«Мусульманский Азеф» и русская революция: между авантюризмом и мошенничеством?
Proceeding from the case of an impostor, an adventurer, a fraudster and a man of letters, best known as Magomet-Bek Hadzhetlashe (aka Kazi-Bek Akhmetukov et al.), the problem is posed of how we describe adventurism today, what attracts us to it and why these descriptions can radically differ from the perceptions of contemporaries.
This volume presents a series of essays from leading international scholars that expand our understanding of the Russian Revolution through the detailed study of specific localities. Answering the important question of how locality affected the revolutionary experience, these essays provide regional snapshots from across Russia that highlight important themes of the revolution. Drawing on new empirical research from local archives, the authors contribute to the larger historiographic debates on the social and political meaning of the Russian revolution as well as the nature of the Russian state. Russia’s Revolution in Regional Perspective highlights several important themes of the period that are reflected in this volume: a multitudinal state, the fluidity of party politics, the importance of violence as an historical agent, individual experiences, and the importance of economics and social forces. We reconceptualize developments in Russia between 1914 and 1922 as a kaleidoscopic process whose dynamic was not solely determined in the capitals.
In this article is made an attempt to reconstruct the attitude of the historian A.N.Savin to the situation in Russia in 1917 and after that, to analise his political views and ideas.
Since the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union the historiography of revolutionary Russia has developed a distinct provincial turn. The opening of Soviet central and provincial archives provided new research opportunities to historians. Numerous articles and volumes focusing on Russia’s provinces have since appeared on both sides of the former Soviet border, and the historiography of the Russian revolution matured with an accelerated speed to account for multiple local variables. The understanding of multiplicity of local experiences profoundly changed and challenged the historical interpretations of the crisis that played out in Russia from 1917 to 1921. The article discusses the variety of local revolutionary experiences as they are revealed in recent historiography, but also focuses on some larger themes and issues where this regional perspective provides new insights and affects the general understanding of the Russian revolution. In particular, it discusses the factors contributing to the disintegration and reconstruction of the state, including the patterns and meaning of power in a provincial context, mechanisms of popular mobilization in the civil-war period including in Russia’s non-Russian regions, as well as transition to peace.
This chapter discusses peasant political attitudes during the Russian Revolution and Civil War on the example of their interaction with zemstvos. Focusing on the zemstvo self-government in Arkhangel’sk province in the Russian North between 1917 and early 1920, it tells two interconnected stories: an institutional story of the Northern zemstvo during the Revolution and Civil War and a story of effective peasant collaboration with changing political regimes. I argue that peasants did support different forms of local government if these served the needs of the village and mediated between rural communes and the state. The example of zemstvo self-government in the Russian North highlights the importance of particular local conditions for shaping political and administrative structures of the Civil-War era. An examination of zemstvo activities in the Northern countryside also reveals that during the Civil War when political authority was increasingly fragmented, northern peasants did not seek to break ties with the state. Instead, they tried to engage the state power that was currently controlling their territory.
This chapter analyzes the inflamed political debates that took place among prominent Jewish publicists in Weimar Berlin. The "Berlin debates" articulated the tragic dilemma of the Jews as being simultaneously the subjects and the victims of the Russian Revolution.
In the book, commented on the story of Ivan Bunin "Clean Monday"
This article considers the evolution of the Russian university system during the First World War. Most of the imperial period, until the end of 1916, thanks to the liberal policy of the Minister of People’s Education, Pavel Nikolayevič Ignat’ev, a reformist course was implemented (drafting of a new statute, increasing the autonomy of universities). Particularly important and promising was the expansion of universities’ network and opening of new universities in Rostov-on-Don, Perm, as well as the expansion of Saratov and Tomsk universities. In 1917 Ministers of Education of the Provisional Government (A. Manuilov, S. Oldenburg, S. Salazkin) also followed the Ignat’ev’s liberal course received support with the bottom-up initiatives (introduction of regular institution of associate professors, attracting of younger lecturers to the university management). Paradoxically, for the university system the result of crisis which lasted through the war period and the beginning of the revolution marked the democratization of management and the expansion of the students’ enrollment and the number of universities.
The Revolution of 1905 forced the Russian autocracy to accept the convocation of the State Duma. After the Revolution's defeat, the Duma belonged to a new political system in which the Tsar conserved a very great power. The promulgation of the Law of March 8th 1906 imposed a significant restriction on the budgetary prerogatives of the Duma and allowed the Administration to maintain a real control over the financial field. In the facts, the political confrontation between tsarist power and liberal members of the Parliament did not make possible to engage the needed thorough reform of the structures and management practices of the Russian finances. This paper aims to clarify the stakes and reality of the changes as a result of the Revolution of 1905 and the formation of parliamentarism in the public finances development of the imperial Russia.