Suchergebnisse

The article presents the analytical review of "Troubled Times in Russia in the Early 17th and Early 20th Centuries: Nature and Lessons" conference, dedicated to the jubilee of I.O. Tumentsev, which was held in Volgograd in October 2018. The aims of the conference were to conduct a comparative study of the two turning points in the history of the Russian state and society, to identify the patterns of systemic sociopolitical crises emergence and occurrence, to determine causes, factors, directions and boundaries of socio-cultural, economic and political changes that took place in Russia during the Time of Troubles of the early 17th century and the revolution and Civil War of 1917–1922. The conference takes an opportunity to analyze a wide circle of issues related to internal and external factors of the appearance of the Troubled Times in Russia, the specifics of social elevators functioning in the conditions of the system social crisis, the interaction between the elite and ordinary people in revolutionary times, the transformation of the state apparatus and service in the Time of Troubles, and the role of the Russian Orthodox Church at crucial moments in the Russian history. Scientists from Russia, England, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and the USA: historians, political scientists, economists, leading experts in these fields attended the conference. The article describes the content of the reports that were presented at the conference, analyzes the course of discussions, and presents the decisions that were made based on the results of its work. The scientific results obtained during the conference can be used in research on the history of Russia in the 17th and 20th centuries, the history of the national state and law, and in the analysis of contemporary social and political phenomena and processes.

Introduction. The article provides an analysis of the scientific and technical activities of I.A. Makhanov – one of the leading domestic designers, head of the experimental design bureau of the Kirov (former Putilovskiy) plant, who developed several new types of artillery weapons in the 1930s. I.A. Makhanov was repressed in 1939, and therefore his contribution to strengthening the defense of the USSR on the eve and at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War was forgotten.

Methods and materials. Unpublished memoirs of I.A. Makhanov written in the 1950s – 1970s, which are currently being prepared for publication, were used as one of the main sources.

Analysis. In the course of the study, it was found that under the guidance of I.A. Makhanov, in addition to experimental guns, which due to design flaws were never put into serial production (L-1, L-2), the universal gun L-3, the tank guns L-10 and L-11, and the casemate gun L-17 were developed, which in their characteristics were not inferior to other Soviet and foreign models. The fact that they were not accepted into service (L-3) or were quickly removed from service and replaced with the tools of other design bureaus (L-11 and L-17) can only be explained by the struggle of groups for the influence and power within the Soviet and party nomenclature in the 1930s.

Results. Using I.A. Makhanov's achievements in the development of artillery guns, as well as the continued work of the artillery design bureau of the Kirov plant, would have had a positive effect on the course of the Great Patriotic War and on the development of the Soviet scientific and technical sphere in the war and post-war time.

Introduction. The publication is devoted to an urgent topic: the history of the creation of artillery weapons systems in the pre-war USSR (1930s). Until recently, in Soviet and Russian historiography, the work of design bureaus of those years was judged by the memoirs of Colonel-General and designer of artillery weapons Vasiliy Grabin and his employees, who on the eve of the war won the fight for the right to transfer new artillery guns to mass production. Grabins main competitor, Ivan Makhanov, was remembered only as "a talented engineer who was unjustly convicted and perished in Stalins dungeons". Materials. In the process of preparing for the publication of Makhanovs memoirs one of the authors of this article, Andrei Riabkov, identified among the recently declassified documents and prepared for publication a memo from design engineer Mikhail Koshkin, which contains a thorough analysis of the progress of creating new artillery systems at the Kirov plant. This note allows us to critically comprehend the memoirs of both Makhanov and Grabin. Analysis. Ivan Makhanov was prone to technical risk, but due to the lack of managerial experience and the desire to take on "everything", he rarely managed to bring his ideas to implementation in reliably working structures. Results. By the end of the 30s of the twentieth century, he acquired the necessary knowledge and experience, several tools of his development were put into a series, but the arrest and imprisonment of Makhanov and some of his subordinates in the ITL on charges of "conscious sabotage and espionage" ultimately put an end to these developments. The published document can also be used in a special biographical study to assess the human qualities of Mikhail Koshkin.

The article presents an overview of the biography and scholarly heritage of a graduate of St. Petersburg University, a student of S.F.Platonov, and an outstanding Russian historian of the first half of the 20th century, P.G.Liubomirov. Based on the analysis of the works and materials of the personal archive of the scholar, the paper shows that the sphere of academic interests of P.G.Liubomirov comprised several directions. He made a great contribution to the study of the socio-economic history of the Low Volga region in the 17th–19th centuries, and to the history of social thought in Russia in the 18th century. A series of articles by P.G.Liubomirov on these topics appeared in the 1920–1930s in the regional academic periodicals. Many works of the scholar have never been published and are kept in his archive as manuscripts. In the 1930–1940s a group of his students and colleagues did a large amount of work with concerning publication of his works. However, due to the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War and ideological campaigns of the turn of the 1940–1950s this work has not been completed. Today, much of the scholarly heritage of P.G.Liubomirov remains unpublished and unknown to historians. The works of the historian has not lost their relevance. In this regard, it is necessary to resume work on the study and publication of the works of P.G.Liubomirov, which was interrupted in the 1950s.

Introduction. Memoirs of I.A. Makhanov, who in the 1930s was the chief designer of artillery weapons at the Kirov plant, contain unique data on the development of the military-technical thought and the defense sector of the USSR industry in the pre-war period. The published fragment of memoirs, first introduced into scientific circulation, supplements and corrects the ideas formed in historiography about the militarytechnical cooperation of the USSR and Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II. Methods and materials. The preparation of the source text for publication is carried out taking into consideration the modern requirements of archaeography. The published fragment is provided with archaeographic notes which allow to reconstruct the history of creation and modification of the text by the author. The scientific commentary provides information about personalities, place names and specific terms mentioned in the text. Analysis. The author pointed out that despite the supply of the latest weapons from Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, Italy, Turkey, Latin America, the share of purchases by the USSR was 50% and had broad prospects for increasing. The German occupation of 1938 suspended and then interrupted military-technical cooperation between the countries. Nevertheless, the Czech side fulfilled all obligations to the USSR. Result. As the published fragment of I.A. Makhanov proves, in the 1930s Czech specialists willingly acquainted the Soviet delegation with the latest developments in artillery systems. At the same time, after the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany, none of these weapons were brought to a prototype. Plants "Skoda" and "Zbroevka" were engaged only in the production and modernization of old weapons. Thus, the data of I.A. Makhanova confirm the hypothesis of sabotage of work for Nazi Germany by Czech designers led by V. Gromadko.

Introduction. Memoirs of I.A. Makhanov, who in the 1930s was the chief designer of artillery weapons at the Kirov plant, contain unique data on the development of the military-technical thought and the defense sector of the USSR industry in the pre-war period. The published fragment of memoirs, first introduced into scientific circulation, supplements and corrects the ideas formed in historiography about the military-technical cooperation of the USSR and Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II. Methods and materials. The preparation of the source text for publication is carried out taking into consideration modern requirements of archaeography. The published fragment is provided with archaeographic notes which allow reconstructing the history of creation and modification of the text by the author. The scientific commentary provides information about personalities, place names and specific terms mentioned in the text. Analysis. The author pointed out that despite the supply of the latest weapons from Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, Italy, Turkey, Latin America, the share of purchases by the USSR was 50% and had broad prospects for increasing. The German occupation of 1938 suspended and then interrupted military-technical cooperation between the countries. Nevertheless, the Czech side fulfilled all obligations to the USSR. Results. As the published fragment of I.A. Makhanov proves, in the 1930s Czech specialists willingly acquainted the Soviet delegation with the latest developments in artillery systems. At the same time, after the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany, none of these weapons were brought to a prototype. "Skoda" and "Zbroevka" plants were engaged only in the production and modernization of old weapons. Thus, the data of I.A. Makhanov confirm the hypothesis of sabotage of work for Nazi Germany by Czech designers led by V. Gromadko.