Home – Home – Jornals – Advanced Search

The article analyzes basic trends in land policy of the Soviet state in the 1920s. It also provides an analysis of the discussion that took place in Siberia and was focused on the choice of optimal forms of peasant communes’ land surveying. Analysis of this problem allowed to describe the dynamics of NEP and to outline its periodization. Land surveying was aimed at rationalization of the peasant communes’ land use. In Siberia where communes consisted of multiple households the peasants’ individual allotments were scattered all over the communal territory and were far from a household and from each other. Moreover, individual allotments could be subject to compulsory repartitioning. With regard to this region it was proposed to replace communes consisting of multiple households with smaller settlements separated from the former communes. However, the discussion arouse on what forms of land use were to be chosen within these settlements. A solution to this problem depended on the changing policies of the Bolshevik party. In 1924 the first attempt was made to wind up the NEP. In 1925-1926 agricultural policy was liberalized. In the late 1920s the Bolsheviks set off on a new course of collectivization of agriculture. In 1924 specialists from the agricultural management bodies of Siberia envisioned three possible ways of land surveying: recovery of communal practices within the territories of new settlements; establishment of kolkhozes; division of communal lands into individual parcels. In 1925-1926 division of arable lands into individual parcels (with pastures and sources of water supply left in joint use) was considered as an optimal form of land surveying. In the late 1920s the allotment of individual parcels was rejected as an obstacle in the path of collectivization. In the course of land survey the communes with multiple households were supposed to be split into several kolkhozes or into smaller peasant communes which later would serve as a basis for collective farms. Specialists from the agricultural management bodies who supported individual forms of land use were strongly criticized and later subjected to repression.

The article is devoted to a high spot in the history of Soviet-American cooperation during World War II - the Alaska-Siberia Airway along which the Lend Lease supplies were delivered to the USSR. The article is based on analysis of recently declassified archival documents of the Government Purchasing Commission of the Soviet Union in the USA, memoirs and documentary publications. Special attention is payed to the problems of the initial stage of organization of the airway, difficulties of supplying equipment to the airfields of Krasnoyarsk airway, which were part of Alaska-Siberia Airway. Flights fr om Alaska to Siberia started on 7 October 1942. Soviet pilots faced numerous difficulties, connected with the weather conditions, great distances, “loneliness” of pilots of fighter aircraft flying in V-formation after the lead bomber aircraft. There was a close cooperation between the Americans and Russians along the Alaska-Siberia Airway. Government Purchasing Commission situated in Washington, D.C., organized delivery of US supplies to Siberia in order to provide the Krasnoyarsk airway with necessary equipment. The Commission’s special department was opened in Fairbanks in Alaska, from wh ere the route to Russia started. Its representatives exercised control over the pre-arranged regular supplies, checked technical conditions of equipment sent to the USSR. For their part, the Americans instructed the Soviet pilots at the airbase in Alaska. Russians took care and made technical improvements of the American aircraft adjusting them to specific battle conditions on the Soviet-German front. The role of Alaska - Siberia Airway in the Lend Lease program was substantial. Out of total of 14 203 American planes sent to Russia 7925 were delivered by that route. It was also used as a safe airline for political and business leaders who flew from the USA to the USSR, and back. It was a sort of bridge of practical cooperation between the USA and USSR during the war.

The article considers issues relating to the system of organization of production in the Soviet agriculture in the mid-1950s - early 1960s. During these years N.S. Khrushchev initiated an attempt to improve the efficiency of agricultural sector of the economy trough the mass construction of state farms - agricultural enterprises that were the Soviet analogues of the industrial form of agricultural production. Analysis of motives, progress, methods, results and consequences of state-farm construction during the Khrushchev decade allowed obtaining new important knowledge in order to deepen and concretize understanding of the essence and fate of the Soviet agricultural system as well as specifics of the state economic policy. Particularly valuable is the information about the activities of state farms established in 1954-1955 in the areas of virgin and fallow lands in the Eastern regions of the USSR. Their establishment was considered the lever for growth in corn production, first of all, for the sake of increasing the fodder base for livestock production. State farms were also established in the habitable areas using the resources of kolkhozes in order to increase an output of dairy products and vegetables. Development of state farm network was widely supported by the regional authorities who were interested in transferring the collective farms to the state as it helped to respond more quickly to the social and economic needs of the village and, first of all, to provide rural dwellers with a better income. Believing in huge production capacity of state farms the government often approved regional level proposals for transforming kolkhozes into sovkhozes. Contrary to all expectations, financial, economic and production indicators of many state farms were below forecasts. “Sovkhozisation” failed to achieve the anticipated results due to the fact that it was carried out in a forced manner while neglecting the evolutionary pattern of industrialization of agriculture rooted in economic practices.

The article considers the activities of Academician L.V. Kirensky (1909-1969) as an organizer of the Institute of Physics and Krasnoyarsk Scientific and Educational Complex in Krasnoyarsk. L.V. Kirensky was an outstanding magnetologist and specialist in the physics of magnetic phenomena and biophysics. His name is inextricably connected with the history of academic science and education in Eastern Siberia in the 1940s - 1960s. The purpose of this article is to show based on the study of archival documents and memories of scientists the formation of L.V. Kirensky as a scientist and organizer of science. L.V. Kirensky’s path to science was not easy. A native of Yakutia, after finishing school he worked as a teacher for several years before entering the Moscow State University in 1931. A talented young scientist under the influence of his mentors became so much engrossed in studying the problems of the physics of magnetic phenomena, that this field of research became his life’s work. After a thesis defence the young scientist began teaching at the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical Institute (KSPI). The research capacity gained at the Moscow State University was used by L.V. Kirensky during his work in the Magnetic Laboratory at the Department of Physics of KSPI, which he had started creating before the war. During the war the laboratory gained prominence owing to the development of certain military devices. Further research work in the Magnetic Laboratory of KSPI led to the establishment of the first academic Institute of Physics in Krasnoyarsk in 1956. Under the leadership of L.V. Kirensky the Institute turned into a leading center for research on the problems of physics of magnetic phenomena in the country. At the same time, the Institute of Physics became a kind of «incubator» for several Krasnoyarsk Scientific Research Institutes (SRI), which grew out of its departments. The article also deals with the activities of L.V. Kirensky on creation and development of a complex of academic institutions in Krasnoyarsk and establishment of the Krasnoyarsk State University.

Studying the early works on regional history written by a well known Siberian historian and archeologist Aleksey Pavlovich Umansky is of particular interest not only for the purpose of reconstructing his scientific career but also for investigating the cultural landscape of a provincial town in the second half of the 1950s-early 1960s, when the contradictory tendencies of the “Thaw” began to manifest themselves in the regional communities. The scholar’s works written in the middle of the 1950s present a mixture of properly scientific factors with the ideological motives. In further articles, reviews, resource books and in the summarizing work “Cultural Monuments of Altai” the political declarations were gradually overcome; he worked out a critical approach to some dogmatic statements of official propaganda and successfully addressed various problems in his scientific and regional studies. The immensity of A.P. Umansky’s personality was revealed in his ability to get out of his everyday duties and mobilize his intellectual resources to solve a broader range of problems of his scientific and local lore studies. His transfer from a higher educational institution to school and then to an administrative institution didn’t help to enhance his research activities. However even then A.P.Umansky tried to realize his scientific potential and prepared several popular scientific publications, wrote a number of reviews which, on the one hand, were in line with his work as inspector of the Department of Culture. On the other hand, they can be considered as the first experience of systematizing and summarizing historical sources and working out methods and skills of scientific research as such. The author concludes that A.P. Umansky should be considered a representative of the generation of the Sixtiers in the sense that the new tendencies in social life made it possible for him to form his own nonstandard creative personality free of provincial narrow-mindedness and odious officialism while living far from scientific and cultural centers of the country.

The purpose of the article is to show the role of museum associations in development and improvement of museums’ activities. Since the museums have opened their doors to the public, they have required public support: material, intellectual and spiritual. As a natural and integral part of our social environment, museums have developed together with the society, constantly expanding their functions. Being aware of the role of cultural heritage in ensuring sustainable development, the modern society increasingly complicates the tasks of the museum and actively participates in their solution. Public associations play an important role in social interaction with museums. The first non-governmental organizations, the so-called “Association of Museums” created solely for the support of museum institutions, appeared in the late XIX century in England, the USA, Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden and other countries. Public associations have greatly contributed to the improvement of various activities of museums, interaction of museum professionals with representatives of various spheres of activity interested in preservation of cultural heritage. Today the problem of public support for museum activities is of global character. A special place in the system of public support of museums is occupied by an authoritative public organization - the International Council of Museums (ICOM), created in 1946 within the structure of UNESCO. ICOM unites 35000 museums in 137 countries, 115 national committees, 31 International Committees, more than 30 thousand individual and collective members. The article focuses on the history and development of one of the structural units of ICOM - Committee for Museology (ICOFOM). Analysis of the Committee’s experience shows that the development of national museums is greatly enriched by the exchange of information, the study of international experience of museums. Intercultural dialogue contributes to the search for new forms and technologies of preservation of cultural heritage.

The article provides analysis of research and institutional capacity in the field of museology and experience in museumification of the Institute of History, SB RAS. It highlights current and promising forms of presentation and development of the scientific heritage: active cooperation with the Committee for Museology in Asia and the Pacific (ASPAC), integration of science, culture and education, formation of exhibition space for presenting the history and modern developments in the Siberian science. Since 1994 the SB RAS Museum Scientific Council has been operating on the basis of the Institute of History. Since 2008 the Institute of History has been involved in the activities of ASPAC. In 2012 the Institute became a collective member of the Russian National Committee of ICOM, Committee for Museology of the International Council of Museums (ICOM-UNESCO). Taking into consideration that scientific research is one of the most important areas of work of ICOFOM and its regional Committee ASPAC the Institute of History under the auspices of SB RAS Museum Scientific Council has attained a number of significant results in the field of museology. The All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference “Contemporary Trends in Development of Museums and Museology” (2011, 2014) has become one of the “brands” of the Institute of History, SB RAS and can be viewed as an actual form of presentation and development of historical, cultural and scientific heritage of Russia. At the present time in compliance with global trends three research units of the Institute of History serve as a basis for a promising direction for further work connected with the regional scientific and cultural heritage development. Actual and innovative forms of the scientific heritage presentation by the Institute of History, SB RAS include project activities aimed at integration of science, culture and education. Fruitful cooperation resulted in implementation of several international and All-Russian interdisciplinary projects.

The article analyzes journalistic works of Ivan Ivanovich Popov, a political exile, one of the members of the organization “Popular Will” whose name was well-known in Irkutsk in the 1890s-1900s. I.I. Popov never concealed his political beliefs; he was not a monarchist and always stood for a radical democratization of the political system in Russia. Popov’s established political image seems dissonant with the opinion of redactors of “The United Catalogue of the Siberian and Far Eastern Books...”, published in 2004, that it was Popov who wrote an article published in the supplement to “Irkutskie eparkhialnye vedomosti” (Irkutsk diocesan journal) (1891. №№ 26, 28, 32) and entitled “Visit of His Imperial Highness Faithful Sovereign Heir Tsesarevitch the Grand Duke Nicholas Alexandrovich to Irkutsk”. This article was written in a faithful, monarchist and patriotic spirit. Because of his political beliefs I.I. Popov could not be the author of this publication. The redactors of the catalogue drew their conclusion from the fact that the article was signed with a pseudonym “Irkutyanin” (Native of Irkutsk) which actually belonged to I.I. Popov. This fact was stated by such bibliographers as Masanov I.F. and Petryaev E.D., however they did not argue that Popov was the author of the above mentioned article. Analysis of the Irkutsk periodicals provided quite foreseeable results. There were at least two people with the same pseudonym. Moreover, they were namesakes. One of them was N.I. Verkhoturov, an Irkutsk painter, famous for his revolutionary views. Another one was Nikolay Verkhoturov, who appeared to be a Transbaikalian merchant. However, careful examination of their notes in the “Vostochnoe Obozrenie” (Eastern Review) has led to conclusion that more than likely none of them wrote the article about the meeting of the Tsarevitch in Irkutsk. Thus, possibly there could be yet another “Irkutyanin” (Native of Irkutsk), who used this pseudonym in newspapers in the 1890s. But who was he? The answer to this question requires further research.

Researchers of the history of Old-Belief consider the early eighteenth century as a period of particular interest, as it was the time when the Old Believer accords’ ideology formed. At that period the adherents of the Old Belief actively debated with representatives of the official Orthodox Church. As a result of the missionaries’ activity the famous “D`iakonovy otvety” and “Pomorskie otvety” were created. They presented a detailed exposition of the advocated point of view. Researchers have already pointed out that there has been insufficient research on the preparatory stage of writing these fundamental manuscript monuments. The author uses four books related to the name of Timofey Lysenin, a Deacons’ Old Believer writer. These books are important sources for the study of issues concerning the work of the Old Believer writers in gathering testimonies in favor of their point of view. The article introduces for scientific use a manuscript dated from the early XVIII century (1714 is given in the manuscript as the date of its creation) from the State Public Scientific Technical Library, SB RAS, the fond of M.N. Tikhomirov, № 529. This manuscript is an indication of the attempt to create the literary monument based on the four “Books” by Timofey Lysenin. The analysis of the contents of the above-mentioned manuscript allows concluding that certain chapters and fragments from the “Books” by Timofey Lysenin were used in its composition. These materials were revised and completed by the compiler, a new introduction was written. It allows us to view the “Book” from the fond of M.N. Tikhomirov as a new phase of work carried out either by Timofey Lysenin himself or by some unknown Deacon’s writer.

Dynаmics of the vendace of Lake Syamozero was monitored on the basis of the data collected for more than 75 years, and the evaluation of the present condition of the fish was given. The main biological parameters of the fish (body length and mass, gender, maturity, fecundity) were anаlyzed. The causes of the variations in the vendace number from year to year were considered.