Kazakhstan in World War II: Authors and Publishers of Post-1991 History Textbooks

The paper examines the production of secondary-school textbooks published between 1992 and 2019 that address the Soviet history of Kazakhstan. It argues that textbook authors exercise agency when discussing Kazakhstan’s participation in the Second World War. While some authors focus squarely on the heroism of Kazakhs and the Kazakh nation’s contribution to the final victory, others build upon this narrative by discussing the human losses incurred and the experiences of ordinary people. This article contributes to studies looking at portrayals of World War II in post-Soviet countries’ history textbooks.

The “Cosmopolitan” Historian I. P. Schmidt: Chapters of a Biography

The article is devoted to the reconstruction of the biography of Isai Pavlovich Schmidt, a Professor of History, propagandist and the head of the flight on the route Moscow – Beijing (1925). The life and work of I. P. Schmidt (1896–1975) have already been the object of studies in modern historiography. However, the complex of new sources, which were available to the authors of the present article, made it possible to revisit some facts of the professor's biography, introducing the necessary additions and clarifications. The purpose of the study is the reconstruction of the biography of I. P. Schmidt in the context of the Soviet history with a focus on the impact of the anti-cosmopolitan campaign in the USSR on the professional career and further life of the professor. As a result of the analysis, the authors identified the main stages of the biography of I. P. Schmidt and noted the peculiar features of his worldview. The obtained results of the study led the authors to the conclusion that events of the anti-cosmopolitan campaign had resulted in the beginning of a new stage in the I. P. Schmidt’s biography – his research and pedagogical activities in Uzbekistan and Siberia. The study determines peculiarities of the activities and life of the “cosmopolitan” historian in the country’s periphery. This article is intended for teachers and university students, researchers as well as local historians.

Political System Sustainability in the Re public of Kazakhstan (Index Analysis)

The problem of the sustainability of the political system is one of the most pressing issues in Political Science. The wave of social and political upheavals that took place in the 21st century in various countries requires studying the factors that determine the ability of modern political systems to maintain their essential features in case of undesirable conditions. Today it is already obvious that the sustainability of the political system, mechanisms and principles of its functioning depends not only and, perhaps, not as much on the socio-economic sphere, the development of democratic institutions or the presence/absence of a destructive external influence, as it is often assumed. Rather, intra-systemic characteristics play a key role. The multidimensionality of the manifestation and the multifactorial nature of the formation of stable political systems not only determine the possibility of a huge number of definitions of sustainability, but also give rise to considerable difficulties in measuring it. The authors analyze the political system of Kazakhstan using the sustainability index that they developed earlier. The study shows that throughout most of the post-Soviet history of the country, the level of the sustainability of its political system was above average, and now Kazakhstan already surpasses Russia and Ukraine in this parameter and is approaching Belarus. Moreover, if the existing trends continue, the sustainability of the political system of Kazakhstan in the short term will only increase. According to the authors’ conclusion, this trend is hard to reverse unless there is a force majeure in the global economy or new military and political threats emerge, which the republic will not be able to tackle without resorting to the help of allies.

Współczesne praktyki upamiętniania Wielkiej Wojny Ojczyźnianej w Kazachstanie

The history of the Great Patriotic War has now become a hostage to political games and the ambitions of a national power. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only led to the development of the republics, but also transformed the politics of memory concerning Soviet history. This article analyses contemporary practices of commemorating the Great Patriotic War in Kazakhstan. It is one of the few Central Asian republics that continues to celebrate 9 May. The author analyses cultural memory in the post-Soviet area using the example of Kazakhstan and shows how contemporary practices of commemorating the Great Patriotic War developed. She also shows the state practices of the social and communicative transmission of the history of Kazakhstan’s participation in the Great Patriotic War.

Discussion About the Book by Krausz Tamás “The Fate of Ideas During the USSR History and After...”

N.E. Vashkau in the essay “On the way to the dialogue of national historiographies” notes the importance of historical memory, interaction within the framework of the intercultural dialogue of historiographies. A.A. German, in solidarity with some of T. Kraus’ views on the historical memory of the Second World War, starts a polemic with him on a number of problems related to the theory, history and practice of the creation, development and fall of Soviet state socialism. T.B. Ivanova (section “Historical memory forecasting the future”) focuses on self-government as an instrument of social emancipation as a direction to develop the social structure, which T. Kraus pays special attention to in theory and political activity. The author pays attention to the wide information and evidence base offered by T. Kraus to prove the value of this idea every time for the next social reconstruction. E.F. Krinko in the section “Soviet history in a Marxist reading: Tamas Kraus on revolution, socialism, war and other issues” notes that the publication of the book provides us with a deep understanding about the Hungarian historian views basing on the denial of capitalism with its ideals of individualism and private property and commitment to the socialist idea. He emphasizes that T. Kraus rejects both the application of the theory of totalitarianism to Soviet history due to its limited research potential, and the apologetics of Soviet man and state socialism. S.G. Sidorov focused on the second section of T. Kraus’ book “War and Genocide. Historical facts and the politics of memory”, in which the author gives answers to important questions: who is responsible for the war; whether it is possible to compare the Nazi Germany with the USSR as well as GULAG and Auschwitz; who is guilty of civilians genocide and others. Sidorov has come to the conclusion that the application of “his methodological conviction – the third way” actually led the author to estimates that are close to many ones given by modern Russian historians, and allowed him to reasonably and fairly criticize the views on World War II, the Soviet period of Russian history prevailing today in Hungary and in the West.

POST-SOVIET HISTORY OF TATARSTAN: CHANGING THE RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM WITH THE FEDERAL CENTER IN 2000-2010.

The article considers the process of settlement of legal aspects of relations between the Republic of Tatarstan and the federal center in the period from 2000 to 2010.

Systematization of the Russian Legislation in the Soviet Period

The paper studies the reasons, forms, and stages of the systematization of the national legislation in the Soviet period. The reasons are of two origins: due to the need to adapt legislation for economic and social improvement and to the general logic of the development of law and its institutionalization by sectors. The author defines the following historical stages in the systematization of legislation: 1918–1920s; 1930 – mid-1950s; late 1950s – 1980s. The first stage included a comprehensive development of codes of the Soviet legislation that defined the legislation system. Drafts of the Soviet codes were developed in the second stage; however, they were not approved. At the third stage all major branches of the Soviet legislation were defined as codes. Codes of the 1920s were replaced by acts with current regulations; for the first time in the Soviet history codes were adopted in a number of sectors. Based on the subjects of joint jurisdiction of the USSR and the Union republics, the fundamentals of the Soviet legislation and republican codes were adopted. Despite the fact that codification was the primary form of systematization of the Soviet legislation, incorporation was widely used as well. Chronological and systematic collections of laws were published. In the late 1920s, the State first attempted to compile a code of laws of the USSR; however, the USSR Code of Laws and the RSFSR Code of Laws were prepared and published only in the 1980s. Throughout the Soviet period, the systematization of legislation was an important area of state legal policy.

The form of state in the historical and legal research of the Soviet period

The subject of the article is the application of the concept of the form of state in the Soviet historical and legal science.The purpose of the research is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that the understanding of the form of the state in the Soviet history of law was not discrete, it changed under the influence of political transformations and had a significant impact on the modern theory of the state.The methodology. The method of periodization was used to highlight the Soviet period of historical and legal science, the chronological method was used to determine the upper and lower boundaries of the Soviet period. The narrative method made it possible to describe the historiographic process. The historical-comparative method was required to compare individual concepts.Results, scope of application. The concept of the form of the state that was used in the historical and legal science of the Soviet period has been determined. The form of the state in Soviet science included two elements initially: the form of government and the form of statehood. The third element has been added since the 1960s – the political regime. The institutionalization of the history of state and law as a science took place by the end of the 1940s. While historians of the old school were working, the main topics included the early stages of the development of the state. Then after the change of generations the priority place was taken by the problems of the Soviet state. By the end of the Soviet period a more harmonious allocation of topics had developed. In Soviet historical and legal science the form of the state of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods was considered separately. The form of government of the Russian state in the pre-revolutionary period was defined as a monarchy. Several types of monarchy were distinguished: early feudal, estate-representative, absolute. The republican form of government was recognized for the Soviet state. Its class and social essence changed with the development of socialism. Organizational forms changed accordingly. When studying the polity, the main attention was paid to the federation. Its complex origin was noted, because the Russian Federation (RSFSR) was part of the federation of the USSR. The Soviet federations were built according to the nationalterritorial principle. The issue of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation remained debatable. Most researchers considered the RSFSR a state with autonomous entities. The development of the territory of the state as a whole has hardly been studied. Major administrative-territorial reforms carried out in the 1920s-1930s were considered in isolation from national-territorial construction. Generalized works on the territorial development of the state appeared only at the end of the Soviet period. Issues of the political regime of the feudal and bourgeois state were addressed in the study of direct democracy in the ancient Russian state, estate representative bodies, state power during the period of absolutism. Political liberalization was noted during the bourgeois reforms of the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. The democratic nature of the Soviet political regime was not questioned, therefore, the problems indicating trouble, crisis phenomena in the Soviet state were not identified.Conclusions. The understanding of elements of form of the state in the Soviet history of law was expanding. It changed in accordance with the changes in the Soviet governance. The main approaches to understanding the form of the state are accepted by contemporary Russian science.