Tashkent: Evacuation and Return
Europe during World War Two was a dangerous place to live, especially in
Russia. Having occupied Russia during World War One, Germany returned to once again
invade the largest country in the world. Rebecca Manley, in her monograph To the
Tashkent Station, attempts to return the large-scale evacuation of Russian citizens from
the front line during the war to a state of prominence in Russia’s history.
Manley begins by brushing over significant evacuations in Russia’s history and
explaining the meaning of the word evacuation (evakuatsiia) as it was used in different
situations.1 She describes the official plans and orders for evacuations and the multiple
drafts of said plans that either come into existence or remain merely hypothetical. In
regards actual evacuations, Manley begins by explaining the execution of the first eastern
European evacuations and their significant shortcomings, and then proceeds to the
Russian evacuations. She covers the difficulties of the journey away from the western
cities as well as the reactions of those who evacuated and those who chose to stay.
Manley then describes life in Tashkent, the city that most Russians evacuated to, and,
finally, the journey back home. Throughout the monograph, Manley presents ample
support for her argument that the evacuations were an important part of Russia’s history
and culture. For example, in the section regarding the reactions of the soviet people to the
new of the evacuation, Manley illuminates the political and social repercussions such as a
loss of faith in the Soviets as well as the rise in anti-Semitic attitude and behavior.2
Rebecca Manley, To the Tashkent Station: Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union
at War (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2009), 7-23.
2Ibid., 90-96.
Ibid., 111-116.
1
Manley’s book, though not the first to cover evacuation in Europe during World
War Two, is one of few, if any at all, that both focuses mostly on Russia rather than the
countries closer to Germany and is written in English. Her research on such a lightly
touched topic not only helps to elevate the importance of the evacuations, but to add more
evidence to the topic of cultural development in Russia. In regards to her argument, I feel
that Manley did not always emphasize the importance of her evidence in relation to the
long run of Russia’s history and culture. She covers the significance that certain events
and decisions had in relation to those who experienced the evacuation, but not as much
on the ultimate long-term effects. I also feel that Manley attempts to cover too many
different subtopics throughout the book. Instead of focusing on dozens of subtopics,
Manley could have omitted a few and perhaps covered them in a separate work.
Manley’s sources are primarily Russian in origin, and many of them are from
Russian authors, poets, actors, and others related in media. I like the touch that firsthand
accounts of those who made their living off their manipulation and employment of words
gives to a historical monograph. They add the personal thoughts that one usually sees
from diary entries, while maintaining the worldliness of professional wordsmiths.
Manley’s style of writing is interesting and easy to read, but still professional and true to
the history.
In conclusion, Rebecca Manley’s monograph is a very detailed and interesting
work. Her argument is logical and supported by multiple sources. Manley uses many
primary sources to document the events of the evacuation of western Russia and captures
the reader’s attention with firsthand accounts of events.