doctor Mskigamikh Science
Moscow - 1997.
The work was performed at the department of the domestic history of the XX century of the historical faculty of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.
Official opponents:
doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor O.II. Mintopop Doctor of Law, deserving Professor M1U, Academician of the International Academy of Sciences of Higher School D L. Zlatonolsky Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor A.I. Golico.
h leading organizations Historical Faculty Moscow Pedagogical State University, V.I. Lenin sewn the dissertation will be held "" June 1997 N 17.0.0 at a meeting of the specialized council of D.053.05.08 on the protection of dissertations for the discussion of the Skill Skyline of the Nhinest Sciences Mri Malekshskpm State Unpnersnile name ^ m, p. Lomsovosi "(11khk99, MPSKPA.
Vorobiepy go () m, Moscow State University, 1st Corps | Unfortunate Faculty, Justic Faculty, Aud. 551).
The dissertation can be familiar with scientific Library Moscow State University A, m. Gorky Sparrow Mountains, First Corps (Smalltlmh Faculty of MSU).
Scientific Secretary Speed \u200b\u200b^ Lee "T ^ ovad SP:
Church P.M. Meshcheryakova
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Relevance Research themes. The dramatic consequences of the UA termination of the USSR, the wreck of hopes on the amortization role of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which has not yet been able to breathe, confirmed the most pessimistic political forecasts. The heavy results of the destruction of the Union were manifested everywhere, since there was a complete decay of the political, economic, defense, cultural and legal space of the USSR. Russia and the countries of the neighboring countries are experiencing the Ostroy social and demographic crises, accompanied by political conflicts, including armed. In such a situation, a number of discussion issues could not stand in front of the Russian public:was the collapse of the USSR inevitable (predefined), was it possible to preserve it in a reformed form in the early 90s; Is it worth it to strive for the revival of the State Association of the former Union republics, and what are the chances of success in this matter.
The search logic of answers to these difficult issues causes politicians and scientists to constantly apply to the process of formation of the USSR in order to find out if there were no factors that predetermined the future decomposition of the Soviet Union. In the second half of the 1980s, there was an opinion on the initial viability of the USSR, established as a whole on the basis of rational principles, which were further perverted by the Stalinist "autonomist" national policy. Currently, some political scientists, publicists, as well as a part of Russian scientists believe that the state created by the Bolsheviks (outside the residue from whether it was the Stalinist or Leninsky sample) could not be anything other than the "unitary-totalitarian colonial embiring to her" Since it was built mainly on violence, demagogy and deception.
It often expresses the opinion on the viciousness of the national-territorial principle based on the construction of the Union. It is argued that the contradictions that have become in it could not lead the USSR to the sad end. Such explanations easily fit into the dominant political and ideological conjuncture. However, our rich crisis-cycling experiences showed that expressed at such a moment of judgment and evaluation often sinned one-sidedness and exaggerations.
In crisis periods of development of society, the social meaning of historical science is increasing, becoming a significant factor in its spiritual revival. Society needs B. objective assessment Events about Crook. The need for new historical studies on the history of the formation of the USSR, corresponding to the modern level of development of historical science and giving an objective, comprehensive analysis of this extraordinary from being, now more than ever. However, the closer than the epoch, which the Humanitarian is recessed is, the greater the impact on its study provides policies.
Impact of science policies are complex: direct and indirect, positive and negative. One of the negative sides of the influence of the influence is the unjustion, when the historical science becomes "politics, the tolls of nuta in the past." The conjuncture is always harmful, but it is especially dangerous during the period of the crisis state of science. At this time, the natural protective re promotion of science weakens, primarily due to the exhaustion of obsolete theoretical and methodological principles. Accordingly, the value of other components that ensure its translational development increases. One of these components is historiography.
The functions of historiography in general and at the time of the crisis of historical science, in particular, it is possible to correctly understand, based on the dialectical concept of development, recognizing the unity of both sides - denial and continuity. If the change of old quality new occurs, not through the dialectic denial, but nihilistically, by the "bare" denial destroying the old quality entirely, then there can be no speech about any movement. It is in such a nihilistic denial that the risk of conjuncture effect on science is the risk. Understanding its disastrous influence on the mass of historical consciousness and professional historiography among the history of Rikov.
Somehow Academician M.V. Nechkahna metkaly called the problem of historiography of the problem of inheritance in historical science, noting that without it, science is perceived as a process, since the course of accumulation of real historical knowledge disappears. Continuing this true thought, we note that in the crisis moments of the development of historical science, it was the main severity to ensure that successive connections in the development of history thoughts. The need for deep historiographic generalizations in such periods is especially great. These considerations were guided by Autor, choosing the topic of his research.
The object of the study is the domestic historiography of the formation of the USSR.
The subject of study is a complex and controversial process of accumulating scientific knowledge under the topic under consideration. The focus is focused on the study of the formation and development of the concept of education of the USSR.
Purpose I. tasks Research. The main purpose of the study is to comprehend the accumulated experience of studying the formation of the USSR. Based on modern ideas about the path of development of Soviet historical science, the author set itself the task of justifying the criteria for the membership of the proceedings of the problem under consideration; Analyze each of the void historiographic stages from the point of view of folding the study of the Telski problem, which constitutes the conceptual basis of the topic, Ocharak through the state of the source base and the theoretical and methodological level of scientific papers.
In addition, the author sought to trace the study of the nodal problems of the topic under consideration in the chronological sequence; Show the dynamics of the views of Soviet scientists to the essence and the main stages of uniting traffic; Evolution of views V.I. Lenin and Bolsheviks on the sake-legal forms of decision of the national issue in Russia, search state form associations of the Soviet republics in the fall of 1922; Development of the Constitution of the USSR 1924 on the basis of the analysis of the existing scientific literature and, taking into account all published on this day of historical sources, the author put in front of him the task you to show the most relevant, promising and poorly studied aspects of the history of the USSR Education Chronological research framework covers the entire period Studying the topic under consideration from the mid-20s to the beginning of the 90s of the XX century.
Scientific novelty Thesis is that it represents the first study of the first in the domestic historical science, specially devoted to the analysis of the work of Soviet scientists who have published over the entire period of studying the formation of the USSR.
Practical significance Thesis is seen in the fact that it gives the opportunity to historians, lawyers, political scientists to make a complete picture of the degree of study of the problem under consideration and to independently consider the choice of aspects for a further study. Work can be used by teachers, students, graduate students, reading and looking for common and special courses in domestic history, history of the state and law of Russia X X century.
Approbation of work. The thesis submitted to the protection for a scientist's degree of doctor of science was discussed for the meeting of the Department of Patriotic Writing of the X X century of the History Faculty of Moscow State University and was recommended to protect. The fundamental problems and provisions "the dissertation were reflected in a number of reports and speeches of the Ator: in 1982 - on the VI seven Nare of historians of the USSR of Socialist countries (the report was published); interwacing the Zow Scientific Conference in MGIMO and Lomonosov Persons in Moscow State University (the main content of the reports was published In the magazine "Questions of History of the CPSU", 1982, NN 7.8); In 1986 - on the II Colloquium of Historians of the USSR and the port of Galia (Lisbon) (the main content of the report was published in the "Sasple Moskovik University. Series History", 1987, N 4); in 1987 - at the meeting of the "Round Table" at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Published); in 1988 - at the plenary session of Lomonosov's readings in Moscow State University; in 1991 - at the meeting "Round Table" The historical faculty of Moscow State University (the report is published in the Moscow University newspaper, 1991, N 2); in 1992 - at the conference of historians of Russia and Poland in Lodz (the report of the Published in 1996).
Degree of study. The emergence of historiographic research on the problem of Soviet Union Statehood refers to the second in the long year of the 20s. The intensive study of the newly educated state required the operational analysis of published works. Since the authors of the overwhelming majority of them were lawyers, then the first serious historiographic reviews were also created by representatives of this science. This circumstance is important to note, because in the future lawyers will refuse leadership in historiographic studies of historians.
During the period under review, in addition to many meaningful reviews, thematic reviews of literature was often published in the legal periodical periodics and magazines with wind construction. Among them, the review of I. Ilinsky is distinguished among them. Complex of the allocated auto problems is interesting primarily by the fact that they are soon either completely coznut from scientific literature, or will be departed to the background in order to re-be the subject of discussions only 30 years later, after the X X CPSU Congress. This is the question of the legal nature of the USSR (Federation or Confederation), SUVIAYAYAYASH II. The formation of the Soviet federal t m A (Obtir1 // Printing and Revolution. Book I. M, 1926.
the replacement of the republics and its guarantees (on the right of exiting the USSR), the influence of the national and economic factors of the Federal Device to the State of Darism, its centralization and decentralization, development prospects from the Wind Republic, as the national question decishes.
Since the late 20s, politicized scientific journalism quickly gained strength, sensiblely catching the rapidly voted political and ideological atmosphere. The exposure campaign, deployed at the time by the conjuncturally confined legal entities, led to such an understanding and the implementation of the class approach in the Soviet states, which, apparently, can be defined as a narrow-class, absolutizing class of the Soviet relationship, it was expressed in a nihilistic denial of the application of formal legal methods in the Soviet state sciences, since the conceptual apparatus used in this case and the methods of its application were developed by a pre-revolutionary domestic and foreign neurxistant legal thought.
A typical model of such a conjunctural history of graphic work can be the book A.K. STELGEVICH "WAYS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET REATURE". The desire for the desire to expose all the manifestations of bourgeois science in the writings of Soviet lawyers, the author found them practically in every serious analyst state officer, since they all used a rejected methodology to one way or another. Problems for crouted authors (M.O. Reikhelem, N.I. Palenko, D.A.
Magerole, I.N. Ananov, V.N. Kurdenhevsky and others), STELGEVICH announces a contrived, which is the result of the unlawful imposition of the methods of bourgeois state studies to a qualitatively different object of study - Soviet statehood, the class nature of which is diametrically opposed to the bourgeois. Such historiographic evidence was made by science with tremendous harm, since the consciousness of the Soviet states of their professional instruments were deprived of the consciousness, who developed earlier decades, complied with the possibility of using the rates of foreign legal science, condemned the Soviet state in the same descriptiveness and schematism against which the struggle was carried out.
All other things, the triumph of nihilism led to the elimination of the historiographic directions in scientific research. In the 30s, it practically disappeared.
After the X X of the CPSU Congress, when the task of overcoming the consequences of the cult of the Personality of Stalin in the Humanitarian sciences there was a need for a resolution of knowledge accumulated in three decades. Since this function belongs, mainly historiography, in those years, for the first time in the history of Soviet historical science, historical research is widely unfolded.
It was then, in the 60s, a series of articles of C. Yakubovskaya and D.A. Chugaev to a new step was raised and the historiographic study of the Topic Required topic. They are interesting primarily for the first time attempts to try to trace the whole course of studying the problem under consideration. The process of using the USSR education is divided into three historiographic stages from WestaPyrevich. Ways of development of Soviet legal thought. M .. 1928. P. 5 1.
Yakubovskaya si. Construction of the Allied Soviet socialist state. M., 1960. P. 29-49;
She is. Soviet historiography of the USSR education // Questions of history. 1962. N 12; Chuhaevda. The formation of the USSR (historiographic about bz about p) / / QUESTION QUESTIONS. 1962. N 6: He is. Historiography of the USSR // Essays on the historiography of the Soviet society. M .. 1965 Hami in the mid-30s and mid-50s. Moreover, if the latter of them is substantiated by the positive impact of decisions of the X X CPSU Congress, the turn of the first and second stages is not specifically motivated. Apparently, the Council of Social Society, according to which the mid-30s, the Socialism was built in the mid-30s in the USSR, and, as one of its results, the cult of the personality was developed on the mid-1930s.
The merit of Yakubovskaya and Chugaev also consists in the fact that they started their shaped "rehabilitation" / hyperture of the 20s - early 30s, actually re-introducing it into scientific turns. Without refusing back from the accusations of S.A. Kotlyarevsky, M.O. Reikhel and a number of other states in undechanged the characteristics of the class character of the Soviet federal state of the GSU in an excessive analogy with bourgeois federations, the historically recognized the depth and circumstance of the analysis by these lawyers in the intelligence of the republics before the formation of the USSR and in its composition. Analyzing the reinstateness and disadvantages of the literature of the second half of the 30s - early 50s, Yakubovskaya and Chughaev focused on the appearances of the cult of the personality of Stalin. At the same time, the authors did not hide the fact that they guide the CPSU documents. At the same time, both historically positive features of the second historiographic stage considered the correct refreshment of the periods of climbing movement and attention to the activities of the Communist Party. However, the criterion "correctness of views" in this case was the scheme of the unifying movement contained in the decision of the XII Congress of the RCP (b) and the works of Stalin, and the lighting of the role of the communist
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
pravda.
Thus, when evaluating such aspects of the problem under consideration, as the role of Lenin and the party, the emphasis is consciously or blewlessly shifted from that, as they write, what they write about. It turned out that if they write about V.I. Lenin and Party (Naturally, in accordance with the directory instructions of its hand drivers), this is already in itself well and correct. In the future, in the years of the so-called "stagnation", this will speculate hundreds of Owlock scientists, on all the freedoms of the most famous truths for the next anniversary.
The beginning of the third historiographic stage Yakubovskaya and Chugasv relative to the mid-50s. The historiographic analysis of the works of those years is increasingly accurate on how they reflect the role of Lenin and the party in the development of theoretical problems of the Soviet Federation, the creation of an allied state, criticizing the "autonomization plan", the international meaning of the USSR formation. In the sections of works on modern (for the authors of historiographic articles) whether the treatment on the problem under consideration more than The presence of such a typical lack of a bibliographicism, when historiographic analysis turns into a set of small annotations into separate works, and the specific contribution of the study is determined in general terms, and attention is concentrated on individual, sometimes private issues.
To some extent this shortcoming could not be avoided. Kulichenko, when he described only the monographs of C. Yakubovskaya and S.S. Gililova. However, determining on the basis of these books the most debate aspects of the historiography of the USSR formation, he put a different point of view of scientists in the center of historiographic analysis and expressed his opinion about them. Such an approach allowed to bear elements of bibliographs. An even more problematic principle of the analysis of whether therapy is inherent in the later works of all the above authors. They were clearly formulated well-studied aspects, controversial issues were identified and the positions of the authors were analyzed, gaps are indicated in the works of Soviet historians and state scientists.
Further historiographic study of the formation of the USSR went in line with the general concept of the history of Soviet historical science, mainly established by the mid-60s and the most fully reflected in the IV volume "essays of the history of historical science in the USSR." The problem of the formation of the USSR in the overall historiographic literature is reflected quite surface and more reminds a bibliographic review than historiographic analysis, it is reflected in more detail in generalizing works but the history of the state and law, since the Soviet statehood is a special subject of research. Nevertheless, these works are still of interest as the first attempts to generalize and systematize the entire array of state-legal literature taken after the fifty-1-year rebel. They give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe issues of research, the positions of auto docks, the discussions and poorly studied aspects.
* Kuiaichsnko M.I. Jubilee literature about the place of the role of a national issue in the October Revolution // Questions of the CPSU History. 1969. N 3; Yakubovskaya si. The main stages and problems of the historiography of the Yaacpovyalko-Ursacerbian-building in the USSR II actual problems of the history of national state construction in the USSR. Dushanbe. 1970.
On the strengths and weaknesses of the pretty-legal historiographic works of this period with a complete basis can be judged by turning to my, perhaps the meaningful monograph of this genre, written by N.Ya.
Cook. The author revealed and systematized almost all literature on the 20s of the Soviet state law. Considering the Soviet Constitution as a regulatory framework for the formation of science of Soviet state law, the author allocated three stages of its development, focusing on the date of adoption of the Constitutions of the RSFSR and the USSR (1918, 1923 *, 1936). As part of these stages, various interpretations of the states of the Soviet Constitution, the organization of the state and its forms, where the emphasis was made on various approaches in the coverage of the Soviet Federation and autonomy in the coverage of the Soviet Federation and autonomy; election law. Unlike the predecessors, Kutgoitsa managed to show the clashes of the personal opinions of scientists and trace the evolution of their views. Undoubted
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
However, the irresistible Stalinist scheme for the development of the Soviet society, laid in the OSP analysis, was affected not only at the general concentration of mono graphics, but also on the interpretation of the methodological aspects of the problem under consideration. The initial installation of the mardon that "the main thing in the development of the Soviet people, coming under the leadership of the party along the path of construction of communism, as in the development of its science, make up no mistakes and disadvantages," mean the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR II session CEC USSR 6 July 1923
and the achievements and victory, "testifies to one-sidedness and some specified analysis.
General historiographic works Together with historiographic, the Education of the USSR served the foundation for a series of candidate dissertations specifically dedicated to the problem under consideration. True, the first of them, protected by E.A. Zaitseva in 1969, was not historic, but a source. However, the author did not limit itself to the definition of the information potencies of traditional groups of historical sources, but tried to find out how fully projected Ma therals were introduced into the scientific turnover, thereby specifying the opportunities for the missed people.
The first candidate thesis on the historiography of the formation of the USSR was prepared by MA Malinovsky in Kharkov in 1973, two years later, in Moscow, the thesis on the same topic was successfully defended with V. Ku Leshov, and in the year of the 60th anniversary of the USSR - N.M. Rodionova (Voronezh). In these three complementary works, the achievements and miscalculations of the Soviet history of the 70s and 1980s are visible. All authors strictly adhere to the overall history of the Riographic Concept and proceed from the development of the USSR formation for the walking line. Each of them begins the dissertation with the presentation of his understanding of the Leninsky teaching about the Soviet Multiethnic State * Kurstch N.Ya. From the history of science of the Soviet state of any law. M., 197). P. 10.
* Zaitseva eating. Politics R K u b) and Soviet Roshratlsgw on the national issue in 1921-1925 GT.
(Overview of publinkovaniy dummets). Diss ... Cal. not. science Leningrad. 1969.
"Malinovshiya M.A. Education of the USSR in Soviet historiography (1922-1971) diss ... Cand. No. Sciences.
Kharkov, 1973. Kuleshov S.V. Historiography of the activities of the Communist Party on the creation of the USSR.
DNSS ... Cand. East. science M., 1975; Rodionova them. Historical and Cardkain Schgheratra on the activities of the communist party to form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Diss ... Cand. East. science
Voronezh, 1982 (in fact, the views of the most famous specialists reproduced in these chapters). Then there was a phased characteristic of the literature at an angle of view of the problems allocated in the first chapter, which was considered as the process of approving the Marxist-Leninist concept. The authors of the dissertations did not refuse to estimate the literature 20x and 30-50s, so there is no significant discrepancies in their positions.
Theses were distinguished from each other, mainly by accents on the defense of the intentions of the general problem: Malinovsky wrote a job in a Torius Torius, Kuleshov and Rodionova - in the party history. There were some differences in the periodization of the historiographic process proposed by them.
No how many historiographic reviews, in which historians and lawyers embalted new literature on the formation of the USSR, usually appeared for the anniversary dates in historical periodicals. Although often, these publications were sinned by a bibliographicism, they brought the weight of the benefit, while attracting the attention of the scientific community to new works and helping the stamps to navigate the subjects of the topic under consideration. In addition, their authors expressed their own opinions on the merits of the problems of interest and specialists.
* Kukushkin 10. S. Problems of studying the history of the creation of the SSR Union // History of the USSR. ] 972. n b; Ahme Dov M.S. Some issues of the history of the Education of the SSR Union // Questions of the History of the CPSU. 1973. N 2; Hare va ate., Oatmealia. Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the latest Soviet literature // Bulletin of LSU. Vol. 4.] 982. N 20; Zevelieva ate., Kuleshov Sv. History of the formation of the USSR in the Soviet literature of the last decade // Questions of history. 1982. N11; Chrome with C. Historical experience of the formation of the USSR and the problem of its study // Questions of history. 1983. N 6; Cleaning he.
Education of the USSR (some questions of historiography) // History of the USSR. 1983. N 1 Several historiographic articles were written and the author of these lines. Attempts to trace the dynamics of the concept of the USSR formation in the 70s. For this purpose, the interpretation of all nodal problems of this topic was considered. As a result of the analysis of cases of serious conceptual concepts, it was not possible to identify. The conclusion was made to confirm the concept that established in the mid-50s - mid-60s, as quite scientifically justified. Today it is obvious that such an estimate of whether therasture of the 70s was not true enough. Like other historographs, I could not state a tendency to stag and partial restaline
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
The next direction in the historiographic study considering my topic is represented by works on its individual aspects.
Back in 1967 si. Yakubovskaya chose for a historiographic review from a weakly studied problem - participation of the peoples of the Soviet East (Central Asia and Transcaucasia) in the formation and development of the USSR. In subsequent years, similar studies appeared, written on materials ^ Ukraine. This should also include the historically1-raffically work on adjacent or wider problems that are of fundamental importance for K * ^ studying the topic under consideration. This is primarily historiographic PubbaBachas. History of the USSR formation in the Soviet historiography of the 70s / / in E is tn and k Mg, U. Series 8.
History. 1982 N 6, oh, t. / * Theaual problems of education of the Soviet multinational state // Social aspects of the history of the Soviet people as a new cell-and-NTherenadioneniology of the generality of the community. M., 1982.
| With Yakubovskaya si. The peoples of the Soviet East in the formation and development of the USSR (historiographic about b zor) // n and r about d and AZKV N Africa: history, economy, culture. 1967. n b.
"White P.F. Reflection of the participation of the Ukrainian people in Obtltsyghelpoei movement for the formation of the USSR in documentary Ggubley and monographs / / historical" finish and their study. Vol. 7. Kiev, 1972.
(Ukrainian language) ,. _.
licacy on the history of national-state construction, National Policy and National Relations.
Summing up the historiographic study of the formation of the USSR in to a perestroika period, it is necessary to state its backlog as from the requirements of research practice and from the historiography of related topics of Soviet history. Historographs managed to solve a relatively limit range of problems, many of which (first of all the characteristics of the Toric stages) needed substantial revision.
They were revealed by Lena almost all the available literature, it was established, which of the authors for what questions and what I wrote, the discussion problems and the positions of the arguing parties were identified, however, the leading component of historifaic follow-up (concept dynamics) is shown weakly, with dogmatic methodological positions. To compile a holistic idea of \u200b\u200bthe degree of study of all aspects of the concept on them is difficult due to an irresistible bibliograph.
The historiography of the period of "Perestroika" began with the breakdown of the struck of a hundred Linsky schemes for the history of Soviet society. Initially, it was about WHO rotation to Leninism, purify it from Stalinist and other layers.
With regard to the topic in question, this approach was embodied in the historiographic works of Al. Nenarokova. In the article, the name of which Koto Roy speaks about the refusal of the traditional idea of \u200b\u200bstraight-centenary, 15.E. Questions of the historiography of the National Policy to P with C / / Historical Experience of the CPSU to address the National Question to the Development of National Relations in the USSR. M .. 1972; Tadevosyi E.V.
Problems of the Soviet Eastrospography of the National-State Gosu-Darsgvant Construction in the USSR // History of the USSR.
1978. n b; The main directions for the study of the main stages and directions of national relations in C with C R / / and S T O P and I USSR. 1979, N 2; Seeyelian. And., Kuleshov Sv. The history of Nashonal-State Statue Construction in the latest Soviet literature // Problems of historiography and sources of history to P with S. M, 1980.
the progressive development of Soviet historiography, the process of education of the USSR appears in more complex video As a movement of scientific thoughts on an individual, there is also ahead, but also reversed, - paths, complete drama, acquires and losses.
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
"I learned in our conclusions, at best, on political generalization of historical experience, not pursuing the tasks of historical and professional analysis." True, at the same time Nenarokov still stressed that Lenin should be the championship in historical analysis of the problems of unifying
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
cultural construction.
Less than a year later, in the presence presented to the protection of the doctoral dissertation and published on it, after two years, the author several adjusted its position by making it more contradictory. He was appreciated as follows: "Lenin laid the beginning and professional, worst analysis of these problems. However, all this does not mean that the names are beginning with this and the professional study of these problems of the history of the history of hiking." Such a very ambiguous position of Nenarokova redly clearly testified how difficult to gave historians to rejection of old ideological axioms. After all, in essence, from the very beginning there was "Nenarokov A.P. Dogmatic canonization of Stalinist approaches to the decision of the national issue and the loss of Soviet historiography of the unifying movement // History of the USSR. 1988. K 6. P. 58.
n Nenarokov A.P. Unity of equal: cultural factors of the commercial movement of the Soviet peoples.
1917-1924. M., 1991. P. 18.
the right thought was expressed; Lenin's work should be considered as an is a toric source, not including them in historiography.
Determining the main content of the process of becoming the development and development of the Isto Riography, Nenarokok still saw him in mastering the Lenin Lena with the Diem and Concept. However, in contrast to its predecessors, the author considered that it was contradictory and ambiguous, and until the mid-50s weakly influenced the direction and content of research work.
Thus, essentially, Nsenarokov came to the right conclusion that the Leninist concept was not established in Soviet historiography, despite the subjective desire for researchers to be guided by it. Such a conclusion was a significant step forward in comparison with the Lord with the earlier opinion on the fact that by the mid-30s, the Lenin concept was firmly established in Soviet historiography.
The process of studying the unifying movement of Soviet peoples is nsnarokov in the form of two turns of a spiral with a milestone in the mid-50s. Describing the features of the literature, which came out before the period, Auto faithfully allocated the originary and approved at that time a tendency towards simplified presentation of the history of Soviet society. It was based on the rationale for the correctness and patterns of proclaimed by Stalin and its closest courses. As the positions of the political protlipshkov of Stalin or simply something unwanted by the states and party figures, they were assessed as inseparable; Jeki, expressed by their thoughts or developed on their basis, the idea was discarded away, which led to not
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
schemes of the unifying movement and the formation of the USSR.
The basis of the concept that dominated these years was the following provisions: 1) The Soviet republics or the peoples of these republics were considered to be the subjects of the Disorder, the essence of the movement was reduced to the issue of their closer union into a single state union; 2) the relationship between the Russian Federation with independent with the windy republics from the very beginning was based on the principles of the Leninsky-Stalin National Policy; 3) The formation of the USSR was depicted as a result of the implementation of a previously developed LE1TINGM and his only true student of the Stalin Plan for the construction of the Union Soviet State of Darism.
The characteristic features of historiography of the 30-50s are marked by the nonarokens, it is possible to detect in one or another in the literature of the 20s - early 30s. However, it is difficult to agree with him that on topics, approaches and decisions literature of the late 1930s - early 50s was only a continuation of the research developments of the previous years. This statement goes against its characteristic about the controversivity of processes in historiography during its formation. To the above conclusions, it is impossible to reduce even the determining content of the 20s - early 30s. After all, the author himself wrote about the losses of whole research directions, the more under the moves that had occurred at the beginning of the study of the unifying movement "of nonaronts Al. Dogmatic canonization of Stalin's approaches P. 61.
Nenarokov A.P. To the unity of equal. P. 26.
"T and m. P. 23.
and the formation of the USSR. It seems that in the 20s - early 30s, the one of the non-arreed direction was one of the rapidly intensified flows in historiography, which was undilly established in science in the second half of the 1930s. Thus, it is hardly possible to consider the elimination of the liquia of the late 20s - early 30s in the development of the historiography of the topic under consideration.
Stating the victory of the Stalinist interpretation of the comprehensive movement and the formation of the USSR in historiography of the 30s-50s and the associated loss, the author, meanwhile, did not exclude the presence of a progressive trend in the literature. He revealed her, considering the works of historians and lawyers. Describing to teaching literature, the discharge after the X X CPSU Congress, Nenarokov showed it to overcoming those who seemed to be unshakable Stalin's canons and noted the rejection of new interpretations with Nes Stalinsky, the guarding current in the tests of Toriography (especially on the issue of the so-called "Lazio-Uklo1gam").
In his opinion, this conservative direction from the end of the 60s post fennoly occupied a dominant place in historiography, breaking the road to MNA to the promising approaches that came out in the period "thaw" "
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
E.V. Alferova undertook a new (after mandal) an attempt to summarize the soviet lawyers of the 20s to the Federation and autonomy, rightly believing that in those years they were a significant contribution to the development of this issue. She paid due attention to the search for states "Nenarokov A.P. ibid. P. 23, 29-30.
the generally accepted value of such starting concepts as "sheltering", "Autonomy", "Federation", "Confederation".
A year later, the study in this direction was continued. The collection of the authors of the State and Rights of the Inion of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (E.V. Alferova, N.A. Bogdanova, P.G. Semenov and others) a collection of reviews were published on the formation and development of the Soviet state in the 1920s. Complied with the authors developed by the authors with the questions offered by twenty years earlier before the interpretation of questions, their coincidence should be noted on many prechpial positions. As scientific theory and methodology, Maxim-Leninism and the government law developed on its basis were recognized. The consistent holding of the Marxist-Leninist method of logical was actually brightened to the declaration of class priorities in the study of the state and law, while the subjective intentions of the authors were identified with the results of their scientific research (although the desire for the development of state right to be guided by the interests of the working class did not guarantee automatically the success of its implementation).
In addition, they did not cause doubts the legality of the leading role of the CPSU in the federal relations of the Soviet republics.
They mainly coincide and their explanations of the development of the Soviet state (institutional) law in the 20s-30s: 1) the unwillingness of the investigators of the time to use pre-revolutionary legal terms; logound; 2) underestimation of legal norms of regulation of state-owned construction E.V. Soviet Federation and autonomous state "Domestic and legal forms of solving a national question (studies of scientific laws of the 20s). Review. M., 1989. P. 6-9.
The formation of the development of coyetskopes of state-owned: studies of scientists 20-k. 4. 1-2. M., 1990.
telsgga; 3) politicizing science on constractions. However, the rebuilding trends still affected the beneficiation of new Pleiads of lawyers. Upon whipping the reasons for the underestimation of the legal regulation of the functioning of general state bodies, the actual rule of power over the right, inevitable during the dictatorship of the proletariat, was emphasized. Regress stated a strong tendency in the development of science of Soviet state law, which since the end of the 20s, which, in fact, the knowledge of the industry in the early 1930s since the end of the 20s and leading to the elimination of this industry. True, one of the authors, P.G. Semenov, believed that the process of the formation of the Soviet constitutional law was delayed, but did not stop. He ended in the late 1930s, as witnessed the first textbook on this discipline in 1938. Shi rocky spread of such negative phenomena as dogmatism, vulgar cells, the displacement of pluralism of opinions and intolerable nature of criticism associated with the approval of the team-administratives of the management methods and formalization of the functions of demo1phactic institutions.
In the course of this concept, the author's team attempted to rethink the views of state sciences of the 20s, systematizing them on the following issues: the nature and essence of power, its economic basis, organizational structure, general issues of the Constitution and National Nations-state-state system of the USSR. The general conclusion is such - the Soviet state law has not yet developed into an independent branch of law
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
The formation and development of the Soviet M-domineering examinations * NSS. Dead junction of scientists 21- \\ hook h.? With! Mr. Česka science, because the concept was not developed, did not determine the subject of its study, the developed conceptual apparatus was not formed.
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
theoretical study on. Bogdanova, although in conceptual relationship the work is a little different from the literature of stagnant years. The main emphasis in it is made on the methodological aspects of historical research in the science of Soviet state law.
Representing the author of reflections on the unity of historical and theoretical methods of investing, the interpretation of continuity in the development of the Soviet state law, the question of the movement of the conceptual apparatus of science. Bo Gdanova stopped in detail on the methodological aspects of the periodization of the Soviet state law, substantiates the conclusion that its criteria should be sought in the development of the science itself (change in concepts and theories). It can be poked with it and with its conclusion that the periodization of state law, according to the stages of the socio-political history of the country in accordance with the stages of the socio-political history, needs to be rethought. However, at the same time, traditional initial dogmatic installations were preserved in the work as a prolonged form of all phenomena of state-legal reality from the position of the interests of the proletariat, the recognition of the only scientific Marxist School of theory and methodology, upholding the purity of views on the Soviet state law from the standpoint of dogmatized Marxism. Pluralism of opinions in the first years of restructuring was limited to the framework of a socialist choice and only the Marxist sample. Nevertheless, "T a m. Ch. 1. P. 3-6.i am Bogdanova on. Science of Soviet state law: Easterbank-Tesretic study. M., 1989.
during the years "Perestroika" was made another step forward in the understanding of the course and results of studying the history of the USSR education.
Over the past five years, new historiographic work, specially devoted to the formation of the USSR, has not appeared. However, our historiography essay still would not be completed if it was not to mention a number of modern historiographic studies, in which the beginning of a change in the thoughts of FSPSEN Soviet historiography; Certagoigan attempt to determine the content of the stages of Soviet historical science in the X X century, trace the influence of Stalinism on the development of historical research and its evolution in the period of "thaw"; To find out the causes and essence of the crisis of domestic historical science and the way to overcome it. The Russian historians paid special attention to the analysis of those complex processes, which
- & nbsp- & nbsp-
"Perestroika", when rapid, the collapse of the old concepts was aged the emergence of new scientific interpretation of the past.
Sources. The peculiarity of the source base of the monograph is that historiographic sources are based on its foundation, that is, the works of domestic historians, lawyers, philosophers and political scientists. Traditional sources (documents of party and state bodies, speech and articles of the heads of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, periodic printing and so on.) Used by the author mainly in order to compile "History in Stalinism. M .. 1991; Soviet historiography. M., 19% ; Historical science of Russia in the XX CE. M-. 1997.
to borders hectares, Kozlov in A. History and conjuncture. M., 1992; Poles Yua. Our unpredictable about should. Popit notes. M., 1995.
opinion about the quality of their analysis by researchers, verification of completeness and accuracy of the transmission of information contained in the sources.
The study methodology is based on the principle of objectivity, historicism and a specific historical approach to sources and literature.
Structure and basic THE CONTENT OF THE WORK
Structure of work. The dissertation presented to the protection consists of introduction, eleven chapters and conclusion.In the introduction The relevance of the topic of study is motivated, an Ana Liz of historiographic works is given under the problem under consideration, the goals and objectives of the work are formulated, its structure is justified, the chronological framework, as well as the features of the source base. The author sets out its prediction on the membership of the process of studying the formation of the USSR, which is divided into two periods with the frontier in the early 1990s. Inside the first period, five stages are highlighted with milestones in the early 20s and 30s; Mid 50s;
the end of the 60s - early 70s and the mid-80s. Next, the characteristics of each historiographic stage is given. The second period, which began from August 1991 events and the collapse of the USSR, is not the subject of study, because In the 90s, special research was not published on the specified topic.
In the chapter of the first "study of Lenin and Bolshevikov's views on the state, the legislative forms of decision of the National Question" will consider the course and the results of the study of this problem throughout the history of graphic stages. The author explains why this topic was in the center attentive to Soviet social scientists, and disassemble the initial theoretical methodological principles, relying on which domestic scholars of OS broadcast the views of the Bolsheviks and their leader. Next, theoretical attitudes of the founders of Marxism are revealed, which, according to the Soviet investigators, they formed the basis of the Russian Social Democratic Program on the National Question. The content is analyzed in detail the content of the rights of nations on self-determination, Levate ("Luxembourgan") interpretations of this provision in the Dookater period and the first years of Soviet power.
The chapter discusses, as in the domestic historiography of Tractov, a change in the position of the Bolsheviks on the optimal (from their point of view) of the state-legal and legal forms of solving a national issue. In the dof, the trade period they called for the creation of a unitary democratically centralized state with a wide regional autonomy. The most difficult and controversial study of the problem was the attitude of the Bolsheviks to the use of the Federation in the obligation of Russian statehood. Until the mid-1917, they opposed the federation of Russia. In 1917-1918 The Bolsheviks recognized the purpose of the federal structure of the Russian Soviet Republic. Che cut the second RCP program (b) officially secured it by Pest. Awes of the dissertation shows how the evolution of this program slogan of the Bolsheviks was analyzed by Soviet scientists, talks about the discus sihy, which was conducted in the 20s-30s and resumed in the mid-50s;
receives well and poorly studied aspects of this problem in modern historiography and defines promising directions for its further study.
In the second chapter "The Constitution of the RSFSR 1918: The study of the first experience of the design of the Soviet Federation" is analyzed by historical and historical and legal work, which contains a distinguishing interpretation of the development of the development and a number of the main provisions of the Constitution of the RSFSR 1918
The author considers the position of Soviet scientists on such problems as the definition of the decision time to prepare the Constitution, the periodization of the development of its project; containing and forming the activities of the Constitution Commission of the WTCIK; Evaluation different projects Constitution (in Chariacy, Projects I.V. Stalin and I.M. Rysner) and disputes arising during their discussion. The author also cites various opinions of scientists about the role of the Mission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) in the development of the first Soviet Constation. The study of the provisions of the Basic Law, the author, on the basis of the goals and objectives of his research, focuses on a discussion issue on the peculiarities of Russian federalism.
In the chapter of the third "Essence and periodization of the unifying movement. The initial stage of national-state construction," it is noted that the formation of the USSR for several decades was considered as a result of a unifying movement. This concept situation entered Soviet historiography in the early 1930s and firmly gained in it in the 40s, after the first monographs of specialists dedicated to this issue. Thus, the time of his statement in scientific literature refers to the period of establishment and stateships of Stalin's one-owned and cult. Such a coincidence, of course, is not by chance, for Stalin himself was his author.
The chapter analyzes an understanding of the essence of the concept of "unifying motion", as well as various options for its periodization offered by domestic historians and lawyers throughout the entire time of this problem.
Soviet national-state spinalness turned in two directions. First, independent and autonomous republics were formed, as well as autonomous regions. Secondly, the search for the optimal state-legal forms of their union was. Without the opportunity to consider the course of studying the history of the creation of each Soviet Republic, the author considers the general, fundamental problems of the establishment of the Soviet national statehood in the first years after the Oktyabrskaya Dogius, who studied by Soviet scientists. The focus is focused on lighting in the Soviet historiography of the search for the forms of the Union of the Republics. In particular, various judgments are compared about the reasons and results of the association ^ Iitovskaya and the Belarusian Republic of Lik in the same State Litbel (February-August 1919). Specialty 07.00.02 - Domestic history Dissertation Author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree candidate of historical sciences Moscow - 2013 The thesis was made at the Department of History of Russia Faculty of Humanitarian and Social Sciences FGBOU VPO "Russian University of Friendship of Peoples" Scientific Director: Doctor ... "
"Chumakov Varvara Pavlovna Concept of Herbert Marshall McClun: Media in sociocultural dynamics Specialty 24.00.01 -" Theory and History of Culture "Dissertation Author's abstract on the degree of candidate Candidate of Culturalology Moscow 201 2 work was carried out at the Department of General Sociology FGAOU VPO" National Research University "Higher School Economy. " Scientific Director: Pokrovsky Nikita Evgenievich, Doctor of Sociological, Candidate of Philosophy, ... "
"Grachev Timofey Sergeevich Unity of Rights and Responsibilities As the Principle of Law: General Actual Aspect Specialty 12.00.01 - Theory and History of Law and State; History of the teachings on the right and state the dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of law sciences Krasnodar, 2010 Thesis was made in the state educational institution Higher Professional Education "Pyatigorsky State Technological University" Scientific Director: ... "
"Komarov Maya Mikhailovna Swedish residential house of the era of national romanticism of the late XIX - early XX centuries: tradition and innovation Specialty 17.00.0 Fine and decorative and applied art and architecture The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate art history Moscow 200 work is carried out at the Department of Universal Art History History Faculty of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Scientist Doctor ... "
"Mosienko Lyudmila Vasilyevna Validate self-determination of students in the space of a university youth subculture 13.00.01 - General pedagogy, history of pedagogy and education The dissertation author's abstract on the degree of doctor of pedagogical sciences Orenburg - 2012 work was implemented in the Federal State University of School of Educational Institution" Orenburg State University »Scientific Kiryakov Aida Vasilyevna ..."
"UDC 9 (575.1) 008 (575.1) (09) Babahodzhaeva Lola Maratovna Major Trends and Directions of International Cultural and Humanitarian Cooperation of the Republic of Uzbekistan (period of independence) Specialty 07.00.01 - History of Uzbekistan Dissertation Author's abstract on the degree of doctor of historical sciences Tashkent - 201 The work was performed at the Department of "Political Science and the Story of Uzbekistan" of Tashkent road road ... "
"Methods of historical research Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences Tomsk - 2008 The work was carried out at the Department of History of the Fatherland GOU VPO" Voronezh State Agrarian University named after K.D. Glinka "Scientific Director: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Philonenko ..."
"Tarasenko Vladimir Viktorovich Russian-Lithuanian relations in 1239-1367 Specialty 07.00.02 - Domestic history The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of historical sciences Tyumen 20 The work was performed at the Department of Patriotic History GOU VPO" Tyumen State University ". Scientific Director: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Pashin Sergey Stanislavovich Official opponents: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Solodkin Yankel ... "
"Mantry Maria Sergeyevna Development" Image I "of modern teenagers 13.00.01 - General pedagogy, history of pedagogy and education the dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of pedagogical sciences Orenburg - 2013 work was carried out at the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education" Orenburg State University " Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor Scientist: Meleksov Gennady ... "
"Ilina Anna Yurevna heterogeneity of toponymic nominations of the English-speaking provinces of Canadians as a reflection of the language picture of the world of Canadians Specialty: 10.02.20 - Comparative historical, typological and comparable linguistics of the dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of philological sciences Moscow - 201 work was performed at the Department of Foreign Languages \u200b\u200bof the Philology Faculty Russian University of Friendship Peoples Scientific Officer: Chesnokova Olga ... "
"Safronov Safronov Oleg Semenovich Problems of the Evolution of Society and the State in the ideology of Russian anarchism (MA Bakunin and P.A. Kropotkin) Specialty 07.00.02 - Domestic history Dissertation Author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of doctor of historical sciences Tambov - 20 work performed on the Department Stories of Russia of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Voronezh State Pedagogical ..."
"Daily events. Specialty 07.00.09. Historiography, source studies and methods of historical research The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of historical sciences Moscow, 201 work performed on the department ... "
"Karcanova Svetlana Viktorovna Basics of Patriotic Statehood in conservative political and legal exercises of the XIX century of the XX century 12.00.01 - Theory and History of Law and State; History of exercises on the right and state Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of legal sciences Moscow 2015 The thesis was carried out in the autonomous non-profit organization of the Higher Professional Education "Belgorod Institute of Cooperation, Economics and Law" at the Department of Theory ... "
"Blokhina Natalia Alekseevna Legal Responsibility in the RSFSR (1930-1940) 12.00.01 Theory and History of Law and State; History of teachings on the right and state Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of legal sciences Kazan 2007 The thesis was implemented at the Department of Theory and History of the State and the Rights of the Educational Autonomous Non-Profit Organization of Higher Professional Education "Volzhsky University. V.N. Tatishchev "(Institute), Togliatti ..."
"Sobolev Evgeny Valerevich Anglo-American rivalry for the oil of the Arab Emirates of the Persian Gulf (1923-1938) specialty 07.00.03. - Universal history (new and new history) Dissertation Author's abstract on the degree of candidate of historical sciences Yekaterinburg 200 Work was carried out at the Department of Oriental Studies in the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State University. A.M. Gorky "...."
"Mironova Natalia Petrovna Ethnic self-consciousness of modern youth of the Republic of Komi (on the example of students in Syktyvkar) specialty 07.00.07 - ethnography, ethnology and anthropology dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree candidate of historical sciences Moscow - 201 work performed in the Ethnography sector of the institution Russian Academy Sciences Institute of Language, Literature and History of Komi NC Uro RAS. Scientific Director: Doctor of Historical Sciences Yuri Petrovich Shabaev ... »
"Titareva Larisa Dmitrievna Women's prose as a phenomenon of modern Russian culture (on the example of the Trans-Baikal Territory) Specialty 24.00.01 - Theory and History of Culture (Cultural Studies) Dissertation Author's abstract on Candidate Candidate Candidate of Culturalology Chita-201 Work performed in FGBOU VPO" Transbaikal State University " Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor Scientist: Berniekevich Tatyana Vladimirovna Dr. Culturology, Professor, Official FGBOU ... "
"History of the dissertation author's abstract on the degree of candidate of historical sciences Kazan - 2010 Work was carried out at the Department of Humanities of the Kazan State Chemical Technology University Scientific Director - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Olga Nikolaevna Korshova Official opponents: ..."
"Bazanova Elena Alekseevna Relations of the PRC with the Arab countries of the Middle East in 1980-2010. Specialty 07.00.03 - Universal history (new and newest history) Dissertation Author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree candidate of historical sciences Moscow 201 Thesis was performed at the Department of Universal History of the Russian University of Friendship Peoples Scientific Director: Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Solodkov Olga Leonidovna Official opponents: Doctor of Historical Science ... "
2016 www.Sype - "Free digital library - Author's abstracts, dissertations, conferences »
The materials of this site are posted for familiarization, all rights belong to their authors.
If you disagree with the fact that your material is posted on this site, please email us, we remove it within 1-2 business days.
Introduction
1 internal political situation after the end of the Civil War
2 USSR Creating Backgrounds
3 Stalinist and Lenin projects of the USSR
Chapter 2. Education of the USSR and National-State Construction
1 Preparatory work for the I Congress of the Councils of the USSR
2 Adoption of the Declaration and Treaty on the Education of the USSR
3 Adoption of the Constitution of the USSR 1924
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The relevance of the problem of the formation of the USSR for our time does not become less, the fact is that modern Russia did not finally passed the definition stage. It is enough to look at the events in the North Caucasus and it will become clear that the situation is not cloudless at all. Therefore, for such a multinational state, as Russia, the question of the state device is not a distracted topic for the conversation. And the example of the collapse of the USSR and at the present time did not lose its sharpness, because even literally in the late eighties of the twentieth century it seemed to many that the superpower was eternal and indispensable. But only a few knew exactly what they went recent months The existence of this state.
The appearance of the USSR on the political map of the world was not the fact of the appearance of a completely new state, then they said that this is the Russian Empire in a new form. The novelty was that it was a state with a new type of socio-economic relations. But it should not be considered that the USSR was at that time a unique phenomenon, because in Europe after the First World War, all significant monarchies disappeared - German, Austrian, Russian and Turkish. But if Austria and Turkey were reduced to the level of minor to the political influence of states, Russia and Germany even with territorial losses remained states with great economic and political potential. And both states ultimately evolved from parliamentary states into authoritarian regimes with a socialist ideology. Only in Russia, such evolution occurred earlier and as a result of the civil war, in Germany the process was peaceful and stretched out for fifteen years. And if ITALY also add to these two countries, with its fascist regime of Mussolini, as well as a number of totalitarian regimes in small countries, such as Hungary, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, as well as balancing on the verge of totalitarianism France, should To admit that the USSR, with its totalitarian regime, was not at all an exception in Europe, and even more so in Asia.
The formation of the USSR was also a natural outcome of the development of society for the previous sixty years, because The October Revolution, many not without reason are considered to be a peasant uprising, which was the goal of the earth. It was the peasant reform of 1861, during which the peasants received freedom, but did not receive the land and provoked the displeasure of the peasants, which took place in the end of the civil war.
The Bolshevikov won in the war was given to the farmers, but the renewed state should have been equipped and organized. None of the highest leadership of the USSR did not want to lose the land of Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Central Asia. But it was necessary to create a new state organization that would meet the requirements of time and public sentiment. Unitary state no longer suitable, because In the Civil War they took an active part literally all the peoples who inhabited the territory of the former Russian Empire. After all, one of the slogans that raised their masses to the war was the slogan on national self-determination. Already for this reason it was impossible to build a unitary state.
But the USSR, who managed to defeat Hitler Germany, collapsed in peacetime and the causes of his decay were not at all in the economic sphere and not in the original errors in the project. After all, the economy of the USSR and the standard of living was at a fairly high level, most republics from the USSR was unprofitable. In addition, the internally, the USSR constantly evolved from Stalin's totalitarianism to Gorbachevsky liberalism and the transformation of the USSR into a liberal, a democratic state was only a matter of time. But this time the USSR did not give.
Therefore, at the beginning of the nineties of the twentieth century, lively debates in the media were followed that initially in the USSR project was viciously, and what could be corrected. These disputes and these days are important, because it is no secret that the Customs and Economic Union between Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan actually mean the beginning of the creation of the New USSR. Therefore, scientists debate about the reasons for the creation of the USSR, its disadvantages and advantages, mean that there is an active work in the direction of the construction of a new state education.
The purpose of this course work will consider the creation of the USSR and modern approaches to this problem.
In the course of the course work, the following tasks will be delivered:
consider the domestic political situation after the end of the Civil War;
study the prerequisites for the creation of the USSR;
to identify the differences between the Stalinist and Lenin's projects of the USSR;
consider the preparatory work to the I Congress of the Councils of the USSR;
show adoption of the Declaration and Treaty on the Education of the USSR and the Constitution of the USSR 1924
stalinist Leninsky Soviet Union
Chapter I. Education of the USSR of 1922 as a natural process for the creation of a centralized state
1. Internal political situation after the end of the civil war
The end of the Civil War on the territory of the former Russian Empire marked not only the victory of the radical party who adhered to communist views. The war ended and enterprises did not work as a major devastation in the economy, the agriculture was also undermined, despite the distribution of the earth to the peasants. But especially anxious for the new government was the state of transport communications and communication systems. After all, everyone understood that the Russian Empire was associated with railways and telegraph, and the absence of these binding elements of infrastructure threatened with the real decay of the state. And the leaders of the Bolsheviks party did not share the fact that in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ukraine or Belarus, the same Bolsheviks were in power as they themselves. Lenin, Trotsky and other leaders of the Bolsheviks studied in schools and universities and knew the story perfectly well, who taught that the states broke out when the central government stopped controlling the authorities in the field. And without the caising day of the central power, the rebirth of the local authorities occurs very quickly. The concerns of Moscow confirmed the dynamics of the activity of the Republican authorities, who began to independently conduct foreign policy in their republics. So the republics mentioned established full-fledged diplomatic relations with Germany, Poland, Turkey and other European countries. Although these steps approved by Moscow, but it was obvious that in the future of the republic would be considered the maintenance of independent foreign policy by their inalienable right. And, with regard to domestic politics, by this time the independence of the republics was already high enough. Especially this concerned Ukraine, whose leadership does not hesitate to defend the economic interests of his republic. Lenin and Stalin understood that if the process goes down and further, the final decay of the new Russia would be a matter of time. Therefore, their work on the creation of the Union State of its goal was to prevent separatist trends in the republics. But both leaders had different views on the design of the future state, if Lenin believed that the republics need to give some functions, then Stalin gave her preference to a rigidly centralized state.
Preferences I.V. Stalin had a good reason for a good reason, because he understood that the society after the civil war was like a swirling sea, which even without wind would not soon calm down. Therefore, this society should be put in the well-known framework, otherwise the new round of the Civil War cannot be avoided. Also, I.V. Stalin on raising and his inclinations was an authoritarian person and did not tolerate manifestations of disobedience. All the life of Stalin proceeded in such structures where discipline and operational were valued above all, it does not matter whether this is a spiritual seminary or a group of militants who prepared for the robbery of the Tiflis Bank.
2. Prerequisites for the creation of the USSR
But the creation of the USSR in 1922 began at all at all on an empty place, in the summer of 1919 there was a military-political union of the Soviet republics. On June 1, 1919, the decree was signed "On the unification of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus to combat world imperialism." The military-political unity of the Soviet republics played a huge role in the defeat of the united forces of intervention and the White Army. Soviet republics entered the RSFSR to contractual relations. In 1920 - 1921 Bilateral agreements on the military-economic union between Russia and Azerbaijan, the military and economic union between Russia and Belarus, the Union agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia, were concluded. During this period, representatives of Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian republics were included in the RSFSR Central Executive Committee, and some drug addicts began. As a result, the High RSFSR actually turned into an industry management authority of all republics. In February 1921, GRAN RSFSR was created at the head of G.M. Krzhizhinovsky, designed to lead the fulfillment of a single economic plan. Since the spring of 1921 in response to the indication of V.I. Lenin about the economic association of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan began the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation (ZSFSR), organizationally in March 1922. In February 1922, a meeting of representatives of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia
PLAN
Introduction
1. Background Education of the Union.
2. The process of education of the USSR.
3. Some problematic aspects of the USSR education.
Conclusion.
Literature.
The issue of the formation of a single union state was nominated almost simultaneously by all Soviet republics. This testified that the conditions for the union were ripe. In March 1922, the Central Committee of the CP (b), confirming the desire of Ukrainian communists and further strengthen the State Union of the Ukrainian SSR with the RSFSR, stated the need to specify the legal relations between the two republics. Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on May 11 created led by M.V. Frunze Commission to explore the proposal of the Ukrainian Communists. This commission has developed projects of agreements on the relationship between the drug addicts of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. "From the course of the commission," Frunze said, it was clear that it was impossible to restrict ourselves to the discussion of the issue of the relationship between the RSFSR and the USSR. Developing trade relations demanded the establishment of a single monetary mark for the entire Soviet Federation, the abolition of customs partitions, all sorts of constraints when visiting the Allied Ports by the courts of Soviet republics. " Thus, it was once again confirmed by the need to revise the system of contractual relations, the transition to a higher level of state relations on the scale of the country.
Unfortunately, not all the outlined embodied. In those years, it was necessary to deal with considerable difficulties and contradictions. The conflict continued around the so-called "Georgian incident", which to a certain extent reflected Stalin's desire to solve national issues with the help of an administrative command method. At that moment, Stalin used this conflict for accounts with a number of Georgian Communists.
Years directly preceding the formation of the USSR, became a period of intensive penetration of ideals of internationalism into the sphere of national relations.
In almost the same time, by the summer of 1922, the Soviet government completed the union of the territories, before that for five years not related to each other, to the system of republic-planets rotating around the RSFSR.
The formation of the SSR union was held in the conditions of acute political struggle. In August, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) has created a commission to prepare a draft decision on the relationship between the RSFSR and the independent republics. It included I.V. Stalin, V.V. Kuibyshev, G.K. Ordzhonikidze, S.A. Agamali-oglu (Azerbaijan), A.G. Butchers (Armenia), B.G. Mdivani (Georgia), A.G. Worms (Belarus) and others.
The convening of the Commission was entrusted to hold Kuibyshev. The commission faced the task to determine the form and principles of the association. This question caused a serious dispute between V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin. Stalin spoke in favor of the "unified economic body on the united territory of the Soviet republics with the Steering Center in Moscow", and therefore, for the dissemination of the "competences" of the central government bodies of the RSFSR to all other Soviet republics. According to this project, known as the project "Autonomization", the republic should have joined the RSFSR on autonomous rights. In fact, this meant the absorption of the republics by the Russian Federation. The project caused a hot debate. He was supported only by the Criminal Code of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan and Armenia, who were striving for a speedy association, without giving values \u200b\u200bto the form of this association. Belarus preferred contractual relations. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia has rejected the Stalinist project. Rykovsky was also opposed - one of the leaders of the Ukrainian Communists.
IN AND. Lenin in the initial consideration of the issue of participation did not accept, was sick and was in the hills. Only at the end of September he learned about the project and disputes caused by him. IN AND. Lenin performed sharply against the idea of \u200b\u200bautonomization, seeing the poorly disguised expression of the old "Great Russian chauvinism", the retreat from the principles of proletarian internationalism. On September 26, Lenin wrote a letter to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which stressed that the association of the republics - the question of archiving, in which inadmissibility is unacceptable and suggested a fundamentally new basis for the creation of an allied state - voluntary association of independent republics, including the RSFSR, to the Union Soviet Socialist Republics with the preservation of equality of each of them. Lenin wrote that we were the RSFSR - "we recognize ourselves equally from the Ukrainian SSR and others and together and along with them enter the new union, a new federation ...".
Instead of mechanical subordination of the republican authorities, the Higher Authority of the RSFSR Lenin proposed to form something like the Obligaral VTCik of the USSR. Lenin in the current situation took into account not only the political, but also the socio-moral aspects of the desire of the working workers of the country to state independence and association. He could not not condemn administration, hurried, inattention to national feelings. Politburo approved a line other than that was proposed by the Stalin Commission. Thus prevailed, thus, the federated plan, embodied the principal instructions of Lenin, in which all republics were guaranteed equal rights within the Union of Soviet republics and each theoretically was given the right to free exit from the Union.
In November-December, the creation of the USSR was prepared by the work of various commissions, party meetings, an explanatory and political company in the republican republics, as well as republican congresses of the Soviets, on which proposals were approved to proceed to unification at the federal beginnings.
The republic's association issues were given a large place on the pages of the central and local press.
Created by the decision of the Oktyabrsky Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party Commission, by the end of November 1922, prepared a draft of the main points of the Constitution of the USSR. On November 30, this document was approved by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and was sent to the Communist Party to the National Republics for discussion.
The main points of the Constitution of the USSR approved by the party Soviet governing bodies were a program to develop a resolution on the formation of the USSR.
On December 18, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) considered the draft of the Allied Treaty on the formation of the USSR and spoke in favor of convening the I Congress of the Councils of the USSR. The plenum stressed that the Union Agreement and the Declaration should enter into force only after approval by their sessions of the Civis of the Republics, then chosen at the All-Union Congress of the Councils of the USSR CEC. It was planned that the Congress of the USSR Councils will approve these documents only mainly, after which the work on them will continue. Thus, the most democratic procedure for the adoption of these documents was ensured.
The initiative of the party was kept by the peoples of all Soviet republics. The All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, held in December 1922, expressed the readiness of the Ukrainian people to join the Union of the Republics. Workers of Belarus at their meetings also spoke in favor of creating an allied state. The IV All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets, carrying out numerous applications of the working people of the Republic, adopted a decision on the formation of the USSR.
Together with all the nations of the country, the idea of \u200b\u200beducation of the USSR was welcomed by the Communists and Workers' Transcaucasia.
The decision, the Education of the USSR also adopted the Communist Party of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The II Party Conference of Communist Organizations of Transcaucasia fully supported the Lenin Education Plan of the Union State. The position of a group of former members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia was qualified as a nationalistic bias.
Hotly supported the voluntary association of the Soviet republics on the basis of the complete equality of the Communists and non-party workers of the RSFSR. On December 23, 1922, the X All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in Moscow. The All-Russian Congress recognized the timely association of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, ZSFSR and the BSSR to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and authorized her delegation from the RSFSR to work out and discuss with the delegations of other Union republics to the Declaration on the formation of the USSR and the Union Agreement. Plenipotentiary delegations of the fraternal republics unanimously approved these documents, signed them and submitted to the approval of the All-Union Congress of Soviets.
I All-Union Congress of Soviets opened on December 30, 1922. It was attended by 2215 delegates - 1667 with a decisive voice, the rest with the adviser.
The congress he heard Stalin's report on the Declaration and the Treaty on the Education of the SSR Union and mainly approved them. RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian Federation together formed a new state - the USSR.
VTCIK was elected. His four chairmen were Kalinin, Norimanov, Petrovsky and worms - one by each republic.
Consider the Declaration and the Treaty of Education of the USSR.
The declaration noted the historical importance of the USSR formation. Only in the Unified State Union, it was indicated in the declaration, the peoples of the country can provide their independence, economic and cultural flourishing, external security.
The USSR Education Treaty stressed that independent Soviet republics: the RSFSR, ZSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR are voluntarily and on the equal basis to enter the public union and transfer a number of their powers to the supreme authorities of the central government. The contract was envisaged that the competence of the Union Government includes external trade, naval and foreign affairs, railway transport and the relevant public commissariats are formed.
Thus, on December 30, 1922, the will of the peoples of our country was created by the USSR - the world's first united allied multinational state of workers and peasants.
The structure of the SSR Union, the rights and obligations of the united republics, the nature of their relationships should have excluded any possibility of manifestations of both a grand-container chauvinism and local nationalism.
On the basis of agreements on the formation of the USSR and entry, the Constitution of the USSR was adopted, prepared by the Commission headed by Kalinin and approved by the II Congress of the USSR Councils on January 31, 1924. The Constitution of the USSR of 1924 legislaidically consolidated the internationalistic foundations of the relationship between nations and the nationalities of the Soviet Union. Equality of people in all spheres of public life was enshrined, regardless of national or racial affiliation. Unified Soviet citizenship was introduced.
In subsequent years, numerous territorial changes occurred. In 1924, the Turkmen and Uzbek SSR were formed, as well as the Tajikistan ASSR, which was previously part of Uzbekistan. In March 1931, it entered the USSR.
It is impossible to inject the value of the formation of the USSR. The Union was a great political undertaking. In the era, when the distribution of capitalism for the whole earthly ball caused a crisis, and the collapse of the old empires, "there was an extensive supranational state that was born in such an era. The Union State has created new opportunities for the admission of workers of all nations and nationalist constructing, ensured political and economic prerequisites for the transition of backward peoples and ethnic groups to socialism, bypassing the capitalist development stage. The USSR education was of great international importance, was the most important milestone in the social progress of mankind. The Commonwealth of Peoples, United States, has become a beacon for oppressed peoples of the world fighting for national independence.
The USSR was concluded legally, he existed in political, economic, scientific and technical and simply human ties. For most people, he became a necessity, living space.
70 years existed by the USSR. During this time, a long, complex and controversial path was passed. Industrialization was carried out, collectivization, a cultural revolution occurred.
Socialism was built in our country, the first time was launched spacecraft. The country was second in the world, and it inhabited 100 nations and nations.
3. Some problematic aspects of the USSR
On the day, when the education of the Union State was held, Lenin's work was published "On the issue of nationality and autonomization". It serves the dissatisfaction of Lenin with the entire history associated with the formation of the USSR, late Jastea Stalin, which, in his opinion, "started the whole thing in a swamp." However, the efforts of Lenin, his attempts to "figure out" with the manifestations of the Great Russian chauvinism, punish the perpetrators of the Georgian incident, did not have any particular consequences. The flow of events in the party rushed to the other side and passed without the participation of Lenin. The struggle for his inheritance was already unfolded, in which Stalin's figure was increasingly manifested. It can be said that, showing himself to a supporter of a centralist state, steep and gross administrative decisions in the national question, Stalin has changed little to national politics, constantly emphasizing the danger of nationalist manifestations and the need for their merciless suppression.
The II All-Union Congress of Soviets, held in January 1924, in mourning days associated with the death of Lenin, adopted the Union Constitution, which was based on the Declaration and Agreement, and otherwise it was based on the principles of the Constitution of the RSFSR 1918, reflecting the situation of acute Social confrontation. In 1924-1925 The Constitution of the Union republics was adopted, mainly repeating the provisions of the Union-Union.
One of the first events conducted within the framework of the Union was "national - state-owned by Central Asia". In the territory of the region until 1924, there were, except for the Turkestan ASSR formed in 1918, two "folk" Soviet republics - Bukhara and Khorezm. The existing borders clearly did not correspond to the settlement of ethnic communities, extremely motley and inhomogeneous. The question of both the national self-identification of the peoples and the forms of their self-determination were not quite clear. As a result of long discussions of national issues on local congresses and border crossing, the Uzbek and Turkmen Union republics were formed. Part of the territory of Central Asia was transferred to the Kazakh ASSR. Turkestan and Khorezm peoples formed their autonomous region, which included in the Kazakh ASSR. In general, the whole national - the state sirring of Central Asia has made it possible to gain stability and sustainability to the region for some time.
From the moment of the occurrence of various peoples to Russia and accession to it, new territories say today representatives of national movements, they are objectively started to associate the community of historical destinies, there were migrations, mixing the population, there was a single economic tissue of the country based on the division of labor between the territories, A common transport network was created, the postal-telegraph service, the All-Russian market was formed, cultural, linguistic and other contacts were established. There were factors and preventing the association: the rusifatory policy of the old regime, the restriction and constraint of the rights of individual nationalities. The ratio of centripetal and centrifugal trends, which today with a new force are fighting on the territory of the former USSR, is determined by the set of many circumstances: the duration of the joint "residence" of various peoples, the presence of a compactly populated area, the number of nations, the strength of "clutch" of their relations, the presence and absence in the past His statehood, traditions, originality of Uklade, National Spirit, etc. At the same time, it is unlikely to carry out an analogue between Russia and existed in the past colonial empires and call the first following the Bolsheviks "Prison Peoples". The differences characteristic of Russia are striking - this is the integrity of the territory, the polyethnic nature of its settlement, the peaceful popular colonization, the absence of genocide, the historical relationship and the similarity of the fate of individual peoples. The formation of the USSR also had its political background - the need to jointly survive the established political regimes in the face of a hostile external environment.
The acquisition of the people of the former Russian empire of his statehood had two-way consequences. On the one hand, it awakened the national self-consciousness, contributed to the formation and development of national cultures, positive shifts in the structure of the indigenous population. Constantly increased the status of these formations that satisfy the growth of national ambitions. On the other hand, this process required adequate fine and wise policies of the Central Union Guide, relevant to national revival. In other cases, the national feelings are driven to the pores until time, and their ignoring was tali in themselves the potential danger of the explosion of nationalism in the unfavorable situation. True, at that time, the leaders thought little about it, a generous hand to cut the territories to individual statements, even if the indigenous residents did not constitute the majority of the population, or easily transmitting them "from hand to hand", from one republic to another One potential source of tension.
Conclusion
In the historical confrontation of the two opposite systems - socialist and capitalist - socialism grew into the most influential public strength, in a gigantic accelerator of social progress. The Soviet Union became the disadvantaged fortress of world socialism, the stronghold of peace and social progress on Earth, the base and support of the global working and national liberation movement in the struggle against imperialism, for the deliverance of mankind from oppression and exploitation, hunger and poverty, for creating a decent human life on Earth . The Soviet Union, faithful to its internationalism, its international debt, provided comprehensive assistance and support to the liberation movement of workers of all countries fighting against imperialism.
The sixty-year-old path of the Soviet Union is the path of continuous development and strengthening the Union State. The Soviet Union, who first united the four Soviet Socialist Republics, grew into a powerful allied multinational state.
"The formation and successful development of the USSR has incredit international importance, marks an important historical line in the age-old struggle of advanced humanity for equality and the friendship of peoples, for the revolutionary update of the world."
The "Union of the Republics," the party proclaimed, created on the basis of the equality and voluntaryness of the workers and peasants of certain republics, is the first experience of the proletariat in the settlement of the international relations of independent countries and the first step towards the creation of the future World Soviet Republic of Labor. " The USSR was born in the situation of a sharp crisis of a number of capitalist multinational states, which were unable to reconcile the national hostility in the bourgeois society. The vitality and strength of the Soviet Union was a new confirmation of the benefits of a public building born in October.
The formation of the USSR on the basis of the unpreasual friendship of peoples meant the victory of the Marxist-Leninist ideology over the ideology of bourgeois nationalism. The historical experience of Soviet national-state construction, irrefutably proved that the decision of the national question in the interests of the working people of all nations is possible only under the banner of proletarian internationalism.
Literature:
1. Abdulatipov R.G. Human. Nation. Society. - M., 1991.
2. The struggle for the consolidation of Soviet power in Georgia. Collection of documents and materials (1921-1925). - M., 1967.
3. Bogra J. History of the Soviet Union, t. 1. - M., 1990.
4. Vert N. History of the Soviet state 1900 - 1991. - M., 1992.
5. Ilyukhin V.I. The president is accused. Prosecutor's investigation. - Vladikavkaz, 1992.
6. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, t. 4 (Communist Party in the struggle for the construction of socialism in the USSR 1921 - 1937) Book 1 (1921-1929) ed. G.N. Pospelova (Chairman), E.I. Bugaeva, A.A. Epishev, L.F. Ilyicheva, D.M. Kukhina (deputy chairman), I.D. Nozarenko. - M., 1970.
7. The Communist Party is an inspirer and organizer of the unifying movement of the Ukrainian people for the formation of the USSR. Collection of documents and materials, Kiev, 1962,
8. Lenin. IN AND. Full collected works, vol. 24, 40, 45. - M., 1987.
9. Education of the USSR. Collection of documents 1917-1924. - M., 1937.
10. Sidorov M.N. On the protection of the geopolitical interests of Russia. - Legal newspaper. - 1994. - № 17 - 18, p. 3.
11. Congress of the Councils of the SSR Union, Union and Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics. Collection of documents, t. 1 (1917-1922). - M., 1957.
12. Readings on the history of the USSR 1917 - 1945. - M., 1991.
Subject: " Education of the USSR "
1. Introduction 3.
2. Projects of the association of Soviet republics 5
3. Adoption of the Declaration and
Treaty on the formation of the USSR 10
4. Development and adoption of the USSR Constitution. fourteen
5. Conclusion 20.
6. List of used literature: 22
Introduction
After the revolution, a number of autonomous and independent national republics arose on the territory of the former Russian empire.
Between the Soviet republics established strong links. To approve the Union of Nations, there were necessary conditions: peoples in close unity committed a revolution, they had one goal - socialism. An important factor in unity was the existence of a common communist party - RCP (b). The Competition Communities acted under its leadership and enjoyed the rights of regional committees.
Defending the conquest of the revolution, including its national independence, RSFSR and other Soviet republics in the years of the Civil War, a number of bilateral treaties concluded a number of bilateral treaties by creating a close military-political union. Communication between republics was completely from year to year. Thus, under a contract signed in November 1920, a number of state bodies of the RSFSR and Azerbaijan in the spheres of defense, economy, foreign trade, food, transport, finance and means of communication occurred. Following the early 1920s, early 1921, similar bilateral treaties with the RSFSR were also concluded by Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. It was an important stage in national-state construction.
One of the alternative forms of the association of the republics gave the experience of Transcaucasia. In the spring of 1922, the Plenipotentiary Conference of Representatives of the CEC Azerbaijan SSR, the CEC Armenian SSR and the CEC of the Georgian SSR approved an agreement on the establishment of the Federal Socialist Union of the Socialist Soviet republics of the Transcaucasus. There was a Confederate Union, the highest body of which was the Plenipotentiary Conference of Representatives elected in the equal number of the governments of the republics, and the United Executive Authority - elected by the Conference of the Union Council.
In December 1922, the I Transcaucasian Congress of Soviets transformed FS SSRs to the Unified Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (ZSFSR), while maintaining the independence of the Azerbaijani, Armenian and Georgian SSR. The Constitution of the ZSFSR was also approved.
Thus, by the beginning of the twenties, three main forms of the Socialist Federation were revealed: one was founded on autonomy (RSFSR), the other was expressed in bilateral RSFSR agreements with other independent Soviet republics, the third was based on a new (compared to the RSFSR) of the Federation form in which The components of its republic have wider rights than autonomous in the RSFSR.
In the spring and summer of 1922, the party organizations of Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasus, discussing the ways of a closer association with the RSFSR, appealed to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with a request to develop the principles and forms of the Unified Soviet state. Commission of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) from representatives of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Chairman of the Commission was I. V. Stalin, who sincere to create the first Soviet government headed the drug addict on nationality.
In the course of the work of the commission I. V. Stalin, Stalin put forward the plan of "autonomization", which provided for the entry of the Soviet republics to the RSFSR on the rights of autonomous republics. At the same time, the highest authorities of state power and management remained the WTCIK, SNK and a hundred RSFSR.
The Stalinist plan "Autonomization" was a natural outcome of the struggle between those who were under the communist flag to the isolationism and separatism and those who sought to achieve the unity of the republics under the auspices of the Central Moscow government. As separatist moods were intensified among the National Communists, the positions of the Centralist Wing of the Party were significantly strengthened. The idea of \u200b\u200bassociation of republics under the rights of autonomies in the composition of the RSFSR, which, in addition to I. V. Stalin, defended V. M. Molotov, K. Ordzhonikidze, G. Ya. Sokolnikov, G. V. Chicherin and others, ripe not only in the highest echelons The authorities, but also put forward at the lower steps of the state apparatus and had a lot of supporters among the communists in the outskirts.
The project was approved by the party leadership of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Transcaucasian target RCP (b).
The Central Committee of Georgia spoke against, stating that the association in the form of autonomization was premature, the unification of economic and general policies is necessary, but with the preservation of all independence attributes. In fact, this meant the design of the Confederation of Soviet republics based on the unity of military, political, diplomatic and partly - economic activities.
In general, not objection against the resolution, the Central Bureau of Belarus of Belarus spoke in favor of the preference of contractual relations between independent allied republics.
The Central Committee of the CP of Ukraine did not discuss the project, but stated that it comes from the principle of independence of Ukraine.
The situation has changed when representatives of the republics were summoned on September 23, 1922 by the Commission meeting of the Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the issue of the relationship between RSFSR and independent republics. On the first day, representatives of the republics were voted for the project I. V. Stalin, with the exception of the abstained representative of Georgia. On September 24, all controversial issues were settled - the center went on some concessions. The republics were allowed to have their representatives in the Presidium of the WTCIK, coordinate the appointment of authorized all-Union People's Commissars, to appoint foreign representative offices of foreign affairs and foreign trade of their representatives to foreign representative offices. The People's Commissariat of Finance from the Union-Union was translated into the discharge of the Federal Republican. The Commission adopted the project as a basis and recommended its captivity of the Central Committee.
However, V. I. Lenin, who was sick and could not take part in the work of the Commission, the idea of \u200b\u200bautonomization rejected. On September 26, 1922, he sent a letter to members of the Politburo, in which the project of the "autonomization" was sharply criticized and formulated the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating an union of equal Soviet republics. The formula "Entry" of the republics in the RSFSR, he proposed replacing the principle of their "unification with the RSFSR" in the Union Soviet Socialist State on the basis of full equality. Lenin emphasized the need to create the public-union bodies standing on the RSFSR to the same extent as the other republics. Defending the principle of complete equality of uniting Soviet national republics, he wrote: "... We recognize ourselves equally from the Ukrainian SSR and others. And together and on a par with them, we enter the new Union, the new Federation, the Union of Soviet republics and Asia." I. in . Stalin was forced to recognize his autonomization plan erroneous.
On October 6, 1922, the Plenum of the Central Committee approved the position of V. I. Lenin and adopted a new resolution on her basis.
During December 1922, the congresses of the Soviets of Belarus, Ukraine and the ZSFSR adopted the decision on the formation of the USSR and elected the delegation at the I All-Union Congress of Soviets.
X All-Russian Congress of Soviets gathered on December 23, 1922. It was attended by over two thousand delegates with decisive and advisory voices.
With a report on the formation of the USSR, I. V. Stalin performed. He announced a draft resolution approved by the VCIK Presidium and including those provisions that were adopted by the congresses of other republics: voluntariness and equality of the republics with preservation of each of them the right to exit the union.
On December 27, 1922, the All-Russian Congress of Soviets accepted the decision proposed by the Presidium of the WTCIK on the formation of the USSR. The congress ended with the excited words of M. I. Kalinin, met long applause: "I see how the red banner with five sacred letters is waving above us - RSFSR. And we, delegates from the Congress of the Soviets, Plenipotentiary Representatives of the entire Soviet Russian Federation, inclined it expensive, Battles and victories, fortified by the victims of the workers and peasants, the banner in front of the Union of Soviet republics. We see how the new Red Banner of the Union of Soviet republics is already rising. I see comrades, the ultimate banner in the hands of Lenin's comrade ".
On this, all the preparatory work on the formation of the Union was completed. The last word remained at the I All-Union Congress of Soviets.
Adoption of the Declaration and Treaty of Education of the USSR
On December 29, 1922, a conference of representatives of the Plenipotentiary Delegations of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation gathered in Moscow. They discussed and approved the draft Declarations and the Treaty on the formation of the USSR, as well as the procedure for the I All-Union Congress of Soviets.
On December 30, 1922, the first All-Union Congress of Soviets opened. More than two thousand delegates took part in the congress.
The congress was opened by the oldest delegate, a member of the Presidium of the VTCIK Petr Germogenovich, the participant of the three Russian revolutions, a member of the party since 1898
V.I. Lenin, who was not present at the congress due to illness, was elected his honorable chair. M. I. Kalinin became the working chairman of the congress. He provided a word for the report on the formation of the USSR I. V. Stalin, who announced a declaration and an agreement on the formation of the USSR, approved on the eve of the delegations of the four uniting republics.
The word was then provided by M. V. Frunze, who proposed to adopt a declaration and a basis for the basis of the CEC, assigning the CEC of the USSR to convey these documents to an additional discussion of the CEC of the Soviet republics in order to, taking into account the amendment and proposal, to develop the final text of the principal law of the Union State and To make it approved by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets.
The offer was accepted.
The declarations listed three reasons for the creation of the SSR Union - economic, military and ideological: "Railed fields, stopped plants, destroyed productive forces and exhausted economic resources that remain inherited from the war are not enough for the efforts of individual republics on economic construction. Restoration of the national economy turned out to be Impossible with separate existence of republics.
On the other hand, the instability of the international situation and the danger of new attacks makes the creation of a single front of the Soviet republics in the face of the capitalist environment.
Finally, the structure of Soviet power, international in his class nature, pushes the working masses of the Soviet republics on the way to associate in one socialist family.
All these circumstances reflect the union of the Soviet republics in one union state, capable of providing external security, and internal economic success, and the freedom of national development of peoples. "
It said: "... that this Union is a voluntary association of equal peoples that each republic is provided with the right to free exit from the Union that access to the Union is open to all Socialist Soviet republics, as existing, and may arise in the future ... The new Allied State will ... a new decisive step towards uniting the working people to the global Socialist Soviet Republic. "
The USSR education contract stressed that independent Soviet republics of the RSFSR, ZSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR are voluntarily and on the equal basis to enter the public union and transfer a number of their powers to the supreme authorities of the central government. The agreement determined the scope of the powers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, provided for the formation of public-union bodies of state power. Folk Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade, Military and Maritime Affairs, Communication, Post and Telegraph now became union. And the Commissarities of Finance, National Economy, Food, Labor and the Workers' and Peasant Inspectorate was created as allily republican. Republican remained commissariants of agriculture, education, health, social security, internal affairs, justice, i.e. Those that are directly related to the peculiarities of life, the businesses, specific forms of land management and proceedings, the language and culture of peoples.
In the final 26th article it was written that "each of the Union republics remains the right to exit the union." In the contract, at the same time there was no indication on the timing of its existence and on the possibility of cancellation.
Then the congress elected the Supreme Organ of the SSR Union - the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, which included 371 deputies from all uniting republics. The Chairmen of the CEC were elected M. I. Kalinin, G. I. Petrovsky, A. G. Chervyakov and N. N. Narimanov.
Development and adoption of the Constitution of the USSR.
The final legal registration of the USSR education was completed by the adoption of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - the first constitution of the Union State.
On April 27, 1923, the Presidium of the CEC of the USSR of the first convocation formed a constitutional commission as part of representatives of all Union republics to complete the preparation of the consolidated draft of the USSR Constitution.
On July 6, 1923, the second session of the USSR CEC decided to approve and immediately introduce the USSR Constitution, and the text to make it a final approval of the II Congress of the USSR Councils.
The session of the USSR CEC elected the first Soviet government - the Council of People's Commissars led by V. I. Lenin.
On January 31, 1924, the USSR Constitution was unanimously approved by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets.
The Constitution consisted of two sections: declarations on the formation of the USSR and the Treaty of Education of the USSR. It regulated in more detail the system of state bodies, objects of authorities and the management of the USSR and the Union republics. The contract consisted of 72 articles and was divided into 11 chapters:
1. On the subjects of the Supreme Government of the USSR
2. On the sovereign rights of the Union republics and on allied citizenship
3. On the Congress of the Soviets of the USSR
4. About the CEC USSR
5. About the Presidium of the CEC USSR
6. O SNK USSR
7. About the Supreme Court of the USSR
8. On the People's Commissariat of the USSR
9. OGPU
10. On the Union Republics
11. On the coat of arms, flag and the capital of the USSR.
The exclusive maintenance of the Union included:
a) the representative office of the Union in international relations, the maintenance of all diplomatic relations, the conclusion of political and other treaties with other states;
b) the change in the external borders of the Union, as well as the settlement of the issues of the change in the boundaries between the Union republics;
c) concluding contracts for admission to the Union of New Republics;
d) the declaration of war and the conclusion of the world;
e) the conclusion of external and internal loans of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the resolution of external and internal loans of the Union republics;
e) ratification of international treaties;
g) the leadership of foreign trade and the establishment of an internal trade system;
h) the establishment of the foundations and general plans of the entire national economy of the Union, the definition of industries and individual industrial enterprises with the public-union, conclusion of concession agreements, both the union and on behalf of the Union republics;
i) leadership of transport and postal-telegraph affairs;
k) organization and leadership of the Armed Forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
l) approval of the Unified State Budget of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in. The composition of which includes budgets of the Union republics; establishing public-union taxes and income, as well as the deductions from them and allowed to them entering the education of the budgets of the Union republics; Resolution of additional taxes and fees for the education of the budgets of the Union Republics:
m) establishing a single monetary and credit system;
n) the establishment of general launches of land management and land use, as well as the use of subsoil, forests and waters throughout the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics throughout the Union;
oh) public-union legislation on interregional relocations and the establishment of a migrating fund;
n) the establishment of the foundations of the judicial and proceedings, as well as the civil and criminal legislation of the Union;
p) establishing basic labor laws;
(c) The establishment of general began in the field of popular education;
t) the establishment of general measures in the field of protection of the people's health;
y) establishing a system of measures and weights;
f) organization of public-union statistics;
(x) Basic legislation in the field of union citizenship regarding the rights of foreigners;
c) the right of amnesty extended to the entire territory of the Union;
h) the abolition of the presents of the Councils and the Central Executive Committees of the Union republics who violate the present Constitution;
w) resolution of controversial issues arising between the Union republics.
The approval and change in the basic principles of the Constitution was in the exclusive competence of the Congress of the Councils of the USSR.
The sovereignty of the Union republics was limited only within the limits specified in the Constitution, and only on subjects referred to the competence of the Union. Behind the Allied Republic, the right to exit the union was preserved, the territory could be changed only with its consent.
Mounted United Union Citizenship.
The Higher Authority of the USSR was announced by the Congress of the Councils of the USSR, which was confronted from the city councils and from the provincial congresses of the Soviets.
In the period between the congresses, the highest authority was the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. The CEC consisted of the Union Council, who was elected by the congress from representatives of the republics in proportion to their population, and the Council of Nationalities, consisting of representatives of the union and autonomous republics, autonomous regions. CEC worked in session mode.
In the intervals between the sessions of the USSR CEC, the highest legislative and executive body was the Presidium of the CEC CEC, which interconnected at a joint meeting of the chambers. The CEC Presidium could suspend the decisions of the congressions of the Soviets of the Union republics and to cancel the decisions of the USSR SCC, the drug addicts of the USSR, CEC and SNK of the Union republics.
The highest executive and administrative body of the USSR CEC, headed by the entire system of government bodies, was the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. It included: Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Deputy Chairperson, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, People's Commissar for Military and Maritime Affairs, People's Commissar of Foreign Trade, People's Commissar Runs, People's Commissar Post and Telegraphs, People's Commissioner of the Workers' and Peasant Inspection, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the National Economy, People's Commissar of Labor, People's Commissar Food, People's Commissar of Finance.
Within its powers, the USSR SNC made decisions, decrees and orders, mandatory for execution in the territory of the USSR. SNK was reported by the congress of the Soviets and the CEC of the USSR.
The authorities of the Allied Republics were circulated about the same way as the USSR authorities.
The Constitution envisaged the creation of the Supreme Court at the CEC of the USSR, to which the functions of constitutional supervision were listed.
Conclusion
The territorial disintegration of the Russian Empire, as a result of which by the end of 1918, the RSFSR was located approximately in the same borders as the medieval Muscovy, before the conquests of Ivan Grozny, ended after only 4 years by the association of different parts of the state, in a small exception, to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This accomplishment is an outstanding result. creative activity V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin. The Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) provided the necessary solid core, around which disparate territories could reiterate again.
The center, around which the republics were rafted, was the RSFSR. the Russian Federation Gave the first sample of national-state construction, it established himself as a union of peoples united on the basis of socialist national autonomy. "Being the first multinational Soviet state, the RSFSR was the prototype of the SSR Union."
To unite the republics around the RSFSR, the prerequisites were glad: ideological community, as well as the need for economic integration to combat imperialist aggression and internal counter-revolution.
Noting the outstanding role of V. I. Lenin in the creation of the SSR Union, it is impossible not to remember the errors that have become fatal for the Union. The principle of free release of the republics from the USSR, introduced into the agreement at the insistence of V. I. Lenin and remained in the Constitutions of the SSR Union for decades, served in 1991 the basis for the population of the Allied Territories at National Corners. The Russian Federation, in the formation of which the most direct participation was adopted by I. V. Stalin, as a commark on the issues of nationalities, demonstrated greater resistance to separatism and nationalism. The Stalin's plan of "autonomization" proved its historical loyalty and validity.
List of references:
1. Isaev I. A. The history of the state and the rights of Russia: a textbook. - M.: Lawyer, 2000.
2. The history of the state and law. - M.: Yuraight-M, 2001.
3. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Textbook. - M.: Mimovitisdat, 1963.
4. History of the USSR: The Epoch of Socialism. Tutorial for East. Fact Ped. In-Tov / S. A. Sereev, S. F. Nida, V. I. Pogudin, F. V. Nosov; Ed. S. A. Sereev. - M.: Enlightenment, 1983.
5. Carr E. History of Soviet Russia. Kn. 1: Volume 1 and 2. Bolshevik revolution. 1917-1923. Per. from English / Prepared. Nenarokova A. P. - M.: Progress, 1990.
6. Mikoyan A. I. at the beginning of the twentieth ... - M.: Politicize, 1975.
7. Recent A. L. Public Administration Bodies in the USSR. For Un-Tov Marxism-Leninism. - M.: Thought, 1967.
8. The newest history of the Fatherland: twentieth century: studies. For stud. Higher. studies. Vehicles: at 2 tons / ed. A. F. Kiseleva, E. M. Schagin. - M.: Humanit. ed. Center Vlados, 2002. - T. 1
9. Essays of the history of the CPSU. Studies. Manual for schools of Marxism-Leninism. - M.: Politicize, 1967.
Lenin V.I. On the formation of the USSR. - PSS, T.45, p.211.
"Tenth All-Russian Council Congress. Stenographic report." M., 1923, p. 223.
On the 60th anniversary of the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee of February 19, 1982 M., 1982, p. four.
