Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014758
T.K. Allaniiazov
Abstract The article analyzes OGPU materials to provide insight into the causes, nature and driving forces of the massive uprisings in Kazakhstan during the period 1929-1931.
{"title":"Directives of the OGPU’s Semipalatinsk Operational Sector as a Source for Studies of the Armed Uprisings of Kazakhs during Collectivization","authors":"T.K. Allaniiazov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014758","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article analyzes OGPU materials to provide insight into the causes, nature and driving forces of the massive uprisings in Kazakhstan during the period 1929-1931.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"269 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43988533","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 : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2065171
S. Cameron
This issue showcases the work of three leading historians from Kazakhstan. Their essays, which cover the Russian imperial and Soviet periods, attest to the vibrancy of historical scholarship in Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, this fact is not as well-known as it should be. Scholarship from Central Asia remains underrepresented in the historical discipline as it is practiced in the West. There are many reasons for this neglect: In the United States, few libraries regularly collect materials from Central Asia, and it can be difficult to get access to key titles from the region, particularly those with small print runs. Important works from Central Asia are also rarely translated into English. This tendency is particularly evident when the piece is published in one of the vernacular languages of the region, as the industry of translating from these languages to English (and vice versa) is not well developed. Other factors, including a lingering Eurocentrism within the Russian and Soviet field, have also played a role in the marginalization of scholarship from Central Asia. In light of these considerations, it is a particular pleasure to present these articles and make scholarship from the region known to a wider audience. It should be noted that all three pieces were translated from Russian. There is also an important Kazakh-language secondary literature in Kazakhstan. But given the challenges of orchestrating a translation, including the scarcity of qualified Kazakh-English translators, it was not possible to include Kazakh-language materials. The goal then with this issue is not to be perfectly representative of Kazakhstani historical scholarship as a whole. Rather, it is to shed light on aspects of the Russian and Soviet state’s long-running project to incorporate the Kazakh steppe and its peoples, as well as the consequences of these attempts for Kazakhstani society.
{"title":"Russia Looks East: Kazakhs and the Russian and Soviet State","authors":"S. Cameron","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2065171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2065171","url":null,"abstract":"This issue showcases the work of three leading historians from Kazakhstan. Their essays, which cover the Russian imperial and Soviet periods, attest to the vibrancy of historical scholarship in Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, this fact is not as well-known as it should be. Scholarship from Central Asia remains underrepresented in the historical discipline as it is practiced in the West. There are many reasons for this neglect: In the United States, few libraries regularly collect materials from Central Asia, and it can be difficult to get access to key titles from the region, particularly those with small print runs. Important works from Central Asia are also rarely translated into English. This tendency is particularly evident when the piece is published in one of the vernacular languages of the region, as the industry of translating from these languages to English (and vice versa) is not well developed. Other factors, including a lingering Eurocentrism within the Russian and Soviet field, have also played a role in the marginalization of scholarship from Central Asia. In light of these considerations, it is a particular pleasure to present these articles and make scholarship from the region known to a wider audience. It should be noted that all three pieces were translated from Russian. There is also an important Kazakh-language secondary literature in Kazakhstan. But given the challenges of orchestrating a translation, including the scarcity of qualified Kazakh-English translators, it was not possible to include Kazakh-language materials. The goal then with this issue is not to be perfectly representative of Kazakhstani historical scholarship as a whole. Rather, it is to shed light on aspects of the Russian and Soviet state’s long-running project to incorporate the Kazakh steppe and its peoples, as well as the consequences of these attempts for Kazakhstani society.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"330 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47178018","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 : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014760
G. Sultangalieva
Abstract This article uncovers the roles played by Tatar translators, interpreters and clerks during the Kazakh steppe’s political integration into the Russian empire. It reveals their role in the Russian administration’s diplomatic negotiations with Kazakh khans and sultans and their role in gathering essential information about events on the Kazakh steppe and the attitudes of influential members of the Kazakh nomadic elite.
{"title":"Tatar Officials in the Orenburg Governorate’s Chancellery: Their Activities on the Kazakh Steppe (Second Half of the Eighteenth Century)","authors":"G. Sultangalieva","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014760","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article uncovers the roles played by Tatar translators, interpreters and clerks during the Kazakh steppe’s political integration into the Russian empire. It reveals their role in the Russian administration’s diplomatic negotiations with Kazakh khans and sultans and their role in gathering essential information about events on the Kazakh steppe and the attitudes of influential members of the Kazakh nomadic elite.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"310 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46922191","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014756
A. N. Chistikov
International travel from the USSR began to show a marked increase in the mid-1950s. One of the key screeners for this flow was the Commission for Travel Abroad, whose activities have yet to be the focus of a separate study. Initially there was no single agency that controlled travel abroad by citizens. It was handled by the foreign departments attached to executive committees and by agencies of the OGPU [Joint State Political Directorate]. In the 1920s the functions were transferred to commissions that were almost immediately subordinated to the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee. After several reorganizations—in June 1947—the Bureau for Travel Abroad and Entry into the USSR emerged, and it became part of the Information Committee under the USSR Council of Ministers, which consisted of the Foreign Intelligence Directorate of the MGB [Ministry of State Security] of the USSR and the Main Intelligence Directorate [GRU] of the Soviet Army’s General Staff. The Bureau’s functions as spelled out in a special statute were to consider and resolve questions regarding travel abroad by citizens to full-time work at Soviet institutions, on temporary business trips, and on personal matters; regarding travel abroad by political emigrants and their family members; and regarding entry into the USSR on personal matters by foreigners and Soviet citizens who were full-time residents abroad. In the process, the emphasis was placed on three aspects: evaluation of the political reliability of Soviet citizens who were to travel abroad to work, evaluation of the validity and advisability of personal applications for travel out of the USSR and entries into it, and clarification “to every Soviet citizen who was to go abroad” of the rules for their conduct abroad and receiving the relevant pledge in writing from them “against their personal signature.”
{"title":"“Travel Abroad Authorized…”: The Activities of the Commission for Travel Abroad, 1949–1962","authors":"A. N. Chistikov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014756","url":null,"abstract":"International travel from the USSR began to show a marked increase in the mid-1950s. One of the key screeners for this flow was the Commission for Travel Abroad, whose activities have yet to be the focus of a separate study. Initially there was no single agency that controlled travel abroad by citizens. It was handled by the foreign departments attached to executive committees and by agencies of the OGPU [Joint State Political Directorate]. In the 1920s the functions were transferred to commissions that were almost immediately subordinated to the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee. After several reorganizations—in June 1947—the Bureau for Travel Abroad and Entry into the USSR emerged, and it became part of the Information Committee under the USSR Council of Ministers, which consisted of the Foreign Intelligence Directorate of the MGB [Ministry of State Security] of the USSR and the Main Intelligence Directorate [GRU] of the Soviet Army’s General Staff. The Bureau’s functions as spelled out in a special statute were to consider and resolve questions regarding travel abroad by citizens to full-time work at Soviet institutions, on temporary business trips, and on personal matters; regarding travel abroad by political emigrants and their family members; and regarding entry into the USSR on personal matters by foreigners and Soviet citizens who were full-time residents abroad. In the process, the emphasis was placed on three aspects: evaluation of the political reliability of Soviet citizens who were to travel abroad to work, evaluation of the validity and advisability of personal applications for travel out of the USSR and entries into it, and clarification “to every Soviet citizen who was to go abroad” of the rules for their conduct abroad and receiving the relevant pledge in writing from them “against their personal signature.”","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"248 - 268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44585491","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014754
O. Radchenko
Trips by Ukrainian Americans and Canadians to Ukraine during the period after World War II remain in the margins of current historiography of international relations in the Cold War. This applies both to the motivation of tourists and to the role of political and public organizations, particularly the Communist parties of Canada (CPC) and the United States, the League of American Ukrainians (LAU), the Lemko Association, the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC), and the Workers’ Benevolent Association (RZT in Ukrainian). These organizations maintained ties between the Ukrainian community in North America and its historical homeland and made a significant contribution to arranging ethnic, or nostalgic as they are also called, tours for compatriots who were searching in Ukraine for the roots of their national identity. As is well known, there were a substantial number of potential tourists from the ranks of the Ukrainian diaspora: the population censuses in Canada reported 395,000 (2.8 percent of the population) in 1951; 473,300 (2.6 percent) in 1961; 580,300 (2.7 percent) in 1971; and 529,600 (2.2 percent) in 1981. According to official 1979 statistics, the United States had more than 730,000 citizens of Ukrainian origin. Most of the Ukrainians emigrated to those and a number of other countries from the western regions of Ukraine, the present-day IvanoFrankovsk, Lvov, Ternopol, Rovno, and Chernovtsy oblasts. Before World War I the emigration consisted of workers, whereas in the interwar period it already had not only socioeconomic but also political reasons, and after World War II it was mainly political in nature. The interwar period accounted for about 60,000 emigrants. The second wave of emigrants, in
{"title":"Ethnic Tourism from Canada and the United States to Ukraine in the Context of the Cold War, 1950s–1980s","authors":"O. Radchenko","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014754","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014754","url":null,"abstract":"Trips by Ukrainian Americans and Canadians to Ukraine during the period after World War II remain in the margins of current historiography of international relations in the Cold War. This applies both to the motivation of tourists and to the role of political and public organizations, particularly the Communist parties of Canada (CPC) and the United States, the League of American Ukrainians (LAU), the Lemko Association, the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC), and the Workers’ Benevolent Association (RZT in Ukrainian). These organizations maintained ties between the Ukrainian community in North America and its historical homeland and made a significant contribution to arranging ethnic, or nostalgic as they are also called, tours for compatriots who were searching in Ukraine for the roots of their national identity. As is well known, there were a substantial number of potential tourists from the ranks of the Ukrainian diaspora: the population censuses in Canada reported 395,000 (2.8 percent of the population) in 1951; 473,300 (2.6 percent) in 1961; 580,300 (2.7 percent) in 1971; and 529,600 (2.2 percent) in 1981. According to official 1979 statistics, the United States had more than 730,000 citizens of Ukrainian origin. Most of the Ukrainians emigrated to those and a number of other countries from the western regions of Ukraine, the present-day IvanoFrankovsk, Lvov, Ternopol, Rovno, and Chernovtsy oblasts. Before World War I the emigration consisted of workers, whereas in the interwar period it already had not only socioeconomic but also political reasons, and after World War II it was mainly political in nature. The interwar period accounted for about 60,000 emigrants. The second wave of emigrants, in","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"226 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41409065","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014757
A. N. Chistikov
Research on the history of international tourism in the USSR, which consisted of inbound (from foreign countries) and outbound (to foreign countries) tourism, is not one of the major areas of Russian historiography, yet the interest in this subject is obvious. The Soviet Union’s tourist ties with other countries are regarded by Russian and foreign scholars as part of cultural or public diplomacy, which on the one hand depended on the political realities of the times and, on the other, exerted a certain influence on them itself. Soviet historians mostly focused attention on the overall trends in the development of outbound tourism and on the legal issues of incoming tourism. Concrete historical studies for the most part concentrated on trips by Soviet tourists through trade unions and to a lesser extent on foreigners’ visits to the USSR. It was commonplace in all of the historical studies for the authors to pay close attention to ideological objectives and methods of working both with Soviet and with foreign tourists. Perestroika and the ensuing breakup of the USSR, the abandonment of the “only correct” ideology, and the “archival revolution” of the 1990s marked the start of a new stage in the historiography of this problem. The access to declassified documents significantly expanded the source base for research. The absence of censorship and the newly acquired opportunity to read the principal works of foreign colleagues (in particular, the monographs and articles of Prof. Michael David-Fox, the sociologist Paul Hollander, Prof. Ann E. Gorsuch, and others) have facilitated the formulation of new questions, including methodological ones. Similar processes have developed in some former Union republics that became independent countries. There is no debate among historians about the Soviet state’s regulatory role in prewar and postwar international tourism. In addition, most researchers do not confine themselves to studying the ideological and
{"title":"Guest Editor’s Introduction: International Tourism in the USSR: The Half-Open Door Policy","authors":"A. N. Chistikov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014757","url":null,"abstract":"Research on the history of international tourism in the USSR, which consisted of inbound (from foreign countries) and outbound (to foreign countries) tourism, is not one of the major areas of Russian historiography, yet the interest in this subject is obvious. The Soviet Union’s tourist ties with other countries are regarded by Russian and foreign scholars as part of cultural or public diplomacy, which on the one hand depended on the political realities of the times and, on the other, exerted a certain influence on them itself. Soviet historians mostly focused attention on the overall trends in the development of outbound tourism and on the legal issues of incoming tourism. Concrete historical studies for the most part concentrated on trips by Soviet tourists through trade unions and to a lesser extent on foreigners’ visits to the USSR. It was commonplace in all of the historical studies for the authors to pay close attention to ideological objectives and methods of working both with Soviet and with foreign tourists. Perestroika and the ensuing breakup of the USSR, the abandonment of the “only correct” ideology, and the “archival revolution” of the 1990s marked the start of a new stage in the historiography of this problem. The access to declassified documents significantly expanded the source base for research. The absence of censorship and the newly acquired opportunity to read the principal works of foreign colleagues (in particular, the monographs and articles of Prof. Michael David-Fox, the sociologist Paul Hollander, Prof. Ann E. Gorsuch, and others) have facilitated the formulation of new questions, including methodological ones. Similar processes have developed in some former Union republics that became independent countries. There is no debate among historians about the Soviet state’s regulatory role in prewar and postwar international tourism. In addition, most researchers do not confine themselves to studying the ideological and","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"181 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45681521","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014746
I. Orlov, A. Popov
Throughout the entire Soviet period, Intourist was supposed to not only bring foreign currency into the federal budget but also help foster a positive image of the Land of the Soviets among foreigners and popularize abroad a new social order and culture and progressive domestic and foreign policies. To this end, a specific set of presentational practices were utilized, which the political scientist Paul Hollander dubbed “hospitality techniques.” They were based on heightened attention to visitors when services were provided to them, as well as a selective presentation of reality in which the best was passed off as the typical. The Soviet authorities sought in this way to influence not merely the minds of foreign visitors by offering them reasonable explanations of the advantages of socialism but also their emotional world. There was a good reason that one Soviet document in 1971 openly acknowledged that foreign tourism was one of the channels of the ideological struggle, “whose front runs through people’s hearts and minds.” The authors of the book Through the Soviet Looking Glass [Sovetskoe zazerkal’e] also assert that an intense struggle developed during the Cold War for the inner world of every single individual (in this case, every tourist). It was not enough to see, learn about, and understand the Soviet Union—it had to be loved as well. Clearly, what was important in this case was not only to alter the world view of visitors to our country but
{"title":"“Show All the Advantages of Socialism”: Foreign Tourism in the USSR and Soviet Management of Visitors’ Impressions","authors":"I. Orlov, A. Popov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014746","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the entire Soviet period, Intourist was supposed to not only bring foreign currency into the federal budget but also help foster a positive image of the Land of the Soviets among foreigners and popularize abroad a new social order and culture and progressive domestic and foreign policies. To this end, a specific set of presentational practices were utilized, which the political scientist Paul Hollander dubbed “hospitality techniques.” They were based on heightened attention to visitors when services were provided to them, as well as a selective presentation of reality in which the best was passed off as the typical. The Soviet authorities sought in this way to influence not merely the minds of foreign visitors by offering them reasonable explanations of the advantages of socialism but also their emotional world. There was a good reason that one Soviet document in 1971 openly acknowledged that foreign tourism was one of the channels of the ideological struggle, “whose front runs through people’s hearts and minds.” The authors of the book Through the Soviet Looking Glass [Sovetskoe zazerkal’e] also assert that an intense struggle developed during the Cold War for the inner world of every single individual (in this case, every tourist). It was not enough to see, learn about, and understand the Soviet Union—it had to be loved as well. Clearly, what was important in this case was not only to alter the world view of visitors to our country but","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"184 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46676583","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320
I. Omel’ianchuk
The nineteenth century had seen the entrenchment of the parliamentary system in Western civilization. The geographical placement and close contacts between Russia and Europe ensured that parliamentary ideas would also find their way into the Russian Empire, which is why the ideological struggle over the creation of a representative body in Russia was joined long before the tsar’s manifestos of August 6 and October 17, 1905. As far back as 1896, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod, was arguing that popular sovereignty [narodovlastie] was among “the most dishonest political principles” since in reality that power belongs not to the people but to their representatives, whose voters are no more than a “herd” that constitutes their “capital, the foundation of their might and eminence in society” (as if they were “wealthy nomads”). This thesis of Pobedonostsev’s became a key part of the rightists’ ideological constructs and was further developed in works written early in the twentieth century. Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov was of the opinion that in parliamentary democracies, the people have no representation of their own; it has only the representatives of the parties that rule over the people.” Anton Semenovich Budilovich, the famous Slavist and member of the Russian Assembly monarchist group, also “held that nowhere in the constitutional world do we encounter the representation of the entire people, only of ‘classes and interests,’ e.g., of the upper, wealthier, and more unmannerly strata of the population.” Professor Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin, chairman of the Khar’kov division of the Russian Assembly and future leader of the rightist faction in the Third Duma, was of the same mind, asserting that in democratic states, “‘Freedom, equality, fraternity’ have proved to be only a fine-sounding battle-cry, whereas the peoples have fallen into an even worse dependency, having become slaves to a heartless and pitiless
{"title":"Parliamentarianism in the Ideology of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Conservatives","authors":"I. Omel’ianchuk","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320","url":null,"abstract":"The nineteenth century had seen the entrenchment of the parliamentary system in Western civilization. The geographical placement and close contacts between Russia and Europe ensured that parliamentary ideas would also find their way into the Russian Empire, which is why the ideological struggle over the creation of a representative body in Russia was joined long before the tsar’s manifestos of August 6 and October 17, 1905. As far back as 1896, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod, was arguing that popular sovereignty [narodovlastie] was among “the most dishonest political principles” since in reality that power belongs not to the people but to their representatives, whose voters are no more than a “herd” that constitutes their “capital, the foundation of their might and eminence in society” (as if they were “wealthy nomads”). This thesis of Pobedonostsev’s became a key part of the rightists’ ideological constructs and was further developed in works written early in the twentieth century. Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov was of the opinion that in parliamentary democracies, the people have no representation of their own; it has only the representatives of the parties that rule over the people.” Anton Semenovich Budilovich, the famous Slavist and member of the Russian Assembly monarchist group, also “held that nowhere in the constitutional world do we encounter the representation of the entire people, only of ‘classes and interests,’ e.g., of the upper, wealthier, and more unmannerly strata of the population.” Professor Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin, chairman of the Khar’kov division of the Russian Assembly and future leader of the rightist faction in the Third Duma, was of the same mind, asserting that in democratic states, “‘Freedom, equality, fraternity’ have proved to be only a fine-sounding battle-cry, whereas the peoples have fallen into an even worse dependency, having become slaves to a heartless and pitiless","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"74 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46273400","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916341
A. Ivanov
Over the past quarter-century, no less than two dozen monographs have been written on the Black Hundred and other conservative forces, and the number of articles on the same subject probably exceeds that by a factor of ten or so. But the overwhelming majority of those studies highlight the emergence, development, and crisis of the rightist parties and unions before World War I or prior to the collapse of the autocracy. Such mentions as there have been of what happened to them in 1917, the year of revolution, are far more sparse, and that is entirely understandable since from the spring to the autumn of 1917, the right-monarchist organizations—discredited, fragmented, and bereft of all authority in society— quickly disappeared without trace in the vortex of tragic events, having, with rare exceptions, proven unable to play an even remotely salient role in them. And as a result, the historiography has so far provided insights only into certain particular features of the rightist movement’s demise in 1917. That said, an analysis of how the Black Hundred conducted itself after the triumph of the revolution and its attitude toward that revolution enables a better understanding of the distinctive political evolution of rightist parties in Russia. By February 1917, they were in complete disarray and profoundly disheartened, discredited, and riven by schisms and infighting. Black Hundred membership had plummeted; practical activity in most sectors of the Black Hundred parties had come to a standstill during World War I, and many no longer existed at all. Having squandered during the war the remnants of their prior influence and the mass support they had once enjoyed, and recognizing that they were doomed, the Union of the Russian People (URP), the All-Russia Dubrovinite Union of the Russian
{"title":"“The Black Hundreds Went Underground and Vanished Without Trace”: Russian Rightists and the Revolution of 1917","authors":"A. Ivanov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916341","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past quarter-century, no less than two dozen monographs have been written on the Black Hundred and other conservative forces, and the number of articles on the same subject probably exceeds that by a factor of ten or so. But the overwhelming majority of those studies highlight the emergence, development, and crisis of the rightist parties and unions before World War I or prior to the collapse of the autocracy. Such mentions as there have been of what happened to them in 1917, the year of revolution, are far more sparse, and that is entirely understandable since from the spring to the autumn of 1917, the right-monarchist organizations—discredited, fragmented, and bereft of all authority in society— quickly disappeared without trace in the vortex of tragic events, having, with rare exceptions, proven unable to play an even remotely salient role in them. And as a result, the historiography has so far provided insights only into certain particular features of the rightist movement’s demise in 1917. That said, an analysis of how the Black Hundred conducted itself after the triumph of the revolution and its attitude toward that revolution enables a better understanding of the distinctive political evolution of rightist parties in Russia. By February 1917, they were in complete disarray and profoundly disheartened, discredited, and riven by schisms and infighting. Black Hundred membership had plummeted; practical activity in most sectors of the Black Hundred parties had come to a standstill during World War I, and many no longer existed at all. Having squandered during the war the remnants of their prior influence and the mass support they had once enjoyed, and recognizing that they were doomed, the Union of the Russian People (URP), the All-Russia Dubrovinite Union of the Russian","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"157 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43014179","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916313
I. Omel’ianchuk
The right-monarchist (conservative, Black Hundred) movement arose during the First Russian Revolution, as a conservative response to the opposition’s attempts to change the traditional political system. Then, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which legalized the existence of political parties, created the conditions needed to institutionalize the right wing and unify the several dozen all-Russian and regional monarchist unions and organizations that were committed to preserving the autocracy. At the forefront of the Black Hundred movement was the Union of the Russian People (URP), founded in November 1905. This was the largest grassroots Black Hundred organization, an order of magnitude larger than the other monarchist parties, that in time absorbed most of them as divisions. Assistance from the URP, whose membership, by the most modest estimates, topped 400,000, was one of the factors that allowed the autocracy to withstand the onslaught of the First Russian Revolution. Aleksei Aleksandrovich Shirinskii-Shikhmatov, former chief procurator of the Holy Synod, would later write this to Nicholas II:
{"title":"The Monarchists in 1905–17: From Triumph to Catastrophe","authors":"I. Omel’ianchuk","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916313","url":null,"abstract":"The right-monarchist (conservative, Black Hundred) movement arose during the First Russian Revolution, as a conservative response to the opposition’s attempts to change the traditional political system. Then, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which legalized the existence of political parties, created the conditions needed to institutionalize the right wing and unify the several dozen all-Russian and regional monarchist unions and organizations that were committed to preserving the autocracy. At the forefront of the Black Hundred movement was the Union of the Russian People (URP), founded in November 1905. This was the largest grassroots Black Hundred organization, an order of magnitude larger than the other monarchist parties, that in time absorbed most of them as divisions. Assistance from the URP, whose membership, by the most modest estimates, topped 400,000, was one of the factors that allowed the autocracy to withstand the onslaught of the First Russian Revolution. Aleksei Aleksandrovich Shirinskii-Shikhmatov, former chief procurator of the Holy Synod, would later write this to Nicholas II:","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"10 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45980729","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：