1 (May 2009): 137–79;Google Scholar Reynolds, Shattering Empires; Holquist, Peter, “The Politics and Practice of the Russian Occupation of Armenia, 1915-February 1917,” in Suny, Ronald Grigor, Gögek, Fatma Müge, and Naimark, Norman, eds., A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End ofthe Ottoman Empire (Oxford, 2011), 151–74;Google Scholar Badern, Candan, Carlik Rusyasi Yönetiminde Kars Vilayeti (Istanbul, 2010);Google Scholar Pravilova, Ekaterina, “The Property of Empire: Islamic Law and Russian Agrarian Policy in Transcaucasia and Turkestan,” Kritika 12, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 353–86.Google Scholar

19. Lieven, Dominic, Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals (London, 2000);Google Scholar Barkey, Karen and Hagen, Mark von, eds., After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building: The Soviet Union and Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires (Boulder, Colo., 1997);Google Scholar Miller, Alexei and Rieber, Alfred J., eds., Imperial Rule (Budapest, 2004);Google Scholar Rieber, Alfred J., “Persistent Factors in Russian Foreign Policy: An Interpretive Essay,” in Ragsdale, Hugh, ed., Imperial Russian Foreign Policy (Cambridge, Eng., 1993), 315–59, esp. 339.Google Scholar

20. For this point made explicit, see the editors’ introduction, “Models, Margins, and Imperial Entanglements,” Kritika 12, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 276. On “marginality” and Russia, see Rieber, “Persistent Factors,” 344.

21. Layton, Susan, Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest ofthe Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy (Cambridge, Eng., 1994);Google Scholar Makdisi, Ussama, “Ottoman Orientalism,” American Historical Review 107, no. 3 Qune 2002): 768–96.Google Scholar The literatures on Russian and Ottoman orientalisms are extensive, if not conversant. See, for example, Slezkine, Yuri, Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North (Ithaca, 1994);Google Scholar Tolz, Vera, Russia's Own Orient: The Politics of Identity and Oriental Studies in the Late Imperial and Early Soviet Periods (Oxford, 2011);Google Scholar van der Oye, David Schimmelpenninck, Russian Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mindfrom Peter the Great to the Emigration (New Haven, 2010);Google Scholar Celik, Zeynep, Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs (Berkeley, 1992);Google Scholar Deringil, Selim, “'They Live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery': The Late Ottoman Empire and the Post-Colonial Debate,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45, no. 2 (April 2003): 311–42.Google Scholar

22. Taki, Viktor, “Orientalism on the Margins: The Ottoman Empire under Russian Eyes,” Kritika 12, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 323.Google Scholar

23. Hanioglu, M. Sükrü, A Brief History ofthe Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, 2008), 113.Google Scholar For a remarkable exception, see Findley, Carter Vaughan, “An Ottoman Occidentalist in Europe: Ahmed Mithat Meets Madame Gülnar, 1889,” American Historical Review 103, no. 1 (February 1998): 15–49, esp. 28-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Maier, Charles, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, 1975).Google Scholar

25. For the years prior to the 1934 Turkish law on surnames, I refer to individuals by their given name and indicate later surnames in parentheses only at the first instance.

26. On this phase of Bolshevik-Turkish relations, see Yerasimos, Stefanos, Türk-Sovyet Ili$küeri: Ekim Devriminden ‘MUH Mücadele'ye (Istanbul, 1979);Google Scholar Gökay, Bülent, Soviet Eastern Policy and Turkey, 1920-1991: Soviet Foreign Policy, Turkey and Communism (London, 2006), 14–35.Google Scholar

27. Manela, Erez, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (Oxford, 2007).Google Scholar

28. On the Paris treaties as “System,” see Weitz, Eric, “From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, Forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions,” American Historical Review 113, no. 5 (December 2008): 1313–43, esp. 1314.Google Scholar On Soviet and Turkish anti-imperialism, see Stalin, Iosif, Marksizm i natsional'no-kolonial ‘nyi vopros: Sbornik izbrannykh statei i rechei (Moscow, 1934), 75;Google Scholar RGASPI, f. 5, op. 1, d. 1520,11.1-2 (Mustafa Kemal to Lenin, 4 January 1922).

29. RGASPI, f. 5, op. 1, d. 1990,1.8 (Chicherin to Aralov, 20 February 1923).

30. Manela argues that “the revolt against the West” was born in 1919 from the failure of the Paris Conferences to recognize the political aspirations of colonial peoples. The course of Soviet-Turkish relations, especially after independence for both states had been achieved, reveals that anti-westernism was a reaction, not only to political imperialism, but to economic imperialism as well. Manela, Wilsonian Moment, esp. 215-25. On Manela's neglect of the economics of the “Wilsonian moment,” see Karl, Rebecca, review of The Wilsonian Moment, American Historical Review 113, no. 5 (December 2008): 1474–76.Google Scholar

31. Carr, E. H., Radek, Karl, and Philips, Price M., “Radek's ‘Political Salon’ in Berlin 1919,” Soviet Studies 3, no. 4 (April 1952): 411–30;Google Scholar Vourkoutiotis, Vasilis, Making Common Cause: German-Soviet Secret Relations, 1919-22 (Houndmills, Eng., 2007).Google Scholar

32. See Kadro 1, no. 6 (June 1932); Kadro 1, no. 7 (July 1932); Kadro 1, no. 9 (September 1932).

33. Ericson III Edward, E., Feeding the German Eagle, 1933-1941 (Westport, Conn., 1999), 12–17;Google Scholar Sevost'ianov, G. N., ed., Moskva-Rim: Politika i diplomatüa Kremlia, 19201939 (Moscow, 2003), esp. 5–8, 202.Google Scholar

34. Davies, R. W., Crisis and Progress in the Soviet Economy, 1931-1933 (Houndmills, Eng., 1996), 118–22,313-16.Google Scholar

35. The National Archives (TNA), Public Record Office (PRO), Foreign Office (FO) 424/273 E 4975/3476/44 (G. Clerk to A. Henderson, 4 September 1930); Tezel, Yahya Sezai, Cumhuriyet Döneminin Iktisadi Tarihi (Ankara, 1982), 187.Google Scholar

36. For public discussion of the matter, see Nadi, Yunus, “Rusya tarafindan Bize acilan Kredi mes'elesi,” Cumhuriyet, 16 April 1932.Google Scholar

37. DokumentyvneshneipolitikiSSSR (DVP), vol. 15 (Moscow, 1969), 458 (Conversation with Mustafa Kemal and Ismet Pasha, 10 August 1932).

38. For one example of such debate, see Martin, Terry, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca, 2001);Google Scholar Hirsch, Francine, Empire of Nations: Ethnographie Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, 2005).Google Scholar For the Turkish periodization, see Tuncay, Mete, T.C.'nde Tek-Parti Yönetimi'nin Kurulmasi (1923-1931) (Ankara, 1981).Google Scholar

39. DVP, vol. 12 (Moscow, 1967), 255-56 (Report of a conversation between Kurskii and Tevfik Rüstü, 29 April 1929).

40. ismet Pasamn Siyasi ve iftimai Nutuklan, 1920-1933 (Ankara, 1933), 275 (12 December 1929). Boratav, Korkut identifies ismet's speech as one of the key moments in the formation of Turkish statism: Boratav, Türkiye'de Devletcilik (Ankara, 2006), 85.Google Scholar

41. ismet Pasamn Siyasi ve ictimai Nutuklan, 281.

42. Ibid., 275. On this chronology, see llkin, Selim and Tekeli, ilhan, 1929 Dünya Buhramnda Türkiye'nin iktisadi Politika Arayislan (Ankara, 1977), esp. 98–102.Google Scholar

43. AVP RF, f. 5, op. 10, pap. 68, d. 124,1. 21 (Diary of Karakhan's trip to Turkey, 27 December 1929).

44. Ibid., 1.2 (Political evaluation of Karakhan's trip, 1 January 1930).

45. Basbakanhk Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA), 30.1.0.0/1.5.32,3 (ismet to Mustafa Kemal, 15 December 1929).

46. Collins, F. W., “Turkey and Soviet in Closer Accord,” New York Times, 19 December 1929.Google Scholar See also the London Times's report that associated Turkey's new economic policy with Karakhan's visit: The Times, 13 March 1930.

47. In the 1920s, Kaya, Sükrü and Ağaoğlu, Ahmet still used the French “etatist.“ DVP, vol. 8 (Moscow, 1963), 57 (Conversation between Surits and şükrü Kaya, 13 January 1925);Google Scholar AVP RF, f. 4, op. 39, pap. 242, d. 53268,1.175 (Conversation between Potemkin and Agaoglu, 31 March 1927). On statist continuity, see Kuruc, Bilsay, Mustafa Kemal Döneminde Ekonomi (Ankara, 1987);Google Scholar Boratav, Korkut, Türkiye iktisat Tarihi, 1908-2002,9th ed. (Ankara, 2005), 39–40.Google Scholar

48. AVP RF, f. 4, op. 39, pap. 242, d. 53268,1.175 (Conversation with Ahmet Ağaoğlu, 31 March 1927); AVP RF, f. 5, op. 10, pap. 68, d. 124,1.2 (Surits to Karakhan, 1 January 1930).

49. AVP RF, f. 5, op. 12, pap. 86, d. 72,1.11 (Karakhan to Surits, 21 January 1932).

50. DVP, vol. 15:345 (Karakhan to Petrovskii, 31 May 1932).

51. On the Kadro movement, see Türkes, Mustafa, “A Patriotic Leftist DevelopmentStrategy Proposal in Turkey in the 1930s: The Case of the Kadro (Cadre) Movement,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 33, no. 1 (February 2001);Google Scholar Türkes, Mustafa, UlusÇu Sol BirAkim: Kadro Hareketi, 1932-1934 (Ankara, 1999);Google Scholar Tekeli, Ilhan and Ilkin, Selim, Bir Cumhuriyet öyküsü: Kadroculan ve Kadro'yu Anlamak (Istanbul, 2003).Google Scholar

52. Such top-down language was, of course, not solely an import. On the Ottoman origins of Turkish elitism, see the works of şükrüHanioglu, M., The Young Turks in Opposition (Oxford, 1995), esp. 206–8;Google Scholar Hanioğlu, , Preparation for Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908 (Oxford, 2001), esp. 308–11.Google Scholar

53. Kadro 1, no. 1 (January 1932): 1.

54. Atay, Falih Rifki, Yeni Rusya (Ankara, 1931), 171–72.Google Scholar

55. Kadro 2, no. 10 (October 1933): 4. ismet's Statement was also published in Cumhuriyet, 31 October 1933.

56. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Zabit Ceridesi ﹛TBMM) (Ankara, 1983), d. 4, c. 9, b. 76, s. 447 (2 July 1932).

57. TBMM, d. 3, c. 21, b. 84, s. 46 (2 October 1930).

58. Ibid., s. 59.

59. DVP, vol. 15: 344-48 (Karakhan to Petrovskii, 31 May 1932).

60. BCA, 30.10.0.0/200.362.11,2 (Report on Soviet agriculture, 21 June 1932).

61. BCA, 30.10.0.0/200.362.16, 2 (Moscow Embassy's report of Celal Bayar's trip, 14 August 1935).

62. BCA, 30.10.0.0/248.678.28,1 (1 November 1933).

63. TNA, PRO, FO 424/276 E 2711/449/44 (Clerk to Simon, 19 May 1932).

64. On Voroshilov's proximity to Stalin, see Sabin Dullen [Sabine Dullin], Stalin i ego diplomaty: Sovetskü Soiuz i Evropa 1930-1939 gg,, trans. E. M. Kustovaia (Moscow, 2009), 22.

65. AVP RF, f. 5, op. 11, pap. 78, d. 94,1. 9 (Karakhan to Surits, 10 October 1931); AVP RF, f. 5, op. 12, pap. 86, d. 72,1.15 (Karakhan to Surits, 20 March 1932).

66. DVP, vol. 14 (Moscow, 1968), 744-45 (29 December 1931); on the economic orientation of the Turkish delegation, see ilhan Tekeli and Selim ilkin, Uygulamaya Gegerken Türkiyede Devletgiligin Oluşumu (Ankara, 1982), 138.

67. RGASPI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 1330,1. 6 (Surits to Karakhan, 26 April 1932).

68. “Soviet Women Wear Evening Garb at Ball,” New York Times, 30 April 1932.

69. AVP RF, f. 5, op. 13, pap. 93, d. 59 (Surits to Karakhan, 5 August 1933). On Voroshilov's success in interesting Turks in the Soviet military, see BCA, 30.10.0.0/46.293.4 (Cevdet's report on military maneuvers in the Kiev region, Autumn 1934); BCA, 30.10.0.0/46.293.5 (Zeki Dogan's report on military maneuvers in Ukraine, Autumn 1934); BCA, 30.18.1.2/49.80.14 (Decision to send a delegation to the Soviet Union for the purchase of war materials, 28 November 1934).

70. RGASPI, f. 74 (Personal collection of Kliment Voroshilov), op. 2, d. 42,1.116 (Maksim Litvinov to Voroshilov, 4 September 1933); AVP RF, f. 5, op. 13, pap. 93, d. 59,11.12-13 (Litvinov to Georgii Astakhov, 9 October 1933); Stalin objected because he would be on vacation at the time and Kuibyshev, who would be the senior Bolshevik left in Moscow, was liable to go on a drinking binge. See Kosheleva, L., Lei‘chuk, V., Naumov, V., and others, Pis'ma I. V. Stalina V. M. Molotovu: 1925-1936 gg, (Moscow, 1995), 247,149.Google Scholar

71. BCA, 30.18.1.2/40.71.20 (17 October 1933).

72. TNA, PRO, FO 424/279 E 6992/130/44 (James Morgan to John Simon, 10 November 1933). Voroshilov's visit to the Turkish Ministry of Defense is confirmed in BCA, 30.10.0.0/198.352.14 (Program of the Soviet visit, 27 October 1933).

73. DVP, vol. 16 (Moscow, 1970), 592 (Surits to NKID, 28 October 1933).

74. Ibid.

75. DVP, vol. 16: 600 (Surits to NKID, 31 October 1933).

76. Laue, Theodore von, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia (New York, 1963), 57;Google Scholar ZaferToprak, , Türkiye'de Milli tktisat, 1908-1918 (Ankara, 1982), 170–71;Google Scholar Asim, Karaömerlioglu M., “Helphand-Parvus and His Impact on Turkish Intellectual Life,” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 6 (November 2004): 145–65.Google Scholar

77. Kieser, Hans-Lukas, “World War and World Revolution: Alexander HelphandParvus in Germany and Turkey,” Kritika 12, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 387–410.Google Scholar

78. DVP, vol. 15:303 (Record of a conversation with Ismet Pasha, 6 May 1932).

79. Szporluk, Roman has highlighted the Listian elements of Soviet economics in Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List (Oxford, 1988), 216.Google Scholar

80. In addition to the sources noted above, key expositions of the state's role in Soviet and Turkish Republican politics, both made with explicit reference to European economic power, can be found in: Lenin, Vladimir II'ich, “Doklad o kontsessiiakh: Sobranie aktiva moskovskoi organizatsii RKP (b) (6 dekabria 1920 g.),” Polnoe sobranie sochinenü (Moscow, 1969), 42:55–78, esp. 77; and Kemal, Mustafa's speech at the izmir Fair in August 1935, quoted in Kuruc, Mustafa Kemal Döneminde Ekonomi, 136.Google Scholar Stephen F. Cohen's biography of Nikolai Bukharin contains excellent coverage of early Bolshevik debates about the role of the State. Cohen, , Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938 (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

81. See also Tooze, Adam, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking ofthe Nazi Economy (New York, 2007), xxiv, 660.Google Scholar

82. Gerschenkron, Alexander, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

83. On eulture and the Soviet and Turkish states, see Fitzpatrick, Sheila, The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia (Ithaca, 1992);Google Scholar Groys, Boris, The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond (Princeton, 1992);Google Scholar öztürk, Serdar, “Karagöz Co-opted: Turkish Shadow Theatre of the Early Republic (1923-1945),“ Asian Theater Journal 23, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 292–313.Google Scholar

84. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva (RGALI), f. 3070, op. 1, d. 503,1.1 (Report of trip to Turkey, delivered at the Russian Association of Revolutionary Cinematography, RossARK, 16 January 1934).

85. Ibid., 1.4.

86. Ibid., 1.5.

87. Ibid., 11.12-13.

88. RGALI, f. 350, op. 1, d. 40,1.1 (published in Izvestiia, 28 October 1933).

89. Ibid. Nikulin and other Soviet writers used the words oriental'nyi and ekzoticheskii interchangeably and sarcastically. Although the Soviet usage did not have all the nuances of Edward Said's “Orientalism,” there was unquestionably a note of criticism. Vera Tolz writes that Said was not aware of Soviet scholars’ works on the subject, but she establishes an intellectual link between the two in Anwar Abdel-Malek, who cites the latter and was cited by the former. Tolz, “European, National, and (Anti-) Imperial: The Formation of Academic Oriental Studies in Late Tsarist and Early Soviet Russia,” Kritika 9, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 79.

90. Shub, Esfir’ Il'inichna, Zhizri moia—kinematograf(Moscow, 1972), 348–49.Google Scholar

91. Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri, “Ankara—Moskova—Roma,” Kadro 1, no. 10 (October 1932): 41–42.Google Scholar

92. Atay, YeniRusya, 170.

93. DVP, vol. 15:456 (Surits to NKID, 9 August 1932).

94. Ibid.

95. Vera Tolz argues that Marr and other Russian academics were frustrated by what they perceived as European arrogance. Tolz, “European, National, and (Anti-) Imperial,” 75.

96. DVP, vol. 16: 216 (Astakhov to the NKID, 3 April 1933).

97. Nikulin was present at the meeting between Marr and Mustafa Kemal and has left a detailed account. RGALI, f. 350, op. 1, d. 59,1.33.

98. Marr, Ibid Nikolai, 0 lingvisticheskoi poezdke v Vostochnoe Sredizemnomor'e (Leningrad, 1934), 21.Google Scholar

100. Zhukovskii, P. M., Zemledel'cheskaia Turtsiia (Leningrad, 1933), xxv.Google Scholar

101. TBMM, d. 4, c. 25, b. 1, s. 4 (1 November 1934).

102. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), f. 5283, op. 4, d. 142,1. 29 (Linde to Kulebko, 5 December 1934).

103. Ibid., 1.35 (Program of radio concert for Turkey, 20 December 1934).

104. DVP, vol. 18 (Moscow, 1973), 177 (Karakhan to NKID, 14 March 1935).

105. RGALI, f. 648, op. 2, d. 996,1. 9.

106. Ulus, 16 April 1935; Aksam, 13 May 1935.

107. RGALI, f. 648, op. 2, d. 996,1. 9.

108. Ibid., 1.11.

109. Released in the Soviet Union as Ankara-Serdtse Turtsii and in Turkey as Türkiye'nin Kalbi Ankara, the original Version of the film had audible Turkish dialogue and Russian-language intertitles.

110. GARF, f. 5283, op. 4, d. 55,1. 24 (NKID to Sovkino, 6 May 1930).

111. Ulus, 19 October 1933.

112. RGALI, f. 2003, op. 1, d. 61 (“Chelovek, kotoryi ne ubil“). The title of the screenplay itself was an implicit criticism of a European Orientalist novel by the French author Claude Farrere, The Man Who Killed, with which the Soviet artists were familiär. Farer, Klod [Claude Farrere], Chelovek, kotoryi ubil (Paris, 1921).Google Scholar

113. Ulus, 26 November 1933.

114. RGALI, f. 3070, op. 1, d. 1327,1.98 (Interview with Zarkhi, April 1933).

115. “Serdtse Turtsii—beseda s rezhisserom S. I. Iutkevichem,” Krasnaia gazeta, 26 January 1934.

116. RGALI, f. 3070, op. 1, d. 1327,1. 56.

117. Gor'kovskaia kommuna, 21 June 1934; Proletarn, 14 May 1934; Zaria Vostoka, 18 June 1934; Krasnaia Bashkiriia, 6 January 1934; Sovetskaia Abkhaziia, 14 July 1934.

118. GARF, f. 5283, op. 4, d. 142,11.129-30; Cumhuriyet, 3 March 1934.

119. Haber, 19 February 1934.

120. Milliyet, 27 April 1934.

121. Son Posta, 26 April 1934.

122. BCA, 30.10.0.0/146.43.20,2 (Hikmet Bayur to tsmet Inönü, 20 March 1934).

123. Burhan Asaf, “Türkiye'nin kalbi-Ankara,” Ulus, 25 March 1934.

124. Ibid.

125. Falih Rifki Atay, “Iki örnek,” Ulus, 25 October 1933.

126. RGALI, f. 2003, op. 2, d. 3,1. 2 (9 June 1933).

127. RGALI, f. 3070, op. 1, d. 1327,1.19.

128. Ibid.

129. Ibid., 1.30 (9 August 1933).

130. Kotkin, Stephen, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as Civilization (Berkeley, 1995), 78.Google Scholar

131. Asaf, “Türkiye'nin Kalbi.“

132. Krasnaia zvezda, 6 May 1934.

133. AVP RF, f. 5, op. 15, pap. 110, d. 86,1.8 (NKID internal report, 28 May 1935).

134. Selim Deringil also concludes that a fear of Italy was the dominant factor in 1930s Turkish foreign policy. Deringil, Turkish Foreign Policy during the Second World War: An “Active” Neutrality (Cambridge, Eng., 1989), 7.

135. Burds, Jeffrey, “The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists': The Case of Chechnya, 1942-1944,” Journal of Contemporary History 42, no. 2 (April 2007): 267–314.Google Scholar

136. On the development of Soviet-Turkish hostility, see Gasanly, Dzhamil, SSSRTurtsiia: Ot neitraliteta k kholodnoi voine, 1939-1953 (Moscow, 2008);Google Scholar Zubok, , Failed Empire, 36–40.Google Scholar