Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1993658
P. Dukes
Widely considered to be a landmark encyclopaedia for its time, the twelfth and thirteenth editions of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, supplements to the earlier eleventh edition, devote considerable space to the origins and consequences of the Russian Revolution. Incapable of maintaining the objective tone customary for works of reference, several of the contributors caught the essence of the turmoil and its impact across Europe, whether through a liberal or socialist lens. This article charts the evolution of the coverage of Russia in The Encyclopaedia Britannica and highlights how its earlier approach was overwhelmed by war and revolution as pre-war certainties were shaken and undermined.
{"title":"The Russian Revolution in The Encyclopaedia Britannica","authors":"P. Dukes","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1993658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1993658","url":null,"abstract":"Widely considered to be a landmark encyclopaedia for its time, the twelfth and thirteenth editions of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, supplements to the earlier eleventh edition, devote considerable space to the origins and consequences of the Russian Revolution. Incapable of maintaining the objective tone customary for works of reference, several of the contributors caught the essence of the turmoil and its impact across Europe, whether through a liberal or socialist lens. This article charts the evolution of the coverage of Russia in The Encyclopaedia Britannica and highlights how its earlier approach was overwhelmed by war and revolution as pre-war certainties were shaken and undermined.","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42338169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1996320
G. Swain
For the first three months of 1918, Soviet Russia and Romania fought a revolutionary war, and yet the two countries were so recently allies in the struggle against the Central Powers. This article explores the question of British support for Romania from Russia as the Bolsheviks took power and efforts to bring this unnecessary – from an Allied perspective – war to an end. Part adventure story, it has a serious subtext.
{"title":"British Adventurers and Revolutionary Russia’s War over Bessarabia","authors":"G. Swain","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1996320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1996320","url":null,"abstract":"For the first three months of 1918, Soviet Russia and Romania fought a revolutionary war, and yet the two countries were so recently allies in the struggle against the Central Powers. This article explores the question of British support for Romania from Russia as the Bolsheviks took power and efforts to bring this unnecessary – from an Allied perspective – war to an end. Part adventure story, it has a serious subtext.","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48711654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1995816
Ian D. Thatcher
This special issue of the journal is to mark the retirement of Jonathan ‘Jon’ D. Smele in June 2020 from Queen Mary, University of London. Jon has made fundamental contributions to our general understanding of the Russian Civil War and to our comprehension of the Kolchak regime in Siberia. He has also produced deeply researched reference volumes. These intellectual achievements are discussed in Evan Mawdsley’s article in this issue. Jon is also familiar to the field and to readers of this journal as its editor from 2002–11. Editing a major journal is a large responsibility. Jon stepped naturally into the role, combining patience, attention to detail, and sound scholarly advice. Trusted and valued for his knowledge, Jon’s curiosity and passion for new research made him a wonderful correspondent. Here was an editor who actually read and empathized with the author’s endeavours and could reach his own independent evaluation. There was nothing mechanistic about Jon as editor. Reading a decade of his editorship, the only constant is the commitment to originality. If this meant publishing a single author on a single theme several times over several issues, then so be it. Jon was also receptive to publishing articles by amateur historians and encouraged younger scholars to begin their publication career with Revolutionary Russia. Jon’s respect for the Study Group and for its journal, initially Sbornik and subsequently Revolutionary Russia, is evident from his own articles in the journal, of which there are many, including an account of the first thirty years of the Study Group in a 2005 issue. His penchant for editorial roles also includes being founding co-editor, along with Michael Melancon, of the Bloomsbury History of Modern Russia series. Jon undertook a BA in International History and Politics at the University of Leeds (1977–80). His interest in Russian and Soviet history, and in particular the Russian Civil War, took off when he joined the MPhil in Soviet and East European Studies at the University of Glasgow (1981–83). This course offered instruction in Russian, as well as a host of options covering the history, economics, politics, and international relations of the USSR. It was taught within the Institute of Soviet and East European Studies, famous as the home of the journal Soviet Studies, and for ideological analyses and debates of the Soviet system, most notably between Alec Nove and Hillel Ticktin. It was an exciting intellectual and publishing environment in which Jon focused on historical studies under James ‘Jimmy’ D. White and Evan Mawdsley, writing his MPhil thesis on Kolchak, a topic suggested by Jimmy. Alas, Glasgow did not have the funds to keep Jon on for his PhD. This opportunity arrived through a scholarship that Roger Pethybridge had arranged and advertised. Jon applied, was successful, and began his doctoral research in 1984. The PhD was awarded at the University of Wales (Swansea) in 1991. Whilst still working on his PhD, Jon
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"Ian D. Thatcher","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1995816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1995816","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of the journal is to mark the retirement of Jonathan ‘Jon’ D. Smele in June 2020 from Queen Mary, University of London. Jon has made fundamental contributions to our general understanding of the Russian Civil War and to our comprehension of the Kolchak regime in Siberia. He has also produced deeply researched reference volumes. These intellectual achievements are discussed in Evan Mawdsley’s article in this issue. Jon is also familiar to the field and to readers of this journal as its editor from 2002–11. Editing a major journal is a large responsibility. Jon stepped naturally into the role, combining patience, attention to detail, and sound scholarly advice. Trusted and valued for his knowledge, Jon’s curiosity and passion for new research made him a wonderful correspondent. Here was an editor who actually read and empathized with the author’s endeavours and could reach his own independent evaluation. There was nothing mechanistic about Jon as editor. Reading a decade of his editorship, the only constant is the commitment to originality. If this meant publishing a single author on a single theme several times over several issues, then so be it. Jon was also receptive to publishing articles by amateur historians and encouraged younger scholars to begin their publication career with Revolutionary Russia. Jon’s respect for the Study Group and for its journal, initially Sbornik and subsequently Revolutionary Russia, is evident from his own articles in the journal, of which there are many, including an account of the first thirty years of the Study Group in a 2005 issue. His penchant for editorial roles also includes being founding co-editor, along with Michael Melancon, of the Bloomsbury History of Modern Russia series. Jon undertook a BA in International History and Politics at the University of Leeds (1977–80). His interest in Russian and Soviet history, and in particular the Russian Civil War, took off when he joined the MPhil in Soviet and East European Studies at the University of Glasgow (1981–83). This course offered instruction in Russian, as well as a host of options covering the history, economics, politics, and international relations of the USSR. It was taught within the Institute of Soviet and East European Studies, famous as the home of the journal Soviet Studies, and for ideological analyses and debates of the Soviet system, most notably between Alec Nove and Hillel Ticktin. It was an exciting intellectual and publishing environment in which Jon focused on historical studies under James ‘Jimmy’ D. White and Evan Mawdsley, writing his MPhil thesis on Kolchak, a topic suggested by Jimmy. Alas, Glasgow did not have the funds to keep Jon on for his PhD. This opportunity arrived through a scholarship that Roger Pethybridge had arranged and advertised. Jon applied, was successful, and began his doctoral research in 1984. The PhD was awarded at the University of Wales (Swansea) in 1991. Whilst still working on his PhD, Jon","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45927955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1984695
Alison K. Smith
{"title":"A Modern History of Russian Childhood: From the Late Imperial Period to the Collapse of the Soviet Union","authors":"Alison K. Smith","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1984695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1984695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42758010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1984703
Lara Green
them; the same is true of another theme of the text, on family and labour law. Children’s lives were touched by state power, as it placed limits on child labour, and as it reaffirmed (in the tsarist era) and then removed (in the Soviet era) patriarchal control within families. Other subjects of family law, like the regulation of legitimacy and illegitimacy (the distinction between the two was abolished with the coming of the Soviet state but then reestablished as a counterintuitive pro-natalist measure after the Second World War), adoption (also abolished by the new Soviet state on the grounds that it was often a form of exploitative child labour, but then encouraged again in the aftermath of the demographic shock of the Second World War), and divorce, all influenced the lives of children on a basic level. Another theme, however, straddles the experience of childhood itself and people thinking about it: children’s culture. In several sections White treats the idea of culture narrowly, as cultural products (books, starting with Karion Istomin’s delightful alphabet books, eventually cinema, and finally tv) produced for the child consumer. These sections tend to be brief but suggestive of the concerns of children at different times. In additional sections, White looks at a broader concept of culture, getting at the everyday experiences of children in certain social groups at certain times (particularly the children of the elite, but in one interesting section tsarist-era peasant children). These are all themes in many discussions of childhood, but the Soviet chapters, in particular, feature another theme that is (somewhat) less universal: the effect of crisis and trauma on children. Sections on the Civil War and Second World War, on dekulakization and on the impact of the family disruptions caused by the arrests and deaths of the Great Terror make clear the ways that twentieth-century Russian childhood, at least, often meant grappling with ‘unchildish’ things. White examines the ways that the Soviet state sought to cope with the effects of these events – soaring numbers of orphans and single parents – while also using memories of childhood experiences to give a sense of their impact on individual children.
{"title":"Utopia's Discontents: Russian Émigrés and the Quest for Freedom, 1830s-1930s","authors":"Lara Green","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1984703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1984703","url":null,"abstract":"them; the same is true of another theme of the text, on family and labour law. Children’s lives were touched by state power, as it placed limits on child labour, and as it reaffirmed (in the tsarist era) and then removed (in the Soviet era) patriarchal control within families. Other subjects of family law, like the regulation of legitimacy and illegitimacy (the distinction between the two was abolished with the coming of the Soviet state but then reestablished as a counterintuitive pro-natalist measure after the Second World War), adoption (also abolished by the new Soviet state on the grounds that it was often a form of exploitative child labour, but then encouraged again in the aftermath of the demographic shock of the Second World War), and divorce, all influenced the lives of children on a basic level. Another theme, however, straddles the experience of childhood itself and people thinking about it: children’s culture. In several sections White treats the idea of culture narrowly, as cultural products (books, starting with Karion Istomin’s delightful alphabet books, eventually cinema, and finally tv) produced for the child consumer. These sections tend to be brief but suggestive of the concerns of children at different times. In additional sections, White looks at a broader concept of culture, getting at the everyday experiences of children in certain social groups at certain times (particularly the children of the elite, but in one interesting section tsarist-era peasant children). These are all themes in many discussions of childhood, but the Soviet chapters, in particular, feature another theme that is (somewhat) less universal: the effect of crisis and trauma on children. Sections on the Civil War and Second World War, on dekulakization and on the impact of the family disruptions caused by the arrests and deaths of the Great Terror make clear the ways that twentieth-century Russian childhood, at least, often meant grappling with ‘unchildish’ things. White examines the ways that the Soviet state sought to cope with the effects of these events – soaring numbers of orphans and single parents – while also using memories of childhood experiences to give a sense of their impact on individual children.","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47158913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1984064
Ian D. Thatcher
This article is the first exposition of a projected five-part Menshevik study of social forces in the Russian Revolution of 1905, only four volumes of which appeared in 1907 covering reaction, the proletariat, the peasantry, and the liberal and democratic bourgeoisie. This collective effort marked perhaps the first attempt to present an overall analysis of the revolution from within one perspective, that of the Menshevik variety of Russian Marxism. Despite the centrality of perceptions of revolution to participants and future historians of Russian socialism and of 1905, this project has been largely overlooked. This is to be regretted, for the volumes contain interpretations now familiar on the nature of the 1905 revolution and why it failed. Furthermore, there is continuity between the works and authors of 1907 and the subsequent (1909–14) much more famous Menshevik history of social movements in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.
{"title":"The 1905–07 Russian Revolution as a ‘Moment of Truth’: An Overlooked Contribution from Menshevism","authors":"Ian D. Thatcher","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1984064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1984064","url":null,"abstract":"This article is the first exposition of a projected five-part Menshevik study of social forces in the Russian Revolution of 1905, only four volumes of which appeared in 1907 covering reaction, the proletariat, the peasantry, and the liberal and democratic bourgeoisie. This collective effort marked perhaps the first attempt to present an overall analysis of the revolution from within one perspective, that of the Menshevik variety of Russian Marxism. Despite the centrality of perceptions of revolution to participants and future historians of Russian socialism and of 1905, this project has been largely overlooked. This is to be regretted, for the volumes contain interpretations now familiar on the nature of the 1905 revolution and why it failed. Furthermore, there is continuity between the works and authors of 1907 and the subsequent (1909–14) much more famous Menshevik history of social movements in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47163816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09546545.2021.1978638
H. Campbell
While the revolution of October 1917 may have ushered a new regime into Moscow, many within the British government continued to view Russia through the lens of the Great Game. For decades, the Great Game had defined relations between the two countries, and while the Anglo-Russian Convention and the Triple Entente had created the illusion of friendship, this was simply a marriage of convenience. Thus, when revolution and civil war broke out in Russia, men such as Lord George Curzon rushed at the opportunity to try to seize the upper hand and win the game. Unfortunately for Curzon, times had changed and countries such as Persia were no longer happy to be mere pawns in a game.
{"title":"Great Game Thinking: The British Foreign Office and Revolutionary Russia","authors":"H. Campbell","doi":"10.1080/09546545.2021.1978638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546545.2021.1978638","url":null,"abstract":"While the revolution of October 1917 may have ushered a new regime into Moscow, many within the British government continued to view Russia through the lens of the Great Game. For decades, the Great Game had defined relations between the two countries, and while the Anglo-Russian Convention and the Triple Entente had created the illusion of friendship, this was simply a marriage of convenience. Thus, when revolution and civil war broke out in Russia, men such as Lord George Curzon rushed at the opportunity to try to seize the upper hand and win the game. Unfortunately for Curzon, times had changed and countries such as Persia were no longer happy to be mere pawns in a game.","PeriodicalId":42121,"journal":{"name":"Revolutionary Russia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44298497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：