Home – Home – Jornals – Advanced Search

Was the Russian revolution at the beginning of the XX century an accident or did the crisis occur due to economic reasons? The traditional answer to this question states that the revolution was caused by the low living standard, poverty and constantly repeated hunger strikes. Peasant land scarcity and poverty were described by the greatest economists of the pre-revolutionary period. Soviet historians also considered the level of consumption in Russia to be extremely low, and, moreover, gradually dropping. Such position was originally inherent also to Western historiography, but in the 1970s, in the “cold war” climate a “revisionist school” appeared in the United States, whose representatives argued that the standard of living in Russia had been increasing, that the revolution was an accident. The article is devoted to criticism of the revisionist school works. The most famous representative of this school is P. Gregory, who estimated that the cost of grain left by farmers for their own consumption, increased by 51 % in 1885-1901. This result is referred to by many authors. However, the detailed analysis shows that in Gregory`s calculations there are a number of mistakes and in fact the growth was only 12 %, and in per capita terms there was a decrease of this indicator. The largest revisionist school representative in Russia is B.N. Mironov, who made an attempt to assess the level of food consumption at the beginning of the XX century. In addition to these calculations, the main Mironov’s argument is supposedly fixed by his computations increase of recruits in 1874-1913 years. However, in these Mironov’s calculations also a mistake was detected, and it turned out that in reality the growth of recruits decreased. Thus, the works of the revisionist school representatives do not give an adequate idea of the living standard in Russia on the eve of the revolution.

February of 1917 in Siberia, like in Russia, showed no signs of any powerful cataclysm. Law enforcers (gendarmes, policemen) stated that in the territory under their jurisdiction “anti-governmental organizations showed no signs of activity...” Information about the events in Petrograd was spread via telegraph across the cities, railway stations, settlements, villages and volosts located along the Omsk, Siberian, Transbaikal, Altai, Kolchugino railroads. Governors were dismissed fr om their positions along with commanders of the Omsk and Irkutsk districts, garrison commanders, while the gendarme officers were arrested. Dismissal of tsarist authorities was paralleled by establishment of various public committees (Committees of Public Security), Soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies, organizations of political parties (RSDRP, PSR, PNS). Local government bodies at the provincial, oblast and uyezd levels were headed by Commissars appointed by the Provisional government. For the most part they were appointed from among the most respected and active members of local communities and leaders of Committes of Public Security. In early March, 1917 the most active social groups included the middle-income urban dwellers, the military, workers and political exiles. They played a dominant role in the political process constituting the social basis for the Committees of Public Security and Soviets as well as for political organizations. By the early 1917 owing to the system of political exile teams of highly professional political technologists had been formed in many Siberian cities wh ere they actively worked later on. The outcomes of the initial stage of the February social cataclysm were summed up on March, 10, 1917, the so-called Revolution Day. It was marked by public prayers, military parades, mass demonstrations and gatherings. Thus, events during the first week of March, 1917 affected only a small part of population, mostly in cities.

The problem of the interconnection of February Revolution and the province may be considered in two ways: first, as a process, begun in the capital and spread all over the country, and, secondly, as a process of change in the provincial life in the period from February to October 1917. Use of facts from different regions provides a kind of “virtual” province, sort of “non-capital”, however, it has nothing to do with any of the existing provincial governovates. The author believes it can be useful to look at the issue locally, within one single territory - Orenburg province. The author is of the second opinion; no ascendancy of the revolution in the province was observed: no one wanted to replace the authorities forcibly, the “old” power was held firmly enough, and could have been able to repel any attempts. The population of the province apprehended the transition to power of the Provisional Government rather calmly. Transformation of absolute monarchy into a constitutional could not be a revolutionary change as it had been harmonically blended into the existing state system. The changes were limited to renaming - governors to provincial commissioners, the police - the militia, and the removal of certain officials. In general, the information picture of the region was a complex ever-changing mosaic with elements of guessing of the missing elements. Analysis of the evidence and facts of social activity in the region shows that in a few months the provincial life was dominated by (mainly in the countryside) the delusional belief about the disappearance of the state in general, with its management structure and order, law and responsibility for the committed crimes. As the result there was an increase of criminal acts, both quantitative and qualitative. The situation got out of control, the feeling of “inner liberation” strengthened within the masses and it was not about the emancipation of the individual, but more about rudeness, aggressiveness, violence. All these far-reaching effects were especially evident during the civil war.

This article is devoted to the episode of Russian-British cooperation during the First World War, specifically the British Military Equipment Section under the command of General Poole. Analysis of activity of Poole’s mission is based primarily on preserved documents within collection of the Records of the Cabinet Office held by the National Archives of the UK. Main documents are the reports which were sent by General Poole and his closest aide Colonel Byrne to Committee of Russian Supply in London (the so-called Lord Milner’s Committee). Unfortunately these reports don’t clarify some important aspects of daily operations of the mission but they are an excellent illustration of the perception of Russian reality in 1917 by the representatives of the British military and political elite. The British military supply mission had to verify, in the first place, the proper use of weapons and ammunition from the United Kingdom and, in the second, had to help in establishing closer contacts between industrial businessmen of the two states. General Poole and his team observed work of the artillery parks and aviation workshops as well as the defense facilities. According to the British officers all of them suffered from common problems. Revolutionizing of the masses diverted many people from work, contributed to the fall of the discipline, and was accompanied by the reluctance of the military and civilian officials to do anything for normalizing the situation. Both tasks of the mission were failed. The first reason was the gradual collapse of the front and army work in the rear, and the second was the Bolshevist pursuit to conclude the peace with Germany. General Poole and Colonel Byrne were both skeptical about Russia’s ability to continue the war. In the beginning of 1918 the Poole’s team tried to prevent the looting of British goods in Russian ports. The collapse of the Russian state and economic mechanisms was the great trouble for British politics because the fall of the Eastern Front could not be allowed. Poole’s mission was a stage of preparation of the British intervention in Russia.

The article is devoted to N.N. Pokrovsky, who rose through the ranks from junior researcher to the academician in Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in less than 30 years, who became one of the main authors of “archaeographic discovery of Siberia”, and who created his own scientific school. The period under consideration was a time of intensive development of the Siberian region and its science, in particular humanities. The article discusses principles of scientific and organizational activities of N.N. Pokrovsky in the course of solution of major scientific projects. The main goal for him was to save and study a large quantity of books, which were in the hands of old believer peasants and which disappeared each year because of the fires, death of owners and so on. Annual expeditions in most regions of Siberia, Central Asia and the Far East served this goal. Under his leadership there were then collected about a thousand ancient manuscripts and early printed books that made up continuously growing Collection of the Institute of History of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SB RAS). Another principle of his activity was to investigate museums, archives and libraries of Siberia in order to describe their collections of ancient manuscripts and books according to a single system as well as to publish such descriptions that were to serve a preservation of collections. Soon after his arrival in Novosibirsk, N.N. Pokrovsky put forward an idea of creating a museum of history of Siberia common to all research institutions of Novosibirsk Akademgorodok, and of constructing for it a new building with modern technical conditions for the organization and operation of the museum. The project was presented by him in a special memorandum “On the Establishment of the Scientific and Historical Museum of Siberia and Gathering Monuments of Ancient Culture by Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences”, proposed for publication. Here, he introduced the prospects of research and scientific and organizational activities for gathering, preserving and exhibiting objects of Siberian culture, focused on their saving and popularization, the use of exhibits and expeditionary collections for training purposes in cooperation with Novosibirsk State University (NSU).

In 1854, the tsarist government created a unique administrative unit called “Semipalatinsk inner district” withing the new Semipalatinsk region. It was proposed to gather all the loyal Kazakhs wandering in the Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces. In 1870, 779 Kazakh farms openly expressed their consent to pay the three-ruble tax for plants. The Ministry of Finance conceded to the Cabinet half of the nomad tax set on October, 21, 1868 by “Regulations on the governance of steppe areas”. After long bureaucratic negotiations in 1880 “Rules for permission of Kyrgyz migrations on the lands of the Altai Mining District” were approved. According to the Rules Kazakhs were only allowed migrating on the lands of the Kulunda Steppe in Tomsk area. Thus, an attempt was made to gather all the Kazakhs wandering in the vast territory of the Altai Mining District, Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces in a specially alloted area. Kulunda Kazakhs, as well as the local farmers, had to pay 6 rubles (4.5 - to the Cabinet, and 1.5 - to the state). Local Ka-zakhs had no right to donate their lands for rent to third parties. Kazakhs, who wished to go transfer the peasant class, were allowed to pay cash rents in the amount of 6 rubles. Kulunda Kazakhs undertook to pay extra taxes for using wood. Kazakh residence at the Kulunda Steppe territory was recognized as temporal one and the Cabinet could evict them with its decision. In 1880 Kulunda Kazakhs, as well as loyal or “stanitsa” Kazakhs in the end of XVIII - early XIX centuries, were left without their governance in Tomsk province. But an attempt to gather all the Kazakhs of Tobolsk and Tomsk province in the Kulunda Steppe failed.

The purpose of the article is to characterize the process of forming the system of memorable sites associated with the Revolution and Civil War in Western Siberia cities in 1920s. The study expands understanding of the memorial public policy at the initial stage of Soviet history, relationship between the collective memory of Siberians about the revolutionary process and the Civil War in the region and an official memorialization of military-revolutionary events. The author explains in what way the context of the memorial public politics was reflected in objects selection, which were recognized as memorial in the given years, as well as their political mythologizing and symbolic marking. The article reports on the role of memories of the military-revolutionary events participants, who lived in Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Barnaul and Omsk, in forming the official Revolutionary Military topography of cities, and the role of employees of Istparts and local history museums collecting these memories, and designing the system of memorial sites on their base. Most often revolutionaries and undergrounders recalled places, where the change of the government was announced publicly in the city, or places where the new power structures, safe houses and other places of secret and open political protest activities were located. Many sites were related to the memory of the Civil War victims: prisons, places of torture, execution and burial of the dead. The forms of applying identified memorial sites for ideological purposes are established. Stories associated with these places were published in periodicals, photos of the places were used in the exposition and exhibition activity of municipal museums, tours to the places were planned. Finally, the author came to the conclusion that the formed system of memorable sites reflected in Siberians minds a subjective, emotional and fragmentary memory of military-revolutionary events in regional cities. A unique regional narration about the Revolution and Civil War was created where heroes of local history dominated. However, this tendency practically did not develop in the following decade.

The author analyzes the basic models of the programme double degree diplomas. The paper outlines the main problems related to the programme of double degree diploma and specifies the main requirements to institutions participating in this programme. The author highlights the main advantages of such programmes and suggests the ways that improve efficiency of these programmes.

The article focuses on the development of media education in the context of globalization and the information society. The author shows that these processes have both positive and negative affects. Negative aspects of globalization include the destruction of the secular humanist traditions. The author considers the essence, content and methodology of construction and heuristic value of media education. Attention is paid on expanding the traditional means and methods of education through the use of modern media and new educational tools and technologies that repeatedly increasing the educational potential of the subjects of education.