home Vitamins and dietary supplements The national question in revolution and civil war. Russian history

The national question in revolution and civil war. Russian history

One of the common theses of Soviet and White propaganda was the thesis that the White movement stands for a united, indivisible Russia. But how differently this thesis was understood in Soviet and white propaganda.

In Soviet propaganda, the propaganda of the Bolsheviks, the thesis about a single, indivisible Russia was characterized something like this: the whites are bringing the revival of the prison of peoples, almost a colonial yoke in relation to the peoples Central Asia, Far East, Siberia, small nationalities, to say nothing of the Jewish question, the fact that whites are anti-Semites was emphasized in every possible way in Soviet propaganda, and this was one of the very important theses after the 1917 revolution.

In white propaganda, the same slogan for a united, indivisible Russia, strange as it may seem, did not carry precisely national-state overtones. It had, first of all, a social connotation, that is, it was assumed that a single, indivisible Russia is the unification of all classes, all citizens of the Russian state, the entire people, and here it was precisely national unity that was assumed, and not the unity of some specific, specific people: the Russian , Ukrainian, Jewish, etc. That is, the interests of statehood, national interests were placed above the interests of individual nationalities, and in this regard, one could probably talk about a certain imperial vector, an imperial component of white propaganda.

But what was the national policy? white movement. And could the thesis of Soviet propaganda be realized in reality that the slightest aspirations for freedom of small nationalities, individual nationalities and nations within the Russian state will be suppressed and that there can be no talk - and this, by the way, was also a very popular thesis - about that the White movement does not recognize any independence of the former parts of the Russian Empire: Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and other republics. How true was all this?

This question can be answered unambiguously and clearly, in my opinion. In the event of a victorious end of the Civil War for the whites, it was assumed that a single, but federal, or even to some extent confederal statehood would be recreated. True, these terms “federation” and “confederation” were almost never used. A much more common definition was the term “regional autonomy”, “regionalism”. What did this mean?

Regionalism, regional autonomy, first of all meant that every nationality, every territory within the former Russian Empire has the right to a certain degree of independence. But the degree of this independence, of course, should be different, should vary. This could be local self-government, it could be some kind of cultural autonomy, in the event that a given nationality, a given nation does not have any claims to independence - to secession from Russia, it could be a modern subject of the federation, to put it modern language. Although I would like to note once again that the Whites tried not to use the term “federation” itself. But if this is the case, this subject, this regional unit must have local authorities, must have a local parliament, some kind of local head of executive power.

And, of course, there are those parts of the Russian Empire that, with all the great desire, even in the event of victory over Soviet power, it will no longer be possible to return to the formerly united Russia. If we talk about specific examples of this kind. Those parts of Russia that, perhaps, will no longer return to its composition are, first of all, Poland and Finland. It was unequivocally stated regarding them that they would have their own political independence. However, controversial territorial issues arose; it was necessary to clearly define the line state border, clearly imagine which part of the territory will go to Russia, and which will remain with Poland and Finland. Then a similar scheme began to be applied to the Baltic republics - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These issues had to be finally approved by the same national assembly, the same Zemsky Sobor, which will just approve this model, relatively speaking, of the regional structure.

The second type, which I have already mentioned, is the version of federal governance. The most striking, characteristic example of it is the Cossack regions. Twelve Cossack troops and an additional two Cossack troops created by Kolchak - the Yenisei and Irkutsk, all of them, without exception, had their own self-government: their own parliaments, their own atamans. And neither Kolchak nor Denikin attempted to eliminate them. Of course, there were some incidents, some controversial issues related to the desire of some Cossack deputies and politicians to secede from Russia altogether. Such sentiments were, for example, characteristic of some deputies of the Kuban Rada in 1919. But this did not mean that the Rada needed to be dissolved, liquidated, or the elected atamans abolished. No way. Moreover, Wrangel even included all the Cossack atamans available at that time in the south of Russia into his government.

It was planned to act according to a similar scheme with other territories that would also lay claim to this regional, or, in modern terms, federal status. This was supposed to be done in relation to Ukraine, and in relation to Belarus, and those regions, precisely the regions that the whites considered necessary to create in the territory of Siberia and Turkestan. Siberia itself was generally supposed to represent a separate region, hence the famous term that was often used during the Civil War - Siberian regionalism.

In relation to those nationalities that do not yet have a clearly defined state status, autonomy was assumed, local, cultural, at the level of local self-government, zemstvo self-government, at the level of some city councils, which would be staffed precisely by delegates representing the interests of a given local nationality.

In general, this was the vector for solving the national issue. It is quite obvious that we cannot talk here about restoring the unitary model, which completely ignores any national characteristics. And probably in a multinational Russian state There could not have been any other policy after the revolution and the Civil War.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Nation-state building 1917-1922. Education USSR

Introduction

1. End of the Civil War and national question

2. The struggle within the Bolshevik Party on the issue of the state structure of the country

3. Education of the USSR

4. Constitution of the USSR 1924

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Throughout its thousand-year history, Russia has been and remains a multinational state in which, one way or another, it was necessary to resolve interethnic contradictions. During the period of the Russian Empire, this problem was solved quite simply: all residents of the country, regardless of nationality, were subjects of the Sovereign Emperor of All Russia, the Tsar of Little and White Russia, etc., etc. However, by the beginning of the 20th century. - this formula no longer suits anyone. And in 1917, the huge multinational empire was blown up by the contradictions that tore it apart.

Having won the Civil War, the Bolsheviks under the leadership of V.I. Lenin was also faced with the need to somehow solve the problem of state-territorial structure and the national question. It cannot be said that the most was chosen best option. On the contrary, the basis of the new union state a kind of “time bomb” was laid, which in times of crisis - already at the turn of the 1980-1990s. blew up the Union.

And here it is important to note that in many ways these problems have not been resolved and continue to be present in the government structure of the Russian Federation. Of course, the current authorities are trying to solve these problems, but it is obvious that this will take more than one decade. Therefore, turning to the history of the creation of the USSR and its constitutional foundations is still relevant today.

1. Completion of Citizenswhat war and the national question

At the end of the civil war (1917-1921), the country’s territory was, especially on the outskirts, a conglomeration of various state and national state entities, the status of which was determined by many factors: the movement of the fronts, the state of affairs on the ground, the strength of local separatist and national movements. As the Red Army occupied strongholds in various territories, the need arose to streamline national government system. There has been no consensus among the Bolshevik leadership about what it should be like since the party discussions on the national question Boffa J. History Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 173. .

Thus, a significant part of the Bolsheviks generally ignored the idea of national self-determination, relying entirely on “proletarian internationalism” and advocating a unitary state; their slogan is “Down with the border!”, put forward by G.L. Pyatakov. Others supported the so-called “self-determination of workers” (Bukharin and others). Lenin took a more cautious position. Rejecting the idea of “cultural-national autonomy” adopted in the programs of a number of social democratic parties in the West, he raised the question of the form of national self-determination desired by the Bolsheviks depending on specific historical conditions and on how the “revolutionary struggle of the proletariat” would develop. At the same time, at first Lenin’s sympathies were obvious: he was a supporter of a centralist state and the autonomy of the peoples living in it. However, realizing the complexity of the problem, Lenin insisted on a special analysis of it, which should be entrusted to a representative of national minorities. Consolidation in the party for I.V. Stalin's role as a specialist on the national question was apparently due to the fact that his “developments” closely coincided with the thoughts of Lenin himself. In his work “Marxism and the National Question,” Stalin gave a definition of a nation, which largely still exists today, and came to the unequivocal conclusion about the need for regional autonomy in Russia for Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Lithuania, and the Caucasus.

Having headed the People's Commissariat for National Affairs (Narkomnats) after the revolution, Stalin essentially changed his position little. He stood for the creation within Russia of the largest possible independent state associations, taking into account their national specifics, although he viewed the formation of such conglomerates as a solution to purely temporary problems, preventing the growth of nationalist sentiments Recent history Fatherland. Ed. A.F. Kiseleva. T. 1. M., 2001. P. 390. .

At the same time, the revolution and the practice of nation-state building “from below” in the period 1917-1918. showed that the importance of the national question for Russia was clearly underestimated by the Bolsheviks. Lenin was one of the first to note this when analyzing data on the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

A number of territories, led by national governments, fell away from Russia altogether. In the territories under Bolshevik control, the principle of a federal structure was established, although in the turbulent events of wartime there was no time to resolve national problems.

Nevertheless, the relations between the “independent” republics were formalized through special treaties and agreements (in the field of military, economic, diplomatic, etc.). During the period 1919--1921. a whole series of such agreements were signed, which provided for joint defense activities in the field of economic activity, diplomacy. According to the agreements, there was a partial unification of government bodies, which did not, however, provide for the subordination of the highest and central bodies of the Soviet republics to a single center and common policy. In the conditions of strict centralization inherent in the period of “war communism,” conflicts and tensions constantly arose between central and local authorities. The problem was also that among the communists themselves, especially locally, nationalist and separatist sentiments were very noticeable, and local leaders constantly sought to raise the status of their national-state formations, which were not finally established. All these contradictions, the struggle between unifying and separatist tendencies could not but have an impact when the Bolsheviks, having moved on to peaceful construction, set about defining the national state structure.

In the territory where Soviet power was established by 1922, the ethnic composition, despite the change in borders, remained very diverse. 185 nations and nationalities lived here (according to the 1926 census). True, many of them represented either “scattered” national communities, or insufficiently defined ethnic formations, or specific branches of other ethnic groups. To unite these peoples into single state, undoubtedly, there were objective preconditions that had deep historical, economic, political and cultural foundations. The formation of the USSR was not only an act of the Bolshevik leadership imposed from above. This was at the same time a process of unification, supported “from below” by Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 175. .

From the moment various peoples entered Russia and annexed new territories to it, no matter what representatives of national movements say today, they were objectively bound by a common historical destiny, migrations took place, mixing of the population took place, a single economic fabric of the country took shape, based on the division of labor between the territories, a common transport network, a postal and telegraph service were created, an all-Russian market was formed, cultural, linguistic and other contacts were established. There were factors that hindered the unification: the Russification policy of the old regime, restrictions and restrictions on the rights of individual nationalities. The relationship between centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, which today are fighting with renewed vigor in the territory former USSR, is determined by a combination of many circumstances: the duration of the joint “residence” of different peoples, the presence of a compactly populated territory, the number of nations, the strength of the “cohesion” of their ties, the presence and absence of their statehood in the past, traditions, the uniqueness of the way of life, the national spirit, etc. At the same time, it is hardly possible to draw an analogy between Russia and the colonial empires that existed in the past and call the former, following the Bolsheviks, a “prison of nations.” The differences characteristic of Russia are striking: the integrity of the territory, the multi-ethnic nature of its settlement, peaceful predominantly popular colonization, the absence of genocide, historical kinship and the similarity of the fate of individual peoples. The formation of the USSR also had its own political background - the need for the joint survival of the created political regimes in the face of a hostile external environment Gordetsky E.N. The birth of the Soviet state. 1917-1920. M, 1987. P. 89. .

2. The struggle within the Bolshevik party on the issue of the statennom structure of the country

To develop the most rational forms of nation-state building, a special commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was created, which from the very beginning had differences with the People's Commissariat of Nationalities. Stalin and his supporters (Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, etc.) were mostly from among the so-called “Russopetov”, i.e. persons of non-Russian nationality, who had lost touch with their national environment, but acted as defenders of the interests of Russia, put forward the idea of autonomization of the Soviet republics. Cases when precisely such groups proclaim themselves bearers of great power represent a curious psychological phenomenon of human history.

Already at the X Congress of the RCP (b), which marked the transition to the NEP, Stalin, speaking with the main report on the national question, argued that the Russian Federation is the real embodiment of the desired form of state union of republics. It should be added that it was the People's Commissariat of Nationalities in 1919-1921. was engaged in the construction of most of the autonomies within the RSFSR, determining their borders and status, often through administration in the wake of haste and thoughtlessness. (1918 - German Volga Labor Commune; 1919 - Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic; 1920 - Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Karelian Labor Commune. Chuvash Autonomous Okrug, Kirghiz (Kazakh) Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Votskaya (Udmurt) Autonomous Okrug, Mari and Kalmyk Autonomous Okrug, Dagestan and Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (on its basis a number of other autonomies were later created); 1921 - Komi (Zyryan) Autonomous Okrug, Kabardian Autonomous Okrug, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.)

The decision of the congress on the national question was drawn up taking into account the opinions expressed. It emphasized the expediency and flexibility of existence various types federations: based on contractual relations, on autonomy and intermediate levels between them. However, Stalin and his supporters were not at all inclined to take criticism of their position into account. This was clearly manifested in the process of nation-state building in Transcaucasia.

Transcaucasia was a complex set of national relations and contradictions that had survived from ancient times. This region required a particularly sensitive and balanced approach. The period of existence here in previous years of local national governments, swept away by the Red Army and local Bolsheviks, also left a certain mark on the consciousness of the population. Georgia, for example, during the period of its independent existence in 1918-1921. has established quite broad connections with the outside world. Its economy had rather peculiar features: weak industry, but a very noticeable role of small-scale production and small traders. The influence of the local intelligentsia was strong. Therefore, some Bolshevik leaders, and above all Lenin, believed that special tactics were needed in relation to Georgia, which did not exclude, in particular, an acceptable compromise with the government of Noah Jordania or similar Georgian Mensheviks, who were not absolutely hostile to the establishment Soviet system in Georgia Recent history of the Fatherland. Ed. A.F. Kiseleva. T. 1. M., 2001. P. 395. .

Meanwhile, nation-state building in the region ended with the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation (TCFSR), but the interests of the population of individual republics and national territories were trampled upon. According to the agreement of 1922, the republics transferred their rights to the Union Transcaucasian Conference and its executive body - the Union Council in the field of foreign policy, military affairs, finance, transport, communications and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Otherwise, the republican executive bodies remained independent. Thus, a model of unification was developed, which soon had to undergo a test of strength in connection with the resolution of the issue of relations between the Transcaucasian Federation and the RSFSR.

In August 1922, to implement the idea of unifying the Soviet republics in the center, a special commission was formed under the chairmanship of V.V. Kuibyshev, but the most active role in it belonged to Stalin. According to the project he drew up, it was envisaged that all republics would join the RSFSR with autonomous rights. The draft sent out to the localities caused a storm of objections, but it was approved by the commission itself.

Further events are characterized by Lenin's intervention. This was, perhaps, the last active attempt by the party leader, who, under the influence of illness, was gradually withdrawing from leadership, to influence the course of state affairs. Lenin's position on unification was unclear and insufficiently defined, but it is obvious that he was an opponent of the Stalinist project. He instructed his deputy L.B. to “correct the situation.” Kamenev, who, however, did not have firm convictions on the national issue. The project he compiled took into account Lenin’s wishes and, rejecting the idea of autonomization, provided for a contractual method of state unification of the republics. In this form, it was supported by the party plenum of Boff J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 180. .

Meanwhile, the history of the conflict continued. In October 1922, the party leaders of Georgia announced their resignation as they disagreed with the terms of joining a single state through the Transcaucasian Federation, considering it unviable (which, however, was later confirmed) and insisting on a separate formalization of the agreement with Georgia. The head of the Regional Committee, Ordzhonikidze, became furious, threatened the Georgian leaders with all sorts of punishments, called them chauvinistic rot, saying that in general he was tired of babysitting old men with gray beards. Moreover, when one of the workers of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia called him a Stalinist donkey, Ordzhonikidze brought his fist down on his face. The story received wide publicity and is known in literature as the “Georgian incident.” It to some extent characterizes the morals prevailing in the party leadership at that time. The commission created to examine the “incident” under the chairmanship of Dzerzhinsky justified the actions of the Regional Committee and condemned the Georgian Central Committee Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 181. .

civilian Bolshevik national constitution

3. Education of the USSR

On December 30, 1922, at the Congress of Soviets, where delegations from the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Trans-SFSR were represented, the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was proclaimed. The Union was built on a model developed in Transcaucasia. The corresponding Declarations and Agreement were adopted. The Declaration indicated the reasons and principles of unification. The Treaty defined the relationships between the republics forming the union state. Formally, it was established as a federation of sovereign Soviet republics with the preservation of the right of free secession and open access to it. However, a “free exit” mechanism was not provided. Issues of foreign policy, foreign trade, finance, defense, communications, and communications were transferred to the competence of the Union. The rest was considered the responsibility of the union republics. The supreme body of the country was declared to be the All-Union Congress of Soviets, and in the intervals between its convocations, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which consisted of two chambers: the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities. In the entire history of the formation of the USSR, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that party functionaries, their whims and caprices, play a large role in all events. They put their actions into practice through intrigue and behind-the-scenes maneuvers. The role of representative bodies was reduced to approving decisions made not by them, but by party bodies. For a long time it was believed that with Lenin’s intervention it was possible to achieve the elimination of incorrect attitudes from the Bolshevik practice, from the point of view of solving the national question, and the straightening of the Stalinist line. Amirbekov S. On the question of the constitutionality of the Russian system at the beginning of the 20th century. // Law and Life. -1999. - No. 24. P. 41. .

On the day when the formation of the union state took place, Lenin’s work “On the Question of Nationalities and Autonomization” was published. It shows Lenin’s dissatisfaction with the whole history connected with the formation of the USSR, Stalin’s untimely idea, which, in his opinion, “led the whole matter into a swamp.” However, Lenin’s efforts, his attempts to “deal with” the manifestations of Great Russian chauvinism and punish the perpetrators of the “Georgian incident” did not have any special consequences. The flow of events in the party rushed in the other direction and took place without Lenin’s participation. The struggle for his inheritance was already unfolding, in which the figure of Stalin increasingly appeared. It can be said that, having shown himself to be a supporter of a centralist state and harsh and crude administrative decisions in the national question, Stalin changed little in his attitude towards national politics, constantly emphasizing the danger of nationalist manifestations.

The Second All-Union Congress of Soviets, held in January 1924, in the mourning days associated with the death of Lenin, adopted the Union Constitution, which was based on the Declaration and the Treaty, and the rest of its provisions were based on the principles of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, reflecting the situation of acute social confrontation. In 1924--1925 the constitutions of the union republics were adopted, basically repeating the provisions of the all-union Gordetsky E.N. The birth of the Soviet state. 1917-1920. M, 1987. P. 93. .

One of the first events carried out within the framework of the Union was the “national-state delimitation of Central Asia.” Until 1924, in the region, in addition to the Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, formed back in 1918, there were two “people’s” Soviet republics - Bukhara and Khorezm, created after the Bolsheviks overthrew the Bukhara emir and the Khiva khan from the throne. The existing borders clearly did not correspond to the settlement of ethnic communities, which was extremely variegated and heterogeneous. The question of the national self-identification of peoples and the forms of their self-determination was not entirely clear. As a result of lengthy discussions of national issues at local congresses and kurultai and redrawing of borders, the Uzbek and Turkmen union republics were formed. As part of the Uzbek SSR, the autonomy of the Tajiks was allocated (later receiving the status of a union republic), and within it the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Okrug. Part of the territory of Central Asia was transferred to the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (which also later became a union republic). The Turkestan and Khorezm Karakalpaks formed their own joint-stock company, which became part of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and subsequently transferred to the Uzbek SSR as an autonomous republic. The Kirghiz formed their own autonomous republic, which became part of the RSFSR (later it was also transformed into a union republic). In general, the national-state demarcation of Central Asia allowed the region to gain stability and stability for some time, but the extreme patchwork of ethnic settlement did not allow the issue to be resolved in an ideal way, which created and continues to create a source of tension and conflict in this region Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 189. .

The emergence of new republics and autonomous regions also occurred in other regions of the country. In 1922, the Karachay-Cherkess Autonomous Okrug, the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Okrug (from 1923 - ASSR), the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Okrug, the Circassian (Adyghe) Autonomous Okrug, and the Chechen Autonomous Okrug were formed as part of the RSFSR. As part of the TSFSR, the Adjara Autonomous Region (1921) and the South Ossetian Autonomous Okrug (1922) were created on the territory of Georgia. Relations between Georgia and Abkhazia, two territories with a long-standing national conflict, were formalized in 1924 by an internal union treaty. As part of Azerbaijan, the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was formed in 1921, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Okrug, populated predominantly by Armenians, was formed in 1923. In 1924, the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic arose on the territory of Ukraine on the left bank of the Dniester.

4. Constitution of the USSR 1924

An analysis of parts of the basic law shows that the main meaning of the USSR Constitution of 1924 is the constitutional consolidation of the formation of the USSR and the division of rights of the USSR and the union republics. The Constitution of the USSR of 1924 consisted of two sections: the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR and the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR.

The Declaration reflects the principles of voluntariness and equality in the unification of the republics into the USSR. Each union republic was given the right to freely secede from the USSR. The declaration, as it were, denoted the achievements of the young Soviet government. Constitutional law of Russia: Soviet constitutional law from 1918 to the Stalin Constitution // Allpravo.ru - 2003.

The Treaty secured the unification of the republics into one federal federal state. The following were subject to the jurisdiction of the USSR:

a) representation of the Union in international relations, conducting all diplomatic relations, concluding political and other agreements with other states;

b) changing the external borders of the Union, as well as resolving issues of changing borders between union republics;

c) concluding agreements on the admission of new republics to the Union;

d) declaration of war and conclusion of peace;

e) concluding external and internal loans of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and authorizing external and internal loans of the union republics;

f) ratification of international treaties;

g) management of foreign trade and establishment of a system of internal trade;

h) establishing the foundations and general plan of the entire national economy of the Union, identifying industries and individual industrial enterprises of national importance, concluding concession agreements, both all-Union and on behalf of the Union republics;

i) management of transport and postal and telegraph business;

j) organization and leadership of the Armed Forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

k) approval of the unified State budget of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which includes the budgets of the union republics; the establishment of all-Union taxes and revenues, as well as deductions from them and surcharges to them, going to the formation of the budgets of the Union republics; authorization of additional taxes and fees for the formation of the budgets of the union republics;

l) establishment of a unified monetary and credit system;

m) establishment of general principles of land management and land use, as well as the use of subsoil, forests and waters throughout the entire territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

o) all-Union legislation on inter-republican resettlement and the establishment of a resettlement fund;

o) establishing the fundamentals of the judicial system and legal proceedings, as well as civil and criminal legislation of the Union;

p) establishment of basic labor laws Constitutional law of Russia: Soviet constitutional law from 1918 to the Stalin Constitution // Allpravo.ru - 2003;

c) establishment of general principles in the field of public education;

r) establishment of general measures in the field of public health protection;

s) establishment of a system of weights and measures;

t) organization of all-Union statistics;

x) basic legislation in the field of Union citizenship in relation to the rights of foreigners;

v) the right of amnesty, extending to the entire territory of the Union;

w) repeal of resolutions of the congresses of Soviets and central executive committees of the union republics that violate this Constitution;

x) resolution of controversial issues arising between the Union republics.

Outside these limits, each union republic exercised its power independently. The territory of the union republics could not be changed without their consent. The Constitution established a single union citizenship for citizens of the union republics.

The supreme authority of the USSR, in accordance with Article 8 of the Constitution, was the Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The approval and amendment of the fundamental principles of the Constitution is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Congress of Soviets of the SSR was elected from city councils at the rate of 1 deputy per 25 thousand voters and from provincial or republican congresses of Soviets at the rate of 1 deputy per 125 thousand inhabitants. The Basic Law (Constitution) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. // Allpravo.ru - 2003. .

In accordance with Art. 11 of the Constitution, regular congresses of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are convened by the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics once a year; extraordinary congresses are convened by the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by its own decision, at the request of the Union Council, the Council of Nationalities, or at the request of two union republics.

In the period between congresses, the highest authority was the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which consisted of two equal chambers: the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities.

The Union Council was elected by the Congress of Soviets of the USSR from representatives of the union republics in proportion to the population of each in the amount of 414 people. They represented all the allied and autonomous republics, autonomous regions and provinces. The Council of Nationalities was formed from representatives of the union and autonomous republics, 5 from each and one representative from the autonomous regions, and was approved by the Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The Constitution did not establish the quantitative composition of the Council of Nationalities. The Council of Nationalities, formed by the Second Congress of Soviets of the USSR, consisted of 100 people. The Union Council and the Council of Nationalities elected a Presidium to guide their work.

In accordance with Art. 16 of the Constitution, the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities considered all decrees, codes and resolutions coming to them from the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, individual people's commissariats of the Union, central executive committees of the Union republics, as well as those arising on the initiative of the Union Council and Council of Nationalities Basic Law (Constitution) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. // Allpravo.ru - 2003. .

The Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had the right to suspend or cancel decrees, resolutions and orders of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as congresses of Soviets and central executive committees of the union republics and other authorities on the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Bills submitted for consideration by the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics receive the force of law only if they are accepted by both the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities, and are published on behalf of the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Article 22 of the Constitution).

In cases of disagreement between the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities, the issue was referred to the conciliation commission created by them.

If an agreement is not reached in the conciliation commission, the issue is transferred to a joint meeting of the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities, and, in the absence of a majority vote of the Union Council or the Council of Nationalities, the issue may be referred, at the request of one of these bodies, to the resolution of a regular or emergency congress Councils of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Article 24 of the Constitution) Constitutional law of Russia: Soviet constitutional law from 1918 to the Stalin Constitution // Allpravo.ru - 2003.

The Central Executive Committee of the USSR was not a permanent body, but convened at sessions three times a year. In the period between sessions of the USSR Central Executive Committee, the highest legislative, executive and administrative body of the USSR was the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee, elected at a joint meeting of the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities in the number of 21 people.

The Central Executive Committee of the USSR formed the Soviet government - the Council of People's Commissars. The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was the executive and administrative body of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and in its work was responsible to it and its Presidium (Article 37 of the Constitution). The chapters on the highest bodies of the USSR enshrine the unity of legislative and executive power.

To manage the branches of public administration, 10 People's Commissariats of the USSR were created (Chapter 8 of the USSR Constitution of 1924): five all-Union (according to foreign affairs, on military and naval affairs, foreign trade, communications, posts and telegraphs) and five united (Supreme Council National economy, food, labor, finance and workers' and peasants' inspection). All-Union People's Commissariats had their representatives in the Union republics. The United People's Commissariats exercised leadership on the territory of the Union republics through the people's commissariats of the same name of the republics. In other areas, management was carried out exclusively by the union republics through the corresponding republican people's commissariats: agriculture, internal affairs, justice, education, health care, social security.

Of particular importance was the increase in the status of state security agencies. If in the RSFSR the State Political Administration (GPU) was a division of the NKVD, then with the creation of the USSR it acquired the constitutional status of a united people's commissariat - the OGPU of the USSR, which has its representatives in the republics. “In order to unite the revolutionary efforts of the union republics to combat political and economic counter-revolution, espionage and banditry, a United State Political Administration (OGPU) is established under the Council of People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the chairman of which is a member of the Council of People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with the right deliberative voice” (Article 61). Within the framework of the Constitution, a separate chapter 9 “On the United State Political Administration” is highlighted. Constitutional Law of Russia: Soviet Constitutional Law from 1918 to the Stalin Constitution // Allpravo.ru - 2003.

Conclusion

The acquisition of statehood by the peoples of the former Russian Empire had twofold consequences. On the one hand, it awakened national self-awareness, contributed to the formation and development of national cultures, and positive changes in the structure of the indigenous population. The status of these entities constantly increased, satisfying the growth of national ambitions. On the other hand, this process required an adequate, subtle and wise policy of the central union leadership, consistent with national revival. Otherwise, national feelings, driven inwards for the time being and their ignoring, concealed the potential danger of an explosion of nationalism in an unfavorable scenario. True, at that time the leadership thought little about this, generously carving up territories into individual state entities, even if the indigenous inhabitants did not make up the majority of the population, or easily transferring them “from hand to hand”, from one republic to another - another potential source of tension.

In the 1920s within the framework of national-state formations, the so-called policy of indigenization was carried out, which consisted of attracting national personnel to public administration. Many of the national institutions that were created did not have their own working class or any significant intelligentsia. Here the central leadership was forced to violate the principles of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in favor of national equality, attracting very heterogeneous elements to the leadership. This side of indigenization marked the beginning of the formation of local elites with their inherent national specifics. However, the center made a lot of efforts to keep these local leaders “in check,” not allowing excessive independence and mercilessly dealing with “national deviationists.” Another aspect of indigenization is cultural. It consisted of determining the status of national languages, creating a written language for those peoples who did not have it, building national schools, creating their own literature, art, etc. We must pay tribute: the state paid a lot of attention to helping peoples who were backward in the past, equalizing the levels of economic, social and cultural development of individual nations.

An analysis of the content of the Basic Law shows that the Constitution of the USSR of 1924 is unlike other Soviet constitutions. It has no characteristics social order, there are no chapters on the rights and responsibilities of citizens, electoral law, local authorities and management. All this is reflected in the republican constitutions that were adopted somewhat later, including the new Constitution of the RSFSR of 1925.

Bibliography

1. Basic Law (Constitution) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. // Allpravo.ru - 2003

2. Avakyan S.A. Constitution of Russia: nature, evolution, modernity. M., 1997.

3. Amirbekov S. On the question of the constitutionality of the Russian system at the beginning of the 20th century. // Law and Life. -1999. - No. 24.

4. Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994.

5. Gordetsky E.N. The birth of the Soviet state. 1917-1920. - M, 1987.

6. History of Russia. XX century (edited by B. Leachman). - Ekaterinburg, 1994.

7. Carr E.. History of Soviet Russia. - M., 1990.

8. Constitutional law of Russia: Soviet constitutional law from 1918 to the Stalin Constitution // Allpravo.ru - 2003.

9. Korzhikhina G.P. The Soviet state and its institutions. November 1917 - December 1991. - M., 1995.

10. Kushnir A.G. The first Constitution of the USSR: on the 60th anniversary of its adoption. - M.: 1984.

11. Recent history of the Fatherland. Ed. A.F. Kiseleva. T. 1. M., 2001.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Study of the main prerequisites for the formation of the USSR: ideological, national, political, economic and cultural. Principles and stages of formation of the USSR. Features of the USSR Constitution of 1924. Nation-state building (1920s - 1930s)

abstract, added 12/16/2010

Historical and legal aspects of nation-state building in the pre-war period. general characteristics state structure according to the Constitution of the USSR of 1936. National-state construction of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War.

course work, added 07/23/2008

Restructuring the power and administration of the country in conditions of war. The extraordinary nature of public administration during this period, the effectiveness of perestroika in the current extreme situation on a war footing. Changes in the national-state structure.

course work, added 12/26/2011

Stages of formation of the USSR. Military-political, organizational-economic and diplomatic union. Nation-state building. First All-Union Congress of Soviets. Opponents of the autonomy project. Reaction of V.I. Lenin on the "Georgian incident".

presentation, added 11/15/2016

Analysis of the reasons, stages and alternative projects for creating the largest multinational state- Soviet Union. The reason for the creation of the USSR was the legitimate desire of the ruling Bolshevik party led by V.I. Lenin. The question of self-determination of peoples.

abstract, added 05/03/2015

The essence, beginning and causes of war. Participants in the Civil War: “whites” and “reds”, their composition, goals, organizational forms. Activities of the Bolsheviks, Cadets, Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks after the victory October revolution. The role of the peasantry in the Civil War.

abstract, added 02/11/2015

Childhood and youth of Vladimir Lenin. The beginning of revolutionary activity. II Congress of the RSDLP 1903, revolution 1905 - 07, the struggle to strengthen the party, years of new revolutionary upsurge, the period of the First World War, revolution of 1917. Founding of the USSR (1922

abstract, added 01/08/2006

Economic and social conditions preparation and adoption of the USSR Constitution of 1924. Restructuring of the state apparatus in accordance with the constitution. The problematic nature of the relationship between the authorities and management of the USSR and the union republics.

abstract, added 11/16/2008

Formation of the People's Commissariat for Defense Industry in 1936. Military reform of 1924-1925 and the Red Army. Construction of the country's armed forces in the late 20s - 30s. The size of the Red Army at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

abstract, added 05/28/2009

Strengthening patriotism and unity of the peoples of the USSR during the war. Condemnation of nationalist manifestations in the republics. Reasons for the deportation of ethnic groups of the Soviet population to special settlements. National factor in foreign policy countries in 1941-1945.

DOI: 10.1723 8/issn2227-6564.2018.1.148

GOLDIN Vladislav Ivanovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Research Department of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosova*

THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND NATIONAL POLITICS IN THE CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA

Book review: Puchenkov A.S. National policy of General Denikin (spring 1918 - spring 1920). 2nd ed., rev. and additional M., 2016. 399 p.

The national question and the national policies of the opposing forces during the Civil War in Russia have always aroused the interest of researchers and a variety of judgments. This topic is of particular relevance in connection with the centenary of the beginning of the Russian Civil War. The review examines the monograph of a historian from St. Petersburg A.S. Puchenkov, dedicated to the study of the national policy of General Denikin. The monograph analyzes the relationship of the Denikin regime with Poland and Finland, state entities and peoples of the Caucasus, Ukrainian nationalists and the Jewish population, as well as the role and place of the national issue in the activities of the South Russian White movement.

Keywords: Civil war in Russia, White movement, national question, national liberation movement, national politics, nationalism, separatism.

The centenary of the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the Civil War in Russia sharply updated this topic, the exchange of opinions and discussions on these problems, including on the pages of this journal1. National

The national issue in the era under review is one of the most complex and pressing problems and does not always find an objective reflection in the literature. Today, separatism and nationalism are often justified,

"See: Reflecting on 1917: round table for the 100th anniversary of Russian revolutions // Vestn. Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Ser.: Humanities and social sciences. 2017. No. 2. With 146-161; Goldin V.I. By the steps of the century: history and politics // Vestn. Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Ser.: Humanities and social sciences. 2016. No. 1. P. 23-31; His. The latest foreign research on the Civil War of the early twentieth century in Russia // Vestn. Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Ser.: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2016. No. 5. With 128-133.

*Address: 163002, Arkhangelsk, ave. Lomonosova, 2; e-mail: [email protected]

For citation: Goldin V.I. The national question and national politicians in the Civil War in Russia // Vestn. North (Arctic) federal un-ta. Ser.: Humanite. and social Sciences. 2018. No. 1. P. 148-151. DOI: 10.17238/ issn2227-6564.2018.1.148

The White movement is idealized, or national relations in the era of Russian revolutions and the Civil War are viewed through the prism of chaos and unrest. The vision of the revolutionary era and the Civil War in Russia as a whole often acquires a politicized and tendentious character.

In contrast to these negative trends, the reviewed monograph by St. Petersburg historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.S. Puchenkova, published in the second, corrected and expanded edition, is an in-depth study of national relations, confrontation in the sphere of these relations during the Civil War in Russia and the national policy of General A.I. Denikin.

In a solid 50-page introduction, the author turns to an analysis of existing literature on the topic, not limited to the South of Russia, but revealing the key concepts of the White movement and its ideology, in particular such controversial concepts as the content of its fundamental slogan “Great, United and Indivisible Russia” , the doctrine of “non-decision”, etc. The White movement in the South of Russia arose and developed in territories with a diverse ethnic composition, and because of this, national policy acquired particular relevance there.

The main part of the monograph consists of four chapters, each of which is devoted to a major problem in the national policy of General Denikin. The first chapter examines the Polish-Finnish question. The author rightly points out that the white command respected the revived Polish statehood, while not forgetting about the protection of Russian national interests, which was embodied in the suppression of anti-Russian sentiments in Poland and the question of the future borders of the two states. In addition, attempts were made to keep Poland within the Russian sphere of influence.

The key issue in the relationship between the Denikinites and Poland in 1919 was the conclusion

agreements on joint military operations against the Bolsheviks, but the negotiations failed. A.S. Puchenkov explores in detail the reasons for this, with particular emphasis on the two-faced game of the Poles, who in reality did not intend to sign an agreement with the Whites, which played into the hands of the Reds. Denikin’s successor, General P.N., also failed to establish allied relations with Poland. Wrangel. The author refers to Denikin’s prediction about the coming sad fate of the Polish people and makes a reasonable conclusion that Poland, inspired by its success in the war with the RSFSR, tried to continue to compete on an equal footing in the great European game, but, without calculating its strength, was destroyed in the Second World War .

These reflections and lessons from history are also relevant for modern Poland, which seeks to actively participate in European and world games, positioning itself as a regional power and inciting Russophobic sentiments.

The book also examines the Finnish theme in detail, revealing the contradictions in the relationship between the Russian White Guards and the Finns, which did not allow them to conclude a military alliance. In connection with the question raised in the book about Mannerheim’s plans for Petrograd, we will limit ourselves to a reference to his letter to his brother Johan on February 21, 1918: “... the resumption German offensive makes our campaign much easier. I’m just afraid that we won’t make it to St. Petersburg in time, but we should get there.”2

The second chapter describes in detail the Caucasian policy of General Denikin, including in relation to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the mountain peoples. A.S. Puchenkov reveals foreign interests in the Caucasus, the plans and actions of Great Britain, Germany and Turkey in this territory during the ongoing First World War. This is legitimate, since the very birth of state entities in the Caucasus and their fate are largely

2Goldin V.I., Sokolova F.Kh., Zhuravlev P.S. Russian North in the historical space of the Russian Civil War. Arkhangelsk, 2006. P. 226.

depended on the actions of the interveners. At the same time, all this made it extremely difficult to implement the policy outlined by General Denikin. The end of the World War did not ease his situation, because Great Britain consistently defended its imperial interests here, preventing the implementation of the ideas of “United and Indivisible Russia” and the restoration of Russian positions in the Caucasus.

The author of the review was interested in reading this part of the book also because in the summer of 2017 he traveled to the countries of the Caucasus, during which he had to discuss with representatives of the local public on the issues of the birth and formation of their statehood in the difficult and dramatic situation of 1918.

In the book by A.S. Puchenkov analyzes the features of national politics, relationships and hostilities between the White Guards and the national movements of the North Caucasus, where national-ethnic issues were closely intertwined with religious ones. The author correctly presents and carefully analyzes the judgments of other researchers, and in connection with V.B., repeatedly quoted by him. Lobanov we will point out a new monograph by this historian3.

The third chapter examines the relationship of the White South with the southwestern Russian lands. Particular attention is rightly paid to the complex relations and confrontation between the Volunteer Army and Ukrainian independents. At the same time, a special paragraph is devoted to the fight against “Ukrainianism” in literary and political activity prominent supporter of Denikin V.V. Shulgin, for, as the author points out, Shulgin and his political associates were, perhaps, the main promoters of the white national policy in Ukraine (p. 225).

The monograph competently examines the Bessarabian problem, since Bessarabia

was illegally annexed by Romania in early 1918. The Romanization of the region provoked resistance from the local population, but neither the whites nor the reds managed to resolve the Bessarabian issue during the Civil War. Bessarabia was returned to the USSR only in 1939 in accordance with the Soviet-German agreement. And again, the lessons of history are relevant for our time, because today in Romania there is an intense struggle between Russophiles and Russophobes.

The same chapter examines the activities of the Preparatory Commission for National Affairs. And although her work was short-term, certain results were achieved.

The final chapter of the book is called “White Command and the Jewish Question.” It focuses on the brutal Jewish pogroms in the territories controlled by Denikin’s troops, which caused great resonance and was subsequently the subject of controversy and harsh assessments in emigrant circles and in historical literature. Having analyzed a large and varied factual material, A.S. Puchenkov comes to the conclusion that “anti-Semitism has never been the basis of the national policy of the AFSR administration.” The main reason for the pogroms, in his opinion, was the war that many volunteers had waged since 1914, and for them these pogroms were often a means of profit. In addition, Jewry, the author of the book believes, symbolized for many volunteers the revolution itself, which was destroying their traditional way of life.

At the end of the book, the main results of the study are summed up and all the inconsistencies of General Denikin’s national policy are revealed. According to A.S. Puchenkov, the implementation of the basic slogan of the White movement “United, Great and Indivisible Russia” was not the great-power chauvinism of the White Guards: they saw the restoration of the borders of pre-revolutionary Russia

1Lobanov V.B. Terek and Dagestan in the fire of the Civil War: Religious, military-political and ideological confrontation. St. Petersburg, 2017.

(with the exception of ethnographic Poland) as a condition for the state existence of Russia. But the realities of the collapsed empire and the Civil War, the rise of nationalism and national feelings, the desire for one’s own national statehood predetermined the complexity of the development and implementation of General Denikin’s national policy. This required flexibility and skillful diplomacy, which he and his military colleagues lacked. The book names their specific errors and omissions.

A.S. Puchenkov argues that it is impossible to talk about the absence of a thoughtful and developed national policy among the whites, because

Serious steps in this direction have been taken since the end of 1918. But let us note that there is no need to talk about the integrity and effectiveness of the white national policy. And the author himself concludes that “insufficiently competent national policy is not Denikin’s fault, but a disaster.” The ability of the Reds to enter into an alliance with yesterday’s “foreigners” and receive support largely predetermined their victory.

Let us add that the book under review, along with the main text, contains 7 appendices with a total volume of almost 50 pages, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic under study.

DOI: 10.17238/issn2227-6564.2018.1.148

Vladislav I. Goldin

Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V Lomonosov; prosp. Lomonosova 2, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation;

e-mail: [email protected]

THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND NATIONAL POLICIES DURING THE CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA

Review of the book: Puchenkov A.S. National"naya politika generala Denikina (vesna 1918 -vesna 1920). Moscow, 2016. 399 p.

The national question and national policies of the contending forces during the Civil War in Russia has always generated interest and a variety of opinions. Today, this is again a topical issue due to the centenary of the Russian Civil War. This review characterizes a monograph of a St. Petersburg historian A.S. Puchenkov dealing with the national policy of General Denikin. The monograph analyzes the interactions between the Denikin regime and Poland and Finland, the state units and peoples of the Caucasus, Ukrainian nationalists and the Jewish population, as well as studies the role and place of the national question in the activities of the South Russian White movement.

Keywords: Russian Civil War, White movement, national question, national liberation movement, national policy, nationalism, separatism.

Received: November 20, 2017

For citation: Goldin V.I. The National Question and National Policies During the Civil War in Russia. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal "nogo universiteta. Sen: Humanitarnye i sotsial"nye nauki, 2018, no. 1, pp. 148-151. DOI: 10.17238/issn2227-6564.2018.1.148

Question 14, block 2.

National policy of the Bolsheviks during the civil war and foreign intervention.

In the 2nd Party Program and Party Charter of 1919. The current tasks of the Bolshevik national policy were determined, but they were not implemented, because The Bolsheviks proclaimed a federation of Soviet national republics and adopted a Constitution, but during 1918. Not a single national entity was created within the RSFSR. Moreover, these developments were not implemented, because after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty in 1918, where the Bolsheviks agreed to the separation of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Transcaucasia, etc. from Russian territory. in the eyes of the public they were regarded as an anti-patriotic force, ready to give everything to maintain their power - in March 1918. Russia found itself within the borders of the 17th century. And only after in November 1918, having torn the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk during the revolution in Germany, the Bolsheviks had the opportunity to develop as a patriotic force, and their policy began to be patriotic in nature. Moreover, in the context of the outbreak of intervention, the Bolsheviks are turning from a patriotic force into a national force, into defenders of the country.

October 26, 1917 a structure was created that was responsible for the implementation of the national policy of the Bolsheviks - the People's Commissariat for Nationalities (Narkomnats) headed by Stalin. The structure of the People's Commissariat of Nationalities was as follows: People's Commissar, Collegium, commissions of the cultural and educational bloc and national-territorial departments, in addition, in the 20th year the Council of Nationalities was created, which included elected representatives of national councils, a kind of prototype of the Parliament of Nationalities. The functions of the People's Commissariat of Nationalities were 1) providing all possible assistance in implementing the principles of Soviet power in national regions in the languages of the peoples 2) Raising the cultural level and class consciousness of the peoples of Russia 3) Fighting counter-revolution in national regions. These were the functions defined initially, but they expanded as the situation became more complicated due to the civil war and intervention, as well as the emergence of national, but not Soviet, entities in the territory of the former Russian Empire. As a result, the Narkomnats faced the task of fighting against nationalism of all stripes. Stalin stated in many speeches that nationalism represents the most dangerous mobilizing force opposing Marxism, because nationalism forms supra-class unity in the struggle to achieve national goals. During the civil war, the slogan of the nation's right to self-determination was the main one for agitation and propaganda. He contributed to the fact that the Bolsheviks had a more stable authority compared to the leaders of the white movement, who did not have national program, but there was only the slogan “United and indivisible Russia.” During the Civil War, this Bolshevik slogan helped unite the working masses of all nationalities in the struggle against the exploiting class. In addition, he increased the authority of the Bolsheviks in the international arena among the peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies who fought for their national independence.

The slogan of the nation's right to self-determination was very difficult to defend among communist leaders. During the civil war, a discussion began, initiated by Bukharin, who stated that in the conditions of the socialist revolution, the nation’s right to self-determination is archaic, and it is necessary to put forward the slogan of the workers’ right to self-determination. October 1917 is proof of this, since the working people already have power, and they determine the future of Russia. Consequently, Bukharin said that the workers’ right to self-determination was a guideline during the civil war.

However, the weakness of this slogan was that it would be good when there is a class stratification in society into proletarians and bourgeoisie. This division existed in the Russian regions, but not in the national regions. And for the attempt to practically implement this slogan in 1918. a big price was paid. Soviet power was lost in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

In addition to theoretical tasks, the People's Commissariat of Nationalities also put forward a practical one: to encourage in every possible way the revolutionary creativity of the masses towards the creation of national forms of institutions of Soviet power. This was necessary in order to 1) to some extent realize the aspirations of local national patriots 2) try to split the supra-class unity of national movements 3) reduce the attractiveness of national slogans about their independence.

The initiative in this matter was shown, first of all, by the People's Commissariat of Nationalities. The first national form of Soviet power was proclaimed and created in November 1918. A political decision from above proclaimed the creation of a labor commune of Volga Germans. This step was taken due to the fact that at that time there was a revolution in Germany, and it was necessary to demonstrate support for the working people of Germany. Subsequently, during the civil war, 4 autonomous Soviet republics were created. In April 1918 the first autonomous republic of Turkestan, in 1919 the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Republic, in 1920 the Tatar and Kyrgyz Soviet Autonomous Republics. These autonomous republics were united by the fact that they were autonomous republics of Muslim peoples. During the civil war, 4 autonomous Soviet regions were also created: Kalmyk, Chuvash, Mari and Votkinsk. In order to show the attractiveness of Soviet power, a labor commune of Karelia was created on the border with Finland.

The creation of the above forms of national associations became the practical embodiment of the Bolshevik policy on the national question during the period of the civil war and intervention.

At the end of the civil war (1917-1921), the territory of the country was, especially on the outskirts, a conglomerate of various state and national-state entities, the status of which was determined by many factors: the movement of the fronts, the state of affairs on the ground, the strength of local separatist and national movements. As the Red Army occupied strongholds in various territories, the need arose to streamline the national-state structure. There has been no consensus among the Bolshevik leadership about what it should be like since the time of the party discussions on the national question Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 173..

Having headed the People's Commissariat for National Affairs (Narkomnats) after the revolution, Stalin essentially changed his position little. He stood for the creation within Russia of the largest possible independent state associations, taking into account their national specifics, although he viewed the formation of such conglomerates as a solution to purely temporary problems, preventing the growth of nationalist sentiments. Recent history of the Fatherland. Ed. A.F. Kiseleva. T. 1. M., 2001. P. 390..

Nevertheless, the relations between the “independent” republics were formalized through special treaties and agreements (in the field of military, economic, diplomatic, etc.). During the period 1919--1921. a whole series of such agreements was signed, which provided for joint measures in defense, in the field of economic activity, and diplomacy. According to the agreements, there was a partial unification of government bodies, which did not, however, provide for the subordination of the highest and central bodies of the Soviet republics to a single center and a single policy. In the conditions of strict centralization inherent in the period of “war communism,” conflicts and tensions constantly arose between central and local authorities. The problem was also that among the communists themselves, especially locally, nationalist and separatist sentiments were very noticeable, and local leaders constantly sought to raise the status of their national-state formations, which were not finally established. All these contradictions, the struggle between unifying and separatist tendencies could not but have an impact when the Bolsheviks, having moved on to peaceful construction, set about defining the national state structure.

In the territory where Soviet power was established by 1922, the ethnic composition, despite the change in borders, remained very diverse. 185 nations and nationalities lived here (according to the 1926 census). True, many of them represented either “scattered” national communities, or insufficiently defined ethnic formations, or specific branches of other ethnic groups. For the unification of these peoples into a single state, there undoubtedly were objective preconditions that had deep historical, economic, political and cultural foundations. The formation of the USSR was not only an act of the Bolshevik leadership imposed from above. This was at the same time a process of unification, supported “from below” by Boffa J. History of the Soviet Union. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 175..

From the moment various peoples entered Russia and annexed new territories to it, no matter what representatives of national movements say today, they were objectively bound by a common historical destiny, migrations took place, mixing of the population took place, a single economic fabric of the country took shape, based on the division of labor between the territories, a common transport network, a postal and telegraph service were created, an all-Russian market was formed, cultural, linguistic and other contacts were established. There were factors that hindered the unification: the Russification policy of the old regime, restrictions and restrictions on the rights of individual nationalities. The ratio of centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, which today are struggling with renewed vigor in the territory of the former USSR, is determined by the combination of many circumstances: the duration of the joint “residence” of different peoples, the presence of a compactly populated territory, the number of nations, the strength of the “cohesion” of their ties, the presence and absence in the past its statehood, traditions, unique way of life, national spirit, etc. At the same time, it is hardly possible to draw an analogy between Russia and the colonial empires that existed in the past and call the former, following the Bolsheviks, a “prison of nations.” The differences characteristic of Russia are striking: the integrity of the territory, the multi-ethnic nature of its settlement, peaceful predominantly popular colonization, the absence of genocide, historical kinship and the similarity of the fate of individual peoples. The formation of the USSR also had its own political background - the need for the joint survival of the created political regimes in the face of a hostile external environment Gordetsky E.N. The birth of the Soviet state. 1917-1920. M, 1987. P. 89..

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

The national question in revolution and civil war. Russian history

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents