Suchergebnisse

Based on materials from the Chelyabinsk region, for the first time in regional historiography, this article attempts to study the planned agricultural resettlement in 1939–1945. The study was based mainly archive materials stored in the United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region. In accordance with the hypothesis of Soviet society as a society of a mobilization type, the authors consider the development and implementation of a model of planned agrarian migration of the population as an integral part of the mobilization processes in the Soviet Union on the eve of the Great Patriotic War. The model of agricultural resettlement itself is seen as ensuring the viability and development of Soviet civilization. The topic is revealed through state policy measures, collective farm support and migratory behavior of migrant peasants. The study of regulatory, directive, office work, accounting and statistical documents, ego-materials enabled the dynamics of migration flows overthe years to be established. The problems faced by the migrants were shown and individual migration trajectories identified. The study also drew a main conclusion: voluntary planned agricultural resettlement initiated by the Soviet authorities was an objectively necessary event in the specific historical conditions of the turn of the 1930s–1940s. The direction of immigrants to the Chelyabinsk region was dictated by an acute shortage of labor in the South Ural collective farms. The state allocated significant material and financial resources to the oblast, provided the settlers and host collective farms with serious benefits. A key problem throughout the entire period under review was «reversal». In 1943–1945 the settlement of pre-war settlers was carried out

The article highlights a little-studied form of social protection of the eve and during the Great Patriotic War – public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers. The party and state policy and the activities of the authorities to preserve and develop the system of funds were studied and the evolution of their network were studied in materials from the Greater Urals (Bashkir ASSR, Udmurt ASSR, Kurgan, Molotov, Chelyabinsk, Chkalov regions). The problems that arose in the public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers, primarily related to the formation of their material and financial resource base and adaptation in wartime conditions, were identified. The differences between the two stages of development (pre-war and war) of the funds as an institution of social protection of collective farmers, which arose in line with the Soviet social policy in the collectivized village on the «from the bottom up» initiative, was revealed. It was concluded that social assistance, social support, and social services have become the three main areas in the activities of public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers, and despite the unfavorable conditions during the years of war, this social institution was not destroyed and continued to perform its functions.

This article discusses the mentalities of different categories of women associated with the school environment in the Ural province. It has been established that during the freest first fifteen years of Soviet power (in 1917–1932) at its first peacetime stage after the end of the Civil War (1921–1927), along with the new schools being created, the previous types of schools continued to function (Old Believer, Cossack, Tolstoyan, Muslim, Mennonite, etc.), in which the old educational process continued. Several groups were identified among teachers, parents, and schoolchildren, whose representatives defended their interests in the face of the tendency towards the universalization of education, the inclusion of social work in teachers' work and school life, which they considered either as a means of carrying out fundamentally unacceptable ideas, or as an unnecessary encumbrance. At the second stage (1928–1932), statist tendencies in education intensified and teachers were increasingly required to actively participate in agitation, propaganda, and other public work. Protest sentiments and actions against the intervention of the proletarian state were not frequent, however they did occur, representing a non-Soviet discourse of socially significant behavior.