scholarly journals Constitution-Making in the Informal Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Inner Asia, 1945–1955

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Sablin
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Political Subjectivity ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Soviet Empire ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Second World ◽  
Constitution Making

This chapter provides an overview of dependent constitution-making under one-party regimes in Albania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia during the first decade after the Second World War. Employing and further developing the concept of the informal Soviet empire, it discusses the structural adjustments in law and governance in the Soviet dependencies. The chapter outlines the development of the concepts of “people’s republic” and “people’s democracy” and discusses the process of adoption and the authorship of the constitutions. It then compares their texts with attention to sovereignty and political subjectivity, supreme state institutions, and the mentions of the Soviet Union, socialism, and ruling parties. Finally, it surveys the role of nonconstitutional institutions in political practices and their reflection in propaganda. The process of constitution-making followed the imperial logic of hierarchical yet heterogeneous governance, with multiple vernacular and Soviet actors partaking in drafting and adopting the constitutions. The texts ascribed sovereignty and political subjectivity to the people, the toilers, classes, nationalities, and regions, often in different combinations. Most of the constitutions established a parliamentary body as the supreme institution, disregarding separation of powers, and introduced a standing body to perform the supreme functions, including legislation, between parliamentary sessions, which became a key element in the legal adjustment. Some constitutions mentioned socialism, the Soviet Union, and the ruling parties. The standardization of governance in the informal Soviet empire manifested itself in the constitutional documents only partially. Propaganda and archival documents revealed the prominence of nonconstitutional institutions, parties and leaders, as well the involvement of Soviet representatives in state-building. Domestic parties and leaders in the Soviet dependencies were also presented as subordinate to their Soviet counterparts in propaganda.

Brazilian historiography on the participation of the USSR in the Second World War

2021 ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Boris Martynov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
International Authority ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Second World

The article deals with the evolution of views of the Brazilian authors on the role, played by the Soviet Union in the WWII and its contribution to the victory of the anti-Hitlerian coalition. It contains a historiographical review of the works, written by the Brazilian authors on the theme, beginning from 2004. One follows the process of their growing interest towards clarifying the real contribution of the Soviet part to the common victory, along with the rise of the international authority of Brazil and strengthening of the Russo – Brazilian ties. One reveals the modern attitude of Brazilian authors towards such dubious or scarcely known themes as the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact, the battles for Smolensk and Rhzev, town–bound fights in Stalingrad, liberation of the Baltic republics, the Soviet war with Japan, etc. The author comes to conclusion, that in spite of the Western efforts to infuse the people`s conscience with the elements of the “post – truth” in this respect, the correct treatment of those events acquires priority even in such a far off from Russia state, as Brazil.

Dissent among Non-Russian Writers of the U.S.S.R. – A Philologist's Analysis

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-16
Author(s):  
Laszlo M. Tikos
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Literary Periodicals ◽  
The Press ◽  
Second World

On December 21, 1972, the Soviet Union celebrated what was called in the official press the “50th Anniversary” of the birth of the multinational Soviet state. Brezhnev spoke at the festive meeting and in his speech he underlined the unity, mutual understanding and independence of the people who make up the Soviet Union. As a demonstration of the equality of all nations within Soviet boundaries, leading Soviet literary periodicals, such as Novyi Mir, or Yunost' published more and more authors with non-Russian names. Indeed, these periodicals began to look like a Soviet Reader's Digest, publishing a “little bit from everywhere for everybody.” On the surface it was multinational literature all right, but upon a closer reading one was surprised by the uniformity of it. The Kazakh poet sang of the heroes of the Second World War in the same terms as the Lithuanian writer, and the Tadzhik kolkhoz life was depicted in the same glowing terms as in the poems from the Moldavian countryside. A little bit boring, perhaps, but still, judging by these publications, Brezhnev was telling the pure truth talking about the brotherly union of “our multinational” state. The press was also inundated with articles, essays, poems, etc. on this theme.

Yaacov Falkov, Meragelei haye’arot: pe’ilutam hamodi’init shel hapartizanim hasovyetim 1941–1945 (Forest Spies: The Intelligence Activity of the Soviet Partisans 1941–1945). Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Vashem Press, 2017. 496 pp.

2021 ◽  
pp. 292-294
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Intelligence Activity ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
Second World ◽  
Yad Vashem

This chapter evaluates Yaacov Falkov's Forest Spies: The Intelligence Activity of the Soviet Partisans 1941–1945 (2017). This book is a thoughtful, wide-ranging, and politically unbiased study, based on the Falkov's analysis of archival documents, of an extremely important element of the Second World War: the Soviet partisan movement. Falkov examines various aspects of the emergence, formation, and development of this movement, beginning with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941, and up to the last days of the war in Europe in the spring of 1945. Unlike previous studies written by Soviet, post-Soviet, and Western scholars, Falkov does not focus exclusively on the analysis of combat and sabotage activities on the part of partisans, though he does not neglect this important subject. He rather deals with the equally important issue of the partisan movement as a key source of intelligence on matters ranging from the mood of the population in the occupied territories of the USSR to operational details with regard to Nazi troops.

The Role of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Korean War

2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Korean War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty

lmost all estimates of the figure of Alexander Solzhenitsyn are not related to literary criticism. Most studies evaluate his role, intentions and results. His figure is assessed in the context of the fate of the country, public perception and attitude to the country, which is Motherland for some, and mental and political enemy for the others. And for this purpose it is not even important who is right from the historical and political point of view. The point is who and how perceived the USSR and the entire Soviet project. Solzhenitsyn is seen as the enemy of the USSR and the Soviet project by those who popularized and helped him, and also according to his self-evaluation. Therefore, for those who identify themselves with the Soviet Union, its heritage and the entire Soviet project Solzhenitsyn represents the enemy and bearer of evil. For those who are hostile to the Soviet Union and the Soviet project, Solzhenitsyn is an ally in their struggle and bearer of good. Which of these parties is right is the issue of history and morality. 66% of Russian citizens support the first point of view, and the second point of view is supported by 25% of the population. Nowadays 88 % of Russian citizens know who Solzhenitsyn was. 31% consider him to be moral authority for them. 8% of the people believe that Solzhenitsyn presented true facts in his books.

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 260-275
Author(s):  
Victor V.  Aksyuchits
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Political Ideas ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Russian Intelligentsia

In the article the author studies the formation process of Russian intelligentsia analyzing its «birth marks», such as nihilism, estrangement from native soil, West orientation, infatuation with radical political ideas, Russophobia. The author examines the causes of political radicalization of Russian intelligentsia that grew swiftly at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and played an important role in the Russian revolution of 1917.

New Materials for Studying Preparation and Staging of the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students in 1957

2018 ◽  
pp. 550-563
Author(s):  
Daniel Sawert ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Soviet Society ◽  
Unique Event ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Cultural Standards ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Local Traditions

The article assesses archival materials on the festival movement in the Soviet Union in 1950s, including its peak, the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students held in 1957 in Moscow. Even now the Moscow festival is seen in the context of international cultural politics of the Cold War and as a unique event for the Soviet Union. The article is to put the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students in the context of other youth festivals held in the Soviet Union. The festivals of 1950s provided a field for political, social, and cultural experiments. They also have been the crucible of a new way of communication and a new language of design. Furthermore, festivals reflected the new (althogh relative) liberalism in the Soviet Union. This liberalism, first of all, was expressed in the fact that festivals were organized by the Komsomol and other Soviet public and cultural organisations. Taking the role of these organisations into consideration, the research draws on the documents of the Ministry of culture, the All-Russian Stage Society, as well as personal documents of the artists. Furthermore, the author has gained access to new archive materials, which have until now been part of no research, such as documents of the N. Krupskaya Central Culture and Art Center and of the central committees of various artistic trade unions. These documents confirm the hypothesis that the festivals provided the Komsomol and the Communist party with a means to solve various social, educational, and cultural problems. For instance, in Central Asia with its partiarchal society, the festivals focuced on female emancipation. In rural Central Asia, as well as in other non-russian parts of the Soviet Union, there co-existed different ways of celebrating. Local traditions intermingled with cultural standards prescribed by Moscow. At the first glance, the modernisation of the Soviet society was succesful. The youth acquired political and cultural level that allowed the Soviet state to compete with the West during the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students. During the festival, however, it became apparent, that the Soviet cultural scheme no longer met the dictates of times. Archival documents show that after the Festival cultural and party officials agreed to ease off dogmatism and to tolerate some of the foreign cultural phenomena.

To the discussion about the modern world order

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
A. Mustafabeyli
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
World System ◽  
Main Tool ◽  
World Order ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Second World

In many political researches there if a conclusion that the world system which was founded after the Second world war is destroyed of chaos. But the world system couldn`t work while the two opposite systems — socialist and capitalist were in hard confrontation. After collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist community the nature of intergovernmental relations and behavior of the international community did not change. The power always was and still is the main tool of international communication.

Implications

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Edele
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Soviet Regime ◽  
World War ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Middle Position ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
War Effort ◽  
Second World

This chapter turns to the present and explains the implications of the current study for the ongoing debate about the Soviet Union in the Second World War and in particular about the role of loyalty and disloyalty in the Soviet war effort. It argues that this study strengthens those who argue for a middle position: the majority of Soviet citizens were neither unquestioningly loyal to the Stalinist regime nor convinced resisters. The majority, instead, saw their interests as distinct from both the German and the Soviet regime. Nevertheless, ideology remains important if we want to understand why in the Soviet Union more resisted or collaborated than elsewhere in Europe and Asia.

Testing Meldonium: Assessing Soviet pragmatic alternatives to the randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110085
Author(s):  
Anastasiya Chirkova ◽  
Alexander Petrenko ◽  
Pavel Vasilyev
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Experimental Drugs ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Experimental Drug ◽  
Second World

Background/aims Current research largely tends to ignore the drug-testing model that was developed in the “Second World” as an explicit alternative to the randomized controlled trial. This system can be described as “socialist pharmapolitics,” accounting for the specific features of state socialism that influenced the development and testing of experimental drugs. The clinical trials model employed in the “Second World” was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union, which was by far the most influential player in the socialist bloc during the Cold War. Based on extensive archival research, this article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It accounts for the divergences between the official model prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the messy realities of healthcare practice. It further outlines different factors that ultimately shaped how clinical trials were organized in Soviet institutions “on the ground.” Accordingly, this article presents a “real-life” history of “socialist pharmapolitics” and outlines the problems that this system faced in practice. Methods Archival research was conducted at the Russian State Archive of Scientific and Technical Documentation in Moscow. Archival files include scientific, technical, and registration documentation such as biochemical, pharmacological, and clinical descriptions of the experimental drug Meldonium, letters between various hospitals, research institutes and the Soviet regulatory body, as well as 26 reports of completed clinical trials. Manual content analysis was used for the interpretation of results. Results This article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It demonstrates some key differences from the randomized controlled trial model. This article also highlights some of the discrepancies between the model that was officially prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the realities of experimental drug testing in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, it notes some elements of randomization, double-blinding, and the use of placebo that were present in Meldonium trials despite being formally denounced by Soviet bioethics. Conclusion The Soviet model for testing experimental drugs differed from the Western one substantially in a number of respects. This difference was not only proclaimed officially by the Soviet authorities, but was for the most part enforced in clinical trials in practice. At the same time, our research demonstrates that there were important differences between the official model and the clinical realities on the ground.

RUSSIAN DIASPORA. SUMMATION AND RESEARCH PROSPECTS

2020 ◽  
pp. 130-143
Author(s):  
Irina V. Sabennikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Third Stage ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Significant Phenomenon ◽  
History Of ◽  
Methodological Principles

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document