“We Are from Biafra”. Igbo Students in the USSR during the Civil War in Nigeria, 1967-1970

Drawing on the Russian archival documents the article examines the Soviet policy towards Igbo students who studied in the USSR during the civil war in Nigeria (1967-1970). They sided the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra, Eastern Nigeria, seceded from Nigeria in May 1967. The USSR supported the territorial integrity of Nigeria, provided military and other assistance for the Federal Government in its confrontation with Biafra. However, the Soviet authorities took neutrality in the conflict between Nigerian Embassy in Moscow and Igbo students. They did not expel students at the requests of the Embassy as accomplices of the separatists investigating each case carefully, did not hinder the activity of the Biafrian fellowship. Since the dissemination of Biafrian propagandists production was banned in the USSR, they tried to reach the Soviet audience through appeals from Igbo students who studied in the USSR. The appeals did not include the main issues of Biafrian propaganda to the West: accusations of the Federal Government of the Igbo genocide by Nazi methods and the portrayal of the civil war as a religious conflict - a jihad of the Muslim North against the Igbo as the largest and most organized Christian community in Nigeria. The dominant thesis was about the nature of the civil war as a struggle of the socialist East, Biafra, against the feudal-capitalist North, the central government. The students appealed the Soviet officials to recognize publicly the legitimacy of the Biafrians aspirations for self-determination, to stop supplying arms to the Federal Government and to mediate in a peaceful settlement. There were no responses to the appeals, and they were not made public. Based on archival documents, the author established that the Soviet leadership reasonably feared that Biafra would become the fiefdom of the main geopolitical rivals - the United States and Great Britain. To prevent this USSR entered into an alliance with the federals. The calculation was to enhance the Soviet influence throughout Nigeria, albeit with a reactionary government, rather than support the progressive breakaway Eastern Nigeria (Biafra) and receive nothing.

1991: at the Origin of Building Hungarian-Ukrainian Inter-State Relations

On 31 May 1991, during the three-day visit of the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR to Budapest, there were signed nine documents, which ultimately were crucial for the development of Hungarian-Ukrainian bilateral relations. The working visit of the Ukrainian delegation, headed by the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament Leonid Kravchuk, was preceded by many months of intensive preparatory work on both sides. In this study, the author tries to give an overview of this process based on declassified archival documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary and primarily referring to the Hungarian bibliography. At the beginning of the study, the author gives a brief description of the foreign policy goals of the Republic of Hungary to the Ukrainian SSR on the verge of the 90s. Then will be given a brief description of the content of the main meetings that were organized between the Hungarian and Ukrainian sides, as well as the reaction of the Soviet leadership to the mutual rapprochement of the two neighbouring states. Based on archival materials, the author pays special attention to issues that were of great importance in the development and regulation of Hungarian-Ukrainian bilateral relations, namely 1) the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Cooperation, 2) the Declaration on National Minorities and 3) the Consular Convention. The paper concludes with a brief review and assessment of the visit of the Ukrainian delegation to Budapest in May-June 1991 and gives a summary of the content and the terms of all nine signed documents

«Япония все ближе и ближе пробивается к границам Монголии… Как думаете отстаивать свою независимость?» (О беседе Сталина с П. Гэндэном 24 ноября 1934 г.)

Introduction. The early 1930s saw a more active Russian-Mongolian interaction, including regular meetings and confidential conversations between the leaders of the USSR and the Mongolian People’s Republic. I. V. Stalin and the others of the top Soviet leadership started to pay more attention to the situation in Mongolia. This was largely justified by the sharp aggravation of the international situation in the Far East, with aggressive acts of imperialist Japan in the region and its further plans on the Asian continent, of which they made no secret. Under the circumstances, the USSR leaders sought to ensure the protection of its interests in the region. This article aims at examining and interpreting the significance of the Soviet-Mongolian summit that took place on November 24, 1934. Data and research methods. The author draws on a collection of documents on Russian-Mongolian military cooperation, which contains recordings of conversations between the top leadership of the two countries on military cooperation. Results. The main issue of the confidential conversation between Stalin, with the closest to him in the top Soviet leadership, and the Mongolian delegation, with Prime Minister Peljidiin Genden at the head, was a discussion of the urgent problem of how Mongolia would uphold its independence in the event of an attack from Japan: “what will you do if your situation worsens”? (Stalin) The materials of the meeting allow to understand the role of the USSR’s foreign policy in relation to Mongolia; to consider the course of discussions around the principal issues that interested both sides; and to shed light on the influence exerted by the Kremlin on the policy of the Mongolian government in terms of the ways of protecting the independence of the MPR. Stalin stressed the need to conclude a pact of mutual assistance; Genden agreed to start negotiations and was ready to elaborate practical steps. The Mongolian leadership was fully aware that the USSR was the only ally of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Far East. Conclusions. The summit meeting of November 24, 1934 became an important milestone in the history of bilateral relations between the USSR and the MPR. The negotiations proved to be of key importance for promoting their further military cooperation. The pact of mutual assistance signed in 1936 provided for the presence of the Soviet armed forces in Mongolia and served as a guarantee of the country’s security.

"BANQUET CHRONICLE" A.Ya. VYSHINSKY: FROM THE EVERYDAY LIFE OF SOVIET DIPLOMATS IN KUIBYSHEV (1941-1942)

The article examines an episode from the everyday life of Soviet diplomats during the Great Patriotic War. The reports of one of the leaders of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Andrei Vyshinsky on diplomatic receptions in November 1941-1942 are analyzed. These receptions took place in Kuibyshev, where employees of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, headed by Vyshinsky, were temporarily evacuated. Reports on them have been preserved in the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation and are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. They were sent by Vyshinsky to Moscow in the name of Stalin and Molotov. The sources identified by the author of the article, together with memoirs, make it possible to reveal various aspects of the culture of everyday life of Soviet diplomats who were temporarily in Kuibyshev. First, they give an idea of the participation of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs in festive commemorations (anniversaries of the October Revolution), which were one of the components of the ceremony for the representation of power. Secondly, the recordings of Vyshinsky's conversations, reflected in his reports, contain important information about the moods of representatives of the diplomatic corps, in particular, ambassadors and envoys of the member states of the anti-Hitler coalition. It was used by the Soviet leadership in solving foreign policy tasks during the most difficult period of the war.

Concession Policy of the Soviet Union in Agriculture: A Review of the Recent Historiography

Introduction. The article analyzes the issues of agricultural concession presented in the works of Russian researchers Maxim Matveyevich Zagorulko, Vladimir Viktorovich Bulatov and German historian Marina Schmider. Methods and materials. The monographs are significantly complemented by the already known works on concession policy and practice, as the authors introduce a significant number of new sources and statistics from German and Russian archives and libraries. To provide an objective analysis of the scientific works, the author uses the historical-system and historical-comparative methods. Analysis. The Russian researchers analyze the economic activities of four agricultural concessions: “Druzag”, “Manych”, “Druag”, “Prikumskoye Russo-American Partnership”. They identified factors that influenced the increase or decrease in profitability of the enterprises. M. Schmider focused her attention on changing the attitude of the government and business circles of Germany to the concession policy pursued in the USSR. In addition, it reveals the role of German agricultural concessions in the development of the German economy. The author identified mechanisms of influence on the Soviet leadership, which were used to facilitate the activities of two large agricultural concessions – Manych-Krupp and Druzag. It should be noted that the memoirs of German employees of agricultural concessions helped to recreate the life and activity of Soviet and German workers and employees, compare their working conditions, describe the relationship with the local population and government officials. Results. The authors conclude that the effective management methods and economic activities of these concessions contributed to increasing their competitiveness in comparison with similar Soviet enterprises. However, the activities of the concessions depended not only on the interest of the Soviet leadership in them, but also on the foreign policy relations of Germany and the Soviet state.

Foreign analysts on the state of the industry of the USSR in the late 1970s - the first half of the 1980s

The article considers the industry estimates of the USSR of the late socialist period contained in the works of foreign economists. Particular attention is paid to the sovietological interpretations of the state of the USSR industrial sector as well as the economic policy of Soviet leadership in generating growth of industrial production, development of the Eastern regions of the country, innovation and modernization of fixed assets. The author concludes that the studies conducted by foreign scientists make it possible to clarify the assessment of the industrial sector of the Soviet Union before Perestroika and to adjust the estimates of economic development of the USSR of the “Brezhnev Era”.

Socio-economic everyday life of individual farms in the Saratov Volga region in the first half of the 1930s

The article examines the features of the life of individual peasants in the Saratov Volga region in the conditions of the dominance of collective farms. On the basis of archival documents, the direction and content of state policy in relation to individuals is revealed. Having survived the nightmare of the first years of collectivization, individual farmers began to gradually adapt to new conditions and show their resilience in an unfavorable environment. As a result, instead of joining the collective system, they discredited it by their example. Therefore, special attention is paid to the policy of the Soviet leadership and the actions of local authorities in relation to individual farms. As a result of state policy, expressed in administrative pressure and a tightening of the tax press by the mid-1930s there was a gradual reduction in the sole sector.

The Patronymic of Her Choice

As the victory over the Nazis came into sight and the demographic disaster became apparent, the Soviet leadership keenly felt the need to strengthen pronatalist policy. Several proposals submitted in 1943–1944 expanded existing pronatalist measures without a fundamental change in the vision of population growth. However, Khrushchev, proconsul of devastated Ukraine, submitted the most comprehensive overhaul based on a new vision for population and pronatalism. The government policy reveals a two-faced practice of Bolshevik language, claiming to “protect motherhood” when addressing the masses, and non-Bolshevik discourse, population engineering language, among the top leadership. In the final law, policymakers prioritized giving men the incentive to father extramarital children over assuring the overall well-being of unmarried mothers and their children. This chapter traces the creation of the 1944 Family Law, legislation that definitively shaped the postwar generation in a deeply gendered manner.

Territory, War, and Nation-Building in the South Caucasus

This chapter refers to how World War II and its aftermath were experienced in the Soviet Union and, particularly how geopolitical conflicts intersected with national consciousnesses, relations, and politics in the South Caucasus. It discusses the Soviet leadership that tested the boundaries of its power by fostering national liberation movements among Kurds and Azeris in Iran and advancing territorial claims against Turkey. It also mentions the national actors in Soviet republics that repurposed discourses of national extraterritoriality for their own nation-building, which reignited dormant national disputes in the Caucasus and consolidated transborder alliances and insecurities. The chapter examines how the Bolsheviks created exceptions to the rule by using korenizatsiia policies to exploit cross-border ethnic ties and expand Soviet influence abroad.