This attitude, despite the prominence of its supporters, has been steadily opposed by those students who stress the cultural and linguistic differences which existed in the old Russian empire as well as in the modern Soviet Union. These students emphasize the similarities between the Russian and Soviet concepts of dominance of the Great Russians, and argue for a proper recognition of the oppressed nations of the USSR who sought their independence during the Revolution and have since been restrained by force of arms to adopt Communism. They accordingly see in the restoration of the political independence of these nations the best answer to the Communist menace to freedom. This viewpoint has been expressed by Professor Roman Smal-Stocki, and by James Burnham, formerly of the Department of Philosophy of New York University, who in all his writings has stressed the need to eliminate the new Russian Communism. A further requirement of this in a historical survey is expressed by a Russian in speaking of the failure of the anti-Communist movements during the Civil Wars: Those who were adverse to the new (Communist) regime could thus be divided into two very different groups; one comprising the property-owning classes (who had been deprived of their all by the Bolsheviks), the officers, the civil servants and all those devoted to the ideals of the Russian State as constituted before the October Revolution; the other, the national separatist groups, which desired complete separation from Russia. It is easy to see that, no matter how antagonistic these two groups might be to Communism, their aims were absolutely dissociated. The unity of the Russian State could only be reestablished in one of two ways: either by a restoration of the Monarchy or by federation. Neither alternative appealed to the anti-Bolshevik groups; and this circumstance explains the absence of cooperation in the Civil War which broke out in many parts of the country in 1918. It must be noted also, that the majority of the population, the peasantry, stood entirely aloof from the activities of both groups, and remained during the initial stages of the Civil War absolutely neutral.[43] With the practical elimination of the monarchist influences, the line is still drawn with the greatest bitterness between the so-called Russian democratic elements who insist upon the unity of Russia and the representatives of the non-Russian peoples, especially the Ukrainians, Baltic, Caucasian and Turkestanian nations. During the first post-war years this latter tendency was little regarded in the American universities and even now is less well represented than it should be; but recent years have seen the publication of several studies such as John Reshetars’s _Ukrainian Revolution_ and John A. Armstrong’s _Ukrainian Nationalism_ (1939–1943).