A Guide to Orientalist Research in Soviet Central Asia

1978 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25
Author(s):  
R. D. McChesney

In 1976–1977, the writer spent nine months in Tashkent, Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, collecting material for a study of Central Asia in the seventeenth century. Obviously then, what follows is biased in the direction of historical research. It also, of necessity, reflects the author’s own experience and omits mention of resources to which he did not in some measure have access.

Author(s):  
Rafis Abazov

Modern Kyrgyzstan emerged as a political entity in 1924 when the Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Oblast (KKAO) was established as an autonomous oblast (province) under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation after the completion of the border delimitation in Central Asia (1924–1926). However, the oblast very soon was renamed Kyrgyz Autonomous Oblast (May 1925). The oblast was upgraded to the status of the Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Kyrgyz ASSR) on February 1, 1926 (also within the Russian Federation). Its status was further elevated on December 5, 1936 when the country became the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic (Kyrgyz SSR or in short Kirgizia (in Russian) and a full member of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). During its early days, the new republic lacked the cohesive national economic system, strong national identity, and human resources necessary for functioning as a nation-state. Therefore, the central Soviet government in Moscow initiated huge investment and technology transfers, and recruited the tens of thousands of specialists (from teachers to engineers) it felt were necessary to move to the country in the 1920s and 1930s. The consequences of the Soviet policies were two. One was rapid economic growth between 1930s and 1960s (in fact one of the highest in the USSR), including rapid industrialization and urbanization. The other was the rapid demographic change due to the massive immigration from other parts of the Soviet Union, especially from Belorussia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Kyrgyz people benefited from the cultural revolution of the 1920s and 1930s, as the literacy rate grew from 4.7 percent in 1926 to 70–80 percent in 1936 (Soviet official estimates). The Kyrgyz SSR experienced a second wave of industrialization and mass migration in the 1940s as hundreds of factories were moved to the republic from the war zone, and tens of thousands of Volga Germans and people from the Caucasus and Crimea were deported to the Kyrgyz land. However, despite massive investments and impressive economic growth between the 1950s and 1970s, the Kyrgyz SSR remained one of the poorest republics in the term of per capita in the USSR. Economic conditions in the country deteriorated in the late 1980s due to the blunders in the Gorbachev policy of perestroika. Yet, the Kyrgyz government continued to support the preservation of the Soviet Union, although small emerging opposition groups called for secession from Moscow. The Kyrgyz government declared its full independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union finally disintegrated. The country was renamed the Kyrgyz Republic (KR). Under the leadership of President Askar Akayev (1990–2005), the first democratically elected president in the history of Kyrgyzstan, the country became one of the most democratic states in the Central Asian region. It has struggled to revive its crumbling economy and infrastructure and to address its chronic problems of mass poverty and unemployment. Intransigent economic problems and systemic corruption have led to two consecutive revolutions in Kyrgyzstan (in 2005 and 2010). Yet, the country has established economic, legal, and institutional foundations for the development of a modern, competitive and productive national economy as the nation still dreams of developing Kyrgyzstan to become the “Switzerland of Central Asia.”


Author(s):  
Il'khomzhon M. Saidov ◽  
◽  
Rakhima I. Saidova ◽  

The article considers the contribution of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic to the victory in the Great Patriotic War. During the war, thousands of Soviet Uzbekistan’s citizens went to the battle-front, but the participation of the Republic in the war does not end there. The agricultural sector of Uzbekistan tried to make up for the losses of acreage and livestock suffered by the Soviet Union in the first year of the war. A number of Uzbekistan’s enterprises were urgently converted to the production of military goods. Production at factories evacuated to Soviet Central Asia was developing at a rapid pace on the territory of the Republic. Not only skilled personnel, but also volunteers took part in the construction of new factories, plants, and hydroelectric power stations. The authors emphasise that during the war, there was a significant transformation of the Republican economy: the share of industry in the volume of production in the national economy of Uzbekistan increased from 50 to 80%, and the share of heavy industry from 14.3 to 52.4%. In September 1940, 141.6 thousand workers and employees were employed in the Republic’s industry, while in 1945, it was 196.2 thousand. The share of women employed in industrial production increased significantly (from 34.0% in 1940 to 63.5% in 1945). More than 23 thousand young citizens of Uzbekistan aged 14–17 became workers during the war and replaced professionals who had gone to the battle-front. When assessing the contribution of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic to the Great Victory, the authors note that the labour feat of the Republic’s citizens caused its transformation into a reliable arsenal of the battle-front against fascism.


1946 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 169-172
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Steiger

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-99
Author(s):  
Olesia Rozovyk

This article, based on archival documents, reveals resettlement processes in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932–34, which were conditioned by the repressive policy of the Soviet power. The process of resettlement into those regions of the Soviet Ukraine where the population died from hunger most, and which was approved by the authorities, is described in detail. It is noted that about 90,000 people moved from the northern oblasts of the Ukrainian SSR to the southern part of the republic. About 127,000 people arrived in Soviet Ukraine from the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR) and the western oblasts of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The material conditions of their residence and the reasons for the return of settlers to their previous places of inhabitance are described. I conclude that the resettlement policy of the authorities during 1932–34 changed the social and national composition of the eastern and southern oblasts of Ukraine.


Author(s):  
Ilkhomjon M. Saidov ◽  

The article is devoted to the participation of natives of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic in the Baltic operation of 1944. The author states that Soviet historiography did not sufficiently address the problem of participation of individual peoples of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War, and therefore their feat remained undervalued for a long time. More specifically, according to the author, 40–42% of the working age population of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic fought on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. Such figure was typical only for a limited number of countries participating in the anti-fascist coalition. Analyzing the participation of Soviet Uzbekistan citizens in the battles for the Baltic States, the author shows that the 51st and 71st guards rifle divisions, which included many natives of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, were particularly distinguished. Their heroic deeds were noted by the soviet leadership – a number of Uzbek guards were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. In addition, Uzbekistanis fought as part of partisan detachments – both in the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, the Western regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Moldova. Many Uzbek partisans were awarded the medal “Partisan of the Patriotic War” of I and II degrees.


Author(s):  
С.М. Исхаков

Статья посвящена Политике Политбюро ЦК КПСС в отношении населения советской Центральной Азии в последнее десятилетие существования Советского Союза. Методологическая и теоретическая неразбериха, эклектика, откровенный субъективизм, скрытый догматизм стали характерными чертами современной историографии, которая уводит все дальше от реального исторического процесса, который происходил тогда в этом регионе под влиянием различных факторов. Характеризуется экономика и уровень жизни населения этого региона в канун перестройки, перспективы Центральной Азии, духовная жизнь, национальное самосознание, замыслы Ю.А. Андропова, действия М.С. Горбачева и республиканских руководителей в условиях начавшейся перестройки, сильные противоречия в высшей партийной номенклатуре. The article is dedicated to the Central Committee Politburo’s policy towards the population of Soviet Central Asia in the last decade of the U.S.S.R.’s existence. The methodological and theoretic chaos, eclecticism, open subjectivism, and concealed dogmatism became characteristic traits of contemporary historiography, which leads us farther and farther away from the real historic process that took place in the region, unraveling under certain factors. The article characterizes the region’s economy and the population’s level of life at the dawn of the Perestroika, Central Asia’s perspectives, its spiritual life, national self-awareness, Y. Andropov’s plans, M. Gorbachev’s and the republican leaderships’ actions during the Perestroika, as well as the strong inner contention in the Communist Party’s top nomenclature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document