{"title":"穿着志愿者军大衣的历史学家","authors":"O. Morozova","doi":"10.21638/spbu02.2023.216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is a review of the monograph by the St Petersburg historian A. S. Puchenkov “The first year of the Volunteer Army: from the emergence of the Alekseevskaia organization to the formation of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia (November 1917 — December 1918)” (St Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2021. 813 p.). The main task of the book is to present the most comprehensive chronology of events. The conclusions of the monograph about the role of key events and figures during the initial stage of the existence of the Volunteer Movement — M. V. Alekseev, A. M. Kaledin, V. V. Shulgin, A. I. Denikin, ataman P. N. Krasnov — are of the greatest interest for the review. This article focuses on the author’s position on debatable issues: on the correctness of choosing the Don as a springboard for gathering the future army; on the consequences of the decisions concerning the directions and goals of the First and Second Kuban campaigns; on the influence of relationships between leaders on the fate of the movement; on the results of military and state building for the first year of the existence of the Volunteer Movement. The review also makes critical remarks regarding the methods of working sources, too heterogeneous and contradictory to be used as a single explanatory basis. The approach of the author of the monograph is also characterized by his selective attitude to the opinions of eyewitnesses, in particular, more favourable to representatives of the mainstream, pro-Denikin, direction of white émigré literature.","PeriodicalId":53995,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Historian in a Military Overcoat of a Volunteer\",\"authors\":\"O. Morozova\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu02.2023.216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is a review of the monograph by the St Petersburg historian A. S. Puchenkov “The first year of the Volunteer Army: from the emergence of the Alekseevskaia organization to the formation of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia (November 1917 — December 1918)” (St Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2021. 813 p.). The main task of the book is to present the most comprehensive chronology of events. The conclusions of the monograph about the role of key events and figures during the initial stage of the existence of the Volunteer Movement — M. V. Alekseev, A. M. Kaledin, V. V. Shulgin, A. I. Denikin, ataman P. N. Krasnov — are of the greatest interest for the review. This article focuses on the author’s position on debatable issues: on the correctness of choosing the Don as a springboard for gathering the future army; on the consequences of the decisions concerning the directions and goals of the First and Second Kuban campaigns; on the influence of relationships between leaders on the fate of the movement; on the results of military and state building for the first year of the existence of the Volunteer Movement. The review also makes critical remarks regarding the methods of working sources, too heterogeneous and contradictory to be used as a single explanatory basis. The approach of the author of the monograph is also characterized by his selective attitude to the opinions of eyewitnesses, in particular, more favourable to representatives of the mainstream, pro-Denikin, direction of white émigré literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.216\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这篇文章是对圣彼得堡历史学家a·s·普琴科夫的专著《志愿军的第一年:从阿列克谢耶夫斯卡亚组织的出现到俄罗斯南部武装部队的形成(1917年11月至1918年12月)》(圣彼得堡:弗拉基米尔·达尔出版社,2021年)的评论。813 p)。这本书的主要任务是呈现最全面的事件年表。关于志愿者运动存在初期关键事件和人物的作用的专著的结论- M. V.阿列克谢耶夫,A. M.卡列金,V. V.舒尔金,A. I.邓尼金,ataman P. N. Krasnov -是本次审查的最大兴趣。本文着重阐述了笔者在以下几个有争议的问题上的立场:选择顿河作为集结未来军队的跳板的正确性;关于第一次和第二次库班战役的方向和目标的决定的后果;论领袖关系对运动命运的影响志愿军运动成立第一年的军事和国家建设成果。审查还对工作来源的方法提出了批评意见,这些方法过于混杂和相互矛盾,不能用作单一的解释基础。该专著作者的方法的另一个特点是他对目击者意见的选择性态度,特别是更有利于代表主流,亲邓尼金,白人移徙者文学方向。
The article is a review of the monograph by the St Petersburg historian A. S. Puchenkov “The first year of the Volunteer Army: from the emergence of the Alekseevskaia organization to the formation of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia (November 1917 — December 1918)” (St Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2021. 813 p.). The main task of the book is to present the most comprehensive chronology of events. The conclusions of the monograph about the role of key events and figures during the initial stage of the existence of the Volunteer Movement — M. V. Alekseev, A. M. Kaledin, V. V. Shulgin, A. I. Denikin, ataman P. N. Krasnov — are of the greatest interest for the review. This article focuses on the author’s position on debatable issues: on the correctness of choosing the Don as a springboard for gathering the future army; on the consequences of the decisions concerning the directions and goals of the First and Second Kuban campaigns; on the influence of relationships between leaders on the fate of the movement; on the results of military and state building for the first year of the existence of the Volunteer Movement. The review also makes critical remarks regarding the methods of working sources, too heterogeneous and contradictory to be used as a single explanatory basis. The approach of the author of the monograph is also characterized by his selective attitude to the opinions of eyewitnesses, in particular, more favourable to representatives of the mainstream, pro-Denikin, direction of white émigré literature.