Bolshevik Coup Research Articles

Городское самоуправление Якутска при правительстве адмирала А.В. Колчака в 1919 г.: выборы, организация и упразднение

Статья посвящена анализу городского самоуправления Якутска в 1919 г., особое внимание уделено его состоянию в период Гражданской войны и последующей ликвидации городского управления после большевистского переворота. Исследование освещает выборы и структуру городского управления при А.В. Колчаке с учетом принципов историзма и объективности. В результате анализа стало ясно, что в декабре 1918 г. правительство ограничило избирательные права горожан. Последние выборы в городскую думу прошли в 1919 г., был сформирован новый состав органов городского самоуправления. The article explores the historical context of city self-government in Yakutsk during the revolution, addressing the lack of historical research on this topic during the Civil War in Russia. The study aimed to analyze the structure of self-government institutions, personnel composition, and the electoral process, considering the factors influencing these processes during the social upheaval of the Civil War. It also examines the liquidation of city self-government following the Bolshevik coup in December 1919, including the subsequent arrest of its members. The scientific innovation lies in providing the first comprehensive representation of the election process and the personal composition of the Yakutsk city government (City Duma and City Council) during Admiral A.V. Kolchak’s reign, using a methodology based on historicism, objectivity, consistency, and comprehensiveness. The retrospective method revealed cause-and-effect relationships and recurring patterns in the historical evolution. In December 1918, Admiral A.V. Kolchak annulled the decree issued by the Provisional Government in April 1917 and amended city government elections, limiting citizens’ electoral rights through changes to the electoral qualifications. The last elections were held in the fall of 1919, resulting in a city self-government consisting of 25 members with an average age of 47.96 years, predominantly holding official or employee positions and having secondary education. The composition and number of members of the city self-government changed multiple times, and the city authorities continued to rely on the city regulations of 1892 when forming the executive committees. On the night of December 14–15, 1919, the local Yakutsk garrison executed an armed revolt and apprehended Admiral A.V. Kolchak’s followers. From December 15, 1919 to January 1, 1920 Soviet power entities were established, marking the dissolution of the city government and the subsequent arrest of its members.

Polityczne konteksty twórczości Tadeusza Micińskiego. Sprawa polska a Rosja w dobie Wielkiej Wojny

The general purpose of the article is to show Tadeusz Miciński’s attitude to Polish – Russian relations during the First World War, with a particular emphasis on Polish independence issues. After a detailed analysis of Miciński’s literary and journalistic works from that period, the evolution of his views is identified in this range. The article shows that his favorable attitude towards Russia in the first two years of the war resulted from his belief that the tsar`s empire was able to guarantee Polish autonomy. Miciński shared the idea of a Slavic community to defeat the German enemy. He put his faith in the feasibility of Russian promises included in the statement of Grand Duke Nikolay from 1914. Moreover, Miciński relied on the Triple Entente of the UK, France and Russia, which was supposed to be the guarantor of defeating the Central Powers, and above all, Germany. Additionally, there is a description of Miciński’s attitude to post-revolutionary Russia, his hope for the democratization of the country and later disappointment that was caused by the Bolshevik coup. Miciński warned his compatriots of succumbing to ideas spread by Lenin. It has been shown that Miciński, in his views, was always a supporter of independent Poland over party divisions

Между террором и святостью: жизнь и судьба Ильи Бунакова-Фондаминского (1880–1942)

The article examines the life path of the Russian intellectual and politician Ilya Isidorovich Fondaminsky (1880–1942; literary and political pseudonym “Bunakov”). Coming from a Jewish merchant family, Fondaminsky was unable, due to the “Jewish quota”, to get a decent education in Russia and, after graduating from a private gymnasium, went to study philosophy and history at the Universities of Berlin and Heidelberg, where his professors were Kuno Fischer, Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Thode. After returning to Russia in 1904, he became one of the leaders of the Moscow committee of the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, participated in the work of the Combat group, preparing terrorist acts, and during the December (1905) armed uprising in Moscow, purchased weapons at the personal expense. He was repeatedly arrested, and in 1907 went to the first emigration (1907–1917). After the February Revolution – he was one of the leaders of the Executive Committee of the Council of Peasant Deputies, the General Commissar of the Provisional Government in the Black Sea Fleet, from which he was elected a deputy of the Constituent Assembly. After the Bolshevik coup and the dispersal of the constituent assembly – a member of the “white” underground, and since 1919 again an emigrant. I.I. Fondaminsky became one of the central figures of the Russian post-revolutionary emigration in France: he published the journals “Modern Notes” and “Novy Grad”, conducted extensive cultural and educational activities, becoming increasingly interested in religious issues. During the German occupation of France, Fondaminsky received Orthodox baptism, but in 1942 he ended his earthly days together with his fellow Jews in the gas chamber of Hitler's Auschwitz-Oswenzim. In 2004. he, along with three other Russian ascetics-emigrants, was beatified by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of the Orthodox Church.

“Invited by the Mighty Powers to Watch the Spectacle in Awe”: a Political Portrait of Valery Bryusov

The article gives a detailed outline of the evolution of political and geopolitical views of Valery Bryusov (1873–1924), one of the greatest fi gures of Russian Silver Age. An innovator and rebel in literature, Bryusov, despite his rejection of many political and social realities of Russian life, invariably remained a patriot having a clear understanding of Russia's national interests. Having received a professional education in history and keeping up with world politics from his very youth, Bryusov became one of the most “political” poets of his era infl uenced by his favorite poet Fyodor Tyutchev. The article examines Bryusov's activity as a political analyst and publicist, his attitude to the Russian-Japanese war of 1904–1905, the revolutionary turmoil of 1905–1907, the confl ict of European civilization with the non-European world, the First World War and the February Revolution in Russia. The author analyzes Bryusov's attitude to the Bolshevik coup and his relations with the new government. The author assumes that Bryusov's political works should be republished.

Bessarabia as Part of Greater Romania

The focus of the article is Romania during the last part of the World War I (January– November 1918), when, after the demise of the Tsarist Empire, and shortly after the Bolshevik coup, Bessarabia proclaimed independence from Russia (24 January 1918), followed shortly by a union with Romania on 27 March. Based on documents of the time, we describe the circumstances of the Union, the difficulties that arose in the process of the integration of Bessarabia (proclaimed a republic) with the Kingdom of Romania, as well as the various opinions on the constitution of Greater Romania (through the later union of Bukovina and Transylvania). After the end of the World War I and after the establishment of Greater Romania, the state and society faced various challenges, which they overcame (some successfully, others less so). The important figures of the time, some of whom were actively involved both in the Union and in subsequent political life, wrote about the emerging problems. For instance, Dr Petre Cazacu, a member of the Country Council (the Parliament of Bessarabia, 1917–1918), outlined a number of difficulties faced by the Bessarabian population in the first decade after the Union in his book Zece ani de la Unire: Moldova dintre Prut şi Nistru (1918–1928) [Ten years after the Union: Moldova between the Prut and the Dniester (1918–1928)]. The publisher and politician Onisifor Ghibu expressed his views on this issue even more forcefully, and voiced his strong conviction that the Union of Bessarabia with Romania had been hasty. “Things would have turned out very differently in Bessarabia,” stated Ghibu, “if the union had not been forced and if it had occurred naturally, in the autumn of 1918, at the same time as that of Transylvania and Bukovina, in an atmosphere of triumphant Romanianism. Shielded by the Romanian army, Bessarabia, guided by its national culture and by the idea of the union of all Romanians, supported by people imbued with the holy feeling of love for the nation, would have made such progress during the eight months (March–November 1918) [of] favourable development, like in the past, that it could no longer have fallen prey to the ambitions of some, or to the poison of others”. We do not share Ghibu’s views. We believe that by the end of World War II Romanian historians (from both Romania and the Republic of Moldova) had already objectively presented the history of Romanians after World War I.

Society «Educational community named after Mykhailo Drahomanov in the Wetzlar Ukrainian POW camp, Germany, 1917 - early 1918) (based on the materials of the «Hromadska Dumka»)

The article analyzes the peculiarities of the activity of the «Educational Community named after Mykhailo Drahomanov» in the camp of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Wetzlar (Germany), which during 1917 achieved the greatest achievements in its activities, which was due to the general intensification of national organizational work in the Wetzlar camp after the overthrow of the Russian tsar. In their work, the enlightened people focused on two main categories - the illiterate, for whose services the People's School worked, and at the same time those who already had a certain educational qualification (including graduates of the mentioned school), who had all the opportunities to replenish the baggage of their knowledge. A notable feature of the current work of Ukrainian activists was the involvement of prisoners in political presentations, which prepared a significant number of camp inmates to accept the idea of creating an independent Ukrainian state. The credit for this belonged primarily to educators from among Galicians, who at the call of the IDF worked in the camps and managed to raise a whole cohort of Ukrainian patriots among the prisoners, who continued the work of their teachers, giving lectures in separate barracks (by conducting readings of abstracts and impromptu evenings), as well as and outside the camp (during the dispatch of prisoners to work as part of work teams). One of the significant results of this work was the formation of a distinctly national worldview in the majority of the prisoners of this camp, which made it possible for them to further join the ranks of the armed forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic, which, starting from the moment of the Bolshevik coup, stood up to protect Ukraine from aggressive encroachments by Moscow.

The Political Rivalry for Belarus Between Belarusian Socialists and Bolsheviks in 1917 – 1919. The Establishment of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Belarus

The aim of the article is to study the peculiarities of the rivalry between Bolsheviks and Belarusian socialists for the future of the Belarusian lands in 1918-1920. The research methodology is based on the principles of scholarship, historicism, systematism and historical analysis. The scientific novelty of the results of this study lies in the reconstruction of the events related to the creation of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Belarus. Conclusions: At the end of World War I, after the February Revolution, the process of formation of an independent Belarusian state by Belarusian socialists began. Although the Belarusian People's Republic was proclaimed on March 25, 1918, Belarusians did not manage to create their own state. It was determined by many internal and external factors. One of them being the political and territorial aspirations of the Bolsheviks and a rivalry between them and the Belarusian socialists for the future of the Belarusian lands. Conclusions: Belarusians, and therefore the Belarusian national movement, found themselves in a specific situation during the war. In the years 1915-1918, the Belarusian lands were divided by the Russian-German front line. As a result, military and civilians from the depths of Russia came to the frontier zone. After the February Revolution, the Russian army in the Western District and the Front began to become strongly politicized, focusing on various political and national programs. Belarusian socialists, including the military, gathered in the Central Belarusian Military Council opted for the creation of a Belarusian republic, first in a federation with Russia, and soon (after the Bolshevik coup) they leaned towards its independence. The military Bolsheviks were in favor of the incorporation of Belarusian lands into Russia as the West District. The conflict of interest between the Belarusian socialists and the Russian Bolsheviks was revealed at the All-Belarusian Congress held in Minsk in December, when Congress was brutally dispersed by the military Bolsheviks. The aspirations of the Belarusian socialists and position of the Belarusian communists were determined, among others, by the creation of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Belarus proclaimed twice on January 1, 1919 and July 31, 1920 just before the offensive against Warsaw. It was supported by Soviet Russia as a counterbalance to the activities of the Belarusian independence camp and Polish influence in Belarus

Ю.А. Яворский - учёный и общественно-политический деятель Карпатской Рус

Julian A. Yavorsky (1873-1937) was a Carpatho-Russian scholar, social and political activist, son of a Greek Catholic priest. He graduated from Chernivtsi University in 1896. In 1903, he defended his doctoral dissertation “The Life of Peter and Fevronia of Murom as a Monument of Old Russian Narrative Literature” at the University of Vienna under the supervision of Vatroslav Jagic. After returning to Galicia, he taught in Polish gymnasiums. Since school, he participated in the Russian movement of Galicia. For his convictions, Yavorsky was expelled from the Drohobych, Sambir, and Lviv gymnasiums, Lviv and Vienna Universities. He was the leader of the “new generation”, fought with the “Old Rusins” At first, he advocated joint work with UkrainophiLe organizations to educate people and fight for their rights. In 1899, he published Zhivoe Slovo magazine and worked in the GaLician-Russian Matitsa. In the late 1890s, he began to publish his research in Lviv and Russian editions. In 1904, Yavorsky with his family moved to Kyiv, where he taught at the First Kyiv Gymnasium and then became a Privatdozent and Associate Professor at the Imperial University of St. Vladimir. He actively published in Russian academic journals, had several business trips to Galicia, where he collected folklore, searched for and acquired manuscripts to continue his research. With the outbreak of WWI, he headed the Carpatho-Russian Liberation Committee. After the capture of Lviv by Russian troops, Yavorsky became a member of the Russian People's Council. After the retreat of the Russian army from Lviv, he dealt with refugee issues, tried to form a Carpatho-Russian detachment as part of the Russian army. Yavorsky disapproved of the October Revolution. In 1920, he returned to Galicia and Lived in Lviv until 1924, where he participated in the activities of the Russian Movement in Galicia, published the newspaper Prikarpatskaya Rus’, prepared the first volume of The Telerhof Almanac (1924) for publication. In his “social Literary diaries”, he spoke sharply about the Bolshevik coup in Russia and the attempts of the Russian Executive Committee to form a “united front” with Ukrainian organizations. Along with journalism, collections of poems and prose, Yavorsky also published his research. In 1925, Yavorsky and his family moved to Czechoslovakia, where he taught at the Russian Gymnasium in Moravska-Trzebova, then worked at the Russian National University and the Slavic Institute. In Czechoslovakia, he wrote much about Carpathian Rus. He actively published in Uzhhorod and hunted for old manuscripts to introduce them into scholarly discourse. His editions of Local folklore accurately convey the speech of Local Rusins. Yavorsky kept faith in the unity of the Russian people. However, he aLso contributed to Ukrainian media. WhiLe in GaLicia, Yavorsky pubLished in Narnd, the press organ of the Russian-Ukrainian radicaL party. In CzechosLovakia, he pubLished in Naukoviy zbornik of Prnsvet Partnership in Uzhhorod. Yavorsky had cLose reLations with Ivan Franko. Yavorsky was buried in the Orthodox section of the OLshansky cemetery in Prague.

Формування позиції адміністрації В. Вільсона стосовно більшовицької Росії (листопад 1917 - березень 1918 рр.)

This article intends to highlight the Wilson administration’s position on the Russian Bolshevik government and the development of a new U.S. policy toward Russia from November 1917, the time of the Bolshevik coup in Petrograd, to March 1918, when Soviet Russia ratified the separate Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with the Quadruple Alliance. During November 1917 – February 1918, the Wilson administration’s position on the Bolshevik government in Petrograd remained uncertain. On the one hand, the United States did not recognize this government, the Council of People’s Commissars, and was trying to find out the ability of Russian anti-Bolshevik groups to overthrow it. On the other hand, the American government wanted to establish informal contacts and cooperation with the Petrograd government to prevent Russia’s withdrawal from the war and the collapse of the Eastern Front. In addition, it was necessary to prevent the Germans from obtaining military supplies from warehouses in the Russian Far East. To protect them, the Allies discussed the possibility of military intervention and encouraged the United States to take part in it. The American government rejected this possibility, primarily because of the predicted negative perception of it by the people of Russia. The U.S. also opposed Japanese intervention because believed that under the guise of common allied goals, Japan would pursue its interests in Russia, including territorial expansion. The change in the position of the Wilson administration regarding the Japanese intervention became apparent in early March 1918. Woodrow Wilson withdrew his objections to the Japanese intervention in the Russian Far East only after it became obvious that Japan would carry it out anyway. The authority for such an intervention, given to Japan by the Allies, created certain requirements and restrictions on Japanese actions, which were in Russia’s interests. The shift in the U.S. position was also caused by the signing of a separate peace with the Quadruple Alliance by the Russian Bolshevik government. After that, the President stated that the U. S. did not recognize this government even de facto, and therefore the peace treaty signed by it. However, despite the negative attitude to the Bolshevik government, W. Wilson continued to treat Russia as an ally and tried to avoid decisions that did not meet the interests of Russia’s people.

МІХАКО ЦЕРЕТЕЛІ – ПАТРІАРХ УРАРТОЛОГІЇ, ПЕРЕКЛАДАЧ (1878-1965)

In the period between the First and Second World Wars, the outflow of intellectual resources from Georgia abroad was mainly due to the Bolshevik coup and the Soviet annexation. Among the emigrants was the great Georgian scientist, Patriarch of Urartology Mikhako Tsereteli. Demonstrating his contribution to science and his merits in translation is the main task of our research. The methodological basis of the research is the universal scientific principles of objectivity, comprehensiveness and systematics, historical-comparative and historical-typological methods. From the factual materials presented in the article, it is clear that M. Tsereteli made a contribution to the development of domestic and world science, translation activities. Thanks to his work, M. Tsereteli made a great contribution to the processes of mutual enrichment of culture and knowledge, acquaintance with intellectual tendencies, and raising awareness about Georgia. It was he who deciphered the Assyrian-Urartian bilingualism of Kelashin and laid the foundation for the formation of “Urartology” as a new scientific direction.

„Neutralność” Litwy podczas Bitwy Warszawskiej

After the First World War, three concepts clashed in Eastern Europe: the model of the nation state, the expansion of the Bolshevik revolution implemented by Russia and the union of nation-states (Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and Latvia) according to Piłsudski resulting from the threat. Russia in the years 1920-1921 signed five peace treaties, but only the treaty with Lithuania contained secret arrangements regarding the neutrality of Lithuania in the Bolshevik-Polish war. The analysis of the source material shows that Russia used the secret provisions of the peace treaty in its plans for the expansion of bolshevism, and after the defeat of the Polish army, it was to carry out a Bolshevik coup in Lithuania. Despite the proclaimed neutrality, Lithuania turned out to be on the side of Russia in this conflict, causing additional difficulties for Polish troops in the Battle of Warsaw. The Polish victory over the Vistula impeded the expansion of Bolshevism to Europe.

Prerequisites for tractorization in Ukraine in the early twentieth century

The aim of the article is to establish the scientific prerequisites for tractorization in Ukraine in the early twentieth century. Research methods: general-historical and special-historical methods. Main results: the article examines historical background and factors that contributed to the spread and use of the first tractors in Ukraine, the emergence of domestic tractor construction and widespread tractorization of agriculture in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic in the 20s years of the twentieth century. The author uses the term “tractorization” which has not been used in scientific sources for a long time. It means the spread of scientific, technical and everyday ideas about tractors, the creation and distribution of their various models, the introduction of these machines into domestic agriculture and other spheres of life at the beginning of the twentieth century. A list of arguments and facts confirms that 1913 was a turning point in the study, popularization and distribution of tractors both in the world and in Ukraine. The features and results of testing the first tractors on the territory of modern Ukraine are described. The outstanding role of the first scientists and engineers who organized the testing of tractors and disseminated information about the results of these tests on farms and at exhibitions (D. Artsybashev, A. Baranovsky, V. Batyushkov, K. Debu, V. Koval B. Lintvarev, M. Pigulevsky, A. Treivas) is shown. The significant contribution to the study of the tractor business and the promotion of foreign-made tractors in Ukraine made by scientific associations, state and public institutions, as well as individual scientists is highlighted. Concise conclusions: it is determined that tsarist Russia had all the conditions and resources for the development of its own tractor industry before 1917, including Ukraine. It is proven that the development of this industry was interrupted by the Bolshevik coup and the Civil War, and until the mid-1920s, the use of tractors in Ukrainian agriculture was only isolated and completely dependent on imports of this equipment. The mass production of tractors in the USSR was organized only in the early 1930s with the commissioning of Stalingrad Tractor and Kharkiv Tractor plants. Meanwhile the needs of Ukrainian agriculture in tractors were met mainly through the mass import mainly from the United States that became important for the tractorization and its technical modernization. The practical significance: recommended for use in teaching the history of science and technology of the early twentieth century. Originality: the generalization of experience of historiography research in tractorization process is used. Scientific novelty: for the first time the role of the All-Russian factory, trade-industrial, agricultural and scientific-artistic exhibition, which took place in Kyiv in the summer-autumn of 1913 and was accompanied by testing the tractors, is covered. Type of article: research.

Причинок до політичної публіцистики Володимира Вернадського 1918 року

Рurpose of the study is the publication and analysis of a manuscript of prominent scientist and public fi gure, fi rst president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Volodymyr Vernadsky, which he wrote in March 1918 in Poltava, where he was forced to leave in November 1917 from Petrograd after the Bolshevik coup. The research methodology is based on a systemic analysis of historiographical facts, the use of archival heuristics, analytical and synthetic critique of sources based on the principles of historicism and objectivity. Methods of archeography were also used for the publication of the texts. Scientifi c novelty: For the fi rst time Vernadsky’s draft manuscript, which is obviously a draft of a political article with a clear anti-socialist message, is presented uncut and with comments. Most of the text of these few manuscript pages has already been published as fragments of the scientist’s diary of 1918. Based on some sources, fi rst of all the diary, against the backdrop of well-known political essays of the time of V. Vernadsky’s stay in Ukraine, an attempt was made to analyze the context of this manuscript, the infl uence of political conditions on the process of understanding and rethinking the social task of a scientist amid the turmoil of the revolutionary wars. Possible reasons for the author’s refusal to convert them into an article or articles and publish them are also analyzed. Conclusions. Although there is a connection between the diary and the proposed text, the latter is an independent piece which can be viewed as working material for the scientist’s speech, which he wanted to call «At This Grim Hour». Such a speech was to be aimed at the entire Russia. Possible reasons for the decision not to do this plan may include an internal search for social «backing», V. Vernadsky’s sense of lack of strength, which at the time could «begin to unify Rus» and fi ght Bolshevism. That is why later he pinned his hopes on the Volunteer Army and returned to writing political essays. However, this manuscript is a vivid refl ection of the perception by the liberal intelligentsia of the Bolshevik coup and the revolution in Russia.

The Ultimate Bolshevik

Abstract Ron Suny’s Stalin: Passage to Revolution traces Stalin from a young revolutionary in the Caucasus to his ascent to the top of the Bolshevik hierarchy. Discovered and promoted by Lenin, the young Stalin agitated among the workers of the giant factories in Baku, Tiflis, and Batumi as Russian socialists split between Menshevism’s social democracy and Bolshevism’s Marxist revolution. Between 1902 and 1917, Stalin was arrested or exiled six times, escaping five times. Rushing to Petrograd in the wake of the abdication and formation of the coalition government, Stalin managed the Bolshevik press and served as the main Bolshevik figure in Lenin’s absence. Although not among the most popular political parties, the Bolshevik’s “ground game” among workers and soldiers proved decisive once Lenin concluded to begin the Bolshevik coup.

Наслідки «добросусідства»

The most significant falsifications of historical events by the Bolshevik regime are considered and it is established that the information policy of the Russian Federation systematically falsifies and conceals historical facts and events that testify to the great contribution of Ukraine and its people to the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. An analysis of the national liberation struggles of 1917-1920 showed that for a long time Soviet researchers called the 1917 Bolshevik coup in the Russian Empire a proletarian revolution, forming the view that this revolution was a just struggle between peasants and workers against the capitalists. time was implanted in the minds of Ukrainians. The Holodomor in 1932-1933 was studied separately as a deliberate genocide or "temporary food shortages."

У истоков идеи Кавказской мусульманской конфедерации: о союзе Азербайджана, Дагестана и Горской республики в 1917–1918 гг.

On the basis of a significant amount of documentary and archival material, the article examines the background and development of the idea of creating a political and state association of the territories inhabited by the Muslim peoples of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. It is shown how the idea of cultural and national autonomy of the national outskirts arose in the course of the democratic movement in Russia in 1917, and how after the Bolshevik Coup in Russia, that idea was transformed into plans for the creation of independent political entities in Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus. The leaders of the Azerbaijani faction of the Transcaucasian governments repeatedly raised at various levels the question of the accession of the North Caucasus Muslim state entities to Transcaucasia, but the unstable political and military situation in the Caucasus made the resolution of this issue impossible. Until the middle of 1918, there were two opposing authorities in Azerbaijan – the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the Baku Commune. The North Caucasus was even more fragmented, both ethnically and politically. At the same time, the anti-Bolshevik forces of the mountainous peoples received almost no material support from outside but competed with the White movement that had emerged in the South of Russia for influence in the region. The fall of the Baku Commune and the seizure of Baku by the Turkish-Azerbaijani troops revived the ideas of the Caucasian Muslim confederation for a short time. However, being disunited, the forces of the North Caucasus “independent” entities were unable to resist the pro-Bolshevik forces in the region. The defeat of Turkey and Germany in the First World War at the end of 1918 made a serious change in the balance of power in the Caucasus region and marked a new stage in the development of the idea of the Caucasian Muslim confederation, associated with the attempts of the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic to achieve recognition of its sovereignty by the victorious Entente countries at the Paris Peace Conference.

War and higher education in Riga, 1914–1920

The First World War, the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik coup and the subse-quent establishment of the Bolshevik regime, the German occupation and independent Latvia followed one another in quick succession within the territory of Latvia over the course of six years. The change of regimes significantly affected all spheres of life, including higher education. In late 19th century Riga had become an important centre for higher technical education in the Russian Empire. The conditions of war and German occupation brought significant changes in the work of Riga Polytechnical Institute, as it was evacuated to Russia. As the powers changed, the institute was not restored; however, its human resources and, to an extent, material base served as foundations for the creation of the Baltic Technical University (Baltische Technische Hochschule), the Bolshevik Higher School of Latvia (Latvijas Augstskola), the Technical Higher School in Riga (Technische Hochschule in Riga) and the Higher School of Latvia (Latvijas Augst-skola; later University, Latvijas Universitāte). Over a short period of time, four political regimes sought to establish higher education institutions appropriate to their system of political values and governance. This article will compare circumstances and goals, as well as provide an over-view of how the respective regimes initiated and implemented the activities of the universities in these extraordinary circumstances (war and revolution).

The question of universal suffrage in Hungary after the First World War, 1918–19

ABSTRACT The fall of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in 1918 resulted in the collapse of the historic Hungarian kingdom. As the result of the revolution of October 1918, a republican form of government was proclaimed on 16 November 1918 that functioned until the Bolshevik coup of 21 March 1919. An undisputed result of this era was the declaration of universal suffrage. Count Mihály Károlyi, the leader of the republic, introduced universal suffrage via a regulation called ‘The People’s Act’. Elections could not be held, due to the coup of the communists. When the ‘Soviet Republic’ also collapsed on 1 August 1919, the new conservative leaders decided to lead Hungary back to its old monarchic constitution. The parliament that had been dissolved in 1918 could not be reinstated. With the consent of the occupying forces, Prime Minister István Friedrich issued a decree on 17 November 1919. This decree basically retained Károlyi’s ‘People’s Act’ in effect, with some minor modifications. The Entente accepted this solution in order to negotiate the peace terms with a democratically elected Hungarian government. Elections could be therefore be held on 25–26 January 1920 based on a democratic suffrage.

Turning towards unity: a North Caucasian perspective on the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic

ABSTRACTThis article traces the efforts of the Union of Allied Mountaineers (UAM) to uphold the indigenous North Caucasians’ right to self-determination from March 1917, when the organization hoped for Russia’s restructuring as a federal republic wherein the Mountaineers (gortsy) would enjoy full political autonomy on their own territory (national-territorial autonomy), to May 1918, when the Mountaineer leaders attempted to join the Transcaucasian Federation. After the Bolshevik coup d'état in October 1917, the Mountain leaders declared the autonomy of the Provisional Mountain Government on 2 December 1917 and later the independence of the Mountain Republic on 11 May 1918 – in order to join the newly independent Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR). Since the UAM had been resistant to the idea of administrative unity with Transcaucasia for most of 1917, this article clarifies the logic behind the Mountain leadership’s reorientation away from Russia and towards Transcaucasia in early 1918. And considering the Mountain Republic declared independence at the very moment when the anti-separatist Terek People’s Republic insisted that it represented the political will of both the settler and native populations of the North Caucasus, this article also evaluates these two rival republics’ claims to popular legitimacy among the autochthonous Mountaineers.

Great Britain and the tvolution of the colonial system (end 19th – beginning 20th centuries)

The article investigates the impact of Great Britain on the evolution of colonialism in the late ХІХ and early ХХ centuries. It is analyzed the sources and scientific literature on the policy of the United Kingdom in the colonial question in the late ХІХ – early ХХ century. The reasons, course and consequences of the intensification of British policy in the colonial problem are described. The process of formation and implementation of London’s initiatives in the colonial question during the period under study is studied. It is considered the position of Great Britain on the transformation of the colonial system in the late XIX – early XX centuries. The resettlement activity of the British and the peculiarities of their mentality, based on the idea of racial superiority and the new national messianism, led to the formation of developed resettlement colonies. The war for the independence of the North American colonies led to the formation of a new state on their territory, and the rest of the “white” colonies of Great Britain had at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries had to build a new policy of relations, taking into account the influence of the United States on them, and the general decline of economic and military-strategic influence of Britain in the world, and the militarization of other leading countries. As a result, a commonwealth is formed instead of an empire. With regard to other dependent territories, there is also a change in policy towards the liberalization of colonial rule and concessions to local elites. In the late ХІХ – early ХІХ centuries the newly industrialized powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) sought to seize the colonies to reaffirm their new status in the world, the great colonial powers of the past (Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands) sought to retain what remained to preserve their international prestige, and Russia sought to expand. The largest colonial empires, Great Britain and France, were interested in maintaining the status quo. In the colonial policy of the United Kingdom, it is possible to trace a certain line related to attempts to preserve the situation in their remote possessions and not to get involved in conflicts and costly measures where this can be avoided. In this sense, the British government showed some flexibility and foresight – the relative weakening of the military and economic power of the empire due to the emergence of new states, as well as the achievement of certain self-sufficiency, made it necessary to reconsider traditional foreign policy. Colonies are increasingly no longer seen as personal acquisitions of states, and policy toward these territories is increasingly seen as a common deal of the international community and even its moral duty. The key role here was to be played by Great Britain, which was one of the first to form the foundations of a “neocolonial” system that presupposes a solidarity policy of Western countries towards the rest of the world under the auspices of London. Colonial system in the late ХІХ – early ХІХ century underwent a major transformation, which was associated with a set of factors, the main of which were – the emergence of new industrial powers on the world stage, the internal evolution of the British Empire, changes in world trade, the emergence of new weapons, general growth of national and religious identity and related with this contradiction. The fact that the First World War did not solve many problems, such as Japanese expansionism or British marinism, and caused new ones, primarily such as the Bolshevik coup in Russia and the coming to power of the National Socialists in Germany, the implementation of the above trends stretched to later moments.