“A Parliament is a forum of freedom. This… campaign for the Release of Soviet Jews can find no better platform”: the British Government’s efforts in the release of Soviet Jewry

This blog will discuss the British government’s efforts in the release of Soviet Jewry, using the Papers of MP Greville Janner that are part of the MS254 A980 Papers of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

“What is labour camp, Russian style really like?” article [MS254/1/2/16]

The quote in the title is from Summary of paper on parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry- presented to European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner, QC. MP, Vice Chairman, British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/24].

Summary of paper on parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry- presented to European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner, QC. MP, Vice Chairman, British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/24].

The Soviet Jewry movement

The Soviet Jewry movement emerged in response to the Soviet Union’s Jewish policy which was seen as a violation of basic human and civil rights, including freedom of immigration, freedom of religion, and the freedom to study one’s own language, history and culture. The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry, known as the 35’s, was a pressure group established in London in 1971 with the aim of assisting Russian Jews wishing to leave the country but refused permission. These people were known as Refuseniks.

Members of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry during a protest march [MS254/A980/4/22/22]

The establishment of the British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry

On 20 October 1971 the All Party Committee for the release of Soviet Jewry was formed. The committee looked something like this:

Chairman: Patrick Cormack

Vice-Chairman: Peter Archer

Honorary Secretary: Greville Janner

Honorary Treasurer: Hugh Dykes

Secretary to Committee: Mirs Veronica Hodges

Clerk to Committee: Jerry Lewis

Refusenik case study: Dr Yegveny Levich

In 1973 The All-Party Committee learnt with concern of the abduction of Dr Yegveny Levich on his 25th birthday. Dr Levich was the younger son of the Academician Benjamin Levich who was in the process of being dismissed from the Academy of Sciences for applying for him and his family to emigrate.

A number of Members of Parliament put down the following Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons:

“That this house deplores the abduction of Yegveny Levich, 26 year-old astrophysicist, son of Academician Benjamin Levich, of Moscow, who was taken by militia from his car while on his way to hospital and whose whereabouts are not now known; and calls on the Soviet authorities to free him forthwith and to permit all the Levich family to emigrate in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Parliamentary Committee sent the following telegram to Mr Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who was in Germany at the time:

 “The All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry respectfully request immediate investigation into circumstances of arrest and subsequent press ganging of Dr Yegveny Levich into Soviet Army. He is seriously ill. The Welcome détente with USSR is jeopardised by the unprecedented mistreatment of a distinguished Jewish scientist.

Signed Patrick Cormack, Peter Archer, Hugh Dykes, Greville Janner”

The following notices of questions and motions were also given on Wednesday 27 October 1971:

“Motion Treatment of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

–              Calls on Her Majesty’s Government to use its best endeavours and influence to secure and ensure respect of the human rights of the Jews who have been refused permission to emigrate to Israel and Russia’s refusal to permit Soviet Jews to freely practise their religion and to maintain their culture.

–              To make special representations on behalf of those 39 Russian Jews, arrested in Moscow on 25th March 1970, for demonstrating on behalf of their relatives. Themselves arrested for seeking to emigrate to Israel.

–              Calls upon Her Majesty’ Government to protest at the refusal of the Soviet authorities to permit foreign Press or observers to attend the current show trials of Soviet Jews.

–              Calls for Her Majesty’s Government to bring to the attention of the Soviet Government the fact that more honourable Members have signed the honourable Members of Leicester North-West’s Motion calling attention to the plight of Russian Jewry, and that in the circumstances, the Soviet Government should now release its Jewish Prisoners of Conscience and in particular Silva Zlamason and Raiza Palatnik, who are in a desperate poor state of health as a result of their confinement in their strict regime labour camp. And the Soviet Government should now act in a civilised manner and in accordance with the international treaty and obligations and release those of its Jewish minority who wish to be repatriated with their families in Israel.”

Building support over the United Kingdom

Within the Janner papers are evidence of Members of Parliament attempting to build awareness of Refuseniks and how they were being treated in Russia. Janner spoke at a Bournemouth action committee meeting on 3 June 1972, which was organised by the Bournemouth branch of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women. The meeting was held to protest against the treatment of Soviet Jews. Janner told the meeting that Jews in professional jobs who had applied for visas to emigrate to Israel had lost their jobs and been forced to build roads or join the army or be imprisoned. Committees to help Soviet Jews were springing up all over Britain he added. The women present at the meeting formed the 35 Group after hearing a talk by Mrs Janner. They planned to intercede for imprisoned Jewesses and stand in vigil outside the Soviet Embassy. Janner later received a letter from a Mr K. Kirsch of Bournemouth to inform him that a committee had been established, namely the Bournemouth Non-Denomination Action Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry. The Bournemouth group planned peaceful demonstrations, letters to people in prison, phone calls to those being harassed, and a Bournemouth 35 group was also formed.

Meetings were also addressed in Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Bristol. Members of All Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry constantly harassed members of the Soviet Embassy and raised questions in Parliament.

Janner described the great work being done by the “35 group” and how these ladies devoted a great deal of time bringing the plight of Soviet Jews to public notice and by telephoning Soviet Jews in Russia to let them know they are not forgotten.

Use of political connections in the United Kingdom and across the world

Key documents within the papers of Greville Janner reflect efforts made to use political connections to galvanise support for the Refuseniks and to use political influence to make a difference to the way they were being treated. Such documents include correspondence with Winston Churchill’s grandson, Winston Churchill and former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson. In September 1971 Janner thanked Winston Churchill for joining Patrick and himself to form the new All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry. He also requested him to be Chairman and revealed his wish to launch the operation on 20 October 1971.

Letter from Winston S. Churchill accepting membership of the committee, 6 October 1971 [MS254/A980/1/2/22]

In February 1972 Janner requested Harold Wilson to make a ‘behind the scenes’ approach to assist Vladimir Slepak in leaving Moscow with his wife and 12 year old son. Janner later sent Wilson a list of persons in Moscow who have children in England, of which Wilson promised to take with him on his trip to Moscow and attempt to try to get the fathers released.

When in Washington for the World Jewish Congress meeting, Greville Janner had a series of meetings with the United States Senators and Congressmen to discuss how Parliamentarians in the two countries could coordinate their efforts in the campaign. Among the results of this initiative was a joint approach by Senator Abe Ribicoff and Mr Janner to the Soviet, United States and British Foreign Ministers and Belgrade delegates on behalf of the Slepak family (of whom Janner has campaigned for seven years for their release); plans for future cooperation with Senator Jack Javits and arrangements for the exchange of information in future.

A letter is also included to the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Joseph Godber, ESQ. MP, on 28 July 1972 requesting to look into the matter of Academician Benjamin Levich who had been offered and had accepted a fellowship at the University College, Oxford and yet had been refused permission to leave Russia. Janner requests Godber to take up his case with the Russian authorities.

Methods used to raise public awareness of the treatment of Soviet Jewry

By reading the minutes of meetings of the All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry, you can find out what methods were used to help the Refuseniks. Methods included visits to Russia to make contact with Jewish activists, visits to Israel, writing letters to the major newspapers such as The Times on the cause, raising awareness of the problems of Soviet Jewry at events during Soviet Delegation visits, and even attempting to disallow Soviet politicians from entering the country until Refuseniks were permitted to leave the Soviet Union.

On 2 July 1974 an exhibition was held at St Martin’s in the Fields Church for two weeks designed to highlight the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union which was sponsored by the Parliamentary All-Party Committee and opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This included a number of photographs of the Moscow synagogue by Mel Di Giacomo.

The All-Party Committee even received guidance from the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry on writing letters to the Refusenik to ensure they wrote their letters in a way that would ensure they went to the addressee and would not be destroyed by Soviet authorities.

Guidance for letter-writers to ‘Refuseniks’ and Soviet Jewish Prisoners of Conscience by the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/30]

Below is a summary of parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry presented to the European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner:

“Methods of pressure, which have proved helpful:

(1)          Top level, behind the scenes – requests by Presidents, Prime Ministers, governments or trade unions for (a) changes in general policy and/or (b) release of individuals. Pressures usually brought at request of Parliamentarians and/or constituents- and at best reflect manifest feeling in country concerned.

(2)          Delegations visiting Soviet Union- parliamentary, trade union and trade- emphasising the difficulties of “doing business” (political or commercial) with Soviet Union while e.g. Anatoli Sharansky in prison or e.g. Slepak family harassed.

(3)          Scientific Delegations- or individual visits – emphasising persecution of Academician Levich, Professors Lerner, Fein etc and banning of Scientific Symposium.

(4)          Individual visits- by e.g. Parliamentarians, churchmen or tourists, with access to influential Russians.

(5)          Parliamentary protests – which may range from legislative attempts to tie trade to human rights issues (e.g. controversial attempt- USA); through motions, resolutions speeches, debates questions to Ministers, letters to Governments (released to press) etc. Individuals in immediate danger should be named – knowledge that harm to them will cause international outcry is their best (and frequently only) protection.

(6)          Pressure through media – Parliamentarians have easier access to press, T.V. and radio than almost anyone else. Every opportunity should be taken to introduce campaign.

(7)          Public demonstrations- Parliamentarians (well known figures) may spearhead campaigns by others e.g. by speaking at or chairing meetings; leading marches or protests; accompanying delegations to Soviet Ambassador or visitors.

(8)          Direct approaches to Soviet Authorities

(a)          At home- through private contacts with Soviet Ambassador and/or his staff; at diplomatic parties; through parliamentary Soviet friendship groups

(b)          Through official delegation to Soviet Ambassador etc Parliamentary or mixed or through an attempt to arrange such delegations

(c)           Within Soviet Union – cables, letters , telephone calls etc- to both top and local officials, No reply likely but reactions sometimes dramatic.

(7) Demonstrations with Parliament – sometimes possible to dramatize plight of Soviet Jews e.g., “Prisoners” luncheon – with press; Slepak prayer book; exhibitions.

(8) Personal contact with Refusniks

(1) By telephone. If lines cut off parliamentary/governmental protests should follow.

(2) Letters- sometimes arrive but intercepted by censors, nevertheless inform authorities of parliamentary concern.

(3) Visits-all parliamentarians who visit Soviet Union should be asked to see “Refusniks” either at their homes or visitor’s Hotel.

(9) Co-operative efforts- inter-parliamentary – coordinated efforts on behalf of indivudals (e.g. Dr Stern) and or on specific issues (e.g. education tax) have proved valuable but are too few. Could coordination through Parliamentary Soviet groups and/or activists not be extended? European parliamentary efforts (Per Ahlmark) have been notable but individual groups have had too little contact.

(10) Public relations – Parliamentarians best to explain the cause. And to answer counter-attacks to explain need for separation between Jewish movement to leave Soviet Union and dissident efforts to change regime within and to answer Soviet propaganda.”

Other useful documents for studying the efforts of the British government in the release of Soviet Jewry include notes on chairman’s reports from AGMs and correspondence regarding the threat posed to Israel’s status in the United Nations.

Notes from AGM of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry
Chairman’s Report [MS254/A980/1/2/30]

Stay tuned for our next blog post, which will focus on Charlie Knight and his research using MS314 Papers of Theodore Hirschberg, 1939-41.

Spotlight on collections: Unusual items in the Archives

The Archives and Special Collections has considerable holdings. The material that chronicles significant political, military and social events consists of the typical formats that would be expected such as correspondence, volumes of minutes or reports, photographs, maps, plans. Yet like all Archives, the collections often contain associated items that are a little more unusual and in this week’s blog we bring some of these into the spotlight.

Locks of hair are something that are found in collections of family papers and the collections at Southampton are no exception. Hair as a keepsake and memento was something that peaked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Victorians had a particular fascination with hair as a memento of loved ones, but hair was also given as tokens of love and friendship. In the papers of Christopher Collins, the personal servant of the Duke of Wellington, we find locks of hair of both Princess Charlotte and the Duchess of Wellington.

Lock of hair of Princess Charlotte, 1799 [MS69/4/2]

The Broadlands Archives contain other examples such as hair of the baby Henry John Temple, later third Viscount Palmerston (MS62/BR/18/62) and a lock of hair of the baby Ruth Mary Ashley, the younger sister of Edwina, Lady Mountbatten, along with her birth certificate (MS62/MB/1/W/5).

The knitted objects that we hold are made of a variety of fabrics and materials, but there are not any that are knitted from hair. An altogether more unusual experiment, however, was to knit with spaghetti of which we have a few examples (MS332/53/3/1). There is no record of why or how this particular experiment was conducted, although the results of it are clear to see:

Amongst the administrative papers and associated collections relating to the history of the University are a variety of artefacts that add an additional dimension to this material. The gavel that was presented to the Hartley Institution in the 1870s represents the close connection between the Corporation of Southampton and the Institution in its early days. The bequest left by Henry Robinson Hartley to create an educational establishment was made to the Corporation for this purpose.

The ceremonial decorated gavel, made of ivory, donated to the Hartley Institution Council by Henry Joseph Buchan, JP and Mayor of Southampton, 1871-2 [MS1/1/31/15/2]

Other items that represent more formal ways of University life in the past are two silver sugar bowls and spoons, perhaps used when the Warden was entertaining at afternoon tea, that are part of material from Highfield Hall, a hall of residence formally opened by the future George VI in 1935.  

Silver sugar pot and spoon [MS310/71/3/1]

We hold a small selection of university related clothing, including a blazer and scarves in university colours as well as cap badges. Amongst a collection of a student from the University from the 1980s is a lovely eye mask for the Southampton University Medical Society masked ball that she attended at Southampton Guildhall.

Handmade mask for masked ball at Southampton Guildhall, 1980s [MS416/22/A4338/1]

Dolls, and indeed dolls clothing, feature amongst the collections, including in the objects that form part of the Monste Stanley knitting collection (MS332), items that belonged to Basque child refugee Pilar Vasca (MS370/5) and in that of the Brian Raywid Romany Papers (MS443).

Peg making is one of the oldest Romany crafts. The pegs were made from a length of willow or hazelwood cut to the right length and with a V-shaped notch cut in the base end. A band of tin was then nailed into position at the top of the peg and the peg split with a sharp knife from the point of the V-notch to the tin band. The pegs were then pegged out to dry and allow the slit to set into its open shape. From these the peg dolls were made and pegs and dolls were often sold door to door.

Peg doll [MS443/13]

Whilst we might have recipes and other sources relating to food, food itself is not something that we would expect to come across in the Archives. However, we do have an exception for an Australian Military Forces emergency ration tin found amongst the Broadlands Archives. Dating from the Second World War it was presumably passed to Lord Mountbatten during his time as Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia. Details of this can be found in a Stories they tell blog from 2020.

The final two sets of items we will be looking in this brief tour could not be more contrasting – handcuffs and handmade shackles used by the pressure group the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry and the exquisitely engraved nautilus shell of the Duke of Wellington and St George and the Dragon.

The Women’s Campaign was creative and dramatic in some of the protests that it organised. Handcuffs were put to use to chain themselves to railings, while the handmade shackles were as part of a costume (possibly in conjunction with a pair of blue and white striped pyjamas that looked like a gulag uniform) worn by a protester.

Handcuffs used by the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/5/4/3]

The Scrimshaw nautilus shell is the work of the prolific engraver of nautilus and turban shells Charles H. Wood., who was renowned for the fine work produced whilst engraving his shells with a simple penknife. In the 1850s, Wood produced shells commemorating Wellington and Nelson as well as ones engraved with Britannia.

Engraved nautilus shell of the Duke of Wellington, 1850s [MS351/6/A4170/28]

We hope that you have enjoyed this brief introduction to some of the more unusual objects in our care. But if you want to find out what else we hold do have look at the Archive Catalogue for details.

J is for Jewish Archives

Pages of a letter book of the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Guardians part of the Jewish Care archive, one of the collections acquired by Special Collections since 1990 [MS173/1/11/3]

In the latest of the Special Collections A-Z we look at J for Jewish archives. The Special Collections holds a considerable volume of Anglo-Jewish archive material, yet one of the questions we are asked frequently is why should this be the case. We will look a little at the background that led to the development of Southampton as a repository for Jewish archives.

The prominent Anglo-Jewish figure Claude Montefiore, was Acting President of University College, Southampton, 1910-13, and then President, 1913-34. He was a key supporter in the development of the institution during this time and part of his book collection was donated to the Library. The presence of this material was one of the attractions for Revd Dr James Parkes when he was seeking a home for his own library and archives. The Parkes Library on Jewish/non-Jewish relations arrived at the University of Southampton in 1964. This collection has formed the nucleus of a significant and ever expanding printed Special Collection and been the magnet that has drawn other collections to the University.

The official opening of the Parkes Library at Southampton, 1964: James Parkes is sitting at the far right of the image [MS1/Phot/39 ph3516]

It was the arrival of the Anglo-Jewish Archives collections in 1990, however, which transformed the scale and breadth of the holdings, adding some 5,000 boxes to the Special Collections existing holdings, and making it a significant centre for Jewish archival material.

Anglo-Jewish Archives material arrives 1990

Anglo-Jewish Archives material stored 2022

The Anglo-Jewish Archives collections that came to Southampton in 1990 had been created as part of the Jewish Historical Society of England in the 1950s and were housed but not owned by University College London. Although, unlike their American counterpart the American Jewish Archives based at the Hebrew Union College in Cincinatti, they were considerably underfunded, the AJA were very successful in collecting and also surveying material. Their success meant that they outgrew their temporary accommodation and resources and by the 1980s were in need of rehousing and additional resources. Indeed, in the 1980s there was a growing concern of the threat of a “vanishing heritage” of the destruction or disappearance of archival material. There were a number of initiatives to deal with this, especially in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. In Manchester, its Jewish Museum was opened in 1984, whilst in Liverpool and Birmingham partnerships were developed between local record offices and Jewish heritage projects. Working in collaboration with the Merseyside Jewish Community Archives, a community archivist helps co-ordinate collecting and encourages its cataloguing and use, while the Liverpool Record Office provides archival storage and access. In London the Museum of the Jewish East End and in Glasgow the Scottish Jewish Archives were formed in the late 1980s. In both heritage preservation and archive collection were part of their initiatives but in both these cases, unlike Liverpool, there was no formal partnership with local record offices.

Another initiative was guidelines for the Anglo-Jewish community on the preservation of material and recommendations for depositing archives produced by the working party on Jewish archives. This working party was formed following a British Library symposium to discuss Jewish archives in 1988.

As part of these recommendations, a framework was set up amongst UK archives and libraries to provide a home for Jewish archival material. As part of this London Metropolitan Archives became the repository for material of London based organisations, while Southampton took on the role of collecting material relating to Anglo-Jewry.

In the decades since 1990, the situation with regards to archives of the Jewish community in the UK cannot be separated from the developments of the designated repositories, particularly London Metropolitan Archives and the University of Southampton.  London Metropolitan Archives has become the repository of archives of a range of London based Jewish organisations, including those of the Office of Chief Rabbi, the United Synagogue and the Board of Deputies.  The Special Collections has built on the core collections acquired by the Anglo-Jewish Archives from the 1950s to 1990 expanding them in both size and range. The collections at Southampton have grown several fold since 1990 and now fill more than 3km of shelves.

Photograph of the booth staffed by Miss Bennett in the interior of the hall at Atlantic Park, Eastleigh, with a number of the refugees in residence at the transit camp, 1920s [MS311/53 A3098]

The newer collections might still include those from the Anglo-Jewish elite, such as the Swaythling or Waley Cohen families, but they also include papers of refugees such as Eugene Heimler, the Adler family from Vienna or the Van der Zyl family or material of Rudi Kennedy who was used as a slave labourer under the Nazi regime and led the fight in the UK for compensation, increasing the range of voices to be heard. Organisational collections have expanded to include a range of liberal and reform communities and communal organisations. And we have given home to papers of pressure groups, such as those who fought for the cause of Soviet Jewry Conscience and the “35s” or the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry or for social justice such as the Jewish Council for Racial Equality.

Protest by members of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry at Wembley Arena, London [MS254 A980/4/22/178]

For further information on the holdings at Southampton do look at the Archive Catalogue and the Browse Collections feature which brings together information on the range of Jewish archival material we hold. Special Collections also has contributed to Yerusha, an online catalogue providing extensive information on European Jewish archival heritage. It features more than 12,000 in-depth archival descriptions from 700 European archives, libraries, and museums in 27 countries.

And next week’s blog shines a spotlight on one of the newer Jewish archive collections with K for Kochan, focusing on the collection of the academic Lionel Kochan.

The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry and Natan Sharansky

This week we take a look at an inspirational protest group – the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry (aka ‘The 35s’) and their campaign to free Anatoly Shcharansky aka Natan Sharansky – one of many Jewish persons who were refused a visa when seeking to emigrate from the USSR and subsequently harassed and imprisoned by the KGB. These people were known as ‘Refuseniks’ by the Western press and the campaign of support for Soviet Jewry was part of the broader fight for human rights within the former USSR.

The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry emerged in 1971 upon learning that a thirty-five-year-old librarian named Raisa Palatnik from Odessa had been arrested for distributing ‘samizdat’ (banned literature). She was sentenced to two years in prison in June 1972 after a period of harassment by the KGB beginning in October 1970. A small group of women decided to hold a protest outside the Soviet Embassy in London and from these modest beginnings the campaign on behalf of all Refuseniks began. During Palatnik’s time in prison, this pressure group distributed leaflets asking members of the public to help her as she stood on trial in the Soviet Union. They requested telegrams and letters to be sent to the Soviet Ambassador at an address in Kensington Gardens, London, or to Intourist Moscow Ltd in Regent Street.

This group acquired the nickname ‘the 35s’, perhaps due to the fact that Raisa was 35 years old at the time, or perhaps, according to a later pamphlet, it was because “a group of 35 thirty-five-year-old women set up the 35s – Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry. Through persistence, dedication, and sheer chutzpah, they were to change the face of the Soviet Jewry campaign, and of the human rights record of the Soviet Union.” [MS254/A980/2/27/7]. The group was primarily made up of relatively young middle-class Jewish housewives from north-west London, who’d no previous experience of activism or campaigns. They proved themselves to be a formidable force, conducting a tireless campaign to heighten public awareness of their cause, and were known for their effective and highly imaginative demonstrations and protests.

The 35s were able to rally an alliance of cross-party MPs in support of their cause and they celebrated the formation in February 1972 of the House of Commons All Party Committee for Soviet Jewry by holding a banquet offering the same grim provisions given to Soviet Jewish prisoners of conscience, which included: 14 oz of ‘black bread’ for breakfast, two-thirds of a cup of cooked cabbage soup for lunch and 5 oz of potato (without fat) for dinner: nutritionally insufficient to maintain even a three-year old child. 

House of Commons ‘Souvenir Banquet’ for the All Party Committee for Soviet Jewry, 23 Feb 1972 [MS254/A2079/3]

The campaign on behalf of the refusenik Anatoly Sharansky began when, in early March 1977, a ‘confession’ was extracted from another refusenik alleging that he and other Soviet Jews were covertly working for the CIA. It was in this context that the Soviet computer scientist Sharansky was arrested in Moscow, accused of treason, on 15^th March 1977. The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry argued the arrest was part of a broader Russian anti-Jewish campaign. Sharansky was born Anatoly Borisovich Shcharansky in 1948 in the city of Stalino (now named Donetsk), then in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. At the time of his arrest, aged 29, he was a leader of the Jewish community in the USSR and specialised in computer systems and was also an expert on computer chess.

Sharansky had applied to emigrate to Israel in 1973. Like most Soviet Jews who applied to emigrate he was dismissed from his job but refused permission for a visa. He married in 1974 but his wife was then expelled from the USSR. By 1975 Sharansky had emerged as one of the leaders of the Soviet Jewish human rights community. In his booklet on the history of the Jewish people in Russia titled ‘From the Tsars to Shcharansky’, Peter Moss described him as “the symbol of spirit and hope amongst the Jews of the Soviet Union. But if 1975 was the year of Helsinki and Shcharansky, it was, perhaps above all, the year when a new word entered into modern day language and into the dictionary: REFUSENIK: ‘A Jew in the Soviet Union who has been refused permission to emigrate to Israel.’” [MS343/A2067/6/26]

‘From the Tsars to Shcharansky: A brief background to the Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Emigration Movement in the Soviet Union (1500-1975)’ by Peter Moss [MS343/A2067/6/26]

Unable to work, Sharansky co-founded the Helsinki Monitoring Committee in Moscow in 1976 with Professor Orlov and dedicated himself to the problems of emigration and human rights in the USSR. Sharansky was put under KGB surveillance and his home searched multiple times before his arrest in March 1977. The 35s rallied to his support and produced a range of protest material drawing attention to his case, utilising mocks-ups of the publicity material of various prestigious Russian cultural institutions.

Mock Georgian State Dance Company poster [MS254/A980/2/27/7]

Mock Bolshoi Ballet flyer, 1986 [MS254/A2079/3]

Mock Bolshoi Ballet flyer, 1986 [MS254/A2079/3]

In a letter dated 14^th March 1978 addressed from Margaret Rigal, the Secretary of the International Committee for the Release of Anatoly Sharanksy (whose Joint Chairmen were John Gorst MP, Helene Hayman MP and Russell Johnston MP), we learn the following: “On Wednesday 15th March [1978], Sharansky will have been in prison, incommunicado, for a whole year. A lawyer has now been appointed by the KGB, against the wishes of his family, since she is elderly and has not agreed to plead his innocence […] Any hope, therefore, of a fair trial or any suggestion that the verdict might accord with justice is little more than a pious wish. If the trial takes place, the verdict, I am sure, is a foregone conclusion. Perhaps a letter from you reminding the Soviet Ambassador that no civilised country keeps a prisoner incommunicado for over a year before there is a trial, might bear fruit.” [MS254/A980/2/27/2]

At the time of the 1980 Moscow Olympics the 35s staged a protest at Wembley Arena calling for Sharansky’s release, with a mock Brezhnev present.

Sharansky protest at Wembley Arena, early 1980s [MS254/A980/4/28/22]

In March 1985 there was a change of leadership in Soviet government under Gorbachev. His policy of ‘Glasnost’ (roughly translated as ‘openness’ or ‘transparency’), led to some degree of liberalisation in the Soviet Union. The 35s invoked Glasnost in their campaign of continued pressure on the Soviet authorities to live up to their human rights obligations, under the 1975 Helsinki Accords. This pact, signed in 1975 by 35 nations (including the USA and the Soviet Union), included guarantees on the inviolability of frontiers and non-interference in the internal affairs of states but article VII also called for “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief”. The 35s’ protests invoked both Helsinki and Glasnost.

35’s Moscow State Circus flyer [MS254/A980/4/28/62]

35’s Moscow State Circus flyer [MS254/A980/4/28/62]

Refusenik ‘Glasnost’ lorry-placard protest, c.1985 [MS254/A980/4/28/44]

It was within this climate of sustained pressure from the West on human rights issues on the one hand, as well as a willingness on the part of reformers within Soviet government to change the status quo in the USSR on the other hand, that Sharanksy was freed, as part of an East-West prisoner swap in February 1986. By this time, after almost nine years in Soviet prison, Sharansky was described as the “world’s most famous dissident” in The Sunday Times of 28^th September 1986. In February 1986, he walked across Berlin’s Glienicke Bridge to the West, finally released by the KGB. He took a new Hebrew name ‘Natan’ and anglicised his surname from Shcharansky to Sharansky, symbolising his disconnection from the Soviet Union. In September 1986 the 35s held a special event at the Royal Albert Hall to celebrate Sharansky’s freedom.

Flyer for the Sharansky Royal Albert Hall event, 21 Sep 1986 [MS254/A980/4/28/1]

Sharansky with 35s at Royal Albert Hall, 1986 [MS254/A980/4/28/3]

Sharansky at Royal Albert Hall, 1986 [MS254/A980/4/28/19]

He met prime ministers and presidents and was hailed as a symbol of freedom and resistance. He was feted by people from all sides of the political spectrum as a public symbol of freedom, whilst simultaneously maintaining his own sense of himself as an individual.  In January 1987 Sharansky was given the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Humanitarian Award for his “invincible spirit in the face of Soviet oppression” [MS254/A4249/4/11]. He later entered Israeli politics, representing the interests of Russian immigrants to Israel, and served in government for many years from the mid-1990s. He has recently renewed his calls for defending the principles upon which the free world rests and condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the country where his life journey began in 1948.

For those interested in the stories of the many other Refuseniks, there are a range of relevant collections here at the University of Southampton including: the Papers of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry; the Papers of Michael Sherbourne; the Papers of Conscience; the Papers of Dr Colin Shindler; the Papers of Rabbi Lawrence Littlestone; and the Papers of Sheila Rawlins.

The Stories They Tell: Raiza Palatnik

In this week’s blog post, we tell the story of Raiza Palatnik, and her journey as a Refusenik.  

Raiza Palatnik [MS254/A980/2/16]

Background Information 

Jews were persecuted in the Soviet Union through much of the 20th century. Extreme nationalism took place in Russia, following the Leninist principle of all Soviet citizens falling into one general populate with no nationality distinctions. In the 1970s, Moscow had a large Jewish population, yet there was only one synagogue. There was no way to become a rabbi or even eat kosher food; therefore Jews were discouraged from learning and practicising their Jewish cultural identity. 

After continual denial, Jews wanted to emigrate from Russia. Although they could apply to leave, the majority were refused permission and were often unable to get a job afterwards, even if they were a qualified scientist or librarian. Instead, the government would assign you a job, such as the roles of stoker, shovelling coal, or elevator operator. 

The Russian government wanted to discourage large-scale Soviet-Jewish migration by imprisoning leaders of the Jewish movement.  

Raiza Palatnik’s story 

On the 14^th October 1970, Raiza Palatnik was asked by two men who came to the Library where she worked, to go with them to her apartment. They claimed to be Police Officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. Outside her apartment building, they were met by an Investigator who had a warrant signed by the Prosecutor to authorise a search for stolen items from a nearby school. The search lasted for 5 hours and her typewriter and material on Jewish issues were confiscated. This material included speeches of Nassar before the Six-Day War; the interview of Golda Meir in the New York Times; and a stenograph of Joseph Brodsky’s trial. Upon signing the protocol, Raiza reported that all the items taken were her personal possessions and had nothing to do with the search stated in the warrant, and ordered their immediate return. 

The next day, Raiza was addressed again at her place of work by Investigator Alexiev, who instructed her to go to the KGB office immediately. Here, she was demanded to reveal the names of the people from whom she received the anti-Soviet material. In her response Raiza stated that the search and demands were acts of persecution for her wish to go to Israel, as she had previously submitted a request that her relatives in Israel be located. The interrogation lasted for four hours and she was threatened with arrest if she refused to provide the names. At the same time, five Jews and a Russian woman were asked in a nearby room if they had been provided anti-Soviet literature by Palatnik, whether she had publicly advocated for emigration to Israel, if she had been seen with anybody who had been arrested in Leningrad, Kishniev and Riga. 

Every few days Palatnik would be called in for questioning with psychological pressure, threatening her with unpleasant consequences if she did not speak the truth on who provided her with the anti-Soviet material. After not being told what she was being accused of (in accordance with the Soviet law), Palatnik wrote to the First Secretary of the District Communist Party, and complained against the unlawful procedures and persecutions by the KGB because of her wish to go to Israel. She sent a similar letter to Breznev, but received no responses. Raiza also wrote an open letter on the 20^th November, explaining her cause and motivation.  She finished this letter with the following “in my trial I will cry out against all anti-semites in the Yiddish I was taught by my Mother and Father.” 

Open letter of a Jewess, Raiza Palatnik, 20 November 1970 [MS254/A980/2/16] 

On 20^th November the KGB searched Palatnik’s parents’ apartment for anti-Soviet literature, and found nothing. In subsequent interrogations Palatnik refused to speak in any other language but her mother tongue, Yiddish, and demanded a translator. The interrogator refused her request, and so Palatnik refused to answer any questions, only stating “nein” in Yiddish.  

In the mean time, the KGB continued to summon Palatnik’s relatives and friends, and even complete strangers, to find out whether Palatnik had been distributing the anti-Soviet literature, and if she was campaigning for emigration to Israel.                        

On 1^st December 1970, Raiza Palatnik was arrested by the KGB. Her apartment shared with her sister had been searched for material condemning the Soviet Union. 

The next day, Palatnik’s husband and sister went to the KGB and requested to see documentation that stated what charges were being made against Raiza. After receiving no information from Larionev they went on to ask the Prosecutor, who revealed that Raiza was suspect of “distributing false stories slandering the Soviet State and society, according to paragraph 187 of the Ukrainian code”. 

The KGB later summoned Raiza’s parents. The investigator wanted testimony from her father that his daughter had fallen “under the influence of criminal Zionist elements”. In response, Raiza’s father claimed that this was not the case, and that Raiza was a decent and honest human. He further demanded to see the documentation of the charges made against his daughter, which was refused. Raiza’s brother, Valdimir was also questioned, on Raiza’s mental health. 

In March 1971, Raiza was psychologically examined, and the doctors attested that her mental health was absolutely sound. On 22^nd June 1971 the trial of Raiza Palatnik took place, and she was sentenced to two years imprisonment. During her time in prison, Palatnik became very ill, and suffered paralysis in one of her arms. Her daily diet consisted of thin soup of gruel, rotten fish, and tea with and without 20 grams of sugar; cabbage soup made from water and bones; and oatmeal or a small potato with veg, as well as 500 grams of bread distributed daily. She was required to work in a sewing room with over 200 women prisoners, with the work involving the sewing of gloves, overalls and other garments, as well as quilt covers. The equipment used was over ten years old and there was no ventilation, first aid equipment, or disinfectant. 

In December 1972 Palatnik was released. On hearing the news that thirty-five-year-old librarian Raisa Palatnik from Odessa had been arrested for distributing samizdat, (banned literature), a small group of women decided to hold a protest outside the Soviet Embassy in London. From these modest beginnings grew the campaign on behalf of the refusniks. This group became known as the 35’s, and were called the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry. During Palatnik’s time in prison, this pressure group distributed leaflets asking members of the public to protest to help her, as she stood on trial in the Soviet Union. They requested telegrams and letters to be sent to the Soviet Ambassador at an address in Kensington Gardens, London, or to Intourist Moscow Ltd in Regent Street.  

Members of the 35’s demonstrating for the release of Raiza Palatnik 

You can find out more about the group and the material we hold on them at the following links: 

Human Rights and the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry 

Protest stories (3): We Protest! – campaigning for change 

Archivist projects: Cataloguing the Papers of Michael Sherbourne 

Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry collections 

 

Protest stories (3): We Protest! – campaigning for change

Welcome to the third and final of our blogs featuring highlights from the Special Collections We Protest! exhibition. This week we look at campaigns by protest groups from the 1960s onwards, in particular student protests and the work of a very singular Jewish organisation: the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

Handcuffs used at demonstrations by the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS254 A980/5/4/3]

Student protests

Although mass student protests had been taking place prior to May 1968, it was the demonstrations in Paris of that year that brought newfound energy to political campus activism. At Southampton that activism was to reflect many of the social, economic as well as political concerns of the modern era and the form that student protests have taken — such as marches, boycotts and sit-ins — likewise have followed the repertoire of contention of campus protests.

The material featured in the exhibition dates from the 1960s onwards. In this decade it was the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as the Vietnam War, that was to be the focus of demonstrations.

Student group leaflet advocating boycott against South Africa, 25 November 1969 [Rare Books Univ. Coll. c LF 788.89]

Students at Southampton were amongst those at a number of institutions involved in sit-ins in the 1970s: for instance, the 48 hours occupation of the Administration Building on 14-15 November 1973 in support of the National Union of Students’ campaign for grants.

Headline from Wessex News, reporting on the sit-in in support of the NUS grants campaign, 1973 [Univ. Coll. LF789.9]

The late 1980s saw student loans coming to the fore as an issue, with the Students Union passing a motion in 1988 describing top-up loans, as ‘merely the thin end of the wedge … eventually leading to a full loans system’.

“No loans” campaign by students [MS1/Phot/19/263]

Current activism, such as that on climate change, likewise reflects the concerns of the present era.

“Those wonderful women in black” – the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry

Badges of the 35’s: Campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS254 A980/5/4/1]

Established in 1971, the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry was a pressure group set up to assist members of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union wishing to leave the country, but denied permission. The term “refusnik” was coined to describe these individuals. On hearing the news that thirty-five-year-old librarian Raisa Palatnik from Odessa had been arrested for distributing samizdat, (banned literature), a small group of women decided to hold a protest outside the Soviet Embassy in London. From these modest beginnings grew the campaign on behalf of the refusniks.

Demonstration held at Soviet Embassy, London, with placards bearing slogan ‘SHKOLNIK YAVOR USSR How Many More?’ and ‘Sheffield Concern for Soviet Jewry’, Autumn 1973 [MS254 A980/4/20/1]

Many of the founder members of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry (affectionately known as the 35s due to the average age of the group) were middle-class, Jewish housewives from North West London who had no previous experience of activism or campaigns. They proved themselves to be a formidable force, conducting a tireless campaign to heighten public awareness of their cause, and were known for their effective and highly imaginative demonstrations.

Demonstration outside Wembley Arena, with placards in support of Anatoly Sharansky and a protester wearing a Brezhnev mask [MS254 A980/4/22/178]

Indeed, the “wonderful women in black” were to prove to be excellent examples of how clothing could be used in a performance capacity to support political activism and demands for social reform.

Red t-shirt used for Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry demonstrations featuring Yuri Federov, Josef Mendelevich and Aleksey Muzhenko on the front. Ida Nudel, Anatoly Sharansky and Vladimir Slepak are featured on the back. [MS254 A980/5/1/3]

White t-shirt used for Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry demonstrations with the logo ‘KGB release Sharansky’ [MS254 A980/5/1/2]

We hope that you have enjoyed over the last three weeks this showcase of some of the items from the recent Special Collections exhibition. We hope that you will be able to join us for future exhibitions, both in the galleries and online.

Archivist projects: Cataloguing the Papers of Michael Sherbourne

This week archivist Lara Nelson discusses a recent cataloguing project focusing on the papers of Michael Sherbourne, a human rights activist who played an influential role in the movement to win Jews the right to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

Michael Sherbourne [MS434 A4249 7/2]

Born on 22 February 1917 in London, Michael Sherbourne’s family name was Sheinbaum. His father’s parents were from Poland and his mother’s Sephardi family (descendants of Spanish exiles), had lived in England since the seventeenth century. His father worked as a tailor and a taxi driver, and his mother was a housewife. In the 1930s Michael and his three brothers anglicised their surname to Sherbourne.

Michael was politically engaged from an early age. When British fascists attempted to march in one of the Jewish areas of London, a 19 year old Michael was to be seen taking part in the anti-fascistic action of the Jews, who filled the streets and blocked the march. This single event made Michael realise the importance of unity and determination in gaining victory over a powerful enemy. He took this on in his fight for the independent Jewish state and in his struggle for the liberation of Jews from Soviet captivity.

As a result of the Great Depression in 1929, unemployment was rife in Great Britain, peaking at just below 3 million by 1932. This partly led to Michael Sherbourne leaving school at sixteen, and joining the Civil Service. Interested in Zionism however, Sherbourne soon left the Civil Service and went to what was then Palestine, and joined the Zionist organisation Hechaluts, which means “the pioneer”.

Young Michael Sherbourne, 1939 [MS434 A4249 7/3]

Hechaluts was a group for the youth, providing news about the land of Israel (which at the time was Palestine); courses in Hebrew; Hebrew songs and dances; and pioneer training, which was named Hachshara. Sherbourne joined this training programme at the age of eighteen. The trainees practised agriculture and learned to be farmers. Sherbourne put what he learnt into practice at a training farm in Kent, where he was to meet his future wife, Muriel Cohen. After receiving their certificate for Aliyah, they left for Palestine on the first day of World War Two, 1 September 1939. They joined Kibbutz Anglo Balti for 6 months, then left for Haifa, where Michael was employed in the Royal Navy, and where their eldest daughter Norma was later born. Sherbourne’s involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean Fleet of the Royal Navy provided the opportunity for him to become fluent in French and Hebrew and to study Arabic.

Michael Sherbourne and his wife Muriel in USA, 1989 [MS434 A4249 7/2]

 After World War Two ended, the Sherbourne family returned to England. Shortly after the birth of Sherbourne’s second daughter Lana, Michael was forced to return to Palestine in 1948 to join the Israeli Army during the War of Independence. Michael was a fighter in the IDF (Hativat Sheva, Mahal), and participated in the decisive battle for Latrun.

As Muriel contracted tuberculosis, the Sherbournes could not stay in Israel long-term. In London Muriel underwent treatment for this over a 2-year period. Sherbourne focussed on training to become a teacher, taking a 13 month course at a teacher’s training college in London. At the College were 30 Jews, of which 28 were members of the Communist Party, causing Sherbourne to always be in disagreement with them. As a result of a challenge to learn Russian Sherbourne learnt took up evening classes, and went on to study a degree in Russian. Some say that Sherbourne also learnt Russian to learn the language of the enemy. After achieving his degree, Sherbourne switched from teaching metalwork and machine-tool mechanics to teaching foreign languages, and became Head of the Department of Modern Foreign Languages at a large secondary comprehensive school in North London, until he retired in 1979.

Section of Soviet Socialists map, c.1960s [MS434 A4249 4/12/2]

Even after taking a school party to the Soviet Union, and speaking to Jews at the Synagogue in Leningrad, Sherbourne did not learn about the Jewish problem in Russia until he attended a meeting in London where Jewish women from Leningrad spoke of their experiences. Following this meeting, the Association of Jewish Ex-service Men and Women organised a committee to help Soviet Jews, to which Michael and his wife Muriel asked to join. After telling the Committee that he could speak Russian, the first job delegated to him was to ring some of the Jews that had suffered in Russia. As Sherbourne made the phone calls, he received more and more numbers to call, particularly from a lady called Eder Nudel. Nudel made it her business to find Jewish prisoners who were given the misleading title of prisoners of Zion. Over a period of fifteen years, Sherbourne made up to six thousand telephone calls. Sherbourne would use the phone calls to find out when the person had applied for permission to immigrate, when they were refused, what difficulties they had faced from the police, and what their current situation was. Sherbourne would then communicate this information to the Israeli Embassy in London, and the activist group, the 35’s Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry. Over time, Sherbourne succeeded in forming a solid chain of communication between what he termed the “Refuseniks” and Jewish organisations wishing to help them emigrate from Russia.

Michael Sherbourne on the telephone with his recording equipment, c.1980s-1990s [MS434 A4249 7/4]

After meeting members of the 35s Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry at a conference held by the Chief Rabbi in Britain, Sherbourne began to work closely with the organisation. Peaceful protests were made outside theatres where Soviet artists performed, publicising the names of refuseniks and calling on the Soviet Union to release the Jews. Jeans were also sent to refuseniks to help them to earn money.

Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry calendar, 1989 [MS434 A4249 5/6]

Retiring from the synagogue and teaching in the late seventies left time for Sherbourne to write articles and give public talks on Soviet Jewry. Topics of these talks included “Russian Jewry: Triumph or Tragedy?”, “A Brief Account of Russian Anti-Semitism and the 35s Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry”, and “Jews in the U.S.S.R. – Cultural Genocide”. Sherbourne also attended talks relating to these topics, such as “Final Reckoning: Was the Soviet Union really ‘bad for the Jews’?” given by John Klier at the sixth annual Maccabean Lecture at King’s College London. Known as a strong personality in the campaign for Soviet Jewry, Sherborne received many enquiries, such as authors requesting his thoughts on their books and articles on the subject. An example includes Martin Gilbert on his publication Shcharansky Hero of Our Time.

Poster for talk given by Michael Sherbourne on “Russian Jewry Past, Present, and Future”, 2004 [MS434 A4249 1/3 Folder 8]

Putting his skill of being able to read and write in Russian to good use, Sherbourne also spent his time in the 1990s translating documents from Russian and Hebrew into English. Documents included publications, poems, and even family history and legal documents.

Front cover of We are from Russia by Paulina Kleiner translated from Russian by Michael Sherbourne, [MS434 A4249 2/1/1 Folder 1]

In 1971 Sherbourne invented the term “Refusenik”, when the Jewish movement in the USSR started to expand and the number of Refuseniks increased dramatically. Sherbourne went so far as to write to dictionary publishers and writers of newspaper articles when he thought that they had defined the word incorrectly, or had used the term incorrectly. Criticism included specifying that the term Refusenik refers only to a Jew, and that the term is not Yinglish, as it is a direct translation of the Russian word “Otkaznik”. He has also corrected publishers when he believed that definitions provided for “Red Sea” had been incorrect.

Some records within the Sherbourne collection relate to Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry. These include correspondence discussing the history of the organisation, newsletters and bulletins, and circulars and calendars. We also hold the collection MS 254 Papers of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

The Sherbourne collection provides a rich resource of material for the study of the campaign against the Soviet Jewry. Not only is there material which shows the point of view of parties outside Russia, there are also copies of the Russian magazine Kohtekct that contains articles relating to Soviet Jewry. Extensive material also relates to the conflict in the Middle East, as well as on anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the Kristallnacht.

Thanks to the efforts of individuals like Michael Sherbourne, and organisations like the Women’s Campaign for the Soviet Jewry, Jewish communities in Russia have formed that have direct contact with many synagogues in Great Britain, who regularly meet.

“But there, in – inside the former Soviet Union, the children are teaching their parents to understand Judaism. It’s—it’s an amazing thing, how it’s risen, like Phoenix from the ashes. It’s amazing.” (Interview with Michael Sherborne, p.23, 6 September 2003 [MS434 A4249 1/1])

Michael Sherbourne on protest march in San Francisco near the Soviet Consulate, [MS434 A4249 7/2]

Exploring protests, rebellion and revolution in the Special Collections

As part of the Explore Your Archive campaign the Special Collections team will be hosting two events. On Wednesday 22 November, there will be a drop-in session highlighting an array of material from the manuscript and printed collections relating to protests, rebellion and revolution.

Come and find out about protests and revolts, from the Peasants’ revolt of 1381 to the Swing riots in Hampshire of 1830, the Southampton Dockers’ strike of 1890 and the General Strike of 1926.  Protest groups and student activism also are represented, with material relating to groups established to combat fascism in the 1930s and 1990s, student action against apartheid, and the work of the “Women in Black”: 35s, the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

Conflict at the Place Maubert from ‘History of the Revolutions in Europe, 1848’. Supplement to the Illustrated London News (1 July 1848)

Also on display will be a range of material focusing on revolutions, including the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the wars for independence in North and South American, and the European revolutions of 1830 and 1848.

Book your ticket on Eventbrite (https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/exploring-protests-rebellion-and-revolution-in-the-special-collections-tickets-39658571856) to reserve a place or feel free to drop by on the day. The event will run from 2-5pm.

There will also be an extended opening for our current exhibition ‘Between The West and Russia’ until 5pm. For further details visit: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/news/events/2017/10/23-russia-exhibition.page

All are welcome! Please feel free to share. Visitors may be asked for photo ID by Library Reception staff.

---

The Special Collections team will also be taking part in the Hands-on Humanities day on Saturday 18 November, 1030-1630, Avenue Campus.

Extract from grant for a subscription for a trading voyage [MS62 BR4/1/1]

Can you write like scribes of old?  Why not come along and try your hand at this and other practical activities on offer.  For further information on this go to: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/per/news/events/2017/11/hands-on-humanities-day.page

Human Rights Day

Today, 10 December, is Human Rights Day. Observed by the international community every year it commemorates the day in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It was a milestone document in the history of human rights. Proclaimed as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations, it sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

We would like to take this opportunity to share with you a significant collection which relates to human rights. The philosopher Jorge (George) Santayana (1863-1952) famously said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”; the preservation of archives is crucial to the maintenance of our collective memory.

Jewish children, probably from Czechoslovakia, c. 1946 [MS 241/4/2/2]

The need to record and preserve is illustrated by the founding of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (IJA) in February 1941 as a research institute to provide analysis of political, legal and economic issues affecting Jewish life. It was launched and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and the American Jewish Congress. In 1994 it was re-established in London as Institute for Jewish Policy Research. The Institute’s founder Dr Jacob Robinson argued that Jewish leaders, struggling for the interests of the Jewry after World War I, were hampered by the lack of up-to-date information and by the lack of research.

The Special Collections holds over two thousand four hundred archive boxes of material generated by the IJA providing an extensive source for the study of Jewish peoples in the mid and late twentieth century. Topics covered include various aspects of human rights and civil liberties, genocide and war crimes, as well as extradition, torture, terrorism.

The image above comes from a file relating to Dr Stephen Barber’s “children’s scheme” providing assistance to Jewish children, many of them orphans, in the years following World War II. This file relates to Czechoslovakia. In his papers Dr Barber describes a scheme to send 100 children, many of whom were suffering from TB, to Switzerland to recuperate. He gives details of orphanages which were being established for the children and he makes a particular appeal for clothing for them.

20,000 students gathered in a rally of solidarity with the Jews of the Soviet Union, 2 December 1969 [MS 237/3/159 f1]

By the mid-1950s, state persecution of Soviet Jews was a major human rights issue. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, large numbers of Soviet Jews applied for exit visas; while some were allied to leave, many were refused permission to emigrate; they unofficially became known as refusenicks. This photograph comes from a file of press service cuttings giving information on protests in the name of the refusenicks including details of the work of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

The plight of the Czech orphans and the Soviet Jews are just two of many human rights issues covered by the IJA papers in the Special Collections.

Human Rights and the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry

Human Rights Day is observed annually across the world on 10 December. It marks the date the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948), the first global enunciation of human rights. The Declaration begins by recognising that “the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. It declares that human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live. Today, the Declaration continues to inspire the human rights movement and has had a profound influence on the development of international human rights law.

Members of the 35’s demonstrating for the release of Raiza Palatnik

The Soviet Jewry movement emerged in response to the Soviet Union’s Jewish policy which was seen as a violation of basic human and civil rights, including freedom of immigration, freedom of religion, and the freedom to study one’s own language, history and culture. The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry, known as the 35’s, was a pressure group established in London in 1971 with the aim of assisting Russian Jews wishing to leave the country but refused permission. It was originally formed in response to the arrest of Raiza Palatnik, a 35 year old librarian from Odessa. Raiza had been sent to prison after being convicted of “slandering the Soviet Union” for applying to leave for Israel. The group was primarily made up of relatively young middle-class Jewish housewives from North West London. They were a unique phenomenon among the Jewish community in Britain and were active at a time when it was unheard of for Jewish women to go out and demonstrate.

They maintained direct contact with refusniks (an unofficial term for Soviet Jews denied permission to emigrate) to give them moral support, and worked tirelessly to highlight their position. They achieved this through a series of active and unexpected demonstrations, particularly at Soviet cultural events. One such demonstration took place at a performance by the Bolshoi Ballet in London where the women revealed slogan t-shirts beneath their blouses as a mark of protest. In addition to such demonstrations they lobbied government officials and Members of Parliament.

The collection held by the Special Collections Division contains files of biographical information and case papers for refusniks; campaign correspondence, including letters to Members of Parliament; master copies of publications produced by the Campaign; newspapers; photographs, banners and other items, including handcuffs, from demonstrations.