Life in the 'Big Zone': The Fate of Returnees in the Aftermath of Stalinist Repression

THIS ARTICLE ADDRESSES the physical, psychological, social and political problems associated with the return of the victims of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union. Both sides of the equation are examined-the struggle by the ex-prisoners to re-adapt to Soviet society, and the reciprocal attempt by Soviet society and the Soviet system to adapt to returnees. The scale of the problem for both sides was enormous, of the magnitude of a disorienting and re-orienting process. The very vocabulary of many returnees reflected a lifelong disorientation. They often referred to society as the 'bol'shaya zona' (big zone), the 'malaya zona' (little zone) being the camps. Thus, even after release, they continued to think of themselves as inhabitants of a zone. These issues will be examined by looking at the mechanisms of release and rehabilitation, and by describing the psychological, sociopolitical and practical issues related to the return. In a political system intent on denying its history of repression it would be expected that there is little convergence between the 'top-down' official description and the 'bottom-up' victims' recollection of the resocialisation experience. Officials have regularly claimed that returning victims on the whole did not remain on the fringes of society, and that sometimes they were even received as heroes. This version goes on to maintain that after prisoners were released, they applied for and received rehabilitation, and they looked for and found work. Evidence challenging this claim has been presented by many former victims. The evidence supporting their claim that they remained in a stigmatised status is so abundant and so consistent with corroborating data that it has both face validity and convergent validity. As Zoya Marchenko, a long-time Kolyma prisoner, attested in 1995 at age 89: 'I always lived with the sense of being a ‘second class citizen’. I was always prepared for any trouble'. For Marchenko and numerous others, repression was an event waiting to happen again without warning, and their ex-prisoner status impeded their every effort at assimilation. However, to the extent that the official view is an accurate representation of some cases, this marked discrepancy exemplifies the variability, unevenness and inequity which characterised the process of rehabilitation. As we will illustrate, this inequity resulted in part from the government's persisting systemic denial of its history.