Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „Problems, 1917-1919“

The article is devoted to the characterization and dynamics of the development of the partisan movement during the Civil War in the territory of modern Kemerovo Region in 1918-1919. The issues of the activity of individual partisan detachments in the territory of Kuzbass are considered. Attention is paid to the specifics of the partisan movement in this territory. Based on the analysis of archival data and local media materials, the military operations of partisan detachments are described. The question is raised of the partisan movement role in the victory of the Reds. The novelty of the study is in the fact that for the first time on the basis of processing a wide range of sources the state and dynamics of the partisan movement in Kuzbass during the years of the Civil War are presented. The features of the partisan movement in the region are demonstrated. The reasons for the entry of peasants into the ranks of partisans are revealed. The relevance of the study is due to its scientific and social significance. The first is determined by the fact that this kind of research, based on an analysis of a wide range of sources, is considered for the first time. The second is related to the need to rethink the features of the course of the civil war in the regions of the country and to attract the attention of scientists and society to the problems of a split in society during the crisis years.

The article analyzes one of the problems of inter-party interaction in Russia in 1917–1924, which was not studies either intentionally or occasionally by Russian or foreign scholars. The subject of the research is the admission of socialists, who quit other parties, to the RSDLP(b) - RCP(b): more specifically who resigned the membership of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (of Internationalists), Mensheviks, Right and Left wings of Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, Socialist-Revolutionaries-autonomists, Union of Socialists-Revolutionaries Maximalists, Party of Revolutionary Communism, anarchists and so on. Based on the wide range of published materials, including data from the central and local periodicals, as well as unique archival sources that were added to the ever-growing aggregate of scientific knowledge for the first time, the article investigate, when, how and on what conditions former members of socialist parties (so-called “vykhodets”) were accepted for the RSDLP(b) – RCP(b) membership. The authors conclude that during 1917-1924 the conditions of admitting to Bolshevik Party changed crucially. At different moments, the Communist leadership solved different problems allowing former socialists to join the Bolshevik ranks. In 1917-1919 the admission of former socialists was initiated in order to rise the number of members of the RSDLP(b) - RCP(b), and the target audience mainly consisted of revolutionaries who had extensive experience in party and social work. After the October Revolution in 1917, the entering former members of the other parties to the Bolshevik party was considered as a tool of splitting and fragmentation of socialist parties and groups that were opponents and / or competitor for the Bolsheviks. Since the end of 1919, the admission of socialists to the RCP(b) had been gradually lost its significance as a source of recruiting and transformed mainly into an instrument for the destruction of the Mensheviks and Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, as well as a mechanism for the adoption and incorporation of small groups with socialist and communist orientation. Since 1921, the admission of former socialists to the RCP(b) actually ceased to play the role into the process of increasing membership, but became one of the most important implement of degrading and defeating the Mensheviks and Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries. From the beginning of 1924, it was used exclusively as a factor of discrediting the socialists.

The author reviews how the authorities for managing out-of-school education and public libraries, as well as professional training in the central cities and other regions, were established. The Library Section of NARKOMPROS Out-of-school Department was among the early Soviet institutions in charge of library professional training. The section was headed by O. I. Chachina. The priority problems to be solved by the Library section (soon transformed into the Library Subdepartment) are listed.

Introduction. The history of Tsaritsyn as a frontier is a unique example of urbanization, the struggle for which was both ideological and strategic. Since the Russian Revolution of 1917, the city has been under pressure from the ideological systems of the “fiery revolutionaries” of 1917, the Bolsheviks and their opponents in 1917–1920. Methods. Using the accumulated historiographical material, based on the material of the local periodical press, practically not put into circulation, an attempt is made to reconstruct the life of Tsaritsyn in 1917–1920. Analysis. The analysis revealed a number of important problems. The central problem of the city was the food issue, which reached a crisis stage under the influence of public criticism of the government’s actions to introduce food appropriation (1916) and was not resolved until the end of the war. The crisis, aggravated by revolutionary actions, introduced the public into (2) a spiritual crisis, which manifested itself in the unwillingness of people to participate in the activities of self-government. Fuel, crime, epidemiological and budgetary problems led to the breakdown of the urban economy and the lack of combat capability of the military. The capture of the city by the Whites in 1919 only worsened the urban economy. The public was in crisis and quickly panicked at reports of the threat of a fall in volunteer power. The return of the city to the leadership of the Red Army and the creation of an independent province with its center in Tsaritsyn led to the gradual restoration of the city on the basis of an industrial base established in the 19th century. Results. Research into the history of Tsaritsyn during the transition years has shown that radical transformations and the inconsistent policy of successive regimes led to the deformation of urban structures, bringing them into a state of permanent crisis. Only the end of hostilities and the establishment of a stable state course of development can provide the potential for the functioning of the city within the state.

Ключові слова: «Варшавська угода», «Союз Пілсудський–Петлюра», УНР, Симон Петлюра,Юзеф Пілсудський, «Київський похід». У статті проаналізовано передумови, процес і результати Варшавської угоди 1920 р. між Польщею іУНР, яка в польській історіографії названа «Союзом Пілсудський–Петлюра». Розкрито також зміствійськової конвенції, була підписана 24 квітня 1920 року і стала додатком до самого договору і являла собоютаємну угоду про надання військової та економічної допомоги УНР у спільній війні з Радянською Росією.Продовженням згаданих угод став фінансовий польсько-український договір від 9 серпня 1920 р. Польськавлада виконувала союзницькі обов’язки перед Україною й на міжнародній арені.Правове, політичне, фінансове і дипломатичне забезпечення Варшавського договору, названого пізніше«Союзом Пілсудський–Петлюра», відбувалося майже одночасно зі спільним антибільшовицьким походом наКиїв, який розпочався 25 квітня 1920 р.Отже, відносини між Польщею і УНР у 20-х роках ХХ ст. еволюціонували від взаємного протистояннядо співпраці. Серед найважливіших актів цього періоду слід назвати Варшавську угоду, військову конвенцію іспільний польсько-український похід на Київ. Так, були закладені традиції польсько-української співпраці, якізнайшли своє продовження в майбутньому. Посилання Vynnychenko, 1990 – Vynnychenko V. Vidrodzhennia natsii [Rebirth of the nation]. (Istoriia ukrainskoi revoliutsii[marets 1917 r. – hruden 1919 r.]). Chastyna III. Repryntne vidtvorennia vydannia 1920 roku. K., 1990. 542 s. [inUkrainian].Hud, 2006 – Hud B. Zahybel Arkadii. Etnosotsialni aspekty ukrainsko-polskykh konfliktiv KhIKh – pershoi polovynyKhKh stolit [The death of Arcadia. Ethno-social aspects of the Ukrainian-Polish conflicts of the 19th and the first halfof the 20th centuries]. Lviv, 2006. 448 s. [in Ukrainian].Hud, Holubko, 1997 – Hud B., Holubko V. Nelehka doroha do porozuminnia. Do pytannia genezy ukrainsko-polskohoviiskovo-politychnoho spivrobitnytstva 1917–1921 rr. [The road to understanding is not easy. On the question of thegenesis of Ukrainian-Polish military-political cooperation in 1917–1921]. Lviv, 1997. 65 s. [in Ukrainian].Dotsenko, 2001 – Dotsenko O. Zymovyi pokhid (6.XII.1919 – 6.V.1920) [Winter campaign (6.XII.1919 – 6.V.1920)].K., 2001. 375 s. [in Ukrainian].Kedryn, 1979 – Kedryn I. Sobornist. Z nahody 60-richchia Aktu 22 sichnia 1919 roku [Congregationalism. On theoccasion of the 60th anniversary of the Act of January 22, 1919] // Almanakh UNS [Ukrainskoho Narodnoho Soiuzu]. Ustorichchia narodzhennia Symona Petliury. Dzherzi Syti-Niu-York, 1979. № 69. S. 43–48. [in Ukrainian].Kolianchuk, 2000 – Kolianchuk O. Ukrainska viiskova emihratsiia u Polshchi (1920–1939) [Ukrainian militaryemigration in Poland (1920–1939)]: Dys... kand. ist. nauk: 20.02.22 / Derzhavnyi un-t «Lvivska politekhnika». Lviv,2000. 204 s. [in Ukrainian].Krasivskyi, 2000 – Krasivskyi O. Ya. Halychyna u pershii chverti KhKh st.: Problemy polsko-ukrainskykh stosunkiv[Galicia in the first quarter of the 20th century: Problems of Polish-Ukrainian relations]. Lviv, 2000. 416 s. [inUkrainian].Krasivskyi, 2008 – Krasivskyi O. Ya. Ukrainsko-polski vzaiemyny v 1917–1923 rr. [Ukrainian-Polish relations in1917–1923]. K., 2008. 544 s. [in Ukrainian].Lytvyn, 2000 – Lytvyn S. Vbyvstvo Petliury i HPU. Do istoriohrafii problemy [The murder of Petliura and the GPU. Tothe historiography of the problem] // Z arkhiviv VUChK–NKVD–KHB. 2000. № 2/4. S. 404–407. [in Ukrainian].Lytvyn, 2001 – Lytvyn S. Sud istorii: Symon Petliura i Petliuriana [Court of history: Simon Petlyura and Petlyuriana].K., 2001. 640 s. [in Ukrainian].Mazepa, 2003 – Mazepa I. Ukraina v ohni i buri revoliutsii 1917–1921 [Ukraine in the fire and storm of the revolution1917–1921]. K., 2003. 608 s. [in Ukrainian].Mandzenko, 1979 – Mandzenko K. Petliura, petliurivtsi, petliurivstvo. Do storichchia vid dnia narodzhennia Holovnohootamana Symona Petliury 1879–1979 [Petlyura, Petlyura people, Petlyuraism. To the centenary of the birth of ChiefAtaman Simon Petliura 1879–1979] // Almanakh UNS. U storichchia narodzhennia Symona Petliury. Dzherzi Syti–NiuYork , 1979. № 69. S. 9–21. [in Ukrainian].Rukkas, 2015 – Rukkas A. O. «Razom z polskym viiskom»: Armiia Ukrainskoi Narodnoi Respubliky 1920 r.(struktura, orhanizatsiia, chyselnist, uniforma) [Together with the «Polish army»: the Army of the Ukrainian People'sRepublic in 1920 (structure, organization, numbers, uniform)]. K., 2015. 480 s. [in Ukrainian].Sekretnoe sohlashenye… – Sekretnoe sohlashenye mezhdu pravytelstvom Polshy y petliurovskoi dyrektoryei ukraynskoi nezavysymoi respublyky o pryznanyy UNR y sotrudnychestve, zakliuchennoe 21.IV.1920 h. (fotokopyy)[Secret agreement... - Secret agreement between the government of Poland and the Petliura directory of the Ukrainianindependent republic on the recognition of the UNR and cooperation, concluded on April 21, 1920 (photocopies)]// Rossyiskyi hosudarstvennыi voennыi arkhyv (RHVA), f. 461/k, op. 2, d. 41. [in Russian].Stakhiv, 1966 – Stakhiv M. Ukraina v dobi Dyrektorii UNR [Ukraine in the era of the UNR Directory]. T. 7. Vykhid izkryzy. Skrenton, 1966. 431 s. [in Ukrainian].Tynchenko, 2007 – Tynchenko Ya. Ofitserskyi korpus Armii Ukrainskoi Narodnoi Respubliky (1917–1921) [OfficerCorps of the Army of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917–1921)]. K., 2007. 536 s. [in Ukrainian].Shandruk, 2008 – Shandruk P. Syla doblesti [The power of valor]. Ivano-Frankivsk, 2008. 236 s. [in Ukrainian].Shelukhin, 1926 – Shelukhin S. Varshavskyi dohovir mizh poliakamy i S. Petliuroiu 21 kvitnia 1920 roku [The WarsawPact between the Poles and S. Petliura on April 21, 1920]. 2-e vyd. Praha, 1926. 40 s. [in Ukrainian].

Socio-political transformations caused by the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1921, made not only political issues relevant but also cultural and even ideological. In the struggle for statehood could not be ignored church problems that became very popular in society not in 1917, but only in 1918. It is this year that the autocephalous movement in the Ukrainian church space of the centre-region, whose members declared their desire to create a Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of the Russian Orthodox Church, is appearing and actualized. The article reflects the process of Ukrainianization of liturgical life as an integral part of the autocephalous movement. An example of the activities of Ukrainian composers at the beginning of the 20th century shows their place in the creation of church works in Ukrainian, which became part of the spiritual heritage of Ukraine and the world. In addition, the authors point to the educational movement, which was caused by Ukrainianization of church life and its scale. The Ukrainian church tradition is the heritage of the Ukrainian people. It has been formed for centuries and belongs today to the national cultural heritage of the state. It is based on the spiritual experience of generations, which at the genetic level affects the formation of the mentality of the nation. This metaphysical process goes beyond the limits of human rationality and empiricity and is practically not always guided. Domestic cultural space of Ukraine was formed under the influence of various factors. One of them was the church. The place of the church in the life of the Ukrainian people, of course, should not be underestimated. Soviet historiography attempted to deny this fact, to interpret it in its own, ideologically atheistic dogmas, and order. However, from a historic retrospective, today we have a great opportunity to see that, to a large extent, it was in the church environment that we managed to preserve the original traditions of the Ukrainian people, its sacred legacy, language. The authors aim is to show the phenomenon of Ukrainianization of liturgical life in Ukraine in one of the most dramatic periods in the national history of the twentieth century. 1917 became the frontier in the modern history of Ukraine. Revolutionary events intensified the initiatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia that long settled on the margins of social consciousness. Competitions for statehood brought to the general churchreligious issues. The All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council in 1918, which gave rise to political battles of the time, frankly testified to the presence in the Ukrainian society of the population who sought ecclesiastical autocephaly for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In this regard, the national idea was closely intertwined with the Christian tradition of the people, since the latter was firmly rooted in national culture. Despite all the difficulties that arose during discussions about the theme of the independence of the domestic church space from the Russian Orthodox Church, the Third, the last and the key, the session of the Council became the most significant for the Ukrainian church in the search for its own national identity. She was tried to show through the prism of various factors, in particular – spiritual music and liturgical ritual. Thus, a special Commission on Ukrainianization of the Liturgy was created, which considered the reform of church chants, which included both leading musicians and priests. An urgent issue that was discussed during the meetings of the commission on the Ukrainianization of liturgical life in the Ukrainian church was the introduction of universal church singing in Ukrainian churches. Ultimately, one of the key consequences of the church debate during the First All-Ukrainian Church Council was the question of Ukrainianization of the Ukrainian church in general and its clear separation from the Russian cultural space. Thus, analyzing the entire spectrum of socio-political processes at the end of 1917 – early 1919, we can state the fact that for the first time in many decades Ukrainians have had a real chance to declare themselves on the geographical and political map of Europe.

The author reveals in the context of the analysis of the work of historians existing in the Soviet and modern historiography the main problems of Cossack and non-resident population of the don, analyzes the political preferences and sympathies of the Cossacks and the peasantry of the don Cossacks before and during the revolution of 1917-1918гг, determining the value of discussion and unexplored issues of this important topic. Specifics of the process of regional patogeneza all the main political directions. Defined: among some of the frontline (the average of the Cossack middle peasants) and Cossacks, and especially of the poor in 1917-1919.g became popular and the idea of popular Soviet and socialist democracy. It is concluded that many factors contributed to the aggravation of contradictions between different social groups of the Cossacks and Cossack, the peasant and the provinces, the working population of the region. The lack of understanding, lack of experience of the culture of political and social compromise, mutual concessions complex interweaving of elements of the century and inter-class hatred, sometimes burdened with ethno-cultural and inter-religious hostility, severity and complexity “of the agrarian question", belittling the status of non-resident and working population of the region, has led to a gradual slide towards bloody civil war. “Don Vendee" in the end, was the beginning of the global Russian civil war.

The study of the Russian railways functioning in the days of the First World War is one of most important topics for understanding Russian economy problems on the eve of the Russian revolution, as well as for comprehending the 1917 revolution itself. The transport crisis, which in 1915 already became a manifestation of the governance problems, was obviously one of the components of the revolutionary situation that had developed in the Russian Empire by 1917. Identifying government capabilities for preventing crisis is one of relevant tasks for studying the history of Russia during the First World War. A key aspect thereof is consideration of the transport situation in the capital — Petrograd. The expansion of source base for this topic is the main goal of the author. The article analyzes the text of the explanatory note to the general scheme for the development and reorganization of the Petrograd railway junction, drafted in the Administration of the Nikolaevskaya railway by engineers S.I.Kulzhinsky and A.A. Glavatsky (late 1915). This document shows that Russian engineers were well aware of the transport problems in the Russian capital and proposed solutions that could have helped to avoid food crises, such as the one that arose in February 1917. Moreover, the plan was to take into account planned cargo turnover up to 1930 and difficulties that were to emerge in the future (for example, connecting the railway network to the city metro). After its approval by the Special Council on Transportation, in March 1916 loans were allocated for the work. But it was too late: the revolution and the ensuing Civil War prevented the implementation of the project. In 1919, construction works finally stopped and constructed sections were dismantled. Some of the recommendations were implemented in the 20th century, but a significant part of the proposals remained on paper. However, many proposals remain relevant today for improving the transport system in St. Petersburg. For instance, the main theses of the plan may prove useful for the development of plans for linking St. Petersburg to the high-speed highway Moscow—St. Petersburg. The study has drawn on materials from the Russian State Historical Archive and from the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg.

The article is devoted to the problems related to the possible military-political alliance of the White Guards of the south of Russia and the mountain liberal figures during 1918-1919. It is proved that the prospects for such a combination of efforts were fully justified. Throughout 1917, the mountain and Terek Cossack leaders established quite successful relations based on a general rejection of the growing influence of the Bolsheviks in the Caucasus region. Attention is focused on the successful episodes of the anti-Bolshevik struggle: the Provisional Terek-Dagestan gov-ernment, the Terek anti-Bolshevik uprising of 1918, the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks in the North Caucasus. Conclusions are drawn that despite the obvious mutual benefit from joining forces to fight the Bolsheviks, the political ambitions of the leadership of the White Guards and mountain activists prevailed and eventually led to the defeat of all anti-Bolshevik forces in the North Caucasus.

ZusammenfassungDer Beitrag thematisiert signifikante Berührungen zwischen Wiener Kreis und Heidelberger Weber-Kreis, wie sie sich hauptsächlich in der kritischen Auseinandersetzung um den modernen Kapitalismus ergeben haben. Die Kontakte wurden primär durch Neurath und Lederer hergestellt. Unter fünf Aspekten wird das Diskursfeld dieser Berührungen abgesteckt. Den kulturellen Rahmen liefern Jugendbewegung und Lebensreform mit ihrem „Hunger nach Ganzheit“. Erörtert wird zweitens der Zusammenhang von „Gemeinschaft“ und „Gemeinwirtschaft“ für das lebensreformerische Wirtschaftsdenken. Drittens sind die Begegnungen zwischen Jugend und Professoren auf den von Eugen Diederichs organisierten Lauensteiner Kulturtagungen im welthistorischen Jahr von 1917 auszuwerten. Daran anschließend geht es viertens um die Pläne und Probleme der „Sozialisierung“ in der Revolution von 1918/1919. Im Ergebnis lassen sich fünftens in der Konstellation Neurath-Lederer-Weber die Gegensätze und Überschneidungen zwischen Weber-Kreis und Wiener Kreis ermitteln.

Abstract The United States’ approach toward the new Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia was fraught with contradictions. On one hand, Woodrow Wilson believed, as he told William Wiseman, Colonel House, and other personal advisors and confidants, not only that the Russian people should be left alone to work out their own salvation, but even that they should be forced to get themselves together and work it out. Only after democracy had been given a chance in Russia, and the differences “worked out,” could the United States “do business” with Russia. A major problem of this approach plagued Wilson throughout his final term in the White House: what do you do with the Bolsheviks while you are waiting, and hoping, and helping, the Russian people return to their senses and “return” democracy to their country?

China declared war on the Central Powers in 1917. But the press usually called the First World War the “European War”, that is, a war that was not immediately China’s problem. Over the course of the war years, the press’s assessment of the “European War” changed. In its early years, journals and newspapers largely described it in the spirit of Carl von Clausewitz’s famous dictum that “war is a mere continuation of politics by other means”. China’s entry into the war was of interest mostly in terms of how it could contribute to China’s longstanding politics of ridding the country of Western imperialism. But as European and American politicians and publics distanced themselves from thinking about war in Clausewitzian terms and instead began to discuss it in terms of just and unjust wars towards the end of the First World War, the Chinese press followed this just war turn. The “European War”, in the eyes of some of the Chinese press, now became a battle between good and evil. Soon, however, interest in the war was overshadowed by a focus on the May Fourth Movement of 1919, which would result in the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921.

M.O. Gershenzon’s works on Pushkin are often considered in the context of the Pushkin Myth of the Russian Silver Age. The general statement is true, but at the same time it represents a certain conventionality, namely: it assumesthat commenting Pushkin’s work was, for Gershenzon, only an opportunity to express his own philosophical ideas, thus ignoring the concept of personal vision proposed by the scholar, and the problem of research subjectivity in general. In a sense, individual position, especially in humanities, can be represented as a kind of “mythology”; however, this approach does not help to clarify specific cases of individual position. This article deals primarily with the research principles of Gershenzon as a Pushkinist, his individual approach to studying and commenting the poet’s works, which enabled him to view Pushkin’s works as an important part of the World Wisdom, where the word of revelation appeals to the “primal myth”. The Wisdom of Pushkin (1917–1919) reveals a universal Wisdom in the continuity of ideas and images traced in the history of language. From this point of view, Gershenzon’s studies on Pushkin are a multilayered commentary on some conceivable original text, which includes everything was ever created and things yet to come. Here can be found an energy that Gershenzon called “Streams of Spirit” (in his book about Pushkin and Heraclitus, Gulfstream, 1922), circulating in universal Thought and connecting the “primal myth” with ideas and images of the present and foresight of the world to come. In this unity, the original text continues to be written incessantly, by every word of the poet, scholar, commentator, or reader.

The article considers the problems of regional peculiarities of social status and social trajectories caused by the revolutionary transformations in Russia, representatives of the former propertied strata of a provincial city in 1917-1919 on the micro level, based on mass personalized sources, through the prism of the destinies of specific people. The sources, structure and research potential of source-oriented databases are described.

The article considers the problems of regional peculiarities of social status and social trajectories caused by the revolutionary transformations in Russia, representatives of the former propertied strata of a provincial city in 1917-1919 on the micro level, based on mass personalized sources, through the prism of the destinies of specific people. The sources, structure and research potential of source-oriented databases are described.

The president Constantin Leancă of Zemstvei, Bălți county, is originally from Movileni village, Cuhnești commune, Bălți county (today Glodeni district) was born on 10 April 1893. In the 1915 is mobilized in the army, Russian imperian and participated in the First World War. In 1917 he is elected president of the Balți, Zemstva. On 3 March, 1918 Zemstva deputies voted for union with România. Over the years 1919-1940 he was elected deputy in the Romanian parliament 7 times. On 28 June, 1940, soviet armies occupy Bessarabia, and Constantin Leancă in arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison. The Romanian patriot from Bălți County died in 1942, in a Soviet concentration camp, from the Gorki region, Russia. By decision of the R.S.S.M. since January 9, 1990 it has been rehabilitated. A plaque commemorating C. Leanca was erected at his birthplace.