The Russian Review

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Russian Review was founded in November 1941, weeks after Nazi Germany had invaded the Soviet Union. A small group of Russian emigres and American scholars wanted to create something the United States had never had before: a rigorous academic journal devoted to Russia and the Soviet world. What drove them to act at that precise moment? Who were these people, and what did they believe the world needed to understand? Those questions run through the entire history of this journal, from its first issue to its current life as one of the field's most enduring publications.

• 2. The Founders and Their Moment

  ›

  Professor Dmitri Von Mohrenschildt was among the Russian emigres who gathered to launch the journal. Beside him stood William Henry Chamberlin, an American historian and journalist who had turned into a vocal anti-Soviet advocate. These were not neutral observers. They had personal, intellectual, and political stakes in how Russia and the Soviet Union were understood by American readers. Their founding goal was direct: to give the United States its first academic journal focused on the history and society of Russia and the Soviet Union. The journal's board of trustees, from the start, was aligned with no national, political, or professional association, a structural choice that set the publication apart from advocacy organizations. The first issue carried texts by three writers whose names carried real weight in their fields. Vladimir Nabokov, already known as an author, contributed alongside Helene Iswolsky, an activist, and Michael Karpovich, a historian described at the time as the father of Slavic Studies in the United States. That debut lineup signaled what the journal intended to be: a meeting place for literature, politics, and history under one roof.

• 3. A Critical Stance Toward the Soviet System

  ›

  From its founding, the journal was critical of the Soviet system. That position was not incidental. Chamberlin's background as an anti-Soviet advocate shaped the editorial culture of the early issues, and the emigre founders carried their own reasons for skepticism toward the USSR. Early issues focused specifically on presenting an accurate historic and sociocultural image of Russia and the Soviet Union to American audiences. The underlying assumption was that accurate knowledge and anti-Soviet critique were compatible aims, that understanding Russia deeply was itself a form of resistance to Soviet mythology. This stance distinguished the journal from purely diplomatic or political periodicals of the era, which often framed the Soviet Union through Cold War strategy alone.

• 4. Scope and Editorial Range

  ›

  The journal describes itself as multi-disciplinary, and its thematic range reflects that ambition. Gender, sexuality, theatre, geography, political history, military history, and material culture all appear among its stated areas of coverage. Cinema, fine arts, and literature sit alongside more conventionally political subjects. The journal covers not just Russia but also Eastern Europe and Central Asia, with an explicit commitment to exploring the diversity of the Soviet Union and its successor states. That reach extends across three distinct historical entities: the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation. The journal is published quarterly by Wiley-Blackwell, under the auspices of the Contact Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Kansas.

• 5. Leadership and Continuity

  ›

  Dr. Eve Levin of the University of Kansas served as editor before retiring and being replaced by Erik R. Scott in 2020. That transition marked one of the most recent moments of editorial continuity in a journal that has been running since 1941. The peer-reviewed structure of the publication places it within the mainstream of academic publishing, where editorial independence and scholarly rigor are the governing standards. The journal's independence from any professional association means its direction has historically been shaped by its editorial leadership rather than by institutional politics from outside the university.