Displace of Documentary Heritage from the Soviet Union to Poland during the Third Decade of the XXth Century

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Tatsiana Hiarnovich

The paper explores the displace of Polish archives from the Soviet Union that was performed in 1920s according to the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921 and other international agreements. The aim of the research is to reconstruct the process of displace, based on the archival sources and literature. The object of the research is those documents that were preserved in the archives of Belarus and together with archives from other republics were displaced to Poland. The exploration leads to clarification of the selection of document fonds to be displaced, the actual process of movement and the explanation of the role that the archivists of Belarus performed in the history of cultural relationships between Poland and the Soviet Union. The articles of the Treaty of Riga had been formulated without taking into account the indivisibility of archive fonds that is one of the most important principles of restitution, which caused the failure of the treaty by the Soviet part.

Author(s):  
Irina V. Sabennikova ◽  

The historiography of any historically significant phenomenon goes through several stages in its development. At the beginning − it is the reaction of contemporaries to the event they experienced, which is emotional in nature and is expressed in a journalistic form. The next stage can be called a retrospective understanding of the event by its actual participants or witnesses, and only at the third stage there does appear the objective scientific research bringing value-neutral assessments of the phenomenon under study and belonging to subsequent generations of researchers. The history of The Russian Diaspora and most notably of the Russian post-revolutionary emigration passed to the full through all the stages of the issue historiography. The third stage of its studying dates from the late 1980s and is characterized by a scientific, politically unbiased study of the phenomenon of the Russian emigration community, expanding the source base and scientific research methods. During the Soviet period in Russian historiography, owing to ideological reasons, researchers ‘ access to archival documents was limited, which is why scientific study of the history of the Russian Diaspora was not possible. Western researchers also could not fully develop that issue, since they were deprived of important sources kept in Russian archives. Political changes in the perestroika years and especially in the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union increased attention to the Russian Diaspora, which was facilitated by a change in scientific paradigms, methodological principles, the opening of archives and, as a result, the expansion of the source base necessary for studying that issue. The historiography of the Russian Diaspora, which has been formed for more than thirty years, needs to be understood. The article provides a brief analysis of the historiography, identifies the main directions of its development, the research problematics, and defines shortcomings and prospects.


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Marianna Shakhnovich

By the end of the 1920s, more than 100 anti-religious museums had been opened in the Soviet Union. In addition, anti-religious departments appeared in the exhibitions of many local historical museums. In Moscow, the Central Anti-Religious Museum was opened in the Cathedral of the Strastnoi Monastery. At that time, the first museum promoting a comparative and historical approach to the study and presentation of religious artifacts was opened in Petrograd in 1922. The formation of Museum of Comparative Religion was based on the conjunction of the activities of the Petrograd Excursion Institute, the Academy of Sciences, and the Ethnographic department of Petrograd University. In this paper, based on archival materials, we analyze the methodological principles of the formation of the exhibitions at the newly founded museum, along with its themes, structure, and selection of exhibits. The Museum of Comparative Religion had a very short life before it was transformed into the Leningrad anti-religious museum, but its principles were inherited by the Museum of the History of Religion, which was opened in 1932.


2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
MORITZ FÖLLMER ◽  
MARK B. SMITH

How can we write the history of urban societies in Europe after 1945? This article offers an interpretative overview of key developments in both Eastern and Western Europe, while also discussing some key conceptual issues. Along the way, it takes stock of the relevant historiography (much of which is very recent) and introduces a selection of papers from a cycle of three international workshops held between 2011 and 2013. The papers range geographically from Britain to the Soviet Union and cover topics as diverse as post-war reconstruction and alternative communities in the 1970s. Their respective approaches are informed by an interest in the way societies have been imagined in discourses and reshaped in spatial settings. Moreover, the papers move beyond case studies, urban history's classic genre, and can therefore facilitate synthetic reflection. It is our hope that, in so doing, we can make urban history more relevant to contemporary European historians in general.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-126
Author(s):  
K. STEVEN VINCENT

The history of French liberalism is undergoing a renaissance. For much of the twentieth century, it was viewed with disdain, as insufficiently “engaged,” as too tentative in its demands for social reform, as overly optimistic concerning the progress of reason and science. Scholarship during the past three decades has challenged these views, though it is notable that there is still, to my knowledge, no general history of French liberalism that goes past the consolidation of the Third Republic in the late 1870s. Part of the ongoing reassessment has been the consequence of the decline of revolutionary illusions and of marxisant frameworks of analysis following 1968, reinforced by the more general decline of the left following the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991. Another element contributing to this reassessment has been the emergence of more nuanced definitions of “liberalism,” ones that are not limited to legal (civil liberties), political (constitutionalism), and/or economic (free trade) dimensions. Equally important, scholars are insisting, are conceptions of science, of religion, of the role of the state, of solidarity, of sociability, of moeurs, of identity, of gender, of the self.


Author(s):  
О.С. Каденюк

The article, on the example of Volyn, analyzes the activities of public organizations in the Ukrainian ethnic lands that became part of Poland and the Soviet Union after the signing of the Riga peace treaty. These lands were the reflection of the most tragic pages in the history of Ukraine. More than once, they have played an extraordinary role in the history of the entire Ukrainian people, which has been reflected in his fate. The defeat of national liberation competitions in 1917 - 1921 and the tragic consequences of these events for the Ukrainian statehood turned Volyn into a specific socio-political and geopolitical region. The events in these territories, as well as the policies of the governments of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the USSR and the Second Commonwealth, were decisive for the Ukrainian population living on ethnic Ukrainian lands and those who found themselves in other countries. Our research suggests that the socio-economic processes in Volyn during the interwar period were an interesting social phenomenon when Ukrainians were immigrants in their ethnic lands among Ukrainians. The line of the Soviet-Polish border, which was the frontier of the opposition, attracted the most active participants in the national liberation struggle, who continued it under new conditions of statelessness, political and ideological pressure, persecution and repression by the smelling regimes. Work and activity in the interwar period of prominent political figures of the UNR era, religious, cultural and educational figures in the territory of Western Volyn, was of great importance not only for the population of the region, but also for the Ukrainian people.In the Volyn lands, the Orthodox Church had a huge influence on the people, Christian morality in the interwar period acted as the dominant ideology. No political party or NGO has had such an impact on the masses as the church. Understanding this, the Ukrainian clergy not only defended the Orthodox faith on both sides of the borders that divided Volhynia, but also nurtured national consciousness, language, and culture.


Author(s):  
Mikhail N. Glazkov

The article discusses as the well known and the recently discovered information on growth of the national library services during the second (1933-1937) and the third (1938- May, 1941) five-years plans in the Soviet Union. That period of time became the most important and crucial for the country and specialists still speak out very different views on it, that’s why the publication of the detailed tick-tock is giving a helping hand to those who’d like to realize the history of library services on the objective basis. The article has to be the result of the author’s research work carried out by him in many Russian archives and libraries’ handwritten funds.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-78
Author(s):  
Andrejs Gusachenko ◽  
Vineta Kleinberga

Abstract On 18 November 1918, the independent Republic of Latvia was declared in an extremely complicated international and domestic environment—the First World War was still going on, empires were collapsing, and ethnically and ideologically diverse military troops were fighting within the boundaries of Latvian territory. Despite the historical context of a previously tense relationship between Latvians and other ethnic groups, representatives of all minorities fought next to Latvians against the enemies of the Latvian state. Up until 11 August 1920, when the Peace Treaty with the Soviet Russia was signed, the prospects of de jure recognition of the newly established state were blurred; yet, the defeat of the White forces in the Russian Civil War opened the long awaited “window of opportunity”, as a result of which Latvia managed to achieve its international recognition on 26 January 1921. More than seventy years later, on 4 May 1990, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), the international and domestic situation was no less complicated. Latvia was forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and became part of it, yet the economic and political deterioration of the Soviet Union, the national awakening in the Baltic States and other Soviet republics alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall gave momentum for the regime to change. On 21 August 1991, after the barricades and bloody clashes with the Soviet Special Purpose Police Units (OMON) in Riga on January and the failed coup d’état in Moscow in August, Latvia’s independence once again became a reality. In the events of the 1990s, the memories of 1918 and Latvia’s independence in the period between the two world wars were crucial. It is manifested by the fact that Latvian statehood in 1991 was not established anew but restored. Acknowledging the importance of history on contemporary identification and policy-making, this article aims to provide an insight into the history of 1917–1922 and its resonance in the contemporary situation. Using the methodology of literature analysis and historical process-tracing it will reveal the complicated process of the state’s formation and recognition in the period of 1917–1922, paying particular attention to the role of the minorities and diplomatic efforts. It will also uncover the resonance of the events of 1918–1922 in the 1990s, when Latvia’s independence from the Soviet Union was declared, focusing in particular on aspects defining the statehood of Latvia and its citizenship. In this part, it will be argued that the history of 1917–1922 was brought back when the statehood of Latvia was concerned, while overshadowed by fifty years of the Soviet occupation, when the citizenship issue was on the agenda. Indeed, not only ethnic Latvians but also minorities living in Latvia played a decisive role in the efforts of restoring Latvia’s independence. However, as a result of the Citizenship Law,1 adopted in 1994, more than one-fourth of the population—in most cases, representatives of the Russian-speaking community—were denied citizenship. This practice contrasts the Act that had been adopted in the interwar period, when Latvian citizenship was granted to all ethnic groups who were living within the borders of the then agreed Latvian territory, notwithstanding their diverse ideological background. Given this fact, the article provides future research opportunities related to perceptions of history in contemporary policy-making.


2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 63-92
Author(s):  
Alexei N. Krouglov

The origins in Marxist-Leninist philosophy of the dogma about Kant as the German theorist of the French Revolution requires some analysis and I explain how a phrase of Marx later gave rise to the dogma. I first look at the sources that influenced K. Marx’s view of Kant and the French Revolution, above all С. F. Bachmann and H. Heine. I then examine the form in which Kant’s philosophy was compared with the French Revolution in the non-Bolshevik milieu before the 1917 Russian Revolution (P. Ya. Chaadayev, V. S. Mezhevich, the Dostoyevsky brothers, V. F. Ern, Archbishop Nikanor, P. A. Florensky). Then I look at how Marx’s phrase influenced Russian social democrats and specifically the Bolsheviks (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, V. M. Shulyatikov). I cite the example of the discussion triggered by a letter of Z. Ya. Beletsky concerning the third volume of The History of Philosophy (1943) to demonstrate the non-canonical status of Marx’s thesis on Kant and the French Revolution in the Soviet Union in the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, the first Soviet edition of Kant’s works in the 1960s canonised Marx’s phrase and gave the exact source. The reason why it took so long to give chapter and verse for the Marx quotation is that it occurs as early as 1842 in “The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law” which belongs to the idealistic period of the early Marx.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-2) ◽  
pp. 61-74
Author(s):  
Marina Galas

Describes a process for the preparation of the 1950s-1964 years liberalization of the Russian political reform (State) regime in the context of the genesis of society on the basis of the documents from the Russian State archive of socio-political history of 586 fund, 1 inventory (materials for the elaboration of a draft the third program of the Communist Party), of 84, 3 fund inventory (materials activities Mikoyan A. S. in the Council of Ministers of the USSR-the materials of the Constitutional Commission). During the drafting of the third program of the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the new draft Constitution of the USSR leadership carried out polls, considered draft citizens committed to research institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences development projects of socio-political, economic, financial, legal, ideological, the ruling party's reform, a citizen and a person, society, state, forecasting the evolution of international relations, global and domestic (socialist) markets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document