Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030166
N. V. Tikhomirov
In this article, the author explores the problems of collective farm construction in the north-west of the RSFSR. The purpose of the article is to introduce into the academic circuit a set of ego-documents, reflecting household and economic peculiarities of everyday life of the Leningrad region peasantry during the period of continuous collectivisation. The study draws on the texts of two industrial practice diaries of Leningrad branch students of the Communist University of National Minorities of the West for December 1929 – January 1930, which are part of a set of similar documents identified in the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History, previously unknown to researchers and not reflected in the historiography. The texts are prepared for publication according to the accepted archeographic rules. The publication of the diaries’ contents is intended to familiarise the academic community with this type of historical sources and to show their information potential. Student diaries make it possible to expand the source base of research in the field of the history of everyday life in the Soviet rural areas and the Bolshevik cultural revolution. These documents can also be used in prosopographical studies on the lives of political workers and educators of the 1920s–1930s.
{"title":"“We Are Alone Here Like Orphans”: Leningrad Students’ Rural Practice in the Initial Period of Collectivisation","authors":"N. V. Tikhomirov","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030166","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author explores the problems of collective farm construction in the north-west of the RSFSR. The purpose of the article is to introduce into the academic circuit a set of ego-documents, reflecting household and economic peculiarities of everyday life of the Leningrad region peasantry during the period of continuous collectivisation. The study draws on the texts of two industrial practice diaries of Leningrad branch students of the Communist University of National Minorities of the West for December 1929 – January 1930, which are part of a set of similar documents identified in the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History, previously unknown to researchers and not reflected in the historiography. The texts are prepared for publication according to the accepted archeographic rules. The publication of the diaries’ contents is intended to familiarise the academic community with this type of historical sources and to show their information potential. Student diaries make it possible to expand the source base of research in the field of the history of everyday life in the Soviet rural areas and the Bolshevik cultural revolution. These documents can also be used in prosopographical studies on the lives of political workers and educators of the 1920s–1930s.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" June","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141824277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030079
P. Cherkasov
The author explores the history of the establishment of the republican system in France in the early 1870s. The period is associated with the activities of the first President of the Third Republic, Adolphe Thiers (1871–1873). Russian diplomats in Paris, Ambassador Prince Nikolai Orlov and Embassy Counselor Grigory Okunev, witnessed first-hand Thiers’ efforts to stabilise France after its defeat in the War of 1871. They developed a trusting relationship with Thiers, who initiated Russian diplomats into his plans. For this reason, the study of dispatches, letters, and analytical notes regularly sent from the Paris Embassy to St. Petersburg is of particular interest to those who study the initial period of the formation of the Third Republic. Until recently, this type of sources has attracted little attention on the part of researchers. This article fills up this obvious gap. The study of diplomatic communications demonstrates that Russian diplomats were quite objective in their analysis of the internal political processes taking place in France after the end of the Franco-German War. They gave a balanced assessment of Thiers’ work, tracing the evolution of his views from constitutional monarchist to conservative republican. The chronological framework of the article covers the period from Thiers’ election as President of the Republic in August 1871 to October 1872, when a crisis arose in his relations with the monarchist majority of the National Assembly.
{"title":"“Mr. Thiers’ Republic” in the Assessments of Russian Diplomatians, August 1871 – October 1872","authors":"P. Cherkasov","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030079","url":null,"abstract":"The author explores the history of the establishment of the republican system in France in the early 1870s. The period is associated with the activities of the first President of the Third Republic, Adolphe Thiers (1871–1873). Russian diplomats in Paris, Ambassador Prince Nikolai Orlov and Embassy Counselor Grigory Okunev, witnessed first-hand Thiers’ efforts to stabilise France after its defeat in the War of 1871. They developed a trusting relationship with Thiers, who initiated Russian diplomats into his plans. For this reason, the study of dispatches, letters, and analytical notes regularly sent from the Paris Embassy to St. Petersburg is of particular interest to those who study the initial period of the formation of the Third Republic. Until recently, this type of sources has attracted little attention on the part of researchers. This article fills up this obvious gap. The study of diplomatic communications demonstrates that Russian diplomats were quite objective in their analysis of the internal political processes taking place in France after the end of the Franco-German War. They gave a balanced assessment of Thiers’ work, tracing the evolution of his views from constitutional monarchist to conservative republican. The chronological framework of the article covers the period from Thiers’ election as President of the Republic in August 1871 to October 1872, when a crisis arose in his relations with the monarchist majority of the National Assembly.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" February","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141824270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030046
František Stellner
The author examines the political history of the eighteenth-century Russian Empire and its relations with members of the royal family from the Holy Roman Empire. Based on the study of unpublished sources, mainly in Austrian and Russian archives, as well as published Russian, British, and French sources, he presents a new interpretation of Peter III’s relations with members of the House of Holstein. The research aims to answer the following questions: What role did Peter III’s “German kinsmen” play at the St. Petersburg court and in the administrative system of the state? What impact did their actions have on the Russian elite’s perception of the Tsar’s rule? Did Peter III’s personnel policy, which favoured the Holstein dynasty members for key positions in the state apparatus, differ from the previous practice of Russian monarchs? A detailed analysis of the sources eads to the following conclusions: Peter III’s Holstein relatives exerted considerable influence on the policy of the St. Petersburg court, occupying key positions in the military and political establishment of the Russian Empire in the early 1760s. At the same time, most of them did not speak Russian and did not try to adapt to their new cultural environment. The behaviour of some “Holsteinites”, as well as the preferential treatment they received at the expense of members of the royal family and St. Petersburg nobles, caused an extremely negative reaction in Russian society, contributing to the growth of hatred towards the Germans. Peter III’s decision to surround himself with relatives from Central Europe was reminiscent of the reign of Anna Ivanovna, whose closest confidants were of non-Russian origin. On the other hand, Anna Ivanovna’s cronies came from different parts of the Holy Roman Empire.
{"title":"Peter III’s Relatives at Petersbourg Сourt","authors":"František Stellner","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030046","url":null,"abstract":"The author examines the political history of the eighteenth-century Russian Empire and its relations with members of the royal family from the Holy Roman Empire. Based on the study of unpublished sources, mainly in Austrian and Russian archives, as well as published Russian, British, and French sources, he presents a new interpretation of Peter III’s relations with members of the House of Holstein. The research aims to answer the following questions: What role did Peter III’s “German kinsmen” play at the St. Petersburg court and in the administrative system of the state? What impact did their actions have on the Russian elite’s perception of the Tsar’s rule? Did Peter III’s personnel policy, which favoured the Holstein dynasty members for key positions in the state apparatus, differ from the previous practice of Russian monarchs? A detailed analysis of the sources eads to the following conclusions: Peter III’s Holstein relatives exerted considerable influence on the policy of the St. Petersburg court, occupying key positions in the military and political establishment of the Russian Empire in the early 1760s. At the same time, most of them did not speak Russian and did not try to adapt to their new cultural environment. The behaviour of some “Holsteinites”, as well as the preferential treatment they received at the expense of members of the royal family and St. Petersburg nobles, caused an extremely negative reaction in Russian society, contributing to the growth of hatred towards the Germans. Peter III’s decision to surround himself with relatives from Central Europe was reminiscent of the reign of Anna Ivanovna, whose closest confidants were of non-Russian origin. On the other hand, Anna Ivanovna’s cronies came from different parts of the Holy Roman Empire.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":"120 29","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141821962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030114
Alexey А. Manukhin
In the history of relations between the USSR and Latin American states, support for the Soviet foreign policy course from non-communist forces – national reformist parties, trade unions, and leftist intelligentsia associations – was of great importance. The Mexican syndicalist Vicente Lombardo Toledano, founder of the Confederation of Latin American Workers and the Socialist People’s Party, had the greatest political weight among the members of all these organizations. He proclaimed himself a supporter of orthodox Marxism, always supported the USSR in the international arena, and actively interacted with the communists. In this article, the author examines the formation of Lombardo Toledano’s views, his ideas about the significance of the Russian revolution and the USSR for the development of Mexico and other Latin American countries. He notes that communication with him helped the Soviet party and state leadership to avoid excessive dogmatism in assessing the domestic and foreign policies of Mexico in the 1940s–1960s. The author places special emphasis on the extent to which contacts with Lombardo Toledano enabled the CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs to better understand the state of the Mexican left-wing forces and, above all, the Communist Party of Mexico. The author also demonstrates that he was of interest to Soviet strategists as someone who both had access to the Mexican ruling elite and enjoyed prestige in the Latin American and international labour and anti-war movements. He shows that Lombardo Toledano tried to benefit politically and materially from friendly relations with the USSR, while in return supporting Moscow in its struggle against its ideological opponents such as the Trotskyists and Maoists. The source base of the study comprises Lombardo Toledano’s polemical and propaganda writings, documents from Russian archives (the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History and the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History), declassified archival materials and published documents emanating from the U.S. Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency.
{"title":"Vicente Lombardo Toledano and the Soviet Approach to the Mexican Left After the Second World War","authors":"Alexey А. Manukhin","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030114","url":null,"abstract":"In the history of relations between the USSR and Latin American states, support for the Soviet foreign policy course from non-communist forces – national reformist parties, trade unions, and leftist intelligentsia associations – was of great importance. The Mexican syndicalist Vicente Lombardo Toledano, founder of the Confederation of Latin American Workers and the Socialist People’s Party, had the greatest political weight among the members of all these organizations. He proclaimed himself a supporter of orthodox Marxism, always supported the USSR in the international arena, and actively interacted with the communists. In this article, the author examines the formation of Lombardo Toledano’s views, his ideas about the significance of the Russian revolution and the USSR for the development of Mexico and other Latin American countries. He notes that communication with him helped the Soviet party and state leadership to avoid excessive dogmatism in assessing the domestic and foreign policies of Mexico in the 1940s–1960s. The author places special emphasis on the extent to which contacts with Lombardo Toledano enabled the CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs to better understand the state of the Mexican left-wing forces and, above all, the Communist Party of Mexico. The author also demonstrates that he was of interest to Soviet strategists as someone who both had access to the Mexican ruling elite and enjoyed prestige in the Latin American and international labour and anti-war movements. He shows that Lombardo Toledano tried to benefit politically and materially from friendly relations with the USSR, while in return supporting Moscow in its struggle against its ideological opponents such as the Trotskyists and Maoists. The source base of the study comprises Lombardo Toledano’s polemical and propaganda writings, documents from Russian archives (the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History and the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History), declassified archival materials and published documents emanating from the U.S. Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141822787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030087
O. Togoeva
The article draws on a unified corpus of historical feature films released in the twentieth century and centred on a single subject, namely the story of Joan of Arc (1412?–1431), the heroine of the Hundred Years’ War. In modern historiography (études johanniques) such comprehensive studies practically have not yet been conducted: researchers prefer to analyze each film separately, thereby missing possible connections and intersections of their creators’ ideas. In this article, the author aims to examine the extent to which these films conform to one of the most important principles of historical drama, that is, the principle of authenticity, which requires that the daily life of a particular historical era be portrayed on the screen with the utmost accuracy. These observations lead the author to conclude that, in most cases, realism is not a priority for the makers of films about Joan of Arc. Rather, their task is to follow the current historical moment in which a particular screenplay is conceived and implemented. At the beginning of the twentieth century, on the eve of the official canonisation of the Maid of Orleans (1920), the films about her had a distinctly hagiographical character, but over the following decades their semantic load kept changing, ranging from criticism of the European judicial system to criticism (or exaltation) of the existing political system.
{"title":"Everyday Life vs. Politics: The Image of Joan of Arc in the Cinema of the Twentieth","authors":"O. Togoeva","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030087","url":null,"abstract":"The article draws on a unified corpus of historical feature films released in the twentieth century and centred on a single subject, namely the story of Joan of Arc (1412?–1431), the heroine of the Hundred Years’ War. In modern historiography (études johanniques) such comprehensive studies practically have not yet been conducted: researchers prefer to analyze each film separately, thereby missing possible connections and intersections of their creators’ ideas. In this article, the author aims to examine the extent to which these films conform to one of the most important principles of historical drama, that is, the principle of authenticity, which requires that the daily life of a particular historical era be portrayed on the screen with the utmost accuracy. These observations lead the author to conclude that, in most cases, realism is not a priority for the makers of films about Joan of Arc. Rather, their task is to follow the current historical moment in which a particular screenplay is conceived and implemented. At the beginning of the twentieth century, on the eve of the official canonisation of the Maid of Orleans (1920), the films about her had a distinctly hagiographical character, but over the following decades their semantic load kept changing, ranging from criticism of the European judicial system to criticism (or exaltation) of the existing political system.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141822858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030175
Valery N. Zamulin
The Battle of Kursk went down in world military history as a key stage in the USSR’s struggle against Nazi Germany. However, the peculiarity of this large-scale event lies not only in this, but also in the unique period of its planning and preparation, which lasted three months, relative to other battles and major battles. During this period only one offensive operation, Operation Citadel, was being developed in Berlin, which was to form the core of the summer campaign. The author analyses documents preserved in the Federal Archives of the Federal Republic of Germany, which reveal the course of the meeting in Munich on May 4, 1943, where the potential of two Wehrmacht strike groups concentrated in the Kursk Bulge area at the end of April 1943 was discussed, successfully implementing the plan of encirclement of Soviet troops in early May 1943, and the opinions expressed by Hitlers, generals and field marshals who were privy to its essence, on this issue. The meeting went down in history as the most important event in the planning process of the 1943 Wehrmacht summer campaign on the Soviet-German front, as it resulted in Hitler making a number of important decisions that, according to some of its participants, significantly influenced its results.
{"title":"Why Did the German Offensive on Kursk Not Take Place in May 1943? New Documents","authors":"Valery N. Zamulin","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030175","url":null,"abstract":"The Battle of Kursk went down in world military history as a key stage in the USSR’s struggle against Nazi Germany. However, the peculiarity of this large-scale event lies not only in this, but also in the unique period of its planning and preparation, which lasted three months, relative to other battles and major battles. During this period only one offensive operation, Operation Citadel, was being developed in Berlin, which was to form the core of the summer campaign. The author analyses documents preserved in the Federal Archives of the Federal Republic of Germany, which reveal the course of the meeting in Munich on May 4, 1943, where the potential of two Wehrmacht strike groups concentrated in the Kursk Bulge area at the end of April 1943 was discussed, successfully implementing the plan of encirclement of Soviet troops in early May 1943, and the opinions expressed by Hitlers, generals and field marshals who were privy to its essence, on this issue. The meeting went down in history as the most important event in the planning process of the 1943 Wehrmacht summer campaign on the Soviet-German front, as it resulted in Hitler making a number of important decisions that, according to some of its participants, significantly influenced its results.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141822911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030105
P. Shlykov
The author scrutinizes the development of civil society in the early republican Turkey focusing on the models of its interaction with the state in the context of Kemalist revolution, namely the large-scale reforms of the 1920s and 1930s aimed at building the “New Turkey” as a modern secular nation-state. He analyses various manifestations of grass root civic activity in Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s. In doing so, it focuses on the rural population’s reaction to the Kemalist land and taxation reforms. The article contributes to the exiting literature in two following ways. First, it challenges the existing assumption that the rural population of the early Republican Turkey sporadically protested against only the most visible cases of social injustice. It also suggests counterarguments to the thesis that at that time the center and periphery had their own socio-political dynamics isolated one from another. Second, the article introduces to the reader a wide range of Turkish sources (e.g., “public columns” in the main periodicals of that time, petitions published in the yearly books of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, party inspectors’ reports stored in the fund of the Republican People’s Party). An analysis of the data presented in these sources and its comparison against already known historical facts form the article’s methodological framework. The author explains the key social contradictions about the land question. He further on defines the main forms of systemic grass root civic activity and the structural elements of the Kemalists social basis on the periphery. The main findings are that in the 1920–30s the rural Turkey witnessed both legal and illegal forms of resistance. The absence of a full-scale working formal state structure on the periphery made the Kemalist state curbing this resistance by using patron-client networks centered on the figures of “aga”, the wealthy local landlords and merchants.
{"title":"Contesting the Kemalist State: The Land Question and the Grass Root Civic Activity in the 1920–1930s Turkey","authors":"P. Shlykov","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030105","url":null,"abstract":"The author scrutinizes the development of civil society in the early republican Turkey focusing on the models of its interaction with the state in the context of Kemalist revolution, namely the large-scale reforms of the 1920s and 1930s aimed at building the “New Turkey” as a modern secular nation-state. He analyses various manifestations of grass root civic activity in Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s. In doing so, it focuses on the rural population’s reaction to the Kemalist land and taxation reforms. The article contributes to the exiting literature in two following ways. First, it challenges the existing assumption that the rural population of the early Republican Turkey sporadically protested against only the most visible cases of social injustice. It also suggests counterarguments to the thesis that at that time the center and periphery had their own socio-political dynamics isolated one from another. Second, the article introduces to the reader a wide range of Turkish sources (e.g., “public columns” in the main periodicals of that time, petitions published in the yearly books of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, party inspectors’ reports stored in the fund of the Republican People’s Party). An analysis of the data presented in these sources and its comparison against already known historical facts form the article’s methodological framework. The author explains the key social contradictions about the land question. He further on defines the main forms of systemic grass root civic activity and the structural elements of the Kemalists social basis on the periphery. The main findings are that in the 1920–30s the rural Turkey witnessed both legal and illegal forms of resistance. The absence of a full-scale working formal state structure on the periphery made the Kemalist state curbing this resistance by using patron-client networks centered on the figures of “aga”, the wealthy local landlords and merchants.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":" 481","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141823764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030094
Boris S. Kotov
By analysing leading Russian newspapers on the eve of the Great War, the author illustrates the perception of German policy by Russian public opinion during the two Balkan wars of 1912–1913. He concludes that during the ten months of the Balkan crisis, the attitude of the Russian press towards Germany underwent a significant transformation. In the first two months of the Balkan War (October and November 1912), when Berlin was not openly declaring its support for Austrian claims, one could find favourable comments on German policy in Russian newspapers. The attitude of the Russian press to Germany shifted in a negative direction under the influence of Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg’s speech in the Reichstag on 2 December 1912, when for the first time since the beginning of the Balkan War Berlin publicly declared its readiness to back its Austrian ally’s claims with arms in hand. Russian society experienced even greater disappointment in German politics after the start of the London Meeting of Ambassadors, at which the German representative supported the proposals of the Austrian side, and after a new speech by Bethmann-Hollweg in the German parliament on April 7, 1913, when the Reich Chancellor declared “racial opposites” between the Slavic and German peoples and laid full responsibility for maintaining a tense the situation in Europe affects the pan-Slavic circles of Russia. These two speeches by the head of the German government and Berlin’s support for Austrian claims at the London Conference were negatively perceived by the overwhelming majority of the Russian press. At the same time, the disagreements between Germany and Austria-Hungary that emerged during the Bucharest Peace Conference and immediately after it gave the Russian press reason to declare a serious crisis of the Triple Alliance. The article concludes that there was a significant increase in anti-German sentiment in Russia under the influence of German behavior during the Balkan crisis of 1912–1913. Thus, the two Balkan Wars became an important milestone not only in the history of international relations at the beginning of the 20th century, but also in the propaganda preparations for the First World War.
{"title":"“Germany and the Balkan Feud”: The Russian Press Assessment of German Policy During the Two Balkan Wars of 1912–1913","authors":"Boris S. Kotov","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030094","url":null,"abstract":"By analysing leading Russian newspapers on the eve of the Great War, the author illustrates the perception of German policy by Russian public opinion during the two Balkan wars of 1912–1913. He concludes that during the ten months of the Balkan crisis, the attitude of the Russian press towards Germany underwent a significant transformation. In the first two months of the Balkan War (October and November 1912), when Berlin was not openly declaring its support for Austrian claims, one could find favourable comments on German policy in Russian newspapers. The attitude of the Russian press to Germany shifted in a negative direction under the influence of Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg’s speech in the Reichstag on 2 December 1912, when for the first time since the beginning of the Balkan War Berlin publicly declared its readiness to back its Austrian ally’s claims with arms in hand. Russian society experienced even greater disappointment in German politics after the start of the London Meeting of Ambassadors, at which the German representative supported the proposals of the Austrian side, and after a new speech by Bethmann-Hollweg in the German parliament on April 7, 1913, when the Reich Chancellor declared “racial opposites” between the Slavic and German peoples and laid full responsibility for maintaining a tense the situation in Europe affects the pan-Slavic circles of Russia. These two speeches by the head of the German government and Berlin’s support for Austrian claims at the London Conference were negatively perceived by the overwhelming majority of the Russian press. At the same time, the disagreements between Germany and Austria-Hungary that emerged during the Bucharest Peace Conference and immediately after it gave the Russian press reason to declare a serious crisis of the Triple Alliance. The article concludes that there was a significant increase in anti-German sentiment in Russia under the influence of German behavior during the Balkan crisis of 1912–1913. Thus, the two Balkan Wars became an important milestone not only in the history of international relations at the beginning of the 20th century, but also in the propaganda preparations for the First World War.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":"101 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141820715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-19DOI: 10.31857/s0130386424030184
S. Malkin
{"title":"Russia and the Western World: the facets of conflict interaction. \u0000Rec. ad op.: The West and Russia: The history of confrontation / ed. T.L. Labutin. Saint-Petersburg: Aleteya, 2023. 510 p.: ill.","authors":"S. Malkin","doi":"10.31857/s0130386424030184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s0130386424030184","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":"4 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141822364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.31857/s013038640025099-6
V. Damier
In the article the author examines the attitude of Russian anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists to the 1922 Genoa Conference and the participation of representatives of Soviet Russia in it. This subject has not received much coverage in the works of anarchism scholars, who have so far focused primarily on the study of the general stance of Russian anarchism towards the Soviet regime and the issue of the New Economic Policy, on the problem of anti-anarchist repressions in Russia and on the ideological and organisational processes in the Russian anarchist emigration. The author made it his task to identify the place that the critique of the “Genoa policy” of the Soviet government enjoyed in the ideological concepts and political work of the anarchists, and to trace the main line of their reasoning. The main source for this article was the original, mainly émigré, press of the Russian anarchists between 1922 and 1923. The author demonstrates that the Russian anarchists' view of the Genoa Conference was primarily determined by ideological motives and their general analysis of the course and fate of the Russian Revolution itself. Being anti-statists, the anarchists had no particular conception of foreign policy and were indifferent to so-called state interests. The “Genoa policy” was perceived by them as a manifestation and confirmation of the new Bolshevik course, in which they saw an orientation towards restoring the positions of private capital within Russia itself and towards subordination to world capital on an international scale. Planned or real concessions on the part of the Soviet delegation at the Conference and repression of Russian anarchists and socialists were, in their eyes, two sides of the “Bolshevik counter-revolution”. The criticism of Bolshevism mounted by the anarchist emigration in connection with and after the Genoa Conference contributed to the demarcation in the international trade union revolutionary-syndicalist movement and the founding of the anarcho-syndicalist International.
{"title":"The Genoa Conference of 1922 Through the Eyes of Russian Anarchists","authors":"V. Damier","doi":"10.31857/s013038640025099-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s013038640025099-6","url":null,"abstract":"In the article the author examines the attitude of Russian anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists to the 1922 Genoa Conference and the participation of representatives of Soviet Russia in it. This subject has not received much coverage in the works of anarchism scholars, who have so far focused primarily on the study of the general stance of Russian anarchism towards the Soviet regime and the issue of the New Economic Policy, on the problem of anti-anarchist repressions in Russia and on the ideological and organisational processes in the Russian anarchist emigration. The author made it his task to identify the place that the critique of the “Genoa policy” of the Soviet government enjoyed in the ideological concepts and political work of the anarchists, and to trace the main line of their reasoning. The main source for this article was the original, mainly émigré, press of the Russian anarchists between 1922 and 1923. The author demonstrates that the Russian anarchists' view of the Genoa Conference was primarily determined by ideological motives and their general analysis of the course and fate of the Russian Revolution itself. Being anti-statists, the anarchists had no particular conception of foreign policy and were indifferent to so-called state interests. The “Genoa policy” was perceived by them as a manifestation and confirmation of the new Bolshevik course, in which they saw an orientation towards restoring the positions of private capital within Russia itself and towards subordination to world capital on an international scale. Planned or real concessions on the part of the Soviet delegation at the Conference and repression of Russian anarchists and socialists were, in their eyes, two sides of the “Bolshevik counter-revolution”. The criticism of Bolshevism mounted by the anarchist emigration in connection with and after the Genoa Conference contributed to the demarcation in the international trade union revolutionary-syndicalist movement and the founding of the anarcho-syndicalist International.","PeriodicalId":82203,"journal":{"name":"Novaia i noveishaia istoriia","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84957343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：